Pathfinder 2E Regarding Competence

[payn]

Skill feats are really a mixed bag. Some of them I really like, others are so situational that I don't even bother. And the worst offenders are when they "feat-lock" an action that you should be able to attempt simply because you're an expert, master or legendary skill user.

Agreed. I wish they would have done more with proficiency gating. For example, character A has a lore skill trained, but character B has that lore skill at master. Have the A character roll to recall the knowledge, but just give it to the B character at master. I'm not sure if thats ever spelled out in the GM guide or not, but it makes the most sense to me.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I was excited at first, then realized there is only 2-3 viable stat arrays that work for every character. Just ditch the A,B,C stuff and go array. Which, of course, makes stats uniform and less interesting, albeit easier for the system to manage.

I disagree. I mean, compared to 5E you can actually be fairly well-rounded because you get a good number of ASIs over time. 5E forces you to chose between an ASI and a Feat, and that's generally just bad. There's no way to improve a weakness in 5E in the same way you can in PF2.

Not really, I mean 5E bounded accuracy pretty much cleared it up. I get that Paizo couldnt go down that path, but I think its the best one as far as D20 is concerned.

Bounded Accuracy blows. It incentivizes you go with skills that match your stats, otherwise you have to wait a dozen levels to equal someone who specializes in that stat. A fighter who takes History but doesn't have good intelligence is going to pale to a Wizard who didn't touch the skill. Why have Animal Handling on a Ranger when a Paladin is going to have the Charisma to outstrip you on it?

This is the problem with small numbers, especially on a linear die roll. There's just no benefit to simply having the skill, you have to have the stats to really use it. It's why in my game I split uses into "Trained" and "Untrained", where people who have the skill are at Advantage on Untrained checks and people who don't have the skill are at Disadvantage on Trained checks.

 

[Philip Benz]

Payn, those are the kind of tweaks that a DM can provide, to reinforce his "take" on the skill proficiency system. While I agree that it would have been nice to see more of this in the RAW, at some point a DM has to take the system as it was given to him, and twist it to satisfy whatever vision he might have.

 

[payn]

I disagree. I mean, compared to 5E you can actually be fairly well-rounded because you get a good number of ASIs over time. 5E forces you to chose between an ASI and a Feat, and that's generally just bad. There's no way to improve a weakness in 5E in the same way you can in PF2.

Those ASIs just allow you to tread water in the +/lvl system. They don't let you get ahead or do anything interesting.

Bounded Accuracy blows. It incentivizes you go with skills that match your stats, otherwise you have to wait a dozen levels to equal someone who specializes in that stat. A fighter who takes History but doesn't have good intelligence is going to pale to a Wizard who didn't touch the skill. Why have Animal Handling on a Ranger when a Paladin is going to have the Charisma to outstrip you on it?

I agree, coupling skills with stats in 5E is janky, but I also think the skill system is the worst one in D&D history. The concept of BA is still the best one for D20. Also, advantage/disadvantage is too simplified and is actually not a great implementation IMO.

 

[payn]

Payn, those are the kind of tweaks that a DM can provide, to reinforce his "take" on the skill proficiency system. While I agree that it would have been nice to see more of this in the RAW, at some point a DM has to take the system as it was given to him, and twist it to satisfy whatever vision he might have.

I get that, but its still tough as a player because you rely on the system to inform you how the game is played. Otherwise, you enter oberoni territory and I dont think thats good game design.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Those ASIs just allow you to tread water in the +/lvl system. They don't let you get ahead or do anything interesting.

I dunno, I find it to be useful particularly in regards to skills and such. Allows you to fill out different stuff. Like, you can have an intelligent fighter because you have so many damn ASIs that you have to start spending them somewhere, plus you start to get diminishing returns past 18. Like, there's always good uses for tertiary stats in PF2 while in 5E if you suck at something to start with, you're going to suck at it forever.

Though really 5E would benefit from this system so much because it'd be so nice to improve your low stats, but there's just little reason to.

I agree, coupling skills with stats in 5E is janky, but I also think the skill system is the worst one in D&D history. The concept of BA is still the best one for D20. Also, advantage/disadvantage is too simplified and is actually not a great implementation IMO.

