Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

d20 Skill Progression Preference Question (Patreon)

Published:
2026-05-25 17:31:04
Imported:
2026-11
Tags:

Content

I don't have the time to WORK on the game sitting in a folder titled "Pathfiver," but it does sometimes force itself forward in my consciousness so firmly that I need to do SOMETHING to exorcise it from top-of-mind.

This time, that something is a question to a specific subset of ttRPG players.

This question is EXCLUSIVELY for those who:

A: Have Played D&D 3.0/3.5; or Pathfinder/Starfinder 1e
AND
B: Have Played D&D 4e, or D&D 5e; or Pathfinder 2e/Starfinder 2e
AND
C: Might pick up a ttRPG branching off Pathfinder 1e.

The Question: For advancing your total skill bonus as you gain levels, would you prefer a skill system based on buying ranks, or on a proficiency bonus that increases automatically as you gain level?

(This article is not covered by the OGL)

Comments

Andy Christian

I think perhaps a hybrid of the two. Where having a set number of ranks in a skill will automatically progress as you level, up to a point. Perhaps with 1 to 5 ranks you progressive by +1 level-up bonus to that skill, and 6-10, +2, 11-5, +3, etc. This allows a focus on a few skills, or for those who don't get many skill points in 3.5 & Pathfinder 1e, branch out more without feeling like the other skills are still at 1st level ability.

DragoDorn

Buying ranks. I don't like the proficiency system.

Faruko

Having played all of those games, I think buying ranks feels much better to me, though it obviously is more work compared to a proficiency based system. It makes more sense in terms of realism and having to allocate time to practice certain skills, prioritizing what is more valuable to you. I honestly don't really care for PF2e's proficiency system, because it feels too slow, and gaining skill should be gradual rather than all of a sudden becoming an expert or master.

D

Definitely buying ranks. As a system they all suffer from a hybrid ness brought about by the organic growth off games before them and as such parts of the game are automatic and parts are manual. I'd prefer less to keep track of and more agency in my character's growth. So I'm definitely in the buying ranks camp.

Brent A Strom

4* PFS 1e GM, played a limited amount of PF2e and D&D 5e. I prefer buying because of the bounded accuracy problems I've seen in 2e and 5e. The game design almost always ends up creating a situation where you never feel like you're getting better because your target rolls are virtually the same regardless of level in published content. In homebrew campaigns this is probably less of an issue since things can be tailored to the party but standardized content will almost always use consistent numbers that result in like a 1-2 point variance from a level mean on checks and it just feels terrible to me. If (for example) every check requires a 12 or higher at every character level, there's no real feeling of growth.

George I

Because they each fit the system they are a part of, I enjoy both. On the other hand, I recently tried to create a high-level wizard for 1e Pathfinder, and it was so overly complicated in comparison to 2e that I was hugely relieved when the GM finally settled on 2e. I could have played either, but I would have had to relearn 1e, and it's huge with so many niche cases that I finally understand why Paizo moved on. So what I'm saying is that each skill system works great in its overall game system, but I doubt they could be picked up and moved to the other without significant pain for both the players and GM

Chris Mortika

Ranks. I'd like my ranger to be able to improve her ability in an area as a reaction to the campaign. She gets her hands on a Ring of Flying? I'd like her to learn how to fly better. The team gets a ship, and we like the rules for ship-board adventuring, I'd like her to get better at sailing, and maybe not spend so much time studying, say, tracking. And it's more fun if your ranger in the same party can make different choices.

Samuel_Almonihah

Good question... I like the ability to sometimes break out and grab a few ranks of something to represent only dabbling in a field that ranks gives you, but I also appreciate the simplicity of not having to make a 'choice' that you rarely vary from that the proficiency option gives you. So I'm going to say that I don't have a strong preference either way. :D

Daryl

I *greatly* prefer direct allocation over so-called "proficiency" or "just add your level" systems most of the time. I read a game somewhere (I wish where) were skills (which were more freeform) were done like Ranger favored enemies -- each time you get one, you either get a new one, or boost an existing. I never did get around to playing that game, but it read really well on paper.

