| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, this conversation is really highlighting how subjective these categories are. I think Fuzzy's alternatives make sense, but a lot of them go against what I find intuitive.
Thievery being Disable Device + Open Locks + Sleight of Hand is bad on a couple levels. There's the obvious, where Sleight has nothing in common with the other two in how it's used
I've seen several people claim that these skills have nothing in common and shouldn't be lumped together. I disagree. All 3 skills require manual dexterity/good motor skills (ofttimes fine manipulation of small items), good hand-eye coordination, a fine touch, takes hours of manual practice to get just right and finetuned observation skills (listening, attention to visual detail/subtle nuances, touch, even smell). Anyone training/being good at either of those 3 skills will be quite adept at doing the other two/quickly picking them up.
|
If it's not the defense then that is at least a plus. But it still leaves you with the primary movement skill also being the skill that is used to execute most of the tricks that give you advantage in combat.
I guarantee that Bull Rush, Trip and all the rest will come up a LOT more frequently in PF2 than in PF1 now that you don't need a ton of feat taxes, don't provoke for using them and so on. Especially if the defense actually is 10 + Reflex, rather than the stupid thing Starfinder did in making them AC +8. And that's good, that's great actually, they really needed to be cleaned up. But it also means combining them into Athletics rather than making them their own skill or proficiency makes Athletics way too good.
There's also Acrobatics, for both movement and combat. And Combat Maneuvers are a valid strategy and nice enough, but so is actually doing damage and that requires no skill at all.
But frankly, if it weren't for the maneuvers I'd be surprised if anyone ever got more than Trained in Athletics, just like nobody ever got more than a rank each in Swim and Climb in PF1. Being 'the movement skill' in the way Athletics is, has serious issues with long term viability in a game where flight kicks in as early as 5th level.
I only play every two weeks, and I still see Escape Artist come up every single month. It came up frequently before I started GMing, as well. There are a ton of monsters with grab, there are a lot of entangling effects, and at least in my games there tend to be a lot of opportunities to do stuff like squeeze through a gap to get around an obstacle - especially now that we're doing Starfinder and ventilation ducts are a thing.
With the exception of squeezing (which comes up much less often in Pathfinder than Starfinder, IMO), there are ways to do all of that without Escape Artist. Ways that don't require the investment of resources, which is why it's a seldom taken skill in PF1. I suspect that remains true in PF2.
I mean, if slipping free of a grapple or entangling effect is normally a Reflex Save then an Escape Artist trapping may give, say, a Rogue no benefit at all (or a +1 or so at best). It's better for a lower Reflex Save character, but only to the tune of +3 at most. That's a good bonus, but hardly a controlling one.
To me, it feels a lot more natural combined with Sleight of Hand. Both skills are body control, but in a different way than the raw "agility in motion" represented by Acrobatics. Both tend to be practiced together in the real world. It gives Sleight the boost to stand on its own separate from the mechanical / saboteur aptitude of Disable. And, as a positive to me, it weakens Acrobatics into still a very good skill, especially if Acrobatics can still be used to avoid "triggered reaction attacks" like it avoided "opportunity attacks" in previous editions, especially especially if Acrobatics also gets Ride for some reason.
I'd be fine with Escape Artist as part of Thievery instead of Acrobatics. I think it's even possible that's true, given that we have no definitive data one way or the other.
That's fair. Even if aberrations (/and oozes? never understood why they weren't just aberrations themselves) move to Occultism though, Nature still ends up far better than Arcana, Religion and Occultism, since it's much more broadly applicable - especially with respect to identifying more of the game's creatures. And that's even without dragging Handle Animal into it.
Not really. Nature gets you Fey, Plants, and Animals, but per Mark Seifter Religion gets you Outsiders now as well as Undead. We don't know if Monstrous Humanoids are even a thing, and the other skills may well do all sorts of cool and useful stuff.
Nature's looking good right now, but we don't really know enough about the others to make any definitive statements.
I still feel Handle + Ride thematically make a quite nice skill on their own, and don't need to be folded up with other skills. Not everyone will take it, but not everyone should feel the need to take every skill. Those who take it, will benefit greatly by it.
I don't actually disagree that this would be a fine skill. But they don't appear to be going this route and wrapping it into other skills is also reasonable enough.
