JiffyPopTart
Bree-Yark
Isn't the INT score supposed to reflect both the ability learn things and how much "schooling" a character has been through? Wouldn't this a count for the even start of a wizard and a fighter.A lot of it is 5E's design, yeah. Very low BA makes things more difficult because we aren't working with, say, GURPS' 3d6, where you can gain really consistent results and having more skills largely increases your consistency in the face of complications. Being a d20 game makes having very low numbers way more difficult to create skill gaps. PF2 tries to get around this with their proficiency system by making the numbers consistently go up. But their Proficiency Without Level system also does it way better because of that -2 making an instant +4 gap between someone having a skill and not. To go back to my previous examples, a Fighter with 10 Int will be equally as good trained at History as a Wizard who has no knowledge of it isn't necessarily ideal, but in this system you also have way more chances for advancement: ASIs are handed out more and you can choose to upgrade a skill to exceed someone. This makes it much better compared to 5E, where that Fighter is going to be waiting half the campaign at least to even equal the Wizard.
In other words, I feel like this system just models a military guy who read a bunch of history as part of his training versus this wizards guy who has read 10 books for every 1 the fighter has and happened to buck up bits of all the knowledge's during doing so.