Feats of Skill

Technotrooper wrote:

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

Thanks for the suggestion. I thought about that but concluded that I don't want to have to "fight the default system" and rebalance the villains accordingly. What I really want is more balanced but less god-like high-level martials *and* spellcasters. I want something easy to play and run. It occurred to me that 5E gives me exactly this, without having to modify or rebalance anything. I like bounded accuracy, the smaller mod numbers, less magic items, and reigned in spellcasters (with mechanics like concentration). For those who want D&D to be more like Exalted at the higher-levels, PF2 sounds like exactly what they are hoping for. Fortunately, there are great options for all tastes!

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...

As you noted, it is certainly more useful on characters with legendary skills that do not match their core stats. It does benefit the well focus character in that I believe it still counteracts nat-1 crit failures and helps you out whenever you are saddled with penalties (like from armor) so it is going to have utility for builds that will tend to accrue penalties from one source or another.

Edit: Captain kinda ninja'd me

(1 skill feat that works for and applies to all skills equally and isn't assigned to any particular skill right?)

This part is incorrect. You purchase Assurance on a per skill basis. We know this because several Backgrounds give you Assurance in a specific skill.

More generally, yes it's better for those who don't focus on a particular Skill (though it universally removes the chance of rolling a 1 and auto-failing). That seems a feature rather than a bug, IMO.

So, I am still confused as to what happens when you assign more than four ranks to a skill. (Like assigning 10 ranks to Stealth)

With the character getting x + Int every odd level, this seems to be the question to ask at this point.

The Raven Black wrote:

Technotrooper wrote:

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

Thanks for the suggestion. I thought about that but concluded that I don't want to have to "fight the default system" and rebalance the villains accordingly. What I really want is more balanced but less god-like high-level martials *and* spellcasters. I want something easy to play and run. It occurred to me that 5E gives me exactly this, without having to modify or rebalance anything. I like bounded accuracy, the smaller mod numbers, less magic items, and reigned in spellcasters (with mechanics like concentration). For those who want D&D to be more like Exalted at the higher-levels, PF2 sounds like exactly what they are hoping for. Fortunately, there are great options for all tastes!

See, this is a healthy attitude for this. It's also someone who I think gets something really important about about what Pathfinder is and will continue to be. PF1 was already the fantasy super hero game, and 5e was the lower powered fantasy game. PF2 is leaning into that and other differences it has with how characters operate compared to 5e, which positions it as a viable alternative which is regonizable but entirely distinct from 5e.

So, I am still confused as to what happens when you assign more than four ranks to a skill. (Like assigning 10 ranks to Stealth)

With the character getting x + Int every odd level, this seems to be the question to ask at this point.

You can't, and you don't.

So, I am still confused as to what happens when you assign more than four ranks to a skill. (Like assigning 10 ranks to Stealth)

With the character getting x + Int every odd level, this seems to be the question to ask at this point.

From my understanding, you get X + Int once. This gets you that many skills from untrained to trained.

After that, at each odd level, you can raise the proficiency of any skill by one level.

Those are all the increases provided you don't spend skill feats on them.

Childeric, The Shatterer wrote:

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.

I hope while they do so they take out all spells past about 3rd.....

thaX wrote:

So, I am still confused as to what happens when you assign more than four ranks to a skill. (Like assigning 10 ranks to Stealth)

With the character getting x + Int every odd level, this seems to be the question to ask at this point.

From my understanding, you get X + Int once. This gets you that many skills from untrained to trained.

After that, at each odd level, you can raise the proficiency of any skill by one level.

Those are all the increases provided you don't spend skill feats on them.

That is what people are assuming. They have not said this specifically or how many ranks is given at every level they are given after 1st. (some guess at two after 1st level) I believe that x + level is to much after 1st, but if the rogue gets ranks at every level, how is that compared to what the bard will be able to do?

Something just seems to be off, and I still don't know if a rank adds another +1 bonus like it did in PF1.

This *is not* an issue revovling around the "Role-play vs Min-Max" side of things, this is an issue revovling around wheather people want their martial classes to adhere to Earth Reality or Pathfinder Reality.

'Pathfinder Reality' doesn't allow for most of these either. We've got 10+ years of things that fit in Golarion for usages of abilities and skills. These don't fit. Even when PF Tales characters are bizarre hybrids of fighter/wizard/sorcerer/monk they don't do these sorts of thing.

Even if Aroden Himself were to show up, returned and unmurdered, if he pulled off most of these feats, I'd be asking some serious questions about the why and how of it.

