Rules oddities in P2E

[Ravingdork]

This thread is essentially meant to be a brainstorm and discussion session for all oddball/unintuitive rules interactions/observations in Pathfinder 2nd Edition that we can come up with.

This thread is meant to be more about finding humor than about complaining.

I'll start.

• - It's impossible for a 20th-level character trained in Thievery and possessing a +30 modifier to disable a trap of Master difficulty. However, the 1st-level rogue with Trap Finder and a +5 modifier can. The first character is indisputably more skilled, but apparently doesn't know what to look for, unlike the rogue.

• - Nearly every starting package for the classes includes one or more sheaths. However, mundane quivers apparently don't exist in P2E. Sheaths don't appear to do anything mechanically advantageous.

• - As impressive as a 20th-level rogue with Legendary training in Athletics, an ungodly skill modifier, and all the Climbing and Jumping skill feats is at climbing and jumping, he's still overshadowed by the 5th-level wizard with fly.

• - A halfling with an iron cube talisman can knock down a Gargantuan rune giant.

• - A 2nd-level rogue with Assurance (athletics) and Expert training can auto-trip an ogre without fail.

• - Many classes, such as wizard, who invest in armor proficiency feats ultimately end up worse off than if they hadn't.
  

[HammerJack]

One of your oddities is off. The rogue can trip an ogre with assurance, not grapple. That, at least, does look like it only works on creatures with one exceptionally low save to target, tjough.

[Paradozen]

A 2nd level monk with crane stance and dancing leaf can jump higher than safety allows. 10' vertical leap(3+2Crane+5Leaf) which, unless you are in reach of a wall, does 5 falling damage.

[Angel Hunter D]

Paradozen wrote:

A 2nd level monk with crane stance and dancing leaf can jump higher than safety allows. 10' vertical leap(3+2Crane+5Leaf) which, unless you are in reach of a wall, does 5 falling damage.

Aw man, that's like, one of my 2 recurring nightmares. I sure hope I don't get it tonight.

[Uchuujin]

Ravingdork wrote:

- A 2nd-level rogue with Assurance (athletics) and Expert training can auto-trip an ogre without fail.

Speaking of, I've seen someone claiming that if you use Assurance for things like shove or trip you don't take a multiple attack penalty? Can anyone happen to confirm or deny this?

[Blave]

Uchuujin wrote:

Speaking of, I've seen someone claiming that if you use Assurance for things like shove or trip you don't take a multiple attack penalty? Can anyone happen to confirm or deny this?

It's true. Assurance lets you ignore ANY penalty. You only take 10 and add your proficiency bonus.

[HammerJack]

Yeah, there isn't really anything to question with assurance. It will guarantee a failure against most things that aren't below your level and don't have an exceptionally weak fort or reflex DC to target, but penalties are not a factor.

Speaking of oddities and athletics, it seems like you can grapple a swarm.

[Doodpants]

Ravingdork wrote:

- As impressive as a 20th-level rogue with Legendary training in Athletics, an ungodly skill modifier, and all the Climbing and Jumping skill feats is at climbing and jumping, he's still overshadowed by the 5th-level wizard with fly.

Not sure how this is considered strange. In terms of reaching high places, the most skilled human climber/jumper in the world would be overshadowed by a sparrow. :-)

[Ravingdork]

Blave wrote:

Uchuujin wrote:

Speaking of, I've seen someone claiming that if you use Assurance for things like shove or trip you don't take a multiple attack penalty? Can anyone happen to confirm or deny this?

It's true. Assurance lets you ignore ANY penalty. You only take 10 and add your proficiency bonus.

I didn't think skill checks took attack penalties in the first place. I've seen people recommending doing combat maneuvers in place of a 3rd attack with a -10 penalty for that very reason.

[Evilgm]

Ravingdork wrote:

- Many classes, such as wizard, who invest in armor proficiency feats ultimately end up worse off than if they hadn't.

But they don't though, unless they forget how to take the armour off. Retraining is a core aspect of the game.