Ben Trieschmann

Ranks, I prefer being able to choose what my character is actually good at, not being forced to automatically upgrade skills that I thought would be useful, but are not needed for the game. Plus, 4e,5e, and Pathfinder 2e have issues with the whole bounded accuracy thing that feels like I am not actually getting better with something. Similar issue to what Oblivion had with everything leveling with you. You cant go back to an easier area to mess up some goblins because now they suddenly are equal to you. I am also a big fan a systems like d100 and Shadowrun (5th particularly) that allow character to level skills that actually matter for them as either what the character would do or what the player wants. Proficiency is nice for making an NPC quickly, but not for actually building a good well rounded character. Not to say points dont have there issues as well, but that is because skill are not created equally and to some extent shouldn't be.

Steven D Warble

I have always found buying skill ranks to be too fiddly and too prone to players making mistakes when leveling up. I greatly prefer the simplicity of a proficiency system and a rules set that doesn't automatically escalate DCs just because the PCs level up.

Nytwulf

I've grappled with this question myself as we currently have all three systems going within the same campaign world (various points in the timeline). I think they are trying to answer two very different questions. Ranks try to allow you to make characters different from other characters you've played, while proficiency allows you to be different from other characters at the table while still maintaining your expected role in the party. So it comes down to grit with the possibility of getting bogged down, or simplicity with the possibility of being cookie cutters.

Søren Thustrup

Buying ranks. I DM a Pathfinder and 2 5.5e games, and the non-weapon proficiencies really don't work that well in D&D

Benjamin Lash

I think ranks especially for something that's a 1e branch off.

Russel McConnell

Buying ranks. I deeply dislike automatic advancement of skills. I find the granularity of buying ranks works much better for the way I envision my characters advancing.

Weston Clowney

I don't generally mind the proficiency system in D&D5 or PF2, but my specific complaint with them is that it's so difficult to get new proficiencies. In 3.x, if I spent several levels playing a character and realized that they would really benefit from a new skill, it's either difficult or costly (or both) to get one. Instead of just assigning one of my four skill points when I level up, I have to wait until I can take a feat and then sacrifice whatever other things I could have gotten instead of a new skill.

Ebonbolt

I've always preferred the more granular skill point mechanic of 3e/PF1 over the progressions of 4e or 5e (& in fact prefer the 3e/3.5e version over the PF1/SF1 variant, despite the greater complexity & tendency to confuse new players).

Mufafu

Ranks (You could include those who have played MERP 😉)

Craig Stephenson

Have played all of the games (and many others since I started gaming in the late '70's) and I GREATLY prefer buying ranks as it lets the player customise the character to their desires. Particularly as this lets the player increase skills in ways they didn't envision at character generation. The problem I find with many of the proficiency bonus systems is, you end with every 5th level fighter being the same as every other 5th level fighter.

Jeremy Forbing

Proficiency bonus, but given number of people following this Patreon who clearly are more invested in PF1 than 5E, I expect to be a minority. I'd wager a poll of a larger pool of people who have played both would likely go differently. Personally, I just think assigning skill ranks takes way too long, especially for higher level PCs.

Ninja Master

Also prefer ranks, especially the pf1e version 3.5's nonclass Penalty is too harsh. Personally I would Like a system a fixed number of points for class skills and "free" points based in int

Kaira Silvermist

PF1e has my favourite skill system when it comes to traditional D20 type systems, where you're given so many points per level and get to allocate them, with a starting bonus based on your class. I really don't like the idea of knowing how to learn to look faster like in 3.0/3.5 just because I'm a rogue or something. Like why do some classes get to buy full ranks in Spot/Search/Listen, and others dont? far better to the initial +3 bonus and letting you use it untrained for certain skills if it is a class skill, and you're capable of learnign to improve over time no matter the class. Sure, the goblin over there with abnormally large ears who has specced into Inquisitor may be better at hearing things from a long distance, but there's no reason that the dwarven barbarian wearing a barge's worth of cooking gear as makeshift armour can't learn to listen up as well.

