Please Don't Call it "Thievery"


General Discussion

101 to 150 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

MaxAstro wrote:

Again, though, even if we accept that (I have some counterpoints but I want to avoid derailing the thread), Paladins are not the core of the issue.

Why is a SWAT team disarming traps to take down a wanted fugitive "Thievery"? Why is tying up a criminal so they can't escape "Thievery"? Why is picking a lock because you were paid to because someone locked themselves out of their own apartment "Thievery"?

In two of those three scenarios, you are doing work associated with thieves. Thieves are renowned for their ability to disarm traps, pick locks, and steal items. That you are putting those abilities to good use does not change that, socially, those talents are associated with thieves and less respected people. Tying up the criminal probably goes 50/50. Forcibly restraining someone is generally only acceptable when the person is a criminal; since criminals make up a minority of the population, this act is more likely to be used unlawfully (although PCs may be more likely to use it lawfully.)

Subterfuge might also be a decent name, although like everything else, it cannot encompass the entirety of what this skill allows.


MaxAstro wrote:
I'm sorry, if you don't think slavery is inherently cruelty and abuse then I don't think we can continue to talk.

And if you don't think Necromancy is inherently evil and despicable by any sane human being despite similarly having good uses for it, then I'm inclined to agree with your conclusion.

Exo-Guardians

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's sort of like the whole thing with cyber security. We still call the collection of skills we have Hacking, more or less, but the occupation is often Penetration Testing. The skills are no different than those used by attackers, just the application.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Until I start seeing Paladins finding fair and valid uses for the skill, without losing their powers, then this is just an argument in futility.

White-hat hacking, for one. Or in a psuedo-Medieval setting, something like a reformed thief who now offers to break in to places so they know where to shore up defenses before a nefarious actor breaks in.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
I'm sorry, if you don't think slavery is inherently cruelty and abuse then I don't think we can continue to talk.
And if you don't think Necromancy is inherently evil and despicable by any sane human being despite similarly having good uses for it, then I'm inclined to agree with your conclusion.

It isn't. Raising the dead is. But the school is more generally about the manipulation of life force, and in AD&D 1e and 2e, D&D 5e, and PF 2e, Cure spells are in the necromancy school.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I also don’t have much of a horse here but...

Darksol’s painful support of paladins as LStupid is really why I think the alignment letters need to be switched. The majority of the time the good/evil axis is more important than Law/chaos. Because ya with the new paladin hierarchy it’s more accurate to call them GL which might help Darksol and others with the LS Paladin problem.


BretI wrote:

@Darksol

Why do almost all of your arguments against changing the name involve the Paladin? There are other character concepts that would also object to the name suggesting illegal activities.

It would be very in character (some might even say expected) that a cleric of Alseta (LN Goddess of Doors, Transitions, and years) would be trained in whatever skill covers Picking Locks. A number of people have already mentioned how there are legal instances where this is acceptable.

That cleric is most likely lawful.

There are plenty of instances where the skill could be used in legal ways. It is how you use the skill that matters.

Because we're talking about the implications of someone using a skill of moral ambiguity and the potential consequences for doing so. We can certainly use something less extreme (such as any LG adventurer who firmly believes the Law is there for a reason), but I'd rather keep it simple and bring up someone who has more incentive to actually follow those rules than someone who has little to no player consequence for choosing not to follow them. Plus, Paladin is more simple to say than the parenthetical, so brevity and all that.

There is also the Paladins of Abadar, a LN God of Trade and Commonwealth that highly values the importance of civility and obeying laws who would have more legitimate objections compared to other Paladins. If one of those Paladins decides to go against the laws of the land (where deity anathema is placed on the highest tier of the code), they would fall out of his graces. Another deity would probably sweep them up for still doing Good, but Abadar probably won't have any more of that nonsense.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ultrace wrote:
How does this actually work in a society of slavery? Is the Paladin obligated to free all the downtrodden slaves they come across, laws be damned? How would they have acted in the pre-Civil War American South? In ancient Egypt? Would they have been obliged to free all the Helots of Sparta? (I realize this is the right thing to do, for sure, but we're talking about breaking the law.)