[Midnightoker]

Evilgm wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

- Many classes, such as wizard, who invest in armor proficiency feats ultimately end up worse off than if they hadn't.

But they don't though, unless they forget how to take the armour off. Retraining is a core aspect of the game.

A Wizard that uses Medium Armor and spends two Feats is effectively worse than an Expert Unarmored Wizard with the General Feats once they reach 13.

But there's about 10 threads to discuss that, so if you want to dispute probably better not to clutter RavingDorks new thread with rehashed material.

- You can take a MCD to become a Champion and you gain a Deity and some proficiency. You, however, have no code or any penalties for violating a code or telling your deity they're awful or really anything to discourage or encourage Champion like behavior until you receive actual abilities that can be taken away for violating the Anathema.

[Xenocrat]

Ravingdork wrote:

Blave wrote:

Uchuujin wrote:

Speaking of, I've seen someone claiming that if you use Assurance for things like shove or trip you don't take a multiple attack penalty? Can anyone happen to confirm or deny this?

It's true. Assurance lets you ignore ANY penalty. You only take 10 and add your proficiency bonus.

I didn't think skill checks took attack penalties in the first place. I've seen people recommending doing combat maneuvers in place of a 3rd attack with a -10 penalty for that very reason.

They've been recommending it with assurance to negate the MAP. All the skill-based maneuvers have the attack trait and suffer from and incur MAP when used.

[Shinigami02]

Ravingdork wrote:

Blave wrote:

Uchuujin wrote:

Speaking of, I've seen someone claiming that if you use Assurance for things like shove or trip you don't take a multiple attack penalty? Can anyone happen to confirm or deny this?

It's true. Assurance lets you ignore ANY penalty. You only take 10 and add your proficiency bonus.

I didn't think skill checks took attack penalties in the first place. I've seen people recommending doing combat maneuvers in place of a 3rd attack with a -10 penalty for that very reason.

Any check with the Attack trait (including maneuvers) incurs and counts towards MAP.

[HammerJack]

Ravingdork wrote:

Blave wrote:

Uchuujin wrote:

Speaking of, I've seen someone claiming that if you use Assurance for things like shove or trip you don't take a multiple attack penalty? Can anyone happen to confirm or deny this?

It's true. Assurance lets you ignore ANY penalty. You only take 10 and add your proficiency bonus.

I didn't think skill checks took attack penalties in the first place. I've seen people recommending doing combat maneuvers in place of a 3rd attack with a -10 penalty for that very reason.

Skill checks with the ATTACK trait take attack penalties.

[Garretmander]

Ravingdork wrote:

Blave wrote:

Uchuujin wrote:

Speaking of, I've seen someone claiming that if you use Assurance for things like shove or trip you don't take a multiple attack penalty? Can anyone happen to confirm or deny this?

It's true. Assurance lets you ignore ANY penalty. You only take 10 and add your proficiency bonus.

I didn't think skill checks took attack penalties in the first place. I've seen people recommending doing combat maneuvers in place of a 3rd attack with a -10 penalty for that very reason.

They have the attack trait, so therefore they cause and take MAP.

[Ravingdork]

Shinigami02 wrote:

Any check with the Attack trait (including maneuvers) incurs and counts towards MAP.

Sneaky little traits. (I thought that existed solely for things like determining whether or not you lost invisibility.)

How is one ever to keep up with them all?

[lordcirth]

Fly is actually a 4th level spell, so a 7th level wizard is required.

[Ravingdork]

lordcirth wrote:

Fly is actually a 4th level spell, so a 7th level wizard is required.

*sigh*

[The Gleeful Grognard]

For the first rogue thing, think about it this way. We have two miniature painters, one of them has been speed painting for years and is very good at speed painting but never developed complex techniques. The other is newer and makes more mistakes but is capable of doing more complex techniques because they invested the time to learn how those techniques work even if they will fail quite frequently in practice.

That is the difference between a rogue with trapfinder and one at level 20 (it is a much more realistic split).