Cyouni wrote:

thaX wrote:

So, I am still confused as to what happens when you assign more than four ranks to a skill. (Like assigning 10 ranks to Stealth)

With the character getting x + Int every odd level, this seems to be the question to ask at this point.

From my understanding, you get X + Int once. This gets you that many skills from untrained to trained.

After that, at each odd level, you can raise the proficiency of any skill by one level.

Those are all the increases provided you don't spend skill feats on them.

That is what people are assuming. They have not said this specifically or how many ranks is given at every level they are given after 1st. (some guess at two after 1st level) I believe that x + level is to much after 1st, but if the rogue gets ranks at every level, how is that compared to what the bard will be able to do?

Something just seems to be off, and I still don't know if a rank adds another +1 bonus like it did in PF1.

Adding a rank steps up the skill by a proficiency category

So a rank KINDA gives you a +1. You are also adding your level to all these checks. You know that right? You add your level even if you are untrained.

So, I am still confused as to what happens when you assign more than four ranks to a skill. (Like assigning 10 ranks to Stealth)

This is impossible. You cannot do it.

With the character getting x + Int every odd level, this seems to be the question to ask at this point.

This is not correct. You get one rank every odd level. X + Int is how many you get at 1st level only.

That is what people are assuming. They have not said this specifically or how many ranks is given at every level they are given after 1st. (some guess at two after 1st level) I believe that x + level is to much after 1st, but if the rogue gets ranks at every level, how is that compared to what the bard will be able to do?

Mark Seifter actually basically answered this. You get one rank every odd level starting at 3rd unless you're a Rogue (who get one rank every level starting at 2nd).

Something just seems to be off, and I still don't know if a rank adds another +1 bonus like it did in PF1.

Uh...ranks raise your Proficiency by one, such as from Master to Legendary. So kinda, but this is a super weird question.

'Pathfinder Reality' doesn't allow for most of these either. We've got 10+ years of things that fit in Golarion for usages of abilities and skills. These don't fit.

Yes it does and yes they do. Several martial classes have the ability to survive falls of unlimited distance pretty casually, and high level Rogues are able to Disguise themselves as a full round action, as are many Vigilantes.

And so on and so forth. Few of these abilities seem strictly new, they're just accessible rather than requiring weird Classes and choices to access.

Even when PF Tales characters are bizarre hybrids of fighter/wizard/sorcerer/monk they don't do these sorts of thing.

The characters in most of the Pathfinder Tales Novels tend to max out at less than 10th level, and the only exception I can think of (Salim, from Death's Heretic) is literally immortal among other things, so I'm less than convinced by the idea that he wouldn't be able to do some Legendary stuff.

Even if Aroden Himself were to show up, returned and unmurdered, if he pulled off most of these feats, I'd be asking some serious questions about the why and how of it.

We really wouldn't.

Cyouni wrote:

thaX wrote:

So, I am still confused as to what happens when you assign more than four ranks to a skill. (Like assigning 10 ranks to Stealth)

With the character getting x + Int every odd level, this seems to be the question to ask at this point.

From my understanding, you get X + Int once. This gets you that many skills from untrained to trained.

After that, at each odd level, you can raise the proficiency of any skill by one level.

Those are all the increases provided you don't spend skill feats on them.

That is what people are assuming. They have not said this specifically or how many ranks is given at every level they are given after 1st. (some guess at two after 1st level) I believe that x + level is to much after 1st, but if the rogue gets ranks at every level, how is that compared to what the bard will be able to do?

Something just seems to be off, and I still don't know if a rank adds another +1 bonus like it did in PF1.

It is really weird to assume literally every one else has gotten the system wrong. Despite you having no evidence they got it wrong, and that your ideas for how it work leave you with questions about how it works while every one else's ideas explain fully how they work.

Voss wrote:

'Pathfinder Reality' doesn't allow for most of these either. We've got 10+ years of things that fit in Golarion for usages of abilities and skills. These don't fit.

Yes it does and yes they do. Several martial classes have the ability to survive falls of unlimited distance pretty casually, and high level Rogues are able to Disguise themselves as a full round action, as are many Vigilantes.

And so on and so forth. Few of these abilities seem strictly new, they're just accessible rather than requiring weird Classes and choices to access.

For one, none of the people that can survive those falls do it because they're martial classes. They do it because they're PCs with enough hit points.

For two, they don't do it unscathed, they always take damage.

For three, both of the above only happens because, bizarrely, falling damage caps at 20d6, ie any fall above 200ft is the same. I understand they may have been trying to simulate terminal velocity, but in that case, the limit would've been 188d6, since it takes a fall of abou 1880 feet to achieve it. And guess what: no PC would survive 188d6 on average.