The tenet about protecting innocents has a fair bit of leeway to make it not force you to behave stupidly. It generally doesn't ever force you to do things that are suicidal or impossible. So no, a Paladin doesn't have to free all slaves they come across no matter what...but if they can free them without risk to themselves or others? That's a whole different matter.

The only time a Paladin can really leave someone in slavery when they could free them without effort or risk is if they are not innocent (prison work gangs are Paladin-approved).

A Liberator actually has to take an even harder anti-slavery line (prison work gangs are not Liberator-safe, for example), though they benefit from generally being more free to act deceptively and indirectly.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Another deity would probably sweep them up for still doing Good, but Abadar probably won't have any more of that nonsense.

Abadar is indeed an explicit exception to the above due to Deity Anathema, and his Paladins in a whole different category than other Paladins for that reason. Abadar is also LN, which rather explains why that is the case...

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to keep this thread open because the discussion has not gotten out of hand yet, but I need to warn everyone that these tones are getting too heated for what is appropriate on our forums. Slavery is not a concept to throw around lightly. Be cognizant of the gravity of the subject. This has gone off topic from the OP's questions and opinions about the term "thievery" used in the playtest. Let's move back to that.


RazarTuk wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
I'm sorry, if you don't think slavery is inherently cruelty and abuse then I don't think we can continue to talk.
And if you don't think Necromancy is inherently evil and despicable by any sane human being despite similarly having good uses for it, then I'm inclined to agree with your conclusion.
It isn't. Raising the dead is. But the school is more generally about the manipulation of life force, and in AD&D 1e and 2e, D&D 5e, and PF 2e, Cure spells are in the necromancy school.

Except, if you haven't noticed the other editions of the game have explicitly changed it because of the negative connotations behind the name of Necromancy. Strangely, it got changed back, mostly I suspect due to homage to its ancestors. But that doesn't make it appropriate to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nettah wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Honestly, even though it doesn't perfectly cover picking pockets, Security is kinda my favorite suggestion to far. It also works for actual thieves on an ironic level. "I'm a... security specialist, you might say." :P
But nothing is stopping the current master of thievery of framing it that way in game. Thievery is an OOC term for the selection of skill uses, so I don't see the reason why the name should in anyway dictate anything in-game. Security to me fails to cover Palm an Object and Steal an Object and to some extend Lockpicking as well.

That's the point, really. "Thievery" is an OOC term, but we have this entire thread devoted to "Paladins can't use it because Thievery is inherently unlawful."

That perception is exactly the reason why the name should be changed. It's strictly an OOC problem.


I've already said my fair share of stuff on the topic and how it related to other aspects of the game and their design points. DMW is probably the only one who actually engaged my arguments and properly debunked some of them, and even agreed with one of my points, as corner case as it was, which means that my statements aren't as blasphemous or sacrilegious as everyone makes them out to be.

So, I'm out of this one now and any future "discussions" of this topic. Doesn't mean I won't watch and see if any new "insights" come up, just means I won't post on this subject anymore.

**EDIT** Adjusted post accordingly.


Darksol said wrote:
There is also the Paladins of Abadar, a LN God of Trade and Commonwealth that highly values the importance of civility and obeying laws who would have more legitimate objections compared to other Paladins. If one of those Paladins decides to go against the laws of the land (where deity anathema is placed on the highest tier of the code), they would fall out of his graces. Another deity would probably sweep them up for still doing Good, but Abadar probably won't have any more of that nonsense.

I'm not sure that even Abadar would oppose a paladin freeing slaves. Is it really undermining a law-abiding court in every case? If the deity specifically not allowed to break the laws of the land it would be different, but it seems it's just the specific court system you aren't allowed to mess with.

Not that a paladin could ever serve Asmodeus but he is the only one specifically who states that you can't free slaves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Then it makes no sense that a Paladin who is trained in Thievery never actually used Thievery in its obviously intended usage, since now you're justifying Paladins being Legendary Thieves, which is an absolutely ridiculous character concept.
I have a really simple reason for a Paladin in the playtest to be Legendary in thievery: They're a Paladin of a less-violent deity and would rather not kill. But, and here's the kicker, tying someone up uses Thievery DC to determine escape DC. So the less skilled your Paladin is in the arts of Thievery, the easier it is for those they're attempting to bring in for legal trial to slip out of the bonds you tied.