It isn't actually clear whether the attack trait forces the check to use MAP. We can only go on intent atm with the MAP entry calling out the usage of shove, not all actions with the attack trait make attack rolls and the shove action is still a skill check.

However this said it is almost certain that they do intend for it to use MAP and not just increase it :)

(looking forward to that FAQ)

[Franz Lunzer]

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

...

It isn't actually clear whether the attack trait forces the check to use MAP. We can only go on intent atm with the MAP entry calling out the usage of shove, not all actions with the attack trait make attack rolls and the shove action is still a skill check.

However this said it is almost certain that they do intend for it to use MAP and not just increase it :)

(looking forward to that FAQ)

Look at the Attack trait definition: Attack trait

[S. J. Digriz]

A short sword is one tenth as bulky as a rapier.

A bastard sword apparently lacks a point, since it only does slashing damage, but is described thus:

"This broad-bladed sword, sometimes called the hand‑and‑a‑half sword, has a longer grip so it can be held in one hand or used with
two hands to provide extra piercing or slashing power."

[Paradozen]

Druids cannot wear metal armor without penalty. But if you multiclass druid you can wear metal armor all day without problem. The only anathema you gain through dedication is your orders, not the shared ones.

A Bard with Know-It-All and Dubious Knowledge always knows when they've critically failed to recall knowledge because every other result yields 2 pieces of info.

[Quandary]

Midnightoker wrote:

- You can take a MCD to become a Champion and you gain a Deity and some proficiency. You, however, have no ... penalties for violating a code ... or really anything to discourage or encourage Champion like behavior until you receive actual abilities that can be taken away for violating the Anathema.

Actually I realized there is no reason not to allow Champions of every Alignment NOW (even without non-Good rules currently), since there is no impact of just assuming they are permanently violating their non-Good Champion code but with no actual consequences.

Spoiler:

Of course, some characters could still not spare the Class Feat, especially since MC Dedication precludes other Archetypes until it's completed... And Trained Heavy alone is still good permanent option for non-Med/Hvy Armor class characters with stat priorities precluding max DEX, saving at least 3-4 stat boosts (more if STR rating/Speed and Skill penalty not priority, facilitated by Chain Mail and Dwarf Unburdened) as well as AC advantage for much of early-midgame atop other STR benefits (weapon dmg, athletics, bulk if hitting STR rating) and Med/Hvy Armor Fortification (which itself can compensate VS "max DEX" no/light armor AC).

Of characters who don't already have Light from Class (like Bard, Alchemist, Scoundrel Rogue), "Humans" (or Cultural Adaptive Halflings) are best positioned to use General Feat Armor Training quickly acquiring at least Medium... Others mostly subpar AC until 2nd general Feat @7 (optimally usig med/hvy armor early, switching to light @3/4, switching to med @7 etc: complicated & subpar many levels but still pays off esp. with Unburdened Dwarf). Of course, Medium Armor class characters get easy AC boost by taking Heavy Trained temporarily until gaining Expert Medium, also allowing to delay boosting DEX to Medium limit.

[shroudb]

You can easily fit a 2 bulk kit on a bandolier, efficiently enough to draw everything you need without spending an action, but if you put a single vial (that can be as well a part of the aforementioned kit), then it's an action to draw it out.

in short, somehow it's designed so it's easier to open and pull out all the stuff from its 8 pouches simultaneously, rather than just 1 thing from 1 pouch.

Paradozen wrote:

Druids cannot wear metal armor without penalty. But if you multiclass druid you can wear metal armor all day without problem. The only anathema you gain through dedication is your orders, not the shared ones.

A Bard with Know-It-All and Dubious Knowledge always knows when they've critically failed to recall knowledge because every other result yields 2 pieces of info.

plus, as a mc druid, you can teach everyone how to speak druidic!

[rainzax]

There is a feat that forces your GM to write you poems.

Bonus points to the first poster who finds it.

[Castilliano]

rainzax wrote:

There is a feat that forces your GM to write you poems.

Bonus points to the first poster who finds it.

Postmodern poetry FTW!

