What triggers some people about Pathfinder?

[Ignimortis]

I miss Touch AC, but not Flat-footed AC. No idea why.

Frankly, I don't think having a couple or even three to four fiddly numbers in a game is bad, as long as they make sense and don't particularly interact with one another in unexpected ways. And Advantage comes with its' own set of issues. For instance, I find it highly unintuitive that 5e Advantage/Disadvantage doesn't stack to the extent that having three sources of Adv and one source of Disadv means you roll normally instead of with Advantage. I also find it rather unintuitive that Advantage/Disadvantage doesn't actually impact your ability - if you roll a double 20 on disadvantage, you have still performed as well as you would normally.

That part of PF2 is actually pretty fine - you've got circumstance, status, proficiency and item bonuses/penalties. Proficiency and Item pretty much never changes in combat, and keeping track of two mods isn't that hard.

When I played PF2e (as a hobgoblin fighter), the things that bothered me fell into two main categories:

-Being given a large number of low-impact choices (skill feats being the greatest offender here). To a lesser extent, this was present in PF1e as well, whey gave characters significantly more feats, plus (for many classes) a talent system to pick up special abilities and customize capabilities- but then split abilities up into ever-longer feat chains. In PF2e, this was most present in the form of highly situational skill/racial feats- gaining increased resistance to poison/disease, protection from specific casting traditions, or the ability to take less damage from falls are all situationally useful to have, but they're unlikely to come up on any given adventure, and aren't particularly exciting.

-Hands/item juggling, interact actions, other assorted action taxes. The three-action system is really cool! I like the idea of (in theory) being able to move, attack, and do something else that complements my main action. However, a number of things continuously taxed my actions.. Throwing a weapon or using a consumable takes two actions; one to draw and one to throw. Switching from one to two hands on a weapon? An action. Playing a flexible fighting style (I was trying to use a versatile weapon, fighting either two-handed with my or leaving a hand free to use items or cast spells from my free caster archetype) felt heavily taxed. As a fighter, a lot of my combat options would be granted by feats, but I didn't have enough feats (at least at low level) to have real flexibility- it felt like I had a very limited action rotation.

I can see both of those causing a backlash- heavily regimented / restricted actions in particular seem like they could cause frustration to someone coming from 5e where, in contrast, the action to pick something up is brushed over as a free interaction.

Both are very relevant criticisms of PF2. The options are there, they just don't matter all that much and aren't exciting to use. It's balanced to the point at which it stops being fun. There's almost nothing to look forward to if your enjoyment of the game doesn't boil down to "oh boy I get +20% to potential DPR next level".

About the only cool and generally useful+powerful option I've picked up over a year of play was Soulforger, which is GM-dependent (marked "uncommon", so you can't declare that you're taking it without GM approval), and all that does is allow you to manifest armor/weapons, and, once per day, grant yourself a buff usually equivalent to a 1-3 level spell. For several feats.

And as for action taxing, it's simply ridiculous at times. Trust me, versatile weapons plus free hand have it much better than 2H or TWF users - they, at least, can fight without going "ok I can't do a combat maneuver without a hand free, so that's a guaranteed loss of an action".

[RandomPeasant]

I miss Touch AC, but not Flat-footed AC. No idea why.

Probably just that the difference between regular AC and touch AC really mattered and the difference between regular AC and Flat-footed AC generally didn't. Even when you were talking about the few monsters that had a giant DEX bonus, it was still smaller than armor bonuses at the same level.

For instance, I find it highly unintuitive that 5e Advantage/Disadvantage doesn't stack to the extent that having three sources of Adv and one source of Disadv means you roll normally instead of with Advantage. I also find it rather unintuitive that Advantage/Disadvantage doesn't actually impact your ability - if you roll a double 20 on disadvantage, you have still performed as well as you would normally.

Advantage and Disadvantage always struck me as seeming like the product of someone who wanted to work in a dicepool system, but didn't think their bosses would let them change over fully. If we're talking about complexity, I don't even think it's inherently simpler than 3e's system (especially not with the variable bonuses 5e uses for some reason). Any reduction in complexity comes from reducing the number of modifiers, but there really aren't that many modifiers you have to handle as a starting character in 3e. You're not going to go out there and find every obscure source of stacking bonuses.

Both are very relevant criticisms of PF2.

