|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Unfortunately, unless the powers that be do something to either increase skill points, or create material, such as archetypes and feats, that encourage people to take "useless" I fear that making them required, or something close, in a scenario will always feel like a gotcha situation.
The secondary skills from ultimate intrigue go a long way for that...
If its not coming up then of course people will skimp on it. There's dozens of other skills that come up more often, and you can only keep so many at a reasonable level of proficiency.
Pathfinders are true politicians then.
Ferious Thrune wrote:
The complaint seems to come across as "Knowledge (nobility) is useless, so how can they make a situation where you need to use it?" The cause and effect are reversed. Because there have not been many situations where you need Knowledge (nobility) the perception is that it is useless. This scenario (and others) should be changing that perception.
but because that's a shift in perception its problematic on its own, then it gets worse if the mechanics don't make sense, like not being able to ask who runs the place
"Who runs this place?
"Oh you mean the guy I just met?
"Sorry, without a DC 15 knowledge nobility check you have no idea who he is...
"But i just me...
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
i don't know about blackross but it was pretty much superfluous in hellknights feast. The benefits from knowing who you were talking to were so small you were much better off attempting to schmooze with diplomacy twice rather than wasting a round with a knowledge check.
How long has it been since we've seen either a knowledge nobility check or a local check you couldn't replicate with gather info from the much more useful diplomacy
Knowledge nobility is the go to skill for comparisons to something useless.
Medusa stone sculptor
- Branch out into plastic surgery by changing people to stone and altering their features.
Dragon banker: That gold's going nowhere.
Gelatinous ooze garbage man/disposal
Animated object: crane
Ice devil waitress with a lemonade stand
Fire elemental bathing attendant (free heat)
will o the whisp lamp lighter
At 1st level, a rogue gains Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat. In addition, starting at 3rd level, she can select any one type of weapon that can be used with Weapon Finesse (such as rapiers or daggers). Once this choice is made, it cannot be changed. Whenever she makes a successful melee attack with the selected weapon, she adds her Dexterity modifier instead of her Strength modifier to the damage roll. If any effect would prevent the rogue from adding her Strength modifier to the damage roll, she does not add her Dexterity modifier. The rogue can select a second weapon at 11th level and a third at 19th level.
Benefit: With a light weapon, elven curve blade, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.
Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons.
you would lose your dex to damage using a large dagger.
Amanda Plageman wrote:
Because it kind of sucks when you're doomed
1) BEFORE the dice start rolling
Also, something scenario writers don't seem to have taken into account (or they really hate people) is how the odds on multiple checks work.
If the DC is 20 and you have a +12.
Your chance of making 1 check is 65%
Test of kuar tuata comes to mind, with multiple checks at bad odds.
I'm trying to remember times in PFS where sense motive mattered and its coming in under knowledge nature.
Or it's hidden somewhere, in a dusty book even they don't know about, or sam figures it out.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
There are very few points in the game where you need to be playing a certain character because there's only one way of doing things. Scenarios mandating an oddball skill check are one of those ways.
In game of thrones magic is just coming back. No one would have been able to light a candle 40ish years ago when Luwin took the test.
Brian Raivel wrote:
The latter. They used to be illegal. Then they were fixed now they are legal.
So why don't they just change the first sentenance? and take them out instead of adding a new one on?
Because then you have someone showing up with a print book trying to use the old one that doesn't know its not legal they haveto get the new one