Change the Skill Rules plus complexity rant (*I warned you up front*)

[Indi523]

OK so games systems are becoming dumbed down and it is not to my taste because I like complex rules. I understand the need to make them workable but I like the diversity one gets in choice that complexities bring and simplifying of necessity removes. I am an old school gamer who liked Rolemaster. Actually not true the game I liked was Spacemaster, the Rolemaster space opera variant. This was the game that had a board game released for their combat rules that had three levels of complexity, simple, reasonable and expert. The expert rules introduced three dimensional space so ships had a position on the grid as well a height factor either negative, zero or positive that represented how many grid cells up or down it was. To move or determine range to fire you had to measure with a ruler the number of grid cells (centimeters) the ship was on the map and then use that number and its height to calculate the actual distance to be moved or to the ship using the Pythagorean theorem. IF I would have found people that would play this level of the game I would play it. So this shows my bias.

Overtime however I realized that playable games had to balance out my nerdy math tastes with rules that were more easy to play (especially of there are rule arguments) so I never let this bother me much. Every iteration of games since maybe the mid 90's seemed to get more and more dumbed down to the point that it affected playability by limiting options in my view. This version of pathfinder is no different in that respect although unlike fourth edition D&D it does not seem so bad to me. But that is another rant you probably don't want to hear either.

Now at the time I was told that this was being done because a certain group of gamers did not like complexity because they found it too hard and were therefore not playing the games as much as another group of gamers.

My first question is why do that group of gamers find complexity too hard. there is nothing about that group that makes them stupid.

The answer to this is Yes they can figure it out but they don't want to so we have to change it.

To which my reply was well I don't want it changed even if that group does not like it because I like the complexity

To which I was told that this made me a bad person for thinking a certain group of people were stupid and the game is not for me.

To which I responded Oo a oh Kayyy! then.

Now I only mention this version of the argument which I am sure you have seen iterations of online to explain this to you since many may feel the need to assume this argument has any meaning to ho3w I feel.

I am an old school gamer and quite frankly I don't have any clue to what people are getting on about no matter which side of that argument they are on. I am not a millennial so I don't get it. Oh well! So feel comfortable in the knowledge that nothing here is to trigger anyone because I don't even know how the bomb works and could not find it if you showed it to me. Nor am I inclined to learn.

That being said I have an issue with the skill system and ideas how to fix it that are hopefully not going to involve the Pythagorean theorem.

The problem is they wanted to dumb down the skill system so that you had a few choices to make and there was less calculation of where points go and who gets them. While this does reduce the paperwork level of the game it really flies against the idea behind how skills would work IRL. One can choose to be trained in a skill or not. If they are not trained they only have their stat bonus. If they are however the skill raises with each level the character receives automatically and all skills raise at this rate. You cannot master a skill until 7th level or become legendary until 15th and since you only get skill raises through class leveling it limits the number of skills one can master or better. This is fine however it means my character cannot take a few points into a skill any more just to be "familiar" with the subject. Best I can do is the feat that allows me to get half my level in every untrained skill but that is not my intention. I may want my character not to have any knowledge of some topics and a little on one or two That system automatically raises my knowledge based on level not matter what the skill.

Beyond that unless I want to take a feat that requires once I get past say 8th level there is no reason to ever be more than trained. The trained gives me +2 with +2 more each level more so the difference between legendary and trained is only +6 yet my level is more than that from 7th on. To me this is problematic. It means in the end once someone gets to 15th level being legendary in a skill is not that much superior to those who are only trained but still 15th level. I don't like this.

So my fix is this. Change the bonus to the skill levels exponential instead of cumulative.

Untrained 0^2 or 0
Trained 1^2 or 1
Expert 2^2 or 4
Master 3^2 or 9
Legendary 4^2 or 16

Then reduce the level bonus to half level for Expert and Master with no level bonus for trained and full level bonus for legendary (maybe but maybe van stay at half). The feat is now one fourth level add.

If this gives to few skills then give two skill raises out each level the character gets a skill raise with the caveat that it requires both raises to go from expert to master or master to legendary. This will allow the characters to get more skills they like to expert.

