The more I make characters for Pathfinder 2e, the more I've come to realize that most of the characters invest heavily in either Deception, Diplomacy, Intimidation, or Stealth, and their associated skill feats. Athletics and Acrobatics can be pretty good skills to have too, but I find their skill feats aren't as individually impactful or synergistic with one another.
Has anyone else encountered this trend in your own games, or with your own characters? There's just so many abilities there that have an immediate impact on one's games that it can be hard to justify prioritizing other skills and feats over them unless they're augmented by ancestry or class features in some way. Why would anyone take Legendary Professional over Scare to Death or Legendary Sneak, for example?
Hopefully, Paizo will expand upon what some of the other skills are capable of. Feel free to share your own thoughts on the matter, whatever they may be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really no.
Stealth is super rare in the games I've played in. There's usually one guy with stealth who ends up never getting to use it.
Athletics is extremely common though, it's almost considered a given for any Str martial.
I see characters who don't focus on a particular skill take master in acrobatics for kip up.
Usually see diplo/deception on cha characters but not others.
In part this is the reason why I ditched skill feats in my table (well, I technically didn't ditch them, but rather make it so if you meet their prerequisites you gain the feat for free, with a few exceptions like Additional Lore, Assurance, Automatic Knowledge, Dubious Knowledge, Experienced Professional, Kreighton's Cognitive Crossover, Master of Apprentice, Skill Training, Unmistakable Lore which IMO fit as a regular general feats).
The other reason being because I was tired of all my characters taking skill increases into Medicine, Stealth, Intimidation, and the ocassional skill that fits RP-wise to my character because I never knew what to do with my skill feats otherwise. My table has loved this approach so when others GM they took this approach with skill feats too.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not convinced that this is a rules problem.
Yes, a lot of my characters that I play or that I theorycraft regularly gravitate to similar skills. That is more about what types of characters I resonate with rather than a limitation on the character build options.
I think also that some skills are more valuable in certain campaigns, adventures, or smaller sections of either. But which skills those are that are more valuable changes. As Squiggit mentioned, it is very possible that someone will have Stealth on their character and never find use for it. In games that I have been in, Stealth has regularly been used and often we are very glad that Follow the Expert is a thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Medicine is the top skill in terms of "if you actually are investing in this, most of your skill feats are going here." It's got a LOT of skill feats that are extremely good and make things better if someone has them.
Stealth is also up on that list, though the big two are Quiet Allies (making group stealth actually viable) and Legendary Sneak. Most skills have at least some good skill feats, though I do tend to see the same ones getting picked a lot, and the "knowledge" skills feel lacking in that area.
In terms of what skills themselves I see... Athletics, Diplomacy, Intimidation, and Stealth are probably the top 4. Medicine would be next in that usually only one person actually does anything with it, and then its kind of a mishmash.
Let me dig up some data. Six of my seven Strength of Thousands players wrote their character sheets in Roll20, so I can see their skill training. They are all 4th-level students at the Magaambya Academy, so they will be trained in two Magaambya branch lores and likely trained in both Arcana and Nature.
Cara'sseth Ti'kali catfolk fire kineticist with wizard free archetype. Expert in Crafting. Trained in Arcana, Athletics, Deception, Diplomacy, Nature, Religion, Society, Stealth, Mwanga Expanse Lore, Scribing Lore, Magaambya Cascade Bearers Lore, Emerald Boughs Lore. Skill feats not recorded.
Idris anadi divination wizard with Magaambya Attendant free archetype. Expert in Arcana and Crafting. Trained in Deception, Nature, Occultism, Religion, Society, Survival, Academia Lore, Anadi Lore, Astronomy Lore, Insect Lore, River Lore, Magaambya Cascade Bearers Lore, Magaambya Rain-Scribes Lore. Skill feats: Magical Shorthand, Magical Crafting, Crafter's Appraisal. Note: this player took advantage of Magaambya opportunities to gain extra lores and skill feats.
Jinx Fuun tengu enigma bard with druid free archetype. Expert in Performance. Trained in Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Diplomacy, Medicine, Nature, Occultism, Society, Survival, Arcadian Ocean Lore, Bardic Lore, Sailing Lore, Magaambya Emerald Boughs Lore, and Magaambya Uzunjati Lore. Skill feats: Survey Wildlife, Tame Animal, Virtuosic Performer.
