| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I keep seeing new players using their skill increases to train new skills. And it kind of makes sense, since taking a skill to expert is +1 where taking it to trained is +4 and nets you trained only uses. But they don't realize that there is a dozen ways to get more trained skills and almost nothing to get more skill increases. Or how important those increases are for unlocking skill feats. It is a trap. I mean, technically you could want less skills above trained? But I can't think of it ever being a good idea.
Unless skill increases become significantly cheaper than the playtest (which is quite likely to be fair) then I feel like skill increases should only work on stuff that is already trained. And even if they do make those changes, since I also want more feats which scale with proficiency like Cat Fall, increases seem like they are the better option. I guess when we start talking about not adding your level to stuff that might change though.
The -4/+2/+4/+6 skill progression should alleviate this somewhat.
Yeah, they're changing the skill progression chain, but it still means that the difference between being Legendary and being trained is only +6. Which isn't nothing, but also feels kind of weak.
I really think they need to add more skill feats with restricted benefits based on skill level (like cat fall) because most skill feats are pretty weak (with some notable exceptions) and to give out one skill feat for free for that skill when you increase it.
That would do better at encouraging you to increase your skills rather than the original rules which didn't really reward you well for increasing your expertise.
What are the dozen ways to gain more trained skills after character creaation? Some ancestries, gnome and human, have ancestry feats that train skills, a potent magic item can train one skill, the Additional Lore skill feat trains in more Lore, and the Skill Training general feat trains one feat. An Intelligence boost probably retroactive gives another trained skill at character creation, but that is not explicitly spelled out.
Is spending ancestry feats or general feats or ability score boosts to train skills a better bargain than spending skill increases?
Class archetyping. Dedication always gives 1 feat and frequently 2.if you already have both options you get "one of your choice"
1. Dedications
2. Raising intelligence
3. Skill Training skill feat
4. Ancestral Longevity
5. Gnome Obssession
6. Human Skilled feat
7. Human Skilled Heritage
8. Diadem of Intellect can give you as many as 4
9. Additional Lore feat
10. Bardic Lore
Not quite a dozen, and a couple of those can at least take a skill to expert, but I think it is still a lot. But the real kicker is that these options continue to be available at every level of play. You're gonna get a feat every level, and most of the time that feat can be used to net you more skills. I might not take rogue dedication at level 2, but I haven't really cut myself off from taking it down the road.
But if you spend a waste a skill increase, that means one less skill that you can get to expert, master, or legendary. Which then curtails your access to the higher level skill feats. I've often found getting the right skill feats requires pretty careful planning of skill increases. For example, when building level 9 characters for part 4, if you wanted a master skill feat you had to make sure you increased the related skill at 7th level, not 9th, because your only chance to get the feat would be 8th.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the rumored change of "untrained gives no bonus whatsoever, trained lets you add your level" goes through to the final edition, it seems likely to me that "people are using skill increases on trained skills instead of increasing certain skills" is going to be much more common.
Since it's probably much more useful to be legendary in two skills and trained in 5 than legendary in three skills and trained in two. Or legendary in one skill and trained in eight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the rumored change of "untrained gives no bonus whatsoever, trained lets you add your level" goes through to the final edition, it seems likely to me that "people are using skill increases on trained skills instead of increasing certain skills" is going to be much more common.
Since it's probably much more useful to be legendary in two skills and trained in 5 than legendary in three skills and trained in two. Or legendary in one skill and trained in eight.
True. And as I alluded to before, we may see proficiency increases become more common across the board, but we might also see training as even easier to get. And there's the question of how good the final skill feats will be-- that's a pretty significant piece of this puzzle.
Really, there are too many unknowns for this thread to have much relevance on the future. I guess I just wanted to gripe about something in the rules that I am currently using. Sorry guys.
I personally like the idea of it being a choice to advance your current skill, or widen your knowledge. This seems like a very real choice people make, and makes sense game wise. I understand your concern about the choice being a potential trap, but my hope is that the game will be fun without characters having to be optimized to the point that following a trap for flavor reasons, ruins the game for someone.
