Skills: Only the die matters


Rules Discussion

101 to 150 of 168 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:

I guess I find it kind of odd that needing to the roll the die in a d20 tabletop game is somehow a flaw?

To each their own.

Failing to tie your shoes 5% of the time is a flaw.

Better than 1st edition where you need multiple feat taxes to not provoke AoOs by tying your shoes, or to base half of your build around tying more than 1 shoe while moving over 5 feet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:

I guess I find it kind of odd that needing to the roll the die in a d20 tabletop game is somehow a flaw?

To each their own.

Failing to tie your shoes 5% of the time is a flaw.
And this kids is what we call a "false equivalency".

Seems like pretty much everyone in this thread is engaging in false equivalency, strawmanning, etc.

"A specialist should succeed about 90% of the time and critically succeed 40% of the time."
"Why do you want to remove dice from the game? Removing dice from the game would be bad because..."
"Why are you insisting a specialist should consistently fail at common tasks 50% of the time? Why do you want to replace dice with coin tosses?"
"Why are you badwrongfunning me?"
"Why are you badwrongfunning me?"
Etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:

When I think about it, there are 2 annoying things in this system:

- My alchemist will be trained in all skills but one at level 20. And I've not even tried to do it, it's by chance. So, trained is the new untrained.
- The new system is far better to handle very different skill level thanks to the 2 level of success. A character that is just trained can aim for the success, when the legendary wizard could aim for the critical success. So, even when you have an enormous score in a skill, you still need to roll the die.

I agree with Claxon, for me, they overdid it.

Any chance you could breakdown that number of 20?

Alchemist has 9 skill increases. If you start with 18 int, you start with 7 skills(4+3). 7+9=18 skills trained if you never go past Trained, which seems silly to do. If you pump every skill increase into one skill at a time, you can get Legendary in two at most, master in a third. But that's a cost of 7 of the 9 skill increases, leaving us at 7+2 skills at Trained from just class, int and skill increases?

Edit: Forgot the +1 skill from Background, not counting lore since it's so varied. Leaving the total Trained skills, if you use your skill increases to max out skills at the 3, 7, 15 milestones to 7+3?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arakasius wrote:
Those high skills however did devalue the enjoyment of other people at the table. No one cares about the discrepancy being large between the untrained and specialist, but the difference between max trained and specialist in PF1 was too big. When someone can have a reasonable stat and max their skill points in a skill but still be absolutely useless compared to the specialist that’s the real issue. So yes your man skill lore oracle skill monkey was making the play experience worse for other people.

This is silly and only works under the assumption that someone else at the table wanted making knowledge checks to be a defining part of their character.

I was playing an arcanist occultist, high intelligence, knowledge skills. I think my summoning ability and spellcasting helped me overcome the grief of not being able to get the highest number on a couple of knowledge checks.

No one is surprised when the Bard has high diplomacy and bluff and it's not like the barbarian is forbidden from talking. The halfling unchained rogue high stealth but the monk can still attempt to hide.


About my alchemist, she has Skilled Heritage and she'll be multiclassed at level 2, hence the big number of skills. Anyway, many characters will have 7 skills trained at level 1 for a total of 16 skills (if I don't count Lore). Nearly half of the skills without trying. You'll be trained in many skills that are far from being character defining.

I'll take an example. Level 20 character trying to climb. If you're not trained, even climbing a rope should require a roll. Thanks to magic and attribute progression, it should be fairly easy, but you still have to roll a 3 (+4 attribute +3 magic, DC10 for a rope).
If you are trained in Athletics, suddenly, you climb master walls without rolling the die (+22 proficiency, +4 attribute, +3 magic, DC30 for master wall).
I find it a bit of an extreme, but let say it's ok to not represent with precision all levels of proficiency like it was the case in PF1 with skill points.
So, being trained makes you a master/legend in Athletics (if you are able to handle master tasks without rolling the die, you're a master/legend). It's ok for me if trained proficiency is hard to get. But, as noted above, you can easily be trained in all skills, and you'll be trained in nearly half of them anyway. It means that a level 20 character is a master/legend in a lot of skills, and many characters will be in nearly all of them. It sounds really weird to me. It's kind of saying that skills don't matter much. Saying "I'm a legend in Athletics" means nothing if half of your party can achieve the same tasks you do (even if it's without the same success rate for the hardest ones).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:

About my alchemist, she has Skilled Heritage and she'll be multiclassed at level 2, hence the big number of skills. Anyway, many characters will have 7 skills trained at level 1 for a total of 16 skills (if I don't count Lore). Nearly half of the skills without trying. You'll be trained in many skills that are far from being character defining.

I'll take an example. Level 20 character trying to climb. If you're not trained, even climbing a rope should require a roll. Thanks to magic and attribute progression, it should be fairly easy, but you still have to roll a 3 (+4 attribute +3 magic, DC10 for a rope).
If you are trained in Athletics, suddenly, you climb master walls without rolling the die (+22 proficiency, +4 attribute, +3 magic, DC30 for master wall).
I find it a bit of an extreme, but let say it's ok to not represent with precision all levels of proficiency like it was the case in PF1 with skill points.
So, being trained makes you a master/legend in Athletics (if you are able to handle master tasks without rolling the die, you're a master/legend). It's ok for me if trained proficiency is hard to get. But, as noted above, you can easily be trained in all skills, and you'll be trained in nearly half of them anyway. It means that a level 20 character is a master/legend in a lot of skills, and many characters will be in nearly all of them. It sounds really weird to me. It's kind of saying that skills don't matter much. Saying "I'm a legend in Athletics" means nothing if half of your party can achieve the same tasks you do (even if it's without the same success rate for the hardest ones).

Isn't this a sort of artifact of skills being only used basically via rolls before?

Using the same example, the legendary athletics wouldn't likely even roll for the climb, or require gear, since Quick Climb would give him a climb speed equal to his land speed. A monk with this could likely put on some tea and wait for the rest of the party in this case. Same goes for swimming. I get what you mean though, but I suppose I'm in the park of something like; You're not a master/legend in skills because you can succeed at high DC's, but because you can do things the trained/expert can't even attempt, via skill feats.