Roshan Azar fleshwarp eldritch trickster (elemental sorcerer) rogue with Gelid Shard free archetype. Expert in Athletics and Nature. Trained in Arcana, Deception, Intimidation, Medicine, Nature, Occultism, Performance, Society, Stealth, Survival, Thievery, Academic Lore, Architecture Lore, Plane of Fire Lore, Magaambya Cascade Bearers Lore, and Rain-Scribes Lore. Skill feats: Titan Wrestler, Skill Training, Assurance(Athletics), Assurance(Nature). Note: No ability score bonus above +2, so relies on skills for effectiveness.
Stargazer ghoran enigma bard with druid free archetype. Trained in Arcana, Deception, Diplomacy, Intimidation, Nature, Occultism, Performance, Religion, Society, Survival, Bardic Lore, Nex Lore, Sentient Plant Lore, Magaambya Cascade Bearers Lore, and Magaambya Uzunjati Lore. Skill feats: Hobnobber. Note: this player often forgets to update her character.
Wilfred dromaar redeemer champion with magus free archetype. Expert in Acrobatics and Athletics. Trained in Arcana, Intimidation, Religion, Society, Survival, Magaambya Rain-Scribes Lore, and Magaambya Tempest-Sun Mages Lore. Skill feats: Quick Jump. Note: new player.
Let me count how often those six PCs trained (or more) in each non-lore skill: Acrobatics 2, Arcana 5, Athletics 4, Crafting 1, Deception 5, Diplomacy 3, Intimidation 3, Medicine 2, Nature 5, Occultism 4, Performance 3, Religion 4, Society 6, Stealth 2, Survival 5, and Thievery 1.
As for my opinions of the skills: Acrobatics is good for Catfall feat, Arcana is for creature identification, Athletics is good for wilderness travel and combat maneuvers, Crafting is a specialty, Deception is good for characters with a secret, Diplomacy is for the party face, Intimidation is for Demoralize, Medicine is for healing without burning spells, Nature is for creature identification and animal handling, Occultism is for creature identification, Performance is a specialty, Religion is a specialty, Society is for urban settings, Stealth is a good way to avoid unnecessary combat, Survival is my general-purpose skill for cooking, sailing, and everyday chores, and Thievery is a specialty.
Athletics is extremely common though, it's almost considered a given for any Str martial.
The high-Strength characters take Athletics for combat options, but the low-Strength characters take Athletics because they cannot effectively swim or climb without it. Roshan is an unusual build, a spellcasting rogue who makes opponents off-guard by grappling them, so she became an expert in Athletics. In a party with bards and wizards she does not expect anyone to flank with her. She recently gained Dread Striker as another option, so that frightened opponents are off-guard to her, too.
In my wilderness Ironfang Invasion campaign, everyone trained in Stealth and Nature and almost everyone in Survival.
Yeah, I can't believe I forgot about Medicine. It's top tier. Quite nearly every party has it, often in abundance.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Skills being repetitive isn't a systems problem, it's an adventure/GM problem. If certain skills are always the best, something has gone wrong at the campaign level. Easy example: the value of arcana, nature, occultism, religion, or society will vary based on the most common foes.
Lackluster skill feats is totally a system problem though. But since you only get so many skill feats, you can often focus on the skills with the best seats and then use your other increases on whatever fits your concept/seems useful in this campaign. If I'm building a face I'll likely get feats for diplomacy and/or intimidation. Deception feats are much worse, IMO, so I don't take any, but I might still take deception to legendary because you really don't want to fail those checks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ignoring Lore, there are 16 skills, With Characters generally hitting somewhere around 1/4 to 1/2 of the list at level 1, it's natural to see overlaps.
To check out my own biases, I went and added up trained+ skills (Ignored Lores for this) of my 23 PFS characters though and learned some things.
My Mean/Median/Mode for how many characters are trained+ in a skill is all about 11. Meaning on average my characters are trained + in 11/23 or 48% of skills.
By far my most common skills are Athletics at 18 (78%) and Acrobatics at 20 (87%).
After that there's a big drop off to Nature and Occult at 14(61%) each.
My lowest skills are Performance at 4(17%) and Deception at 5(22%). Even other Cha skills aren't very high with Diplomacy at 8(35%) and Intimidation at 7(30%).
I suspect in general I value Int > Cha, and it's also not uncommon that I end up picking up an extra lore or two.
