Feats of Skill

I haven't read all 400 posts, so I apologize if I am repeating what others have already said.

I think the Legendary tier presents fantastic role playing opportunities. A chance for players to concoct compelling backstories about how they became extraordinary. Maybe the fighter decided to learn about Ki from the a Monk; not enough to spit fire, but enough to jump high and survive great falls. Perhaps the fighter did something pleasing for their deity and was rewarded with a boon. If Wizards can learn to harness magic and bend reality through study, its conceivable that same Wizard could teach a fighter just enough magic to enhance their physical condition. Its possible that a fighter's legendary power could be the result of their ancestry; a tiefling fighter could say through training or exposure to some magical phenomenon, that they have unlocked latent potential from their infernal blood.

Golarion is a world of magic and wonder, and now anyone, regardless of class, can dabble in the fantastical. I don't see that as unrealistic of game breaking, I see it as a logical and compelling extension of a fantasy setting. It's up to the player and/or the DM to weave a believable story and make the experience truly immersive. Just my two cents.

I feel like a thing worth noting is that in case you're okay with a legendary acrobat being able to walk away from a 100 foot fall, but not "fall through the entire atmosphere" then just don't put anything in your game to fall off of that's higher than the threshold you're okay with.

It's not like people on Golarion are building skyscrapers and falling off a mountain/into a crevasse is not really a linear fall, then things like Cat Fall are only a problem if you expect the game mechanics to be a complete accounting of the physics of the diagesis and not merely an approximation of such altered to make the game more fun/less tedious.

I can't believe in the year of our lord 2018 we still have people asserting that caster/martial disparity is good, actually.

Rek Rollington wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Meophist wrote:

I remember reading that 18 ability score represents peak human performance, the equivalent of an Olympian for the physical scores. This means that once you have 20 or higher ability score, the character is superhuman, and this doesn't require the use of any in-world magic.

This hasn't been stated anywhere in regards to PF2, at least not to my knowledge.

I will note that evidence suggests you can have a 19 by level 5, but can't hit 20 until level 10.

I’m pretty sure all abilities point will be in twos. So if you are starting a stat at 18 you can raise it to 20 at lvl20. There’s no signs so far there will be any odd-number ability scores, especially since ability drain and damage are gone.

In one of the blog posts they mentioned using Starfinder as a guide, and in starfinder, when you get an ability score boost, it's +2, unless the score would be raised above 18, in which case it's +1

Edit: This is where it was stated.

Quote:

You'll also amp up several of your ability scores every 5 levels. The process might be familiar to those of you who've been playing Starfinder for the last several months! There are, of course, a few tweaks, and we made all ability boosts work the same way instead of being different at 1st level. Learn it once, use it in perpetuity.

And from the Starfinder SRD:

Quote:

Every 5 levels (at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th levels), you get to increase and customize your ability scores. Each time you reach one of these level thresholds, choose four of your ability scores to increase. If that ability score is 17 or higher (excluding any ability increases from personal upgrades), it increases permanently by 1. If it’s 16 or lower, it increases permanently by 2. You can’t apply more than one of these increases to the same ability score at a given level, but unlike at 1st

...

I think the 17 or higher rule may have gone as one of the mentioned tweaks. The core part that remains is you get 4 ability scores to boost. This will lead to some high ability scores but if magic boosts are more limited and levels are being applied to all checks anyway I can see how having higher modifiers would be good.

Please remember that in PF1 you could totally cut bullets out of the air, and smash lasers out of the air. This was sufficiently non-magic enough.

One of the things that has never made sense to me are stats, which are mechanically useful and worth keeping but thematically - someone stuck at 20 strength should never progress past level 10. If you want to do legendary feats like lifting mountains you're lifting hundreds of billions of tons which demands you have a strength close to 200. If you're progressing by 4 strength every 20 levels you're looking at level 900 before you're touching that figure.

Please remember that in PF1 you could totally cut bullets out of the air, and smash lasers out of the air. This was sufficiently non-magic enough.

You could swat bullets out of the air at first level. First. With your bare hands.

As for all the people who are saying things like "I guess I give up on PF2 here" or other such "this is the rock I die on" sort of things, may I implore you to at least run the playtest adventure? Reasons:

1: It's available online for free. Free games are always worth at least one solid go.

2: Chances are that you will like 90% of the game. Why don't you comment on the other 10% and help Paizo make the game closer to something you'd like to play?