There are so many other, better ways to make due with the bolded part besides raising a morally ambiguous skill's proficiency. Using non-lethal weapons and attacks, for starters. Furthermore, effects which incapacitate (but not physically harm) the target sound like valid approaches as well. The only entities a Paladin can't really do this sort of stuff on are oozes, undead, constructs, and other similarly non-negotiable things that a Paladin otherwise has no qualms in destroying.

Interesting point on the bondage rules. But if I remember correctly, most items like Manacles have a set DC and # of successes based on the kind of manacles being used, meaning the Paladin carrying manacles isn't very difficult, even if it is heavier. Similarly, he can have someone who is better qualified to tie up prisoners; the Paladin doesn't have to do everything by and for himself, after all.

The bondage rules were the entire point I was going for, since the primary way to bring someone in alive is to, you know, restrain them. As for Manacles, few things there. One, anything but the most basic manacles is decidedly expensive, due to the whole non-linear cost growth thing PF tends to have. Heck, Master tier Manacles cost 75 times the cost of the basic form. But having the best would be important because the DC is purely determined by the quality. Not to mention that (at least by the Playtest rules, as of the DC update) once you get past level 10 those Master tier Manacles are now an easier DC than most DCs you can expect to face. And on top of that... Manacles are kind of lacking in restraining people. Heck, unless you stick them in a spare suit of armor too, an Elf with Manacled legs is still likely moving as fast as your (likely Heavy Armor, given the game's un-subtle push towards it) Paladin. A spellcaster with bound hands will still successfully cast 75% of the time. In short, if you really want to make sure they won't give you trouble while you bring them back, Restrained is really the way to go.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Card Game, Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Raylyeh wrote:
Darksol’s painful support of paladins as LStupid is really why I think the alignment letters need to be switched. The majority of the time the good/evil axis is more important than Law/chaos. Because ya with the new paladin hierarchy it’s more accurate to call them GL which might help Darksol and others with the LS Paladin problem.

I have not heard Darksol state the following, but it falls in the same category on the Paladin derail.

I have a Halfling Monk/Paladin, spec'd with high stealth.

His modus operandi is to stealth ahead to scout the opposition so the party can do more of a surgical strike.

I have had GM's tell me that paladin's can't use stealth without risking falling.


Ultrace wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

This is factually incorrect in PF2. Upholding the law is the lowest possible tenet of the Paladin Code. They cannot violate it casually or for fun, but the very second that 'saving an innocent from harm' (and freeing slaves is often precisely that) comes into conflict with 'obey the law' the Paladin is obligated by the Code's priority system to save the innocent, ignoring the law entirely.

Now, you can dislike that if you want (though I personally find the very idea of Paladins valuing Law over Good confusing and abhorrent), but please argue based on the actual rules for things like this.

^ All of this.

How does this actually work in a society of slavery? Is the Paladin obligated to free all the downtrodden slaves they come across, laws be damned? How would they have acted in the pre-Civil War American South? In ancient Egypt? Would they have been obliged to free all the Helots of Sparta? (I realize this is the right thing to do, for sure, but we're talking about breaking the law.)

I realize that this is sounds like it is shooting off on a tangent which is not directly related to the "Thievery" debate, but in truth, the scenario being described is theft of legal property. If the Paladin either directly (or through facilitation such as lockpicking) takes, removes or frees something that is legally recognized as the property of another, they are breaking the law and committing what would commonly be seen as "Thievery." Is it for the greater good? Probably, but that doesn't change the term. Though he redistributed wealth and often took things that had been unlawfully gained themselves, Robin Hood was still a thief.

IMHO, wanting to and knowing its right to are different than being able to.

MDC


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Largely because it's a convenient catchall for the conglomeration of skill focuses the skill itself encompasses.

In other systems, I've seen the same sort of skill grouping get classed as "Criminal" and people have managed to not lose their minds that their character who day jobs as a locksmith is indeed not a Criminal despite being trained in Criminal.