I will say that I have never seen someone give an account of why I would want to play PF2e over PF1e or 3.5. It seems like it scooped out all the things that aren't annoying little fiddly bonuses. So if that's your comparison, I can easily see why you'd end up favoring 5e.

[Ignimortis]

Probably just that the difference between regular AC and touch AC really mattered and the difference between regular AC and Flat-footed AC generally didn't. Even when you were talking about the few monsters that had a giant DEX bonus, it was still smaller than armor bonuses at the same level.

And perhaps because Touch AC has a lot more interactions with gameplay - there are several abilities focused around targeting/improving Touch AC in particular, but Flat-footed AC is usually just "your AC minus Dex", and almost nothing targets it specifically, it just applies at some points.

Advantage and Disadvantage always struck me as seeming like the product of someone who wanted to work in a dicepool system, but didn't think their bosses would let them change over fully. If we're talking about complexity, I don't even think it's inherently simpler than 3e's system (especially not with the variable bonuses 5e uses for some reason). Any reduction in complexity comes from reducing the number of modifiers, but there really aren't that many modifiers you have to handle as a starting character in 3e. You're not going to go out there and find every obscure source of stacking bonuses.

I've taught several absolute newcomers how to play 3.5. None were too put off by starting character abilities, despite all of them playing as some sort of "advanced" class (there were a Duskblade, a Binder, a Warblade...).

Advantage/Disadvantage is only simpler than 3e mods when you do work in all the rules of 5e about them not stacking and so on, and not particularly so at any rate.

I will say that I have never seen someone give an account of why I would want to play PF2e over PF1e or 3.5. It seems like it scooped out all the things that aren't annoying little fiddly bonuses. So if that's your comparison, I can easily see why you'd end up favoring 5e.

My general take is that PF2 is for people who want to play "balanced 5e" mixed, maybe, with some 4e and early 3e sensibilities. It has some high points - mostly in how readable the rules are and how everything is defined pretty well, so you don't have to guess what, say, a Flesh to Stone spell actually does on a mechanical level.

In fact, PF2 has many of the same issues as 5e feel-wise: quite grounded (except for everyone this time around), too focused on basic level 1 mechanics/gameplay that never change for many characters, stuck in a limbo of "we want resource management, but not for everyone", etc. However, 5e has a larger in-built tolerance for imbalanced stuff (mathematically and ability-wise). For instance, 5e's expectations do not exactly fall apart if a character consistently deals double the damage of a similar character (martial vs martial). PF2 is likely to consider this an irrevocable breach of balance (unless a Fighter does it, then it's fine). 5e can, with a squint, take a character who has access to at-will flight pretty early on - PF2 won't.

[animorte]

Advantage and Disadvantage always struck me as seeming like the product of someone who wanted to work in a dicepool system, but didn't think their bosses would let them change over fully.

Speaking of dice pool system, I'm not particularly a fan. Any time I see it, I roll my eyes. It's not necessarily because of the pool itself, more about the die size increasing that is common with it. It's a small, almost silly thought, but I don't like the idea of leveling up from 1-20 and still being able to hit a 1. I generally work in a stacking dice instead.

[Kurald Galain]

I'd say it's obvious that 5E has fast gameplay as one of its design principles, and 3E/4E/PF do not. One of the ways this shows is that the latter games slow down combat with this issue; and in 5E that's almost always a blanket "adv or disadv" which simply plays much faster.

I do try to steer players away from feats or spells like "+1 damage against giant-type" or "+2 damage if enemy is below half HP" or "+1 perception while standing next to an ally", but the fact that I need to do that in the first place means there's unnecessary complexity here.

Of note, PF2 also doesn't have fast gameplay as a design principle, and is arguably the worst of the lot when it comes to conditions ("sickened 3" instead of flat-out sickened), as well as weapons with stuff like "+1 damage on each subsequent hit".

[Ignimortis]

I'd say it's obvious that 5E has fast gameplay as one of its design principles, and 3E/4E/PF do not. One of the ways this shows is that the latter games slow down combat with this issue; and in 5E that's almost always a blanket "adv or disadv" which simply plays much faster.

I do try to steer players away from feats or spells like "+1 damage against giant-type" or "+2 damage if enemy is below half HP" or "+1 perception while standing next to an ally", but the fact that I need to do that in the first place means there's unnecessary complexity here.