Charles Markley

Buying ranks, without a doubt. Proficiency/Expertise is great for what I feel in previous versions were 'class skills', but once locked in, there is no expansion or learning of new skillsets. I feel like my character can grow and learn, rather only getting better in the same skills, with my allocation/buying of ranks.

Shaqer

Ranks, proficiency takes away fun of building hero. Nothing less exiting than getting new proficiency bonus on new level... and that's it...

Fabio

Definitely buying ranks. I get that it's more paperwork, and that optimizing the system will inherently lead to maximizing ranks (virtually identical to an automatically increasing bonus), but it gives me a greater sense of investment in a character and their abilities, plus there's the contrasting appeals of specializing v generalizing for RP purposes

Zietieflr

That's how I feel about building characters. I get bored with 5e. Love agonizing over Pf1e. Move quickly through Pf2e. For getting a character on the table Pf2e is my balance, and better for my table. I appreciate if I need to make a weird call, all the math is working on the same system. The math is a little to balanced, sometimes missing out on fun.

Kristi Xaster

Buying ranks, no question. Getting good at core class abilities automatically is good, doesn't detract from the fun, and important (e.g., the ranger's Track feature) but customization is king.

Steven Butterworth

I prefer skill points and buying ranks, but that actually seems counter to the broad design choices of Pathfinder and its cousin RPGs. I've always thought it would be interesting to rebuild the classes as templates of choices within a skill-based system, possibly with point costs varying with archetype selection. If your archetype is magic-user, you can buy ranks in combat, but they are more expensive, and, if you stay within your class template, you acquire combat proficiency at a rate that reflects an appropriate rate of skill-point spending in that area (averaged over 3 or 4 levels). Do you have a document somewhere that explains your abiding passion for Pathfinder 1 and why moving to Pathfinder 2 does not appeal to you?

Joe

Ranks, but default allocations would be ideal for some of my players

Owen K.C. Stephens

Yeah, it feels like this is the clear winner conceptually. Making it work might be tricky, but if done right it would make the widest segment of THIS game's audience happy.

Owen K.C. Stephens

I DO have a very PF1-loving-heavy audience, and am well aware of it. I'm even curating it as best I can!

Owen K.C. Stephens

Yeah, MERP and all editions of Rolemaster definitely have ranks systems. That said, the fat that pretty much EVERYTHING is ranks in those systems, including spells and combat skills, makes the system both even more flexible, and a heavier cognitive load. OTOH, I have had some GREAT characters in both systems...

Owen K.C. Stephens

So, I ADORE PF2. And 5e. And Fantasy AGE, and Mutants $ Masterminds, and Starfinder (both editions), and Dread, and Our Best Last Hope, and 1st ed AD&D, and four RADICALLY different Star Wars RPGs... Tons of games. But, I'm not willing to STOP playing PF1 just because I love other games too. It is SUCH a well-developed system, and I have been involved in its core engine since being a 3.0 playtester in 1999. It's a SOLID engine, and I am a SKILLED and veteran driver and mechanic for that game engine. So, I'm Still Not Done... even if I am also playing other things. :)

JOHN WRIGHT

I could see having class skills that use a proficiency. Then permit the purchase of all others. I think some skills really go with a class and I prefer "systems" to everything being custom.

forrest McDonald

Played a small amount of PF1, a moderate amount of 3.0/3.5, a (metric) butt-ton of 4E, just as much 5E, and a good amount of PF2E. I would prefer a system allowing players to assign skill ranks to their characters; this customized the progress path and provide interesting choices for the PC. In a perfect world, the skill system would consider the following: 1. Skill ranks should be assigned to skills that were actively used 2. Skill rank costs and power should be proportional (so moving from 3rd "rank" to 4th "rank" would be costlier than moving from 1st to 2nd.)