3: If for some reason you really do hate the new system enough to swear off of running it, you'll likely have an entire group of people that you ran the playtest with who probably also hate it. (The truth of it is that, psychologically, you will view the experience as significantly more pleasant if you are all having fun or significantly less pleasant if none of you are. Groupthink is kind of baked in to being human.)

4: Even if you run the playtest adventure, hate it, and everyone else loves it, you will still not be left wondering what could have been and you will have gained valuable life experience.

Anyone who's giving up at this point should recall that

Legendary is pretty much just an add on. If you want to play Pathfinder as is just don't use Legendary.. it's the easiest homebrew ever. It's tantamount to telling your players to not use Gate or Polymorph.

But a small number of people (literally everyone but you) want to play legendary so just let them fit it in instead of throwing a hissy fit because something that you 'intellectually disagree with' is printed somewhere in the book

Things PCs could do in PF1 without magic:
*Gain resistance to energy
*Deflect bullets with your hands
*Snatch bullets out of the air with your hands
*Smash spells out of the air
*Survive a fall of any distance
*Survive being immersed in lava
*Take no fall damage regardless of distance because you were next to a wall
*Jump humanly impossible distances
*Flying Kick around 90 degree corners or even 360 degrees in a circle.
*Punch so hard it bypasses all DR and Hardness
*Rip out multiple vital organs with your bare hands without killing someone
*Roar so loudly people take damage as if you punched them
*Have Daredevil style vision while blind
*Empower your fists with elemental damage
*Pin a creature regardless of it's size compared to your size.
*Learn up to 40 languages overnight
*Become a master at any profession overnight
*Become an expert in any subject overnight

Things NPCs could do in PF1 without magic:
*Literally become a god.

I don't think PF2 is really changing what kind of things are possible without magic in the setting.

As for all the people who are saying things like "I guess I give up on PF2 here" or other such "this is the rock I die on" sort of things, may I implore you to at least run the playtest adventure? Reasons:

1: It's available online for free. Free games are always worth at least one solid go.

2: Chances are that you will like 90% of the game. Why don't you comment on the other 10% and help Paizo make the game closer to something you'd like to play?

3: If for some reason you really do hate the new system enough to swear off of running it, you'll likely have an entire group of people that you ran the playtest with who probably also hate it. (The truth of it is that, psychologically, you will view the experience as significantly more pleasant if you are all having fun or significantly less pleasant if none of you are. Groupthink is kind of baked in to being human.)

4: Even if you run the playtest adventure, hate it, and everyone else loves it, you will still not be left wondering what could have been and you will have gained valuable life experience.

Honestly, I'm not sure I share that desire. These folks have diametrically opposed desires for this game to my own, in a way that doesn't seem to have a healthy middle ground. I don't know how much I want those opinions weighing in on the playtest-- I really don't want to lose stuff like this.

The "its easier to add than remove" argument is troubling to me. As several posters have already pointed out, it's not easier to create balanced, effective abilities than it is to create a list of such abilities that aren't allowed at a table.

But I don't think that's really what is meant by "it's easier to add." I think it's referring to the human cost, the psychology. It's easier to tell your players "look, I've added this new tier of legendary proficiency that allows you to do these cool things" than it is to tell your player "we're not going to use legendary proficiencies in this game." It's the difference between having something you expected removed vs. the addition of something positive that was not expected.

I think this is where people have a problem with goblins or non-LG paladins or Leadership in the core rulebook too. In the minds of some, everything after the core book is more optional and therefore easier to say "no" to, but the core is supposed to be completely allowable and they don't want to have to come across as a jerk for removing what they don't like from the core book.

And this is where I have a problem: the mentality that the core game should be the most restrictive part of the rules (LG-only paladins, no legendary proficiency, no goblins, etc) and that the other stuff can be there but shouldn't be the default. The only way that mentality makes sense is if you plan to use the rules as written as a bludgeon to get your way. It's a plea to be able to argue "but it's the rules" to get what you want. If everyone in your group also didn't like legendary skill feats or whatever other rule, then it wouldn't matter what the default or "most official" way was; you'd decide as a group not to allow it.

I think the "it's easier to add" argument often comes from people who know that their group may not agree with their taste but want their way anyway. And that's deplorable. This is a social game, where the taste of more than one person matters. If a down-to-earth aesthetic is...

This is one of the best posts I've see here in a long, long time.

As to the blog- bring it on! I'm really excited to see what they have in store for us!

SilverliteSword wrote:

As for all the people who are saying things like "I guess I give up on PF2 here" or other such "this is the rock I die on" sort of things, may I implore you to at least run the playtest adventure? Reasons:

1: It's available online for free. Free games are always worth at least one solid go.