Of note, PF2 also doesn't have fast gameplay as a design principle, and is arguably the worst of the lot when it comes to conditions ("sickened 3" instead of flat-out sickened), as well as weapons with stuff like "+1 damage on each subsequent hit".

I do agree that it's unnecessary complexity, but what's worse is that it's not even a fun number to remember. If it were double damage vs targets below half HP, every player would remember that by heart and that would reduce complexity as well. Nobody forgets about GMW in 5e, do they?

In that, 5e made the right choice: less choices, but more impactful choices. Not as much as I'd like, but better than a lot of stupid +1 and +2 feats.

[lesser_minion]

Yes. The amount of stuff you need to do to create a character that can play through Sunless Citadel is not higher than the amount of stuff you need to do to play through whatever the equivalent "starter adventure" in 5e is. There is a high skill ceiling, but honestly some characters in 3e are simpler than their 5e counterparts. There's no Action Surge on the 3e Fighter.

With regard to 3e's complexity, this is along the lines of my thinking -- particularly experienced groups (which presumably will have grown into the complexity and gotten used to it) might end up with some very complex interactions, but plenty of groups will look like those old 3e playtests that the internet likes to laugh about, even when their characters are pretty high level. There's definitely a lot more to learn, but that doesn't mean that you can't learn at your own pace.

On the other hand, it's kind of telling that "the internet likes to laugh about" those old 3e playtest reports that showcased simple gameplay. And while the less-fun parts that people complain about might not be the whole game, they can be a big part of playing 'well'. And if a game tells me that I have to sacrifice my fun in order to feel like I'm playing well, then it's failed pretty horribly.

[Xervous]

Generally how I look at it is 5e doesn’t demand much time but it doesn’t get me close to where I want to be. PF2e demands time and gets me nowhere. 3.5e and PF1 demand lots of time but they can produce what I want and it’s far easier to smooth down the pointy edges rather than build something where there’s nothing. If I’m going to build up, it’s going to be my own system with hookers and blackjack. Then there’s freeform on the side...

[lesser_minion]

I will say that I have never seen someone give an account of why I would want to play PF2e over PF1e or 3.5.

That seems to agree with what I've heard. Some people do say that they're having fun with PF2e, but the moment anyone goes into much detail about their experience, my interest in the game evaporates.

[Satinavian]

I will say that I have never seen someone give an account of why I would want to play PF2e over PF1e or 3.5.

It has a better skill system by far. It also has more rule support for downtime activities.

[Rynjin]

It has a better skill system by far.

That's...an interesting take. Why do you like it so much?

[Segev]

It has a better skill system by far.

How so? Please elaborate; I'm curious what it does better, and how it is better.

[Satinavian]

I just like that becoming good at a skill is not about just adding various stackable bonuses from various sources and instead mean actual investment. I like the idea of skill feats and them becoming pretty central (and not competing with regular feats most of the time). Meaning that ability in a skill naturally takes on different forms. I also like how the system gives proper meaning to the various skill levels.

[Rynjin]

I won't lie, I like that IDEA as well; one of my favorite systems uses a similarly less "fiddly" progression (in Savage Worlds the die just goes up a step when you get better at something), but I always found the execution of it in PF2E very lacking.

[Willie the Duck]

The flowchart argument doesn't even really register with me. You can make a flowchart out of anything. Hell, about 25% of my job is making flowcharts out of **** that shouldn't be complicated enough to warrant one.

I think that's the fundamental point of contention in a nutshell. 'I do this for my job, so what's the problem' is battling with 'why would I want to do something people do for their jobs during my elfgame?'

[All of this is preemptive 'IMO'] Look, again, with some exceptions*, none of these tasks are too hard to do. I don't think I've seen any technical or mental-mechanics action required in a TTRPG that I think most anyone who would be interested in TTRPGs couldn't do. Certainly not in any of the D&Ds or D&D-alikes. Hero System occasionally has multiplying 15xpower level x (1.0+.25+.5+1.25+.75)/1.0+1.25+2.75) or something like that (mid-game, if you have to recalculate something after a drain or boost), and Traveller and Fatal each have a single piece of algebra or calculus or something in them (GURPS 3e Vehicles also has a cubed-root exactly once, and it's widely mocked as complexity-without-purpose). The fundamental question is whether people find this both fun and necessary. When people say it is 'too hard,' they do not mean 'too hard to do,' but rather, 'too hard to bother with.'
*the games are for most ages, and I certainly don't want to gatekeep the game from those who find mathematics challenging

That's certainly been my experience with what I will call the 'gamer spouse*' community. Those who tried playing alongside the dedicated gamer to spend more time with them/get what they are doing/maybe enjoy for themselves and then have a shared interest tried for a while with 3e/pf and then mostly found other things to do during game night. With 5e, more have taken to the game long-term.
*sometimes S.O. instead, or parents/siblings/etc.