Using the stealth example, at 20th, say your alchemist is still trained(+22 proficiency, +4 attribute, +3 magic), meaning you start with 29 on the check. That feels pretty decent. But then there's the other stealth character who's legendary. And while you can sneak behind cover and move at half speed, he is stealthing in plain sight, at full speed and is always taking precaution against extra senses such as Smell or tremor. His base modifier is only +6 higher, but save for class/race feats, you'll never be able to sneak like him. He's legendary not because he rolls with a +6 higher modifier, but because he can run up to a dragon standing in an open field, while the dragon is looking in his directions, without being seen on a success.

Leasts that's how I see PF2, everyone is an adventurer that can be self-sustained, but the legendary characters can do things the trainees can't even fathom. "How did you cure his blindness with some herbs you found outside the town?" asked the Trained Medic of the Legendary Medic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I understand your point of view. To be a legend, you need both the skill bonus and the feats. So, the level 20 Trained character is less of a legend compared to the level 7 master because he doesn't have the feats (and despite having twice the skill bonus of the level 7 character). To me, it poses the question of what is this skill bonus if it doesn't represent competence?
It also raises again the question of gated proficiency. If you don't have the feat, then you can't make the check, and we are back with PF1 design even if the reason why you don't roll the check is not that you can't make it on a natural 20 but the fact that you don't have the requirements to make it.

Also, stealth is one of the rare skills where feats do matter a lot. For most skills, feats don't affect much what you can do.

In fact, it makes level the only way to have high skills. In PF1, not every blacksmith of talent had to be a 20th level character. At level 10, you could, thanks to skill focus, trait bonus, racial bonus and magic items, have a hard to match Craft(blacksmith) score. In PF2, every other 20th level adventurer is better than you. So, to be a blacksmith of talent, you have to be level 20...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

So you took the heritage option to give you more skills and are now complaining about having too many skills? What.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
About my alchemist, she has Skilled Heritage and she'll be multiclassed at level 2, hence the big number of skills. Anyway, many characters will have 7 skills trained at level 1 for a total of 16 skills (if I don't count Lore). Nearly half of the skills without trying. You'll be trained in many skills that are far from being character defining.

Actually no. You have a high int character with high base skills trained, plus you chose a heritage AND to multiclass. These are all choices which cause a high amount of skills trained.

Let’s take a human fighter who starts with 10 int who puts 3 boosts into int. Including lore that’s 9 trained skills, 10 if they multiclass. A far cry from your hyperbolic claim of 16.

SuperBidi wrote:
I'll take an example. Level 20 character trying to climb. If you're not trained, even climbing a rope should require a roll.

IMO that’s actually a pretty crappy way to GM. But anyway...

SuperBidi wrote:

Thanks to magic and attribute progression, it should be fairly easy, but you still have to roll a 3 (+4 attribute +3 magic, DC10 for a rope).

If you are trained in Athletics, suddenly, you climb master walls without rolling the die (+22 proficiency, +4 attribute, +3 magic, DC30 for master wall).

Yes, being trained and level 20 makes you really, really good. Because your level 20. You chose to train in athletics after all.

SuperBidi wrote:
you can easily be trained in all skills,

So let’s look at that claim. If you choose to be human AND

1) take the heritage that gives you a trained skill AND
2) take the ancestry feat for 2 trained skills AND
3) multiclass AND
4) play a high int class then

you get:
Trained: Survival, Lore, Crafting, A, B, C, F, G, H, L, Y, Z, W
Expert: I
Legendary: X, J, K

That is 16 total skills excluding lore and I made 4 choices which all resulted in me getting more trained skills plus an apex item.

Your claim you can easily accidentally get trained in 16 skills is highly peculiar. Your claim you can easily get trained in all skills is bogus. You have to work hard and make a lot of choices to get all skills as trained.

Don’t like the skill system. But don’t try to come up with these nonsense claims and ignore everyone (including DMW) who tells you your wrong.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Example of play.
DM: "So, a dragon has kidnapped the princess and you are tasked to free her..."
Ranger: "I'm specialized in survival, so I'll track the dragon to find out where they went!"
DM: "The dragon flew away, it's quite hard to track it."
Ranger: "I'm specialized I said, there's no way I can fail the check!"
DM: "Yeah, you are right. So, you track the dragon and find its lair: it's a cave in the mountain."
Barbarian: "Let's rush in!"
DM: "Not so fast: the clever dragon has laid a trap for you."
Rogue: "What's that? No way! I'm specialized in disable device, and I've got all the feats to find traps before I walk on them."
DM: "Yeah, ok. Roll to see if you... ah no, right, you are specialized. No roll, you disable the trap and the group can walk inside the cave with no further risk. Except the dragon itself, of course! It's on guard, ready to char you puny mortals with its fiery breath!"
Barbarian: "I'm specialized in combat, so I crush it. When do we get to the fun part?"
DM: "This was the fun part..."
Ranger: "Really? This game sucks! But let's go on."
DM: "You find the princess, but she is so scared that she doesn't trust you. You have to convince her that you mean no harm."
(silence...)
DM: "Who's got diplomacy?"
(silence...)
Rogue: "Really, no one of us specialized in diplomacy? What the..."
DM: "Ok, you can attempt the check anyway. Let's see your modifiers... oh, are they really so low? Well, folks, there's no way you can convince the princess to trust you. She runs off on her own, trying to make it back to her castle. I'm afraid that there will be no reward for you this time."
Ranger: "This game is really no fun."


SuperBidi wrote:

I understand your point of view. To be a legend, you need both the skill bonus and the feats. So, the level 20 Trained character is less of a legend compared to the level 7 master because he doesn't have the feats (and despite having twice the skill bonus of the level 7 character). To me, it poses the question of what is this skill bonus if it doesn't represent competence?

It also raises again the question of gated proficiency. If you don't have the feat, then you can't make the check, and we are back with PF1 design even if the reason why you don't roll the check is not that you can't make it on a natural 20 but the fact that you don't have the requirements to make it.

Also, stealth is one of the rare skills where feats do matter a lot. For most skills, feats don't affect much what you can do.

In fact, it makes level the only way to have high skills. In PF1, not every blacksmith of talent had to be a 20th level character. At level 10, you could, thanks to skill focus, trait bonus, racial bonus and magic items, have a hard to match Craft(blacksmith) score. In PF2, every other 20th level adventurer is better than you. So, to be a blacksmith of talent, you have to be level 20...