Digging through skill feats is more work than I'm willing to do right now, but HERE is my data for anybody who is curious.
Yep. Acrobatics to Master or Legendary for kip up, nimble crawl, and slippery prey.
Stealth.
Then it depends on my main stat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Finoan, it denotes what is important to you as a player more than it shows something of the system.
The skill I've raised the most is Religion, followed near immediately by Diplomacy, then I have some characters with high Intimidation, Occultism or Crafting. Those none of my characters are raising are Nature, Survival, Acrobatics, Athletics and Performance.
About skill feats, I very often take Additional Lore repeatedly past the first few levels. It's not super useful but I always forget about the other skill feats considering how unimpactful they are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only ones I feel compelled to put skills into is Athletics and Acrobatics. Having the trained proficiency in those two has been very important for basic skill challenges, like climbing a simple wall or crossing a sheet of ice. Even as a wizard, I don't want to hit a rock wall with a +0. Medicine and Crafting too, if no other member of the party has it.
Otherwise, it depends on the adventure. The adventure path I'm running for my players, basically every skill check in the book is survival, nature, or religion. In another book, I would need society and occultism.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only ones I feel compelled to put skills into is Athletics and Acrobatics.
I agree with that. For me, the basic adventurer has some physical fitness. Being unable to climb a wall, run, swim or walk on slippery ice is really weird for someone who decides to dedicate their life to adventuring. So even if I never raise them, I nearly always put the Trained proficiency in these 2 skills. And when I don't it's specific to a character who's unable to do such things for various reasons.
Yep. Acrobatics to Master or Legendary for kip up, nimble crawl, and slippery prey.
Stealth.
Then it depends on my main stat.
How often do you actually get to use Slippery Prey though?
I like the thought of the feat, and have considered it many times, but usually end up passing it up because I don't think it will come up very often, and be relatively lackluster even when it does.
The only ones I feel compelled to put skills into is Athletics and Acrobatics.I agree with that. For me, the basic adventurer has some physical fitness. Being unable to climb a wall, run, swim or walk on slippery ice is really weird for someone who decides to dedicate their life to adventuring. So even if I never raise them, I nearly always put the Trained proficiency in these 2 skills. And when I don't it's specific to a character who's unable to do such things for various reasons.
I've often thought the same about Athletics (not so much about Acrobatics though). Sometimes, I deliberately forgo Athletics for the same reason: because I want my wizard to be the awkward indoor incidental adventurer type.
Athletics is strong not because of its skill feats, which are pretty mediocre, but because it's base abilities are so integral to getting about in a typical adventure. Acrobatics is almost the opposite; its core function is relatively tame most of the time, but it has some very strong and attractive skill feats.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do tend to force myself to pick skills based on what the character would have, though that can fall apart a bit when playing a character with a lot of skills. If I didn't, I could easily see myself falling into picking a core cluster of skills and never really changing.
Skill feats/General feats are one of my bigger gripes with the system. It's improving slowly over time, but it does feel like there's not as many as there should be. (Does that make sense? It really is just a vauge feeling). I don't really have a prescription outside of "just add more stuff", which somehow I suspect Paizo are doing anyway.
I almost always pick an interaction skill between Diplomacy, Deception, or Intimidate, but aside from that, not really. Every skill except crarfting or performance is interesting and nice on almost every class; and the classes that do use crafting or performance can use those skills in interesting ways.
For me, the issue is often more a metagame one; where I kinda get soft locked into a specific wedge of roles because the other ones are more popular. In my case, I don't get to play melee characters much because support isn't as popular and melee is VERY popular (though, to be fair, I'm less interested in big damage and more into playing an athletics user).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I try to always do:
at least one traversal/escape skill Athletics or Acrobatics
at least one knowledge skill (Arcane, Primal, Religion, Occult, Society)
at least one social skill (Deception, Diplomacy, Intimidate)
at least one puzzle solving skill (crafting, thievery, survival)
Medicine, Performance, Stealth don't fit as well into those buckets and tend to be much more based on the character concept making it an auto-pick if relevant. All three don't quite fill their respective bucket, but are often more about enabling a particular ability/playstyle.
I do lean into intelligent/crafting characters more often than not, even if its not natural for that class. That means I tend to have extra skills so its easy to cover all those categories, and often add an extra knowledge/puzzle skill.