And I have to agree with PheonixPhyre that this is a lot about how the numbers pull the game towards a focus on the mechanics/the game UI layer, when many people are going to care more about who their paladin talks to or what their thief finds in the treasure chest in the ghoul-crypt, rather than how to calculate their AC vs. said ghouls. It's not really PF vs. 5e that this evokes to me, but PF vs TSR-era D&D. In many ways, the rules of TSR D&D/AD&D are more arcane than any of the modern games, but for the most part (1E initiative arguments notwithstanding) they seemed to fade into the background more, and let the state that you were playing an adventurer in a situation shine through and let the underlying mechanics stay in the background. I think that's what a significant portion of gamers want, who do not find it with 3e/PF.

All these things are going to be annecdotal, since there isn't really a single reason why people do/don't like things, but I'd still stake a claim that the fiddly numbers bit are a nontrivial part of why some people who are okay with 5e do not like 3e/PF.

I can't really see either of these as examples of 3e/PF being "all about fiddly little modifiers". Brilliant energy has a very good chance of being the defining feature of the weapon you chose to wield. And while the four different kinds of AC could have been handled a lot more elegantly, they're frequently-occurring, fairly simple to precompute, and each has a clear situation where it applies.

An individual has an AC, a touch AC, a flat-footed AC, a flat-footed touch AC, a vs.-brilliant-energy AC, a vs.-brilliant-energy flat-footed AC, not a vs.-brilliant-energy touch AC since they both exclude the same bonuses. If you get hit with a dex-draining effect or switch out armors or are affected by a given AC-enhancing spell, you have to know the rules on which types of bonuses apply to which and re-calculate for any of them where it does.

The combat modifiers table is definitely more complex than in 4e and 5e, but the underlying logic is fairly simple.

Again, do people really believe that the people who do not like these things or find them too complex (to enjoy) don't get them or their underlying logic?

[Rynjin]

I think that's the fundamental point of contention in a nutshell. 'I do this for my job, so what's the problem' is battling with 'why would I want to do something people do for their jobs during my elfgame?'

It dovetails nicely with a funny thought I had yesterday after posting that too, admittedly: a decade of playing Pathfinder has made me very good at writing process documents.

Perhaps the haters were right after all.

[Ignimortis]

It has a better skill system by far. It also has more rule support for downtime activities.

That's...an interesting take. Why do you like it so much?

How so? Please elaborate; I'm curious what it does better, and how it is better.

I would second Satinavian's opinion. I do not like the basic math of the game, and this includes how skills often work, but the skills are probably the best part of PF2 (see: most improved compared to competitors present and past). Skills get several levels of proficiency, and gated behind those levels of proficiency are skill feats that allow actually amazing feats of usage. See: Athletics getting a level 15 skill feat that basically transforms your high jump formula into your long jump formula (so you can leap dozens of feet high) and your long jump formula extends even further, so you can jump a couple hundred feet far. It's not exactly epic and it could be online earlier, but it's still head and shoulders above the usual raw deal that skills get.

Furthermore, skill proficiency points and skill feats are entirely separate resources from the rest of the game, so you do not feel pressured (usually) to sacrifice utility and flavour for power. There are a couple exceptions, and several outright trap feats, but it's something that can be fixed in a few hours of work rather than a whole system rewrite.

[Xervous]

It dovetails nicely with a funny thought I had yesterday after posting that too, admittedly: a decade of playing Pathfinder has made me very good at writing process documents.

Perhaps the haters were right after all.

The understanding you’re seeking is akin to spicy food. You’ve got a taste for atomic flame, but there’s no chance of marketing that to the general public. They’ll start tearing up the moment you bring that food in the room.

