Reshuffling skills, including rationales ...


Playtest Reports

Liberty's Edge

Comments very welcome. These are changes we're making and playtesting. Reports to follow later.

PERCEPTION
Pathfinder -- Combined Spot, Listen, and Search into Perception. Also added other senses (taste, touch, smell).
Problem -- It's just too much for one skill. Who *won't* max it out if they can?
Change -- This one is complicated to explain, but actually pretty simple in execution. We just thought about how perception works, conceptually, and there are two facets of it: active and passive. "Active" is actually *trying* to find or perceive something. It's based on how well you put clues together and quickly make sound deductions. "Passive" is more intuitive, and based on just noticing things in the normal course of activity.

Accordingly, what we've done is re-divide what Pathfinder calls Perception into two skills: "Observe," which is INT-based, and represents actively looking for something, whether it be traps, a weird taste or smell, a clue at a crime scene, or tell-tale signs that someone might be being deceptive or evasive; and "Notice," which is WIS-based and covers all of the same things.

In general, Notice DCs will be slightly higher than the same Observe DCs -- probably around +5 -- but to balance that out, Notice is always a free action or even no action at all. Observe, on the other hand, will generally take at least a move action, and using Observe will generally be noticeable by people paying attention to you. (Which might be a little problematic, for instance, when using Observe to judge if someone's being weaselly.)

Classes with Observe as a class skill are bard, ranger, rogue, and wizard. (And, relevant to our games, artificer.) Classes with Notice as a class skill are barbarian, druid, monk, ranger, rogue, bard, paladin, and monk.) Races with bonuses get them to both skills.

Just one cool example of how this would work in practice: if a rogue with, say, +15 in Notice is moving down a corridor containing a pit trap (DC 20), that rogue would (assuming Take 10) automatically perceive the trap. By contrast, to find the same pit with Observe, the rogue would only need a +10, but it takes time and the attempt to find it is noticeable if anybody's paying attention.

APPRAISE
Pathfinder -- Pretty much left Appraise as is.
Problem -- It's a lame-ass skill.
Change -- Folded Appraise into Observe.

LINGUISTICS
Pathfinder -- Combined Forgery, Decipher Script, and Speak Language into Linguistics.
Problem -- We don't like the inclusion of Speak Language into the skill, and think it works fine as is. Speak Language is useful enough to be worth 1 or 2 skill points.
Change -- Speak Language works the same as in 3.5.

DISABLE DEVICE
Pathfinder -- Combined Open Lock and Disable Device into one DEX-based skill.
Problem -- We don't like the skill being DEX-based. We kinda like the conceptual difference between a cat-burglar and a safe-cracker, though of course nothing stops a rogue from being both!
Change -- Disable Device is INT-based. (Sorry, high-DEX rogues! You can use your extra Pathfinder feat(s) to take the Tactile Trapsmith feat ... )

RIDE and HANDLE ANIMAL
Pathfinder -- Made no change to these skills.
Problem -- The skills aren't useful enough to stand alone. After all, Ride is just a specialized form of Handle Animal.
Change -- Fold Ride into Handle Animal (CHA-based). The only classes that don't have Handle Animal are bard, cleric, rogue, sorcerer, and wizard.


I put Appraise into Craft for "tools" like weapon and armor, or Spellcraft for magic items.


Splitting sensing into active and passive components is a very interesting idea.

I'd leave the active one Perception and call the passive one Intuition.

The only problem I see with a passive sense skill is that having to ask players to make passive skill checks might make difficult for the GM to prevent some players from meta-gaming. Once the characters with the passive sense skill are asked to make a roll, some players with active sense skills might suddenly get an urge to look around for something.

Of course, this is somewhat mitigated by having all the players roll dice occasionally for absolutely no reason. Asking everyone to roll a d20 and adding an evil chuckle when they all tell me their scores is one of my favorite things to do when I'm running a game.

Your example seems a bit off though. How does the rogue 'Take 10' on a passive skill? Can an elf 'Take 10' when passing a concealed or secret door?

Oh, and if their intent is to actively sense without being noticed then maybe a Bluff check and a Perception check are in order?

Cheers

Liberty's Edge

Honorable Rogue wrote:
I'd leave the active one Perception and call the passive one Intuition.

We actually considered exactly those names. Eventually, we went with Observe and Notice for three reasons: (1) Avoids confusion with Perception as it currently exists. (2) Allows "perception roll" to be used as a generic term for either. (3) We think the names we went went are both simpler and more descriptive of what's actually happening.

Honorable Rogue wrote:
The only problem I see [is] meta-gaming.

True, but already an issue if the DM allows it to be.

Honorable Rogue wrote:
Your example seems a bit off though. How does the rogue 'Take 10' on a passive skill? Can an elf 'Take 10' when passing a concealed or secret door?

Why not? In our games, we actually assume any passive use (like an elf's) is a Take 10, unless the player says otherwise. Pathfinder itself has at least one passive use of Perception being an assumed Take 10, in the Disguise skill.

Honorable Rogue wrote:
Oh, and if their intent is to actively sense without being noticed then maybe a Bluff check and a Perception check are in order?

I think that's pretty reasonable, but I'd let the DM decide that, personally, on a case by case basis. I wouldn't use it myself, if only because (1) Observe and Bluff are both already useful enough, and (2) I want to avoid any possibility of a recursive crash of my players' brains! ("I Observe him to see if he's Bluffing to Observe me to tell if I'm Bluffing to Observe him to see if he's Bluffing to Observe me ... ")

Regarding the use of Appraise to identify magic items someone else mentioned above, you are of course correct. In our games, we make use of the artificer's Monocle from Magic Item Compendium, which is a pretty cheap item, so I was completely discounting that use of the skill. Even without the existence of an artificer's monocle, though, I still don't think Appraise is valuable enough to be its own skill ... at least, not in a default game.


