# Pathfinder 2's Proficiency System Explored



## The Human Target (Mar 17, 2018)

From what sense I can make of that, it seems overly complicated.


----------



## snickersnax (Mar 17, 2018)

I was worried about the small bonuses between proficiency levels, but it feels like different levels of proficiency may actually mean something.
I'll be really excited if armor and weapon proficiency follows the same rules as skills.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 17, 2018)

There's a lot of words here, but of the bit I read before I tuned out, was that they keep mentioning high-level playtests.  Level 12, level 15, level 17, etc....and some theorycrafting on what you can do at 20.

This is a HUGE hole I complain about to this day in 5E (and many editions of D&D).  Nobody tests the high levels!  It's so nice to hear that they're really putting some energy into seeing if or how badly the high levels get zany.  I don't really care if that part of the game sees little play at real tables, but it's really nice to hear they're testing it out.


----------



## Erdric Dragin (Mar 17, 2018)

The Human Target said:


> From what sense I can make of that, it seems overly complicated.




Yup. It's what happens when a brand new system rolls out and they use the word "streamline." They end up making just new rules that are as complicated, or even more, than things were before.

You would think it'd be easier to just use the original system but modify a few of the major things wrong with it and move on. But, for some reason, Edition changes MUST mean complete overhauls. 

WotC, meet your new sibling. Paizo.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 17, 2018)

I’m actually really happy that level gets added to proficiency bonus at all levels of proficiency (including untrained). That’ll make it much easier to rip level out of the equation and adjust check DCs and monster ACs accordingly to hack bounded accuracy into the game.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Mar 17, 2018)

Erdric Dragin said:


> Yup. It's what happens when a brand new system rolls out and they use the word "streamline." They end up making just new rules that are as complicated, or even more, than things were before.
> 
> You would think it'd be easier to just use the original system but modify a few of the major things wrong with it and move on. But, for some reason, Edition changes MUST mean complete overhauls.
> 
> WotC, meet your new sibling. Paizo.




The first step of creating a new edition is fixing the major problems with the previous.  

If it's determined that the problems are fundamental to the system, then it forces a rewrite as everything builds off the fundamentals.

If you're going to do a complete rewrite from the ground up then of course you're going to look at every system in the game to make it streamlined against the new core.

If the game at the end isn't for you, then continue to play PF1.  If you can't find players then you'll end up playing 5E or PF2.  If you can find players then your point is moot as it doesn't have to affect you at all.

Be well
KB


----------



## Shadow Demon (Mar 17, 2018)

Erdric Dragin said:


> WotC, meet your new sibling. Paizo.




Ironically. I think WoTC is done with the reboot. When there is 6e, it is gong to a evolutionary change similar to 1e to 2e transition.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 17, 2018)

Seems simple enough to me.

-You add level to skill checks.
-Proficiency ranks add a small bonus, and each opens up a menu of standard options and feats (which grant specialized options).

Normalizing the system to include saves (for things like Evasion and Mettle) and weapons (for weapon maneuvers) makes a lot of sense.

And as mentioned above, if level is added to everything, you could also rip out all level adjustments to add in some bounded accuracy if you felt inclined.


----------



## Arilyn (Mar 17, 2018)

I think it reads more complicated than it actually is. I like the fact that different levels of skill have tangible differences and every level is at least a little useful.


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 17, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> And as mentioned above, if level is added to everything, you could also rip out all level adjustments to add in some bounded accuracy if you felt inclined.



Yeah, I can already see a lot of "low magic" or "gritty" variants of this system that adjusts proficiency to half character level for bounded accuracy.


----------



## Staffan (Mar 17, 2018)

Another interesting little bit that got mentioned in passing: saves are also using this system. That's going to mean some serious re-tooling of save DCs, I reckon.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Mar 17, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Seems simple enough to me.
> 
> -You add level to skill checks.
> -Proficiency ranks add a small bonus, and each opens up a menu of standard options and feats (which grant specialized options).
> ...




Agreed.

Splitting it so that your roll gives you degree of success, but profienciency gives you what you can attempt really opens up a lot of design space to do some really cool things. They fact it seems to be for just about anything you roll a d20 for is cool.

I really like what I am seeing overall. It seems all about the options - Leveling gives you class feat (amonth others) not a list of specific class abilities, atunement gits rid of body slots for items, and now this with profiency and skill.  All of which are sort of generic/open in pieces but when you look at what it may do when put together - the freedom to create the character you want looks amazing.


----------



## Dungeonosophy (Mar 17, 2018)

Thanks for this Morrus!

Looks like recap missed one of the key tidbits/explanations (I don't have time to re-find it right now).

One of the Paizo guys said that the reason that there's such a small spread (5) from untrained to legendary, is because Proficiency is equivalent to the BAB spread and Saving Throw spread of PF1, both of which only vary, like, 5 or 6 points (I forget) between level 1 and level 20.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 17, 2018)

Polyhedral Columbia said:


> Looks like Morrus missed one of the key message board tidbits/explanations (I don't have time to re-find it right now).
> 
> One of the Paizo guys said that the reason that there's such a small spread (5) from untrained to legendary, is because Proficiency is equivalent to the BAB spread and Saving Throw spread of PF1, both of which only vary, like, 5 or 6 points (I forget) between level 1 and level 20.



Yea, +6 between good and bad saves, +5 between good BAB and average BAB.  (Technically +10 between good BAB and BAB, but hardly any classes used the bad BAB in extended Pathfinder.)


----------



## Troy70 (Mar 17, 2018)

So far I like what I see. I can't get my hands on playtest book.


----------



## The Human Target (Mar 17, 2018)

Erdric Dragin said:


> Yup. It's what happens when a brand new system rolls out and they use the word "streamline." They end up making just new rules that are as complicated, or even more, than things were before.
> 
> You would think it'd be easier to just use the original system but modify a few of the major things wrong with it and move on. But, for some reason, Edition changes MUST mean complete overhauls.
> 
> WotC, meet your new sibling. Paizo.




I disagree.

If anything, they're sticking too close to a 3e design philosophy in terms of wordy complexity.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 17, 2018)

I really don’t get what people think is so complex about this. There are five different levels of proficiency you can have. Each level applies a small modifier to rolls the proficiency applies to. Some tasks can’t be attempted by characters with the lowest level of proficiency. Every other level you can increase some of your proficiencies. Skill feats have proficiency level prerequisites.

That’s it. That’s all there is to it.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 17, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I really don’t get what people think is so complex about this. There are five different levels of proficiency you can have. Each level applies a small modifier to rolls the proficiency applies to. Some tasks can’t be attempted by characters with the lowest level of proficiency. Every other level you can increase some of your proficiencies. Skill feats have proficiency level prerequisites.
> 
> That’s it. That’s all there is to it.




Pretty much.  I also like the idea that some things just _can't be done_ by people who are Untrained.  One of my biggest loves of 4E was the choice of word use "Training" implying the idea that you're not simply good at something due to quick hands or worldly experience, but because you have put specific time and investment into learning how to do a certain task.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 17, 2018)

Hmmh. I think that sounds a lot like dnd 4e.


----------



## kenmarable (Mar 17, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I really don’t get what people think is so complex about this. There are five different levels of proficiency you can have. Each level applies a small modifier to rolls the proficiency applies to. Some tasks can’t be attempted by characters with the lowest level of proficiency. Every other level you can increase some of your proficiencies. Skill feats have proficiency level prerequisites.
> 
> That’s it. That’s all there is to it.




And I’m actually liking the idea that mastery means more than just having a bigger bonus. It both makes sense and opens a new design space. Plus it unifies BAB, saving throws, and skill checks (sounds like even initiative) all under a single system! Some parts of PF2 seem more complex than I’d like but this sure isn’t one of them and simplifies a lot. It’s one aspect that might most encourage me to try PF2.