I feel that such an immensely broad "profession" as "thievery" being boiled down to only two skills, three with Athletics, is a bug rather than a feature. It cheapens things past a point that I'm comfortable with. It also curtails character definition opportunities like someone being good with devices without somehow also being good at picking pockets, or being good at the skulduggery of court intrigue without also somehow being good at taking apart machines.
Uh...court intrigue isn't part of Thievery, at all. And most other professions are one skill, two at most, as well. I mean, a professional diplomat is Diplomacy and Deception and maybe Intimidation. A blacksmith is just Crafting. Being good at every possible kind of art is just Performance and Crafting. A woodsman is Nature, Survival, and maybe Stealth.
Two skills and maybe a third are standard for a 'profession archetype' kinda thing.
Other people already answered most of what I meant to say about which skills should be split back out, but I’ll add that I’d actually like to see Perception not only be restored to skill status, but split back into Spot and Listen (and even have provision for the other senses).
|
|
Ah, I did not realise they confirmed the Outsider type is in, I thought they were breaking it up (Celestial, Fiend).
Technically Mark Seifter just said Religion would cover a Devil. That definitely makes it cover Fiends and Celestials at least. I also mostly wouldn't expect the number of creature types to go up, personally.
So something like-
Arcana: Construct, Dragon, Elemental.
Nature: Animal, Fey, Plant.
Religion: Outsider, Undead.
If they split of Elemental from Outsider (a big 'if') I have no idea where it would end up.
How I'd actually expect things to go is as follows:
Arcana: Dragons, Magical Beasts,
Nature: Animals, Fey, Plants,
Occultism: Aberrations, Constructs, Oozes,
Religion: Outsiders, Undead,
Society: Humanoids,
No Longer Existing: Vermin (folded into Animals). Monstrous Humanoids (folded into Humanoids). Both are really arbitrary distinctions that add little to the game, IMO. They might redefine Monstrous Humanoids as those with innate magic of a powerful sort and fit them under Arcana, I suppose.
I could also see constructs as part of Arcana, but they seem rather appropriately Occult, so we'll have to see.
What about Aberration (Occultism?) and Giant?
Giant isn't a creature type in either PF1. It's a subtype of Humanoid. PF2 doesn't seem to make such distinctions, but still lists an Ogre as Humanoid as well as Giant.
But yeah, I expect Aberrations to fall under Occultism, as noted above.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This all makes sense, though I have a feeling they dropped Outsider for Celestial and Fiend.
They'd need at least 5 more types than that (Proteans, Inevitables, Psychopomps, Elementals, and 'true Outsiders' like the Cthulhu Mythos Creatures from other planes), which is sorta why I bet they aren't doing that. Outsider is too useful a blanket term to ditch.
Have Magical Beasts been confirmed?
Nope. But I'd be surprised if they were gone. There's a very real distinction there.
The only Types we've actually had confirmed are Humanoid, Fey, and Undead (though Animal is pretty much for sure as well).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think they could cover it with Celestial, Fiend, Elemental, and Titan or something for Proteans and Cthulhu types, and Inevitables are constructs (which will now most likely have a Con score).
That's still at least 4 types, which seems excessive, and still leaves out Axiomites and several other creatures. I could see it getting split into Outsider for those associated with the Outer Planes and Primordial for Elementals and others associated with the elemental planes, but I'd be shocked if it got split into more than two types.
Outsider is a bit of a weird term, especially to beginners, does this have anything to with that novella they made into a film by Coppola with C Thomas Howell, Ralph Machio, Tom Cruise, Rob Lowe, Matt Dillon, Emelio Esteves, and Patrick Swayze?
As for Magical Beast, they might rename that category, we'll see.
A renaming, however, is possible. Personally I don't think it's worth it given the degree to which it damages backwards compatibility in terms of understanding references and the like, but it's possible.
^I’m not the one you’re asking the question of, but I want finer granularity of skill types, and more skill ranks/proficiencies per level to match, for better customizability of characters without enforcing excessive specialization.
