Hi guys,
Role-playing since D&D's inception but brand new to Pathfinder and I have a question. I've been reading the PFPT book and I cannot find a definitive statement about where Sig Skills start. One chapter alludes to the idea that it starts as an Expert level skill by stating they can be leveled up to Master or Legendary later on, but nothing states this definitely.
My question is simple: What proficiency level do Signature Skills start at?
Untrained unless specified otherwise.
Signature Skills are simply the skills that your Class allows you to train beyond Expert, to Master/Legendary.
You don't have any proficiency in them unless you take it.
They basically limit what your character can be fantastic at.
Not a fan of the mechanic, personally.
Signature Skills are simply the skills that your Class allows you to train beyond Expert, to Master/Legendary.
You don't have any proficiency in them unless you take it.
They basically limit what your character can be fantastic at.
Not a fan of the mechanic, personally.
Wow, I c0an see why. That kinda spills the wind from the sails.
Thanks for the reply.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not a personal fan of Signature Skills capping skill progression. I believe a character with strong motivation to excel within a nonstandard field shouldn't be arbitrarily prevented from doing so.
Nevertheless, the argument is sound that a class should define, to an extent, what training you'd receive.
Thus, my proposed alternative is as follows:
Signature skills define the training a class provides. At 1st level, you begin play Trained in the class's signature skills. Characters also begin play Trained in an additional amount of skills equal to their Intelligence modifier. You may advance any skill to Master/Legendary at the appropriate level as normal.
This solves two issues:
First, this assigns more value to Intelligence. Currently it's a clear dump stat, but giving it the option of allowing flexibility in adding an extra Trained skill might tempt more classes into putting a free boost or two into it.
Second, this gives incentive to classes to invest into Signature skills as they level up, but allows them to go a different direction if they prefer.
Third, this solves many of the "Cleric doesn't know about Religion, Druid doesn't know about Nature, Rogue doesn't know how to Pick Locks" issues.
Currently, (with the exception of Druids, after Jason's post) every class gains a number of bonus Trained skills equal to their number of Signature skills. It's obviously intended that they invest these into the skills for that class. Let's cut out the middle man.
Some would rightly feel this limits creativity at character creation, but I feel this preserves the core concept that your class defines your initial training, but doesn't necessarily limit or prevent you from still working outside the box. At most, you're 1 skill level down in a skill outside your Signature Skills, and you have the choice to negate that entirely if you invest into Intelligence rather than treating it as a dump stat.
At present, besides the issues outlined above, the only other conflict I can see to this alternative interacting with the current rules is meeting 2nd level prerequisites for multiclassing. A character with less than 12 Int wouldn't be able to qualify for the Trained prerequisite of their multiclass archetype feat's Signature Skill. This can be likely solved by simply removing the 12 Int prerequisite on the Skill Training skill feat. Thus, a character without at least 12 Int can still multiclass at 2nd level at the cost of their 2nd level Skill Feat on Skill Training and 2nd level class feat on Dedication.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is maddeningly difficult to pick up additional signature skills, in case you want to have, say, a monk who is super sneaky or a Fighter who is world class at Medicine. As it stands right now, it basically requires multiclassing.
I really don't understand why we're trying to make it hard to have characters who are specialists at skills which aren't in the class package, particularly given how many traits in PF1 were "get a bonus to a skill and it is now a class skill for you".
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The class lock on advanced proficiencies from signature skills feels especially bizarre and limiting after PF1 and Starfinder added lots of news ways to get class skills via traits, themes, and in SF, skill synergy feat.
I'm not sure why such a limit is needed, and it might simplify the system further to just remove the concept and let anyone be good at any skill.
So I was looking at the alchemist earlier. At first level, an alchemist gains Alchemical Crafting, the prerequisite for which is "trained in Crafting". But the alchemist doesn't need to meet the prerequisite. So apparently it's possible to have an alchemist who is untrained (and so gets a -2 to his craft check) even though Crafting is a signature skill for him. Have I got that right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please convince me we need Signature skills.
I get a sense that what some people want here is for all skills to be learnable to the legendary level. There's a way to do: play Harnmaster. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get a sense that what some people want here is for all skills to be learnable to the legendary level. There's a way to do: play Harnmaster. :-)
Alternatively, don't make mechanics without a purpose like Signature Skills?
I'd be less annoyed with Signature Skills if there was an easy way to gain more, or if they did something else besides gating proficiency (like bumping you to Expert instead of Trained if you choose it at Level 1, for instance). I'm very optimistic about PF2, but this is the one thing that just doesn't seem to have any redeeming qualities.
