Personally I don't like the new system. It's actually one of the *few* things I dislike about the new system. Everything else has impressed me for the most part thus far.
So just to clarify and to make sure I haven't made a mistake;
All skills, you gain a bonus equal to your level if you're trained, your level -2 if you're untrained, +1 if you're expert, +2 if you're master and +3 if you're legendary.
That correct?
Sure for the beginning, this means that there will be some differences between skills. But as you get later into levels, it starts to be more and more of a problem.
I have two main gripes with the skills;
1. The difference between skills you are not good at and skills you are focusing on is very small. Especially the higher level you go.
2. You just become good at everything.
Firstly, I do understand that a big thing about skills is having Skill Feats. I've looked quickly though them and I see a few feats do allow small bonuses to skills, but I feel this still isn't a huge deal. I honestly didn't feel too excited reading through the skill feats in general actually.
I was wary of the new skills from the start but I've grown less and less fond of it the more I think about it.
My first sort of reason to personally dislike it is you have very little in the way of true customization of what your character is good at. You just apply a small level bonuses to certain things. Sure this also unlocks new levels of skill feats, but that's another issue and I'd like not to get too deeply into that because there's no reason that needs to be taken out with what I'm going to be doing so it can be left at the side of this discussion so to speak.
The feats are more to do with how you use skills and not how proficient you are at them.
I've heard mention of the idea that skill points didn't mean much individually in the 1st game because you get so many of them. but that's not true. I always felt like every point was a careful investment, and it meant that I was very carefully choosing which areas my character has focused on.
I put a LOT of attention into skills and always feel upset if I can't get many good skills with a character, often focusing more on the skills than on anything else in their actual class to be honest. I feel strongly that the skills heavily DEFINE who they are and what they've done thus far in their life.
That's why I want to cherry pick the things they're good at and define HOW MUCH with exact values that I decide.
When they're almost as good at something they're untrained in as something they're a legend in is ridiculous.
Let me talk about that for a sec, what those words IMPLY;
Untrained - Something you've never done before. You kinda have no idea what you're doing.
Trained - You've been taught how to do this. You know your way around the keyhole for picking or telling lies, or whatever you're doing.
Expert - You've done this a *lot*. You've tried, you've failed, you've succeeded, you're an *expert*
Master - You might not be immediately recognized for the skill you're good at but once you pull it out you leave people in awe and you rarely ever fail
Legend - People whisper your name and bards sing of your exploits. Everyone knows just how amazing you are at crafting chairs.
That's basically what each thing *means* to me. Yet legend is just a +3 to do something.
Granted you have to be a high enough level to get legend anyway.
I don't mean to say that these descriptions are what it SHOULD be, it's just what they say to me personally, and I feel they're underwhelming.
Anyway, moving past this digression...
The point is, the tiny penalty or bonus doesn't mean much and adding your level bonus to every skill seems a bit much.
That moves me on to the other point;
After a while, you just get good at everything.
Sure, being level 10 might only be halfway through the set, but it's kinda high respectively speaking. You've been adventurers for a while and for most games this might mean you've been having multiple campaigns.
But, I'll reiterate a point that I've seen made before;
Why would a level 3 rogue be worse at lock-picking than a level 10 wizard. This was basically the example I've seen used. Can't remember by whom.
The point was, that if you take a rogue, level 3, who's probably increased their thievery to expert. It comes time to use the Pick a Lock skill use. The bard has their level (3) plus 1 from being expert level. The wizard has his level (10) minus 2 from being untrained. Sure the wizard is far more generally experienced, but they've never picked a lock before, because that just has nothing to do with their way of life. The rogue on the other hand, this *is* their life. Even if they've not been around the bock as much.
So the bard is +4 at picking locks and the wizard who has no place doing this at all has +8.
Another thing I realized just the other day, which has sealed my opinion on the matter;
One of my favorite shows out there is Dice Camera Action. I watch it every week. This is a D&D 5e show, and the party are currently level 11, and one of the party members, a rogue named Diath, has been happy about gaining a feat called Reliable Talent, which as I understand it from the game, doesn't let him roll below 10 on skills he's proficient in.
Here in pathfinder 2nd ed, on the next level, 12, NO ONE will be rolling under 10 on ANYTHING. At least not accounting for penalties with low ability scores, but let's leave those out of this hypothesis.
It just feels... unfun. The fun is knowing your character is great in this area but crappy in these areas because you decided it made no sense to put points into these skills that they really wouldn't have learned.
It is FUN to have weak areas. watching DCA, it's fun every time they have to make a roll they're not good at because the RISK becomes apparent. Even at level 11. This is in contrast to when Diath gets to roll acrobatics and OWNS.
I just don't like how the skills are an even spread across the board. Even with skill feats and ability scores considered. Yes, players having way too high bonuses in certain areas is a problem, but like I said, it's contrasted by areas they are *not* good in.
SO... Whenever I DO get to play with my friends, assuming I will be GMing as I've been planning... I will be home-brewing skills.
I have decided that what I'll do is the following:
each level, you get a number of points decided by your class + your intelligence modifier + your level (I have so far taken that number by how many skills they get to increase on creation; For my fighter: 3 + int) You apply these points to each skill for a 1:1 bonus just like ranks previously have been, and the -2/+0/+1/+2/+3 from the TEML modifiers remains, and skill feats remain on top of that.
When I adjusted my character accordingly, some skills went up, which I'd hand chosen, and others went down. Afterwards, I actually felt extremely satisfied and comfortable looking at my skill list. I felt much more like it was *my* set of skills. and it really wasn't overpowered in any way shape or form by doing this.
This is just the way I want to do things, but I'd love to hear people's opinions on that little homebrew mechanic.
I'd also love to hear what other people think.
DO you also think the pathfinder 2e skills are crap? OR do you love them?