Skills and Low Int

[TiwazBlackhand]

I can't find an answer.

I have Int 8 (-1)
My class gives Trained in Athletics, and 3 other skills Plus Intelligence Modifier.

Does this mean I only get trained in 2 skills?

I know that's effectively how it worked in PF1, just checking for PF2

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

Yes. You can tell by the contrast with the language in Ancestries telling you how many languages you get: "... plus your Int modifier if positive."

[lemeres]

That is how it works. And you probably won't find any problem with it. This edition makes everyone fairly skill rich.

You also get skills from your background (although one is probably a lore skill, and.... your int). And you might end up getting skills from other sources, such as ancestry feats. So you will have 4 skills at least, if not more. If you aren't using int skills, you probably won't find a situation where you will be wanting for skills.

There is 1 str skill (atheltics, which you already have), 3 cha skills (...well, also performance, but you aren't a bard), 4 wis skills (several of which are knowledge skills, and you look like a barbarian, so you might use those much in a fight), and 3 dex skills.

You will probably only be good at two of those stats. So you will likely grab almost everything you need with ease.

I find Int focused builds have the most need for the skills from int. For example, a wizard could grab enough skills like lore (undead) to id every single monster type using int alone- and at level 1 too. And an investigator could do that, and still have room to spare.

[Captain Zoom]

TiwazBlackhand wrote:

I can't find an answer.

I have Int 8 (-1)
My class gives Trained in Athletics, and 3 other skills Plus Intelligence Modifier.

Does this mean I only get trained in 2 skills?

I know that's effectively how it worked in PF1, just checking for PF2

Seems pretty clear to me. If you get 3 plus -1, simple addition says you get 2.

So, in your specific example, you get Athletics and 2 other skills.

[Moppy]

Captain Zoom wrote:

Seems pretty clear to me. If you get 3 plus -1, simple addition says you get 2.

To be fair, negative numbers weren't widely accepted in western mathematics until the late 1800s, so it's not that obvious. The history of mathematics is quite interesting. It's surprising how much we consider obvious actually is only obvious because we were taught it in a school, and isn't naturally obvious.

edit: Other parts of the world were more accepting of negative numbers, but it was to exchange information back then.

[thenobledrake]

Moppy wrote:

To be fair, negative numbers weren't widely accepted in western mathematics until the late 1800s, so it's not that obvious.

...so you're saying you think someone on this forum might have learned mathematics prior to the late 19th century?

[graystone]

thenobledrake wrote:

Moppy wrote:

To be fair, negative numbers weren't widely accepted in western mathematics until the late 1800s, so it's not that obvious.

...so you're saying you think someone on this forum might have learned mathematics prior to the late 19th century?

Or has a teacher that's that old. ;)

[Moppy]

I don't like to assume people even went to school, or paid attention, or learned things in the same order, or maybe they're checking Paizo didn't make an error. Very little is universally obvious to all humans.

[graystone]

Moppy wrote:

I don't like to assume people even went to school, or paid attention, or learned things in the same order, or maybe they're checking Paizo didn't make an error. Very little is universally obvious to all humans.

Next you're going to say the sun doesn't go around the earth...

[thenobledrake]

Mathematics is usually referred to as a "universal language" ...but sure, let's act like it's not because we don't want to assume anything.

Sorry for all of you that had to run my post through a translator because I assumed you learned English before choosing to read a forum on a website originating from an English-speaking nation.

[Moppy]

Mathematics beyond basic arthmetic with positive integers is not universal.

Consider higher mathematics like set theory. Is the set that contains all sets a member of itself? There are various different formulations of set theory, some which say yes, and some say no.

[graystone]

Moppy wrote:

Mathematics beyond basic arthmetic with positive integers is not universal.

Consider higher mathematics like set theory. Is the set that contains all sets a member of itself? There are various different formulations of set theory, some which say yes, and some say no.

Ah... I think 'you have 3 apples and you eat one so how many do you have left' is about as SIMPLE as basic arithmetic can get. that's what our question was about: +3 skills and -1 skill equals? We aren't talking rocket surgery here.

[thenobledrake]

if by "basic arithmetic" we mean "actually all math taught up through the undergraduate level", sure, the rest isn't universal...

[TiwazBlackhand]

More it was the fact that many things have changed from PF1 to PF2, and I have been bitten on several occasions by ASSUMING that something works the same as it did before.

Many game systems do things like add a score if positive but NOT subtract negatives, or subtract negatives but NOT add positives.

Or, for example, Propulsive weapons.
If your strength mod is POSITIVE you add half.
If your strength mod is NEGATIVE you apply the entire mod as a penalty.

Likewise, a certain reading of Skills would be in this case, "You are Trained In Athletics. You are Trained in 3 more skills. You are trained in [Int Mod] additional skills."

Since you cannot be trained in Negative One skill, an Int Penalty simply mean you get only Athletics and 3 skills, not that a penalty reduces your base 3 skills.

And, as I said, since I STILL CANNOT FIND a spot where it ACTUALLY SAYS in the rules that an Int Penalty reduces your skills from class, I just wanted to double check.

[Moppy]

thenobledrake wrote:

if by "basic arithmetic" we mean "actually all math taught up through the undergraduate level", sure, the rest isn't universal...

Division is a basic operation. There are mathematical systems in which division by zero is defined. IMO pretty much anything beyond the basic axioms can be formulated differently if we had chosen to.

[thenobledrake]

TiwazBlackhand wrote:

And, as I said, since I STILL CANNOT FIND a spot where it ACTUALLY SAYS in the rules that an Int Penalty reduces your skills from class, I just wanted to double check.

Sometimes you have to realize that what you are looking for the rules to say is communicated by the text not saying something different. This is one of those cases.

Take a look at the Human Ancestry's language entry for the language that would be present if a negative modifier were not adjusted for.

[lemeres]

thenobledrake wrote:

Mathematics is usually referred to as a "universal language" ...but sure, let's act like it's not because we don't want to assume anything.

Sorry for all of you that had to run my post through a translator because I assumed you learned English before choosing to read a forum on a website originating from an English-speaking nation.

Everything besides the basics gets very, very fuzzy since it depends on various assumptions as well as definitions of what counts (Fuzzy Wuzzy points out a good example where the same negative int modifier doesn't count in a different circumstance).

And humans tend to be very bad at math- it is more of a second language for us. So most people are pretty bad at it. Which is why the cents part of prices like "$9.99" is a thing. Logically, that is $10. But our brains thinks "oh, $9", especially when we are dealing with things we don't think much about.

But this is digressing into a discussion of philosophy at this point. The general answer is "yeah, negative modifiers apply, but you will likely be fine anyway since we are given so many skill points".

[graystone]

TiwazBlackhand wrote:

And, as I said, since I STILL CANNOT FIND a spot where it ACTUALLY SAYS in the rules that an Int Penalty reduces your skills from class, I just wanted to double check.

Nothing wrong with the question: never hurts to double check. My comments where more on how basic math is hard comments.