The issue isn't anyone "losing their minds." It's the name being unclear and ambiguous to anyone that isn't familiar with fantasy tropes. "Thief" conjures up images that are pretty unrelated to things like tying people up or disabling traps. Like, is speaking in thieves' cant Thievery or Society? Is finding a fence Thievery or Society? If you're new to Pathfinder and you don't already know that "thief" in RPG terms usually means "person who can do impressive feats of manual dexterity" it can be unnecessarily confusing, especially since Thievery is more specific than other skills that an activity could fall under.

The name itself determines the mechanics at most tables, because the GM will ask players to roll a skill based largely on the name itself and players will ask if a skill is relevant by the same heuristic. So the name's important, it's just tricky to come up with a word that doesn't conflict with existing game terms and that is unambiguous in what is being done, which is Sleight of Hand and Disable Device. At least in English anyways - I imagine it'd be tough to come up with an appropriately descriptive word for every language getting an official translation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Helmic wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Largely because it's a convenient catchall for the conglomeration of skill focuses the skill itself encompasses.

In other systems, I've seen the same sort of skill grouping get classed as "Criminal" and people have managed to not lose their minds that their character who day jobs as a locksmith is indeed not a Criminal despite being trained in Criminal.

The issue isn't anyone "losing their minds." It's the name being unclear and ambiguous to anyone that isn't familiar with fantasy tropes. "Thief" conjures up images that are pretty unrelated to things like tying people up or disabling traps. Like, is speaking in thieves' cant Thievery or Society? Is finding a fence Thievery or Society? If you're new to Pathfinder and you don't already know that "thief" in RPG terms usually means "person who can do impressive feats of manual dexterity" it can be unnecessarily confusing, especially since Thievery is more specific than other skills that an activity could fall under.

The name itself determines the mechanics at most tables, because the GM will ask players to roll a skill based largely on the name itself and players will ask if a skill is relevant by the same heuristic. So the name's important, it's just tricky to come up with a word that doesn't conflict with existing game terms and that is unambiguous in what is being done, which is Sleight of Hand and Disable Device. At least in English anyways - I imagine it'd be tough to come up with an appropriately descriptive word for every language getting an official translation.

Real talk: No matter what name you pick for your general traps/pickpocket/lockpick skill there's never going to be a term that's unambiguous and clear for slow joe in the back row, comes with the territory of skills with a wide range of uses and coming up with a 1-2 word summary. People are going to need to read the skill description and have needed to read the skill description even back in the day when people asked what exactly what Knowledge (Arcana) actually encompasses or what Spellcraft does. If you're suggesting people are just going to not read the rules and act on preconceptions...well that's not the rulebook's problem that people actively choose to not read the blasted thing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Look at the things that the Thievery skill is used for, and explain it to me how there are ways for those activities to be done in a way that is considered "Good," and then you might have a case. Last I checked, lifting or stealing objects from others' possession is Evil, breaking into a house or sealed container without authority is Chaotic/Unlawful, and messing around with traps generally means you aren't in a very good or trusting neighborhood, either.

Until I start seeing Paladins finding fair and valid uses for the skill, without losing their powers, then this is just an argument in futility.

Have you ever played Pathfinder?

Last time I played, the PCs were supposed to break into a dungeon, murder everyone, and steal everything. And it was an official scenario.

What's the point of the paladin if he isn't supposed to participate to the game?


Deadmanwalking wrote:

I'm really not sure this will be as big an issue as people seem to think. I've played a lot of games over the years, including those featuring skills with names like Larceny or Burglary. At no point has anyone ever used such skill names as excuses for being a dick or a kleptomaniac.

I'm not saying it'll never happen, but frankly, new players can probably be corrected if they do this, and non-new players are almost certainly just looking for an excuse to be an a+@$+%@ (and would find an alternate excuse if this one were made unavailable).

I suppose GMs having this attitude is more problematic, and a name change might fix the issue...but it seems a rather small problem all things considered.

Oh yeah. It is a small problem. But I think this thread does illustrate that it is still a problem. Thankfully, it also has a very trivial solution, just use another word.