I tend to lean away from social characters -- Intimidate has probably become a little over-represented in my social skills bucket just because demoralize is something I think to use more often than the other skill actions.
Melee martials probably disproportionately favor athletics and acrobatics, especially if they are doing the stereotypical dumb brute dumping all mental stats, and obviously anyone using maneuvers will favor athletics. Monks and Swashbucklers are quite likely to go this route if they actually want to be jumping around the battlefield. (Kinda wish jumping could use acrobatics without that one 7th level archetype feat.) I usually try to squeeze in Assurance Athletics for environmental challenges too.
Ranged martials are likely to go stealth because Avoid Notice is super good for them. Virtually guarantees they are hidden round one, so enemies are off guard for the first strike and the PC is unlikely to be targeted. And using your best ability modifier plus cover bonus is usually your best bet even if you have legendary perception.
I guess this pattern holds true for casters too. If you're remotely optimization focused you'll tend to favor skills with your key ability modifier. If you tend to play charisma characters you'll likely focus on charisma skills. The magic tradition skills are a bit lackluster though, unless you need to scribe spells. Which is probably why additional lore is such a tempting choice for intelligence characters. The raw mathematical edge of a DC reduction is always welcome. (At least if your GM lets recall knowledge shine.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're remotely optimization focused you'll tend to favor skills with your key ability modifier.
And even if you are not that optimization focused :D
In general, you want your smart Wizard to know things very well and your charismatic Bard to influence people very well.I agree about tradition skills. It's so obvious to raise them when you play a caster with the associated tradition but more often than not you end up raising a skill keying on a secondary stat (Wis) or even a stat you don't plan to increase (Int). It's really annoying for Bards, Cha-based Psychics and Arcane/Occult Sorcerers and Summoners.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a bunch of niche skill feats I never touch, but overall my characters seem to spread out to all the skills depending on their flavor.
Also, Additional Lore is SSS+ tier.
|
There are a bunch of niche skill feats I never touch, but overall my characters seem to spread out to all the skills depending on their flavor.
Also, Additional Lore is SSS+ tier.
Oh yeah! Most definitely!!
Most of my characters will take an AL at least once, Especially if it's relevant to the campaign.I have several characters with multiple ALs. Some just for the flavor.
There are a bunch of niche skill feats I never touch, but overall my characters seem to spread out to all the skills depending on their flavor.
Also, Additional Lore is SSS+ tier.
Oh yeah! Most definitely!!
Most of my characters will take an AL at least once, Especially if it's relevant to the campaign.
I have several characters with multiple ALs. Some just for the flavor.
I recently had a player pick up Astral Plane Lore before the adventure sent them there. They went from knowing next to nothing, to being Legendary, familiar with some of the most esoteric aspects of the plane, and rolled quite a few critically important recall knowledge checks (with the specific lore DC boost). It's just SO useful.
Yeah, as long as your campaign signposts what lore is useful, you're sitting real pretty with Additional Lore. Especially if you can retrain it when the adventure shifts focus.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, as long as your campaign signposts what lore is useful, you're sitting real pretty with Additional Lore. Especially if you can retrain it when the adventure shifts focus.
I just play an elf and pick up the "Lore skill of the day" with Ancestral Longevity, using Expert Longevity and Universal Longevity to swap it out as needed. :D
Yep. Acrobatics to Master or Legendary for kip up, nimble crawl, and slippery prey.
Stealth.
Then it depends on my main stat.
How often do you actually get to use Slippery Prey though?
I like the thought of the feat, and have considered it many times, but usually end up passing it up because I don't think it will come up very often, and be relatively lackluster even when it does.
The only ones I feel compelled to put skills into is Athletics and Acrobatics.I agree with that. For me, the basic adventurer has some physical fitness. Being unable to climb a wall, run, swim or walk on slippery ice is really weird for someone who decides to dedicate their life to adventuring. So even if I never raise them, I nearly always put the Trained proficiency in these 2 skills. And when I don't it's specific to a character who's unable to do such things for various reasons.I've often thought the same about Athletics (not so much about Acrobatics though). Sometimes, I deliberately forgo Athletics for the same reason: because I want my wizard to be the awkward indoor incidental adventurer type.
Athletics is strong not because of its skill feats, which are pretty mediocre, but because it's base abilities are so integral to getting about in a typical adventure. Acrobatics is almost the opposite; its core function is relatively tame most of the time, but it has some very strong and attractive skill feats.
