Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7739341" data-attributes="member: 6779196">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.  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.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.</blockquote>

Verification