2: Chances are that you will like 90% of the game. Why don't you comment on the other 10% and help Paizo make the game closer to something you'd like to play?

3: If for some reason you really do hate the new system enough to swear off of running it, you'll likely have an entire group of people that you ran the playtest with who probably also hate it. (The truth of it is that, psychologically, you will view the experience as significantly more pleasant if you are all having fun or significantly less pleasant if none of you are. Groupthink is kind of baked in to being human.)

4: Even if you run the playtest adventure, hate it, and everyone else loves it, you will still not be left wondering what could have been and you will have gained valuable life experience.

Honestly, I'm not sure I share that desire. These folks have diametrically opposed desires for this game to my own, in a way that doesn't seem to have a healthy middle ground. I don't know how much I want those opinions weighing in on the playtest-- I really don't want to lose stuff like this.

I see what you're saying. Whether it is unfortunate for me or not remains to be seen, but one of my core beliefs is that I can totally be wrong about stuff. Since I am not great at being the ultimate arbiter of everything (patent pending), I would welcome different views to take the floor and have their say. I trust Paizo, and I think that more input isn't going to make things worse for this game, only better.

If I didn't trust Paizo, I might be more skeptical about allowing my 'competitors' room to talk Paizo out of a good thing. I am, however, choosing to believe that if Paizo could be talked out of it, then at some level it wasn't as good a thing as I had thought (even if it might have been good for me, it might be bad for Pathfinder).

SilverliteSword wrote:

oksananana wrote:

SilverliteSword wrote:

oksananana wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

I can't believe in the year of our lord 2018 we still have people asserting that caster/martial disparity is good, actually.

CMD is truly the abortion debate of Pathfinder

Let's not bring that up. While I do enjoy a good political debate, and I'm certain there are plenty of people on this forum who believe one way or another on this issue, that's not what this forum is for. Don't even leave the barest silhouette of a door open for that one.

tbf if you wanted to see real heated discussion you should have just said Paladin + any choice combination of 3 words and slip in a phrase about alignment somewhere

Those Paladins, aren't they crazy bro? They are eminent crystallizations of the zeitgeist of alignment in a world without equivalent paragons of their paradigm! Aren't they?

My IQ just rose by like, 2 or 3 or something.

One of the best things about Legendary Feats is that they are in fact not just renamed spells but make mundanes uniquely powerful from spellcasters in that even if their abilities are not as strong they're immune to AMF, and they're generally at will.

I just wonder what is the acceptable ballpark of spell level equivalency to these feats. 5th level? 6, 7? Or middling at 3 or 4 for the powerful at will ones.

Cantrips automatically heighten to the highest spell level you have a slot in, right? So, I'm thinking that legendary abilities should be on-par with 10th-level cantrips (whatever the right phrasing is there) if they are usable at-will. If there is a resource cost to using these abilities, then I'd be ok with them even being on-par with spells.

I think the "always-on stealth" ability is probably about where everything should fall. I'm assuming that the legendary thief ability would be useful, but I guess heists aren't really my thing. I'd much rather disarm people (which might be a combat maneuver linked to a skill).

I’m pretty sure all abilities point will be in twos. So if you are starting a stat at 18 you can raise it to 20 at lvl20. There’s no signs so far there will be any odd-number ability scores, especially since ability drain and damage are gone.

Strong indications have been made that you can somehow get odd scores, and the math works out pretty much only if the cap on 20th level characters' stats is 22 before magic items. The two together combined with the commentary mentioning Starfinder's Ability Increases is pretty compelling evidence that it's only +1 if you're increasing a stat that's already 18+.

I don't like assurance, much as I don't like take 10 and take 20.

Things PCs could do in PF1 without magic:

*Gain resistance to energy
*Deflect bullets with your hands
*Snatch bullets out of the air with your hands
*Smash spells out of the air
*Survive a fall of any distance
*Survive being immersed in lava
*Take no fall damage regardless of distance because you were next to a wall
*Jump humanly impossible distances
*Flying Kick around 90 degree corners or even 360 degrees in a circle.
*Punch so hard it bypasses all DR and Hardness
*Rip out multiple vital organs with your bare hands without killing someone
*Roar so loudly people take damage as if you punched them
*Have Daredevil style vision while blind
*Empower your fists with elemental damage
*Pin a creature regardless of it's size compared to your size.
*Learn up to 40 languages overnight
*Become a master at any profession overnight
*Become an expert in any subject overnight

Things NPCs could do in PF1 without magic:
*Literally become a god.