This is somewhat more complex which I know nowadays is the big no no but not stubbornly so and it does make the variance between skill training levels (untrained, trained, e)xpert, master, legendary) somewhat more prevalent.

[Temperans]

Just to make sure your, solution is to change the progression to this:

* Untrained: no level+ 0+ stat.
* Trained: no level+ 1+ stat.
* Expert: half level+ 4+ stat.
* Master: half level+ 9+ stat.
* Legendary: full level+ 16+ stat.

In this case, trained might be way too low, the difference ends up being 1 vs 36. Just for reference, the largest difference in PF1 was 1 vs 23.

Also, not sure if you were here around the playtest, but many proposal were given to use fractional level bonuses with and without static values.

For example a straight:
T= 1/4 level.
E= 1/2 level.
M= 3/4 level.
L= full level.
Max difference of 15, min difference of 5.

[Ediwir]

I’ll remind you that while this is only apparently more complex, it is also entirely disjuncted from the game system.
We use a d20 here. Range is 1-20 for variables.

Having a spread of modifier which is time and a half the variable simply means that the value is meaningless. You either pass or don’t based on rank - characters of different ranks are not comparable (outside of a few exceptions).

It’s very easy to make something hard to read. It’s complicated to make it work.

[Draco18s]

Indi523 wrote:

I may want my character not to have any knowledge of some topics and a little on one or two That system automatically raises my knowledge based on level not matter what the skill.

Er. Untrained is literally untrained. You don't get +Level if you're untrained.

[Temperans]

He already said untrained only uses stat. His complain is that trained gives too much, so a character cant really dabble.

He also mentioned how the feat to get 1/2 level to untrained skill is not the same. Again, he is going by you cant dabble in a few skill.

[Squiggit]

Being trained is dabbling. You're meaningfully behind the curve of someone who fully invests in the skill as soon as you unlock Expert and it ramps up from there. Even moreso if stat distribution gets involved.

No offense to the OP but "dumbed down" seems like it's being used more as a buzzphrase in the post to draw attention than having any real meaning in the context of what's being discussed.

[Ediwir]

That said, it'll be hard to hear, but most of us are NPCs, and NPCs have a ton of variance among different tasks (up to having, say, Crafting +2 overall at level 1, but Crafting +20 when baking cakes, still at level 1).

There is a point to high skill variance when it comes to NPCs who are heavily focused in specific subsets of skill usages. Doesn't mean this system is usable in a game, of course, but I can see how the idea came up.

[oholoko]

Draco18s wrote:

Indi523 wrote:

I may want my character not to have any knowledge of some topics and a little on one or two That system automatically raises my knowledge based on level not matter what the skill.

Er. Untrained is literally untrained. You don't get +Level if you're untrained.

Lore is the thing you are looking for you can basically have any lore if your DM lets you.

[Ediwir]

There was also a fun debate during playtest about the inability to create a character who can't swim.
You can always choose to say you character can't swim and automatically fails swim checks. Or takes a hefty penalty, or counts as untrained for swimming - whatever, penalties are free. Of course, most of those proponents seemed to want a bonus somewhere else in exchange for not being able to swim, so clearly that went nowhere.

[Temperans]

Some didnt even want a bonus (or at least not a large bonus), just making the option of being bad at something not straight up self sabotage.

Case in point the automatically failing swim checks.

But that's more a problem of consolidated skills than the proficiency system. An easy solution is to bring back the 1e skill list or a modified version of the Background skill list; In either case giving all classes more proficiency increases.

***********
Btw in my opinion Finesse (from the consolidated skill list) is a much better name then Thievery.

[oholoko]

Temperans wrote:

Some didnt even want a bonus (or at least not a large bonus), just making the option of being bad at something not straight up self sabotage.

Case in point the automatically failing swim checks.

But that's more a problem of consolidated skills than the proficiency system. An easy solution is to bring back the 1e skill list or a modified version of the Background skill list; In either case giving all classes more proficiency increases.

***********
Btw in my opinion Finesse (from the consolidated skill list) is a much better name then Thievery.

Finess is already a weapon property so Finess is a really awful option.