For that matter the point about Pathfinder tales just shows the mechanics of the game don't represent the setting at all. There's plenty of times people in Pathfinder Tales die to falls they would've survived in-game, or die to a single attack, or a whole host of other things that contradict how the rules work. Because the rules don't perfectly represent the world, and never have.

If anything Pathfinder Tales novels show us Golarion is much more grounded than the system would have us believe.

If anything Pathfinder Tales novels show us Golarion is much more grounded than the system would have us believe.

Or alternately: the game Pathfinder shows us a Golarion that is much less grounded than the Pathfinder Tales novels would have us believe.

I don't really run Golarion either way, but I do maybe see where your coming from. The core setting I run for Pathfinder emphasizes modern people and modern civilizations as being the core movers in the setting rather than gods, aliens, and lost god-kings. This is true because the rule of law tends to be implemented through powerful PCs and NPCs (e.g. boarderline superheroes).

bookrat wrote:

This *is not* an issue revovling around the "Role-play vs Min-Max" side of things, this is an issue revovling around wheather people want their martial classes to adhere to Earth Reality or Pathfinder Reality.

'Pathfinder Reality' doesn't allow for most of these either. We've got 10+ years of things that fit in Golarion for usages of abilities and skills. These don't fit. Even when PF Tales characters are bizarre hybrids of fighter/wizard/sorcerer/monk they don't do these sorts of thing.

Even if Aroden Himself were to show up, returned and unmurdered, if he pulled off most of these feats, I'd be asking some serious questions about the why and how of it.

And yet we calmly accepted the appearance out of nowhere of Witches, Oracles, Magi, Brawlers and untold numbers of archetypes as if they had always been there. Not to mention Mythic

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Voss wrote:

'Pathfinder Reality' doesn't allow for most of these either. We've got 10+ years of things that fit in Golarion for usages of abilities and skills. These don't fit.

Yes it does and yes they do. Several martial classes have the ability to survive falls of unlimited distance pretty casually, and high level Rogues are able to Disguise themselves as a full round action, as are many Vigilantes.

And so on and so forth. Few of these abilities seem strictly new, they're just accessible rather than requiring weird Classes and choices to access.

For one, none of the people that can survive those falls do it because they're martial classes. They do it because they're PCs with enough hit points.

For two, they don't do it unscathed, they always take damage.

Yes, but, "took some hit point damage" is a far cry from the realistic result of falling that far.

A 20th level character can take 20d6 falling damage, stand up, jog home, spend a day or two in bed, and be right as rain.

A real person who falls that far is most assuredly shattered to pieces, likely paralyzed to some extent, and has months to years of recovery ahead of them (and will probably never be the same again).

Which is to say, damage in PF1 (and likely PF2) is very unrealistic, which is why I find the complaint about falling damage so weird. It's like, "If falling great distances doesn't temporarily inconvenience characters without causing any real or lasting harm, then this game is cartoony and ridiculous!"

For one, none of the people that can survive those falls do it because they're martial classes. They do it because they're PCs with enough hit points.

Just wanted to point out that these skill abilities are also nothing to do with being a martial class. Sure, certain martials will be better at skills, but there's not really anything to say that a Fighter is going to have a better Diplomacy bonus than a Wizard, for example.

As to the thing about Pathfinder Tales, I wouldn't exactly consider that more setting-accurate than the game which has almost entirely defined the setting.

For one, none of the people that can survive those falls do it because they're martial classes. They do it because they're PCs with enough hit points.

Actually both Monks and Vigilantes can fall unlimited distances without damage if adjacent to some surface. Vigilantes who can do this also take only half damage from other falls.

For two, they don't do it unscathed, they always take damage.

As noted, not always.

For three, both of the above only happens because, bizarrely, falling damage caps at 20d6, ie any fall above 200ft is the same. I understand they may have been trying to simulate terminal velocity, but in that case, the limit would've been 188d6, since it takes a fall of abou 1880 feet to achieve it. And guess what: no PC would survive 188d6 on average.

This is true, but also deeply and profoundly irrelevant. Because the discussion is about what impressive feats are possible in Golarion is PF1, not what things you think should be possible.

For that matter the point about Pathfinder tales just shows the mechanics of the game don't represent the setting at all. There's plenty of times people in Pathfinder Tales die to falls they would've survived in-game, or die to a single attack, or a whole host of other things that contradict how the rules work. Because the rules don't perfectly represent the world, and never have.

If anything Pathfinder Tales novels show us Golarion is much more grounded than the system would have us believe.