I don't think PF2 is really changing what kind of things are possible without magic in the setting.

My favourites are things like running 825 ft. in a turn non-magically, and the twist away feat that lets you:

Don't underestimate the power of a sick kick flip, Milo.

BPorter wrote:

Tangent101 wrote:

There is another way around that, BPorter. Just end leveling before it hits Legendary levels.

That is my hope but I have a sneaking suspicion that the rogue and potentially other mechanisms may introduce Legendary at earlier levels. Capping a campaign at Level 15, no problem (save for closing off later AP installments), having to cap a campaign at level 10 or sooner, the math starts to shift towards "not worth the trouble".

The Fighter get access to Legendary at level 13 for one group of weapons. It is likely that is going to be the hard floor for legendary in core. Most do not get access to legendary until level 15. So legendary does not kick in until one level after PFS play ends, if they do not change that.

Yet ALL AP will be to level twenty, apparently.

I appear to have been stabbed in the heart. But it doesn't get through my helmet, so I'm fine.

Milo v3 wrote:

... I am so confused by people who seem to be acting as if they're forced to play high level games when they seem to have issues with high level gameplay. Especially when it's so easy to avoid.

I concur, I mean the GM can remove/add as it suits the campaign they are running, and in my case, sometimes I advise my players that it's going to be a slow progression, and we won't be going beyond level 10 or 11, or that we will be running e6. I mean, it's a rules set and a set of tools, it's not set in stone, GMs are free to design the campaigns they want, and impose limits. My group has 9 players, 3 of us share the gm chair on a rotating basis, and there are differences in the way the three of us run games, and since we discuss it with as a group first, that always works for us.

Except for the statement of “all ap going to level twenty’

Except for the statement of “all ap going to level twenty’

I wasn't aware Paizo forced you to play Adventure Paths? I know I've avoided it rather easily because of them all starting at the horrible-ness that is level one.

Not having read all of the playtest blogs or posts, one question I have, especially about these skill feats, they work the same for npcs too, I assume?

Or are npcs going to be watered down a bit?

Not having read all of the playtest blogs or posts, one question I have, especially about these skill feats, they work the same for npcs too, I assume?

Or are npcs going to be watered down a bit?

Depends on what you mean by NPCs.

You can, by the PF2 rules, build an NPC with the PC creation rules using an Ancestry, Background, and Character Class, the whole thing. If you do that, then yes, they get Skill Feats in precisely this way.

You can also build an NPC with the monster creation rules (this probably being the vague equivalent of using an NPC Class). If you do this, the evidence is that they will be simplified comparatively, and may not have much in the way of Skill Feats (though they probably also could have a few for specific reasons).

So it depends.

Not having read all of the playtest blogs or posts, one question I have, especially about these skill feats, they work the same for npcs too, I assume?

Or are npcs going to be watered down a bit?

Taking PF1 as precedent, most NPCs won't have stats at all.

Alvah wrote:

Not having read all of the playtest blogs or posts, one question I have, especially about these skill feats, they work the same for npcs too, I assume?

Or are npcs going to be watered down a bit?

Depends on what you mean by NPCs.

You can, by the PF2 rules, build an NPC with the PC creation rules using an Ancestry, Background, and Character Class, the whole thing. If you do that, then yes, they get Skill Feats in precisely this way.

You can also build an NPC with the monster creation rules (this probably being the vague equivalent of using an NPC Class). If you do this, the evidence is that they will be simplified comparatively, and may not have much in the way of Skill Feats (though they probably also could have a few for specific reasons).

So it depends.

Ah, then if I run the playtest, I'll do what I do with my NPCs now, build them as PCs, same rules, etc. I never understood that and neither did my players (a few who also gm and build their npcs the same way).

Rek Rollington wrote:

I’m pretty sure all abilities point will be in twos. So if you are starting a stat at 18 you can raise it to 20 at lvl20. There’s no signs so far there will be any odd-number ability scores, especially since ability drain and damage are gone.

Strong indications have been made that you can somehow get odd scores, and the math works out pretty much only if the cap on 20th level characters' stats is 22 before magic items. The two together combined with the commentary mentioning Starfinder's Ability Increases is pretty compelling evidence that it's only +1 if you're increasing a stat that's already 18+.

Capped stats, another thing I don't like

Ah, then if I run the playtest, I'll do what I do with my NPCs now, build them as PCs, same rules, etc. I never understood that and neither did my players (a few who also gm and build their npcs the same way).

