RO PHB, Part 10: Proficiencies 2

Ten parts? Seriously? And I'm not done?

The System - Or Is It?

- The PHB proposes three different systems for character skills. That's right, there are optional rules for an optional rule. This shit gets recursive real quick.

- 'Using what you know' suggests using player knowledge and/or ability whenever the question of character knowledge and/or ability comes into play. Taken to the logical extreme, this is the foundation of the Dungeons & Dragons cartoon as well as Army of Darkness.

- 'Secondary skills' are broad groups of knowledge that you can choose or roll randomly (there's a lot of that). Beyond that, there's no detail as to how they work beyond DM fiat. I appreciate the effort, but if you don’t know how something's going to work, don't go to press with it. Save it for Unearthed Arcana.

- The last method is the proficiency system; you know, what the chapter is named after.

- NWPs are divided into groups based on class groups (class group groups, if you may). You can choose any NWP you like, but if it's not in the proficiency group based on your class, you have to spend an extra slot to learn it. Some of these group associations make sense: fighters pick from the warrior group, clerics from the priest group, etc. Some do not. Why do rangers have access to the wizard group? Meanwhile, why do druids get access to the warrior group? Why don't fighters, rangers, and mages get access to the rogue group? There's some crossover between groups (ancient history is in the wizard, rogue, and priest groups), but some of it doesn't make sense as to what classes have access to (jumping is a rogue group skill).

- Bards have the most availability/least restriction when it comes to proficiencies. However, they don't get any extra proficiencies, so they're tied down with thief as having the least number of slots.

- The entire proficiency system is very soft. If the three methods of proficiency weren't enough of an indication, the check mechanics for the most detailed option should be enough evidence. If the task is simple or has "limited game use" (nice definition, though it looks like crafting skills fall into this category), there's no check required. If it's difficult or subject to failure (read: whenever you use any proficiency because the DM always wants to know when/if you fail), you roll a d20 modified by the proficiency in question (with a handy-dandy table of arbitrary modifiers); if it's less than the relative ability score, you succeed. This leads to the best line in the book so far: "A roll of 20 always fails." At least it's consistent in that bonuses are good and penalties are bad.

- Okay, here's the kicker: the proficiency check modifiers don't modify the die roll, they modify the ability score. Somehow that's even more confusing. So if you're making a Navigation check, and your Intelligence is 13, it's actually an 11 for the purposes of making the skill roll. This accomplishes the same result, but leads to a counterintuitive and unfortunate implication: you are DUMBER when you use the Navigation skill.

- You can improve your NWPs by devoting more proficiency slots to them. Each additional slot gives a +1 bonus. Woohoo. Still, the option is there.

- There's no mention of untrained skill checks. Do characters automatically fail if they don't have the proficiency? Can they still try with a -2 to the target number?

- Some proficiencies require more slots than others. I don't know why and a reason isn't given, but I assume it's because certain skills are harder to learn than others. From the fact that many NWPs share the same cost, this implies a number of things: 1) Learning a new language is as easy as learning how to make shoes, tie ropes, sew, or how to swim; 2) Mining is twice as hard to learn as singing, pottery, or fire-building; 3) Not only is riding a winged horse twice as hard as riding a regular horse, but knowing how to ride one doesn't confer any familiarity with the other (though that's a problem with proficiency division).