What specific skills do you want back though? The common example I see people complain about are strength and climb being lumped together, which is weird to me because A) these two WOULD actually scale directly as your sheer Athleticism and physical endurance rises, and B) in PF1 most people only bothered to put a rank or two in each anyway because they didn't come up often, especially as magic kicks in more. (Which meant more often than not most of the PF1 scaling was from strength increasing from belts, not training to be better at swimming or climbing.)
Personally, I'm a little sad to see linguistics go myself for how it could be use to piece together coded or half-destroyed writing. But I don't know if/how this will be folded into other skills yet, and I'll admit Linguistics ranks giving you new languages on a one to one basis was borked.
I don't think I'll miss Appraise-- I recall exactly one time I thought an Appraise check was neat in examining the quality of a tool left at a crime scene. And Craft will work just as well there. Otherwise, I skip Appraise checks on loot 3/4 times anyway.
In terms of skills I can see missing the granularity... I could see wanting a guy who is knowledgeable about the Planes without being an expert in Religion, even though most of the planes have religious affiliations. Although the one time I built a plane expert it was inherently tied to the guiding religious philosophy of the homebrew.
And that seems to be it for me. I've never built a character who was good at riding that I actually wanted to be bad at handling animals. (I suppose being good at Handling Animals doesn't HAVE to go hand in hand with knowing a lot about nature, but I have found that it often does.)
I've never built a...
You can’t see someone being a used car salesman but not good at pretending to be someone they aren’t?
It’s a problem that shouldn’t be added.It's not being added, since it already existed (at least in regard to swimming). It might be getting worse, but we aren't even sure of that yet, though I admit it's likely.
I don’t see why everyone being good at everything with some peo0e just being excellent is a good thing.It depends on what sort of world you envision and what sort of protagonists.
Protagonists who are at least marginally competent in most areas are actually fairly common in fiction. Conan in the original stories, or most other pulp fantasy protagonists, for example. As are many protagonists of myths or sagas.
Emulating that sort of fiction is a perfectly reasonable thing for a game to do. So is emulating something more realistic, but D&D and then Pathfinder have never been good at gritty realism.
So are ones who aren’t.
|
|
So are ones who aren’t.
Sure. But you couldn't create someone actually broadly competent in most fields for their level in PF1 at all. It was impossible.
Trading not being able to create one popular archetype for not being able to create another, while simultaneously making the game work better on a mechanical level is a net win.
And that assumes that the restrictions on untrained skills don't mostly fix this particular problem. Which I still hold out hope will be the case. That'd allow both broadly competent people as well as those legitimately bad in some areas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can’t see someone being a used car salesman but not good at pretending to be someone they aren’t?
You mean, a used car salesman who doesn't pretend to be somebody who has a family whose dinner tonight depends on you specifically buying a car before you leave? That sounds like Diplomacy or the Practice a Trade function of either Automotive Sales Lore or Merchant Lore.
|
No Longer Existing: Vermin (folded into Animals). Monstrous Humanoids (folded into Humanoids). Both are really arbitrary distinctions that add little to the game, IMO.
While I'd be more than happy to chuck the Vermin type Monstrous Humanoid is too varied to give up I believe when compared to Humanoid, since we have things like the Lamia and Girtabillu just to name two, monstrous and possessing innate spells.
Hmmm, though Merfolk is Humanoid so just having a non-humanoid lower half doesn't exclude that...
|
|
No Longer Existing: Vermin (folded into Animals). Monstrous Humanoids (folded into Humanoids). Both are really arbitrary distinctions that add little to the game, IMO.While I'd be more than happy to chuck the Vermin type Monstrous Humanoid is too varied to give up I believe when compared to Humanoid, since we have things like the Lamia and Girtabillu just to name two, monstrous and possessing innate spells.
Hmmm, though Merfolk is Humanoid so just having a non-humanoid lower half doesn't exclude that...
Actually I could see the reason keeping it: Subtypes.
Being from the mechanics side, you can't get a sword of Humanoid Slaying, you have to get a sword of Human Slaying, whereas you can get a sword of Monster/Monstrous Humanoid Slaying.
Having to key every single magical item/effect to a specific creature would be quite frustrating and fiddly I presume.
Though that would raise the option of having something like Humanoid (Monstrous).