For the playtest, you actually have to do it this way for NPCs you actually create. We'll be getting a Bestiary but no monster creation rules.

But even in the final game, that's a totally mechanically valid choice (though if the PCs wind up fighting too many such NPCs they may wind up with more money than WBL advises).

I skipped a bunch of pages due to the flame wars emanating from them, so...

The legendary feats look amazingly overpowered, but you only get a limited number of them (3-6 I believe), so it's not like you're pulling these legendary stunts with everything you do all day long.
If they applied to every single thing your PC ever did, I'd be totally against them. but occasionally being able to do something amazingly overpowered is pretty damned cool.
So, as long as the accessability limit remains, I'm fine with them.

Arssanguinus wrote:

Except for the statement of “all ap going to level twenty’

I wasn't aware Paizo forced you to play Adventure Paths? I know I've avoided it rather easily because of them all starting at the horrible-ness that is level one.

At the very least, you need to play for a very long time to reach legendary from level 1. Longer than I expect most campaigns actually manage to run before grinding to a halt for some reason or another.

And the old APs went up to 17 or 18 usually, which is just bonkers scale stuff. Someone posted a picture of a Rune Giant next to Valeros that highlighted how physically impossible the two fighting should be. I don't understand how you can enjoy playing those levels of you want gritty realism.

Even the mundane character thing makes no sense with all the magic gear everyone is decked out in. Most of the Legendary skill functions are things that can be done with cheap magical items, and it is highly likely some of those items have found their way into your equipment by level 15 in PF1. Even if you didn't snag utility stuff like Hat of Disguise or Sleeves of Many Garments, you're gonna need more than just stat boosters to keep up. A melee character should have purchased access to flight by this point, for example.

In PF2, you'll be more inherently superhuman but will be able to get away with being less magical. You won't have as many items needed to keep your stats competitive, and you can deal with things like flying enemies by leaping 30 feet into the air and smashing them into the ground.

I don't really see how this is objectionable unless you think all superhuman activity must come from magic. Which means you probably shouldn't have been playing PF1 to begin with, given various examples across all levels.

The legendary feats look amazingly overpowered, but you only get a limited number of them (3-6 I believe), so it's not like you're pulling these legendary stunts with everything you do all day long.

Classes that do not get bonus Skills or Skill Feats (so, of those revealed, everyone but Rogue, though I suspect Bard and Ranger may get some skill stuff too) will just get three Legendary Skill Feats, in as many as three skills. That number of skills doesn't go up, but if they invest General Feats, they can go to 5 Skill Feats. 6 if they happen to be Human and invest an Ancestry Feat.

So 3-6 is right on the money for non-Skill Classes.

A Rogue, however, will get 6 just by default (along with 6 Legendary Skills if they want), and can raise that to 8 Legendary Skill Feats by investing General Feats (9 if Human and willing to use an Ancestry Feat).

Other Skill Classes seem vanishingly unlikely to surpass or even equal Rogue, but may exceed non-Skill Classes.

But yeah, it's a fairly limited set of activities, especially for non-Rogues who aren't interested in skill options.

I skipped a bunch of pages due to the flame wars emanating from them, so...

The legendary feats look amazingly overpowered, but you only get a limited number of them (3-6 I believe), so it's not like you're pulling these legendary stunts with everything you do all day long.
If they applied to every single thing your PC ever did, I'd be totally against them. but occasionally being able to do something amazingly overpowered is pretty damned cool.
So, as long as the accessability limit remains, I'm fine with them.

If you're a normal dude you get 3 Skill Feats past level 15 (where you can first get Legendary Proficiency). If you're a Rogue you get 6.

Still, Cat Fall shows you don't need a Legendary feat to do something bananas, though that just moves the house rule from "No Legendary Feats" to "No Legendary Proficiency" which is easy enough to do.

Childeric, The Shatterer wrote:

I skipped a bunch of pages due to the flame wars emanating from them, so...

The legendary feats look amazingly overpowered, but you only get a limited number of them (3-6 I believe), so it's not like you're pulling these legendary stunts with everything you do all day long.
If they applied to every single thing your PC ever did, I'd be totally against them. but occasionally being able to do something amazingly overpowered is pretty damned cool.
So, as long as the accessability limit remains, I'm fine with them.

If you're a normal dude you get 3 Skill Feats past level 15 (where you can first get Legendary Proficiency). If you're a Rogue you get 6.