And word choice does effect how the concept is thought about. An even bigger one that's also on display in this thread is the use of Lawful for the alignment. Under many versions of the rules (including the PF1 rulebook and the playtest rulebook) it's been described as an orderly approach to things, not necessarily always obeying the local legal codes of a given country. But having Law in the name brings to mind local laws and results in a large proportion of the alignment arguments. And it's not just players who fall back on that, even the written sources are inconsistent on this point. If it was called something like Ordered way back in the day instead of Lawful, the thinking about alignment would likely be very different today. So that's why I think it's worth addressing poor word choices now. They might be small issues, but they can be ironed out easily, but if they get established they can be a persistent headache down the road. Also see the Circumstance and Conditional thread for another, different problem of word choices. And of course the multiple uses of Level (mostly just spell level these days).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Helmic wrote:
The issue isn't anyone "losing their minds." It's the name being unclear and ambiguous to anyone that isn't familiar with fantasy tropes.

Yeah, I don't buy that. You say 'thievery' and shoplifting, bypassing security, pickpocketing and b&e lock picking are EXACTLY what someone is going to be thinking of. the fact that you can have legitimate reasons for any of those is is a separate issue.

so
would you call a pickpocket a thief? yes
A shoplifter? yes
Someone that cuts the alarm, jimmy the door and hotwire your car? yes

I think the average person can connect the dots without a background in fantasy books/literature/RPG's.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A term like Tampering might be better than Thievery.

Tampering has a roguish feel but is not exclusively so, and it is broad enough to cover things like picking locks, disabling traps, sabotaging machines, and even fiddling with a knot to snatch someone's moneybag from his belt, or slyly switching papers.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Clearly, the skill should be called Shenanigans. That is it's usage, causing shenanigans. The term can be used for sneaky underhanded and dishonest things, but also fun, wacky mischief. Plus it's a fun word to say. We certainly get into shenanigans in all of my games.

Shenanigans are the best kind of nanigans.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Shenanigans

Although I like the word, I do have to wonder if it translates at all.


BretI wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Shenanigans
Although I like the word, I do have to wonder if it translates at all.

I am still watching the Doctor Who marathon, and at the end of the recently finished episode, The Rebel Flesh, the Doctor said, "Beautiful word, 'Shenanigans.'" He used it to described a nasty situation without having to mention how nasty it was.


I really don't have any problem with calling it Thievery, but of all the other names proposed I really like Subtlety.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Megistone wrote:
I really don't have any problem with calling it Thievery, but of all the other names proposed I really like Subtlety.

The problem with many words like Subtlety and Manipulation is that they have a double-meaning, one manual, the other verbal (bluff, deception, etc.).

Words that are mostly associated with a physical action like Thievery, Tampering, Shenanigans or synonyms of those (Roguery, Tinkering, Fiddling, etc.) are probably better for the skills it covers.

Fiddling is probably a good one because you automatically think of busy fingers which covers the whole shebang of the old Disable Device and Sleight of Hands skills.

I really like Shenanigans as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, thievery has obvious negative connotations that all of its uses don’t deserve but it gets across what it does pretty well. Honestly all of the alternatives proposed here at best are misleading and inaccurate to what it covers (manipulation) and at worst are forced, clunky or outright dumb (shenanigans, really...) the 2 options are to separate thievery into multiple skills which I at least would hate to see, I like the skill condensing they’ve done. Or leave it as is which is a cross I’m willing to bear.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Raylyeh wrote:
Yes, thievery has obvious negative connotations that all of its uses don’t deserve but it gets across what it does pretty well.

The point is that Thievery is but one use for the skill set.

In practice, if you look at all of the APs and modules, the skill is almost never used for anything approximating theft.

Rather, it is a standard dungeoneering skill used to circumvent or manipulate the mechanisms of a site (locks, traps, machines, etc.) -- and the site itself is usually the lair of a villian or monster and/or a long abandoned ruin.