[gesalt]

If only the pf2e skill system didn't also come with proficiency gates on even having the chance to make certain checks or clear hazards past level 5 or 6 I might like it more. Auto failing a check because it's not one of your 3 boosted skills or because your class is on a bad perception track isn't my idea of good design.

[Rynjin]

If only the pf2e skill system didn't also come with proficiency gates on even having the chance to make certain checks or clear hazards past level 5 or 6 I might like it more. Auto failing a check because it's not one of your 3 boosted skills or because your class is on a bad perception track isn't my idea of good design.

Yep, this is exactly the kind of thing I meant when I said it was executed poorly.

All of PF2e is like that. Interesting ideas implemented badly.

[Kurald Galain]

skills are probably the best part of PF2 (see: most improved compared to competitors present and past). Skills get several levels of proficiency, and gated behind those levels of proficiency are skill feats that allow actually amazing feats of usage.

I love the concept of this, and it has seen some amazing implementations in other games like Exalted and Aberrant; the problem is that in PF2's execution, the overwhelming majority of skill feats are about as far from "amazing" as you can get.

For example, PF2 skill feats include the ability to get cryptic hints from a religious book (how is that even a feat?!), or the ability to ask enemies in combat to stand down (and the ability spells out that they might refuse).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I love the concept of this, and it has seen some amazing implementations in other games like Exalted and Aberrant; the problem is that in PF2's execution, the overwhelming majority of skill feats are about as far from "amazing" as you can get.

For example, PF2 skill feats include the ability to get cryptic hints from a religious book (how is that even a feat?!), or the ability to ask enemies in combat to stand down (and the ability spells out that they might refuse).

Which also brings up the air-breathing mermaid issue...except baked into the cake and very much intended. Unless you have those (high level IIRC) feats, you can't get even cryptic hints from a religious book or ask enemies in combat to stand down.

It's a game of buttons. Have button, press button. Don't have button? Can't do thing. That's part of what I meant by it being much more mechanics-forward. You're playing the rules, piloting them to where you need to be, rather than participating in the fiction with the rules as an abstraction layer, a UI of sorts. The rules come first, the fiction comes later. To the detriment of the fiction.

[Rynjin]

It's actually more the Rumormonger problem writ large. Rumormonger is one of the most widely mocked features in the game, because of how useless and stupid it is.

They decided to build an entire skill system around Rumormonger-tier abilities. Baffling.

Spoiler: Rumormonger

Show

Rumormonger is a Rogue talent that allows a Rogue to spread rumors. With a baffling number of restrictions and caveats, to boot.

Not only does this implicitly mean that other characters CANNOT spread rumors, it means that spreading rumors is slow and mostly useless, being limited to 10th level and above Rogues who can only do so a few times per week and takes a full week of in-game time to accomplish.

[lesser_minion]

Again, do people really believe that the people who do not like these things or find them too complex (to enjoy) don't get them or their underlying logic?

There is a massive difference between saying "I don't agree with what you've said about the game" and saying "you just don't get the game or the underlying logic". Especially given that the issue is with the way you're spinning it.

[skyth]

It has a better skill system by far. It also has more rule support for downtime activities.

PF1 has a lot better rules support for Downtime activities than PF2 does. I also much prefer PF1 skill system to PF2 as in PF1 you can be decent at a lot of things as you level up but in PF2 you are only an expert in certain things as the bonus is mostly due to your level, not how you allocated skill points.

On another topic, I want to point out that complexity in character creation does not always lead to complexity in play. One of my favorite games (Hero system/Champions) has a VERY complex character creation system. However, playing the game is pretty simple and intuitive. (Unless you have a variable power pool).

[kyoryu]

There is a massive difference between saying "I don't agree with what you've said about the game" and saying "you just don't get the game or the underlying logic". Especially given that the issue is with the way you're spinning it.

Even when you disagree, a good way to present that is "huh, that's not my experience, can you give an example?" and then try to understand and accept what the person is saying.

Offering ways around the issue, or different perspectives, can be fine, too, but it's generally best to not just invalidate the opinions of others.

[Willie the Duck]

There is a massive difference between saying "I don't agree with what you've said about the game" and saying "you just don't get the game or the underlying logic". Especially given that the mechanics do work in the way you describe and the issue is with the way you're spinning it, such as presenting brilliant energy swords as just some random thing that comes out of nowhere instead of being a pretty rare and very expensive weapon enchantment.