Still, Cat Fall shows you don't need a Legendary feat to do something bananas, though that just moves the house rule from "No Legendary Feats" to "No Legendary Proficiency" which is easy enough to do.

Besides, how often does the need to "fall from orbit without taking damage" actually come up in a game? maybe once every 5-10 years (that's actual real-world years, not game downtime years)? I really don't see it being an issue.

TheFinish wrote:

Childeric, The Shatterer wrote:

I skipped a bunch of pages due to the flame wars emanating from them, so...

The legendary feats look amazingly overpowered, but you only get a limited number of them (3-6 I believe), so it's not like you're pulling these legendary stunts with everything you do all day long.
If they applied to every single thing your PC ever did, I'd be totally against them. but occasionally being able to do something amazingly overpowered is pretty damned cool.
So, as long as the accessability limit remains, I'm fine with them.

If you're a normal dude you get 3 Skill Feats past level 15 (where you can first get Legendary Proficiency). If you're a Rogue you get 6.

Still, Cat Fall shows you don't need a Legendary feat to do something bananas, though that just moves the house rule from "No Legendary Feats" to "No Legendary Proficiency" which is easy enough to do.

Besides, how often does the need to "fall from orbit without taking damage" actually come up in a game? maybe once every 5-10 years (that's actual real-world years, not game downtime years)? I really don't see it being an issue.

Well it doesn't need to be orbit. Anything over 50 feet triggers the Legendary upgrade (50 or less and Master has you covered) and when you're fighting flying shenanigans, that's pretty easy.

Heck, 50 feet is what? 16 meters? Which is approximately 5 stories. I can see a lot of ways for a PC to fall more than 5 stories. "Fall from orbit" is just the "reductio ad absurdum" to show how silly the feat as written is.

Not that it matters much since it's pretty easy to excise whatever bothers people, which is a plus.

Childeric, The Shatterer wrote:

I skipped a bunch of pages due to the flame wars emanating from them, so...

The legendary feats look amazingly overpowered, but you only get a limited number of them (3-6 I believe), so it's not like you're pulling these legendary stunts with everything you do all day long.
If they applied to every single thing your PC ever did, I'd be totally against them. but occasionally being able to do something amazingly overpowered is pretty damned cool.
So, as long as the accessability limit remains, I'm fine with them.

If you're a normal dude you get 3 Skill Feats past level 15 (where you can first get Legendary Proficiency). If you're a Rogue you get 6.

Still, Cat Fall shows you don't need a Legendary feat to do something bananas, though that just moves the house rule from "No Legendary Feats" to "No Legendary Proficiency" which is easy enough to do.

Hell even if you just want the numbers benefit of Legendary you can just say "the fifth rank of proficiency is called Grand Mastery at this table, ignore anything that references Legendary."

This is the first blog post that made me feel like PF2 is not for me. I'm happy for those who seem to be getting what they wanted (high-level martials just as ridiculous as high-level spellcasters) but, for our table, the legendary skills seem like they would turn the game into a cartoon, parody, or joke. I would have preferred to see the power level of casters reduced rather than boosting martials to "ridiculous," but 5E gives me something closer to the power curve and experience I desire, so it will be simple to just continue playing that. Even though PF2 isn't for me, I'm glad there is such an option for those who prefer it.

I hope Occultism skill feats include Object Reading. And that Arcane, Nature, or Occultism skill feats include natural divinations, like looking at a fire, reading tea leafs, gazing at crystal balls, reading entrails, reading the patterns of dust in the wind, etc.

But the way the progression of Skill Ranks and Skill Feats is right now, I think that gaining a new Skill Rank does you very little good. You get a +1 and it's a gateway for you to get new kinds of skill feats, but only next level. I wish each time you gained a new Skill Rank you gained a Base Skill Use, which would be the same for everyone who attained that rank in the same skill, much like an Occultist gains a Base Focus Power everytime he gets a new implement school.

I wish each time you gained a new Skill Rank you gained a Base Skill Use, which would be the same for everyone who attained that rank in the same skill, much like an Occultist gains a Base Focus Power everytime he gets a new implement school.

Well, we don't know for sure that there aren't some skill usages which are gated by proficiency, outside of an Untrained/Trained split. Would something like that cover what you're after?

I hope Occultism skill feats include Object Reading. And that Arcane, Nature, or Occultism skill feats include natural divinations, like looking at a fire, reading tea leafs, gazing at crystal balls, reading entrails, reading the patterns of dust in the wind, etc.