It sounds like you really just don’t like the +level to proficiency then. Hopefully when the GMG comes out, with the option for playing with out adding level, there will also be a way for PFS tables to run with that optional rule, or if the fan base pushes for it, it will become available. Does PFS go to level 20 now?

From a theory stand point, it is necessary to understand that the base rules of PF2 is designed around level being a fairly unified mechanic of determining party competency, and that it only really applies to the party and the world they specifically occupy. It is a mechanical spotlight that stays focused only on the PCs to help insure that everything they do is interesting and cinematic.

Edit: So yes, level is intentionally a more important metric than proficiency because designers can’t design around expected profiency as easily as level, but comparing PCs of different levels against each other is not a functional or real to game situation because the challenges a party faces are based on level. A DC 35 is a different kind of challenge for a 16th level party than a 20th.

A lot of people don’t like that change to the game, but it is working exactly as intended.


SuperBidi wrote:

I understand your point of view. To be a legend, you need both the skill bonus and the feats. So, the level 20 Trained character is less of a legend compared to the level 7 master because he doesn't have the feats (and despite having twice the skill bonus of the level 7 character). To me, it poses the question of what is this skill bonus if it doesn't represent competence?

It also raises again the question of gated proficiency. If you don't have the feat, then you can't make the check, and we are back with PF1 design even if the reason why you don't roll the check is not that you can't make it on a natural 20 but the fact that you don't have the requirements to make it.

Also, stealth is one of the rare skills where feats do matter a lot. For most skills, feats don't affect much what you can do.

In fact, it makes level the only way to have high skills. In PF1, not every blacksmith of talent had to be a 20th level character. At level 10, you could, thanks to skill focus, trait bonus, racial bonus and magic items, have a hard to match Craft(blacksmith) score. In PF2, every other 20th level adventurer is better than you. So, to be a blacksmith of talent, you have to be level 20...

I never was too wound up about skill bonuses, too much focus on it and it feels like a d100 game where you might feel useless if you don't have a 90% skill. Makes me think of Dark Heresy or Eclipse Phase where most considered a Ranged weapon under 80% to be flawed.

I don't think the feats negate the skill modifers personally, I think they supplement each other. Using the Medic example, a trained medic at high level will never really fail basic treatment. He can then invest skill feats to heal more often and more at a same time, but in many cases the legendary heals more hp and more people. I see it as a foundation change, everyone in the party could pick up some crafting and fix their gear by the bonfire in downtime, but the one who invested skill increases and feats can make magical armor, and eventually craft anything, requiring a lot of requirements. I personally like this cost-reward dynamic, I paid more increases and feats than another, so I can do more even if they're only +6 behind me in rolls.

Some skills are more extreme than others. Say you have a trained Acrobat and Legendary Acrobat. Both pick Catfall.
The latter could actually drop in from orbit and land on his feet without damage or fuss. The latter can jump down a small shed without issue. Both are really good at balancing across a swaying rope though, but there's no doubt that the legendary is capable of more.

Edit: I don't think it works out thinking that the roll and modifiers are the /most/ important anymore, since the fundementals have changed a lot, both with accessibility and the ways to open up more skill usage via skill feats unlike before. It should be considered as a whole, under the assumption that a Legendary X is gonna pick up skill feats that supplement the X. It's not too unlikely that a Legendary Athletic will have swim and/or climb speed, be able to jump off walls.


John Lynch 106 wrote:

So let’s look at that claim. If you choose to be human AND

1) take the heritage that gives you a trained skill AND
2) take the ancestry feat for 2 trained skills AND
3) multiclass AND
4) play a high int class then

Let's say you play a human rogue with high intelligence multiclassed in whatever you want (maybe wizard or alchemist hence the high intelligence).

You have:
9 skills (rogue)
+ 1 (skilled heritage, which is the best heritage for a pure breed human in my opinion because of the extra skill to expert level)
+ 3 (high int)
+ 2 (mc)
= 15 out of 16.
You haven't made a single choice to specifically get more skills and you have all the skills but one at level 2. I consider that as being easy.
Now, if you want a lot of trained skills, you can get more than 40 at level 20. Out of 16...

Megistone wrote:
Example of play.

It's funny to see how people take your arguments and just go to far away with them to the point of ridicule. That's never what I have said. Your example is plain bad to illustrate my point of view :)

@Corvo and Unicore
Well, it looks like I'll had to get used to it. The concept of skill monkey is kind of dead to me. Even the rogue, despite all his skill increases, won't be doing much more than his fellow comrades when it gets to skills.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@SuperBidi:
Of course mine it's an exaggeration.
But over-specialization brings a game not too far from my example: you choose one thing and use every resource at your disposal to become uber-strong in it, up to auto-win, at the expense of everything else.
It can be a fun exercise to build such a character, but to me it would be very boring to play.

EDIT: I have to add that I get your point of view. There's space to increase the difference between specialist and dabblers without getting to some extremes; it's a matter of taste.
My answer was mainly to Sherlock.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:

When I think about it, there are 2 annoying things in this system:

- My alchemist will be trained in all skills but one at level 20. And I've not even tried to do it, it's by chance. So, trained is the new untrained.
- The new system is far better to handle very different skill level thanks to the 2 level of success. A character that is just trained can aim for the success, when the legendary wizard could aim for the critical success. So, even when you have an enormous score in a skill, you still need to roll the die.

I agree with Claxon, for me, they overdid it.

It baffles me. You are wanting to make the rolling of the dice irrelevant in a game where rolling the dice is the game mechanic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:

@Corvo and Unicore

Well, it looks like I'll had to get used to it. The concept of skill monkey is kind of dead to me. Even the rogue, despite all his skill increases, won't be doing much more than his fellow comrades when it gets to skills.

I dunno about that.

My skill-monkey Rogue will have Detect Magic(arcane skill feat) at level 1.
2nd, I'm taking Additional Lore, this way I spend 1 skill feat for a perfectly scaling Earn Income skill instead of 3 skill increases.
3rd, I can now heal multiple people at once and attend to them once per hour, I'm doctor dad.(continual recovery & ward medic)
4th, I can now use magic items that other with arcane might now.(trick magic item)
5th, I can now reduce falling damage, becoming immune at 16th, (catfall)
6th, I can now make first impressions much sooner at a penalty, and a failure lets me reroll (glad-hand)
7th, This is a stealth milestone, allowing me to take foil senses and swift sneak. Won't get smelled by beasts easily and I move fast.