No Longer Existing: Vermin (folded into Animals). Monstrous Humanoids (folded into Humanoids). Both are really arbitrary distinctions that add little to the game, IMO.While I'd be more than happy to chuck the Vermin type Monstrous Humanoid is too varied to give up I believe when compared to Humanoid, since we have things like the Lamia and Girtabillu just to name two, monstrous and possessing innate spells.
Hmmm, though Merfolk is Humanoid so just having a non-humanoid lower half doesn't exclude that...
Actually I could see the reason keeping it: Subtypes.
Being from the mechanics side, you can't get a sword of Humanoid Slaying, you have to get a sword of Human Slaying, whereas you can get a sword of Monster/Monstrous Humanoid Slaying.
Having to key every single magical item/effect to a specific creature would be quite frustrating and fiddly I presume.
Though that would raise the option of having something like Humanoid (Monstrous).
Well, they’re using traits instead of type/subtype now, I believe.
|
|
Well, they’re using traits instead of type/subtype now, I believe.No Longer Existing: Vermin (folded into Animals). Monstrous Humanoids (folded into Humanoids). Both are really arbitrary distinctions that add little to the game, IMO.While I'd be more than happy to chuck the Vermin type Monstrous Humanoid is too varied to give up I believe when compared to Humanoid, since we have things like the Lamia and Girtabillu just to name two, monstrous and possessing innate spells.
Hmmm, though Merfolk is Humanoid so just having a non-humanoid lower half doesn't exclude that...
Actually I could see the reason keeping it: Subtypes.
Being from the mechanics side, you can't get a sword of Humanoid Slaying, you have to get a sword of Human Slaying, whereas you can get a sword of Monster/Monstrous Humanoid Slaying.
Having to key every single magical item/effect to a specific creature would be quite frustrating and fiddly I presume.
Though that would raise the option of having something like Humanoid (Monstrous).
I knew they were using that for alignment and size, but I wonder how they'll refer to the type of creature, hopefully not "it's a monster with the Humanoid and Monstrous Traits/Outsider with the Devil trait".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lore (Rope) is OP, nerf now!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also a bit concerned about how much the granularity was reduced, though I could see skill feats being used to make characters that are specialists in some sub-use of a skill and I expect that Lore will also be useful in developing interesting specialist training. Having a character with a specialty skill makes them feel special to me.
I've definitely played engineer types that are decent at Disable Device but would never attempt a Sleight of Hand check. I could just decide not to roll that skill, but I find that in situations when there is a clear benefit to using a mechanical ability it can be hard to stick to self-imposed roleplaying restrictions - especially if you get the impression you'd be letting other players down by not using the skill that you're absolutely trained in. So I'm not sure that "just roleplay it" is an easy answer.
I'm also going to miss Sense Motive as it's a fun skill to specialize in and definitely distinct from Perception as I play it - I've had two characters with high Sense Motive and minimal Perception, and one character with very high Perception but only a rank in Sense Motive.
I agree with Fuzzy that it makes sense to consider Sense Motive and Perception skills. Even if everyone is automatically trained in order to provide a defense against Deception and Stealth, having skill feats to invest in these areas would allow you to play someone who was exceptionally observant.
I do like the rolling of UMD (and Spellcraft?) into skills about different types of magic. I don't think I'd miss Knowledge Planes if its functions were somehow shared between Religion and Occultism, and maybe Arcana.
I'm also a bit concerned about how much the granularity was reduced, though I could see skill feats being used to make characters that are specialists in some sub-use of a skill and I expect that Lore will also be useful in developing interesting specialist training. Having a character with a specialty skill makes them feel special to me.
I've definitely played engineer types that are decent at Disable Device but would never attempt a Sleight of Hand check. I could just decide not to roll that skill, but I find that in situations when there is a clear benefit to using a mechanical ability it can be hard to stick to self-imposed roleplaying restrictions - especially if you get the impression you'd be letting other players down by not using the skill that you're absolutely trained in. So I'm not sure that "just roleplay it" is an easy answer.
I'm also going to miss Sense Motive as it's a fun skill to specialize in and definitely distinct from Perception as I play it - I've had two characters with high Sense Motive and minimal Perception, and one character with very high Perception but only a rank in Sense Motive.
I agree with Fuzzy that it makes sense to consider Sense Motive and Perception skills. Even if everyone is automatically trained in order to provide a defense against Deception and Stealth, having skill feats to invest in these areas would allow you to play someone who was exceptionally observant.