At least they don't make you choose your signature skills at 1st level, when they are not yet relevant -- they arise naturally as a result of your class and other choices that you most likely made for other reasons.
First, this assigns more value to Intelligence. Currently it's a clear dump stat, but giving it the option of allowing flexibility in adding an extra Trained skill might tempt more classes into putting a free boost or two into it.
The way you worded this seems to imply that you believe that that you don't add your Int bonus to your number of Trained skills in PF2. In fact, you do.
Honestly, I like the idea of Signature Skills. It means that certain skills are only really known at a 'Master' and 'Legendary' level by people who spend their lives dedicated to using them.
As it is right now anyone can pick up a skill to 'Trained' or 'Expert' level. Doing this allows you to perform the majority things that a skill can be used for.
The only things that it prevents you from picking up are the 'Legendary' skill feats and getting upgrades to certain effects that would fit someone who is a 'Master' or better at a skill.
There are only a handful of skills that you would really want to get at such a high rating and if you're doing that you're really going to be forcing in on the territory of another class's specialization. Such as Thievery to disable traps. That's a bread and butter feature for Rogues and it's also possible for Rangers to do.
Anyone else who is interested in doing it would need to gain the Rogue dedication as a multi-class in which case they get it right away
Could you really give me an example of something that Signature skills really hold you back on?
Could you really give me an example of something that Signature skills really hold you back on?
1. Signature Skills are bad for story-telling. Play Carrion Crown as a Fighter, spend your life from level 1 to 15ish fighting eldritch horrors and unholy enemies, and you are unable to become a master in Occultism/Religion? Even if you had campaign-specific backgrounds that granted signature skills, what if my Fighter was just some douche that, through contact and learning of the occult, became interested in those things?
2. Signature Skills are arbitrary and close-minded. Why aren't Monks able to master Medicine, Occultism and Stealth? In fiction, you have countless monastic healers; Ki is by definition occult, less related to Religion as it is to body mastery; Stealth is archetypical. I could go on about every other class and a million other signature skills they could have... but the point is, why does Paizo get the monopoly on what is archetypical for each class? We can agree on classes as archetypes, but why zero-in on things that weren't imposed on us on PF1? I could get a grizzled Ranger that hunted demons in the Worldwound, I could make a Barbarian that was the charismastic leader of a tribe. Who says my Fighter will spend more time Crafting than being a soldier-diplomat involved as much in warfare as they are on Diplomacy? Who says my jester Bard shouldn't be good at Acrobatics? Why draw the line in a few skills?
Now, let me switch the burden of proof: what do Signature Skills do that is valuable?
Could you really give me an example of something that Signature skills really hold you back on?
A Barbarian who wanders the wild alone and is legendary in survival.
A monk dedicated to the philosophy of peace who is legendary in diplomacy.
A paladin who want's to strike fear into evildoers and be legendarily intimidating.
None of those are out-there character concepts nor should they require multi-classing to achieve.
Now, let me switch the burden of proof: what do Signature Skills do that is valuable?
With Pathfinder 2E skills are incredibly easy to invest in compared to 1E. Rather than investing 20 skill points, and possibly some feats into a skill you can instead raise it a total of 4 times.
Trained -> Expert -> Master -> Legendary
Doing this unlocks some of the top tier benefits of that skill including skill feats that allow you do things such as Ignore Fall Damage, No longer face any tests for survival when it comes to providing for yourself, pickpocket difficult to remove items off of someone without them noticing until you've gotten it, assemble a full disguise in a single round..
When it comes to skill based characters such as Bards, Rogues, and Rangers Signature Skills allow them the ability to be amazing at their specific skills without the fear of another class simply investing a few skill advances to match them at their roles.
Skill based characters have a very specific niche to fill and this allows them to do it well. Just as a Spellcaster would lose some of their flair if every single other character in the game could access their full spellcasting capabilities with some minor investments.
Expanding the Signature Skill list of certain classes should not be out of the question but it should definitely not be as simple as removing signature skills all together, or simply costing a feat to do it.
Some of the examples that you described are definitely ones that sound like they would be better accomplished through multiclassing.
1) A Barbarian who wanders the wild alone and is legendary in survival.
This sounds to me like a Barbarian that is multiclassed as either a Ranger, Druid, or Rogue.
2) A monk dedicated to the philosophy of peace who is legendary in diplomacy.
This sounds to me like a Monk that is multiclassed as a Bard or Rogue.
3) A paladin who want's to strike fear into evildoers and be legendarily intimidating.
And this sounds like a Paladin that is multiclassed as a Barbarian.
