The change to untrained being locked at 0 for proficiency was 1) deliberate, and 2) intended to model the idea that a level 18 character that doesn't put any effort into learning how to be diplomatic isn't actually improving at it. 2 levels of not practicing at diplomacy is the same as 18 levels of not practicing at diplomacy. They aren't GROWing in power in that aspect.
That does not pass the smell test.
Some PC that slaps a "...if already trained, become trained in a skill of your choice" into Diplomacy, then leaves it untouched for 13 levels is not "practicing at diplomacy" either.
_____________________________
The investment of the skill training granting a flat +X bonus and unlocking access to a new set of possible actions / uses of said skill is what I think Trained should grant, and is consistent with the rest of pf2e's system design.
There is no more a "reason" for Trained to remove the arbitrary lock of = 0,
than for Expert to remove a new plug that locks prof at <= 10.
Why does getting Trained at Lvl 15 suddenly backfill 15 levels of proficiency? Shouldn't it start at 0 and go up with each level they gain *after* getting Trained at 15?
__________________________
The "root" beneath those questions is that pf2e is a scaling game, and this one = 0 lock is the rule-breaking exception causing all those questions.
It is a good example of a real flaw caused by a mismatch of system design, and one that does not need to be there.
I mean nothing really 'needs' to be there it's all an arbitrary combination of systems built to taste. The fact is though that a significant enough proportion of respondents preferred things this way that Paizo felt it better to do so.
It's also something that can be relatively easily mitigated (by becoming trained in the skill or taking untrained improvisation) if it's really something you're concerned about, so it's hard to really place this as some major thing.
and then there is that contradiction where the stronger the PCs get, the *more* impossible it is to do actions they are untrained in.
That's somewhat of a mischaracterization. "more impossible the stronger the PCs get" implies that you're somehow getting worse at tasks as you level up... but that's not true. You just aren't improving. The character's ability to succeed at a task never changes. That's... not a contradiction at all, it's just not being good at something.
It's also a mischaracterization to imply that everything scales. Level appropriate encounters scale by design, sure, but a tree in your hometown that you could climb at 1st-level does not suddenly become impossible to climb at 20th-level, even if you never progressed your Athletics skill further. Short of unusual circumstances, the DC to climb the tree does not change. Provided you're at least trained in Athletics, then as you level you have in fact become better at climbing that tree.
A mundane mountain at 5th level should not pose a problem at 15th level, but could have a higher DC if an avalanche sheared the face, removing handholds, or if you were beset by a storm cast upon you by spellcasting enemies while climbing. Likewise, climbing the infinite blood-slick cliffs of the Abyss that are known to be cursed should carry a higher DC than your typical wall. Climbing didn't become harder because you're higher level; it's harder because you're taking on tougher and tougher challenges. Go back and scale it again in 5 levels and tell me you haven't improved.
The rules don't create hamster wheel effects. Ineffectual GMs do.
Some PC that slaps a "...if already trained, become trained in a skill of your choice" into Diplomacy, then leaves it untouched for 13 levels is not "practicing at diplomacy" either.
That is a narrative and lore choice that the player of that character is making - that they actually don't care about this skill that they got training in and don't practice it as they level up.
Anyway, I have tilted at this windmill long enough. Da capo al infinito and all that.
It's also a mischaracterization to imply that everything scales.
It's bloody clockwork...
I never said anything close to that, so of course you weasel in "to imply" because heaven forbid you have to contend with something stronger than straw.
It's like there's some invisible tripwire where rational discussion gets punted off the roof for this circus of distraction, mischaracterization, and avoidance.
_________________________
PCs scale with player level. Encounters scale with PC level. The game is built around +1 every level.
The only checks I've seen that GMs consistently use as Static DC are swimming and jumping.
Even climb checks have had Lvl 9 PCs, with Trained, nearly falling to their deaths due to getting out-scaled. Because even the "environment" is usually scaled to your level.
And any time there's an opposing actor, forget it, it's 100% a scaling DC.
______________________
There is no reason, as in mechanical link to other systems, ect, for the PC level scaling to be turned off/on by one binary switch like that.
