As the title.
I reviewed the proficiency scaling, and I thought it was strange that the baseline is now Level + 2, with it scaling up to Level + 8. I don't mind the scaling so much, but the baseline I feel will confuse players and might make them add things when they shouldn't. Or I might get players who ask "Why do we add +2 when we're trained," to which the only valid response I have is "The Devs wanted it that way."
Conversely, this might have been done to either make players feel more empowered (which is a false equivalency since other rules elements use this too) or to make the baseline more powerful (which shouldn't matter when I feel it would all have the same impact as before, just less math).
So, if I decided to make the baseline to be just level, with Legendary being Level + 6, would the game still run the same as it does before, just a bit less fiddly math in the way? (I might have to reduce non-proficiency DCs by 2 to compensate, but that's something easy for me as a GM to do compared to wondering why players have different results on the same roll.)
well, for sure you'd have to reduce DCs, Acs and Saves by 2 as well.
And monster rolls of all kinds.
well, for sure you'd have to reduce DCs, Acs and Saves by 2 as well.
but i think the biggest issue (and probably why it starts at +2) is low levels.
without the +2, untrained and trained in 1 st level is just a +1 differance, something that probably will be tramped by stat differences as well.
while as RAW, the differance from untrained to trained in 1st level is +3
Well, if monsters use the same proficiency rules, then that's a non-issue. (If not, then I suppose that's a problem, though why they don't use the same proficiency rules is beyond me.) I'd be more concerned with non-proficiency DCs, such as those required by traps and other arbitrary checks, which don't have the proficiency rules baked in, but again, if monsters don't do that, then it might be more work than just leaving it in. (Hence the question.)
Numerically, it's not that big of a difference, but I'd think bigger cutoffs would be what you can do with trained skills versus untrained skills as far as starting out is concerned. This is most notable with skills like Thievery or any of the major knowledge skills. Even Athletics with disarming can come into play if you're facing an enemy with a fearsome weapon. And by the time being trained in those skills when you weren't before becomes a thing, the numerical difference will still be significant. As for modifiers trumping trained skills, that's fine in the low levels. In lower levels, people aren't as skilled or trained compared to a more seasoned adventurer, which means natural talent can certainly supersede initial training. In the higher levels, the modifier ceases to be a significant factor compared to training, which I believe is the intent of the rules as they stand, in which case the +2 really only inflates that concept.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, if I decided to make the baseline to be just level, with Legendary being Level + 6, would the game still run the same as it does before, just a bit less fiddly math in the way?
Having to remember to subtract 2 from a bunch of numbers seems more fiddly to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, if I decided to make the baseline to be just level, with Legendary being Level + 6, would the game still run the same as it does before, just a bit less fiddly math in the way?Having to remember to subtract 2 from a bunch of numbers seems more fiddly to me.
Changing anything from the baseline seems more fiddly because of the elementary nature of changing things by adding steps to something that is supposed to be considered a complete vacuum. By that logic changing anything is fiddly and in correlation pointless to do.
Thanks for ruining homebrew for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Changing anything from the baseline seems more fiddly because of the elementary nature of changing things by adding steps to something that is supposed to be considered a complete vacuum. By that logic changing anything is fiddly and in correlation pointless to do.
Fiddly doesn't mean pointless. If your homebrew changes fix a balance issue or creates interesting new options, then it's worth the extra complexity.
But it's usually not worth adding a complexity in order to simplify something.
My guess is if you subtracted 2 from everything you would end up with some negative numbers. I mean, level +2 means the 8 strength level 1 halfling sorcerer swinging a stick rolls +2 instead of +0.
So I'm thinking the reason there is a +2 is to ensure that proficiency modifier is always a positive integer so there's no edge cases to handle in language. But in practice a human GM can handle it.
|
As the title.
I reviewed the proficiency scaling, and I thought it was strange that the baseline is now Level + 2, with it scaling up to Level + 8. I don't mind the scaling so much, but the baseline I feel will confuse players and might make them add things when they shouldn't. Or I might get players who ask "Why do we add +2 when we're trained," to which the only valid response I have is "The Devs wanted it that way."
Conversely, this might have been done to either make players feel more empowered (which is a false equivalency since other rules elements use this too) or to make the baseline more powerful (which shouldn't matter when I feel it would all have the same impact as before, just less math).
So, if I decided to make the baseline to be just level, with Legendary being Level + 6, would the game still run the same as it does before, just a bit less fiddly math in the way? (I might have to reduce non-proficiency DCs by 2 to compensate, but that's something easy for me as a GM to do compared to wondering why players have different results on the same roll.)
Trained is lvl+2 because Untrained in the playtest was lvl+0.
I guess the best way to help newcomers remember it is seeing the other way around : Untrained is +0, Trained is +2 and you add your level too. Same for higher proficiencies.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As the title.
I reviewed the proficiency scaling, and I thought it was strange that the baseline is now Level + 2, with it scaling up to Level + 8. I don't mind the scaling so much, but the baseline I feel will confuse players and might make them add things when they shouldn't. Or I might get players who ask "Why do we add +2 when we're trained," to which the only valid response I have is "The Devs wanted it that way."
Level+0 is the mod for untrained skills with the Untrained Improvisation feat. Feedback from the playtest said that folks wanted untrained to be less useful, so now you need a feat to get to Level+0.
If you are worried about the rules confusing your players, this is a lot worse. They can’t refer to the rulebook for any formulas, the character sheet will have the “wrong” proficiency numbers at the top. Maybe instead of changing every number in the game, do a quick glance at their character sheet before session 1 and on each level up make sure the numbers are right. Easier to fix their sheet once then re-write the bestiary.