A Safe Space for Respectful Criticisms of PF2


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

401 to 450 of 532 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Not really that easy to run away and regroup to handle this one, once you've triggered it. One of your party is not merely down, but active against you. Not face-tanking it at that point is tricky.

And even if you do, the odds are decent that you've not merely lost that PC permanently, but that you have to come back to interact with the trap just to figure that out.

Of course, it's more likely you spot the trap and just avoid or break it, but if it does go off it's a TPK waiting to happen. (Or just break all even vaguely suspicious mirrors on general principles, even if you fail the perception check.)

Which is all a shame, because the whole "fighting evil mirror duplicates" thing is a cool iconic encounter, but this seems a really bad implementation.
Playing out the whole thing, beating the evil duplicate, then finding the copied person is still trapped and doomed to be lost forever as soon as they failed that first save is just not a cool way to handle it.
Let them come back when the duplicate is beaten (or the body thrown through the mirror?), with the legendary thievery check being to pull them out beforehand?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
WWHsmackdown wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

You have to be willing and able to resort to some degree of handholding as a GM. There are groups, who when given "the solution is a four letter word" and you spot them 'M' "I' and 'K' are going to settle on MIAK and not move off of it.

But there's generally better ways to deal with foolishly stubborn PCs than "just skip the thing they can't/won't in the intended way."

I'm a big dummy and don't know the four letter word. Now I gots to know...
Milk

This was specifically an "Ernest Scared Stupid" reference, in which the titular Ernest P. Worrell reads the the troll's weakness is MI*K with a smudge over the L, so he has to hunt down "Authentic Bulgarian Miak" and is subsequently chagrined at its lack of efficacy.

Sometimes your players are going to be Ernest P. Worrell, that's okay since Ernest is a good dude, it's just a thing you have to be prepared to deal with.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
nephandys wrote:
There's literally instructions on modifying DC's, 'the numbers,' in the CRB.

Which is fine to have instructions on how to modify the game for when its needed.

But Twilight was saying that any complain about the math is invalidated because you can change the numbers. Which is not how it works. You should modify the numbers to fit what you want, but the base numbers should still work fine without modifications (Which they often don't).

If the numbers don't work or are meaningless than it's a waste of time and the devs failed. Same if it requires that you change the numbers every single time to make then work.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
WWHsmackdown wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

You have to be willing and able to resort to some degree of handholding as a GM. There are groups, who when given "the solution is a four letter word" and you spot them 'M' "I' and 'K' are going to settle on MIAK and not move off of it.

But there's generally better ways to deal with foolishly stubborn PCs than "just skip the thing they can't/won't in the intended way."

I'm a big dummy and don't know the four letter word. Now I gots to know...
Milk

This was specifically an "Ernest Scared Stupid" reference, in which the titular Ernest P. Worrell reads the the troll's weakness is MI*K with a smudge over the L, so he has to hunt down "Authentic Bulgarian Miak" and is subsequently chagrined at its lack of efficacy.

Sometimes your players are going to be Ernest P. Worrell, that's okay since Ernest is a good dude, it's just a thing you have to be prepared to deal with.

Thank you for the context. I now feel like I have more smarticles than I did before. Today is a good day.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
If the numbers don't work or are meaningless than it's a waste of time and the devs failed.

If you expect a single, or even a narrow set, of numbers to meet the requirements of a game as complex and expansive as Pathfinder, then it is never going to meet the needs of most players.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Friendly reminder this isn't the, "Debate whether another person's criticism of the game is correct" thread. By all means discuss, but It seems like there's more than sufficient material for a separate thread dedicated to debating whose numbers are the most correct, if somebody would like to make one.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
WWHsmackdown wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
WWHsmackdown wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

You have to be willing and able to resort to some degree of handholding as a GM. There are groups, who when given "the solution is a four letter word" and you spot them 'M' "I' and 'K' are going to settle on MIAK and not move off of it.

But there's generally better ways to deal with foolishly stubborn PCs than "just skip the thing they can't/won't in the intended way."

I'm a big dummy and don't know the four letter word. Now I gots to know...
Milk

This was specifically an "Ernest Scared Stupid" reference, in which the titular Ernest P. Worrell reads the the troll's weakness is MI*K with a smudge over the L, so he has to hunt down "Authentic Bulgarian Miak" and is subsequently chagrined at its lack of efficacy.

Sometimes your players are going to be Ernest P. Worrell, that's okay since Ernest is a good dude, it's just a thing you have to be prepared to deal with.