If the whole system was designed with different gates / caps for Lvl Prof, that would be a different matter.
It's normal for GMs to use scaling checks, because that's how the game is built.
APs present obstacles with DCs based on expected party level, this is not some secret.
Once the PC lvls go up, the = 0 lock makes the gap too big. It's impossible to have static DCs that matter when a PC could be stuck at +1 STR while another is at +22, so the default is always a scaling DC.
_____________________
Go back and scale it again in 5 levels and tell me you haven't improved.
The whole point is that the arbitrary = 0 lock means that you literally will have no better a chance 5 levels later.
You *have* to get around that = 0 lock. A lagging minus would mean that 5 Lvls later you would be exactly +5 better, which is harmonious with the rest of the game system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So how about those spacious bags?
So how about those spacious bags?
They are one of my favorite magic items in fiction.
I've already had my Alchemist try to ride in their BoH with a Bottle Air glued to their mask to get formula reverse-engineering done while in a wagon, but GM decided no meaningful work was allowed in a weightless environment, phooey. Still got to read from a horrible cursed tome from a big 2-bulk book while floating in a mini-void though, so that was neat.
The idea of having your own pocket dimension / hammer-space is super appealing for so many reasons. Not least of all is how much the nature of travel itself is altered with the ability to carry so much weightless cargo.
Despite the "game changer" such magic bags can be for a PC, the idea is (usually) rather safe from a world-building point of view as well, certainly more so than a world in which wands of Persistent Servant can be spinning wheels for free mechanical work.
I was surprised to see pf2e's "causing the items inside to be lost forever" clause, as that is just asking for PCs to use them for insta-kill shenanigans, but thankfully even when I've been at tables that recognize the possibility, we've left that pandora's pouch closed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a party feels it is unreasonable for the blacksmith to be level 15, they can surely bring that up with the GM rather than asking to completely mess up a system that as written works just fine.
Another thing to keep in mind is that NPCs might have different stat blocks for different situations.
The aforementioned blacksmith might be world renowned, and have a "blacksmith" statblock where his skills and non-combat abilities are all appropriate for level 15. Try to outsmith him and you'll likely have a hard time of it. However, that same blacksmith might only be a 5th-level combatant when a fight breaks out.
While you are correct, I've seen far too many people make every DC based on the party's level to not say this is GM dependant.
Far far too many people look at the Simple DC table then go "No, this won't challenge them" then look at the Level Based DCs section and go "This is perfect, I can use the DC for their level".
The fact that it is a common GM problem doesn't mean that it is instead a rule problem or game design problem. It is still a GM problem no matter how many GMs have the problem.
At best it is a rule presentation problem where the rulebook needs to have better examples of when Simple DC should be used.
So a couple of things:
1. You are already in house rule territory when you are trying to haggle with vendors in PF2. DCs, benefits, consequences, all of that is GM fiat. The same really goes for any improv’d social encounter. The rules for specific skill actions are clearly laid out, but ones like make a request are heavily fortified with “your GM will decide here what is reasonable.”
2. Social encounters in PF2 APs and adventures are never single skill locked. There might be one skill that someone in the party should be using, but there are always multiple ways to contribute.
3. How much fun a table has with descriptively role playing out social encounters varies even more than how much fun different tables have with descriptively role playing through combat encounters. Some players love trying to get as in the moment as possible with visualization, describing each action their character takes in flourishing detail, and others just want to say “I strike with my sword.” These are good things to check in with your tables about multiple times over the course of a campaign. Sometimes things that start off fun start to feel like a slog, and sometimes players grow more invested in the “realism” of the scenes over time as they get to know their characters.
4. (Getting back to bags and pouches), whether a table enjoys wanting set rules that create hard “letter of the law” limits for players to try to wiggle around, or more flexible rules that establish a tone and balance level that everyone at the table respects and seeks to follow together is a table preference. Sometimes it is more important to check in with your other players about whether they find “inside the pouch” thinking to be fun and creative, or cheesy and disruptive to their expectations for game balance and “what X level characters can accomplish with level appropriate resources,” even more so than the GM.