Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
I'm curious how you get a double digit bonus to a skill when it is used untrained. Unless I am missing something you only get to add your stat bonus.
It's not particularly hard to get a decent if not absurd value on an untrained skill check because bonuses are not that hard to come by. Profession is the hardest and not one I would expect people to do but oddly enough still doable especially if you are good at guessing which skill would be relevant.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When prestige conditions can ride on sensing or not sensing a given macguffin a scenario, and characters have been heavily penalized for not sensing, that would become a predominant focus.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, requires you to try to make the most meta gamey optimal choices.Yes, it is possible to end up with a table where no one has optimized perception, but that is completely ok.
And now we're back to "but the Pathfinder Society is more than just three or four skills." From an in-game perspective the Society runs into situations that require a wide variety of abilities. Out of game, you don't want to effectively punish players who want to diversify their characters by forcing them to focus solely on a "big three" or "big four" set of skills if they want to succeed. So some scenarios might require a Perception check to get the second Prestige point. Others might require Appraise. Or Linguistics. Or Knowledge: History. (Also bear in mind that the original baseline assumption is that the average PC gains 4.5 Prestige per level.)
When you're talking about progressing the plot as opposed to focusing in on Secondary Success Conditions, then yes, there does need to be a way to move forward that doesn't require "unusual" skills. It might be more difficult, or cost more, but it should be there. I love the scenarios that give the players a little bonus for having those games unusual skills. "If the players help Kinsley refine his map collection he allows them to copy the castle blueprints for half price. Pointing out these easily correctable errors requires a DC 17 Knowledge: Geography or Profession: Cartographer check (DC 21 in the high tier)."
|
It's not particularly hard to get a decent if not absurd value on an untrained skill check because bonuses are not that hard to come by. Profession is the hardest and not one I would expect people to do but oddly enough still doable especially if you are good at guessing which skill would be relevant.
The point was that technically you don't get anything but your ability modifier to untrained checks.
If you are not trained in the skill (and if the skill may be used untrained), you may still attempt the skill, but you use only the bonus (or penalty) provided by the associated ability score modifier to modify the check.
|
Nothing, absolutely nothing, requires you to try to make the most meta gamey optimal choices.
Yes, it is possible to end up with a table where no one has optimized perception, but that is completely ok.
You are part of the Pathfinder Society, an organisation whose very goals involve exploration, often into dark, dangerous places filled with interesting stuff. Investing in perception is about the least metagamey thing you can do.
Of course I also wish more people would invest at least a rank into a few knowledge skills, you might not hit the required DCs but you can at least aid.
You cannot aid if you could not make the check on a roll of 20.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's debate about what the first part of that rule means, though. "In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results," to me means that the skill itself has some additional restriction. Not just that the DC is too high. They give the example of picking a lock. Disable Device is a trained-only skill. So someone without Disable Device can't aid another, even though they can technically achieve a 10 on their result. Someone with a rank in Disable Device and a +5 to their roll should be able to aid, even if the DC is 30. They are technically capable of completing the task (with circumstance bonuses, aid another from other people, etc.), even if they can't hit the DC on their own unaided.
That's the way I usually run it. If it's a trained skill, and they are untrained, and they don't have something telling them they can make the roll untrained, then they can't aid another. If it's disabling a magical trap, and they can't disable magical traps, then even if they have a +40 to Disable Device, they can't aid another.
However, if it is a skill they can legally use to attempt the roll, even if they cannot hit the DC without help, then they can aid another, because the skill itself is not restricting them from succeeding on their own. Their skill bonus is what is keeping them from succeeding on their own.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, if it is a skill they can legally use to attempt the roll, even if they cannot hit the DC without help, then they can aid another, because the skill itself is not restricting them from succeeding on their own. Their skill bonus is what is keeping them from succeeding on their own.
And that's how I usually run it too. Doesn't mean it is correct.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing, absolutely nothing, requires you to try to make the most meta gamey optimal choices.
Besides acusations of bad play you're not contributing anything here.
If you're called a pathFINDER you should be good at spotting things.
If you routinely need to spot the bit of azlanti pottery in the kobold refuse pile, you should be good at spotting things.
And if your life depends on you seeing the thing with big sharp pointy teeth hiding next to the Azlanti pottery, you REALLY need to be good at spotting things.
Calling that metagamey is nonsense.