----------



## variant (Mar 17, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Hmmh. I think that sounds a lot like dnd 4e.




I've been getting 4e vibes the more I read about it as well.


----------



## Campbell (Mar 17, 2018)

This is giving me the feels. In the best way possible.

As a fan of 4th Edition I have been hesitant to praise what I am seeing out of PF2 out of fear of sparking flames best left in the past, but I am really liking what I am seeing. Tight math, designing for actual play, and a focus on clear consistent mechanics are something I thought I would not see again in mainstream RPG design for a very long time. I am highly appreciative that it looks like we will be seeing nice stuff for normies.  I am also deeply appreciative that Paizo is taking a critical look at solutions to structural problems in the game. A lot depends on execution, but happy with what I am seeing so far.


----------



## Teataine (Mar 17, 2018)

I've been saying for...how long has it been? Close to ten years now that 4e was a natural evolution of the 3.x actual play experience. It's so damn ironic. Literally everything design decision in 4e was an attempt to address, fix, streamline and expand on what happened in an actual game of 3.x (and obviously later Pathfinder, especially after the APG). All the hatred was 80% informed by presentation/formatting of the rules, PR missteps by WotC and good old groggery. And now all these years later, Paizo is looking at their game, figuring out what they learned and people are going "huh, sounds kinda like 4e". Yeah, because they've always been the same game, just packaged and presented differently.


----------



## Mark Craddock (Mar 17, 2018)

So this is similar to bounded accuracy (wether intended or not). What I don't like about PF2's take is could have just been +0, +2, +3, +4, +5.

By leaving in Level, PF2 just makes the math handle larger numbers.

So far, PF2 doesn't seem to be for me and that's cool. I hope others enjoy it.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 17, 2018)

So someone says it’s like 4E and then somebody else says it’s like 5E... I’m so confused!


----------



## MichaelSomething (Mar 17, 2018)

Morrus said:


> So someone says it’s like 4E and then somebody else says it’s like 5E... I’m so confused!




Well 4E and 5E do share some stuff so it's quite possible to compare PF2 to both.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 18, 2018)

Morrus said:


> So someone says it’s like 4E and then somebody else says it’s like 5E... I’m so confused!




At least in the case of this proficiency system, both are accurate for different reasons. It’s like 5e in that it’s a unified system of Proficiency that applies the same way to every type of 20 roll (attacks, checks, and saves), and that the difference between a character with no proficiency and a character with maxed out proficiency of the same level caps out at +6. It’s like 4e in that you add a level-based bonus to all d20 rolls, regardless of your level of proficiency. And frankly, 4 and 5e’s proficiency systems are very similar to each other.

The fact that small variations on what are ultimately the same solution have now been arrived at in three different iterations of the d20 system is a pretty good indication that a 6 Point spread between specialized and unspecialized characters of the same level is pretty much the sweet spot for d20, with +Level, +1/2 Level or no additional bonus depending on how steep you want the differences to be between characters/monsters of different levels/challenge ratings.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 18, 2018)

And can I just say, I am loving seeing other 4e fans tentatively saying how much PF2 is reminding us of what we loved in 4e. Can you just imagine how delightfully ironic it would be if Pathfinder 2e became the refuge for 4e fans burnt by 5e?


----------



## Arakasius (Mar 18, 2018)

I enjoyed 4e (it was the first tabletop version of the rules I played, I had played Baldur’s Gate and IWD and other games previously) and there was a lot of good things about it. I think the main thing people I talked to didn’t like was that classes felt a bit too similar, and that came from the highly tactical nature of all the spells/abilities. Since from what we’ve heard of PF2 they’re keeping Vancian magic and spell lists and such so despite skills giving martials cool things to work towards it’s still going to feel much different than spells do.


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 18, 2018)

Mark Craddock said:


> So this is similar to bounded accuracy (wether intended or not). What I don't like about PF2's take is could have just been +0, +2, +3, +4, +5.
> 
> By leaving in Level, PF2 just makes the math handle larger numbers.
> 
> So far, PF2 doesn't seem to be for me and that's cool. I hope others enjoy it.



Yeah, the insane number inflation, and that level is more important than Proficiency is weird are not to my taste.


----------



## Mark Craddock (Mar 18, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, the insane number inflation, and that level is more important than Proficiency is weird are not to my taste.




Perhaps the Skill Unlocks will be mechanically potent, but with what little info we have, a difference of at most 5 point appears to downplay Proficiency and elevate Level. That's just not my groove anymore.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Mar 18, 2018)

Yeah, I can see some 4E showing. The biggest thing about that system that I do not think we will see in PF2 is the "balacing around the encounter" that was the focus of 4E - resonance points already show a day/adventure focus and more resource management than 4E. But that is not a bad thing.


----------



## Teemu (Mar 18, 2018)

There's a good amount of daily resource management in 4e too. Healing surges are a daily resource, and so are daily magic item powers. And obviously most classes get powerful daily abilities. It's definitely not all encounter-based.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 18, 2018)

Teemu said:


> There's a good amount of daily resource management in 4e too. Healing surges are a daily resource, and so are daily magic item powers. And obviously most classes get powerful daily abilities. It's definitely not all encounter-based.




Yeah, 4e was definitely balanced around the adventuring day. It seems like PF2 will work on a longer timescale. If the assumption in 4e was a day of adventuring consisting of multiple encounters, with some resources recovering on a per-encounter basis and some on a per-day basis, I think the assumption in PF2 will be an adventure consisting of multiple days, with some resources recovering on a per-day basis and some recovering on a per-Adventure basis. Basically the same math, but on a different scale.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 18, 2018)

This sounds like the sort of skill system that Mearls talked about during the DnD Next playtest.  Hopefully Paizo can pull it off better then he did.


----------



## Emirikol_Prime (Mar 18, 2018)

The Human Target said:


> From what sense I can make of that, it seems overly complicated.





Over complicated and well overdesigned.


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 18, 2018)

Mark Craddock said:


> So this is similar to bounded accuracy (wether intended or not). *What I don't like about PF2's take is could have just been +0, +2, +3, +4, +5.*
> 
> By leaving in Level, PF2 just makes the math handle larger numbers.
> 
> So far, PF2 doesn't seem to be for me and that's cool. I hope others enjoy it.



Likely the intent is for critical successes (roll 20 or +10 above) and failures (roll 1 or -10 below TN) with skill checks. But this also includes epic sort of high level feats, such as a fighter jumping 5 meters in the air, which should not be possible from low level characters, which your above suggestion could have permitted.


----------



## CubicsRube (Mar 18, 2018)

I wish negative modifiers would go the way of thac0.

If the dc system is being remodelled, there is no reason whatsoever that proficiencies cant be 0 for untrained and then up to +5.

Having additions amd subtractions while in isolation is fine, in aggregate in the middle of combat it slows everything down and is part of what really kills the enjoyment of PF2 or any rpg really.


----------



## ikos (Mar 18, 2018)

Teataine said:


> I've been saying for...how long has it been? Close to ten years now that 4e was a natural evolution of the 3.x actual play experience. It's so damn ironic. Literally everything design decision in 4e was an attempt to address, fix, streamline and expand on what happened in an actual game of 3.x (and obviously later Pathfinder, especially after the APG).




Yeah, that, or, with less irony, literally, the guy who worked for WOTC during 4E is now lead designer for PF2.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 18, 2018)

ikos said:


> Yeah, that, or, with less irony, literally, the guy who worked for WOTC during 4E is now lead designer for PF2.




Eh? I thought the lead designer for PF2 was Jason Bulmahn. He’s been with Paizo since long before 4E ever existed.


----------



## ikos (Mar 18, 2018)

Logan Bonner is who I had in mind.


