How so? Because rogue can attempt harder checks early?
But disarm for instance is useless for a nonrogue, as any rogue is going to be better at it than you are.
Exactly. A level 1 rogue is better than you are as a trained character at level 20. Why do it?
If they made a healer class that wouldn't mean your character shouldn't even waste a training on the skill anymore.
That's exactly what it would mean. Why would I take it when a level 1 healer is BETTER than me? I can hire a level 1 healer to follow my level 20 'lord of the arcane' around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How so? Because rogue can attempt harder checks early?
But disarm for instance is useless for a nonrogue, as any rogue is going to be better at it than you are.Exactly. A level 1 rogue is better than you are as a trained character at level 20. Why do it?
If they made a healer class that wouldn't mean your character shouldn't even waste a training on the skill anymore.That's exactly what it would mean. Why would I take it when a level 1 healer is BETTER than me? I can hire a level 1 healer to follow my level 20 'lord of the arcane' around.
That's not how skills work though.
Sure you can take a class specific feat and say "hey, this makes them have a pseude expert in a skill" and i throw in a "hey that level 5 fighter has crit specialisation in greatswords that my rogue hasn't, even if my rogue has miles higher "attack bonus"
But you and the fighter can still attack the same targets. A level 20 character trained in thievery can't even attempt the locks a level 1 rogue can.
How are rogues getting proficiency early? They still can't get master until 7th, and legendary until 15th, right?
They're more broad with their skills, but that's not the same thing as early.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How are rogues getting proficiency early? They still can't get master until 7th, and legendary until 15th, right?
They're more broad with their skills, but that's not the same thing as early.
i'm not so sure how it went to picking locks.
all this time i think he was talking about the level 1 class feat "trap finder" that allows him to try to disable traps that require master in thievery.
(not that a level 1 will ever make the DC vs those, which was what i was pointing at with the level 5 fighter with crit specialization vs the tarasque)
That is what I'm talking about, Sorry picking locks and disabling traps arn't the EXACT same thing.
A level 1 rogue can disable traps that my level 20 wizard with trained thievery can't. So why take trained thievery? Why not hire a level 1 rogue, so reach a little deeper in my pocket and hire a level 5 rogue which can succeed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How are rogues getting proficiency early? They still can't get master until 7th, and legendary until 15th, right?
They're more broad with their skills, but that's not the same thing as early.
i'm not so sure how it went to picking locks.
all this time i think he was talking about the level 1 class feat "trap finder" that allows him to try to disable traps that require master in thievery.
(not that a level 1 will ever make the DC vs those, which was what i was pointing at with the level 5 fighter with crit specialization vs the tarasque)
That is what I'm talking about, Sorry picking locks and disabling traps arn't the EXACT same thing.
A level 1 rogue can disable traps that my level 20 wizard with trained thievery can't. So why take trained thievery? Why not hire a level 1 rogue, so reach a little deeper in my pocket and hire a level 5 rogue which can succeed.
your level 20 wizard can be legendary in thievery if you wish to be the master disabler.
Also, you can MC into rogue and pick up the feat yourself.
i really see no issue here.
What you're asking is akin to "why can't my 20 level rogue with his familiar get the bonuses of the Familiar wizard thesis"
Each class has its strengths. For rogue, that is skills. For wizard, that is spells.
Are you really asking why the class that specializes in skills gets class feats that help with skills?
No, I'm asking why a level 1 nobody can attempt a check that my level 20 character can't when they have the same proficiency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I'm asking why a level 1 nobody can attempt a check that my level 20 character can't when they have the same proficiency.How are rogues getting proficiency early? They still can't get master until 7th, and legendary until 15th, right?
They're more broad with their skills, but that's not the same thing as early.
i'm not so sure how it went to picking locks.
all this time i think he was talking about the level 1 class feat "trap finder" that allows him to try to disable traps that require master in thievery.
(not that a level 1 will ever make the DC vs those, which was what i was pointing at with the level 5 fighter with crit specialization vs the tarasque)
That is what I'm talking about, Sorry picking locks and disabling traps arn't the EXACT same thing.
