Pathfinder 2e Skills

[Jasder]

So, I'm looking over the Pathfinder 2nd edition rules, and it seems like there's a lot more to be gained from getting proficiency in more skills, rather than increasing your proficiency in one skill.

Like, obviously improving a skill still improves it, but the spike in power between a skill being untrained and being trained is bigger than the gain from going from trained to expert, even at level one, and by level 5, it's bigger than the jump between trained and legendary. And then it gets even bigger. So while I can see some situations where you just want to be even better at one skill, it seems like taking a new skill trained is almost always a better option.

Is that the way it is or am I missing something? I've not played any Pathfinder 2e yet and I'm trying to understand it, and most of it seems to make sense to me (I'm coming primarily from 5e) but this proficiency level thing seems to make having proficiency in stuff the most important thing by far, high above stats or level of training or anything. Is that right?

[Ignimortis]

So, I'm looking over the Pathfinder 2nd edition rules, and it seems like there's a lot more to be gained from getting proficiency in more skills, rather than increasing your proficiency in one skill.

Like, obviously improving a skill still improves it, but the spike in power between a skill being untrained and being trained is bigger than the gain from going from trained to expert, even at level one, and by level 5, it's bigger than the jump between trained and legendary. And then it gets even bigger. So while I can see some situations where you just want to be even better at one skill, it seems like taking a new skill trained is almost always a better option.

Is that the way it is or am I missing something? I've not played any Pathfinder 2e yet and I'm trying to understand it, and most of it seems to make sense to me (I'm coming primarily from 5e) but this proficiency level thing seems to make having proficiency in stuff the most important thing by far, high above stats or level of training or anything. Is that right?

Yes. Getting a +2 to things you care about is far more important than +X to things you barely ever do. That's because getting DC+10 is a critical success, and getting a DC-10 is a critical failure, and those are important.

[ProphetSword]

Yes, you are missing something. Some skills require you to have a certain level of training in order to even attempt it. A lock crafted by a Master will often require Thievery of Master or better to even have a shot of cracking it.

Additionally, some skills offer additional benefits or advantages at higher skill levels. Trying to walk on a tightrope requires a Balance skill of at least Master.

Numbers help, but if the DM is doing things right, some things should be outright impossible if you aren’t properly trained to the correct level.

This prevents situations where someone is Legendary and rolls badly on a Legendary check and then an Untrained character gets a lucky roll and pulls it off. Now, that Untrained character would not even be allowed a roll given that they would never be up to the task of pulling off something at Legendary level.

[Jasder]

Ok, so it's more important to have the skill level than the pluses it brings sometimes, that makes sense I suppose. It can just be hard to figure out what's going on in Pathfinder sometimes, as it seems to have an individual rule for basically everything.

[Kurald Galain]

Yes, you are missing something. Some skills require you to have a certain level of training in order to even attempt it. A lock crafted by a Master will often require Thievery of Master or better to even have a shot of cracking it.
As far as I can tell, this is how you would want GMs to rule it, but it's not actually in the rulebooks (https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=30) anywhere. The rules contain numerous skill uses that require Trained rank; but none at all that require Master, Expert, or Legendary.

There are some skill feats that require M/E/L, but these are pretty much useless (either way too situational, or way too unlikely to work, or both).

So yeah, OP has a good point.

[torrasque666]

As far as I can tell, this is how you would want GMs to rule it, but it's not actually in the rulebooks (https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=30) anywhere. The rules contain numerous skill uses that require Trained rank; but none at all that require Master, Expert, or Legendary.

There are some skill feats that require M/E/L, but these are pretty much useless (either way too situational, or way too unlikely to work, or both).

So yeah, OP has a good point.

Counterpoint (https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=557)

And traps do have a required proficiency level required, such as Lava Flume Tubes having either an Expert or Master requirement depending on exact method (in this specific instance, 4 expert checks vs 1 master check)

Though I'll give that they seemed to have forgotten this bit for locks and manacles and the like.

[Kayblis]

Pretty much as noted above, it's better to get a bonus to your main thing than to be able to do many things poorly. Also, overlap is rarely wanted - there's no reason for three people to be trained in Disable Device, so improving an useful skill will always be better than doubling up on a one-man job skill. This is specially true if you play with larger groups, it's much better to have one specialist on each skill.

[Jasder]

Pretty much as noted above, it's better to get a bonus to your main thing than to be able to do many things poorly. Also, overlap is rarely wanted - there's no reason for three people to be trained in Disable Device, so improving an useful skill will always be better than doubling up on a one-man job skill. This is specially true if you play with larger groups, it's much better to have one specialist on each skill.

Yeah, but as I pointed out, it's no longer doing some things well and other things poorly, it's doing some things horribly (untrained), some things amazingly (trained), and then some things even more amazingly (above trained). Skills being trained seems way more important than having the stats that match them.

And there's still plenty of skills that multiple people having is worthwhile, like stealth and athletics and acrobatics.

[farothel]

Also some skill feats require you to have the skill at a certain level before you can take the feat. And those feats can be very interesting.

And indeed, to even attempt certain things you need a skill at a certain level. We're now playing Age of Ashes and we're seeing this from time to time.


In this adventure the party gains the ruins of a castle. To restore it you need a lot of crafting skills, mostly at master lvl, with certain specialty crafts. They are available at the nearby village, but then it costs quite a lot. So having them at that level helps quite a lot.

[Kurald Galain]

And traps do have a required proficiency level required, such as Lava Flume Tubes having either an Expert or Master requirement depending on exact method
Fair point, traps and hazards do consistently require expert or master rank. I wonder if in printed adventures, other tasks also do this.

And yes, it makes sense not to double up on skills between the party members, because you only get two skills at your max rank (unless you're a rogue, or level 17+). You could forego one of those to get more skills to trained rank, yes; breadth vs depth.

[catagent101]

I should also note skill DCs scale a little faster than your level (an increase of 25 over 20 levels), so you want to invest in a skill at least somewhat if you want to stay as competent as you were at 1st level, either with skill increases, buying items, or putting points into the relevant score.

[NightbringerGGZ]

Talismans (consumable magic trinkets) can also have skill requirements to use them. This became more relevant with the archetype that allows for craft a handful of free talismans each day.