Thank you for the context. I now feel like I have more smarticles than I did before. Today is a good day.

Any day with an Ernest reference is a good day.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
thewastedwalrus wrote:

There's this line in additional knowledge.

I just ask characters to try and recall knowledge about a specific aspect like a troll's regeneration rather than the creature in general if they've failed and want to know more. Changing the topic this way seems to sidestep the issue if there's something particularly interesting about the creature.

There does seem to be ways gm can sidestep that yeah if they want to

Which is absolutely what I do, but my opinion is that Recall Knowledge every turn should be specifically codified into the game as an assumption.

Oh no, I agree. That wasn't defense of system, that was resigned "Well at least you can do that"


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The design of some monsters really bug me. I like being the sort of player that's prepared for as much as possible, but some monsters match up against some classes in such a way that there's very little counterplay. Things like a melee inventor against a balor means you can't attack it. Or a caster against a lesser death (and yes I know those are extreme examples but there are some similar lower level things that do similar). All of those situations where the game is like, oh don't worry, your weapons can't be targeted, you don't have to worry about them breaking. Or you don't have to worry about AoOs anymore. Until you do, and then you're out of luck.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

One more reason why I think RK should be changed and clarified so it will be more widely used.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gaulin wrote:
The design of some monsters really bug me. I like being the sort of player that's prepared for as much as possible, but some monsters match up against some classes in such a way that there's very little counterplay. Things like a melee inventor against a balor means you can't attack it. Or a caster against a lesser death (and yes I know those are extreme examples but there are some similar lower level things that do similar). All of those situations where the game is like, oh don't worry, your weapons can't be targeted, you don't have to worry about them breaking. Or you don't have to worry about AoOs anymore. Until you do, and then you're out of luck.

This is a criticism I can get down with. I cut out 90% of fights against monsters who are immune to precision damage because they make things so unfun for the rogue in my game.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
TwilightKnight wrote:
IMO, all the math arguments fail because

Reminder to everyone who doesn't have me blocked: If you catch yourself criticizing people's "arguments", you are definitely on the wrong thread. :)

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
Friendly reminder this isn't the, "Debate whether another person's criticism of the game is correct" thread. By all means discuss, but It seems like there's more than sufficient material for a separate thread dedicated to debating whose numbers are the most correct, if somebody would like to make one.

This. I am a little frustrated at how normalized arguing has gotten on this thread over the last few weeks. There is a difference between sharing your own subjective experiences and trying to pick fights because "someone is wrong on the internet".

To those who've stayed on-topic, or who've noticed their comments were starting to create an argument and agreed to disagree: Thank you! I really appreciate it.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

This thread works best if you just fire off what's on your mind and then don't look at the replies, either good or bad.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Another way about it is to approach the thread with curiosity: Whether or not you agree with someone's experience, TTRPGs are pretty much defined by being fluid and subjective. Rulesets are communication, and if someone "misunderstands" the rules, that might suggest something interesting about how the rulesets were explained. Even if someone really is wrong, you can learn a lot from how they're wrong. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
willfromamerica wrote:
Gaulin wrote:
The design of some monsters really bug me. I like being the sort of player that's prepared for as much as possible, but some monsters match up against some classes in such a way that there's very little counterplay. Things like a melee inventor against a balor means you can't attack it. Or a caster against a lesser death (and yes I know those are extreme examples but there are some similar lower level things that do similar). All of those situations where the game is like, oh don't worry, your weapons can't be targeted, you don't have to worry about them breaking. Or you don't have to worry about AoOs anymore. Until you do, and then you're out of luck.
This is a criticism I can get down with. I cut out 90% of fights against monsters who are immune to precision damage because they make things so unfun for the rogue in my game.

This is a good call. With some martial classes be highly dependent on precision damage, it seems unfair for a Rogue's effectiveness to dip significantly against certain monsters.

Contributor

7 people marked this as a favorite.

A lot of people replied to my post and I thank you for that (as well as 22 Likes!!). Out of respect for the OP and the spirit of this thread, I'm not going to engage in a discussion for any of them, but there was this one post I saw that I wanted to speak on:

PlantThings wrote:
The only other major unaddressed issue I can think of is Recall Knowledge rules. Both in terms of clarity and structure.