I do like the rolling of UMD (and Spellcraft?) into skills about different types of magic. I don't think I'd miss Knowledge Planes if its functions were somehow shared between Religion and Occultism, and maybe Arcana.
Maybe a rule where Lore proficiency can be used in place of a subset of another skill when applicable would help? Kind of like versatile Performance in PF1e.
For example Lore Locksmith allows you to know about locks, craft locks, and pick locks. You can also use your proficiency in Locksmith lore in place of your theivery proficiency for picking locks as well as qualifying for and upgrading skill feats which relate to lockpicking.
Other examples:
Underworld Lore could include Pickpocketing
Mountain Lore could include climb
Atlantis Lore could include swim
Circus Lore could include Jump
I'm also a bit concerned about how much the granularity was reduced, though I could see skill feats being used to make characters that are specialists in some sub-use of a skill and I expect that Lore will also be useful in developing interesting specialist training. Having a character with a specialty skill makes them feel special to me.
I've definitely played engineer types that are decent at Disable Device but would never attempt a Sleight of Hand check. I could just decide not to roll that skill, but I find that in situations when there is a clear benefit to using a mechanical ability it can be hard to stick to self-imposed roleplaying restrictions - especially if you get the impression you'd be letting other players down by not using the skill that you're absolutely trained in. So I'm not sure that "just roleplay it" is an easy answer.
I'm also going to miss Sense Motive as it's a fun skill to specialize in and definitely distinct from Perception as I play it - I've had two characters with high Sense Motive and minimal Perception, and one character with very high Perception but only a rank in Sense Motive.
I agree with Fuzzy that it makes sense to consider Sense Motive and Perception skills. Even if everyone is automatically trained in order to provide a defense against Deception and Stealth, having skill feats to invest in these areas would allow you to play someone who was exceptionally observant.
I do like the rolling of UMD (and Spellcraft?) into skills about different types of magic. I don't think I'd miss Knowledge Planes if its functions were somehow shared between Religion and Occultism, and maybe Arcana.
We know Rogues can access a feat for specific perception checks, as can gnomes, and there's at least one spell got sense motive enhancement. I think we are getting feats whether they are skills or not
You can’t see someone being a used car salesman but not good at pretending to be someone they aren’t?You mean, a used car salesman who doesn't pretend to be somebody who has a family whose dinner tonight depends on you specifically buying a car before you leave? That sounds like Diplomacy or the Practice a Trade function of either Automotive Sales Lore or Merchant Lore.
But that isn’t disguise. It’s bluff. Good at bluff and bad at disguise is extraordinarily easy to imagine, and not some weird corner case at all.
But that isn’t disguise. It’s bluff. Good at bluff and bad at disguise is extraordinarily easy to imagine, and not some weird corner case at all.You can’t see someone being a used car salesman but not good at pretending to be someone they aren’t?You mean, a used car salesman who doesn't pretend to be somebody who has a family whose dinner tonight depends on you specifically buying a car before you leave? That sounds like Diplomacy or the Practice a Trade function of either Automotive Sales Lore or Merchant Lore.
But good at Disguise and bad at Bluff is not easy to imagine. And the disguise skill had pretty marginal use before, so I'm not that sad to see it no longer be a skill that costs the same as bluff.
Also, Disguise might be something you need a Skill Feat for-- at the very least it seems like you'd need tools to do it.
It is not, however you try to justify it, a good feature to have skills loose all granularity and just become large groups that you are automatically good at all of them, no exceptions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
TBH, Disguise should actually be a Craft. You use the Craft to assemble the disguise, and the quality of your disguise gives you a modifier on Deception (or Perform: Acting) checks to pull it off.
This also lets one person good at Disguises handle the disguise duties for the whole group. Sort of like how an actor in a movie or stage play is using a disguise assembled by someone else, not something they put together themselves.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also a bit concerned about how much the granularity was reduced, though I could see skill feats being used to make characters that are specialists in some sub-use of a skill and I expect that Lore will also be useful in developing interesting specialist training. Having a character with a specialty skill makes them feel special to me.
