| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Literally any use that isn't "theft", as evidenced by the first two pages of this thread. That's the whole problem.
It's skills normally practiced by thieves and NOT every use is theft... Once again, just because it CAN be used for non-theft operations, it doesn't change that they are skills used to steal things.
But I now understand what you meant: when I say that thievery covers all the actions, I mean that there is a theft that applies to each and when you say it you mean that not every conceivable action is considered theft so we're using different criteria. I'll be honest though: I don't think we'll find a word/phrase that covers every action under your criteria.
Disable Device
This leaves the skill quite lean with only a single skilled uses and no untrained. It leaves it a an oddity in the middle of skills with multiple uses and all having untrained ones too.
Disable DeviceThis leaves the skill quite lean with only a single skilled uses and no untrained. It leaves it a an oddity in the middle of skills with multiple uses and all having untrained ones too.
With Untrained no longer getting a level boost, does it really matter?
Untrained in any skill at moderate to high levels just means you fail.
I think with dropping level to untrained skills, no skills are going to have untrained uses (or at least none people will actually use.) But only one trained use is a problem.
I mean in PF1, if, say, the party was tracking someone and one person has max ranks in survival, does anybody else bother rolling? Only one person needs to identify the monster (then they can tell everyone else) so only the person with the appropriate knowledge need roll.
Disable trap, set trap, pick lock, tie ropes, escape bonds... That seems like plenty of width for one skill, especially since more than one of those are things every group tends to need.
Disable Device was worth getting in PF1, even with the dwindling presence of traps altogether due to the lack of PF2's hazard initiative system. Hard to make "You disabled the trap" interesting.
It was Sleight of Hand that was harder to justify. My only issue is that Stealth already is pretty good - but I think if it's the only skill to be seriously impacted by ACP, that's fair enough of a nerf, IMO.
Does lead to weirdness with armor somehow interfering with your ability to do magic tricks. My gloves are leather but my vitals are covered in plate, and somehow that makes it harder to make it look like I made a coin disappear and reappear in my other hand? I'd say that ACP should be ignored for Stealth when the sight or sound of the armor isn't relevant (like a magically deafened enemy, or when blending into a crowd, or when you're not trying to hide your own person line when palming an object or keeping someone behind you hidden)
), but then that adds complexity. Could also just leave it as a mild quirk, it's not as though being unable to flip off your gloves for a second to disable a trap makes any sense either. Or how STR characters can have worse Athletics checks than STR dumpers if they elect to wear full plate.
Does lead to weirdness with armor somehow interfering with your ability to do magic tricks. My gloves are leather but my vitals are covered in plate, and somehow that makes it harder to make it look like I made a coin disappear and reappear in my other hand?
To be totally fair that was the case already anyways, since Thievery is a Dex Skill and SoH is not Attack tagged.
With Untrained no longer getting a level boost, does it really matter?
Untrained in any skill at moderate to high levels just means you fail.
So at lower levels you actually have a much better chance to make the rolls with the removal of the -4. You should also encounter skills that aren't artificially raised to 'level appropriate' ones so in an emergency, you might need to know if your higher level character can climb that 'normal' wall with untrained athletics. [when you normally fly over things, a wall in n antimagic area can be a thing].
I mean in PF1, if, say, the party was tracking someone and one person has max ranks in survival, does anybody else bother rolling? Only one person needs to identify the monster (then they can tell everyone else) so only the person with the appropriate knowledge need roll.
When I play, everyone even remotely close rolls, especially if time is an issue: if a 1 doesn't make the roll it's better to have multiple checks IMO. For me though survival tends to be one of those skills you either have no one with it or everyone has it. :P
I mean in PF1, if, say, the party was tracking someone and one person has max ranks in survival, does anybody else bother rolling? Only one person needs to identify the monster (then they can tell everyone else) so only the person with the appropriate knowledge need roll.When I play, everyone even remotely close rolls, especially if time is an issue: if a 1 doesn't make the roll it's better to have multiple checks IMO. For me though survival tends to be one of those skills you either have no one with it or everyone has it. :P
But in PF2, there is a downside to rolling when you have a small chance of success- you have a high chance of critical failure. So while in PF1 people could roll things they had very small bonuses to because "what's the worst that can happen", now the system actively discourages rolling anything where you have a pretty good chance of missing by 10.
So we're likely to have far fewer "untrained attempts" of anything in the new edition now that +level to untrained has been dropped.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean in PF1, if, say, the party was tracking someone and one person has max ranks in survival, does anybody else bother rolling? Only one person needs to identify the monster (then they can tell everyone else) so only the person with the appropriate knowledge need roll.When I play, everyone even remotely close rolls, especially if time is an issue: if a 1 doesn't make the roll it's better to have multiple checks IMO. For me though survival tends to be one of those skills you either have no one with it or everyone has it. :PBut in PF2, there is a downside to rolling when you have a small chance of success- you have a high chance of critical failure. So while in PF1 people could roll things they had very small bonuses to because "what's the worst that can happen", now the system actively discourages rolling anything where you have a pretty good chance of missing by 10.
So we're likely to have far fewer "untrained attempts" of anything in the new edition now that +level to untrained has been dropped.
Note in your quote, you specifically asked "in PF1"...
In PF2, we'd more often than not had more crit fails than successes with the new rules WITH someone focuses on the skill: For instance, we had to stop picking a lock because all the picks broke... Twice... :P Add to that the slapstick 'fun' of almost always getting more incorrect info than correct with 'knowledge' type checks and I can't say I'm a huge fan of the crit mechanic attached to skills.
You also have uses with no failure/crit fail: for instance, there is NO reason everyone shouldn't roll for direction. Additionally, you have the aid action that only has a DC15 normally.