Saying you should branch out into the craft and professions and performs when i've shown that that won't work is ignoring the point.
|
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
It's not particularly hard to get a decent if not absurd value on an untrained skill check because bonuses are not that hard to come by. Profession is the hardest and not one I would expect people to do but oddly enough still doable especially if you are good at guessing which skill would be relevant.The point was that technically you don't get anything but your ability modifier to untrained checks.
If you are not trained in the skill (and if the skill may be used untrained), you may still attempt the skill, but you use only the bonus (or penalty) provided by the associated ability score modifier to modify the check.
Right but that is a bad distiction to make because you're rarely adding just your ability modifier. It's why I said my character has a double digits value on all craft checks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right but that is a bad distiction to make because you're rarely adding just your ability modifier.But by that rule, that is all you're supposed to add.
I think that's just an instance of them clarifying you don't add ranks or the class skill bonus. I believe that's the context in which that rule appears. Other modifiers are independent of whether or not you are trained. I would need a more direct sentence saying that you can never add any other modifiers to the roll, otherwise I don't see what's there as restricting magic items, morale bonuses from heroism, or anything else that adds a more specific bonus to the roll.
This also appears the be an instance where you are aware of the poor wording in some of these sections and don't run them according to the poor wording, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by arguing the overly literal interpretation of the poor wording. Could those statements be taken overly literally by a GM? Yes. It doesn't make that GM more correct in their interpretation than someone looking at the context of those rules.
If a rule can be interpreted two ways, and one way seems vastly overpowered or prohibitively restrictive, there's nothing wrong with using a more sane reading of the rules. It is not incorrect to do so.
|
|
I'm certain to take TOZ's advice and seek out earlier season scenarios for my PFS fixes.
On the subject of diversified skill checks though, there are 26 skills with 4 of those skills with subskills (Craft, Knowledge, Perform, and Profession). That makes a grand total of 70 total skills that a character can put points in. It is mathematically impossible for most characters (except maybe rogues) to have a point in each of these skills before 10th-level. And those additional 44 skills from Craft, Profession, Knowledge, and Perform are ones used as examples. A GM could create hundreds more. I weep for the day a PFS scenario requires a Profession (mustache waxer or nosehair trimmer) check to find out where the relic is.
If a character were to actually do this, they would be essentially worthless since they could roll any skill check and succeed at none of them.
I'm not going to waste a skill point in Perform (dance) on the exceedingly slim chance that it will come up in a PFS scenario. As I see it, the Craft, Perform, and Profession skills are only truly useful for non-bard characters for the extra money on Day Job checks, which, unless you want to spend several levels pouring points into them, are pointless since you get a small amount of money most of the time. A drop in the bucket compared to the gp award of a single scenario. I'd rather burn through PP getting 750 gp items for free.
Venture-Lieutenant, Online—PbP
|
I'm certain to take TOZ's advice and seek out earlier season scenarios for my PFS fixes.
On the subject of diversified skill checks though, there are 26 skills with 4 of those skills with subskills (Craft, Knowledge, Perform, and Profession). That makes a grand total of 70 total skills that a character can put points in. It is mathematically impossible for most characters (except maybe rogues) to have a point in each of these skills before 10th-level. And those additional 44 skills from Craft, Profession, Knowledge, and Perform are ones used as examples. A GM could create hundreds more. I weep for the day a PFS scenario requires a Profession (mustache waxer or nosehair trimmer) check to find out where the relic is.
If a character were to actually do this, they would be essentially worthless since they could roll any skill check and succeed at none of them.I'm not going to waste a skill point in Perform (dance) on the exceedingly slim chance that it will come up in a PFS scenario. As I see it, the Craft, Perform, and Profession skills are only truly useful for non-bard characters for the extra money on Day Job checks, which, unless you want to spend several levels pouring points into them, are pointless since you get a small amount of money most of the time. A drop in the bucket compared to the gp award of a single scenario. I'd rather burn through PP getting 750 gp items for free.
On occasion, one of these can be very important for a character mechanically, for example perform:dance if someone wants the Dervish Dance feat for dex to damage.