I agree with this, mostly because all the different rules for recalling knowledge are all over the place. The rules in the skills chapter don't, like, list DCs or anything. I found them later in the GM chapter, which is weird to me. I feel like it's okay for players to generally know how difficult something is, so why put that in the back of the book?

Also, I agree that for the number of options that there are in the game that interface with Recall Knowledge in encounter mode, it's strange how vague it is. I'm currently listening to the Outcast and Outclassed 2E podcast, and there was one point where the GM-appointed Rules Lawyer was like, "Yeah PF2 handles it one way but that way is confusing so I recommend just doing it like PF1."

I don't think that's a good look for a rule, personally.

Contributor

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, there were a few people who were like, "Your post got too heated and passionate so I stopped listening to anything you said."

You're perfectly entitled to that response, but I'd challenge you to question in yourselves why perceived emotion devalues the quality of my opinions in a thread literally titled, "Respectful Opinions about PF2." I may have been emotional, sure. I am an emotional person. But being emotional and having feelings doesn't invalidate my thoughts and opinions. You don't need to be an unfeeling bastion of rationality to have valid thoughts and experiences, and respect doesn't necessitate a lack of emotion.


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

Plus even those of us who are pretty sure we know how its meant to work are frequently getting into heated debates about it-- e.g. my interpretation of recall knowledge as utilizing a trigger where the player controls what information they get by default (with the second half of the success line being written to give permission for the GM to deviate at their discretion) as a tool for players to aim at things in the statblock of a monster, with the feats that explicitly do that all providing alternative paths and limitations on what kind of information they can get.

Usually, I run into people who just apply the creature identification rule as the only way to Recall Knowledge on a creature, which pulls it back to ye olde "The GM tells you a fun fact about the monster that may or may not be useful to you" because (and this is my interpretation again) the creature identification lists that you tell players the best known quality, which I think was meant to ensure players get a little more than the name when they don't know what something is.

I play Intelligence characters like Witches, Wizards, Investigators, and Maguses mostly, and I think that with other skills like demoralize in the mix, its important to clarify whether Recall Knowledge is meant to have a non-situational combat use (like taking an action to identify what save to target before you cast a spell, for instance.)

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Also, there were a few people who were like, "Your post got too heated and passionate so I stopped listening to anything you said."

I feel like I'm singled out here because I'm only one who commented on tone of the post before I proceeded to comment on points anyway since I read it x'D And only thing I really said about that is "I worry this will get escalated to argument" (it thankfully didn't even if people briefly started commenting on post point by point)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Gaulin wrote:
Things like a melee inventor against a balor means you can't attack it. Or a caster against a lesser death...those are extreme examples...

What is wrong about a melee inventor against a balor or a caster against a lesser death?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Gaulin wrote:
Things like a melee inventor against a balor means you can't attack it. Or a caster against a lesser death...those are extreme examples...
What is wrong about a melee inventor against a balor or a caster against a lesser death?

Check them out on AoN if you're curious. Inventor weapon innovation can't be upgraded with into precious materials, so it breaks super easy (along with most of your class features). Lesser death has a really strong reaction that makes life very difficult for casters, among just really high stats in general. That being said, I feel like I'm being set up and am going to get called a baby and to rely on other party members


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought "do not commit to only being able to do one thing, no matter how well you do that thing" was a well understood tactical point. Like the fighter with high strength in heavy armor knows they're eventually going to have to fight something that flies.

That some enemies are better countered by one class's set of tools than another class's is why it's good that this is a team game.

Pathfinder 2e actually does a better job than its predecessor at preventing you from sinking 100% of your build resources into a specific combat trick.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I thought "do not commit to only being able to do one thing, no matter how well you do that thing" was a well understood tactical point. Like the fighter with high strength in heavy armor knows they're eventually going to have to fight something that flies.

That some enemies are better countered by one class's set of tools than another class's is why it's good that this is a team game.

I mean, this sounds great on paper but in practice a lot of the encounters being described don't really offer tactical depth on that front. You haven't really opened up any new avenues or encouraged a broadening of horizons when you turn off someone's class features. Generally, you just make them suck for a little while.

If PF2 had broader tactical options or gave characters more inherent flexibility, I think stuff like this would make a lot more sense. As is, in practice these just end up being nuisance mechanics that tend to disproportionately impact certain characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, I agree heartily with the criticism "there's too few feats" since "giving people more tools" is precisely how you make "some of your tools don't work" less painful. This is partly why I consider "free archetype" to be the default game since it smooths so many problems.