Sure, NPC thieves use this skill for their profession, but adventurers generally use it for something else entirely.
So a name that captures the Indiana Jones and Lara Croft and MacGyver type skill use would be better.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My point is that after over 100 posts no one in this thread has come up with an alternative that covers all of thievery’s uses satisfactorily without being even more problematic in their own way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My plan for the character sheets I'll make is to call it [Redacted] with the understanding that everyone knows it's "thievery" but everyone will refer to it via polite euphemisms instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Look at it this way maybe. For the Indiana Jones/Laura Croft example I’m sure that they could pick pockets extremely well if they felt like it and I’d argue that it uses the exact same skill. When you get right down to it the only reason they aren’t considered “thieves” is because the owners of the items they grab are usually dead. I’d argue that they still are thieves.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, Tomb Raider literally means stealing from graves. Lara seems like a pretty bad example.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On the subject of "Paladins never pick locks," I hope it is not being seriously suggested that a paladin should fall for using lockpicks to free a bunch of captives from being sacrificed to Rovagug because he didn't have a set of adamantine bolt cutters handy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tim Statler wrote:

I have a Halfling Monk/Paladin, spec'd with high stealth.

His modus operandi is to stealth ahead to scout the opposition so the party can do more of a surgical strike.

I have had GM's tell me that paladin's can't use stealth without risking falling.

This has to be the dammed dumbest thing I've ever read. There's a DM who simply doesn't know how to roleplay.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jeven wrote:
Raylyeh wrote:
Yes, thievery has obvious negative connotations that all of its uses don’t deserve but it gets across what it does pretty well.

The point is that Thievery is but one use for the skill set.

In practice, if you look at all of the APs and modules, the skill is almost never used for anything approximating theft.

Rather, it is a standard dungeoneering skill used to circumvent or manipulate the mechanisms of a site (locks, traps, machines, etc.) -- and the site itself is usually the lair of a villian or monster and/or a long abandoned ruin.

Sure, NPC thieves use this skill for their profession, but adventurers generally use it for something else entirely.
So a name that captures the Indiana Jones and Lara Croft and MacGyver type skill use would be better.

"Dungeoneering". I like it!

Raylyeh wrote:
My point is that after over 100 posts no one in this thread has come up with an alternative that covers all of thievery’s uses satisfactorily without being even more problematic in their own way.

"Thievery" doesn't cover all of its uses either: all the non-thievery related ones are excluded. So it's not like we need a flawless replacement when the thing being replaced is itself flawed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, fine manipulation, dungeoneering, fiddling, handling, etc. are all good replacements for thievery.

Personally, I prefer Handling since it means grabbing/touching with hands; or,

Quote:
The manual or mechanical method or process by which something is moved, carried, transported, etc.

It also lacks the negative contexts where you can't open a locked door/chest unless you bash it in: Even if you own whatever you are trying to open.

Btw thievery (if it includes knot tying) also implies you can't deal with bombs, trapped packages, help sail a boat, help with theater props, secure luggage, attach horses without a metal harness, make a hog tie, surprise a loved one with a gift (or ring), hide small holy symbols to pass through dangerous areas undetected, hide an item an evil character is trying to steal, and on and on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like thievery.


So in PF1 in a situation where some complicated ancient machine is doing something the PCs want to stop, and there are 9 levers and 1 of which will make it stop and the other 8 will make the situation worse, figuring out which lever is the correct one is a disable device check because the actual "pulling a lever" bit is hard, but you need to understand the machine first.

Disable device got rolled in with sleight of hand to become thievery, so is this still a thievery check? Since if it is, I figure that rules out "legerdemain" or "manipulation" or something like that because again, "pulling levers is not hard."


In that particular scenario I’d say it would be a knowledge or lore skill check not necessarily a thievery check unless you can dig inside the levers’ machine parts, then it’d probably be a thievery check. I’d call it a GM call thing.

I have a serious issue with the “manipulation” suggestion, more so than many of the others because my mind instantly goes to it being social not physical. If I saw deception and manipulation on the same skill sheet I’d be confused as hell until someone told me that it meant physical manipulation. Then I’d ask, “Well what does that cover?” When explained I would then say “Oh, like thievery and that kind of stuff? Why call it something so damn counterintuitive?”