[Sliska Zafir]

Divine Guidance skill feat.

Player: "I don't understand the meaning of this temple dedicated to..."

Deciphers writing

GM: "There once was a man from Nantucket..."

[Drali]

Here's one for you.
Some of the item bulks make no sense.

50ft of rope is a bulk of L.
Manacles have a bulk of -.
A weeks worth of rations has a bulk of L.

It's been bothering me for days, and I figured out why today.

These items (and maybe more) have the exact same bulk as their super technologically advanced Starfinder counterparts.

Titanium Alloy Cable. L.
Restraint Binders (zipties). -
Field rations for a week (space food cubes). L

They're just copied from Starfinder.

[Brew Bird]

Drali wrote:

Here's one for you.

Some of the item bulks make no sense.

50ft of rope is a bulk of L.
Manacles have a bulk of -.
A weeks worth of rations has a bulk of L.

It's been bothering me for days, and I figured out why today.

These items (and maybe more) have the exact same bulk as their super technologically advanced Starfinder counterparts.

Titanium Alloy Cable. L.
Restraint Binders (zipties). -
Field rations for a week (space food cubes). L

They're just copied from Starfinder.

Given that Starfinder borrowed heavily from the then in-development Pathfinder 2, it's just as likely that Starfinder was the one doing the copying.

[Drali]

Brew Bird wrote:

Given that Starfinder borrowed heavily from the then in-development Pathfinder 2, it's just as likely that Starfinder was the one doing the copying.

That's something I didn't know, and is completely feasible. I guess. Things like the manacles make me doubt though.

[rainzax]

Sliska Zafir wrote:

Divine Guidance skill feat.

Player: "I don't understand the meaning of this temple dedicated to..."

Deciphers writing

GM: "There once was a man from Nantucket..."

You got it!

[Pan, definitely not a Kitsune]

The answer to Divine Guidance doesn't have to be a poem, though, so it doesn't really "force" your GM to write a poem.

"We have found the mystic well, but what are we actually supposed to do with it now?"
"As the scripture of Cayden Cailean says: Chug, chug, chug, chug!"

[Corvo Spiritwind]

Ravingdork wrote:

- Many classes, such as wizard, who invest in armor proficiency feats ultimately end up worse off than if they hadn't.[/list]

The wizard(or any caster) will only end up worse off compared to one who min-maxes Dex from level 1 by starting at 16, and isn't outdone by a dex wizard(caster) until 15th when the min-max hits a cap of 20 DEX. Bad option if you want to build dex for...thievery and stealth and crossbow. Good option if you want to max every Mental Ability+Con or want to build Str.

Using the numbers of the "worse off" caster in OP(6armor+2proficiency=8AC), a 13th level barbarian invalidates himself until level 19th when Raging by losing 1AC, despite being Expert in Light(1+4+4=9) and Medium(4+1+4=9), ending up with exact same number as the "worse off" caster.

Same Barbarian seems to invalidate himself even further if going Giant Instinct because his weapons come with the Clumsy 1 condition(do they stack if dual wielded?) reducing his AC by 2, putting himself actually below the "worse off" caster, and just above a caster/martial in +to Hit modifiers.

A melee ranger who builds STR and never used a bow is somehow as good with a bow as with a sword.

It might be more viable to take Assurance(Nature) than Ride unless the DM increases the DC for command to move your mount above 10+your prof.

Feats that buff the Feint usage, don't actually buff rogue's class feat Twin Feint.

[Rikkan]

Follow the Expert wrote:

A skilled character can help out less skilled allies who choose to Follow the Expert. This is a good way to help a character with a low Stealth modifier sneak around,

Follow the Expert wrote:

Choose an ally attempting a recurring skill check while exploring, such as climbing, or performing a different exploration tactic that requires a skill check (like Avoiding Notice).

Yet, Follow The Expert, has the auditory and the visual trait. So your party member who is an expert at being sneaky / stealth / avoiding notice, needs to make noise and be seen so you can follow the expert in being unseen.