Perception :

I don't see the exact problem with Perception !!!

For passive checks, only the highest will really count so the fact that the fighter put some ranks in this skill won't matter, and for active checks, that means that he will be able to do something instead of just sitting nearly waiting for an opportunity to cut some critter.

More over, the new rule allow a fighter to now have a chance to spot some low level sneaky rogues while past level 5, he couldn't have a decent chance to do it, making him more and more "blind" as he gained levels.

Appraise :
I don't see the relation between Appraise and observation ... Either keep it or put it in craft and spellcraft (I'd prefer to keep it personnaly)

Linguistics :
I agree with Jeff, Speak Language should be a separate skill.

Disable Device :
I would like to insist on this : Rogues must have an Intelligence-based skill, or they might turn in SAD class. DD must use Int !!!

Ride and Handle Animal :
I don't have an opinion on these ones.


I agree with Black Lotus on most of these. Appraise IS a useful skill if it is used by the DM. I think it would be fine to keep it as a separate skill. If I have ranks in appraise, fine. If not, I can still appraise things if I have the relevant Profession (which I still use), or Craft skills for the item in question. Maybe give the guy who spends points on appraise an extra benefit when using it to show he's better at the skill. We don't want to slim down to 4E on skills. Variety is nice still.

In my game we are using Spot and Search. Spot is for passive things and is WIS based. Search is active and INT based. It works just fine.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Jeff Wilder wrote:

Comments very welcome. These are changes we're making and playtesting. Reports to follow later.

PERCEPTION
Pathfinder -- Combined Spot, Listen, and Search into Perception. Also added other senses (taste, touch, smell).
Problem -- It's just too much for one skill. Who *won't* max it out if they can?
Change -- This one is complicated to explain, but actually pretty simple in execution...

Jeff, let me first say that, personally, I agree with all of your changes, especially to Perception.

Now, given that, let me play Devil's advocate for a minute and argue that if you're already house-ruling, you're not actually playtesting the Pathfinder Beta. Think about it for a second. We've all got tons of ideas. Jason isn't looking for more new ideas at this point. He's looking for feedback on his ideas. If you want to get Perception split into Active and Passive (a noble goal), mightn't it be more fruitful to play it as written and if it sucks, report that it sucks. I think Jason is going to heed negative reports about the rules-as-written much more than one more guy pushing his personal view of the universe and another set of house rules.

Again, sorry if I come off as negative, because I like your ideas and posted very similar ones back in the Alphas. I just worry that we as a community are all over the place and thus dilute our voice. I say, play the Beta rules as written for six months or so, find all the problems, report them faithfully, THEN start proposing fixes (like getting Search/Observe the hell out of Perception!).

Liberty's Edge

Mosaic wrote:
Now, given that, let me play Devil's advocate for a minute and argue that if you're already house-ruling, you're not actually playtesting the Pathfinder Beta.

I think you're right (obviously) to some extent, so what it comes down to is this: do I want to suffer through things that I know I will end up changing, even if Jason doesn't? I know that Climb and Swim are not valuable enough to stand on their own. (Seriously, Acrobatics gets Tumble, Balance, and Jump, and Climb and Swim are supposed to have anywhere near the same utility? By themselves?)

While I'm not sure that all of my changes work yet (among other things, I'm worried that skill points might stretch too far for high-skill characters under my changes), I do know that the stuff that I listed I'll end up changing eventually in some way. The idea that someone always needs to playtest rules to know when they're weak ... well, it's incorrect. I know that a member of Paizo's staff posted his opinion to the contrary, but, well, he's wrong. He can tell us "thought-testing" will be ignored (and be correct), but he can't tell us it isn't valid (and be correct).

It's true that I'm not strictly playtesting Pathfinder Beta. I consider that I still am, in that I know some of the RAW don't work for me or my game, and I'm just preemptively trying to find things that do. Just pretend I've playtested Appraise, Perception, and so forth for a few sessions, and they didn't work. Rather than stick with them, I'm changing things up.

I think one of the things Jason needs to be clear on, once the playtest gets to that section, is how he's evaluating skills. Is it "realism," "utility," "game balance," or "appropriate to genre"? Where do each of those fall in relative weight? Right now in Pathfinder RAW, there's a very clear schizophrenia going on in that regard. Perception and Acrobatics are off-the-charts in utility; Climb and Swim are useless by comparison. Appraise is a weak skill for the genre, even if you argue that its utility has been bumped enough. Concentration into Spellcraft would make perfect sense, except in game-balance, since only wizards are likely to have a high INT. And so on.

If Pathfinder does nothing else for me, it's released me from my self-imposed freeze on all but the most minimal house-ruling. For the past few years, I've fallen on the "don't change, for uniformity's sake" side of the "should I house-rule this" argument. That's changed. My other DM and I are willing to take what we like from Pathfinder and ruthlessly change what we don't. (Within approximately the same limits of backward-compatibility we're seeing in Pathfinder.)

BTW, I didn't find your comments negative in the slightest. (How can I, when you agree with me?!) I agree with you that I'm not playing Pathfinder RAW ... my question then becomes, "Should I thus not bother to post my playtest experiences here?"

-- Jeff

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Rock on dude. I do a lot of house ruling myself as well, but I'm still hoping to influence this process a little more. We'll hit him from all sides!

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Playtest Reports / Reshuffling skills, including rationales ... All Messageboards
Recent threads in Playtest Reports
Rangers