Many of my characters have one craft/profession/perform skill that is part of how I see them, and they put ranks in it to be who they are, whether it's mechanically ideal or not. As an example, my paladin of Shelyn has max ranks in perform:sing. The day job part has probably never been mechanically relevant, but she has to be able to do something artistic as part of her worship.
|
|
Agreed, Redelia. I can see someone putting a point in a skill to "round-out" their character (their interests, form of worship, etc)or qualify for a prestige class or feat. That part I do not have a problem with and encourage it in my home game.
By obscure skill check I mean a skill that most characters would not normally take unless it was a role-playing choice.
My original point was REQUIRING obscure skill checks to influence NPCs when there are three more common skills whose purpose is exactly that: to influence NPCs. Maybe instead there could be a standard Diplomacy check with a synergy bonus from ranks in Perform (dance) that apply to a particular NPC. This would reward the player whose character has such ranks without penalizing the character who didn't take a rare skill rank and, therefore, perhaps lose out on important information to the quest.
For example, a retired general NPC has information for the PCs but must be convinced that the Pathfinder Society is worthy of his help (a different example of the same situation in the OP). The GM asks if anyone has the Profession (soldier) skill to get the general to help. Since none of the PCs have ranks in the Profession (soldier) skill, the party fails and the mission fails.
Instead, the GM should allow the usual Diplomacy check but grant an additional bonus based on the results of a another roll of Profession (soldier) if a PC has it. A low roll grants a +1 bonus since it is obvious that a character has some military experience in common with the general (even if it was only a season of chasing goblins away from Sandpoint in the local militia) while a high roll grants a +5 bonus since the character has a more in-depth knowledge of the profession of soldier (perhaps a longer stint as a Non-Commissioned Officer {corporal or sergeant] or Officer).
|
|
I know some of the recent scenarios have done just that. If you have the esoteric skills, you get rewarded with lower DCs, or get a bonus to your Diplomacy check, which is at a noticeably higher DC. Rewards investment in other skills without making the normal ones useless.
It also allows other things to happen:
- PCs other than the dedicated face characters can succeed at these encounters too.
- If no face character exists in the party, which is highly possible, especially at a convention, the team can still succeed.
|
|
One concern is that you get the situation where no one has the right other skills, and now can not make the higher face skill DCs.
Yes, that is a concern. But then I'd rebut with, "why is everyone creating such narrowly focused characters that nobody can make a DC 20 or 25 Diplomacy check or have a common profession, performance or knowledge skill?"
But I do understand that if everyone at the table is a level 3 Fighter, there just aren't enough skill points, even if you have a 12 Intelligence, to go around to even think about being well rounded.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know some of the recent scenarios have done just that. If you have the esoteric skills, you get rewarded with lower DCs, or get a bonus to your Diplomacy check, which is at a noticeably higher DC. Rewards investment in other skills without making the normal ones useless.It also allows other things to happen:
- PCs other than the dedicated face characters can succeed at these encounters too.
- If no face character exists in the party, which is highly possible, especially at a convention, the team can still succeed.
I actually played in a resent scenario where we knew (from the blurb) that it was going to involve a lot of "face" skills, so we brought in a number of CHA based, skill heavy PCs. But... due to the way the judge interpreted the "Social Interaction Rules" from U.I. we failed all the skill checks. It seemed we could not make the Sense Motive checks to determine which obscure skill (Knowledge ??? which one??? vs. Profession ??? or Craft Cooking??? or what???) to try with which NPC. So we could try a guess (random shot), but if we failed to select the correct skill, we spent our chance chatting up the contact on something they had no interest in and failed to advance the cause. This led to a tremendously bad experience in a social heavy scenario. With social characters ... because "the rules" had changed without telling the players what "the new rules" were and how they worked (which the judge had actually gotten wrong - but this was not discovered until days later).
|
|
I actually played in a resent scenario where we knew (from the blurb) that it was going to involve a lot of "face" skills, so we brought in a number of CHA based, skill heavy PCs. But... due to the way the judge interpreted the "Social Interaction Rules" from U.I. we failed all the skill checks. It seemed we could not make the Sense Motive checks to determine which obscure skill (Knowledge ??? which one??? vs. Profession ??? or Craft Cooking??? or what???) to try with which NPC. So we could try a guess (random shot), but if we failed to select the correct skill, we spent our chance chatting up the contact on something they had no interest in and failed to advance the cause. This led to a tremendously bad experience in a social heavy scenario. With social characters ... because "the rules" had changed without telling the players what "the new rules" were and how they worked (which the judge had actually gotten wrong - but this was not discovered until days later).I know some of the recent scenarios have done just that. If you have the esoteric skills, you get rewarded with lower DCs, or get a bonus to your Diplomacy check, which is at a noticeably higher DC. Rewards investment in other skills without making the normal ones useless.It also allows other things to happen:
- PCs other than the dedicated face characters can succeed at these encounters too.