----------



## Markn (Mar 18, 2018)

Something that no one seems to mention is Vic Wertz comments. If you understand how proficiencies worth with weapons, then you understand how they work with armor. 

To me this implies that your AC is first determined by the type of armor worn, then adjusted by rank, then adjusted by level, then adjusted by ability modifier.

Assuming everything is the same between two rogues other than level, I would surmise a 10th level rogue’s AC would be 9 points higher than one that is first level.


----------



## Arakasius (Mar 18, 2018)

i don’t think that math is going to work that way. Armor has never been a dice roll. Given that at level one with leather armor and 18 dex your armor by that calculation if you’re say expert would be 1 (level) + 2 (armor) + 1 (prof) + 4 (ability mod) leaving you with an armor class of 8. Similarly the attack roll for that same rogue would have everything but the armor bonus, leaving you at a +6 to hit. Which means you hit on everything but a natural one. That math doesn’t work. What he likely means with proficiency being the same is that untrained, trained, expert, master, legendary is always -2/0/1/2/3 to whatever you’re modifying.

You’d have to bump up the AC bonus of leather armor a ton for that to work at all at level 1, which yes would mean you’re going to get inflated values as compared to PF1 for armor class at level 9. Something like a 16 AC would be fine for a level one rogue with high dex, so that means armor gives ten. But that means at level 9 your AC is now 25 given no other bonuses gained in that time. To hit at level nine would still only be around 15. It’s not the worst idea, because it does get around melee/ranged basically autohitting past level 8 (since bab has always outpaced what you get from armor bonuses) but I’m not sure they’ll go there.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 18, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> i don’t think that math is going to work that way. Armor has never been a dice roll. Given that at level one with leather armor and 18 dex your armor by that calculation if you’re say expert would be 1 (level) + 2 (armor) + 1 (prof) + 4 (ability mod) leaving you with an armor class of 8. Similarly the attack roll for that same rogue would have everything but the armor bonus, leaving you at a +6 to hit. Which means you hit on everything but a natural one. That math doesn’t work. What he likely means with proficiency being the same is that untrained, trained, expert, master, legendary is always -2/0/1/2/3 to whatever you’re modifying.



I would assume AC would follow the same pattern as other DCs derived from traits -
Perception is Wisdom Mod + Proficiency, Perception DC is 10 + Wisdom Mod + Proficiency.
Reflex save is Dex Mod + Proficiency, Reflex DC is 10 + Dex Mod + Proficiency.
Presumably AC, as the DC for incoming attacks, would be 10 + Armor + Dex Mod + Proficiency.


----------



## Markn (Mar 18, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> i don’t think that math is going to work that way. Armor has never been a dice roll. Given that at level one with leather armor and 18 dex your armor by that calculation if you’re say expert would be 1 (level) + 2 (armor) + 1 (prof) + 4 (ability mod) leaving you with an armor class of 8. Similarly the attack roll for that same rogue would have everything but the armor bonus, leaving you at a +6 to hit. Which means you hit on everything but a natural one. That math doesn’t work. What he likely means with proficiency being the same is that untrained, trained, expert, master, legendary is always -2/0/1/2/3 to whatever you’re modifying.




I still think AC starts with 10+armor+prof+ability mod. The math feels right for that. You still make attack rolls like normal. 

We know that attacks scale by level. This means the level bonus to attacks is cancelled by the level bonus by AC which means the math works nicely. The real variance is when you fight someone above or below your level. 

Your level bonus is really how you progress (in comparison to a lower level characters) and your proficiency (and ability mod) is the variance for characters at the same level. 

I’m not sure there is any other way to take Vic’s comment. It works the SAME across all these things.


----------



## Arakasius (Mar 18, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I would assume AC would follow the same pattern as other DCs derived from traits -
> Perception is Wisdom Mod + Proficiency, Perception DC is 10 + Wisdom Mod + Proficiency.
> Reflex save is Dex Mod + Proficiency, Reflex DC is 10 + Dex Mod + Proficiency.
> Presumably AC, as the DC for incoming attacks, would be 10 + Armor + Dex Mod + Proficiency.




I agree that’s more likely, I was responding to the idea of AC scaling by level. I could see them doing that since it does remove the PF1 issue of the balance of level one being all out of whack at level 8. My level one inquisitor had only a reasonable chance to hit people. My level 8 one with just regular buffs basically needs to roll less than five to miss. Classes like fighter and barb at those levels basically can only miss on 1s against most foes. It would require a rebalancing of the number of AC armor gives you.


----------



## 3catcircus (Mar 18, 2018)

CubicsRube said:


> I wish negative modifiers would go the way of thac0.
> 
> If the dc system is being remodelled, there is no reason whatsoever that proficiencies cant be 0 for untrained and then up to +5.
> 
> Having additions amd subtractions while in isolation is fine, in aggregate in the middle of combat it slows everything down and is part of what really kills the enjoyment of PF2 or any rpg really.




I don't understand this sentiment.  The math is trivial and anyone (in the US) who is age 11 or older has been exposed to negative numbers in school.   I suspect the concept is introduced even earlier in school in other parts of the world.  It really isn't that hard to do the add and subtract in your head on the fly.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 18, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> I agree that’s more likely, I was responding to the idea of AC scaling by level. I could see them doing that since it does remove the PF1 issue of the balance of level one being all out of whack at level 8. My level one inquisitor had only a reasonable chance to hit people. My level 8 one with just regular buffs basically needs to roll less than five to miss. Classes like fighter and barb at those levels basically can only miss on 1s against most foes. It would require a rebalancing of the number of AC armor gives you.



To be clear, by “+ Proficiency,” I meant “Your Level +/- the modifier associated with your level of Proficiency witn the armor you’re wearing” since that’s how Proficiency Bonus is defined in PF2. Yes, this likely will mean needing to re-assess what AC bonus you get from different kinds of armor.

One interesting implication (if we’re interpreting this correctly) is that a character could potentially get more benefit out of a lighter category of armor, just depending on their level of Proficiency. I kind of like the idea that a Master of light armor might actually get more of an AC boost from a chain shirt than he would from a suit of full plate that he has no training with.


----------



## Arakasius (Mar 18, 2018)

Markn said:


> I still think AC starts with 10+armor+prof+ability mod. The math feels right for that. You still make attack rolls like normal.
> 
> We know that attacks scale by level. This means the level bonus to attacks is cancelled by the level bonus by AC which means the math works nicely. The real variance is when you fight someone above or below your level.
> 
> ...




You can have one of the two. You can have the 10 flat bonus like PF1 has, or you can have level scaling. You can’t have both. If you have both that means at level 10 your Ac would be 10 + prof (1) + ability (say 5) + armor (2) + level (10) leaving you with a 27 armor class. Your attack bonus for the same character at level 10 would only be 16 (10+1+5). This means their new plus ten crit system can never trigger since its impossible to beat AC by ten.

Bump up AC from armor and do scaling and you can ensure the gap between AC and attack bonus is always consistent from level 1 to 20. Stay with the old passive 10 plus bonuses and attacks will quickly outscale armor like they do in PF1. Both have their pros and cons, but considering they’re making this +10 for a crit thing be a feature I don’t think they’ll do level scaling for AC since the feature will almost never go off fighting equal level foes. I would guess like Charlaquin said that the math is the same as PF1 and level doesn’t affect AC and attacks will eventually outstrip defenses just as they do in PF1. I wouldn’t mind it if they do it the other way since it scales perfectly, but it would mean the crit feature would only be useful against lower level mobs with inferior AC.