15th he'll have climb speed and swim speed equal to his land speed via 2xSkill feats.
At 16th he always lands on his feet and can't take fall damage(skill feat).

And so on, I don't feel more as a skill monkey at 7th because my modifier went up with my level, but because I keep getting more and more options and things to do with my skills. The PF1 rogue at level 1 could sneak. At level 20th he can sneak. He can't sneak faster or deal with certain senses as well, or differently (not counting class features, as these skill feats are universally accessible) He just deals with higher DC easier. The difference between a level 1 fighter athletics and level 20 fighter athletics before was modifier really. My PF2 fighter would be able to gain climb speed, swim speed, jump off the walls, cloud jump and use Athletics to climb ledges and stand up in one action. I think the focus is in skill feats unlocked by the proficiencies.

I like to think of the two as separate. Skill modifier is just your "skill accuracy", you'll succeed more than not. While skill feats is what makes you legendary and really stand out. A skill monkey doesn't even have to go legendary, spread out along expert skills and you'll be pretty handy to have around. Ward Medic with continual recovery and maybe expert diplomacy for glad-hand, bargain hunter and hobnobber makes you really good at healing multiple people, making friends, earning income and gathering information. Two skills at expert, four skillfeats.

Edit: I think my point is that a skill-monkey from PF1, class not withstanding, won't be able to have as much usage variety as a skill-monkey in PF2. In fact, more characters can be useful with skills. Even a fighter can become a legendary diplomat who hunts bargains for income and tends to the wounded. As for "too many trained", anyone can pick up Clever Improviser and add level to roll, so it's not like getting that level modifier is a big deal if someone wants a lot of being "ok" at skills.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ten10 wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:

When I think about it, there are 2 annoying things in this system:

- My alchemist will be trained in all skills but one at level 20. And I've not even tried to do it, it's by chance. So, trained is the new untrained.
- The new system is far better to handle very different skill level thanks to the 2 level of success. A character that is just trained can aim for the success, when the legendary wizard could aim for the critical success. So, even when you have an enormous score in a skill, you still need to roll the die.

I agree with Claxon, for me, they overdid it.

It baffles me. You are wanting to make the rolling of the dice irrelevant in a game where rolling the dice is the game mechanic.

And a major fault of PF1, in my opinion, was that at a certain point you had such a huge bonus that the main mechanic of the game became irrelevant outside of combat. If you had a high enough bonus, it was like "well, you could roll, but you're not gonna fail" - frankly, anything that prevents that is a good step.

I think it's also important to remember that from what it seems like, the baseline competence for EVERYTHING if you're an adventurer is so far above non-adventurers, because if you're an adventurer, you probably know how to handle things. (Such as why an Alchemist could be almost as good at Stealth as a Rogue at certain levels.)

Otherwise you wouldn't be an adventurer.


GameDesignerDM wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:

When I think about it, there are 2 annoying things in this system:

- My alchemist will be trained in all skills but one at level 20. And I've not even tried to do it, it's by chance. So, trained is the new untrained.
- The new system is far better to handle very different skill level thanks to the 2 level of success. A character that is just trained can aim for the success, when the legendary wizard could aim for the critical success. So, even when you have an enormous score in a skill, you still need to roll the die.

I agree with Claxon, for me, they overdid it.

It baffles me. You are wanting to make the rolling of the dice irrelevant in a game where rolling the dice is the game mechanic.

And a major fault of PF1, in my opinion, was that at a certain point you had such a huge bonus that the main mechanic of the game became irrelevant outside of combat. If you had a high enough bonus, it was like "well, you could roll, but you're not gonna fail" - frankly, anything that prevents that is a good step.

I think it's also important to remember that from what it seems like, the baseline competence for EVERYTHING if you're an adventurer is so far above non-adventurers, because if you're an adventurer, you probably know how to handle things. (Such as why an Alchemist could be almost as good at Stealth as a Rogue at certain levels.)

Otherwise you wouldn't be an adventurer.

That's the main selling point though. It sucks to be a slave to RNG for areas you've focused in. Failing now and then is one thing, but failing frequently (>15% or so) is just irritating. And, you have to invest a lot of time to make your character the best they can be. Here, it's impossible not to make them the best they can be unless you deliberately shoot yourself in the foot sonehow.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:

When I think about it, there are 2 annoying things in this system:

- My alchemist will be trained in all skills but one at level 20. And I've not even tried to do it, it's by chance. So, trained is the new untrained.
- The new system is far better to handle very different skill level thanks to the 2 level of success. A character that is just trained can aim for the success, when the legendary wizard could aim for the critical success. So, even when you have an enormous score in a skill, you still need to roll the die.

I agree with Claxon, for me, they overdid it.

It baffles me. You are wanting to make the rolling of the dice irrelevant in a game where rolling the dice is the game mechanic.

And a major fault of PF1, in my opinion, was that at a certain point you had such a huge bonus that the main mechanic of the game became irrelevant outside of combat. If you had a high enough bonus, it was like "well, you could roll, but you're not gonna fail" - frankly, anything that prevents that is a good step.

I think it's also important to remember that from what it seems like, the baseline competence for EVERYTHING if you're an adventurer is so far above non-adventurers, because if you're an adventurer, you probably know how to handle things. (Such as why an Alchemist could be almost as good at Stealth as a Rogue at certain levels.)

Otherwise you wouldn't be an adventurer.

That's the main selling point though. It sucks to be a slave to RNG for areas you've focused in. Failing now and then is one thing, but failing frequently (>15% or so) is just irritating. And, you have to invest a lot of time to make your character the best they can be. Here, it's impossible not to make them the best they can be unless you deliberately shoot yourself in the foot sonehow.

You seem to be completely ignoring the role that feat selection plays in establishing competence. How far into the game have you played the same character thus far? Have you seen how your competence grows in the things you want to focus on vs skills you only are trained in? From first level, even to level 5 or 7?

I think that there is a natural lack of skill feats as a result of this being a core rulebook, but I think it is pretty easy as a player to identify what feels lacking yet as far as skill feats go and either homebrew them with your table, or make it known on the message board that X build doesn't feel specialized and put it on the developer's list of feats to design. Your argument seems entirely centered on just the math engine of proficiency without acknowledging any other aspect of the system and that is why it feels so artificial to so many people playing the game.