- If no face character exists in the party, which is highly possible, especially at a convention, the team can still succeed.
So the problem isn't a new rules sub-set that doesn't work exactly the same as everyone expects, but rather a GM that doesn't run them correctly. In some cases, this is actually because the explanation in the scenario is not written well. In others, it is because the GM did not prep well enough or are trying to run such a thing cold.
|
|
So the problem isn't a new rules sub-set that doesn't work exactly the same as everyone expects, but rather a GM that doesn't run them correctly. In some cases, this is actually because the explanation in the scenario is not written well. In others, it is because the GM did not prep well enough or are trying to run such a thing cold.I actually played in a resent scenario where we knew (from the blurb) that it was going to involve a lot of "face" skills, so we brought in a number of CHA based, skill heavy PCs. But... due to the way the judge interpreted the "Social Interaction Rules" from U.I. we failed all the skill checks. It seemed we could not make the Sense Motive checks to determine which obscure skill (Knowledge ??? which one??? vs. Profession ??? or Craft Cooking??? or what???) to try with which NPC. So we could try a guess (random shot), but if we failed to select the correct skill, we spent our chance chatting up the contact on something they had no interest in and failed to advance the cause. This led to a tremendously bad experience in a social heavy scenario. With social characters ... because "the rules" had changed without telling the players what "the new rules" were and how they worked (which the judge had actually gotten wrong - but this was not discovered until days later).I know some of the recent scenarios have done just that. If you have the esoteric skills, you get rewarded with lower DCs, or get a bonus to your Diplomacy check, which is at a noticeably higher DC. Rewards investment in other skills without making the normal ones useless.It also allows other things to happen:
- PCs other than the dedicated face characters can succeed at these encounters too.
- If no face character exists in the party, which is highly possible, especially at a convention, the team can still succeed.
and it was compounded by the fact that as a "New" rule, none of the players at the table knew enough about how the "new" rules worked to even question the way it was working. And even when we finally broke-down and did (yeah, it was that bad an experience) question it ("It can't work this way - that would mean you have to have make a really high (DC 25) Sense Motive check just to talk to someone on the street, to ask directions!") - it was explained to us that these were the "new" rules and were being introduced in this scenario. "Please make 3 skill checks in a row - the first one a Sense Motive to determine what the next skill IS, in order to advance the scenario..." "Can we just roll a Diplomacy roll here?" "No, it doesn't work that way anymore, first the Sense Motive, then the 'other skill', then either a Diplomacy or Bluff..."
|
So the problem isn't a new rules sub-set that doesn't work exactly the same as everyone expects, but rather a GM that doesn't run them correctly. In some cases, this is actually because the explanation in the scenario is not written well. In others, it is because the GM did not prep well enough or are trying to run such a thing cold.I actually played in a resent scenario where we knew (from the blurb) that it was going to involve a lot of "face" skills, so we brought in a number of CHA based, skill heavy PCs. But... due to the way the judge interpreted the "Social Interaction Rules" from U.I. we failed all the skill checks. It seemed we could not make the Sense Motive checks to determine which obscure skill (Knowledge ??? which one??? vs. Profession ??? or Craft Cooking??? or what???) to try with which NPC. So we could try a guess (random shot), but if we failed to select the correct skill, we spent our chance chatting up the contact on something they had no interest in and failed to advance the cause. This led to a tremendously bad experience in a social heavy scenario. With social characters ... because "the rules" had changed without telling the players what "the new rules" were and how they worked (which the judge had actually gotten wrong - but this was not discovered until days later).I know some of the recent scenarios have done just that. If you have the esoteric skills, you get rewarded with lower DCs, or get a bonus to your Diplomacy check, which is at a noticeably higher DC. Rewards investment in other skills without making the normal ones useless.It also allows other things to happen:
- PCs other than the dedicated face characters can succeed at these encounters too.