I don't use Slippery Prey very often. I don't usually take it until later level when it is useful. Even a few times using, especially once you hit Master or Legendary, makes it a nice third action chance to escape with no penalty.
I tend to think long-term on my characters and to high level. It's not fun to get grappled or swallowed by high level monsters. It's nearly impossible to escape with anything but a max level check.
Yeah, as long as your campaign signposts what lore is useful, you're sitting real pretty with Additional Lore. Especially if you can retrain it when the adventure shifts focus.I just play an elf and pick up the "Lore skill of the day" with Ancestral Longevity, using Expert Longevity and Universal Longevity to swap it out as needed. :D
Gnomes can be nice in this regard too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I personally can't stand being the healer via Battle Medicine/Medic anymore... I'm always the one who takes on that healer role lol!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I personally can't stand being the healer via Battle Medicine/Medic anymore... I'm always the one who takes on that healer role lol!
Been there, done that, heh. Just don't next time. Let someone else figure it out.
|
I try to always do:
at least one traversal/escape skill Athletics or Acrobatics
at least one knowledge skill (Arcane, Primal, Religion, Occult, Society)
at least one social skill (Deception, Diplomacy, Intimidate)
at least one puzzle solving skill (crafting, thievery, survival)
Exactly this.
The real pivot points on my skills tends to be whether I dumped WIS or not, as that will determine whether I'm a Religion/Nature character, or an Arcane/Occultism character.
With most of the people I play with these days, I know that I don't need to worry about Medicine, but *no one* will think of taking Thievery, so I often end up taking that just so someone has it.
I also take Untrained Improvisation a *lot* so I don't really sweat the skills I only go Trained in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I personally can't stand being the healer via Battle Medicine/Medic anymore... I'm always the one who takes on that healer role lol!Been there, done that, heh. Just don't next time. Let someone else figure it out.
I don’t understand this at all. Given how useful Battle Medicine is, I can’t see why every party member wouldn’t get it as soon as practicable.
Folks are talking about “adventurers needing to be Athletic” and my reasoning is pretty much the same - akin to soldiers, a party of adventurers is very much in the business of engaging in combat, and given the broad range of narrative explanations for just what Battle Medicine looks like (from a Barbarian yelling at you to “get up and fight” to actual bandaging and salves) I don’t see why from a story point of view that most characters wouldn’t have it either.
Battle Medicine is a superb use of a third action. Or more. I single-handedly stopped a TPK by using Battle Medicine on two handily-adjacent downed allies in one round. I’d want any of my allies to be able to do the same for me, and teach them how ASAP.
I've never understood why people are so mad about Battle Medicine. I have it on a couple characters and never used it much. If you have weapons it's close to unusable do to the crazy action cost. On a caster, you are rarely in a position to use it. Also, casters have much better healing abilities. So it's really a thing for martials with a free-hand, which limits to 10% of characters.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never understood why people are so mad about Battle Medicine. I have it on a couple characters and never used it much. If you have weapons it's close to unusable do to the crazy action cost. On a caster, you are rarely in a position to use it. Also, casters have much better healing abilities. So it's really a thing for martials with a free-hand, which limits to 10% of characters.
That is true for being a medic.
Being able to use one action to bring a downed teammate back is just a good investment of one skill training and a skill feat, even if you need a second action to re-grip your weapon.It's like having extra healing potions, always welcome.
I don’t understand this at all. Given how useful Battle Medicine is, I can’t see why every party member wouldn’t get it as soon as practicable.Well, I personally can't stand being the healer via Battle Medicine/Medic anymore... I'm always the one who takes on that healer role lol!Been there, done that, heh. Just don't next time. Let someone else figure it out.
Some people just don't want to, which is fine.
But more to the point, the person I was replying to was stuck playing "the healer" a lot. I've been in that boat too, though I usually like doing it. The best way to get out of that is to simply refuse: take nothing that can recover HP. If the other players insist someone have it and all refuse to do it themselves, the only way to not get forced into it is to do the same thing.
Folks are talking about “adventurers needing to be Athletic” and my reasoning is pretty much the same - akin to soldiers, a party of adventurers is very much in the business of engaging in combat, and given the broad range of narrative explanations for just what Battle Medicine looks like (from a Barbarian yelling at you to “get up and fight” to actual bandaging and salves) I don’t see why from a story point of view that most characters wouldn’t have it either.