I've definitely played engineer types that are decent at Disable Device but would never attempt a Sleight of Hand check. I could just decide not to roll that skill, but I find that in situations when there is a clear benefit to using a mechanical ability it can be hard to stick to self-imposed roleplaying restrictions - especially if you get the impression you'd be letting other players down by not using the skill that you're absolutely trained in. So I'm not sure that "just roleplay it" is an easy answer.
I'm also going to miss Sense Motive as it's a fun skill to specialize in and definitely distinct from Perception as I play it - I've had two characters with high Sense Motive and minimal Perception, and one character with very high Perception but only a rank in Sense Motive.
I agree with Fuzzy that it makes sense to consider Sense Motive and Perception skills. Even if everyone is automatically trained in order to provide a defense against Deception and Stealth, having skill feats to invest in these areas would allow you to play someone who was exceptionally observant.
I do like the rolling of UMD (and Spellcraft?) into skills about different types of magic. I don't think I'd miss Knowledge Planes if its functions were somehow shared between Religion and Occultism, and maybe Arcana.
Maybe a rule where Lore proficiency can be used in place of a subset of another skill when applicable would help? Kind of like versatile Performance in PF1e.
For example Lore Locksmith allows you to know about locks, craft locks, and pick locks. You can also use your proficiency in Locksmith lore in place of your theivery proficiency for picking...
I would very much like to see the final version of PF2 include a full-throated endorsement of the idea of using Lore skills as a substitute for characters who want proficiency in only one aspect of another skill, including (with GM permission) taking Skill Feats of the broader skill that apply to the aspected Lore. That would be a fairly simple addition that would go a long way toward satisfying those who feel that they are "too proficient" because of skill consolidation.
It is not, however you try to justify it, a good feature to have skills loose all granularity and just become large groups that you are automatically good at all of them, no exceptions.
Well like, that's just your opinion man. Let's say that what you are asserting is actually happening, and that things like Disguise aren't specifically Skill Feats you need to opt into. (We know there is a specific fear called pick pocket, which makes the locksmith who doesn't pick pockets example feel kind of moot.) Having a list full of bad skills isn't great, and we had a lot of bad skills in PF1. Just like we had a lot of bad feats. Getting rid of trap options and making the remaining options better is a good feature. It comes at a cost that you don't think is worth it, which is losing the granularity.
You can say "I don't like this and don't think it worth what we are losing" and that's fine, but let's not pretend nothing is being gained here.
|
|
(We know there is a specific fear called pick pocket, which makes the locksmith who doesn't pick pockets example feel kind of moot.)
It actually seems like Pickpocket is not required to pick pockets. It makes Thievery a Signature Skill because you did it for a living for a while and may do other things, which is somewhat different.
Not to dispute your main point, mind you, I'm just trying to make clear what we know about how things work.
(We know there is a specific fear called pick pocket, which makes the locksmith who doesn't pick pockets example feel kind of moot.)It actually seems like Pickpocket is not required to pick pockets. It makes Thievery a Signature Skill because you did it for a living for a while and may do other things, which is somewhat different.
Not to dispute your main point, mind you, I'm just trying to make clear what we know about how things work.
Huh, is that from a dev comment, or is that being inferred based on Seelah from the demos?
Huh, is that from a dev comment, or is that being inferred based on Seelah from the demos?I believe it's the latter. Someone read the description of the Skill Feat from her sheet, I think, and passed along that it added Thievery as a Signature Skill.
Hmm. Good to know. At least signature skills aren't hard to pick up.
It is not, however you try to justify it, a good feature to have skills loose all granularity and just become large groups that you are automatically good at all of them, no exceptions.Well like, that's just your opinion man. Let's say that what you are asserting is actually happening, and that things like Disguise aren't specifically Skill Feats you need to opt into. (We know there is a specific fear called pick pocket, which makes the locksmith who doesn't pick pockets example feel kind of moot.) Having a list full of bad skills isn't great, and we had a lot of bad skills in PF1. Just like we had a lot of bad feats. Getting rid of trap options and making the remaining options better is a good feature. It comes at a cost that you don't think is worth it, which is losing the granularity.
You can say "I don't like this and don't think it worth what we are losing" and that's fine, but let's not pretend nothing is being gained here.