- If no face character exists in the party, which is highly possible, especially at a convention, the team can still succeed.
bolding mine..."A Semi-Serious Request for Adventure Writers"?
|
|
and it was compounded by the fact that as a "New" rule, none of the players at the table knew enough about how the "new" rules worked to even question the way it was working. And even when we finally broke-down and did (yeah, it was that bad an experience) question it ("It can't work this way - that would mean you have to have make a really high (DC 25) Sense Motive check just to talk to someone on the street, to ask directions!") - it was explained to us that these were the "new" rules and were being introduced in this scenario. "Please make 3 skill checks in a row - the first one a Sense Motive to determine what the next skill IS, in order to advance the scenario..." "Can we just roll a Diplomacy roll here?" "No, it doesn't work that way anymore, first the Sense Motive, then the 'other skill', then either a Diplomacy or Bluff..."
Well this is one of the issues with using a new rules subset, whether its part of a new hardcover or crafted by the author and developer together. Having a flag on the scenario will tell a GM or organizer that it has a new rules subset. That will let them know whether A) they want to even try or B) that they might need extra time to prep.
However, some GMs feel they are good enough to run cold regardless. Most are not good enough to run a standard scenario cold, let alone one of this type of complexity.
It sounds like you got trapped by either a GM that did not understand the base rules well enough to understand that running the new rules the way he understood them just didn't work or a GM who didn't spend enough time prepping and was trying to run what he understood as he read it on the spot.
Neither is a good option for a new rules subset of any type.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still bitter about an encounter about frantically grabbing macguffins, and I wasn't allowed to use Sleight of Hand. Instead, I had to perform a generic combat maneuver, even though I wasn't attacking anyone. Because I was a Dexterity-based character without Agile Maneuvers, I had virtually no chance to grab these things despite having invested many ranks in Sleight of Hand.
|
|
So the problem isn't a new rules sub-set that doesn't work exactly the same as everyone expects, but rather a GM that doesn't run them correctly. In some cases, this is actually because the explanation in the scenario is not written well. In others, it is because the GM did not prep well enough or are trying to run such a thing cold.I actually played in a resent scenario where we knew (from the blurb) that it was going to involve a lot of "face" skills, so we brought in a number of CHA based, skill heavy PCs. But... due to the way the judge interpreted the "Social Interaction Rules" from U.I. we failed all the skill checks. It seemed we could not make the Sense Motive checks to determine which obscure skill (Knowledge ??? which one??? vs. Profession ??? or Craft Cooking??? or what???) to try with which NPC. So we could try a guess (random shot), but if we failed to select the correct skill, we spent our chance chatting up the contact on something they had no interest in and failed to advance the cause. This led to a tremendously bad experience in a social heavy scenario. With social characters ... because "the rules" had changed without telling the players what "the new rules" were and how they worked (which the judge had actually gotten wrong - but this was not discovered until days later).I know some of the recent scenarios have done just that. If you have the esoteric skills, you get rewarded with lower DCs, or get a bonus to your Diplomacy check, which is at a noticeably higher DC. Rewards investment in other skills without making the normal ones useless.It also allows other things to happen:
- PCs other than the dedicated face characters can succeed at these encounters too.
- If no face character exists in the party, which is highly possible, especially at a convention, the team can still succeed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One concern is that you get the situation where no one has the right other skills, and now can not make the higher face skill DCs.Yes, that is a concern. But then I'd rebut with, "why is everyone creating such narrowly focused characters that nobody can make a DC 20 or 25 Diplomacy check or have a common profession, performance or knowledge skill?"
But I do understand that if everyone at the table is a level 3 Fighter, there just aren't enough skill points, even if you have a 12 Intelligence, to go around to even think about being well rounded.
There is no such thing as a common profession skill. Why would a barbarian have a perform skill? There are lots of knowledge skills. Why would anyone who is not a knowledge monkey put ranks into a non-class skill when they also have a small (at best) modifier? Sure you might be able to make the checks at low levels, but those are wasted skill points at 7-11.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing, absolutely nothing, requires you to try to make the most meta gamey optimal choices.
Besides acusations of bad play you're not contributing anything here.
If you're called a pathFINDER you should be good at spotting things.
If you routinely need to spot the bit of azlanti pottery in the kobold refuse pile, you should be good at spotting things.
And if your life depends on you seeing the thing with big sharp pointy teeth hiding next to the Azlanti pottery, you REALLY need to be good at spotting things.
Calling that metagamey is nonsense.