A level 1 rogue can disable traps that my level 20 wizard with trained thievery can't. So why take trained thievery? Why not hire a level 1 rogue, so reach a little deeper in my pocket and hire a level 5 rogue which can succeed.
your level 20 wizard can be legendary in thievery if you wish to be the master disabler.
Also, you can MC into rogue and pick up the feat yourself.
i really see no issue here.
What you're asking is akin to "why can't my 20 level rogue with his familiar get the bonuses of the Familiar wizard thesis"
Each class has its strengths. For rogue, that is skills. For wizard, that is spells.
Are you really asking why the class that specializes in skills gets class feats that help with skills?
For the same reason a "level 1 wizard" is better at casting spells than a level 20 rogue.
p.s.
we polluted poor Ravingdork's thread already enough, if you have a problem that the "Class feat "trapfinder" actually makes you better vs traps", make a thread on it.
The level 20 rogue didn't spend any resources on spellcasting, I had to buy thievery.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
sure he did. He picked up BOTH knowledge (arcana) AND "detect magic" cantrip with a skill feat. That's more of an investment than yours.
And look at that, he can do everything I can do with both Arcana and Detect Magic! Just like it should be! Now lets make it the same way reversed, shall we?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
nope. He still is worse "spellcaster" than a level 1 wizard. Even if he's 20 level. I mean, he paid both a skill AND a skill feat, and all he has is 1 cantrip, vs the 3 cantrips and the 1st level spells!
I'm not arguing that I am a worse rogue, I'm arguing that I can't even try to do something that a level 1 character can do with the same proficiency.
AS for your comparison, sure:
You disarm trained difficulty traps extremely better than he disarms trained difficulty traps. will you look at that?! you gained exactly what you paid for!
And that's my point. Why take it at all if the level 1 rogue is better than me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Trained in theivery" for EVERYONE means "you disarm traps that required trained in thievery.
The ONE class who specialises in skills, has a class feature that makes his skills better.
How is this remotely weird?
And because of that, there is no reason for anyone but the rogue to take thievery. A low level rogue can be bought and you can save your proficiency.
And because of that, there is no reason for anyone but the rogue to take thievery. A low level rogue can be bought and you can save your proficiency."Trained in theivery" for EVERYONE means "you disarm traps that required trained in thievery.
The ONE class who specialises in skills, has a class feature that makes his skills better.
How is this remotely weird?
no not really.
a) a low level rogue will never make a high level dc
b)ANYONE can invest in thievery and be equally as good as a rogue who invest in thievery.
or do you think that a rogue will not invest in thievery becasue he can find traps with just trained?
the only bonus he really gets is "pay a class feat to pick up traps faster" and that's certainly a reasonable bonus, but nothing vital to ANY group.
a) You can't even try the check, so you are no worse off
b) But why would they when they can just hire a cheap rogue who is better than them?
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's kind of weird that this is being framed as a 'skills' problem when it is actually to do with one single class feat that lets a character be unusually good at one particular use of a single skill, one that their class has traditionally been exceptional at.
For literally any other skill in the game, or any other use of the Thievery skill, all characters have access to the same proficiency ranks at the same levels. If you choose not to specialise in a skill then you will not have access to all possible uses, but you could specialise, if that is important to you.
(Also, the reason why you don't just hire a level 1 rogue is that the lowest level simple hazard that requires master proficiency is the level 7 Pharaoh's Ward, with a DC 27 (Master) check to disable it. Good Luck, dude with +8 Thievery to disable traps!)
I think it's kind of weird that this is being framed as a 'skills' problem when it is actually to do with one single class feat that lets a character be unusually good at one particular use of a single skill, one that their class has traditionally been exceptional at.
For literally any other skill in the game, or any other use of the Thievery skill, all characters have access to the same proficiency ranks at the same levels. If you choose not to specialise in a skill then you will not have access to all possible uses, but you could specialise, if that is important to you.