Adventurer's don't need to be athletic. In my Kingmaker party, 2 people have Athletics modifiers of -1. It requires some working around, but it's workable. It means we're good at something else.
Battle Medicine is a superb use of a third action. Or more. I single-handedly stopped a TPK by using Battle Medicine on two handily-adjacent downed allies in one round. I’d want any of my allies to be able to do the same for me, and teach them how ASAP.
Not at high level unless you've invested it in it, and not everyone wants to invest limited skill boosts into Medicine, especially when there is already someone good at it. At that point, ~8.5 HP is nothing and you're better off using your third action to do something toward either ending the encounter, or using a potion which will at least restore enough HP that the person might not go back down with another stack of Wounded after getting hit by anything.
Its also not one action unless you're already standing next to the downed PC with a free hand (which is not the case for a lot of builds). You need to move to them, so now it's two actions. If your hands are full of weapons, you need to free up a hand, which is either an action itself or an action to grip your 2h weapon again. Now its an entire turn. This is terrible action economy vs "the medic uses Doctor's Visitation and does it in 1 action" or "the Champion uses Lay on Hands".
(And if you've got the feats, Oracle Archetype for Nudge the Scales is a great pick as a 1 action scaling ranged heal that can be used twice every battle.)
To be straightforward, the skills are not equal. Athletics per example is loaded, having all combat maneuvers and basically anything related to a physical activity and then Performance exists.
Then there skill feats, having a few good ones that add something new or cool to do like Bon Mot and Read Lips and on the other side skill feats that are so specific that are mostly useless or just something dumb that people would have assumed was already part of the skill (looking at you group impression)
So yeah, not surprising that people would gravitate towards a few skills/skill feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being able to use one action to bring a downed teammate back is just a good investment of one skill training and a skill feat
2 to 6 actions.
1 action to Battle Medicine, 1 action to move (if you weren't next to your ally), 1 action to take back your weapon (if you had both hands full), 1 action for your teammate to stand up and 1-2 action(s) for them to retrieve their equipment. All of that for... 2d8+10 (let's say you're expert) hit points? That's an absolute waste of actions.And I don't speak about Reflexive Strike or that the Wounded value on your teammate goes up one point with not enough hit points to survive a single hit.
I have it on 3 characters, I use it once every 10 fights, roughly.
Being able to use one action to bring a downed teammate back is just a good investment of one skill training and a skill feat2 to 6 actions.
1 action to Battle Medicine, 1 action to move (if you weren't next to your ally), 1 action to take back your weapon (if you had both hands full), 1 action for your teammate to stand up and 1-2 action(s) for them to retrieve their equipment. All of that for... 2d8+10 (let's say you're expert) hit points? That's an absolute waste of actions.
And I don't speak about Reflexive Strike or that the Wounded value on your teammate goes up one point with not enough hit points to survive a single hit.I have it on 3 characters, I use it once every 10 fights, roughly.
Yep the medicine healer character should not be the one with the wisdom score, but rather the one who has a free hand and can afford the action cost more easily. Monks, Rogue, Animal Barbarians.
Yes I find Battle Medicine overrated. Continual Recovery then Ward Medic are often more important. They can't be replaced by a cheap potion.
Stealth is super rare in the games I've played in. There's usually one guy with stealth who ends up never getting to use it.
I think it is more the way the game is played as a team game. One player going off on a tangent is a bad play experience if it takes too long, and some players don't have much patience for that. It is so easy for a GM to make the skill useless by forcing too many rolls.
Realistically the whole team needs to take it and have some specific feats. IE Quiet Allies, and often Foil Senses. Then there is the new feat Keen Follower which perhaps finally makes it workable as a Team.Athletics is extremely common though, it's almost considered a given for any Str martial.
I see characters who don't focus on a particular skill take master in acrobatics for kip up.
Usually see diplo/deception on cha characters but not others.
I'm surprised you aren't seeing more Intimidation. It is a perfectly effective social skill, if used judiciously or you're playing a murder hobo.
I'm surprised you aren't seeing more Intimidation. It is a perfectly effective social skill, if used judiciously or you're playing a murder hobo.
I must admit I got issues with that. I played a Tempest Oracle that was always speaking about the end of the world, the curses that will befall on people and things like that. And very often I was using Intimidation to represent that my character was not convincing people by being nice and all but by scaring them with crazy prophecies and pushing them in the proper direction.