[KingRichard21]

For my Homebrewmix of DnD 5, PF2 and my own leveling system i chose proficiency to work like this:

Untrained +0
Trained +2
Expert +4
Master +6
Greatmaster +8
Legendary +10

You can point by your proficiency directly with the EP you get. The price is scaling like this for Skills and everything that uses a d20 roll (like casting in my world):

U 0 ep
T 1 ep
E 3 ep
M 6 ep
G 10 ep
L 15 ep

A level is made up of 10 ep and you need a minimum level to increase to ceartain proficiencies:

U lvl 1
T lvl 1
E lvl 3
M lvl 6
G lvl 10
L lvl 15

[Staffan Johansson]

The thing is that if you stay at Trained, you fall behind the curve for what the game expects you to do, at least when facing level-appropriate challenges. Let's take a dabbler for example. At level 1 they will be Trained in the skill they're dabbling in, and let's give them a +2 to their relevant ability score. That gives them a total skill bonus of 5 (2 for trained + 1 for level +2 for stat). A level-appropriate challenge (e.g. recalling information about a level 1 creature) has DC 15, so they succeed on a 10+, which is a 55% chance.

Let's now dial things up to level 10. They have gotten two ability boosts in the relevant stat, so that's +4. Their proficiency bonus is 12 (2+level), so they have a total skill bonus of +16 - since they're dabbling in the skill they haven't put any skill increases into it or gotten any relevant items. A typical level 10 DC is 27, so they now need an 11+ to succeed - they've fallen behind by a point compared to where they were at level 1 (and level 10 is one where they catch up a little because of the ability boost - at level 9 they are 2 points behind).

[Unicore]

Don’t forget that skill checks in PF2 are more than pass fail. A+10 overall difference between two characters is enough to all but Guarantee that the better character will almost never risk critical failure while the worse will almost never achieve critical success. More than +10 and you might as well just house rule a proficiency lock system for checks you don’t want dabblers to take.

[Staffan Johansson]

Another thing to consider: At max level, a non-rogue will have at most three skills at Legendary. That means no more than 12 skills in a 4-person party. And at 15th level, that's one skill per party member, or a total of 4 skills.

A 20th level character that's Legendary in something will have a proficiency bonus of +36 with your system. If they're "only" a master, they will have +19, for a difference of 17. That's essentially the same as saying "go Legendary or go home." And at 15th level, when Legendary skills first come online, that's +16 versus +31, a difference of 15.

[Lightning Raven]

There's a more old school skill system in the Gamemaster's Guide. Probably is easier to fiddle with than just coming up with some random system that requires a complete overhaul of the DC system.

Seems too much a hassle for a unreasonable rant. There are some misconceptions as well that give us the idea that you haven't actually played with this system. There's a world of difference between a Legendary character and a trained one, not only on feats that lets you do cool stuff but also the whooping +6 difference in numbers (that's basically 6 levels apart).

Heartfelt suggestion: There are a lot more system out there that take a Wargame approach to combat, with all kinds of flavor. As a fairly recent player (2016+), I have played a couple of them and found them fun they were Legend of Five Rings (Samurai and magic) and Iron Kingdoms (Magic and steampunk).

[Claxon]

Part of the point of the proficiency system that implemented across the board on basically everything is that the developers didn't want a Trained versus Legendary person to be so far apart that being trained was irrelevant (i.e. don't bother even attempting checks because you wont succeed or conversely that at Legendary don't bother rolling because we know you succeed).

Once you realize that both Legendary and and Trained have to have a chance at both success and failure at any given task you will understand exactly how Paizo ended up the system that they did, especially when you keep in mind the "succeed by more than 10 for critical success or fail by more than 10 for critical failure" aspect as well.

When you view the bounds and know the range (1-20) it becomes apparent how the math was worked out and why.

You dismiss it as simple, because for the player it is simple. But arriving at the goal was a complex process.

[Ediwir]

Guys, this was from December. OP hasn't posted since January.
If I could flag KingRichard's post for needing its own thread, I would. Until then... Either discuss the new thread, or let's please not.

[KingRichard21]

I have made my own thread:

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs430ld?Point-buy-Proficiency-for-NonLevel-depen dent-DCs#1

Please comment :)