This is just fundamentally not true for the most part. We actually know the levels of many Pathfinder Tales protagonists, and with only a couple of exceptions they cap out at maybe 7th level. Most are 6th level or lower. And 6th level characters with, say, Con 12 (and few Tales protagonists demand higher Con than that, while almost all demand enough skills that they'd need to put FCB into them) average less than 40 HP in many cases. Certainly less than 50. Most also probably spend a certain amount of their time at less than full HP (characters with healing are rare in the Pathfinder Tales novels).

The only exceptions are Isiem, who manages 9th or 10th level by Nightblade and engages in appropriately impressive activities for a 9th level Wizard, and Salim, who as mentioned literally cannot die and is just generally ridiculous on several levels.

So no, the protagonists of almost all of the Pathfinder Tales Novels prove absolutely nothing about what high level people in Golarion are capable of. Because they aren't high level people. At all.

This is just fundamentally not true for the most part. We actually know the levels of many Pathfinder Tales protagonists, and with only a couple of exceptions they cap out at maybe 7th level. Most are 6th level or lower. And 6th level characters with, say, Con 12 (and few Tales protagonists demand higher Con than that, while almost all demand enough skills that they'd need to put FCB into them) average less than 40 HP in many cases. Certainly less than 50. Most also probably spend a certain amount of their time at less than full HP (characters with healing are rare in the Pathfinder Tales novels).

The only exceptions are Isiem, who manages 9th or 10th level by Nightblade and engages in appropriately impressive activities for a 9th level Wizard, and Salim, who as mentioned literally cannot die and is just generally ridiculous on several levels.

So no, the protagonists of almost all of the Pathfinder Tales Novels prove absolutely nothing about what high level people in Golarion are capable of. Because they aren't high level people. At all.

It doesn't matter that they're not high level people. Even a 7th level PC can take quite a few blows before being incapacitated. But not the guys in Pathfinder Tales Novels. Similarly, they face thing way above their level and beat them in like two hits.

Salim, in The Redemption Engine, brings down an angel with one blow, not once, but twice. An Angel well above his level. He also takes wounds that impair him, even though he's not unconcious and thus he still has hit points. But he's being mechanically impaired by damage.

And you can see this in all the novels. All it means is that the game rules are not representative of the world. So going "well you see people in golarion can survive falls because of hit points" doesn't work.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

This is just fundamentally not true for the most part. We actually know the levels of many Pathfinder Tales protagonists, and with only a couple of exceptions they cap out at maybe 7th level. Most are 6th level or lower. And 6th level characters with, say, Con 12 (and few Tales protagonists demand higher Con than that, while almost all demand enough skills that they'd need to put FCB into them) average less than 40 HP in many cases. Certainly less than 50. Most also probably spend a certain amount of their time at less than full HP (characters with healing are rare in the Pathfinder Tales novels).

The only exceptions are Isiem, who manages 9th or 10th level by Nightblade and engages in appropriately impressive activities for a 9th level Wizard, and Salim, who as mentioned literally cannot die and is just generally ridiculous on several levels.

So no, the protagonists of almost all of the Pathfinder Tales Novels prove absolutely nothing about what high level people in Golarion are capable of. Because they aren't high level people. At all.

It doesn't matter that they're not high level people. Even a 7th level PC can take quite a few blows before being incapacitated. But not the guys in Pathfinder Tales Novels. Similarly, they face thing way above their level and beat them in like two hits.

Salim, in The Redemption Engine, brings down an angel with one blow, not once, but twice. An Angel well above his level. He also takes wounds that impair him, even though he's not unconcious and thus he still has hit points. But he's being mechanically impaired by damage.

And you can see this in all the novels. All it means is that the game rules are not representative of the world. So going "well you see people in golarion can survive falls because of hit points" doesn't work.

Again: the NOVEL rules are thus not representative of the GAME world. What would give the novels primacy in depicting a world that was introduced to be part of a game? That is absurd.

Re: Assurance

One thing I haven't seen is how difficulty mechanically interacts with skill use. In PF1, it was a wash whether one applied penalties to a roll or instead made the final DC higher. Order of operations seem more important with the Assurance feat because it's giving you a final roll sans penalties (or bonuses for that matter).

For example, in PF1, armor check penalties (et al) would be applied after taking "10" or "20", but in PF2 we have the example of PCs with the Assurance feat ignoring ACPs and simply choosing to get a final result with no adjustments. So...

If escalating DCs are the only way difficulty is represented in PF2, Assurance lacks oomph, with someone earlier showing that the math (other than on a nat "1") makes Assurance a bit of a waste for specialists, and more suitable for dabblers who need a boost.
But if difficulty increases are represented more by penalties (which are then ignored by Assurance) then that makes Assurance an awesome feat (which it should be because it's only for one skill).