That's why this is so bothersome, this is the only part of any skill that does this!
(Also, the reason why you don't just hire a level 1 rogue is that the lowest level simple hazard that requires master proficiency is the level 7 Pharaoh's Ward, with a DC 27 (Master) check to disable it. Good Luck, dude with +8 Thievery to disable traps!)
If I hire 20 one will succeed.
I think it's kind of weird that this is being framed as a 'skills' problem when it is actually to do with one single class feat that lets a character be unusually good at one particular use of a single skill, one that their class has traditionally been exceptional at.
For literally any other skill in the game, or any other use of the Thievery skill, all characters have access to the same proficiency ranks at the same levels. If you choose not to specialise in a skill then you will not have access to all possible uses, but you could specialise, if that is important to you.
That's why this is so bothersome, this is the only part of any skill that does this!
(Also, the reason why you don't just hire a level 1 rogue is that the lowest level simple hazard that requires master proficiency is the level 7 Pharaoh's Ward, with a DC 27 (Master) check to disable it. Good Luck, dude with +8 Thievery to disable traps!)If I hire 20 one will succeed.again, it has nothing to do with a skill and everything to do with a class feature.
if you want a DIRECT comparison.
"invisibility" makes Stealth 100 times better.
"Why would you put stealth on any character that can't go invisible" is not really a valid question now, is it?
As for if you hire 20... you do know that the trap will blow into your face long before one succeeds, right? If that's your imagery of "lockpicking", don't bother with low level rogues, get low level peasants and just have them walk in front of the party...
No, why would you take stealth on any character that can be invisible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How are rogues getting proficiency early? They still can't get master until 7th, and legendary until 15th, right?
They're more broad with their skills, but that's not the same thing as early.
i'm not so sure how it went to picking locks.
all this time i think he was talking about the level 1 class feat "trap finder" that allows him to try to disable traps that require master in thievery.
(not that a level 1 will ever make the DC vs those, which was what i was pointing at with the level 5 fighter with crit specialization vs the tarasque)
That is what I'm talking about, Sorry picking locks and disabling traps arn't the EXACT same thing.
A level 1 rogue can disable traps that my level 20 wizard with trained thievery can't. So why take trained thievery? Why not hire a level 1 rogue, so reach a little deeper in my pocket and hire a level 5 rogue which can succeed.
If thievery is that important to the wizard, why didn't they bother become legendary in theivery, letting them take care of traps even that rogue cannot? Or MC Rogue to grab trapfinder?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If thievery is that important to the wizard, why didn't they bother become legendary in theivery, letting them take care of traps even that rogue cannot? Or MC Rogue to grab trapfinder?How are rogues getting proficiency early? They still can't get master until 7th, and legendary until 15th, right?
They're more broad with their skills, but that's not the same thing as early.
i'm not so sure how it went to picking locks.
all this time i think he was talking about the level 1 class feat "trap finder" that allows him to try to disable traps that require master in thievery.
(not that a level 1 will ever make the DC vs those, which was what i was pointing at with the level 5 fighter with crit specialization vs the tarasque)
That is what I'm talking about, Sorry picking locks and disabling traps arn't the EXACT same thing.
A level 1 rogue can disable traps that my level 20 wizard with trained thievery can't. So why take trained thievery? Why not hire a level 1 rogue, so reach a little deeper in my pocket and hire a level 5 rogue which can succeed.
It's not important, but that's the point. This is the one skill where not being a specific class makes taking it feel bad. Why would a non rogue take it when every rogue every is better than you at it.
No, why would you take stealth on any character that can be invisible.I think it's kind of weird that this is being framed as a 'skills' problem when it is actually to do with one single class feat that lets a character be unusually good at one particular use of a single skill, one that their class has traditionally been exceptional at.
For literally any other skill in the game, or any other use of the Thievery skill, all characters have access to the same proficiency ranks at the same levels. If you choose not to specialise in a skill then you will not have access to all possible uses, but you could specialise, if that is important to you.
