The playtest version since the table of DCs was made for it. JB version seems to be the one going in game but without a DC table it's hard to judge specially when some opposite checks were based around athletics/acrobatics DCs.
The playtest version since the table of DCs was made for it. JB version seems to be the one going in game but without a DC table it's hard to judge specially when some opposite checks were based around athletics/acrobatics DCs.
Indeed. And there are a host of other differences between PF2 and the playtest that make upgrading the proficiency rules difficult.
PF2 will have reduced item bonuses.
Fighters having +2 accuracy over the other martials without the other martials getting something else to compensate seems unlikely.
Even wizards will get up to expert with certain weapons.
Grad Edge and break/escape grapple probably won't be based off skills if you can have a 0 in them.
Getting trained skills and skill increases will probably be easier.
You would need to do a pretty big overhaul to make the change without breaking the game, something on the scale of Edwir's automatic bonus progression houserules.
The playtest version since the table of DCs was made for it. JB version seems to be the one going in game but without a DC table it's hard to judge specially when some opposite checks were based around athletics/acrobatics DCs.Indeed. And there are a host of other differences between PF2 and the playtest that make upgrading the proficiency rules difficult.
PF2 will have reduced item bonuses.
Fighters having +2 accuracy over the other martials without the other martials getting something else to compensate seems unlikely.
Even wizards will get up to expert with certain weapons.
Grad Edge and break/escape grapple probably won't be based off skills if you can have a 0 in them.
Getting trained skills and skill increases will probably be easier.
You would need to do a pretty big overhaul to make the change without breaking the game, something on the scale of Edwir's automatic bonus progression houserules.
Nothing to suggest there will be less item bonuses to come around. I believe it was actually said the Table DCs won't rely on item bonuses or extremely high proficiencies and such, meaning a character who takes the time to invest in it (without other factors to increase or reduce the DC) will more than likely succeed at the check.
It would make sense that Fighters don't need to spend feats for the Legendary proficiency (though they could do so for Armor, as an example), whereas other martial-based classes can (and unfortunately, probably will). I just wish weapon proficiency did much more than grant bonuses to hit; maybe if each weapon type had some special maneuvers you could do if you had the appropriate proficiency, would be pretty nice. For example, a Legendary Axe Fighter could be doing some awesome Cleave action like in PF1, no feats required.
I don't think Wizards getting Expert tier weaponry is the end of the world. They probably will be getting it later than everyone else (15th level, where Legendary usually comes online across the board), but they will always use their Spellcasting Proficiency (which needs some work in terms of scaling) for their iconic feature, so I don't see why them getting something beyond Training in weapons (which could even be Master with Fighter Dedication and the Weapon Training feat, takes some serious investment though) is the end of the world when they're already getting that for their spells.
I disagree with that being the case. It is a character choice for you to not be effective at breaking out of grapples or grabbing an edge, just like it's a choice to be untrained in any other given skill. It also means if you don't want such choices to hinder you that having other options at your disposal (such as flight and freedom of movement, two perfectly valid options for obviously non-trained individuals to have) will be necessary if character survival is on your budget. I mean sure, you can argue that this will run the Perception paradigm from PF1, but there will always be some sort of "meta" that players will feel compelled to follow because they feel like the game demands it, and the "meta" will always change as options increase or decrease in power, as well as whether options remain as options or not. (As another related tangent, Will Saves are still pretty devastating to fail, meaning not boosting Will Saves will cost you a TPK, but no one has complained about that being a mandatory increase yet, so I'm not sure this is really that much of an end-of-the-world thing.)
As far as training skills, it's always been easy. Skill feats, Intelligence Boosts, Dedications (Rogue in particular) always gave tons of trained skills, but because of the game math, it never really came into play except for aiding someone who was beyond trained and was "the guy" in your party for it. Exceptions to that do exist (Battle Medic as one example, I might nerf it to just one application period, not one per character), but are few and far between and are honestly pretty shenanigans from a realistic perspective. But now with Trained being the new standard, and the proficiency boosts just being icing on the already good-looking cake, having more Trained skills is more valuable now simply because you can still tackle credible challenges with those skills, whereas being untrained makes it fall off at 5th level at the latest. I'm actually looking forward to this, since in my home campaign, I've already had half my party members boost Intelligence for 5th level for alternative uses (such as extra trained skills, Intelligence-based skill boosts, and so on).
I think the only major overhaul here that needs to be done is the math behind everything, as the system is already prepped for this method. And IMO, the current scaling of the JB method adds 2 for no apparent reason when, if we just subtract 2 from everything, we get the same exact result without pointless number inflation and unnecessary mathematical computations. (Maybe some people like it, but I prefer less complications and math, mostly because it's more likely to be messed up than if it wasn't there to begin with.)