As I play it in PFS, I have switched GM often. Depending on GMs, it's been working fine or not at all. Some GMs were understanding the concept and allowed me to make these Intimidation checks to affect the story. And some GMs were applying rules very directly considering that my character was infuriating people and getting penalties everywhere or were just stating that Intimidation can't be used to influence others.So, table-dependent.
What are considered the least useful skills?
What are considered the least useful skills?
IMHO the only one that is not very useful is Performance. It has cool flavor and can be used for Earn Income. Fascinated doesn't work in combat at all by default, and taking the feat that allows it doesn't make it functional or practical to use. Fascinated as a non-combat trick takes a contrived scenario in order to be useful.
Bards need it. That's pretty much it.
Edit: Oh, and Battledancer Swashbucklers.
-----
Athletics: non-combat: climb, swim. combat: grapple, trip, shove, reposition, jump.
Acrobatics: balance for both combat and non-combat. Fly.
Arcana/Nature/Occultism/Religion: spellcasting tradition, identify magic, identify creatures. Nature and Religion have additional use on top of that.
Crafting: Repair shields.
Deception: non-combat: Lie. combat: create a diversion.
Diplomacy: gather information. Bon Mot.
Intimidation: demoralize.
Medicine: Treat Wounds.
Society: Identify humanoid creatures. Decipher script.
Stealth: Hide/sneak. Smuggle.
Survival: Track.
Thievery: Lock picking. Trap/hazard disabling.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What are considered the least useful skills?
IMHO the only one that is not very useful is Performance. It has cool flavor and can be used for Earn Income. Fascinated doesn't work in combat at all by default, and taking the feat that allows it doesn't make it functional or practical to use. Fascinated as a non-combat trick takes a contrived scenario in order to be useful.
Bards need it. That's pretty much it.
And Battledancer Swashbucklers. Pre-PC2, Performance was one of the more reliable Panache skills if you built for it.
I've put together a Battledancer/Gladiator/Shadowdancer that uses Performance for *everything*. It is glorious.
But yeah...on everyone else it doesn't do much.
Yup. I remembered that one a couple minutes later.
What are considered the least useful skills?
Some skills are specialized and might not be needed in a particular adventure. For example, if the party is in a wilderness adventure with no locks and no traps, then Thievery would have no use. Likewise, Performance is a social activity that requires a receptive audience. The skills used primarily for creature identification: Aracana, Occultism, and Religion--might be useless if the party never encounters creatures of a relevant type. But most adventures have a mixture of settings and monsters, so eventually those skills will have a use. Nevertheless, I put them in the least useful group.
My choice for the least useful skill is Crafting. It has five innate uses: Recall Knowledge to identify constructs, Identify Alchemy, Repair, Craft, and Earn Income. Constructs are not common and repair is frequent only if a party member uses Shield Blocking. The other uses either require downtime or can be delayed until downtime. And if the party goes to a city for downtime activities, then they can hire a blacksmith or other artisan to perform the crafting for them. Crafting is a key skill for Alchemists and Inventors, but the Paizo developers generally like class abilities to be reliable, so those classes seldom make Craft checks for those abilities.
if the party is in a wilderness adventure with no locks and no traps, then Thievery would have no use.
There is still stealing and smuggling.
Likewise, Performance is a social activity that requires a receptive audience.
I'm curious...
Performance - to do what? What scenario or challenge needs Performance in order for the party to be successful?
And would that same scenario or challenge also be solvable with Diplomacy instead?
The skills used primarily for creature identification: Aracana, Occultism, and Religion--might be useless if the party never encounters creatures of a relevant type. But most adventures have a mixture of settings and monsters, so eventually those skills will have a use. Nevertheless, I put them in the least useful group.
And Nature, but that is beside the point.
I would point out that these skills are also used for identifying magical items that are found. And for disabling certain types of traps and hazards - Occultism/Religion especially for Haunts.
Likewise, Performance is a social activity that requires a receptive audience.I'm curious...
Performance - to do what? What scenario or challenge needs Performance in order for the party to be successful?
And would that same scenario or challenge also be solvable with Diplomacy instead?
To my eye, Performance seems like an infrequently used skill. But my players keep finding ways to use it, so I figure I am mistaken,
The most significant use was in Lords of Rust in the Iron Gods adventure path. This is a PF1 adventure, but Performance and Diplomacy fill the same niches across the two versions of Pathfinder.