Example: Let's use swimming up a waterfall. I believe it was Mark who said this would be doable for the best swimmers (only) though I don't recall at what rank. For example's sake, let's say there's no extra feat to unlock it. If it's DC 31+ to swim thus, then Assurance is a bit of a waste, at least in swimming (where I imagine it's one of the toughest achievements). If instead swimming up a waterfall gives a -20 penalty, then Assurance becomes really good, maybe even worth the feat it costs.

So many of these previews lack the context to make solid evaluations...

Mark Seifter wrote:

Assurance is unlikely to trivialize traps.

For magic items, the basic criterion for having a spell requirement is "Does this item cast this spell so it would be bizarre to not include the spell." If yes, then it has the spell as a requirement, like a wand or scroll. If no, then we don't add spells on there that are thematically similar.

Good to hear for traps. Rogues trivializing those encounters which are supposed to give equivalent XP to monster encounters always frustrated me.

As for magic crafting, I get that a maximum time of four days of crafting means that you can substitute spells requirements from consumables. But if a magic item requires a high level spell (7th-9th level), getting four scrolls alone might add another 25-50% to the item cost. I think it would be fair to spontaneous caster classes to allow spell substitution by increasing the crafting DC. Otherwise they are in danger of becoming second class citizens compared to prepared caster classes, at least in this part of the game.

Sorcerers have always had that problem. In every edition of the game they where unable to scribe scrolls or craft wands without knowing the spell or having access to it through other means.

Again: the NOVEL rules are thus not representative of the GAME world. What would give the novels primacy in depicting a world that was introduced to be part of a game? That is absurd.

Of course I would. The novels are all actual representations of Golarion while the game system is an abstraction designed for ease of play, because you cannot quantify everything in the world and thus have to cut corners in places.

I mean, Warhammer 40,000 started out as a game world too but nobody tries to pretend the tabletop game rules accurately represent the world in any capacity. That'd be absurd.

'Pathfinder Reality' doesn't allow for most of these either. We've got 10+ years of things that fit in Golarion for usages of abilities and skills. These don't fit. Even when PF Tales characters are bizarre hybrids of fighter/wizard/sorcerer/monk they don't do these sorts of thing.

Even if Aroden Himself were to show up, returned and unmurdered, if he pulled off most of these feats, I'd be asking some serious questions about the why and how of it.

People in Golarion start to have always been doing previously impossible things every time a new splatbook comes out, let alone a new edition. It's just the nature of how these things work.

I mean, Occult Adventures gave us a potential character who could cast "earthquake" 10,000 times in a day at zero cost to themselves and still get a full night's sleep (if there's anywhere flat to sleep after all those earthquakes) a feat previously impossible, which seems more glaring than "some people can survive long falls in an AMF now."

Of course I would. The novels are all actual representations of Golarion while the game system is an abstraction designed for ease of play, because you cannot quantify everything in the world and thus have to cut corners in places.

They're not, because Golarion the game world uses OGL and has Tieflings cast magic missile at a bulette while reaching for components from a handy haversack, whole Golarion the novel world can't use OGL and has hellspawn cast bolts of energy at a land shark while reaching for components from a bottomless sack.

Excaliburproxy wrote:

Again: the NOVEL rules are thus not representative of the GAME world. What would give the novels primacy in depicting a world that was introduced to be part of a game? That is absurd.

Of course I would. The novels are all actual representations of Golarion while the game system is an abstraction designed for ease of play, because you cannot quantify everything in the world and thus have to cut corners in places.

I mean, Warhammer 40,000 started out as a game world too but nobody tries to pretend the tabletop game rules accurately represent the world in any capacity. That'd be absurd.

Golarion in the novels is also an abstraction adapted by the author into the written word. Even if that is the version of the setting that you prefer, you are still choosing between two abstractions. The novels are at best a secondary source at best. The game and the adventures are a primary source and--I believe--the more canonical description of the setting.

I'm not going to let a novel I've never read tell me how the game I've been playing for years is "supposed" to work. If anything, it sounds like the novelists responsible for the books need a better understanding of how the game they're trying to emulate functions rather than just pretending Golarion is Gritty Low Magic Setting #3754,

It doesn't matter that they're not high level people. Even a 7th level PC can take quite a few blows before being incapacitated. But not the guys in Pathfinder Tales Novels. Similarly, they face thing way above their level and beat them in like two hits.

Do they indeed? Citation please. Chapter, if possible, so I don't have to search through the whole book to find said citation.