----------



## Arakasius (Mar 18, 2018)

Ahh so yeah let me restate my last post in light of yours Charlaquin. Yeah I can see Prof (including level) be used in this but I am not finding this that likely giving the crit feature. I’d be fine with it since I does think it fixes scaling, but i’m not sure if they’ll go that far. It could just mean prof for armor is just the bonus on top of the old calculations. Considering how vocal and histrionic some PF1 posters are about any new change I’m not sure how far they’ll push it.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 18, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> You can have one of the two. You can have the 10 flat bonus like PF1 has, or you can have level scaling. You can’t have both. If you have both that means at level 10 your Ac would be 10 + prof (1) + ability (say 5) + armor (2) + level (10) leaving you with a 27 armor class. Your attack bonus for the same character at level 10 would only be 16 (10+1+5). This means their new plus ten crit system can never trigger since its impossible to beat AC by ten.




You’re assuming that the attacking character has the same level of Proficiency with his weapon as the defending character has with his armor, and that the attacking character is using a standard quality, nonmagical weapon. Remember, weapons can be crafted at poor (-2), standard (+0), expert (+1), master (+2), and legendary (+3) quality, and can have bonuses from being magical. And most characters I assume will make weapon proficiency their first priority to increase whenever possible.


----------



## Arakasius (Mar 18, 2018)

We also have to consider things like power attack and iterative attacks. If level is part of AC bonus I’m not sure how those function very well anymore. In the one vs one level 10 I stated above with 16 attack/27 AC it means iterative attacks are basically useless and any modified to trade accuracy for dmg (which might not be needed since being more accurate now is more dmg if you beat by ten) basically would make your attack worthless. Basically level in AC is too strong a bonus against their current level of attack unless they add more to the attacks or subtract from the armor in some way.


----------



## Arakasius (Mar 18, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> You’re assuming that the attacking character has the same level of Proficiency with his weapon as the defending character has with his armor, and that the attacking character is using a standard quality, nonmagical weapon. Remember, weapons can be crafted at poor (-2), standard (+0), expert (+1), master (+2), and legendary (+3) quality, and can have bonuses from being magical. And most characters I assume will make weapon proficiency their first priority to increase whenever possible.




Armors have the same bonuses, and there is far more spells that raise AC than raise attack. Even if players focus on offense a bit more it doesn’t change the underlying math. I just don’t see them making a system where to hit on first iterative requires a 10 when they’re pushing a crits matter system.

Edit: I believe one of the designers said the first attack would have a pretty good chance of critting, while later would be more about the hitting. 

Edit2: I like the idea of keeping armor and attack bonuses scaling at the same degree since it helps fix high level play, but I just don’t think they can have it be level for armor. It doesn’t work out in light of their new 10+ crit system, since of it works that way crits are only nat 20s against even level foes.


----------



## Markn (Mar 18, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> We also have to consider things like power attack and iterative attacks. If level is part of AC bonus I’m not sure how those function very well anymore. In the one vs one level 10 I stated above with 16 attack/27 AC it means iterative attacks are basically useless and any modified to trade accuracy for dmg (which might not be needed since being more accurate now is more dmg if you beat by ten) basically would make your attack worthless. Basically level in AC is too strong a bonus against their current level of attack unless they add more to the attacks or subtract from the armor in some way.




I don’t have an opinion yet on Power Attack.  In regards to iterative attacks, I think those are gone (other than using all three actions to attack). There may be some class feats that play around with this but that is about it. We’ve seen +1 weapons add a die of damage. I think this will be the biggest (but not only) way damage scales in the game. Getting iterative attacks as well as additional damage dice with magical weapons seems to be too much. I also think iterative attacks plus the new action economy will get too complex to manage pretty fast. 

Based on all this, I would expect a +2 weapon to deal two extra damage dice.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 18, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> Armors have the same bonuses



Do we know that they will? We’ve seen an Expert shortsword and a +1 dagger show up in the Glass Cannon podcast, but no higher quality or +X armor yet. It’s possible that the quality bonus for weapons is meant to balance out the AC bonus from armor type.



Arakasius said:


> and there is far more spells that raise AC than raise attack.



Again though, do we know that’s actually going to be the case in PF2?



Arakasius said:


> Even if players focus on offense a bit more it doesn’t change the underlying math. I just don’t see them making a system where to hit on first iterative requires a 10 when they’re pushing a crits matter system.



It only takes a few points over the target’s AC bonus to shift that required number into the 6-8 range though. And I expect crits will generally sit around the 16-20 range.



Arakasius said:


> Edit: I believe one of the designers said the first attack would have a pretty good chance of critting, while later would be more about the hitting.



Sure, but what’s a “pretty good chance” when it comes to critical hits? 10%? 15%? 20%?


----------



## Markn (Mar 18, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> Armors have the same bonuses, and there is far more spells that raise AC than raise attack. Even if players focus on offense a bit more it doesn’t change the underlying math. I just don’t see them making a system where to hit on first iterative requires a 10 when they’re pushing a crits matter system.
> 
> Edit: I believe one of the designers said the first attack would have a pretty good chance of critting, while later would be more about the hitting.
> 
> Edit2: I like the idea of keeping armor and attack bonuses scaling at the same degree since it helps fix high level play, but I just don’t think they can have it be level for armor. It doesn’t work out in light of their new 10+ crit system, since of it works that way crits are only nat 20s against even level foes.




A couple of things. Crits in combat don’t have to be common. They can still be rare and IMO should be. But this doesn’t mean that crits in skill use need to be equally rare. If the DC is based on a static DC critical success could be far more common here. This makes the system flexible and consistent across the game despite variances in and out of combat.  

With the three action system, there is no penalty to your first attack. You suffer a -5 on your second attack and -10 on your third attack (barring weapon traits that affect this). The action economy already has iterative attacks built in.


----------



## Ancalagon (Mar 18, 2018)

Markn said:


> I still think AC starts with 10+armor+prof+ability mod. The math feels right for that. You still make attack rolls like normal.
> 
> We know that attacks scale by level. This means the level bonus to attacks is cancelled by the level bonus by AC which means the math works nicely. The real variance is when you fight someone above or below your level.
> 
> ...



This sounds a bit like starwars saga, a modified 3.x system, were your AC was in part based on your level. 

Interestingly, I also see some parallels with the proficiency for skills, were your check was ability + 1/2 level + proficiency bonus  (if any).  I can elaborate more if people are curious.


----------



## Markn (Mar 18, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Do we know that they will? We’ve seen an Expert shortsword and a +1 dagger show up in the Glass Cannon podcast, but no higher quality or +X armor yet. It’s possible that the quality bonus for weapons is meant to balance out the AC bonus from armor type.
> ?




I’d forgotten about quality bonus. This feels like the math nudge needed to push critical successes to be slightly more common in combat than Araksius is concerned about but not overly so. I think this is very likely. The math seems to fit.


----------



## Markn (Mar 18, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> This sounds a bit like starwars saga, a modified 3.x system, were your AC was in part based on your level.
> 
> Interestingly, I also see some parallels with the proficiency for skills, were your check was ability + 1/2 level + proficiency bonus  (if any).  I can elaborate more if people are curious.




The PF2 designers did state that + 1/2 level did not work, hence their + level approach. It’s similar for sure.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 18, 2018)

One concern this does potentially raise, if we’re interpreting attack bonus and AC math correctly, is that it seems to assume you will always increase proficiency with your weapon(s) of choice as early and often as possible. And while that’s not an unfair assumption to make for most players, it does create the possibility of a system mastery gap, where players who don’t realize the importance of keeping up their weapon proficiencies end up unable to hit enemies of an appropriate CR to their level. We’ll have to see exactly how increasing Proficiencies works in practice to know for sure how much of an issue this will be, but it’s something to watch out for.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 18, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> One concern this does potentially raise, if we’re interpreting attack bonus and AC math correctly, is that it seems to assume you will always increase proficiency with your weapon(s) of choice as early and often as possible. And while that’s not an unfair assumption to make for most players, it does create the possibility of a system mastery gap, where players who don’t realize the importance of keeping up their weapon proficiencies end up unable to hit enemies of an appropriate CR to their level. We’ll have to see exactly how increasing Proficiencies works in practice to know for sure how much of an issue this will be, but it’s something to watch out for.