I’d say ‘everyone is a polymath’ is not a good feature if it closes off large swathes of character concepts that aren’t polymaths.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there are more characters who go their entire campaign without rolling Disguise than there are characters for whom the being good at either lying or disguise but not the other is important.
I think more people will be benefitted by allowing their good liar to be good at passing themselves off as somebody they aren't than people who will be harmed by not being able to have their good liar be bad at disguises. I think there are very, very few people who want a character who's good at disguising themselves to be bad at lying.
I think it is a valuable goal to have no skills that probably won't be rolled during a campaign. That way, if you invest in a skill, it will probably get used without you having to shoe-horn in ways to use it.
I’d say ‘everyone is a polymath’ is not a good feature if it closes off large swathes of character concepts that aren’t polymaths.It is not, however you try to justify it, a good feature to have skills loose all granularity and just become large groups that you are automatically good at all of them, no exceptions.Well like, that's just your opinion man. Let's say that what you are asserting is actually happening, and that things like Disguise aren't specifically Skill Feats you need to opt into. (We know there is a specific fear called pick pocket, which makes the locksmith who doesn't pick pockets example feel kind of moot.) Having a list full of bad skills isn't great, and we had a lot of bad skills in PF1. Just like we had a lot of bad feats. Getting rid of trap options and making the remaining options better is a good feature. It comes at a cost that you don't think is worth it, which is losing the granularity.
You can say "I don't like this and don't think it worth what we are losing" and that's fine, but let's not pretend nothing is being gained here.
Thank you for expressing that as an opinion. What I'd say in response is that "everyone is a polymathc" is a bug, not a feature. The feature here is removing trap options and simplifying the process. Though admittedly broader competency does seem to be a design goal they are working towards in general, I think a lot of this is to prevent new people from making bad characters. You can role-play a character as worse than the numbers and dice say, after all, and apply penalties to yourself as you deem appropriate. But it is much harder to apply bonuses and excel in areas the dice don't support. (With the possible exception of social skills.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd add that we don't know everyone is a polymath. Everyone gets better at stuff people can do without training, but depending on how many Skill Ranks are granted and how restrictive the 'Trained Only' rules wind up being, that might well not fall into polymath territory.
For example, we now know what you can do with untrained Medicine: You can stabilize dying characters. That's it. All other uses are trained only.
If other skills are similarly restrictive (which we don't know yet), I wouldn't say that being high level inherently makes you a polymath at all (though you do wind up with a bit more in the way of skills than in PF1 due to skill consolidation).
|
|
I knew they were using that for alignment and size, but I wonder how they'll refer to the type of creature, hopefully not "it's a monster with the Humanoid and Monstrous Traits/Outsider with the Devil trait".Well, they’re using traits instead of type/subtype now, I believe.No Longer Existing: Vermin (folded into Animals). Monstrous Humanoids (folded into Humanoids). Both are really arbitrary distinctions that add little to the game, IMO.While I'd be more than happy to chuck the Vermin type Monstrous Humanoid is too varied to give up I believe when compared to Humanoid, since we have things like the Lamia and Girtabillu just to name two, monstrous and possessing innate spells.
Hmmm, though Merfolk is Humanoid so just having a non-humanoid lower half doesn't exclude that...
Actually I could see the reason keeping it: Subtypes.
Being from the mechanics side, you can't get a sword of Humanoid Slaying, you have to get a sword of Human Slaying, whereas you can get a sword of Monster/Monstrous Humanoid Slaying.
Having to key every single magical item/effect to a specific creature would be quite frustrating and fiddly I presume.
Though that would raise the option of having something like Humanoid (Monstrous).
I'm thinking a Pit Fiend might look like: Devil, Evil, Fiend, Lawful.
For the Trait line in the statblock, yes. I was wondering more for like abilities and affects in relation to said creatures.
|
|
Seems like it would sort of be like it is now, this weapon deals +X damage to Dragons, or this weapon gains +X to hit vs. Fey or Demons, that sort of thing.Ye.Ah, like bane weapons, spells like chaos hammer and such?For the Trait line in the statblock, yes. I was wondering more for like abilities and affects in relation to said creatures.
I'm thinking a Pit Fiend might look like: Devil, Evil, Fiend, Lawful.
And for Subtypes? “+x against Outsiders with the Evil/Earth/Water [blank]”