Salim, in The Redemption Engine, brings down an angel with one blow, not once, but twice. An Angel well above his level. He also takes wounds that impair him, even though he's not unconcious and thus he still has hit points. But he's being mechanically impaired by damage.

Really? You're sure they're above the level of Salim, the chosen instrument of Pharasma, Who wields a named artifact blade and is pretty much literally immortal. Who talks to CR 15 Outsiders like they're colleagues and whose direct superior is a demigod (ie: CR 26+)? I'd say all the evidence is that they are very much not.

Salim is hardcore. Frankly, in PF1, he's only really buildable with at least one Mythic Rank. I'd peg him as 14th or 15th level with a single Mythic Rank, personally.

Also, Salim didn't kill either of the angels in question personally in a single blow. One got coup de grace'd by someone else and the other he stabbed in the back while they were busy fighting (and presumably being injured) by someone else.

Additionally, assuming he has 6 levels of Inquisitor, BAB +12, Greater Vital Strike, and Mythic Vital Strike, Salim can deal something on the order of 3d8+6d6+75 damage in a single attack (that's over 109 damage on average, potentially as much as 135, more on a crit), and that's assuming he doesn't have any bonuses from his levels in martial Classes (which is unlikely, and could boost the damage even higher...if he had, say, 8 levels in Slayer and a Feat for +1d6 Sneak Attack, the average goes up to 125, and the max to 159). Him killing an even mildly injured Astral Deva is very plausible.

That point aside, yes, people in the books deal with injuries in a somewhat more realistic fashion than the rules might lead you to believe, because HP are indeed an abstraction. A representation of a host of things, getting tired and getting unlucky as much as physical harm if the Pathfinder Tales books are anything to go by. The fights get written in a somewhat more cinematic fashion to boot.

But y'know what's pretty much exactly the same? The outcomes. I've yet to see anything that gets done in a Pathfinder Tales book that couldn't be done by the Pathfinder rules. And generally vice versa in terms of accomplishing goals.

And you can see this in all the novels. All it means is that the game rules are not representative of the world. So going "well you see people in golarion can survive falls because of hit points" doesn't work.

Except surviving a fall is an outcome, not a varying cinematic description of how something got done, and the Pathfinder Tales never do a thing to argue with the outcomes in the RPG.

I'm not going to let a novel I've never read tell me how the game I've been playing for years is "supposed" to work. If anything, it sounds like the novelists responsible for the books need a better understanding of how the game they're trying to emulate functions rather than just pretending Golarion is Gritty Low Magic Setting #3754,

James Sutter wrote Salim's books, and he knows the system. Of course, as I just noted, I'm pretty sure I can build Salim as a character who does everything he does in the books.

I can actually probably do that with most Pathfinder Tales characters, come to think of it. Though not off the top of my head (I'd need to re-read the book in question for most of them).

I think we should bear in mind that all of these abilities are in relation to the narrative. Narrative demands that any legendary hero who spends their life of adventure leaping from tree to towering tree, stabbing Ancient Green Dragons in the neck from fifty stories up should be able to survive any given fall from said dragon through guile and skill.

It's not supposed to simulate an arbitrarily high fall over a featureless flat plane any more than Evasion is supposed to simulate being able to entirely evade six point-blank flamethrowers from every cubic direction while trapped in a five-foot-across room... Even though the rules support both scenarios, neither is an expected part of any adventure.

It's not a physics problem, it's a dynamic storytelling game. Even from a simulationist point of view, it's meant to simulate scenarios that will actually come up.

Casters may have magic, but everyone should have the power to influence the narrative.

Arachnofiend wrote:

I'm not going to let a novel I've never read tell me how the game I've been playing for years is "supposed" to work. If anything, it sounds like the novelists responsible for the books need a better understanding of how the game they're trying to emulate functions rather than just pretending Golarion is Gritty Low Magic Setting #3754,

James Sutter wrote Salim's books, and he knows the system. Of course, as I just noted, I'm pretty sure I can build Salim as a character who does everything he does in the books.

I can actually probably do that with most Pathfinder Tales characters, come to think of it. Though not off the top of my head (I'd need to re-read the book in question for most of them).

From your description it sounds like Salim's adventures are much more in line with how Pathfinder actually works than TheFinish advertised, yes.

From your description it sounds like Salim's adventures are much more in line with how Pathfinder actually works than TheFinish advertised, yes.

Salim's an example of what you get when a solo high level martial (well, he has Inquisitor levels...but no more than 6 or 7 of them) goes on high level adventures. It's interesting and he isn't always at full strength (not having unlimited healing), but I'd say there's a fair amount of accuracy there.