But the way the progression of Skill Ranks and Skill Feats is right now, I think that gaining a new Skill Rank does you very little good. You get a +1 and it's a gateway for you to get new kinds of skill feats, but only next level. I wish each time you gained a new Skill Rank you gained a Base Skill Use, which would be the same for everyone who attained that rank in the same skill, much like an Occultist gains a Base Focus Power everytime he gets a new implement school.

Well, some stuff does, like Crafting (since now you can craft Expert/Master/Legendary stuff) but for other skills it might feel a bit too game-y to do that.

Like, for example, what would you give Thieving at Expert? That isn't something like "You can now pick Expert Locks and Disarm Expert Traps".

I’m disheartened nobody brought up the Tarrasque.

Carapace that deflects cones, lines, rays, and magic missiles? Extraordinary.

Super speed and leaping tall buildings in a single bound? Extraordinary.

Spines pew pew pew? Extraordinary.

Spell Resistance? Extraordinary.

It’s iconic “No you can’t f&!@ing kill me, no that doesn’t work, nope, that doesn’t work either, not even disintegration, nope. Nada. Not happening.”? Extraordinary.

And finally list of innate immunities: ability damage, acid, bleed, disease, energy drain, fire, mind-affecting effects, paralysis, permanent wounds, petrification, poison, polymorph

NetoD20 wrote:

I wish each time you gained a new Skill Rank you gained a Base Skill Use, which would be the same for everyone who attained that rank in the same skill, much like an Occultist gains a Base Focus Power everytime he gets a new implement school.

Well, we don't know for sure that there aren't some skill usages which are gated by proficiency, outside of an Untrained/Trained split. Would something like that cover what you're after?

Maybe, that could be a thing.

NetoD20 wrote:

I hope Occultism skill feats include Object Reading. And that Arcane, Nature, or Occultism skill feats include natural divinations, like looking at a fire, reading tea leafs, gazing at crystal balls, reading entrails, reading the patterns of dust in the wind, etc.

But the way the progression of Skill Ranks and Skill Feats is right now, I think that gaining a new Skill Rank does you very little good. You get a +1 and it's a gateway for you to get new kinds of skill feats, but only next level. I wish each time you gained a new Skill Rank you gained a Base Skill Use, which would be the same for everyone who attained that rank in the same skill, much like an Occultist gains a Base Focus Power everytime he gets a new implement school.

Well, some stuff does, like Crafting (since now you can craft Expert/Master/Legendary stuff) but for other skills it might feel a bit too game-y to do that.

Like, for example, what would you give Thieving at Expert? That isn't something like "You can now pick Expert Locks and Disarm Expert Traps".

I understand your point. But well, you'd give them something like a Skill Feat appropriate for that Rank, but weaker, since you're already getting the +1.

I hope Occultism skill feats include Object Reading. And that Arcane, Nature, or Occultism skill feats include natural divinations, like looking at a fire, reading tea leafs, gazing at crystal balls, reading entrails, reading the patterns of dust in the wind, etc.

That sounds super neat, and I'm totally on board with Skill Feats for this sort of thing. :)

But the way the progression of Skill Ranks and Skill Feats is right now, I think that gaining a new Skill Rank does you very little good. You get a +1 and it's a gateway for you to get new kinds of skill feats, but only next level.

This is only about half true. For one thing, as shown, many Skill Feats upgrade when you get a new Rank in the skill. So you get those benefits immediately.

For another, at 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, and 19th level, if you really want that benefit right now, you can spend a General Feat on it. Note that this includes all of 3rd, 7th, and 15th levels, which are when you first get a new level of Proficiency available. This needn't even cost you General Feats in the long term given retraining rules. It should be simple enough to take them then, then once you gain a level and thus a Skill Feat, retrain a bit and arrange to instead have a new General Feat.

I wish each time you gained a new Skill Rank you gained a Base Skill Use, which would be the same for everyone who attained that rank in the same skill, much like an Occultist gains a Base Focus Power everytime he gets a new implement school.

This seems a bit likely to become unwieldy, IMO. What the's Master specific use of Diplomacy, for example? Or the Expert Specific one for Nature? Making them the same for everybody sounds good until you realize it either gives everyone with that skill a specific set of super powers, or alternately restricts things that should be generally available to only those with high Proficiency.