That's why this is so bothersome, this is the only part of any skill that does this!
(Also, the reason why you don't just hire a level 1 rogue is that the lowest level simple hazard that requires master proficiency is the level 7 Pharaoh's Ward, with a DC 27 (Master) check to disable it. Good Luck, dude with +8 Thievery to disable traps!)If I hire 20 one will succeed.again, it has nothing to do with a skill and everything to do with a class feature.
if you want a DIRECT comparison.
"invisibility" makes Stealth 100 times better.
"Why would you put stealth on any character that can't go invisible" is not really a valid question now, is it?
As for if you hire 20... you do know that the trap will blow into your face long before one succeeds, right? If that's your imagery of "lockpicking", don't bother with low level rogues, get low level peasants and just have them walk in front of the party...
ehhh you better read invisibility and stealth...
you can be as invisible as you want, but without stealth everyone and their mother will instantly know where you are without any effort spent.
Sounds about right, all magic got gimped so why not invisibility too.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A class with Master thievery is just as good as the rogue class with Master thievery. Trapfinding doesn't matter at that point.
You're trying to say that NOT INVESTING in a skill makes you not as good as a character that DOES invest in the skill. Which, you know, duh. The Rogue needs to invest in Trapfinding. A wizard who just gets trained in thievery didn't invest much; a rogue investing in trapfinding invested an entire class feat for it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
- 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.
In an interview with Know Direction tonight, Luis Loza mentioned that the forthcoming Gods and Magic world guide will have rules for major and minor curses for the gods to penalize followers who violate their anathema. One example that was provided of a major curse from Iomedae is a curse that shatters swords when used to attack in battle. So, while there is currently nothing to punish PCs who violate their deity's anathema, that will change in January when the Gods & Magic book comes out.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Donovan, you may have zero Rogue levels, but you certainly hijacked this thread. Too bad, too, this had been a good one.
This anomaly irks you. We get that. It makes sense to use.
A lot of us, several who have given excellent analogies to explain like the veteran field medic who can triage w/ improvised equipment vs. the rookie surgeon who would struggle at that, but has a shot at doing actual brain surgery the field medic should avoid at all costs.
Given your tenacity, maybe it's time to step back and reconsider why it irks you that a guy w/ a skill & a class feat is better than another guy with just the skill. Sometimes. But often not.
Is it because there's some sacredness to the level difference? Or to the raw numbers?
Because there isn't.
There are now multiple measures for how good a PC is with a skill.
The 20th level guy w/ just the skill, even if given a crappy Dex, can unlock locks the guy who has more than just the skill, and perhaps a tremendous Dex, might need luck to bypass.
Does that seem fair given the difference in investment & natural talent?
Heck, why isn't the Rogue better? Why aren't you on his side?
He invested more!
Oh, yeah. The numbers.
After decades of numbers being the only metric for skills, I can understand how awkward is the adjustment you'll need to make for PF2, if willing.
But it's not that much of a rule oddity (if it's one at all) that it needs to dominate the rule oddity thread.
Please go start a complaint thread.
Cheers
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I genuinely do like that there are two dimensions of skills now. For each skill, a person has a subset of those activities which they have sufficient theoretical basis to perform, and an amount of experience they have performing those activities which is unrelated to what they understand.
Like there are people in the world who can cook one or two things better than almost anybody else on the planet. But if you pitted them against a recent culinary school graduate and asked each to make an omelette, some eclairs, a panang curry, swedish meatballs, a baked alaska, tamales, a beef wellington, and a risotto... it would barely be a contest. One should be able to make the best pad kee mao in the world without having the faintest idea how to make a croquembouche or a gumbo.
|
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.
Being that this thread is intended for humor (see OP), this minor point you bring forward is completely non-sensical, and here is why:
If I survive to 15th level, and train my Religion skill to Legendary, then pick up this Legendary feat, my GM would be remiss not to write poems when my character, with reasonable frequency, consults their lexicon of religious parables.