[Rysky]

Brew Bird wrote:

Drali wrote:

Here's one for you.

Some of the item bulks make no sense.

50ft of rope is a bulk of L.
Manacles have a bulk of -.
A weeks worth of rations has a bulk of L.

It's been bothering me for days, and I figured out why today.

These items (and maybe more) have the exact same bulk as their super technologically advanced Starfinder counterparts.

Titanium Alloy Cable. L.
Restraint Binders (zipties). -
Field rations for a week (space food cubes). L

They're just copied from Starfinder.

Given that Starfinder borrowed heavily from the then in-development Pathfinder 2, it's just as likely that Starfinder was the one doing the copying.

Ten foot laser pole...

[Donovan Du Bois]

Ravingdork wrote:

It's impossible for a 20th-level character trained in Thievery and possessing a +30 modifier to disable a trap of Master difficulty. However, the 1st-level rogue with Trap Finder and a +5 modifier can. The first character is indisputably more skilled, but apparently doesn't know what to look for, unlike the rogue.

This actually seems like a problem with the game mechanics. I can't imagine a way this makes sense, and it sucks for anyone looking to take skills outside their normal class for flavor.

[Xenocrat]

Donovan Du Bois wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

It's impossible for a 20th-level character trained in Thievery and possessing a +30 modifier to disable a trap of Master difficulty. However, the 1st-level rogue with Trap Finder and a +5 modifier can. The first character is indisputably more skilled, but apparently doesn't know what to look for, unlike the rogue.

This actually seems like a problem with the game mechanics. I can't imagine a way this makes sense, and it sucks for anyone looking to take skills outside their normal class for flavor.

This is actually Extremely Good. We need more proficiency hurdles like this requiring PCs to be tall enough to ride this ride.

This is the capturing the experienced dilletante who can do easy tasks without a thought vs the novice who is focused on learning his craft, who isn't super reliable yet but knows more and can at least try more complicated stuff the dilletante doesn't understand.

Thing of it as your 50 year old dad who can change the oil on his beater in record time because he's been doing it so long vs. the 20 year old kid who doesn't have that smoothness yet but knows how to trouble shoot the computer error readouts on a modern engine.

[Donovan Du Bois]

Xenocrat wrote:

Donovan Du Bois wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

It's impossible for a 20th-level character trained in Thievery and possessing a +30 modifier to disable a trap of Master difficulty. However, the 1st-level rogue with Trap Finder and a +5 modifier can. The first character is indisputably more skilled, but apparently doesn't know what to look for, unlike the rogue.

This actually seems like a problem with the game mechanics. I can't imagine a way this makes sense, and it sucks for anyone looking to take skills outside their normal class for flavor.

This is actually Extremely Good. We need more proficiency hurdles like this requiring PCs to be tall enough to ride this ride.

This is the capturing the experienced dilletante who can do easy tasks without a thought vs the novice who is focused on learning his craft, who isn't super reliable yet but knows more and can at least try more complicated stuff the dilletante doesn't understand.

Thing of it as your 50 year old dad who can change the oil on his beater in record time because he's been doing it so long vs. the 20 year old kid who doesn't have that smoothness yet but knows how to trouble shoot the computer error readouts on a modern engine.

How is this a good thing though?

"Sorry you wanted to step outside the stereotype for your class, but you'll never be better than a level 1 character without putting in tons of investment."

Seems like you might as well just not let players take skills outside their class if you are going to invalidate them with level 1 characters.

[shroudb]

Donovan Du Bois wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

Donovan Du Bois wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

It's impossible for a 20th-level character trained in Thievery and possessing a +30 modifier to disable a trap of Master difficulty. However, the 1st-level rogue with Trap Finder and a +5 modifier can. The first character is indisputably more skilled, but apparently doesn't know what to look for, unlike the rogue.

This actually seems like a problem with the game mechanics. I can't imagine a way this makes sense, and it sucks for anyone looking to take skills outside their normal class for flavor.

This is actually Extremely Good. We need more proficiency hurdles like this requiring PCs to be tall enough to ride this ride.

