Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 7998285" data-attributes="member: 5834">I haven't really had much trouble narrating feats and things characters want to do even if improvising. Adding in Quick Jump or Combat Climbing just makes you better at something every character with the same skill can already do. It seems like that is what most skill feats do. They don't let you do things a character with the base skill can't do, they seem to enhance some aspect of the skill that already exists in most cases as far as using physical skills for "outside the box" play.And you can do things with skill levels you can't do with the regular skill which I like. There should be some benefit to taking expert or master in religion or Arcana other than a higher roll. You have to take those higher skill levels to use rituals like resurrect or to exorcise haunts. I feel that makes players feel special for having expert or master in religion versus taking Trained and relying on a high statistic like you did in PF1 or 5E. In PF1 the wizard by default of having a high intelligence tended to be the best at every skill using intelligence regardless if it would make more sense for a cleric or druid to be better with knowledge nature or knowledge religion.A player wants to feel like spending that skill up on religion was meaningful and not just a +2 bonus. And PF2 makes sure he feels that way. So when the fighter or barbarian is doing some crazy incredible physical feats with skill feats for Athletics, the priest can feel like he is also doing something interesting with religion when he exorcises haunts or is able to resurrect people from the dead using a ritual.I don't see how having these skill feats stops you from doing like you would in 5E and having a player describe some activity that is outside the box and applying a skill roll. The skill feats aren't doing outside the box things. They just improve what you can already do. That has nothing to do with some outside the box use of a skill thought up on the fly to do something specific in the game.I like needing fewer house rules. I hated having to write pages and pages of house rules to make the game work. Then having to get the players to accept the house rules. I hated even more having to rewrite powers and rules because some powers were too good and some were too weak. A house rule to enhance or simplify the game everyone agrees on can be cool here and there, but needing to write house rules to balance the game was not fun. The fewer house rules the better.I think the PF2 skill system is one of the most interesting skills systems yet created for the D&D/PF system. It provides a DM clearer rules to adjudicate skills. But even more importantly, it makes the player feel like skills are important and meaningful in the game, both the choice of feats and levels of expertise. An expert in religion really is better at religion than a trained person even with a higher intelligence. That is shown in a meaningful way in the game. Same with any skill like Deception or Acrobatics. If you take expert or master in a skill even if you have a lower or slightly lower stat, you truly feel like you are better at that skill for spending greater resources training it up. To me that is an improvement over 5E or earlier editions or PF1.</blockquote>

Verification