Skills: Only the die matters


Rules Discussion

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
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.

I am sorry to hear you can't find a group that plays the game that you want to play in the setting that you want. Maybe it is time to try running some PF1 table/s as a GM and try to build up general interest in playing the old system, being able to show case why you feel like it is superior, and then eventually one of your players who feels the same way you do will be willing to take up the GM banner and you can get back to being a player.

In the mean time, it is probably best to think about what you personally have to get out of making contributions to a message board for a game you don't want to play, or focus more of your attention on homebrew threads that might help change PF2 into a game that you would enjoy playing.


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

The game is designed to highlight a sense of risk, uncertainty, danger, and drama.

This is as true for spell casters as it is for skill users and martial classes. Spells that once guaranteed success like Knock, Discern Lies, True Seeing, Nondetection, Mind Blank and Cure Disease now either improve your chances or give you a chance to counter powerful magic using the new countering mechanic.

Many spells have variable effects on saves using the same Critical Failure, Failure, Success, and Critical Success breakdowns. They do tend to have a small impact even on failure, but they use a pool of much more limited spell slots.

Additionally spell casters can no longer stack their save DCs sky high to guarantee success and targeting poor saves no longer means automatic success because saves scale much better.

No one gets to obviate challenges on command anymore. You have to engage with the game and take risks. This is true for everyone.

You might not like it, but I am thrilled by it. Spell casters and feel more engaging than they have ever been. You need to make decisions and consider the risks carefully.


1 person 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.

Isn't the fact that anyone can now invest in some skills, and gains skill feats which give them more options and depth, where before they couldn't really sacrifice a general feat used for combat to say, sneak better, the definition of more options and depth?

Anyone can invest into becoming good at a few certain skills, even the fighter with no charisma can become good at making friends and earning money with Diplomacy, Glad-Hand and Bargain Hunter. Before we had one option with a skill, to roll for using it, same at level 1, same at level 20 with exception of a few classes

Liberty's Edge

There are also minimum proficiencies as well to consider in which the die doesn’t matter at all. The Jack-of-all-trades-but-master-at-none is going to have exactly zero percent probability of success (and a nonzero chance of critically failing) at a task that requires master proficiency. This effectively stops the issue of characters who only are trained from stealing the spotlight from deeply skill invested characters in challenging tasks.


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

That's strange. My P1E fighters never seemed to have had any issues at all with skills.

You all must have been doing something wrong.

;D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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?

At least one of the following:

1) PF3, if and when it is released, winds up being more in line with my tastes

2) They release an 'unchained' book with more palatable rules

3) They significantly overhaul the system in the next printing

The first two at least have a decent chance of happening. It isn't fun, but it's necessary to be constantly heard to be taken into account for future plans. I'm doing everything I can to push towards a shift back at some point.


Option 2 is apparently in the GMG in the winter, Whether it will be enough for you I don't know

I only have heard mention about Gestalt rules and rules to remove level from proficiency

If PF1 is anything to go by you have a fair while to wait before a PF3. What is the shortest time between editions? I guess 3 and 3.5 if that counts...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber
sherlock1701 wrote:
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?

At least one of the following:

1) PF3, if and when it is released, winds up being more in line with my tastes

2) They release an 'unchained' book with more palatable rules

3) They significantly overhaul the system in the next printing

The first two at least have a decent chance of happening. It isn't fun, but it's necessary to be constantly heard to be taken into account for future plans. I'm doing everything I can to push towards a shift back at some point.

You seem to be disappointed that PF2 doesn't, with a single book release, surpass the "options and depth" of a decade of PF1. That just isn't a fair comparison or a realistic expectation. If you expect to someday see a PF3 release that equals the "options and depth" of a decade of content, then anticipate being disappointed.

The proper comparison would be to look at PF1 Core Rulebook and the PF2 Core Rulebook, ignoring all other PF1 materials. I don't see any reasonable argument that PF2 offers less robust options than PF1.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
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?

At least one of the following:

1) PF3, if and when it is released, winds up being more in line with my tastes

2) They release an 'unchained' book with more palatable rules

3) They significantly overhaul the system in the next printing

The first two at least have a decent chance of happening. It isn't fun, but it's necessary to be constantly heard to be taken into account for future plans. I'm doing everything I can to push towards a shift back at some point.

Considering that basically every post you make about your preferences here further clarifies what a colossal mistake it would have been for Paizo to publish a PF2 filled with your idea of 'improvements', I'm gonna have to say that no, those things do not have a decent chance of happening in the way you want them to.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Card Game, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Campbell wrote:
The game is designed to highlight a sense of risk, uncertainty, danger, and drama.

If that was really the case, players wouldn't spend hours trying to minimize the number of die rolls they have to make, or scrape up every obscure bonus available before even attempting any challenge.

I have never seen a group of people generally more risk averse than Player Characters.

When there's 23 locked doors in a dungeon, I don't want 'risk, uncertainty, danger, and drama' I want the rogue to open the stupid door so they can find some risk, uncertainty, danger, and drama.

And without attempting to derail too much, I don't like 'Sometimes Dispel Magic' and 'Maybe Remove Curse' in PF1 and they made it even more difficult in PF2.


Ravingdork wrote:

That's strange. My P1E fighters never seemed to have had any issues at all with skills.