I imagine that proficiency upgrades are built into the class features of martial classes.  They did mention fighters being able to get legendary proficiency at 13th, for example.


----------



## Arakasius (Mar 18, 2018)

I do think bonuses will certainly matter more if the balance between Attack and Armor Class is that close. Weapon Focus before was mostly used for feat prerequisites since most classes really didn’t need the bonus when at level ten it was only the difference between hitting on a 2 or a 3. But I don’t think they can do the math as simple as you guys are putting out. The examples we’ve been using is a high dex, leather armor character. Both high dex, breastplate wearers as well as full plate armor with shield is going to push that even higher.

So we’d have a few things.

1. The 27 AC for light armor wearer would be more like 29 for breastplate and 30+ for full plate, adding 2 more for using a shield.
2. At that point the 16 Attack just doesn’t work, even if you restrict equipment bonuses to weapons (which I’m very doubtful they’ll do, you can craft nice weapons but not nice armor wouldn’t work)
3. The above math makes iterative attacks useless, you’ll never be able to hit on second or third attacks at the -5/10 penalty.
4. Hit points are now higher, with max on every level as well as ancestry health at level 1. Those changes make characters roughly 50% hardier.
5. If you combine real high survivability with high health it’s just going to make combat a slog. I don’t see any reason they’ll fall trap to that issue from 4th.

Anyway the math just doesn’t work for adding level to AC unless you add a bunch of modifiers to the attack rolls but not the armor. I see no likelihood they’ll rebalance spells by removing defensive buff spells and keeping offensive ones, sure things like flanking will help, but it won’t be enough since under this system you’re going to miss more than you hit. I do hope there is some scaling since current PF1 rules are stupid for scaling past level 6/7. I figure they’ll find some sweetspot of the difference between Attack and AC they want at level 1 and then try to keep that difference mostly the same through higher levels. My rough guess on two characters with equal gear/etc that they’d want to have the player hit on about a 7/8 on their first attack. (Before anything like flanking, which would reduce that by 2)


----------



## 3catcircus (Mar 18, 2018)

I'd be fine if they used proficiency + attribute mod for both attack and defense and used armor as damage reduction only - i.e. attack roll + proficiency + attribute mod > defense roll + attribute mod + proficiency = a hit.  AC value of the  armor + AC value of shield = amount of damage subtracted from the damage inflicted.  

No mess regarding arms race between AC and level-based bonuses to hit.  No worries about DR since it can be made inherent to natural armor.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 18, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> I do think bonuses will certainly matter more if the balance between Attack and Armor Class is that close. Weapon Focus before was mostly used for feat prerequisites since most classes really didn’t need the bonus when at level ten it was only the difference between hitting on a 2 or a 3. But I don’t think they can do the math as simple as you guys are putting out. The examples we’ve been using is a high dex, leather armor character. Both high dex, breastplate wearers as well as full plate armor with shield is going to push that even higher.
> 
> So we’d have a few things.
> 
> 1. The 27 AC for light armor wearer would be more like 29 for breastplate and 30+ for full plate, adding 2 more for using a shield.



We don’t know any of that, since we haven’t actually seen the armor yet. One thing we do know though is that +2 AC from a shield will only apply if the defender spends one of their actions to get it.



Arakasius said:


> 2. At that point the 16 Attack just doesn’t work, even if you restrict equipment bonuses to weapons (which I’m very doubtful they’ll do, you can craft nice weapons but not nice armor wouldn’t work)



You can absolutely craft nice armor. That’s the difference between, say, half plate and full plate. Or leather and studded leather. Keeping +1/2/3 for Expert/Master/Legend craft to weapons would only serve to give players the ability to upgrade weapons the same way they’ve been able to do with armor for years.



Arakasius said:


> 3. The above math makes iterative attacks useless, you’ll never be able to hit on second or third attacks at the -5/10 penalty.



Only against same-level foes. Iterative attacks have always been garbage against same-level foes. They mostly help you clean up trash mobs faster.



Arakasius said:


> 4. Hit points are now higher, with max on every level as well as ancestry health at level 1. Those changes make characters roughly 50% hardier.
> 5. If you combine real high survivability with high health it’s just going to make combat a slog. I don’t see any reason they’ll fall trap to that issue from 4th.



I mean, hit point math is already in 4th Edition territory. It’s calculated almost identically.



Arakasius said:


> Anyway the math just doesn’t work for adding level to AC unless you add a bunch of modifiers to the attack rolls but not the armor.



I’m not convinced that’s true. Adding level to both attack and AC is the same math as not adding level to either when the opponents are of equal level. And not adding level to either works just fine for 5e. Assuming equal level, equally proficient foes with equally upgraded equipment, both will hit on a 10 and crit on a 20. Factor in the natural tendency to focus on upgrading offense over defense, and it’s likely both will hit on somewhere around an 8 and crit on an 18. Seems about right to me.



Arakasius said:


> I see no likelihood they’ll rebalance spells by removing defensive buff spells and keeping offensive ones, sure things like flanking will help, but it won’t be enough since under this system you’re going to miss more than you hit. I do hope there is some scaling since current PF1 rules are stupid for scaling past level 6/7. I figure they’ll find some sweetspot of the difference between Attack and AC they want at level 1 and then try to keep that difference mostly the same through higher levels. My rough guess on two characters with equal gear/etc that they’d want to have the player hit on about a 7/8 on their first attack. (Before anything like flanking, which would reduce that by 2)



We’ll see. I think you’re making a lot of assumptions based on how things work in PF1 that might not hold up in PF2. Personally, I’m seeing one of the devs saying, “Proficiencies work the same with weapons and armor” and using that as my baseline assumption. I don’t think you’re wrong that that wouldn’t work with PF1’s math. That tells me the math must be changing.


----------



## CubicsRube (Mar 18, 2018)

3catcircus said:


> I don't understand this sentiment.  The math is trivial and anyone (in the US) who is age 11 or older has been exposed to negative numbers in school.   I suspect the concept is introduced even earlier in school in other parts of the world.  It really isn't that hard to do the add and subtract in your head on the fly.




I dont think you understand my comment.

The maths is trivial, but it adds to the time spent in combat when ylu have multiple poaitive and negative modifiers. It increases cognitive load in aggregate and it takes me out of imagining the battle when we stsrt talking in numbers too much to resolve actions.

Its not about difficulty, its about slowing down combat and task resolution for no apparent benefit.

Any time a complexity is introduced into a system,  it should be measured against the value it brings. Thats part of streamlining. I don't feel that the -2 to +3 range adds value.


----------



## Arakasius (Mar 18, 2018)

Well ofc I am making assumptions on the math. You are as well. Regardless I don’t see them going to a ten on hit, 20 on crit system because it takes away the new mechanic they’re adding. We do know iterative attacks can hit on a -5/-10 (although rarely maybe on the second). I would guess they’re going for that 7/8 to hit to make iterative useful. Iterative aren’t a thing in 5e with penalties so a flat math of 10/20 that works there doesn’t really work in fifth. I do hope they’re doing something about buff stacking too

As for what the dev said about proficiencies working the same I just took that to mean you’re adding -2/0/1/2/3 to the value you’re modifying, not necessarily that they’re making armor also scale with level. And if they do add level there is going to be even more bitching from the PF grognards about ACs being similar a lot more then there is about skills. I could see them doing it, but they’re going to get criticized for it.