There's also quite a bit of accuracy in most of the other Pathfinder Tales, IMO, though they are, as mentioned, much lower level for the most part.

A lot of them avoid spell casting protagonists or use much closer to NPC than PC WBL, but while poor simulations of most PC groups, they make a pretty good stab at accurately representing the world and how it operates for the most part.

Arachnofiend wrote:

From your description it sounds like Salim's adventures are much more in line with how Pathfinder actually works than TheFinish advertised, yes.

Salim's an example of what you get when a solo high level martial (well, he has Inquisitor levels...but no more than 6 or 7 of them) goes on high level adventures. It's interesting and he isn't always at full strength (not having unlimited healing), but I'd say there's a fair amount of accuracy there.

There's also quite a bit of accuracy in most of the other Pathfinder Tales, IMO, though they are, as mentioned, much lower level for the most part.

A lot of them avoid spell casting protagonists or use much closer to NPC than PC WBL, but while poor simulations of most PC groups, they make a pretty good stab at accurately representing the world and how it operates for the most part.

*nods*

One of the conversations, I believe it was Sutter that relayed this, that most commonly occurred between the Tales writers and Sutter/PDT was “Hey, is what [Character] does here reasonable?”. They didn’t always go for exact rules, but they made sure everything would fit just fine in Golarion.

BPorter wrote:

Combat Monster wrote:

I keep seeing complaints that some don't want martials to have cool powers. That is fine. Don't use them at your tables.

Some of us would prefer to be more Thor than Conan or Aragorn. I'm all for more stuff. I'd appreciate it if you quit trying to dissuade Paizo from including stuff you don't like when the simple answer is to not use it if you and your table don't want it.

So, you'd appreciate it if your likes are met and mine are discarded? So you're opinion is more valid/valuable than mine? Got it.

While I disagree with BPorter on most of the things said in this thread, I'm with them here. This is absolutely not the place to be telling each other not to notify the developers when we have an issue.

I happen to have liked most everything in this playtest, and so have many others, but that doesn't mean that those with problems should be shushed down.

I completely understand the urge to protect what many feel is a good addition to the game, but the developers are good enough at their jobs to get a feel for the community's opinion, so long as everyone in that community feels comfortable actually sharing what they think about the new system.

The best way in my opinion would be to have Legendary included by default but easy to detach if need be. Going by what Mark said, that seems to be what they're trying to do with this. As I said before... I really want to be able to play Beowulf, but I'd also really like for other people to be able to play Conan if they want to as well.

This could be a system that works for a bunch of different playstyles, which would be a nice continuation of Pathfinder 1's versatility with hopefully a little more core-support.

The problem is that BPorter want to opposite. To start without the ability to play Beowulf, and if you want to add it it is your problem.

But if the game is structured about non spellcaster being "non-Beowulf", making them and maintaining some semblance of balance is very hard. If the game is balanced with non spellcaster being capable of legendary feats and you want to limit them to non-legendary feats it seem easier to balance it.
Limit it to level 15 or remove the legendary part of the feats and the last levels of spells and you have something that do what you want.

Nitro~Nina wrote:

BPorter wrote:

Combat Monster wrote:

I keep seeing complaints that some don't want martials to have cool powers. That is fine. Don't use them at your tables.

Some of us would prefer to be more Thor than Conan or Aragorn. I'm all for more stuff. I'd appreciate it if you quit trying to dissuade Paizo from including stuff you don't like when the simple answer is to not use it if you and your table don't want it.

So, you'd appreciate it if your likes are met and mine are discarded? So you're opinion is more valid/valuable than mine? Got it.

While I disagree with BPorter on most of the things said in this thread, I'm with them here. This is absolutely not the place to be telling each other not to notify the developers when we have an issue.

I happen to have liked most everything in this playtest, and so have many others, but that doesn't mean that those with problems should be shushed down.

I completely understand the urge to protect what many feel is a good addition to the game, but the developers are good enough at their jobs to get a feel for the community's opinion, so long as everyone in that community feels comfortable actually sharing what they think about the new system.

The best way in my opinion would be to have Legendary included by default but easy to detach if need be. Going by what Mark said, that seems to be what they're trying to do with this. As I said before... I really want to be able to play Beowulf, but I'd also really like for other people to be able to play Conan if they want to as well.

This could be a system that works for a bunch of different playstyles, which would be a nice continuation of Pathfinder 1's versatility with hopefully a little more core-support.

The problem is that BPorter want to opposite. To start without the ability to play Beowulf, and if you want to add it it is your problem.