This is the first blog post that made me feel like PF2 is not for me. I'm happy for those who seem to be getting what they wanted (high-level martials just as ridiculous as high-level spellcasters) but, for our table, the legendary skills seem like they would turn the game into a cartoon, parody, or joke. I would have preferred to see the power level of casters reduced rather than boosting martials to "ridiculous," but 5E gives me something closer to the power curve and experience I desire, so it will be simple to just continue playing that. Even though PF2 isn't for me, I'm glad there is such an option for those who prefer it.

Maybe you could try the playtest but enact the No Legendary rule that Mark Seifter mentioned. I think the devs would be greatly interested to know whether it works well for those people who do not want their high-level game too far from realism for martials

I read four pages before giving up, so I apologise if this was addressed, but could we get a minor Dev input on an odd thing I noted?

So a rogue or bard that relies mostly on being the face of the party and general skill monkey and doesn't have a heavy investment into say, stealth, but wants to be decent at it. They take assurance (1 skill feat that works for and applies to all skills equally and isn't assigned to any particular skill right?) and push stealth to legendary. They have a total of +4 dex because they're focused on other things but like a decent dex, and 5 is capped anyways so it's not a huge loss to not finish maxing it out.

For legendary, they have +3 and for dexterity +4, now they have +7 stealth. They are level 15 which is added to all rolls, this is a bare minimum of 21 by the time you can get legendary. To go any lower you'd have to drop dex (and can only go as low as -1 I'd wager so let's call it -2 and make this a +16 to the roll at absolute minimum). Assurance gives a minimum of 30 to stealth checks now that it's legendary. So at it's max, assurance is saying you roll a 14 or better every time. At it's more conservative and realistic value, a minimum investment character will benefit from never rolling below a 9.

Meanwhile if you put any real effort into being good at stealth, you have +5 dex, +3 legendary, +5 items, +something from class features or spells... Assurance seems like it can easily be stripped away on a skill you've invested into by guaranteeing you can't roll lower than (-4) on your d20.

Is assurance meant to help cover being broad and less invested in a specific skill than in several legendary skills? Will it see situations where it simply isn't doing anything because the player has 3 skills at legendary and they have decent investment into all 3 of them, and their character level and stat exceeds all of their master assurance values anyways?

Would it not perhaps be a more appropriate value to declare assurance as 'if you roll lower than 5 on a skill check roll, you may treat it as if you had rolled a 5?'. This even opens up a greater assurance, where you treat it as a 10 or even a 15 for a point of resonance.

I'm concerned assurance may see marginal use on broad skill monkeys with little to no use on sheets where people actually put enough effort into a skill to be worried about whether it succeeded or not.

I read four pages before giving up, so I apologise if this was addressed, but could we get a minor Dev input on an odd thing I noted?

So a rogue or bard that relies mostly on being the face of the party and general skill monkey and doesn't have a heavy investment into say, stealth, but wants to be decent at it. They take assurance (1 skill feat that works for and applies to all skills equally and isn't assigned to any particular skill right?) and push stealth to legendary. They have a total of +4 dex because they're focused on other things but like a decent dex, and 5 is capped anyways so it's not a huge loss to not finish maxing it out.

For legendary, they have +3 and for dexterity +4, now they have +7 stealth. They are level 15 which is added to all rolls, this is a bare minimum of 21 by the time you can get legendary. To go any lower you'd have to drop dex (and can only go as low as -1 I'd wager so let's call it -2 and make this a +16 to the roll at absolute minimum). Assurance gives a minimum of 30 to stealth checks now that it's legendary. So at it's max, assurance is saying you roll a 14 or better every time. At it's more conservative and realistic value, a minimum investment character will benefit from never rolling below a 9.

Meanwhile if you put any real effort into being good at stealth, you have +5 dex, +3 legendary, +5 items, +something from class features or spells... Assurance seems like it can easily be stripped away on a skill you've invested into by guaranteeing you can't roll lower than (-4) on your d20.

Is assurance meant to help cover being broad and less invested in a specific skill than in several legendary skills? Will it see situations where it simply isn't doing anything because the player has 3 skills at legendary and they have decent investment into all 3 of them, and their character level and stat exceeds all of their master assurance values anyways?

Would it not perhaps be a more appropriate value to declare assurance as 'if you roll lower than 5 on a skill check...

This general mathematical principle occured to me, but I don't think it is a bad thing. Assurance is good for folks who don't completely max out a skill. An example from people who played at paizo con was that it let them ignore their armor check penalty to athletics. If you don't have an armor check penalty or otherwise have a high chance of success, you can skip the feat or retrain it if you took it in the first place.

Characters with higher bonuses will probably go in for the high risk heroism mentioned at the opening of the blog.