Now it seems like you have a general disregard for the design philosophy of PF2 and probably are better off playing another game, but do you spend as much time on other product message boards disparaging them for not catering to you as an audience? or do you feel particularly betrayed by Paizo because you found PF1 to be the exact game you loved and no one wants to play it with you anymore because it is not the new shiny thing?

If that is the case, and you can't find PF1 tables to play at near you, I suggest you look online because, last I checked, there were still lots of people playing PF1 on Roll 20 with open spots for new players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:

@Corvo and Unicore

Well, it looks like I'll had to get used to it. The concept of skill monkey is kind of dead to me. Even the rogue, despite all his skill increases, won't be doing much more than his fellow comrades when it gets to skills.

I dunno about that.

My skill-monkey Rogue will have Detect Magic(arcane skill feat) at level 1.
2nd, I'm taking Additional Lore, this way I spend 1 skill feat for a perfectly scaling Earn Income skill instead of 3 skill increases.
3rd, I can now heal multiple people at once and attend to them once per hour, I'm doctor dad.(continual recovery & ward medic)
4th, I can now use magic items that other with arcane might now.(trick magic item)
5th, I can now reduce falling damage, becoming immune at 16th, (catfall)
6th, I can now make first impressions much sooner at a penalty, and a failure lets me reroll (glad-hand)
7th, This is a stealth milestone, allowing me to take foil senses and swift sneak. Won't get smelled by beasts easily and I move fast.

15th he'll have climb speed and swim speed equal to his land speed via 2xSkill feats.
At 16th he always lands on his feet and can't take fall damage(skill feat).

And so on, I don't feel more as a skill monkey at 7th because my modifier went up with my level, but because I keep getting more and more options and things to do with my skills. The PF1 rogue at level 1 could sneak. At level 20th he can sneak. He can't sneak faster or deal with certain senses as well, or differently (not counting class features, as these skill feats are universally accessible) He just deals with higher DC easier. The difference between a level 1 fighter athletics and level 20 fighter athletics before was modifier really. My PF2 fighter would be able to gain climb speed, swim speed, jump off the walls, cloud jump and use Athletics to climb ledges and stand up in one action. I think the focus is in skill feats unlocked by the proficiencies.

I like to think of the two as separate. Skill modifier is just your...

Something seems off to me. Are you sure you're meeting all of your feat prerequisites at the appropriate times?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

MDGA - Make Dicerolls Great Again!


To me, the big issue that's causing that is that everyone's trained in too many things, straight-up. Untrained relative to trained is a big difference at higher levels, but intelligence-based classes, rogues, and those who go heavily into MC will just be trained in *a lot*, and, especially for rogues, it feels a bit ridiculous.

I don't mind the "I spent my skills to become good at 10% of things", but when it's "I spent my skills to become good at 50% of things", or for the rogue, "I chose not to become good at these 10% of things, even when I tanked my intelligence", it just feels a bit off.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:

To me, the big issue that's causing that is that everyone's trained in too many things, straight-up. Untrained relative to trained is a big difference at higher levels, but intelligence-based classes, rogues, and those who go heavily into MC will just be trained in *a lot*, and, especially for rogues, it feels a bit ridiculous.

I don't mind the "I spent my skills to become good at 10% of things", but when it's "I spent my skills to become good at 50% of things", or for the rogue, "I chose not to become good at these 10% of things, even when I tanked my intelligence", it just feels a bit off.

How many characters are going to “heavily” invest in multiclassing? Unless your human or you take that one (unreleased) elf heritage it costs you 7 seven feats to get 3 multiclasses? That’s a lot of feats sacrificed.

But let’s say you take a Fighter with 3 multiclasses and pump int up to 16. Just for fun let’s make him a dwarf.

That’s: 1 + lore (background) + 4 (class) + 3 (int) + 3 (multiclasses) = 11 skills + lore at the cost of 3 class feats. Seems fair to me.

What about a rogue? How about a halfling rogue?

That’s: 1 + lore (background) + 8 (class) + 3 (int) + 1 (racket) = 13 + lore and it didn’t cost you any class feats. Definitely not bad, but again hardly “I dumped int and am still trained in 90% of skills.”

I get not liking the skill system. What I don’t understand are these ludicrous and over the top claims people are making. “I don’t like characters being trained in more than 50% of skills” is a perfectly valid complaint to have. You don’t need to exaggerate it so much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All of you must have hated PF1 wizards. Human (because duh) Wizards (fcb is hp) would get 16 skills which had max ranks in all the knowledges covered(sorry Fighter, cleric and rogue. You know squat about engineering, religion and the underbelly of the city so go sit down until summoned), spellcraft, fly with 4 ranks left over to possibly put into a face skill (and buy a circlet of persuasion and cast cultural adaptation) just to make the rogue cry even harder and then get sense motive and perception.

How did you manage to play PF1 with such widely skilled characters possible with skills?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

All it takes is a human with the Clever Improvisor ancestry feat and you're good at everything. Thing is though, you're only great at a few things, even at high levels. Even the skill crazy rogues can only top out 6 of the 17 skills, roughly a 3rd of the possible total (which seems appropriate to me, considering they're supposed to be the skill masters).

Also, it's not just the die roll that matters, but the proficiency level and ability score modifier too.

Discounting untrained, the lowest level of training is +2. The highest is +8.

If I'm not mistaken, ability scores can range from 8 - 24, allowing for modifiers of -1 to +7.

That leaves a total range of 1d20+1 to 1d20+15, all other things being equal. That's quite a wide range of training and natural talent!

The fact that we haven't even brought up new abilities unlocked by proficiency levels and skill feats really shows (to me at least) that this new skill system has a level of (good) detailed granularity not seen in past editions of D&D or Pathfinder.


Ravingdork wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:

@Corvo and Unicore

Well, it looks like I'll had to get used to it. The concept of skill monkey is kind of dead to me. Even the rogue, despite all his skill increases, won't be doing much more than his fellow comrades when it gets to skills.

I dunno about that.