This is the capturing the experienced dilletante who can do easy tasks without a thought vs the novice who is focused on learning his craft, who isn't super reliable yet but knows more and can at least try more complicated stuff the dilletante doesn't understand.

Thing of it as your 50 year old dad who can change the oil on his beater in record time because he's been doing it so long vs. the 20 year old kid who doesn't have that smoothness yet but knows how to trouble shoot the computer error readouts on a modern engine.

How is this a good thing though?

"Sorry you wanted to step outside the stereotype for your class, but you'll never be better than a level 1 character without putting in tons of investment."

Seems like you might as well just not let players take skills outside their class if you are going to invalidate them with level 1 characters.

there are no more class skills.

you are free to pick whatever skill you want for your character.

The same effort required for you to be good at Athletics, is the same effort required by the Cleric who wants to be "outside the box" and have Athletics.

After that there are 2 scales of "how good you are".
One measures skill (modifier), the other measures mastery (rank)

A skilled craftsman, as an example, will always make the thing he is making perfect. But without the knowledge on HOW to make something much more advanced (rank) he'll just be making perfect "simple" crafts.

[Xenocrat]

Donovan Du Bois wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

Donovan Du Bois wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

It's impossible for a 20th-level character trained in Thievery and possessing a +30 modifier to disable a trap of Master difficulty. However, the 1st-level rogue with Trap Finder and a +5 modifier can. The first character is indisputably more skilled, but apparently doesn't know what to look for, unlike the rogue.

This actually seems like a problem with the game mechanics. I can't imagine a way this makes sense, and it sucks for anyone looking to take skills outside their normal class for flavor.

This is actually Extremely Good. We need more proficiency hurdles like this requiring PCs to be tall enough to ride this ride.

This is the capturing the experienced dilletante who can do easy tasks without a thought vs the novice who is focused on learning his craft, who isn't super reliable yet but knows more and can at least try more complicated stuff the dilletante doesn't understand.

Thing of it as your 50 year old dad who can change the oil on his beater in record time because he's been doing it so long vs. the 20 year old kid who doesn't have that smoothness yet but knows how to trouble shoot the computer error readouts on a modern engine.

How is this a good thing though?

"Sorry you wanted to step outside the stereotype for your class, but you'll never be better than a level 1 character without putting in tons of investment."

Seems like you might as well just not let players take skills outside their class if you are going to invalidate them with level 1 characters.

Try again. You are much better than a level 1 character - at simple tasks. The level 15 guy Trained in Medicine is the crusty old field medic who can do stitches or stop bleeding without paying attention. The level 3 expert is a kid just out of medical school who can't do that nearly as well and sometimes botches it, but also has enough knowledge to at least try some moderately complex surgery that our experienced medic can't. And even if our level 15 chap gets Expert proficiency, he still won't be able to try heart surgery, but our level 7 Master can.

There are plenty of easy tasks that don't require training or only require training that high level characters can breeze through. But there's definitely a place for traps, rituals, HP thresholds when healing, and other things that are just too complex unless they invest more.

[Donovan Du Bois]

Xenocrat wrote:

Donovan Du Bois wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

Donovan Du Bois wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

It's impossible for a 20th-level character trained in Thievery and possessing a +30 modifier to disable a trap of Master difficulty. However, the 1st-level rogue with Trap Finder and a +5 modifier can. The first character is indisputably more skilled, but apparently doesn't know what to look for, unlike the rogue.

This actually seems like a problem with the game mechanics. I can't imagine a way this makes sense, and it sucks for anyone looking to take skills outside their normal class for flavor.

This is actually Extremely Good. We need more proficiency hurdles like this requiring PCs to be tall enough to ride this ride.

This is the capturing the experienced dilletante who can do easy tasks without a thought vs the novice who is focused on learning his craft, who isn't super reliable yet but knows more and can at least try more complicated stuff the dilletante doesn't understand.

Thing of it as your 50 year old dad who can change the oil on his beater in record time because he's been doing it so long vs. the 20 year old kid who doesn't have that smoothness yet but knows how to trouble shoot the computer error readouts on a modern engine.