----------



## Arakasius (Mar 18, 2018)

Also I’ve heard conflicting things on the shield. We do know you only get the DR for raising the shield, but I’ve read mixed reports on whether you get the passive AC bonus for raising it or if you always have it.


----------



## Ancalagon (Mar 19, 2018)

+1 AC per level can work, IF every class also gets +1 to hit per level (on top of other bonuses such as proficiency, ability etc).   It worked fairly well in Star Wars Saga.  BUT about that:

1:  It only worked because armor didn't add to AC for most people (it replaced your level bonus instead.)  This is why "high level" heroes in star wars rarely bothered with armor, but it was worn by mooks and by "armor specialists" (who got *some* benefit out of it, just not full AC value).

2:   It *stopped* working (in Saga) at very high level because the AC bonus outpaced the BAB of a lot of classes, they made the mistake of having different classes having different BAB progression.  

As has been noted by someone else, the only real value of having +1 per level is to add bigger distinction between the heroes, mooks and bosses.  With bounded accuracy HP and damage output become the larger differentiation.


----------



## Markn (Mar 19, 2018)

This paragraph from Mark Seifter gives us a bit more info:

So a legendary rogue, maybe level 15? Pretty high level. I'm going to actually spot this random guard at least trained proficiency in Perception because a level 15 guard is an incredibly powerful figure on the worlds stage and is weirdly terrible at being a guard if he hasn't trained in Perception. We'll also assume that we've decided to build this guard out full PC style, since the numbers work out similarly anyway. The guard's Wisdom is not his primary attribute, but the rogue's Dexterity is. We'll say the guard has 16 Wisdom? It could be maybe 18 at the most or potentially much lower. If I recall correctly, this guard is going to be under the DC a legendary rogue can just not roll and auto-succeed with the right skill feat. Supposing the rogue didn't bother with that skill feat but does have some kind of magic cloak , we're looking at a situation where the rogue's bonus of ~+28 is going to roughly equal or surpass the guard's DC of 28 (we don't have opposed rolls) leading to near certitude of success. Even if the level 15 trained guard somehow had 18 Wisdom and some kind of magic goggles boosting him to a DC of 31, the equal level legendary rogue is still looking at a 90% chance of success. If the guard was actually untrained? It's even easier, though that just doesn't seem plausible for a level 15 guard.

1. No opposed skill checks
2. I might be misreading it but it seems like the DC for a skill check is the opponents skill +10. Mark says the guards skill is about 18 making the DC 28.


----------



## Markn (Mar 19, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> +1 AC per level can work, IF every class also gets +1 to hit per level (on top of other bonuses such as proficiency, ability etc).   It worked fairly well in Star Wars Saga.  BUT about that:
> 
> 1:  It only worked because armor didn't add to AC for most people (it replaced your level bonus instead.)  This is why "high level" heroes in star wars rarely bothered with armor, but it was worn by mooks and by "armor specialists" (who got *some* benefit out of it, just not full AC value).
> 
> ...




Maybe I’m missing something, but if the math works at level 1 (like it does for every prior edition of PF and D&D), then it scales just fine at higher levels because the bonus to hit and the bonus to AC cancels out, assuming equal level. The fighter will hit most often because that’s their thing. Wizards will miss most often because it isn’t their thing. Thus, the wizard switches to casting spells where they are equal to the fighter in terms of their spellcasting proficiency compared to the fighters melee proficiency (or thereabouts) but the will most often target a different defence.


----------



## Ancalagon (Mar 19, 2018)

Markn said:


> Maybe I’m missing something, but if the math works at level 1 (like it does for every prior edition of PF and D&D), then it scales just fine at higher levels because the bonus to hit and the bonus to AC cancels out, assuming equal level. The fighter will hit most often because that’s their thing. Wizards will miss most often because it isn’t their thing. Thus, the wizard switches to casting spells where they are equal to the fighter in terms of their spellcasting proficiency compared to the fighters melee proficiency (or thereabouts) but the will most often target a different defence.




That is my understanding as well.


----------



## CubicsRube (Mar 19, 2018)

Because of bab and ac both going up with level though. Is there any benefit of using level in the modifiers, it seems like in many cases they just offset.

Is there a benefit to a 10rh level wizard being better with a quarter staff than a 1st level wizard? Or even a 1st level rogue?


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 19, 2018)

CubicsRube said:


> Because of bab and ac both going up with level though. Is there any benefit of using level in the modifiers, it seems like in many cases they just offset.
> 
> Is there a benefit to a 10rh level wizard being better with a quarter staff than a 1st level wizard? Or even a 1st level rogue?



Basically, they said that's it part of the Pathfinder fantasy tone that a 10th level hero can go up against a ton of lower level monsters and succeed.  You can accomplish that in multiple ways, but +level to checks certainly works to accomplish that goal.


----------



## Arakasius (Mar 19, 2018)

Ancalgon has a good point about the armor. The scaling can work with the current formulas adding level of you assume armor gives no actual bonus to AC. Once you do that the current math breaks down and it becomes very hard to actually hit something, especially on second and third attacks. So there must be some baked in bonus to the system to support the attack bonus or some assumption we’re making about level based AC wrong.

As for skills it’s painful to read the Paizo boards and people being bad at math. They don’t understand that the new proficiency still gives specialists an overwhelming advantage. But they want a game where the specialist auto succeeds and untrained auto fails, even though at very low levels in PF1 it didn’t work that way. (The level 1-2 fighter can actually roll a knowledge check and pass) A big key I feel for Paizo making this thing successful is figuring out who to ignore of that very vocal group on the forums. Some are just never going to be happy unless they remake the first game and those people need to be ignored.


----------



## trancejeremy (Mar 19, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> Some are just never going to be happy unless they remake the first game and those people need to be ignored.




Well, considering the whole point of Pathfinder in the first place was to cater to people who didn't want to move on from 3.x, it shouldn't be surprising is some PF fans still want a game with 3.x mechanics


----------



## Arilyn (Mar 20, 2018)

trancejeremy said:


> Well, considering the whole point of Pathfinder in the first place was to cater to people who didn't want to move on from 3.x, it shouldn't be surprising is some PF fans still want a game with 3.x mechanics




4e was an anomaly. These things usually sort themselves out after a lot of hand wringing, blustering and starry eyed excitement.


----------



## Gryphon04 (Mar 23, 2018)

The Human Target said:


> From what sense I can make of that, it seems overly complicated.




I agree 150%


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 23, 2018)

Could someone who finds this overly complicated please explain to me what about it makes them feel that way? Because I just don’t see it. To me it looks very simple, particularly compared to PF1’s skill system.


----------



## Gryphon04 (Mar 23, 2018)

Charlaquin,
 I have played many different rpgs using different systems and through every iteration of D&D.  Because of this eclectic experience, I've learned what works and what doesnt and also what may too complicated or unnecessary.  While Pathfinder is a retooling and "simplifying" some things as the way Pathfinder works and might actually slow things up.  If a designer tries to account for every detail, or every nuance in an action, spell, or whatever they are designing, then you wind up with a result that just bogs down the game.  That's exactly what D&D 3.5 was and rules bloated to the hilt and Pathfinder is it's successor.  Second edition will be simpler than first, I think, but it will still be more complicated than necessary.  Dungeons and Dragons 5e is a good example of how things can be kept easier and just as exciting and Savage Worlds even simpler.  I hope that helps.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 23, 2018)

Gryphon04 said:


> Charlaquin,
> I have played many different rpgs using different systems and through every iteration of D&D.  Because of this eclectic experience, I've learned what works and what doesnt and also what may too complicated or unnecessary.  While Pathfinder is a retooling and "simplifying" some things as the way Pathfinder works and might actually slow things up.  If a designer tries to account for every detail, or every nuance in an action, spell, or whatever they are designing, then you wind up with a result that just bogs down the game.  That's exactly what D&D 3.5 was and rules bloated to the hilt and Pathfinder is it's successor.  Second edition will be simpler than first, I think, but it will still be more complicated than necessary.  Dungeons and Dragons 5e is a good example of how things can be kept easier and just as exciting and Savage Worlds even simpler.  I hope that helps.