My skill-monkey Rogue will have Detect Magic(arcane skill feat) at level 1.
2nd, I'm taking Additional Lore, this way I spend 1 skill feat for a perfectly scaling Earn Income skill instead of 3 skill increases.
3rd, I can now heal multiple people at once and attend to them once per hour, I'm doctor dad.(continual recovery & ward medic)
4th, I can now use magic items that other with arcane might now.(trick magic item)
5th, I can now reduce falling damage, becoming immune at 16th, (catfall)
6th, I can now make first impressions much sooner at a penalty, and a failure lets me reroll (glad-hand)
7th, This is a stealth milestone, allowing me to take foil senses and swift sneak. Won't get smelled by beasts easily and I move fast.

15th he'll have climb speed and swim speed equal to his land speed via 2xSkill feats.
At 16th he always lands on his feet and can't take fall damage(skill feat).

And so on, I don't feel more as a skill monkey at 7th because my modifier went up with my level, but because I keep getting more and more options and things to do with my skills. The PF1 rogue at level 1 could sneak. At level 20th he can sneak. He can't sneak faster or deal with certain senses as well, or differently (not counting class features, as these skill feats are universally accessible) He just deals with higher DC easier. The difference between a level 1 fighter athletics and level 20 fighter athletics before was modifier really. My PF2 fighter would be able to gain climb speed, swim speed, jump off the walls, cloud jump and use Athletics to climb ledges and stand up in one action. I think the focus is in skill feats unlocked by the proficiencies.

I like to think of the two as

...

I can run them again, but it's what came up with Pathbuilder2 app. Legendary Athletics is earlier accessible at 15th, Arcane senses, Trick Magic Item and Catfall are level 1 and require trained only. Ward and Continual are 2 and require expert medicine which I get at 3rd level. Glad-Hand is level 2 and expert as well. Stealth are the only ones level 7 requiring Master.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

All of you must have hated PF1 wizards. Human (because duh) Wizards (fcb is hp) would get 16 skills which had max ranks in all the knowledges covered(sorry Fighter, cleric and rogue. You know squat about engineering, religion and the underbelly of the city so go sit down until summoned), spellcraft, fly with 4 ranks left over to possibly put into a face skill (and buy a circlet of persuasion and cast cultural adaptation) just to make the rogue cry even harder and then get sense motive and perception.

How did you manage to play PF1 with such widely skilled characters possible with skills?

Fight me.

Alchemist main 4 lyfe.
Except in PF2 rogue is my bae. All these skills and skill feats.
Personally I love that skill feats are secondary to combat feats and instead give me variety to skills. Sure I could have had a ton of modifiers in PF1, but it was same skill usage at level 1 as level 20.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:

To me, the big issue that's causing that is that everyone's trained in too many things, straight-up. Untrained relative to trained is a big difference at higher levels, but intelligence-based classes, rogues, and those who go heavily into MC will just be trained in *a lot*, and, especially for rogues, it feels a bit ridiculous.

I don't mind the "I spent my skills to become good at 10% of things", but when it's "I spent my skills to become good at 50% of things", or for the rogue, "I chose not to become good at these 10% of things, even when I tanked my intelligence", it just feels a bit off.

How many characters are going to “heavily” invest in multiclassing? Unless your human or you take that one (unreleased) elf heritage it costs you 7 seven feats to get 3 multiclasses? That’s a lot of feats sacrificed.

But let’s say you take a Fighter with 3 multiclasses and pump int up to 16. Just for fun let’s make him a dwarf.

That’s: 1 + lore (background) + 4 (class) + 3 (int) + 3 (multiclasses) = 11 skills + lore at the cost of 3 class feats. Seems fair to me.

What about a rogue? How about a halfling rogue?

That’s: 1 + lore (background) + 8 (class) + 3 (int) + 1 (racket) = 13 + lore and it didn’t cost you any class feats. Definitely not bad, but again hardly “I dumped int and am still trained in 90% of skills.”

I get not liking the skill system. What I don’t understand are these ludicrous and over the top claims people are making. “I don’t like characters being trained in more than 50% of skills” is a perfectly valid complaint to have. You don’t need to exaggerate it so much.

"Ludicrous over the top"... You've literally just done the math for me, so I appreciate that, but you're accusing me of something without really any foundation for it. Not including lore, there are 16 skills.

* You've provided an example of a fighter with 3 multiclasses (I actually think that's a lot, I was figuring 2..., note that some MCs give 2 skills trained) having 11 skills, which is 68% of the skills, I quoted 50%.
* You've provided an example of a rogue (presumably not a scoundrel) getting 13 skills, that's 81%, I quoted 90%. So... I was slightly off here, but not really by that much, and there's some variance there.

I pointed out something valid, you reacted with vehemence. Your call, but these numbers are what they are. If you're a fan of them, that's fine, but I think particularly in the case of Rogue, I'm really not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
All of you must have hated PF1 wizards.

Not at all.

The number of knowledge is actually a limitations to intelligence-based characters. To cover all of the intelligence-based skills, they needed 12 skill points per level, when a charisma-based character only needed 6-7. Wizards were no skill monkeys back in PFS because of that, to only cover their core skills they needed nearly all their skill points.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

3 Dedications do not require 3 class feats. They require you to spend 3 class feats per dedication. You could get to the your third fighter dedication by 14th level, but at that point you have only your first level fighter feat. You are barely a fighter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:

"Ludicrous over the top"... You've literally just done the math for me, so I appreciate that, but you're accusing me of something without really any foundation for it. Not including lore, there are 16 skills.

* You've provided an example of a fighter with 3 multiclasses (I actually think that's a lot, I was figuring 2..., note that some MCs give 2 skills trained) having 11 skills, which is 68% of the skills, I quoted 50%.
* You've provided an example of a rogue (presumably not a scoundrel) getting 13 skills, that's 81%, I quoted 90%. So... I was slightly off here, but not really by that much, and there's some variance there.
I pointed out something valid, you reacted with vehemence. Your call, but these numbers are what they are. If you're a fan of them, that's fine, but I think particularly in the case of Rogue, I'm really not.

Yes....a hyperbolic over the top "lets maximize what the system allows" build is a perfect example of "all characters."

You said, "I spent my skills to become good at 50% of things" and the example that ended up at 68% was a hyperfocus on "get all the skills" build. If you discount the 3 (int) and 3 (multiclass) down to a more reasonable level (say, 1 and 1) you get 7 skills. That's 43%.

Yes that's "close to half" but characters kind of need 4-5 skills at trained in order to actually be viable. Having only 2 or 3 more (spread around across 11 options! You've got 121 ways to pick those 2 skills, if you've got 3 and 12? 1728 possibilities!) really isn't that extreme.