But "sometimes things fly" is basically required for a sort of verisimilitude, and it's not exactly fair if "run up and whack them" is the only tactic that ever gets turned off.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean that's not really what I was getting to, the types of monsters I was talking about are more like "if you cast a spell you get hit hard and lose your spell anywhere within 60 ft" or "if hit with a melee attack your weapon gets destroyed" on top of just being generally crazy strong and having other strong abilities. Types of things like having a ranged option or multiple damage types are easy to fit on most characters and isn't a complaint I would make.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally don't know that I mind certain monsters being impossible for certain attack styles to damage, but I also don't think Gaulin can be "wrong" for not liking it. Honestly, I haven't run into any "you don't get to participate" monsters yet, so I don't have a lot to add except "let people not enjoy things". :P

(Also, it's a little weird if Pathfinder expects every PC to have multiple effective means of contributing to solving a problem, considering how encouraged specialization is.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
(Also, it's a little weird if Pathfinder expects every PC to have multiple effective means of contributing to solving a problem, considering how encouraged specialization is.)

What makes you say that specialization is encouraged? I've seen this sentiment echoed a few times and I'm curious about it, because I haven't personally seen it myself.

If anything it's been the opposite in games I play in. Everyone having more skill picks has tended toward broadening what we feel like our characters can do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm sure someone else can explain it better than I can! One example I can think of as a newbie to the system is how hard it seems to be to add new skill proficiencies after first level. I really had to struggle to pull off basic character concepts if I wasn't going rogue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would have a big problem with something like the lesser Death's reaction appearing on much lower level creature. But we're talking about a level 16 monster here. I think you kind of need to give high level monsters some stuff that's at least a little bit scary in order to make incredibly powerful characters feel a little bit threatened.

Presumably since you probably didn't start at double digit levels, you might have also picked up teamwork tricks like "a tougher character draws out the reaction so their teammate doesn't have to deal with it." Even if the GM doesn't have the monster teleport to the switch hitting flurry ranger who shot at it because that's a lower value use of the ability, you can play positioning games here.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I might phrase it a little differently but...

Character creation really encourages you to silo your stats in a few key places.

Most characters only get a few skills they particularly excel at.

Class design generally gives you one major thing you're good at doing and not a ton of ways to branch out.

The overall math of the game is aimed at specialists for the most part, which generally makes it harder to just start doing a secondary thing.

Archetypes and other things can help a bit, but in general you have a pretty strongly defined lane in PF2 and dilettante characters are kind of a pain to put together.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

It's frustrating sometimes to complain about, too, because a lot of people simply reply "well, then don't play dilettantes". Like, sure. That's kind of the point I'm making: There is a type of character I enjoy playing, and PF2 kind of likes to tell me, "stop it". And I'm not wholly convinced that was necessary, and even if it was, I don't like it.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The weird thing about skill increases is that this seems like a trickier thing for a GM to "just give you more of" than feats. Since feats generally don't make a character more mathematically powerful (just more versatile) but "extra skill increases" do.

I suppose things like free archetype and ancestry paragon indirectly give you a couple of skill bumps, so I wonder if something like that can be expanded upon.

I did definitely houserule that everybody gets free "additional lore" progression tied to their background lore, since that never sat right to me that if you wanted to be a "a baker of legend" you should pick a background that doesn't get "baking lore" so you could take additional lore in baking lore.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Oh yeah, while we’re on this topic of discussion… Wisps having immunity to pretty much all magic also makes things fairly unfun for the casters in my game. At least with that, they have the option to focus on buffing instead, but it gets tiresome in Abomination Vaults when there are so many wisps. And there’s only so much buffing you can do before you just have to twiddle your thumbs and wait for the martials to handle it.

I guess my perspective is that I like when every character gets their time to shine, but I’d rather that not come at the cost of another character feeling useless at the same time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

I might phrase it a little differently but...

Character creation really encourages you to silo your stats in a few key places.

Most characters only get a few skills they particularly excel at.

Class design generally gives you one major thing you're good at doing and not a ton of ways to branch out.

The overall math of the game is aimed at specialists for the most part, which generally makes it harder to just start doing a secondary thing.

Archetypes and other things can help a bit, but in general you have a pretty strongly defined lane in PF2 and dilettante characters are kind of a pain to put together.

I'm not sure how that was different than PF1.

The only characters that would sort of a jack of all trades in skills in Pf1 was rogues and bards.