Well, what if, like you mentioned, skill training become more available. What if, skill increases at the point where you can start getting master proficiency can be traded for 2 trained skills, and legendary for 3 trained skills. Of course that almost goes the opposite direction from what you were saying, but I kind of feel it isn't unreasonable for someone who would have the ability to focus to the point of a skill being legendary, that if their choice was to branch out, that they could learn several skills.
Maybe even expert skills advance could be turned in for 1 regular skill plus a lore skill. Would that make the potential of widening your skill abilities less of a trap choice, given the implication of +level coming with your first training?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I started playing Basic D&D back in 1986, graduated to AD&D 1E in 1987, moved to AD&D 2E as soon as it came out, then in 1990 I discovered the awesomeness that is Rolemaster. However, finding people interested in trying Rolemaster is pretty tough. So, I've gone back to using AD&D 3.5E, Pathfinder and, most recently, D&D 5E, to get my roleplaying fix.
I finally downloaded the playtest of the Pathfinder Player's Guide yesterday. I spent a few hours flipping through the book back and forth to create a 1st level human fighter. Some things I like. Other things, like skills, I didn't. I found the whole skill progression totally weak and in some areas, total nonsense.
So, a 10th level character with legendary skill in something gets his character level, +6, plus the applicable stat bonus for that skill. Let's say we're talking about crafting. At level 10, that character's skill in crafting, if he has an 18 stat in the related ability, would be 10 + 4 + 6 for a total of +20. While a 20th level character with only "expert" level in crafting has a 20 + 4 + 2 for a total of 26 in crafting? Really? I think that automatically adding a character's level into figuring the skill, as the rules are currently written, is just plain unrealistic.
Just off the top of my head I can think of better ways to figure skills. First, why not require Expert level in a particular skill to count ANY character level at all into the total skill? My thought is: at Expert skill level, a character gets 1/3 of his character level rounded down as a bonus to his total skill. At Master skill level, a character gets 1/2 of his character level rounded down. At Legendary skill level, a character gets to add his full character level to his skill total.
Second, require a certain character level to attain a certain skill level. Trained and Expert can be had by a 1st level character. Master level requires a 5th level character. Legendary requires a 10th level character. But you might ask, "What about the little old man who has never left his workshop his entire life? All he has done is work on his craft. Should he get 10 levels worth of hit points and attack bonus even though he has never exercised a day in his life and has only rudimentary skill with a club?" Of course not. There is a big difference between an NPC craftsman character and PC character classes who also have skills.
Third: I think there is too little differentiation between "Trained" in a skill and being "Legendary" at that skill. Four skill steps for a difference of only +6 with a d20 roll? Really? That's not even remotely realistic. Why not make it like the apprenticeship rankings that exist in real life for electricians, plumbers, and carpenters?: Unskilled=-4, Neophyte=+1, Competent Apprentice=+2, Journeyman=+4, Master=+8 (there's a bigger jump from a Journeyman's skill at something to a Master's skill at it, as is the case in real life), Grand Master=+12 (again a big jump), Legendary=+20 (again there's a big jump.
Legendary status in a skill should be something that a tiny percentage of those who are working at that skill should ever accomplish.)
What about requiring a certain amount of time in the character's life to move above "Expert" level at a skill? I'm talking many years in the case of maxing out a skill at truly "legendary" ability at that skill.
Using a modified version of any of the above or some or all of these in conjunction would be much better than what is currently in the Playtest.
Two things that are supposed to encourage characters to raise their skills beyond trained were ignored by a number of people that couldn't get over the "higher skill roll is only sign of real improvement".
1. Proficiency Gating on skills prevent you from more nuanced uses of a skill. This may mean that manipulating a social situation may be so difficult that it requires you be at least a Master in your social skills, or that disabling a trap may require you to be Legendary in your Thievery.
While these requirements should take into consideration what your party members are capable of it's a great way to limit things beyond the standard... "Let's just make the DC so high they won't succeed unless they invest in it" thought process of Pathfinder First Edition.
2. Skill Feats offered a number of extra character abilities pushing characters further and further into superhuman abilities as they got more proficient with a skill. While there were only a handful of interesting skill feats I do hope that the full rule set will offer other engaging options that make people want to invest in their skills.