You all must have been doing something wrong.

;D

Not "wrong" but sticking to more core options and not picking feats from the Villain Codex

I am a big fan of that build and Know Direction's blog did something very similar with a Lore Warden with 14 Int and an insane number of skills

And whenever I tried making up fighters I always liked to look to those weapon and armour linked skill boosts

But that was the problem with PF1 fighter is it needed those books that weren't released until 2015 to really stack up to much

And despite being free online not everyone was aware of them or used them. Some people don't want to trawl through loads of pages of feats online (I had a player like this - although he did have Cunning!)


Ravingdork wrote:

That's strange. My P1E fighters never seemed to have had any issues at all with skills.

You all must have been doing something wrong.

;D

Your highest seems to be +14 at level 9. The 'specialized' characters brought up as examples have +18 in stealth at level 1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think something many people are ignoring in this thread is that you definitely can get auto-success at skill checks, just not skill checks of a difficulty to match your level. Even at level 20, if you're attempting something very nearly impossible for a non-god (even with magical aid) , then... Yeah, there should be at least some chance of failure, it would be silly if it were trivial for you and you auto-succeed. Even if you're the best trap-disabler in the world (rogue 20), there are still traps imaginable that should test your skills. But if that rogue is disabling a common trap, or even a very complex trap around level 10? It's trivial to them.

This is in line with every other part of the game. You can't auto-kill a level 20 monster (always some chance of failure), because by definition it is a challenge for someone of 20th level. If you could auto-succeed a disable check against a 20th level trap, then by definition it shouldn't be a 20th level difficulty.


azjauthor wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
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?

At least one of the following:

1) PF3, if and when it is released, winds up being more in line with my tastes

2) They release an 'unchained' book with more palatable rules

3) They significantly overhaul the system in the next printing

The first two at least have a decent chance of happening. It isn't fun, but it's necessary to be constantly heard to be taken into account for future plans. I'm doing everything I can to push towards a shift back at some point.

You seem to be disappointed that PF2 doesn't, with a single book release, surpass the "options and depth" of a decade of PF1. That just isn't a fair comparison or a realistic expectation. If you expect to someday see a PF3 release that equals the "options and depth" of a decade of content, then anticipate being disappointed.

The proper comparison would be to look at PF1 Core Rulebook and the PF2 Core Rulebook, ignoring all other PF1 materials. I don't see any reasonable argument that PF2 offers less robust options than PF1.

The Wizard isn't Tier 0 in the PF2 CRB, which makes it worse.


It's kind of funny, minmaxing skills to the point of "+18 at lv1" generally has dimisnishing returns and it's more an exercise on "how high can X reach". In any case, its resources not spent on something else, so yeah they shouldn't have to worry about getting upstaged because of a bad roll (take 10 helped a lot).

Closer bonuses is good in that the GM doesn't have to worry about challenges being too tough. One solution is making Skill Focus a +1/+2 instead of +3/+6; That shouldn't hurt things much, it however would shrink the spread if the specialist doesn't take it.

Fighters being better at skills in general is great, but that's a problem of fighter being one of the worst designed core classes in PF1. Also skill feats were a thing, they just got generally upgraded and separated from combat (class) feats.


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

As a player it can both be true that I want to seek out every advantage at my disposal to tip the scales in my favor while also wanting to experience an element of risk, danger, and drama. I want it to be the case that we need to bring our A Game in order to win while there is still a chance we might not.

I want things like flanking to really matter not be something that is nice, but might not have an effect. Against an equal level opponent flanking might mean you score a critical hit on an 18 instead of a 20 and hit on a 9 instead of an 11. That's huge!

The impact of Raise Your Shield is likewise extremely significant.

I want knowing how to exploit monster weaknesses to be the reason we might win or lose an encounter. It was awesome that in Knights of Everflame Omelette was able to trigger the zombie's weakness twice when she attacked with her axe that was filled with positive energy from her rage and burst it wide open.

Still I want the whole affair to still feel tense and dangerous if we are fighting monsters at our level or higher. I like the gut punch of being hit by an owlbear, grabbed, and then having it attempt to disembowel me. I want this stuff to feel dangerous and I want winning to require all the skill at our disposal and maybe a little luck.

I want to have to play hard and not have it be because my build obviates the challenge.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I don’t think you’re helping your goals here. You want a game where you don’t want to interact with what your DM is presenting. You want certainty in what you do and it does seem to be a pretty common thread among dissenters, whether it be on skills, magic, power of feat choices/archetypes and so on. But I think if anything the genre over the last few years is moving much more away from a stat based approach where you can math it all out before you ever sit down at the table.

There however is one very stat based thing about PF2. And that was the playtest. If enough people had responded saying they wanted PF1 with tweaks that is likely what they’d have fallen back to. But it seems from the response new players are having to this game that never would have touched PF1 that they actually did make the game that both them and the fans wanted. Just not the game you wanted.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Folks,

This thread is filled with some really rather disappointing posts from regulars along with entirely too much baiting and trolling.

To top it off, it is now entirely off topic.

Be better to your fellow posters folks. If you are not interested in Pathfinder 2nd Edition, there are plenty of 1st edition threads on these boards where you can have fun, meaningful conversations about the game that you enjoy.

This thread is locked.

151 to 168 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