If you were some other class, you were usually limited severely with number of skill points.

An intel class could be very good at knowledge skills. But not every class could be a skill monkey.

In PF2 you get far more skills than you ever got in PF1. I'm finding my characters are more diverse in PF2 because you get far more stat bonuses and skills than you ever did in PF1. All my casters usually pick up Stealth and acrobatics and/or athletics along with the usual intelligence skills.

I don't understand what character classes you were playing that weren't specialized other than rogue and bard from core and maybe an intelligence based class in PF1.

This is so completely not what I see in PF2. It's easier than ever to branch out in areas you never could before. It's much easier to be a multiclass caster. Much easier to be a multiclass melee. It's much easier to make a wide open class that is a mish mash of abilities than any other version of D&D I've ever played.

PF2 is the least specialized version of D&D I've played. My characters are all over the place.

I've seen tons of complaints that specialization gets you nothing in PF2 because no matter how much you specialize, you won't be that much better than everyone else at the thing you specialized in.

Very odd one person feels the game is too specialized, while others claim you get no real benefit from specializing. I see more truth in the group who says you get no real benefit from specializing myself. You can build a lot of different ways and have a very moderate reduction in ability from a specialist.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

We do use dual class and free archetype a lot. But indeed to diversify and not over specialize. It is nice to be able to be able to be a contributor in many diffferent situations.

And it does make characters somewhat stronger, but ability scores and action economy are quite good at limiting that (well and some common agreements between players and GM go a long way as well).

It works good for us at least.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How do you guys like duel class? It looks intriguing to me, but I was always unsure of it because of the potential combinations that could arise, like the ones GMG warns about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have an Eldritch Trickster Rogue, and I've played alongside Barbarians and Fighters and been baffled by her ability to keep up on the damage not because her numbers were anywhere close to my comrades' but because she was never negatively affected by the circumstances.

I also find that these edition really encourages versatility. It's the only edition where playing a versatile character is as efficient than playing a specialized one. Also, there are tons of classes and subclasses based on this versatility (Summoner and Alchemist first, Inventor, Magus, Eldritch Trickster, Warpriest, etc...). Stating that only specialization works and at the same time complaining that some monsters completely shut down your character seems a bit paradoxical to me. In my opinion, you should give a go at more versatile characters as they work fine.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

You see. To me it seems like PF2 only offers token value to Versatility, and I hate it for it.

The math of the game encourages specialization. The feat silos encourage Specialization. The items/currency encourages it.

People talk about how good Alchemist/Summoner are because of versatility. But the more I read about them the more it seems like they are mostly good because either: The person is roleplay and thus don't care or they are using none class abilities to actually be relevant. Their versatility is rarely useful because they are versatile.

Before people start with the "did you even play with those classes". Yes I have, everyone else in the party was generally better even when using their class abilities.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Untrained Improvisation and its friends do give you a fighting chance at using all and any skill.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Two other things I dislike :

1) you can be Expert at a skill at level 2, but you must take a specific dedication. And you just retrain it at level 3 when your skill increase happens. Talk about jumping through unnecessary hoops.

2) so many archetypes. I just don't know what the most recents do or how they could help my characters. And the build guides usually do not follow them either.

That is too much = bloat.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why would you archetype just to get a skill one level earlier and retrain later?

That is 100% not necessary and seems very odd to do this. I feel like maybe you are trying to get an early expert level 2 skill feat but by retraining you cant keep that skill feat.

I am definitely in the group that feels PF2 feels like the best combination of diversity and specialization. Getting perception + 3 skills maxed at a minimum is great to me.

5e most characters are barely specialized. Of course a few classes are more specialized.

PF1 you could specialize so much it made balancing hard and rarely did I not do the thing I am good at.

Archetype bloat is definitely a thing. Players interested in archetypes I always mention to look at the core archetypes on AON first. Pretty much no player even gets through those. I still love it for all the fun choices.

It is nice that players who want the depth can really dig deep in archetypes. At the same time PF2 class feats buckets were supposed to be simple but when you get to choose from 100+ archetypes it isnt very simple.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cylar Nann wrote:

Why would you archetype just to get a skill one level earlier and retrain later?

That is 100% not necessary and seems very odd to do this. I feel like maybe you are trying to get an early expert level 2 skill feat but by retraining you cant keep that skill feat.

