Daredevil's Skill Increases

[yokyu14]

Like the Swashbuckler, they frequently use Athletics and Acrobatics more than other classes, yet they have no free additional Skill Increases. Consequently, every character build has no choice but to spend Skill Increases solely on Athletics and Acrobatics.

[ElementalofCuteness]

That was a weird design choice even for a Playtest. Like if you want to use this class they must increase their athletics if you want to use anything shove related which is silly, as it removes player choices from what they are able to do by choosing something for them.

[Teridax]

I fully agree with the OP, I think it would help the Daredevil significantly to have a bonus skill increase for Acrobatics or Athletics at levels 3, 7, and 15. This is one of the cases where I think making the class just that much more similar to the Swashbuckler makes sense, because both are classes that heavily depend on some skills to do their thing.

[Perpdepog]

Count me in agreement, too. As it stands you have to wait until, what, level 11 or so before you can start picking skills that aren't either of athletics or acrobatics if you want to keep them both as high as they can go? Something which you are hyper-incentivized to do because of how many of your feats run off of them, and even more so because you're going to be using the majority of those feats at a penalty.

Heck I'd not be upset if the daredevil got auto-scaling proficiencies for both skills at 3, 7, and 15, or if they got some kind of funky bespoke skill that combined the two.

[exequiel759]

I think it’s very likely that Paizo chose not to include a way to auto-scale Athletics or Acrobatics in the playtest in order to streamline builds. By effectively encouraging playtesters to take those skills, feedback is more likely to focus on how the class interacts with them and whether that interaction feels satisfying. Feedback about daredevils prioritizing unrelated skills like Thievery, for example, is probably less relevant for evaluating the class’s core design.

[Teridax]

If that is the case, then I don't think that's the best practice to apply, because all it's done so far is generate negative feedback about the Daredevil being skill-taxed. If this is something the developers already knew would happen, then the net consequence is that it generated a lot of noise.

[Tactical Drongo]

This again? I found that already horrible back with the inventor
when the inventing and crafting class never gets an upgrade to the class skill
and for these guys its even more important

[Super Zero]

Inventor has always had that. They were the first class that did, I believe.

[exequiel759]

Super Zero wrote:

Inventor has always had that. They were the first class that did, I believe.

They didn't in the playtest AFAIK. In fact, it was after the inventor they knew swashbuckler needed a similar feature as well.

[Chris Kenney]

Only reason I can think of to not give a free progression on one or the other in the Playtest is to see if players will put up with the idea of a split between "Athletics Daredevils" and "Acrobatics Daredevils" which, if that's the case, they needed to include more of the Acrobatics feats they're planning to give us to even get a fair test.

[Squiggit]

exequiel759 wrote:

I think it’s very likely that Paizo chose not to include a way to auto-scale Athletics or Acrobatics in the playtest in order to streamline builds. By effectively encouraging playtesters to take those skills, feedback is more likely to focus on how the class interacts with them and whether that interaction feels satisfying. Feedback about daredevils prioritizing unrelated skills like Thievery, for example, is probably less relevant for evaluating the class’s core design.

Intentionally playtesting a version of the class you don't intend to publish seems like it would just taint your playtesting data, especially when it's something so minor like this.

[exequiel759]

Squiggit wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

I think it’s very likely that Paizo chose not to include a way to auto-scale Athletics or Acrobatics in the playtest in order to streamline builds. By effectively encouraging playtesters to take those skills, feedback is more likely to focus on how the class interacts with them and whether that interaction feels satisfying. Feedback about daredevils prioritizing unrelated skills like Thievery, for example, is probably less relevant for evaluating the class’s core design.

Intentionally playtesting a version of the class you don't intend to publish seems like it would just taint your playtesting data, especially when it's something so minor like this.

I mean, it isn't the first time something like this happened. Otherwise I don't know how can someone explain the daredevil not having auto-scaling on either skill when 2 classes had the same problem before it was fixed, or when in the same playtest document there's another class that has an auto-scaling skill too.

[Teridax]

exequiel759 wrote:

I mean, it isn't the first time something like this happened. Otherwise I don't know how can someone explain the daredevil not having auto-scaling on either skill when 2 classes had the same problem before it was fixed, or when in the same playtest document there's another class that has an auto-scaling skill too.

I do think there are a few alternative hypotheses: one is that the developers might've simply forgotten that similar instances of this problem happened in the past with skill taxes, and another is that the developers assumed we would build our Daredevils differently (such as by maxing out Athletics or Acrobatics, but not both). In either case, it's one of those things that playtesting can help highlight through feedback.