Which leads me to believe that we should just stick with it as is and quit worrying over finding a simple, concice, one word, more politicaly correct term that doesn’t seem to exist. We are trying to play a high fantasy TTRPG, not speaking at a civil rights rally...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
"Thievery" doesn't cover all of its uses either:

Which does it miss?

Pick pocket? check
Shoplifting? Check
Bypass security? Check
Open a lock? Check

To me, it covers all 4 actions. Please point out where it fails as I don't see it.

Tridus wrote:
"Dungeoneering". I like it!

Having a skill that is the same as an old knowledge skill seems like it would be very confusing. People from changing over from PF1 aren't going to be thinking 'open lock' when they see a skill that used to be for identifying oozes...

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What if; Disabling traps, locks, and mechanical devices went into Engineering (as it does in Starfinder) and shoplifting and pickpocketing was rolled into Stealth? (Since doing those last two involves not being seen doing them.)


Arutema wrote:
What if; Disabling traps, locks, and mechanical devices went into Engineering (as it does in Starfinder) and shoplifting and pickpocketing was rolled into Stealth? (Since doing those last two involves not being seen doing them.)

At the moment there isn’t an engineering skill unless you specifically took it as a lore I guess. If it did exist I would be fine with this idea but I am against the creation of an entirely new skill. Especially if it’s just made for the sake of political correctness.

Plus then we’d have a whole new thread complaining about stealth...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arutema wrote:
What if; Disabling traps, locks, and mechanical devices went into Engineering

That would confuse people coming from PF1 to PF2 as Engineering in a knowledge skill, much like the dungeoneering suggestion.

Arutema wrote:
shoplifting and pickpocketing was rolled into Stealth? (Since doing those last two involves not being seen doing them.)

This leaves whatever skill you take them from with no untrained uses and kind of puts a lot into the stealth skill. Plus direct interactions isn't really what I'd think of for stealth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Tridus wrote:
"Thievery" doesn't cover all of its uses either:

Which does it miss?

Pick pocket? check
Shoplifting? Check
Bypass security? Check
Open a lock? Check

To me, it covers all 4 actions. Please point out where it fails as I don't see it.

Literally any use that isn't "theft", as evidenced by the first two pages of this thread. That's the whole problem.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Arutema wrote:
What if; Disabling traps, locks, and mechanical devices went into Engineering (as it does in Starfinder) and shoplifting and pickpocketing was rolled into Stealth? (Since doing those last two involves not being seen doing them.)

You know, that would be a lot simpler.

Just call the old Disable Device skill, Disable Device in PF2 like before.

And roll the old Sleight of Hand skill into PF2 Stealth. It was a corner case type of skill anyway and it fits fine with Stealth -- surreptitiously picking pockets, hiding weapons on your person, and so on, all stealthy stuff.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

You know, I think Jeven 100% has the right idea.

There's honestly no reason that picking pockets and sleight of hand couldn't be rolled into Stealth - they are all abilities that benefit from being stealthy and seem like a similar skill set. Hiding a weapon on your person and hiding your person being the same skill has an elegance to it.

And settling/disabling traps, locking/unlocking doors and tying/untying ropes being the same skill has a slightly narrower breadth that's easier to fit in one term. At that point, Disable Device fits more or less perfectly (Manipulate Device is probably more accurate, but keeping the old term for legacy reasons makes sense).

This is definitely now the solution I am in favor of.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

So in PF1 in a situation where some complicated ancient machine is doing something the PCs want to stop, and there are 9 levers and 1 of which will make it stop and the other 8 will make the situation worse, figuring out which lever is the correct one is a disable device check because the actual "pulling a lever" bit is hard, but you need to understand the machine first.

Disable device got rolled in with sleight of hand to become thievery, so is this still a thievery check? Since if it is, I figure that rules out "legerdemain" or "manipulation" or something like that because again, "pulling levers is not hard."

side bar your honor

I can see it be a number of skill rolls to determine the correct answer or each skill roll provides a piece of the final answer.
end side bar

MDC


Yes, that sounds like the best solution.

101 to 150 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Please Don't Call it "Thievery" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.