How is this a good thing though?

"Sorry you wanted to step outside the stereotype for your class, but you'll never be better than a level 1 character without putting in tons of investment."

Seems like you might as well just not let players take skills outside their class if you are going to invalidate them with level 1 characters.

Try again. You are much better than a level 1 character - at simple tasks. The level 15 guy Trained in Medicine is the crusty old field medic who can do stitches or stop bleeding without paying attention. The level 3 expert is a kid just out of medical school who can't do that nearly as well and sometimes botches it, but also has enough knowledge to at least try some moderately complex surgery that...

You would have a point if the simple tasks mattered to high level players, but they don't. There's no point in having that field medic at all, because they are useless for the things you need them for at your level.

[Tikael]

Donovan Du Bois wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

Donovan Du Bois wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

It's impossible for a 20th-level character trained in Thievery and possessing a +30 modifier to disable a trap of Master difficulty. However, the 1st-level rogue with Trap Finder and a +5 modifier can. The first character is indisputably more skilled, but apparently doesn't know what to look for, unlike the rogue.

This actually seems like a problem with the game mechanics. I can't imagine a way this makes sense, and it sucks for anyone looking to take skills outside their normal class for flavor.

This is actually Extremely Good. We need more proficiency hurdles like this requiring PCs to be tall enough to ride this ride.

This is the capturing the experienced dilletante who can do easy tasks without a thought vs the novice who is focused on learning his craft, who isn't super reliable yet but knows more and can at least try more complicated stuff the dilletante doesn't understand.

Thing of it as your 50 year old dad who can change the oil on his beater in record time because he's been doing it so long vs. the 20 year old kid who doesn't have that smoothness yet but knows how to trouble shoot the computer error readouts on a modern engine.

How is this a good thing though?

"Sorry you wanted to step outside the stereotype for your class, but you'll never be better than a level 1 character without putting in tons of investment."

Seems like you might as well just not let players take skills outside their class if you are going to invalidate them with level 1 characters.

Think about it like this: you memorize your times tables out to large numbers, you can rattle off 32*27 faster than anyone else. But a mathematician can solve a complex differential equation, and if you didn't put the effort into learning how to do those you can't. Going to expert isn't just getting better at the skill it's learning new ways to apply previous skills.

You can juggle 3 balls all day every day but you can't just jump to juggling 5 balls from there without putting in more effort.

[Xenocrat]

Donovan Du Bois wrote:

You would have a point if the simple tasks mattered to high level players, but they don't. There's no point in having that field medic at all, because they are useless for the things you need them for at your level.

Which of the following trained/untrained activities that have no expert/master/legendary cut offs or enhancements that I'm aware of become useless at high level?

Tumble Through, Maneuver in Flight, Recall Knowledge, Climb, Force Open, Grapple, High Jump, Long Jump, Shove, Swim, Trip, Disarm, Repair, Earn Income, Create a Diversion, Lie, Impersonate, Gather Information, Make an Impression, Request, Coerce, Demoralize, Subsist, Conceal an Object, Hide, Sneak, Steal?

[Donovan Du Bois]

Xenocrat wrote:

Donovan Du Bois wrote:

You would have a point if the simple tasks mattered to high level players, but they don't. There's no point in having that field medic at all, because they are useless for the things you need them for at your level.

Which of the following trained/untrained activities that have no expert/master/legendary cut offs or enhancements that I'm aware of become useless at high level?

Tumble Through, Maneuver in Flight, Recall Knowledge, Climb, Force Open, Grapple, High Jump, Long Jump, Shove, Swim, Trip, Disarm, Repair, Earn Income, Create a Diversion, Lie, Impersonate, Gather Information, Make an Impression, Request, Coerce, Demoralize, Subsist, Conceal an Object, Hide, Sneak, Steal?

I don't have the actions memorized yet, sorry. But disarm for instance is useless for a nonrogue, as any rogue is going to be better at it than you are.