How could you not agree!?
I just glanced at the thread and can see this is blown out of proportions because this is a niche nitpick that a class feature does something with one particular skill and is easily solved by multiclassing. This isn't actually a skill issue, but a class feat altering a skill.
That's kind of like complaining you can get cantrips via other ways than caster, but only casters can get metamagic class feats and cast cantrips in different ways.
Both are solved via multiclassing.
And we can have badgers who stand as tall as grizzly bears, though that's less an oddity as it is high-octane awesome.
It's more that every non-horse animal companion grows to the exact same size...
And we can have badgers who stand as tall as grizzly bears, though that's less an oddity as it is high-octane awesome.It's more that every non-horse animal companion grows to the exact same size...
Bear sized squirrels?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bear sized squirrels?And we can have badgers who stand as tall as grizzly bears, though that's less an oddity as it is high-octane awesome.It's more that every non-horse animal companion grows to the exact same size...
Tiger sized ravens...
I think to gain Unnoticed, you have to hide, but no one is allowed to know you even tried.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is the mechanic that determines the person passing you is unnoticed? You only appear to determine this state when an encounter begins so wouldn’t an encounter begin the moment he tries to pass you, or some other roll to determine whether someone notices the other? As soon as there is a perception check, unnoticed no longer exists in the rules.
If unnoticed is essentially just the absence of a condition, why does it exist?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’ll be interested to see what they create that makes this relevant but I am not a game designer so I am sure there was a reason for it. Main thing for people to be aware of is it seems to play no part whatsoever in Encounter mode, exploration mode, Stealth or Initiative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Donovan, you may have zero Rogue levels, but you certainly hijacked this thread. Too bad, too, this had been a good one.
That's really unfair. I wasn't being insulting or mean, it was a conversation about an oddity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.Being that this thread is intended for humor (see OP), this minor point you bring forward is completely non-sensical, and here is why:
If I survive to 15th level, and train my Religion skill to Legendary, then pick up this Legendary feat, my GM would be remiss not to write poems when my character, with reasonable frequency, consults their lexicon of religious parables.
How could you not agree!?
Because that gets old fast. Also, it doesn't suit all deities.
Asmodeus doesn't write poems, he writes legislation.
Cayden may have a bawdy limerick here or there, but he "is not known to have taken the time to write a book or manual describing his divine teachings", so I assume whatever passes for his holy texts are drunken notes written on napkins.
Nethys? Scholarly textbooks.
Shelyn would probably use poems, though.
Also, because for most people, being forced to write poems on the spot is a chore, chores aren't fun, so if you demand your hints come in the form of poems, you're probably reducing the amount of fun at the table.
New books, New oddities.
Heir of the Saoc, the feat that improves your Saoc Astrology feat, doubles your odds of receiving a penalty from botched astrology.
Viking Shieldbearer sounds like a super thematic ancestry feat for Martials, but benefits wizards and sorcerers more due to fewer redundancies.
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.Being that this thread is intended for humor (see OP), this minor point you bring forward is completely non-sensical, and here is why:
If I survive to 15th level, and train my Religion skill to Legendary, then pick up this Legendary feat, my GM would be remiss not to write poems when my character, with reasonable frequency, consults their lexicon of religious parables.
How could you not agree!?
Because that gets old fast. Also, it doesn't suit all deities.
Asmodeus doesn't write poems, he writes legislation.
Cayden may have a bawdy limerick here or there, but he "is not known to have taken the time to write a book or manual describing his divine teachings", so I assume whatever passes for his holy texts are drunken notes written on napkins.
Nethys? Scholarly textbooks.
Shelyn would probably use poems, though.Also, because for most people, being forced to write poems on the spot is a chore, chores aren't fun, so if you demand your hints come in the form of poems, you're probably reducing the amount of fun at the table.
Zon-Kuthon would enjoy the GM's misery at having to write a poem. And if it's bad enough, the players' and/or characters' reactions.
..must resist urge to create bard dedicated to Zon-Kuthon now.