You may not go fully into the multi-class and might just pick it up to unlock the basic features of the class and those signature skills but it's definitely not something that is out of the question.
When it comes to replacements of existing Signature Skills with alternatives such as the example of Monks being specialized in Occultism instead of Religion.. That sounds more like a character background story and a conversation with a GM to me. Or in the case of custom campaign settings possibly altering what some classes get by default to represent that.
I do also want to add to my response..
Barbarians can be great at Survival.
Monks can be great at Diplomacy, Stealth, and Occultism.
Paladins can be great at Intimidation.
They can all get those skills up to Expert if they wanted to. This lets them attempt the majority of what is possible for those skills. They are not restricted in any way from using these skills as a staple for their character.
1) A Barbarian who wanders the wild alone and is legendary in survival.
This sounds to me like a Barbarian that is multiclassed as either a Ranger, Druid, or Rogue.
2) A monk dedicated to the philosophy of peace who is legendary in diplomacy.
This sounds to me like a Monk that is multiclassed as a Bard or Rogue.
3) A paladin who want's to strike fear into evildoers and be legendarily intimidating.
And this sounds like a Paladin that is multiclassed as a Barbarian.
You may not go fully into the multi-class and might just pick it up to unlock the basic features of the class and those signature skills but it's definitely not something that is out of the question.
What if there isn't a multiclass that grants the skill you want? Ranger will probably grant survival but Rogue gives thievery and bard will most assuredly give performance. Barbarian is just as likely to give athletics as intimidate. What if you want to be a Barbarian blacksmith what class do you multi class into then?
There needs to be a way for any class to gain new signature skills in any skill.
I do also want to add to my response..
Barbarians can be great at Survival.
Monks can be great at Diplomacy, Stealth, and Occultism.
Paladins can be great at Intimidation.
They can all get those skills up to Expert if they wanted to. This lets them attempt the majority of what is possible for those skills. They are not restricted in any way from using these skills as a staple for their character.
Sure but they are still arbitrarily locked out of the best abilities.
I would support the following change:
All classes get 4 or more signature skills (so that they cannot be all made legendary).
Add some generally available option (say a general feat) to get a single skill as a signature skill. As it stands, we kind of need to archetype/multiclass to gain signature skills but all those feats do something else (e.g. Cleric dedication gives heal as a signature skill, and also cantrips), so a general feat for "gain a signature skill, you are trained in this skill, you can only take this once" wouldn't make archetypes less attractive.
One of the Rogue Multiclass Archetype feats is 'Skill Mastery' which allows you to gain a Signature Skill on the Rogue list. It can be taken multiple times.
I would not be opposed to a similar feat being obtainable with other Multiclass Archetypes.
Since Barbarian is the only class that doesn't have Crafting on their Signature Skill list I think that may be an oversight. If not, then I'm perfectly fine with it being added to their list. If Paizo left it off intentionally then you could always multi-class into Rogue to gain it with Skill Mastery or any other class if they add Skill Mastery to the others.
Thinking about the Barbarian Wanderer that lived out in the wild that was great at Survival I was trying to figure out how I would put something like that together.
Honestly, with that I would likely Multiclass with Ranger. Short of doing that however I would at the very least have both Survival and Nature at Expert. I'd likely also have Assurance on those skills to ignore basic checks. I'd also make sure that Wisdom were one of my higher stats.
With all of that being done I doubt I'd have any issues making the checks needed to stay out in the wilderness through all sorts of weather and other conditions.
One of the Rogue Multiclass Archetype feats is 'Skill Mastery' which allows you to gain a Signature Skill on the Rogue list. It can be taken multiple times.
I would not be opposed to a similar feat being obtainable with other Multiclass Archetypes.
Since Barbarian is the only class that doesn't have Crafting on their Signature Skill list I think that may be an oversight. If not, then I'm perfectly fine with it being added to their list. If Paizo left it off intentionally then you could always multi-class into Rogue to gain it with Skill Mastery or any other class if they add Skill Mastery to the others.
So you agree there there should be feats to get any skill as a signature but you still think it should be class or multi class locked?
So you agree there there should be feats to get any skill as a signature but you still think it should be class or multi class locked?
I think that they should at least be multiclass locked, yes.
This is to represent you becoming more proficient with the skills that are signature to the classes you are associated with.
I do not think that a Barbarian should be able to become Legendary in Thievery at the cost of a feat without being associated with Rogue or Ranger in some way, just to give an example.
Here is a question for you Bardarok.
Given your examples from earlier, do you feel that a Monk who is 'Dedicated to the philosophy of peace' should be as proficient at Diplomacy as a Bard who has invested their entire career at it?