It doesn’t, really. I understand the general idea that Pathfinder is an unnecessarily complicated rules system, and can understand the concern that despite cleaning up some of the clutter PF2 will probably still ultimately be too complicated for what it is. What I’m not understanding is what it is about this Proficiency system specifically that many people are finding overly complicated.

From what I see, it’s essentially just a 1-5 rating, with each rank giving a small bonus (or a small penalty at 1), and those ranks are used as prerequisites for certain Feats. That’s barely more complex than 5e’s Proficiency system, which is effectively a 1-4 (untrained, jack of all trades, proficient, expert) rating with an associated bonus that scales multiplicatively instead of addatively, changes depending on character level instead of adding character level. and doesn’t use Proficiency ranks as prerequisites for Feats.


----------



## Arakasius (Mar 23, 2018)

It's basically the same as 5e with the exception that it has level scaling. Since Paizo wants high level characters to be superior to low level characters. Cool thing is you want to recreate 5e with PF2 you just take off the level mod and voila you have bounded accuracy. I'm sure that will be a popular home brew option.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 23, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> It's basically the same as 5e with the exception that it has level scaling. Since Paizo wants high level characters to be superior to low level characters. Cool thing is you want to recreate 5e with PF2 you just take off the level mod and voila you have bounded accuracy. I'm sure that will be a popular home brew option.



Exactly! Which is why it baffles me to see a lot of people claiming it looks overly complicated.


----------



## Gryphon04 (Mar 23, 2018)

Maybe a lot of people see it as unnecessary?  I'll admit, I haven't seen the play test yet, but from what Arakasius and you Charlaquin have said, it does seem unnecessary to me.  However, I'd have to see how it interacts at high level to be sure.  Anyway, my 2 cents.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 24, 2018)

Gryphon04 said:


> Maybe a lot of people see it as unnecessary?  I'll admit, I haven't seen the play test yet, but from what Arakasius and you Charlaquin have said, it does seem unnecessary to me.  However, I'd have to see how it interacts at high level to be sure.  Anyway, my 2 cents.




Unnecessary to have a Proficiency system?


----------



## CubicsRube (Mar 24, 2018)

I personally think the explanation was vague and unclear.

If theyd said "hey guys, heres how proficiency works. You add your level and your ability mod to a check, plus your proficiency modifier (between -2 and +3) and thats it" itd be much clearer.

Then they would add after that "your proficiency level determines what you can do..." etc.

I think because the fact that the explanation for proficiency being a modifier as well as a gate on what you can do occured all was part of the same phrasing it got people confused.

I know at first i was unsure if proficiency was a modifier or determined what you could do with the skill, before i realised it was both.


----------



## Evenglare (Mar 24, 2018)

I don't think the system is too complicated, but its certainly still .. for lack of a better word... fiddly. Its a lot of small bonuses, granted it is unified but most games today are going for a more streamlined approach which.. i guess technically this is, but its not what many people think when they think about streamlining something for faster play. /shrug


----------



## CubicsRube (Mar 24, 2018)

One thing that gets me is -2 to  +3. What the heck? Why not just have 0 to +5?


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 24, 2018)

I don't think Paizo can or want to fix d20.

Look at 5e for how to truly fix d20.


----------



## Arakasius (Mar 24, 2018)

They’re both still 95% the same game. It’s just they have different flavors on what they want to do. It’s not like 5e is a perfect d20 game.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 24, 2018)

Evenglare said:


> I don't think the system is too complicated, but its certainly still .. for lack of a better word... fiddly. Its a lot of small bonuses, granted it is unified but most games today are going for a more streamlined approach which.. i guess technically this is, but its not what many people think when they think about streamlining something for faster play. /shrug



It’s more granular than 5e, yeah. It has to be. Granularity is like... Pathfinder’s Thing.


----------



## Arilyn (Mar 24, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> It’s more granular than 5e, yeah. It has to be. Granularity is like... Pathfinder’s Thing.




Yes, it fills the need for players who desire more moving parts. In some circles, 5e is considered the "kindergarten" edition of the game. While I don't agree with this assessment, it does indicate that there is definitely an audience for a more complicated version. Trying to make PF more like 5e will cause Paizo to lose their niche, which would be a foolish plan.

As for the proficiency numbers in PF, I like the spread. It means being untrained actually has some bite. You can't totally get by on your stats, which is more realistic.


----------



## Arilyn (Mar 24, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> I don't think Paizo can or want to fix d20.
> 
> Look at 5e for how to truly fix d20.




5e has its own set of problems, and has sacrificed a little too much for the sake of simplicity. Advantage/disadvantage is a great idea but overused. Sometimes you need a numerical boost or penalty. Dual fighting is ridiculously too easy and common. I think both systems have strengths and weaknesses, and there's certainly going to be room for both, even on the same player's shelf.(along with 13th Age, Star Wars, Star Trek, Fate, One Ring...)


----------



## wakedown (Mar 24, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Exactly! Which is why it baffles me to see a lot of people claiming it looks overly complicated.




I don't think it's the concept of skill bonuses which are:
* your HD
* your ability modifier (+1 to +5)
* your proficiency (-1 to +5)

But rather the understanding that doing certain things is gated by your proficiency level and then having to memorize what all those levels of proficiency enablement are.

For example, you'll need Trained (+1) in Thievery to pick a lock.  But you might need Expert in order to open a magic lock or Master in order to shut down a magic portal.  Or you may need Expert in Nature to identify a herb to use it to cure an affliction vs Master in Nature to follow tracks in compacted earth.

So it's committing to memory which "level" in Proficiency allows you to do things, vs simply having DCs to roll against which is more complicated.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 24, 2018)

wakedown said:


> I don't think it's the concept of skill bonuses which are:
> * your HD
> * your ability modifier (+1 to +5)
> * your proficiency (-1 to +5)
> ...



Ok, that makes sense to me. Thank you for that. I guess gating tasks based on Proficiency Tier does complicate things, in a different way than I was thinking about. Especially if you assume there’s a chart you’ll have to memorize or what tasks require what Proficiency Tier to attempt. My assumption had been that they would mostly leave that up to the GM’s judgment. They did mention in the Podcast that where PF1 would note in the description of a knowledge check if it required ranks in the appropriate Skill to attempt, whereas in PF2 they’re leaving that up to the GM more. So I kind of figured the same would go for all Proficiency gating. Still, I suppose that is it’s own kind of complexity. Just one that I’m more comfortable with. Thanks again!


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 24, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> I don't think Paizo can or want to fix d20.
> 
> Look at 5e for how to truly fix d20.



1) 5E didn't "fix" d20, and 2) stop trying to make Pathfinder into 5E. This isn't the forum for that either.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 24, 2018)

Arilyn said:


> 5e has its own set of problems, and has sacrificed a little too much for the sake of simplicity.



I don't disagree. 

That does not mean it didn't finally solve many of d20's endemic issues, though.


----------



## Arilyn (Mar 24, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> I don't disagree.
> 
> That does not mean it didn't finally solve many of d20's endemic issues, though.




For me, personally, it's 13th Age.


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 24, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> I don't disagree.
> 
> That does not mean it didn't finally solve many of d20's endemic issues, though.



IME, identifying what those "endemic issues" are and what constitutes "solving" tend to vary according to preferences more than anything else. Clearly, 5E "solved" those issues of d20 for you.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 24, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> That does not mean it didn't finally solve many of d20's endemic issues, though.