That module is about investigating a shantytown called Scrapwall on the trail of a mystery from the previous module. The residents of Scrapwall are refugees, former bandits, or the descendants of refugees and bandits, so they are divided into gangs and not friendly to strangers. In defiance of the expectations of the module, the PCs entered Scrapwall under false names pretending to be archeologist refugees hiding from the evil Technic League. They wanted to keep a low profile.
Unfortunately, Lords of Rust based its events on a reputation system.
Gaining Scrap-Worth
As the PCs explore Scrapwall and prove their mettle against its inhabitants, their reputation in the region increases. This reputation is tracked as the party’s “scrap-worth”—a local slang term for respect. When the PCs first arrive in Scrapwall, they’re unknown and their scrap-worth is 0. They can increase their scrap-worth by accomplishing certain victory conditions and goals in the encounters that follow, as indicated in the text. In addition, as long as their current scrap-worth is 5 or lower, each time the PCs emerge victorious from a wandering monster encounter with a CR of 3 or higher, their scrap-worth increases by 1.
The party was avoiding the attention-getting fights that would give them high-profile scrapworth required to advance the plot. I added some social events for ordinary people, such as a beer festival held by the Steel Hawks gang, to get them to mingle with possible allies.
The skald Kirii in the party decided to reciprocate the invitation to the beer festival. She organized a concert and invited the gangs and the ordinary people. Of course, the concert involved several Perform checks. After the concert, the Scrapwall locals realized that the party was friendly and highly skilled. The potential allies approached them with their requests for help and the plot became progressing.
The party could have approached the potential allies with Diplomacy, but my problem was that they were avoiding gang leaders to lie low. The Performance instead gave me an excuse for the allies to approach them.
A more recent example is from Strength of Thousands. One of their projects for their Perquisite introduction was to tell the stories of their other four Perquisite projects to teacher Takulu Ot. They chose to perform an impromptu play about the projects. Takulu Ot asked them to repeat the play for the other teachers, which gave me a perfect setup of the next plot event.
My wife says that since bards train in Performance, whenever she plays a bard she will look for ways to fit performing into the events. I guess that is why Performance ranks higher than Crafting for me: the players have an easier time squeezing Performance checks into the campaign than squeezing Crafting checks into the campaign. And I have an easier time making performance impact the plot than making crafting impact the plot. (Iron Gods was heavy in plot-relevant crafting, but that was under the easier PF1 technological crafting rules.)
I think I am making a distinction between:
I'm a GM and either running an AP or creating a homebrew campaign. I have a challenge scenario here that would best be solved with Performance. Hopefully someone in the party has Performance trained.
and:
I'm a player and took Performance. I'm hoping that the GM will let me use it for something useful.
As a GM, I really struggle with the first one. I can't think of many situations that would require Performance exclusively. And even for the second one, it takes the player of the character actively trying to use the skill and proposing ideas in order for me to figure out something to make it work.
I don't have that problem with Crafting. Sure, it isn't used in all campaigns or all situations. But I don't struggle to find a use for it. From either side of the GM screen.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What are considered the least useful skills?
Sort of a tricky question because it's very campaign dependent and a GM can make any skill much better or much worse just with a few choice decisions. Skills like Acrobatics, Thievery, and Stealth can be extremely useful or very niche just based on adventure and gm style.
Performance is pretty rough. You can Earn Income or Perform, and Perform explicitly doesn't do anything on its own but your GM might allow it to provide some secondary benefits.
Craft if you aren't using shields can be hard to find space to do much with. It can enable certain things but on its own it's not the most useful skill.
Survival has some really useful benefits in theory, but tracking, navigating, and managing food are three of the things most often handwaved by campaigns and GMs, which means sometimes its use cases are just wiped out from the get go.
Performance is pretty rough.
Fan Dancer opens up some uses like Tumble Through and rolling initiative for Performance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Performance isn't necessarily a bad skill. It is just the worst skill.
Which is a very interesting statement to make. Isn't English fun.
Sure, Performance can be justified to be useful. But those same justifications can be used on other skills. Often to better effect. And those other skills have more inherent uses without needing extra justification.
So if someone asks 'what is the least useful skill?' I'm calling out Performance.
But like a lot of things in PF2, even the worst of the choices still aren't bad.