Saying you should branch out into the craft and professions and performs when i've shown that that won't work is ignoring the point.
Except you have -not- shown that it won't work. And people need to understand it is perfectly ok to not just twink out their characters as mathematically optimally as possible.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with building optimized characters, if that is the type of role play experience you want to have. However, there is also not a thing wrong with NOT optimizing, either.
The person making the accusations here is you. You are telling people that not optimizing is wrong. I'm telling people to play the character they want to play, even if it means not being optimal.
|
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
I actually played in a resent scenario where we knew (from the blurb) that it was going to involve a lot of "face" skills, so we brought in a number of CHA based, skill heavy PCs. But... due to the way the judge interpreted the "Social Interaction Rules" from U.I. we failed all the skill checks. It seemed we could not make the Sense Motive checks to determine which obscure skill (Knowledge ??? which one??? vs. Profession ??? or Craft Cooking??? or what???) to try with which NPC. So we could try a guess (random shot), but if we failed to select the correct skill, we spent our chance chatting up the contact on something they had no interest in and failed to advance the cause. This led to a tremendously bad experience in a social heavy scenario. With social characters ... because "the rules" had changed without telling the players what "the new rules" were and how they worked (which the judge had actually gotten wrong - but this was not discovered until days later).
Weirdly enough that doesn't sound like anything different prior to Ultimate Intrigue. Not saying that their isn't an issue but yeah you would be spinning your wheels whether or not Ultimate Intrigue was a thing or not.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except you have -not- shown that it won't work.
I have. I have shown that there are too many craft, perform, and profession skills to expect a random bag of mixed PFS nuts to hit a level appropriate DC in a scenario. If you're not addressing that, you're not really responding to anything i'm saying. I haven't said anything about anyone's characters.
|
|
Except you have -not- shown that it won't work.I have. I have shown that there are too many craft, perform, and profession skills to expect a random bag of mixed PFS nuts to hit a level appropriate DC in a scenario. If you're not addressing that, you're not really responding to anything i'm saying. I haven't said anything about anyone's characters.
Again, you have claimed that there is. You have not, in any way, given anything anywhere close to a show of proof.
Once again, if you want to optimize, that is fine. But don't tell people they should be expected to do so.
The expectation some people have that you deserve to get max prestige from all scenarios is not the designed intent.
As for level appropriate DCs for skill checks... there is no such thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I like diversifying and feel that you usually should be able to, but there -are- too many craft, perform and profession checks to be able to have a reasonable chance at having someone with those specific skills, especially craft and profession.
Generally, I like those best when they're an option for characters that have the skill as role playing fluff, but there needs to be some other skills that can work too, and often more than one possible craft/profession. Getting hits in your group on craft and profession skills should usually be regarded as a bonus that occasionally occurs to award people that took those skills for roleplaying purposes, and not as a necessary skill to proceed.
My oracle's second skill check ever was a check vs. one of the following:
Craft(painting); handle animal; heal; know(nature); profession(clerk, farmer, scribe, shepherd or stable master) or survival.
I felt like that was a good spread of skills that generally made sense for the task at hand, but wasn't overly restrictive. It is not unreasonable to expect someone in a group to have one or more of those skills, even if they're not individually the most common. I was also excited as my oracle is a painter, and I was not really expecting to immediately get a craft:painting check as part of an adventure, but it made sense for what she was trying to do.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sleight of Hand feels surprisingly useless. You can't use it on Day Job checks unless you buy a vanity that paints you as a thief. If someone has an object you need to take, they either don't have the object on them, the object can't be grabbed with Sleight of Hand, or the encounter is designed so combat is unavoidable. And when you encounter a situation where Sleight of Hand is useful, the scenario forces you to use a different skill.
The only time I got to use Sleight of Hand was when I needed to entertain an orc cheiftan, and one of my party members upstaged me by throwing a rock.
|
|
It comes up, but not for the types of uses being referenced here. It's the skill you use to hide things on your person. So every event that you need to sneak something into, get ready to make a sleight of hand check. I can think of at least two scenarios in season 8 where it could be very important.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It comes up, but not for the types of uses being referenced here. It's the skill you use to hide things on your person. So every event that you need to sneak something into, get ready to make a sleight of hand check. I can think of at least two scenarios in season 8 where it could be very important.
Either that or how many skill points is ones dignity worth? :)