If so, why?
How about a number of general feats for gaining specific signature skill status in skills that don't belong to a class?
Like "Stealth" is a thing rogues get, and "Stealth" is a thing rangers get; but lots of people are really sneaky, the way these two classes emphasize stealth is very different, and other skills are more associated with those two classes (thievery and survival) than stealth is. Signature skill in stealth should not cost twice as many feats as signature skill in heal, thievery, arcana, acrobatics, etc. nor should it require having thievery as a signature skill.
We, after all, have 17 skills and 12 classes.
There are certain skills that do kind of really 'belong' to certain classes. At least in the sense that they're the iconic paragon of that particular skill.
Such as:
Bard with Diplomacy and Deception.
Cleric / Paladin with Religion.
Wizard with Arcana.
Rogue with Stealth/Thievery.
Druid / Ranger with Survival.
Other classes may have those skills as Signature skills as they are also well known to use them or have an extreme versatility for skills. But there are hardly any skills that you can look at and say 'Yeah, everyone is equally as good at that.'
Here is a question for you Bardarok.
Given your examples from earlier, do you feel that a Monk who is 'Dedicated to the philosophy of peace' should be as proficient at Diplomacy as a Bard who has invested their entire career at it?
If so, why?
Yes I think they should both be able to become legendary at it.
Why? Because they are both investing their entire career into it as represented by them both choosing to put their skill boosts into diplomacy, their skill feats into diplomacy skills.
Maybe the bard gets it as part of their class and the monk needs to spend a feat to make diplomacy a signature skill but I see no reason why that should not be possible.
Also for the record I think that a barbarian who chooses to invest their skill boosts, and skill feats, in to thievery should be able to match a rogue. The rogue still has their niche protected by having a ton of trained skills and twice as many skill ups as any other class so while a barbarian can become legendary in theivery the rogue will be legendary in theivery and five other skills compared to the barbarians two.
Well then Bardarok I disagree with you on this at a core level and I doubt that either of us will change our opinion on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get how Gloom can say "Legendary protects niches" and "Expert is basically the same as Legendary".
Needless to say, Skills should be narrative, not power-gamey or optimizable.
2E forces you to optimize them with signature skills, and that's against the tenets of this edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Signature skills are trying to fill the roll that the old Cross-Class penalty did, making certain classes have a natural synergy with specific linked skills. In PF1 this method was replaced with the Class skill bonus. In both these methods, it created a system by certain classes with a link to that skill, those characters could reach higher skill levels than other classes of the same level.
In PF2, instead of making it more expensive to progress in a skill, it just limits how high you can advance in that skill. It allows half of the progression. Contrary to the old cross-class method, it does not make taking/dabbling into that skill any more expensive to start with. It potentially surprisingly enough doesn't slow you down in advancing to your ceiling either. It also doesn't give you any advantage to your first entry into the skill if it is a signature skill either, like the mechanism did with the old PF1 class skill bonus. They admittedly add up to several differences.
I would say that I like the general idea of saying that certain classes have a synergy, that with their training, they will naturally have a tendency to be able to advance those linked skills naturally.
I would be very upset to have the rules dictate that may starting skills have to be spent on the signature skills. I view classes as a grouping of related/synergistic abilities but often will choose to incorporate things outside of that obvious package for story reasons and fun.
I'd be happy to see a feat that can be taken to taken one time to get one for some skill currently at expert, for instance.
Other options would include allowing INT bonus or 1/2 Int bonus to open granting a signature skill of choice.
Also, I would be fine when someone gets to the level they can advance to legendary in their signatures skills allowing them to potentially advance to master in non-signature skills.
I'm all for allowing characters some organic choice of specialties, but I'm willing to acknowledge it might require some form of a choice and commitment of resources.
That said, I miss the old ability to dabble or commit to a skill. In 3.5 you could put four ranks in a skill or one. In PF1, you had less flexibility, but choose class skills or non-class skills as you pleased, and you could normally easily choose a trait of feat to make a non-class skill a class skill or boost your ability in a class skill to give it some extra focus. I don't really see much like that in the system right now, save for the rare instances you might have an extra choice of skill feat to boost a specific skill in one very specific manner. [rather than a general boost for that skill]
I wonder how bad it would be to allow a character to have one signature skill be allowed to be boosted to master, for instance, presuming two slots were used to advance it. It would allow the first level characters an extra differentiation at that low level. (or perhaps only have increases coming from INT bonus having this ability to advance a trained skill to master at 1st.
Cross class skill penalties are dumb and monolithic. PF1 Class Skills were fine because it was trivial to modify them.