I didn't say you didn't get anything. I was asking if that's what you thought others were doing (not getting things), based on your comment, "the underlying logic is fairly simple."

I'm spinning it? What are you talking about? I said nothing about anything coming out of nowhere. It's an example. An example of a spot where the game gets fiddly. Different ACs in general, much less brilliant energy, are simply an example of fiddly-detail numbers, which was germane to the discussion at hand when I made it.

[Hytheter]

I love the concept of this, and it has seen some amazing implementations in other games like Exalted and Aberrant; the problem is that in PF2's execution, the overwhelming majority of skill feats are about as far from "amazing" as you can get.

For example, PF2 skill feats include the ability to get cryptic hints from a religious book (how is that even a feat?!), or the ability to ask enemies in combat to stand down (and the ability spells out that they might refuse).

My favourite is the one that lets you count, say, the coins in a pile of coins, except not even particularly well.

[warty goblin]

My take on reading the PF2 book was that I had probably missed the Improved Shoe Tying feat (reduces Shoe Tying to a single action), and the Shoe Tying Savant feat that lets you add your Int modifier instead of your Dex to your Shoe Tying check.

I'm joking of course, but only just.

[Ignimortis]

I love the concept of this, and it has seen some amazing implementations in other games like Exalted and Aberrant; the problem is that in PF2's execution, the overwhelming majority of skill feats are about as far from "amazing" as you can get.

For example, PF2 skill feats include the ability to get cryptic hints from a religious book (how is that even a feat?!), or the ability to ask enemies in combat to stand down (and the ability spells out that they might refuse).

Oh, for sure, a lot of feats are kinda bad. I expect that from PF2 and thus am not underwhelmed as people looking from the outside might be. There are some quite nice ones, like Cat Fall, though. Or Underwater Marauder.

Or...uhhh...yeah, okay, a lot of them are either taxes (Intimidating Glare? Menacing Prowess?) or kinda bad (Scare to Death sounds cool, and then you realize it has so many tags and failure points that you can't use it against anyone but some low-level enemies that aren't exactly worth the effort). Some are plain bad, like Armor Assist (either we count time in rounds, and thus the reduction isn't relevant, or we count time in minutes and the reduction doesn't matter much).

But the concept is already much better than whatever was previously in the game. It just needs actual fantastical abilities that you can't see someone get just by rolling really high. And maybe drop the gap between Trained and Expert feats - they're one level away, dammit. Just have Trained (humanly possible, but still incredible and uncommon), Master (slightly superhuman, clearly fantastical, on par with lower-level spells), Legendary (outright superhuman, eclipses low-level spells) feats accessible at, say, 1, 7 and 13 respectively.

The issue with PF2 is 1) math 2) it being VERY afraid to let loose and let people be good or amazing at things instead of being passable. Everything needs to be balanced and any boosts need to hew close to default instead of having immediately noticeable impact. Skill feats are no exception. I figure you could build a very fun game out of PF2 if you ditched some of the math issues (including the main "crit on a 10+ difference" mechanic) and...rewrote all the classes and feats to be more powerful and impactful.

If only the pf2e skill system didn't also come with proficiency gates on even having the chance to make certain checks or clear hazards past level 5 or 6 I might like it more. Auto failing a check because it's not one of your 3 boosted skills or because your class is on a bad perception track isn't my idea of good design.

The proficiency gates are quite lenient. There are no skills that have Expert or higher trained actions. Most actions that anyone can do are considered untrained skills.

As for autofailing checks, it's more of an issue with the overall math and the desire to promote "party builds" instead of individual capability - in a typical party of four with one skill specialist (I'd rant about how they're bad for these games, but not here) will have 15 total skills covered, which is about all the skills in the game with only a couple missing.

Personally, though, I think that PF2 needed to take a leaf out of 4e's book and add half level to stuff you aren't trained in.

My take on reading the PF2 book was that I had probably missed the Improved Shoe Tying feat (reduces Shoe Tying to a single action), and the Shoe Tying Savant feat that lets you add your Int modifier instead of your Dex to your Shoe Tying check.

I'm joking of course, but only just.

That would be in line with PF2's design, but not exactly. Shoe Tying Savant would give you a +2 to your Shoe Tying check if your INT is 16 or higher. You still need to keep your DEX up to tie current-level shoes, but it's almost as if you have DEX maxed.