Conversely, you asked for "I chose not to become good at these 10% of things, even when I tanked my intelligence" and what you got was a max-int rogue, not a min-int rogue. You discount the 3 skills from int and the result is 62%, a FAR cry from 90%


In before Mathmuse :D

Draco18s wrote:

Yes....a hyperbolic over the top "lets maximize what the system allows" build is a perfect example of "all characters."

You said, "I spent my skills to become good at 50% of things" and the example that ended up at 68% was a hyperfocus on "get all the skills" build. If you discount the 3 (int) and 3 (multiclass) down to a more reasonable level (say, 1 and 1) you get 7 skills. That's 43%.

Yes that's "close to half" but characters kind of need 4-5 skills at trained in order to actually be viable. Having only 2 or 3 more (spread around across 11 options! You've got 121 110 ways to pick those 2 skills, if you've got 3 and 12? 1728 1320 possibilities!) really isn't that extreme.

Conversely, you asked for "I chose not to become good at these 10% of things, even when I tanked my intelligence" and what you got was a max-int rogue, not a min-int rogue. You discount the 3 skills from int and the result is 62%, a FAR cry from 90%

(Corrected in bold because you can't pick the same skill twice)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:
I pointed out something valid, you reacted with vehemence. Your call, but these numbers are what they are. If you're a fan of them, that's fine, but I think particularly in the case of Rogue, I'm really not.

You COULD have chosen to stick with 50%. That would have been valid. You chose not to. You chose to claim rogues who dump int are trained in 90% of skills my rogue didn’t dump me int.

There was also no vehemence in my post to you. I’m sure you didn’t mean to say yet another untrue thing and simply misspoke :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Finally: If you want to claim your int dumping rogue were only off by 9% then you need to be honest and admit there would be 3 less skills reducing the percentage even more.

Happy for you to report if you feel my post was in any way an attack on you :) although falsely accusing someone of vehemence and then reporting them citing passive aggressiveness because you don’t like what they’re saying really isn’t cool.

No passive aggressiveness in this post either :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm actually a little curious, do people believe that a high bonus to skill in PF1 equals the 'skill-monkey' vibes to someone maxed out in the same skill in PF2?

Can we do as much with skills in PF1 as in PF2 in the end?
Not counting class abilities, is it more skillmonkey to never fail the DC, or to be able to use skills in ways other can't even attempt?


Mathmuse wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
In PF1, the difference between Dex 16 and Dex 10 is the same value 3, so I guess that that isn't the complaint. In PF1 the difference between 1st-level trained in a class skill and untrained is 4 rather than 3, but that is not much to complain about. Maybe he was comparing 3rd level, where the difference is from skill ranks and class skills in PF1 can be 6, but at the same level in PF2 the...

He clarified in an additional post that he misses the other ways of boosting a skill besides attribute and skill ranks, such as Skill Focus, Racial skill bonus, size bonus, and so forth. Those three alone would have added +11 to the goblin rouge's stealth check, parking his total bonus somewhere around +18 to the Alchemist's +1 (assuming 16 dex on the rogue and 10 on the alchemist) so I can definetely see his point if that was something you enjoyed.

I think I prefer PF2's way of things. A +18 at level 1 seems less than ideal to my tastes.

I see that my reading comprehension is poor this morning.

I miss the size modifier myself, though I understand dropping different weapon sizes--that was a lot of detail for little reward. A +1 size modifier for Small size to AC and to Stealth for Sneaking and to Athletics for Climbing and a -1 size modifier for damage in weapon and unarmed attacks would be flavorful. Right now, Small and Medium feel too similar.

Dropping numerical feats such as Skill Focus was a deliberate design choice in PF2. One of the biggest problems of PF1 was the ability to stack those feats, to get, as AnimatedPaper said, +18 at level 1. By dropping those feats, the developers hoped to reduce min-maxed character design and encourage flavorful character design that favors roleplaying.

So, just a random addition to this, you could get even a little worse than this in PF1. Goblins for some unholy reason have a +4 racial bonus to stealth IN ADDITION TO their +4 size bonus and they have a +4 racial to Dex. So if you have Stealth as a class skill, take Skill Focus Stealth, and put a 16 base in Dex you end up with a +20 at level 1. +21 if you put 18 base into Stealth.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Having read part of this thread, I think a much more fitting title, and one that highlights the improvements of the PF2 skill system over PF1 would be "Skills: The die matters".


sherlock1701 wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:

When I think about it, there are 2 annoying things in this system:

- My alchemist will be trained in all skills but one at level 20. And I've not even tried to do it, it's by chance. So, trained is the new untrained.
- The new system is far better to handle very different skill level thanks to the 2 level of success. A character that is just trained can aim for the success, when the legendary wizard could aim for the critical success. So, even when you have an enormous score in a skill, you still need to roll the die.

I agree with Claxon, for me, they overdid it.

It baffles me. You are wanting to make the rolling of the dice irrelevant in a game where rolling the dice is the game mechanic.

And a major fault of PF1, in my opinion, was that at a certain point you had such a huge bonus that the main mechanic of the game became irrelevant outside of combat. If you had a high enough bonus, it was like "well, you could roll, but you're not gonna fail" - frankly, anything that prevents that is a good step.

I think it's also important to remember that from what it seems like, the baseline competence for EVERYTHING if you're an adventurer is so far above non-adventurers, because if you're an adventurer, you probably know how to handle things. (Such as why an Alchemist could be almost as good at Stealth as a Rogue at certain levels.)

Otherwise you wouldn't be an adventurer.

That's the main selling point though. It sucks to be a slave to RNG for areas you've focused in. Failing now and then is one thing, but failing frequently (>15% or so) is just irritating. And, you have to invest a lot of time to make your character the best they can be. Here, it's impossible not to make them the best they can be unless you deliberately shoot yourself in the foot sonehow.

That comes from DMs who are SfFing(Searching for Failure) their players.

If that was in reaction to players thinking "failing frequently" is (>15% or so) is debatable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
Having read part of this thread, I think a much more fitting title, and one that highlights the improvements of the PF2 skill system over PF1 would be "Skills: The die matters".

I'd go with something like "More than meets the Die." or "Legen-wait for skill feats-dary!"