There's some level of potential in the pile of parts that is 5E's skill system. However, as it stands it really sucks. It was literally the first thing I changed when I played the game.

 

[payn]

I dunno, I find it to be useful particularly in regards to skills and such. Allows you to fill out different stuff. Like, you can have an intelligent fighter because you have so many damn ASIs that you have to start spending them somewhere, plus you start to get diminishing returns past 18. Like, there's always good uses for tertiary stats in PF2 while in 5E if you suck at something to start with, you're going to suck at it forever.

Really, it just allows you the most basic ability to do things as the +1s start flying from level. 5E skill system really is the Ronco "set it and forget" system. Its awful.

Though really 5E would benefit from this system so much because it'd be so nice to improve your low stats, but there's just little reason to.

It's certainly an opportunity because it would actually do what you think PF2 does for 5E.

There's some level of potential in the pile of parts that is 5E's skill system. However, as it stands it really sucks. It was literally the first thing I changed when I played the game.

Its true. I'd rather have PF2's skill system, but with bounded accuracy instead of +/lvl treadmill.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Really, it just allows you the most basic ability to do things as the +1s start flying from level.

To an extent, though they've done a good enough job at balancing between attributes that you have real choices and benefits even from a +1. It really helps that an Intelligence AB straight up gives you another Trained skill.

5E skill system really is the Ronco "set it and forget" system. Its awful.

It's one of those instances where simplicity absolutely destroys it.

It's certainly an opportunity because it would actually do what you think PF2 does for 5E.

Its true. I'd rather have PF2's skill system, but with bounded accuracy instead of +/lvl treadmill.

I mean, a small adjustment of the PF2 math and you can probably get closer to that.

 

[Staffan]

I think skill DCs are generally a bit too high, but that's because I like PCs to be competent. I think a baseline should be about a 2/3 chance of success, which means 8+ on the d20. Given how few skill increases non-rogues (and non-investigators) get, you shouldn't really assume that people can increase their skills. So here's what I'd base skill DCs on:

Level-based: Assume a stat of 12, trained proficiency, and no items. So your bonus will be level+3. That means that an 8+ will succeed on DC 11+level.
"But that means people with high proficiencies and high stats and bonus items will automatically succeed!" — Yes. That's a feature, not a bug. If you're a 15th level legendary crafter trying to repair a 15th level item, the question should be whether you succeed or crit, not whether you fail or succeed. Repairing a 15th level item is an interesting challenge for a 15th level character who's just Trained in Crafting.

Static DCs: Figure out at what point someone could get a particular proficiency level and calculate from there. You can also assume a bit more specialization than general level-based skill DCs, because the demands of an Expert or a Master DC should be higher than a level 3 or level 7 DC.
Trained: That's just a level 1 level-based check, so DC 12.
Expert: Minimum level 3 (barring shenanigans), and I'd assume a 14 in the stat. So DC 8 (roll) + 7 (proficiency) + 2 (stat) = 17.
Master: Minimum level 7, assume stat 16, and a +1 item bonus. So DC 8 + 13 + 3 + 1 = 25.
Legendary: Minimum level 15, assume stat 18, and a +2 item bonus. So DC 8 + 23 + 4 + 2 = 37.

Also, be very restrictive with gating actions behind higher proficiency levels than Trained. You should not need to be a Master thief to be able to disarm a high-level trap.

 

[payn]

One part I struggle with is in and out of combat skill usage. A GM can set the DC as they see fit, but those numbers are set in combat. Once you reach severe/extreme encounter level, all bets are off on your skills being of any use. It all rolls down hill tho, even your chance at a crit is nil, while its a good chance for the NPC/monster. Ranging from, easy, barely an inconvenience, to snowballs chance in hell is a bit odd for me to come to terms with. I dont want to score crits on scrubs, I want to score them on the real challenges!

So, I think im less critical of the skill system out of combat, which is really a system criticism at this point, and im letting spill into skills. Sorry about my bah humbugging these conversations really do help me understand PF2 better.