The new proficiency system looks like it finally solves the problem of the Barbarian knowing more about Spellcraft then the Wizard does just cause he rolled a 20.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 24, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> The new proficiency system looks like it finally solves the problem of the Barbarian knowing more about Spellcraft then the Wizard does just cause he rolled a 20.



For rpgs with "full" skill systems (including Basic RolePlay which *is* a skill system) I obviously think proficiency should be central.

But D&D is a much lighter game skills-wise. 

Any proposed system that makes it hopeless even before you rolled is a poor fit for Dungeons & Dragons, in my opinion. A character is simply not defined by his skills - but by his class and levels. That level thirteen Barbarian is first and foremost a renowned and experienced hero, and it's likely she has picked up the odd arcana tidbit!

A Barbarian could fully well know more than the Wizard when she rolls [much higher than the Wizard], I have no beef with that - not in the context of D&D.

One of the great things about 5E was how they encouraged *everybody* around the table to help out in a skill-related situation:
* The way most (if not all) skill DCs are 10, 15, and 20 is great for inclusivity 
* The way you (almost) never see one character have a skill bonus a full twenty steps higher than another character is great, since it means it is never hopeless to roll - you can always roll a 19 and the other guy a 2!


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 24, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> For rpgs with "full" skill systems (including Basic RolePlay which *is* a skill system) I obviously think proficiency should be central.
> 
> But D&D is a much lighter game skills-wise.
> 
> ...




I thought you said that 5e solved the problems of d20 and now the biggest problem with skills (which by your own admittion is even more exasperated in 5e) is somehow a feature?

I wonder what other "problems" 5e has solved away?


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 24, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I wonder what other "problems" 5e has solved away?



Everything. 5E is perfect. Pathfinder is fundamentally flawed because it is not 5e, because 5e is flawless. Name anything about Pathfinder, and 5e has solved it. If you want something different from your D&D game than the answers that 5e provides, you are wrong, because 5e is all that you need. All that you want. 5e is mother. 5e is father. 5e is eternal and everlasting. All praise to 5e! Give up all hope on Pathfinder 2, because the perfection that is 5e already exists and it is the only game you should play.


----------



## Arakasius (Mar 24, 2018)

CapnZapp your post I agree with, however PF2 does this much the same as 5e. I fully agree that having skills be trivial like PF1 or auto fails is not a good system. And at higher levels that’s what happened, the specialists can’t fail unless you make the DC so high that no one else can possibly succeed. Both 5e and PF2 address this issue by tightening the range between party members using proficiency. The one difference is the level based mod, which allows higher level characters a large advantage over low level characters. Hence in PF2 a high level barb would beat a low level wizard most likely since that level difference will be quite large. And I don’t have a problem with that since I don’t think bounded accuracy fits the PF theme/world. But if you want to play PF2 with bounded accuracy just drop the level mod.


----------



## Gryphon04 (Mar 25, 2018)

Charlaquin, in a way a proficiency system is unnecessary, since a GM and a player could decide what a player knows without a system; a simple ability check resolves everything.  D&D 1E worked just fine without them until they were introduced in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide and the Wilderness Survival Guide. However, what I was going for in this instance, was the necessity of a level system for proficiency (in anything).  If a character gains experience and levels up, what's to say his knowledge and skill doesn't?  Just base improvement on leveling and it basically amounts to the same thing.


----------



## Arakasius (Mar 25, 2018)

Because players want to customize their characters to specialize in things? Proficiency and level based solve different things, the first allows players to specialize, the second that high level characters are better than low level ones. I do think the first is more important, but I understand why they did the latter.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 25, 2018)

Gryphon04 said:


> Charlaquin, in a way a proficiency system is unnecessary, since a GM and a player could decide what a player knows without a system; a simple ability check resolves everything.



Sure, but following that logic, you don’t _need_ any rules systems. You can just roleplay free form or tell a story. There is benefit to having systems though; they assure a common language and shared set of assumptions, as well as making it easier for adults to play.



Gryphon04 said:


> D&D 1E worked just fine without them until they were introduced in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide and the Wilderness Survival Guide.



AD&D 1e? No, that game don’t have a skill system. It had separate subsystems for each of a large number of different tasks. 1d6 for finding traps. D20 and compare the result to the appropriate column on your class’s saving throw table. 2d6 modified by charisma for NPC reactions. 1d20 roll under strength to bend bars. Percentile dice for snapping chains. What a unified proficiency system does is allow you to know that no matter what task you’re attempting, you use the same system to determine the results. Unnecessary? Technically yes. Overly complex? Absolutely not, and in fact the purpose of a unified skill system is to reduce the overall complexity of task resolution rules.



Gryphon04 said:


> However, what I was going for in this instance, was the necessity of a level system for proficiency (in anything).  If a character gains experience and levels up, what's to say his knowledge and skill doesn't?  Just base improvement on leveling and it basically amounts to the same thing.



If improvement is based entirely on level, there’s no way to specialize. You can’t be the guy who’s best at training animals if every other character at the same level is just as good at it. Is it necessary for players to be able to specialize? Technically no, but it is often desirable. It adds depth to the game. And all depth comes at the cost of complexity. The question is if the depth is worth the complexity spent on it. A rule or subsystem is unnecessarily complex not because it adds complexity to the game and isn’t necessary to play, but because the depth it adds to the game could be achieved in a less complex way. I would argue that skills in PF1 are unnecessarily complex. This PF2 system on the other hand is barely more complex than 5th Edition’s, and is also more granular, which makes it very efficient in terms of its depth to complexity ratio.


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 25, 2018)

Technically, proficiency gating tasks is part of the 5E system, but it is binary and fully DM Fiat. The APs are full of checks that require proficiency in the given task, such as Arcana, to attempt or assist in a check. So,no, the Barbarian with 8 Int is not going to succeed on a an Arcana check because they can't attempt it in the first place.


----------



## Gryphon04 (Mar 26, 2018)

Actually 1E introduced Proficiencies which were technically skills.  Look at the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide and the Wilderness Survival Guide.  I also mentioned them in a previous post.  And yes, you could just do a free form role-playing without a lot of rules, but there is no need for layer after layer of complexity.  It just  creates rules bloat and bogs the game down.  You just have the skills scale with level because the character is gaining experience and leveling.  That must mean he's getting better at what he's doing, including skills.  If he wan't to specialize in a skill then give him a proficiency/skill bonus.  Now he's better at what he does than someone of the same level and ability score.


----------



## Arakasius (Mar 26, 2018)

Which is exactly what PF2 is doing, so I’m not seeing much difference here.


----------



## Gryphon04 (Mar 26, 2018)

No, not much of a difference to be sure.  In this case, I think the system Pathfinder is doing for proficiencies/skills is better than first ed.  I think it just comes down to a matter of preference for that added extra detail


----------



## MichaelSomething (Mar 28, 2018)

Isn't the point of proficiency levels to unlock access to skill feats more so then increasing the bonus to the roll?


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 28, 2018)

MichaelSomething said:


> Isn't the point of proficiency levels to unlock access to skill feats more so then increasing the bonus to the roll?




It does both, but unlocking prerequisites for skill Feats does seem to be the more significant benefit.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 28, 2018)

Gryphon04 said:


> No, not much of a difference to be sure.  In this case, I think the system Pathfinder is doing for proficiencies/skills is better than first ed.  I think it just comes down to a matter of preference for that added extra detail



And people's varying preferences for added detail are exactly why (or at least, one reason why) multiple versions of RPGs exist.  "Better/worse" isn't really relevant in evaluating RPG design, there's simply "closer to/further from my preferences".  Or, if we try to be more objective, "closer to/further from what I assume the design intent to be".


----------