We're using 0 for untrained. Level +2 per progression above that per the "1.7" interview.
Nothing to suggest there will be less item bonuses to come around.
Actually, Mark confirmed the numbers from items will go a bit lower. .
I don't think Wizards getting Expert tier weaponry is the end of the world. They probably will be getting it later than everyone else (15th level, where Legendary usually comes online across the board), but they will always use their Spellcasting Proficiency (which needs some work in terms of scaling) for their iconic feature, so I don't see why them getting something beyond Training in weapons (which could even be Master with Fighter Dedication and the Weapon Training feat, takes some serious investment though) is the end of the world when they're already getting that for their spells.
I think you might be confused. I'm not saying these are bad changes, I'm just saying these are changes.
I disagree with that being the case. It is a character choice for you to not be effective at breaking out of grapples or grabbing an edge, just like it's a choice to be untrained in any other given skill.
I'm basing this off a comment Jason made during a Paizo Friday when they were still considering removing level to untrained. He said if they did that, they wouldn't be able to use skills as defenses. Grabbing the edge of pit traps and escaping grapples would constitute a defense, and one you will likely wind up having to use multiple times.
Now, they may or may not stick to that idea with the final version of the game, but that's why I added the qualifier probably.[/i} And again, I'm not discussing the merits of these changes. Just pointing out that the system is changing in several ways we don't full understand yet to accommodate the new UTEML.
[i]I think the only major overhaul here that needs to be done is the math behind everything, as the system is already prepped for this method.
Yes, the math was what I was referring to, and having to redo "the math behind everything" is pretty much the definition of a big overhaul. Edwir's ABL is a useful point of reference, as it goes for some of the same changes PF2 is making from the playtest: reduced item bonuses, more emphasis on proficiency, tweaking odds of success in various ways, etc.
Which is to say, I think you could definitely come up with a way to adapt the playtest to the new UTEML, but it would be a lot of work. PF2 is changing a lot of other stuff, and you won't get the same result making this change in a vacuum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We're using the 1.6 except we went back to level-2 for untrained.
I don't think we will implement "you get nothing for untrained, full stop" at any point.
My War for the Crown group is running -2/0/1/2/3 UTEML with 2nd edition ABP variant.
The reason for this is that we don't have the DC table and monster values for the -/2/4/6/8 progression yet, so it's impossible for me to GM accurately with it.
We're using the 1.6 except we went back to level-2 for untrained.
I don't think we will implement "you get nothing for untrained, full stop" at any point.
Same here. Removing level from it really messes with the math.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, that’s why the devs initially said it couldn’t be done.
With the current math, it causes too many issues.
Hmm, I was hoping they wouldn't drop level to Untrained, because I had gotten used to it. However, it seems there are some good reasons here not to at least for the time being. Switched.
I mean, you can drop level to untrained.
However you also need to change a bunch of spells, some skill uses, several monsters and a bunch of other side rules at the same time.
It’s a lot of work - and while I’m sure the devs took care of it, we just don’t have the system that makes it possible.
I'm going to try a couple of different things and compare them.
First the 1.7.
Then will try 1.7 except 1/2 level to untrained.
Then 1.7 except level -4.
I'm going to try a couple of different things and compare them.
First the 1.7.
Then will try 1.7 except 1/2 level to untrained.
Then 1.7 except level -4.
On what DCs?
What are your skill adjustments?What about item rules?
...there's a lot to change to make that work. Or are you just trying to see how it breaks?
I'm going to try a couple of different things and compare them.
First the 1.7.
Then will try 1.7 except 1/2 level to untrained.
Then 1.7 except level -4.On what DCs?
What are your skill adjustments?
What about item rules?...there's a lot to change to make that work. Or are you just trying to see how it breaks?
My guess as to the answer of why they changed it from -2/0/1/2/3 to 0/2/4/6/8 was in part, part of the fix to some of the monster numbers that were too high before. They may have decided that with the adjustments they needed to make, allowing those with significant investments to be able have slow but stead improvements, even against level appropriate tasks, they may have decided not to roll thing back but let 0 be the new standard rather than -2.
That said, I was wondering if fighters will keep master at 3rd level. As that did seem a bit much. However, honestly, I felt that it seemed like weapon proficiency with fighters was broken with respect to how the general universal proficiency system worked. Most of the UTEML seemed to have a general mapping to certain levels for characters, with some classes having a little bit of an advantage towards being able to purchase a little early, or simply get it automatically a bit early. However, fighter weapon proficiency broke the system out of the mold completely.
I originally thought the purpose of Signature proficiency was going to impact how soon higher ranks would be available to a character, as opposed to the actual original of just blocking advancement past a point.