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

Removed posts. Y'all, this is getting a bit too heated. I understand people have different opinions, and you're allowed to disagree with them as much as you want, and that's valid. But we're getting close to the type of behavior that will get a lot more posts removed. Keep it civil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:

Let's say you play a human rogue with high intelligence multiclassed in whatever you want (maybe wizard or alchemist hence the high intelligence)...

You haven't made a single choice to specifically get more skills and you have all the skills but one at level 2. I consider that as being easy.

You literally picked the Lots of Skills class and decided to boost intelligence


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

So what if I go ruffian rogue with high strength and multiclass fighter? Why am I so good at combat?!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Card Game, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

I'm actually a little curious, do people believe that a high bonus to skill in PF1 equals the 'skill-monkey' vibes to someone maxed out in the same skill in PF2?

Can we do as much with skills in PF1 as in PF2 in the end?
Not counting class abilities, is it more skillmonkey to never fail the DC, or to be able to use skills in ways other can't even attempt?

If someone is going to claim to be a skillmonkey, then I would expect them to be as good at skills as the wizard is at casting spells, as they're fighting for the same niche in the party (non combat problem solving). So a skill monkey should succeed at whatever skill it is they've been brought on the job for.

I don't care what they can do with the skills so long as they succeed at doing it when we need them to do it. That's why they were brought along.

Performance on command, at the drop of a hat. That's the kind of reliability that I expect from someone who claims to be a skillmonkey.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
About my alchemist, she has Skilled Heritage and she'll be multiclassed at level 2, hence the big number of skills. Anyway, many characters will have 7 skills trained at level 1 for a total of 16 skills (if I don't count Lore). Nearly half of the skills without trying. You'll be trained in many skills that are far from being character defining.

As others note, this is a high skill character who has invested significant resources in skills. Skilled literally gets you nothing but Skills, it's the definition of trying.

A bog standard Human Fighter who wanted a General Feat (or Half Elf or Half Orc), meanwhile, may have 5 skills their entire career.

See, they start with Str 18, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 10. At 5th, 10th, and 15th, they raise Str, Dex, Con, and Wis. At 20th, maybe they raise Int and get to 6 Skills.

That's actually a pretty optimal Fighter. It's certainly optimized on Saves (which are important). The same is even more true for a Champion, who probably wants Cha on top of what the Fighter wants, or for Monk or Ranger. Clerics likewise often have better things to invest in mechanically than Int, as do Sorcerers, some Druids, and really every Class but Wizards, Alchemists, and maybe Rogues (and even Rogues could use Dex, Con, Wis, and Cha) since the system encourages high Saves pretty heavily and they also need their primary stat (whatever that is).

There are definitely Skill builds for every Class, taking high Int can be very good if you want Skills, and at very high levels the disincentives to getting stats over 18 can kick in...but that's only at very high levels. IMO, a majority of characters will not raise Int for at least the first 14 levels of the game, and that means they'll raise it maybe once over 19 levels. Then maybe a second time at 20th.

Now, Rogues will always be great at Skills because that's their whole thing and Alchemists and Wizards invest in Int, so the'll be pretty widely skilled as well, but that's three Classes out of 12. For everyone else, you certainly can invest in Skills, but most characters of those Classes will not do so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

Now it seems like you have a general disregard for the design philosophy of PF2 and probably are better off playing another game, but do you spend as much time on other product message boards disparaging them for not catering to you as an audience? or do you feel particularly betrayed by Paizo because you found PF1 to be the exact game you loved and no one wants to play it with you anymore because it is not the new shiny thing?

If that is the case, and you can't find PF1 tables to play at near you, I suggest you look online because, last I checked, there were still lots of people playing PF1 on Roll 20 with open spots for new players.

More or less this, PF1 is the perfect game in my opinion. I had very high hopes for PF2 when I first heard it was announced, which were subsequently wiped during the playtest, and I'm even more disappointed by the final. I put in a fair bit of feedback during the playtest, and my thoughts were clearly ignored (the only big change I see that I wanted from the playtest is items having HP instead of dents).

What I wanted from PF2 was an evolution on PF1 with even more options and depth. What I got instead was a completely different game with little depth by comparison. So yes, I am disappointed in PF2, which is why I am particularly active on the boards here as opposed to other systems I dislike, which I largely ignore.

Online play just doesn't do it for me unless I already know the people I'm gaming with. I much prefer to sit at the same table.

Liberty's Edge

18 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
What I wanted from PF2 was an evolution on PF1 with even more options and depth. What I got instead was a completely different game with little depth by comparison. So yes, I am disappointed in PF2, which is why I am particularly active on the boards here as opposed to other systems I dislike, which I largely ignore.

What in the world do you hope to achieve by posting regularly and extensively about a game you clearly dislike?

I mean, seriously, you're constantly running down a game other people are (kinda definitionally) here to enjoy. That's just unpleasant for everyone else, and I can't imagine it's super fun for you either, so why in the world are you doing it?

Silver Crusade

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
What I wanted from PF2 was an evolution on PF1 with even more options and depth. What I got instead was a completely different game with little depth by comparison. So yes, I am disappointed in PF2, which is why I am particularly active on the boards here as opposed to other systems I dislike, which I largely ignore.

What in the world do you hope to achieve by posting regularly and extensively about a game you clearly dislike?

I mean, seriously, you're constantly running down a game other people are (kinda definitionally) here to enjoy. That's just unpleasant for everyone else, and I can't imagine it's super fun for you either, so why in the world are you doing it?

Yeah, was thinking the same. I can understand being critically negative during the playtest or through the design window, but at this point, spending hours analyzing something you don't like and making sure that others know that you don't like seems like a curious mismanagement of one's spare time. Assuming it's done in good faith, that is.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

If PF1 was already the "perfect game" then there is no good reason to spend your time ripping on PF2. Just go play PF1 dude


Arachnofiend wrote:
If PF1 was already the "perfect game" then there is no good reason to spend your time ripping on PF2. Just go play PF1 dude

Could be someone who relied on PFS to have others play with them?

Or maybe they have a close knit group that had everyone else happily move. Although I cannot imagine disliking a system that much if I was playing with friends. I mean, I can still play 3.5 with a group of colossal minmaxers (and I prefer gritty games).

101 to 150 of 168 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Skills: Only the die matters All Messageboards