Assurance + Expert lets you hit DC15 automatically. That is the DC for Treat wounds, as well as for casting a lvl1 spell from a scroll.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

And it's true that lvl2 skill feats that require Expert being gated behind dedications is annoying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

The weird thing about skill increases is that this seems like a trickier thing for a GM to "just give you more of" than feats. Since feats generally don't make a character more mathematically powerful (just more versatile) but "extra skill increases" do.

I suppose things like free archetype and ancestry paragon indirectly give you a couple of skill bumps, so I wonder if something like that can be expanded upon.

I did definitely houserule that everybody gets free "additional lore" progression tied to their background lore, since that never sat right to me that if you wanted to be a "a baker of legend" you should pick a background that doesn't get "baking lore" so you could take additional lore in baking lore.

Yeah and the issue is any solution to this means you have to work it all around the Rogue design.

A skill feat that moves Trained to Expert with a level 5/7 requirement? can't really do that because then the Rogue will of course stock up on that as well.

I would have loved to see some kind of "trailing skill proficiency" or automatic proficiency increase.

AKA Skill increases at 7/9/11/13 all grant one trained skill as well as an increase in skill proficiency and then 15/17/19 all grant an Expert or trained as well as the standard upgrade.

Arguably, the Rogue then gets even more power (or maybe you just make it to the "trailing proficiency isn't limited to trained/expert" and remove Rogue's bonus skill increases entirely (since it's effectively the same thing).

Now respect to Paizo after 1E basically decimated the Rogue because of the Skill system changes between 3.5->PF1 for taking the time to make the Rogue the first consideration in the skill system design, but it does mean any changes to the system by their very nature have to be worked around the Rogue.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Acrobat dedication increases Acrobatics automatically. As does Additional Lore for the Lore you select.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Indeed I are a player who really wishes he could pick up both the skills that are useful to his class (Swashbuckler) and the skills central to his concept (refined diplomat/scholar of society) and take them beyond trained. The Dandy archetype has helped, but indeed, regardless whether you need them to hit DCs, gaining skill increases to carry your skills above trained outside of being a rogue is very difficult.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
Indeed I are a player who really wishes he could pick up both the skills that are useful to his class (Swashbuckler) and the skills central to his concept (refined diplomat/scholar of society) and take them beyond trained. The Dandy archetype has helped, but indeed, regardless whether you need them to hit DCs, gaining skill increases to carry your skills above trained outside of being a rogue is very difficult.

Yeah don't even get me started on Swashbuckler's "you better choose correctly on your Skill increases or you're significantly worse in combat" issue.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
Indeed I are a player who really wishes he could pick up both the skills that are useful to his class (Swashbuckler) and the skills central to his concept (refined diplomat/scholar of society) and take them beyond trained. The Dandy archetype has helped, but indeed, regardless whether you need them to hit DCs, gaining skill increases to carry your skills above trained outside of being a rogue is very difficult.

To be fair, many Dedications raise at least one skill to Expert.

And Skill Mastery through Investigator or Rogue dedications gets you Master.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:

You see. To me it seems like PF2 only offers token value to Versatility, and I hate it for it.

The math of the game encourages specialization. The feat silos encourage Specialization. The items/currency encourages it.

People talk about how good Alchemist/Summoner are because of versatility. But the more I read about them the more it seems like they are mostly good because either: The person is roleplay and thus don't care or they are using none class abilities to actually be relevant. Their versatility is rarely useful because they are versatile.

Before people start with the "did you even play with those classes". Yes I have, everyone else in the party was generally better even when using their class abilities.

Woah, you got a second pf2e game going? Nice, I was wondering what you were gonna try next after your fighter!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Temperans wrote:

You see. To me it seems like PF2 only offers token value to Versatility, and I hate it for it.

The math of the game encourages specialization. The feat silos encourage Specialization. The items/currency encourages it.

People talk about how good Alchemist/Summoner are because of versatility. But the more I read about them the more it seems like they are mostly good because either: The person is roleplay and thus don't care or they are using none class abilities to actually be relevant. Their versatility is rarely useful because they are versatile.

Before people start with the "did you even play with those classes". Yes I have, everyone else in the party was generally better even when using their class abilities.

Woah, you got a second pf2e game going? Nice, I was wondering what you were gonna try next after your fighter!

You know very well I am talking about your game. As fun as it was to play because of fun RP, the alchemist did more damage to me than the actual monsters. While the battle took twice as long when I failed to roll high enough to hit.

401 to 450 of 532 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / A Safe Space for Respectful Criticisms of PF2 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.