Since monsters were probably going to be scaled down a little bit, scaling up these numbers probably isn't a horrible mess. Where I see some potential issues could be people with light or medium armor having trouble due to capping on their proficiency which I think had been done to make heavy armor more useful, and having them lag a couple AC behind wasn't seen as horrible. This might become more of an impact now with double the bonuses.
As a separate note, with the new bonuses being +2 instead of +1 per advancement, and the fact it will normally also be coming with a +1 as well for that level where they get the ability, I found myself tempted to split the bonus they get from proficiency a bit. (basically doubling the stages) Having Untrained, Newly Trained, Trained, Newly Expert, Expert, Newly Master, Master, Newly Legendary, and Legendary. The first level you achieve a new rank, your numeric bonus is one less than listed. But otherwise, all other aspects such as interactions with other skill feats and such, or skill gating you count as that rank. On your next level advancement you get the rest of your pending bonus. Potentially, for purposes of letting first level character have some additional variance, I'd probably let half of a first level character's Trained skills start as Trained, and the other half as Newly Trained, rather than all of them starting as Newly Trained.
I'm going to try a couple of different things and compare them.
First the 1.7.
Then will try 1.7 except 1/2 level to untrained.
Then 1.7 except level -4.On what DCs?
What are your skill adjustments?
What about item rules?...there's a lot to change to make that work. Or are you just trying to see how it breaks?
My guess as to the answer of why they changed it from -2/0/1/2/3 to 0/2/4/6/8 was in part, part of the fix to some of the monster numbers that were too high before. They may have decided that with the adjustments they needed to make, allowing those with significant investments to be able have slow but stead improvements, even against level appropriate tasks, they may have decided not to roll thing back but let 0 be the new standard rather than -2.
That said, I was wondering if fighters will keep master at 3rd level. As that did seem a bit much. However, honestly, I felt that it seemed like weapon proficiency with fighters was broken with respect to how the general universal proficiency system worked. Most of the UTEML seemed to have a general mapping to certain levels for characters, with some classes having a little bit of an advantage towards being able to purchase a little early, or simply get it automatically a bit early. However, fighter weapon proficiency broke the system out of the mold completely.
I originally thought the purpose of Signature proficiency was going to impact how soon higher ranks would be available to a character, as opposed to the actual original of just blocking advancement past a point.
Since monsters were probably going to be scaled down a little bit, scaling up these numbers probably isn't a horrible mess. Where I see some potential issues could be people with light or medium armor having trouble due to capping on their proficiency which I think had been done to make heavy armor more useful, and having them lag a couple AC behind wasn't seen as horrible. This might become more...
Eh. Monster AC and attack values are about where they should be in relation to PC math, IMO. Monsters have slightly better to hit and slightly worse AC than an equal level PC. The big issues are skills and perception. The former has been acknowledged as essentially a typo, but luckily PCs don't interact with monster skills that often. The latter mostly just results in monsters going first pretty often, which IMO is pretty OK. More problematic is how hard it is to Sneak up on monsters though.
One could make a case for monster saves being too high, and I'm pretty sure that's being changed in PF2, but because spell proficiency doesn't hit expert until so late in the game I'm not really sure changing that would make a big difference under the playtest rules. I guess the trained would put your DCs 2 higher until level 12?
Probably same DCs at first. I mean, upping the low end is not going to break anything, in theory. If you have a medium to high DC for a level 10 with trained or expert with level plus 2 or 4, then giving half the level to the skill check might simply make a hail Mary possible.
I think if I was going to try and dip into the new UTEML I would probably go -4/0/+2/+4/+6. That seems to keep pretty good pace with the current math progression with the higher proficiency numbers taking the place of item bonuses. Expert proficiency with an expert quality a low level item tends to be +2, master proficiency with a mid level item tends to be about +4, while Legendary and a high level item tends to be about +7, and reaching as high as +8. So I think you'd really just need to smooth out the item bonuses from level 10 onward. Maybe reducing all item bonuses by 2, minimum 0? So once +3 item bonuses kick in around level 10 you can basically have the same progression, only getting slightly higher ahead of the curve at a few points.
I'd leave untrained at 4 lower than trained I don't need to worry as much about unbreakable grapples and such. And I probably would only make these changes in regards to skills. Attack and defense values feel pretty solid to me as is, and I think using this system would really widen the gaps between classes in undesirable ways. The Fighter with +2 accuracy would become way better than other martials, for example, and non-martials wouldn't be able to invest resources to catch up nearly as much. Saves would be all over the place as well: since no one can get above expert outside of their class progression, removing item bonuses to saves would effectively lower the saving throws by several points. Plus, skills are the least interesting places to have item bonuses anyway.
Even with all that, there's gonna be some cascading consequences. Athletics for combat maneuvers becomes more powerful, for example. Skill increases become an even more valuable commodity, which probably makes Rogues even better. And you lose the ability for characters to use items to cover deficiencies in their skill progression.