Only way I could be okay with signature skills would be:
A. Each class gets two additional signature skills up to their choice.
B. Obtaining new ones costs no more than a skill feat.
I feel like what classes do should be inherently more mutable in terms of "what skills they do" than "what their combat mechanics are".
Like a fighter who is a great liar or a wizard who is very sneaky, or a barbarian who is a fantastic acrobat are just easier to imagine than a Wizard who does space control with a polearm, a Fighter who heals, or a Barbarian who befuddles opponents with enchantments and illusions.
Skills are in part what our characters do as people, whereas their class is more "how they stay alive in dangerous situations." I mean, "basically anyone can grab basically any skill as a class skill with a trait" was one of he absolute best things about PF1, from where I sit.
Honestly, I'm surprised that Crafting isn't a Signature skill for all of the character classes. It's one of the few skills that isn't really specific to a particular class.
Signature Skills allow you to increase a skill past Expert to Master and Legendary. This means that, should you increase it to Expert at Level 2, you never increase your proficiency again. Any bonuses obtained after that come from items, ability boosts, or (rarely) a low-level skill feat. Being locked at Expert means you can never obtain skill feats with a Level higher than 2 for that skill - no Quick Climb or Quick Swim, no Battle Cry, no Quick Disable, and no scaling for any of your skill feats. That means Assurance, Arcane Sense, Battle Medic, Cat Fall, Confabulator, Experienced Smuggler, Experienced Tracker, Fascinating Performance, Forager, Group Coercion, Group Impression, Magical Shorthand, Natural Medicine, Nimble Crawl, Pickpocket, Quick Disguise, Quick Identification, Rapid Mantel, and Train Animal won't scale at higher levels. Couple that with the additional +1-2 that higher proficiency grants and you find that Signature Skills are actually pretty limiting.
Could you take a Dedication to grab a Signature Skill? Sure. But then you're stuck with that archetype/multiclass until you invest more class feats into it, locking you into a Dedication that may not fit your concept outside the Signature Skill it grants. That's needlessly restrictive.
30/99 skill feats require Master or Legendary to take, and another 19/99 are skill feats that have scaling features that would be limited without increased proficiency. That means half the skill feats presented, including many of the most powerful, are restricted in some way by the Signature Skill mechanic.
With Pathfinder 2E skills are incredibly easy to invest in compared to 1E. Rather than investing 20 skill points, and possibly some feats into a skill you can instead raise it a total of 4 times.Trained -> Expert -> Master -> Legendary
"Only" four. Except that (non-rogue) characters only get nine skill increases over their entire career.
If you're not a rogue, you can only ever get three skills to Legendary if you improve nothing else. You should at least be able to decide for yourself what those skills can be.
Not to mention that backgrounds don't even add Signature skills in the skills they specialize in using. Having been an Acrobat or a Noble or a Nomad doesn't let you ever reach Legendary in Acrobatics or Society or Survival.
Class skills are kind of an antiquated mechanic to begin with. Most RPGs let your character choose whatever skills they want. But at least in Pathfinder, class skills gave you a bonus on certain things rather than imposing a cap on how far you could advance like 3E did. Signature Skils are basically a step backwards in development. It's the devs telling us our character has to be a generic archetype instead of a unique individual.
I think it would be pretty reasonable if a skill became a signature skill after you've bought two skill feats for it.
Frankly, with the negligible bonus granted by skill ranks, I'd prefer them disappear in favor of skill ranks progressing based on how many feats you've purchased. As things stand now, you gain 1 more skill feat than skill advancement, so it wouldn't really change anything.
Grant free proficiency in the classes signature skills. Increase proficiency level by 1 for every skill feat you've gained. Grant 1 skill feat at second level and every 2 levels thereafter. Anything that currently grants a signature skill instead grants a skill feat, or is treated as a skill feat for the purpose of proficiency. It would cut down on book keeping and allow people to buy up non signature skills pretty easily.
First, this assigns more value to Intelligence. Currently it's a clear dump stat, but giving it the option of allowing flexibility in adding an extra Trained skill might tempt more classes into putting a free boost or two into it.The way you worded this seems to imply that you believe that that you don't add your Int bonus to your number of Trained skills in PF2. In fact, you do.
The implication in this statement is that, for many during character creation, they see Int as a clear stat not to place any free boosts into due to the lack of utility from doing so.
If Signature Skills for a class automatically begin as Trained, and you only get additional Trained skills equal to your Int bonus, there's an inherent value in having an Int modifier, since you get additional flexibility during character creation to pick a non-standard skill.