[Xenocrat]

Donovan Du Bois wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

Donovan Du Bois wrote:

You would have a point if the simple tasks mattered to high level players, but they don't. There's no point in having that field medic at all, because they are useless for the things you need them for at your level.

Which of the following trained/untrained activities that have no expert/master/legendary cut offs or enhancements that I'm aware of become useless at high level?

Tumble Through, Maneuver in Flight, Recall Knowledge, Climb, Force Open, Grapple, High Jump, Long Jump, Shove, Swim, Trip, Disarm, Repair, Earn Income, Create a Diversion, Lie, Impersonate, Gather Information, Make an Impression, Request, Coerce, Demoralize, Subsist, Conceal an Object, Hide, Sneak, Steal?

I don't have the actions memorized yet, sorry. But disarm for instance is useless for a nonrogue, as any rogue is going to be better at it than you are.

Right, just like attacking enemies with weapons is useless for a nonfighter, because any fighter is going to be better at it than you are.

[Donovan Du Bois]

Xenocrat wrote:

Donovan Du Bois wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

Donovan Du Bois wrote:

You would have a point if the simple tasks mattered to high level players, but they don't. There's no point in having that field medic at all, because they are useless for the things you need them for at your level.

Which of the following trained/untrained activities that have no expert/master/legendary cut offs or enhancements that I'm aware of become useless at high level?

Tumble Through, Maneuver in Flight, Recall Knowledge, Climb, Force Open, Grapple, High Jump, Long Jump, Shove, Swim, Trip, Disarm, Repair, Earn Income, Create a Diversion, Lie, Impersonate, Gather Information, Make an Impression, Request, Coerce, Demoralize, Subsist, Conceal an Object, Hide, Sneak, Steal?

I don't have the actions memorized yet, sorry. But disarm for instance is useless for a nonrogue, as any rogue is going to be better at it than you are.

Right, just like attacking enemies with weapons is useless for a nonfighter, because any fighter is going to be better at it than you are.

Not true. You add your level to attacks at trained proficiency. A level 20 wizard is better with a staff then a level 1 fighter. This is not the same for the thievery and rogues.

[shroudb]

Donovan Du Bois wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

Donovan Du Bois wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

Donovan Du Bois wrote:

You would have a point if the simple tasks mattered to high level players, but they don't. There's no point in having that field medic at all, because they are useless for the things you need them for at your level.

Which of the following trained/untrained activities that have no expert/master/legendary cut offs or enhancements that I'm aware of become useless at high level?

Tumble Through, Maneuver in Flight, Recall Knowledge, Climb, Force Open, Grapple, High Jump, Long Jump, Shove, Swim, Trip, Disarm, Repair, Earn Income, Create a Diversion, Lie, Impersonate, Gather Information, Make an Impression, Request, Coerce, Demoralize, Subsist, Conceal an Object, Hide, Sneak, Steal?

I don't have the actions memorized yet, sorry. But disarm for instance is useless for a nonrogue, as any rogue is going to be better at it than you are.

Right, just like attacking enemies with weapons is useless for a nonfighter, because any fighter is going to be better at it than you are.

Not true. You add your level to attacks at trained proficiency. A level 20 wizard is better with a staff then a level 1 fighter. This is not the same for the thievery and rogues.

he's talking about Disarm a weapon.

not Disarm a trap.

As for your original question, there are dozen "trained" skill uses that you will be using even at level 20.

The list above should offer you a brief summary, and you can easily spot which ones are actually perpetually useful.

p.s.
you also add your level for Thievery exactly as you add it for attacks. What are you talking about?

[Tikael]

Donovan Du Bois wrote:

But disarm for instance is useless for a nonrogue, as any rogue is going to be better at it than you are.

How so? Because rogue can attempt harder checks early? Since they can get expert/master/legendary proficiency early on any skill they will be able to pull off advanced skill features earlier than any other class can. Even if rogue got an actual bonus on the thievery check that's their thing. If they made a healer class that wouldn't mean your character shouldn't even waste a training on the skill anymore.