But if the game is structured about non spellcaster being "non-Beowulf", making them and maintaining some...

I understand and agree with you; all I'm saying is that all opinions are valid and no-one should be told not to bring them up. Debate the points, don't deny their validity, is all I'm saying.

So, I think people seem to neglect lifting capacity when trying to figure out how realistic the game world is.

A level 1 barbarian with 20 str. can lift 700 lbs. overhead when raging. That is 119 lbs. over the official world record for a clean and jerk (581 lbs.) and very likely 100 lbs. higher than the maximum weight a human has ever lifted.

At level 1 characters are already doing the impossible.

I hope this is a over the top idea that gets whacked during the play test cause it's really bonkers to have this type stuff in the game as is.

Edit - I'm still a little salty over the horrible mythic rules...and even that was supposedly play tested? Probably paizo s version of 4e hiccup in my opinion.

I'm not going to let a novel I've never read tell me how the game I've been playing for years is "supposed" to work. If anything, it sounds like the novelists responsible for the books need a better understanding of how the game they're trying to emulate functions rather than just pretending Golarion is Gritty Low Magic Setting #3754,

This. Before reading DMW's posts, I was pretty worried that if I did read the books, I would completely miss the main content in favour of continuously calling out the inaccuracies when the way the setting work is expressly laid out. Arceus knows I do enough of that already.

PF was just an extension of 3.5 so no real work was done but even then the play test helped refine it.

I sincerely object to the indication that Paizo did no real work in creating Pathfinder from 3.5. There has been so much love and effort put into this game. A rather excellent set of rules adapted from the D20 system, a fun and imaginative world, a brilliant cast of characters, subsystems for almost any type of game you could want to play, an international multiplayer campaign system... Whether you like the game or not is down to personal preference and it's obviously not flawless, but the effort is undeniable.

As to the rest of your post, they're doing this playtest because they care about the community's opinions, and they care about making the best game possible for as many people as possible. I have no doubt that the development team could produce a great game on their own, but they care too much about their craft and their players to settle for that.

Remember, they don't even need to make a new game. PF1 was still doing well last time I checked.

I would have liked to have seen some more of the “help the group” skill feats that I thought existed.

I would like to see how a Master of Disguise can help a bunch of untrained Barbarians accompany him without blowing the cover. A feat allowing a master of Stealth to guide a squad of people past the guard posts surrounding a camp.

I’ve seen a lot of cases in PF1 where a specialist really can’t take full advantage of their abilities because the rest of the group was untrained. I thought I had read in one of the posts about feats that would allow the character to help the others because they were just that awesome.

The problem is that BPorter want to opposite. To start without the ability to play Beowulf, and if you want to add it it is your problem.

But if the game is structured about non spellcaster being "non-Beowulf", making them and maintaining some...

Actually, what I said was that I would not use Legendary tier ability in my games but if others liked Legendary tier stuff, that's cool.

Other than expounding on why I thought the Legendary stuff was problematic, in contrast to the "there is already absurd stuff in PF1" posts riffing off of my comments, I suggested that it would be easier to add Legendary tier capabilities in a later supplement (as was done with Mythic) rather than baking it into the core rulebook. Beyond that, I haven't said fans of Legendary tier abilities shouldn't get rules support.

The "problem" arose when people chose to interpret that as "you're taking away my toys". The low-point being when I was asked to no longer share my opinions because the Paizo devs might read them and listen to them. This seems rather counter-productive to the goals of an upcoming playtest.

This is a new edition, so all the arguments of "PF1 can do X" don't really mean that much. Some fans want the power curve to always go up, starting at level 1; the faster the demigod status is reached, the better.

I'd prefer PF2 flatten the power curve to better represent heroic fantasy, which, let's face it, is far more of an influence on the genre of high fantasy and the game than the trials of Heracles or Beowulf's saga. Yes, that means I'd prefer if spellcasters' power levels were curbed rather than expanded.

The legendary skill feat examples presented in the blog don't seem awesome to me. Rather, they seem to turn the game into... well, a joke with an auto-win cheat code, sadly.

That's it. I'm a fan and a customer voicing my opinion. Since Legendary tier is already baked into the game, I don't really expect it to change. If offering a differing opinion from the those who want over-the-top power levels is truly a threat to the evolution of the game, maybe the fanbase for those capabilities isn't large but just very vocal.

If someone offering a differing opinion while still saying "if you like it that's cool offends you... well, best of luck with the public playtest. You might want to buckle up. (btw, that's the generic use of 'you', not Diego Rossi or anyone else specifically)

BPorter, you're not alone in your views. I was thinking more about the example Legendary skill abilities, and what came to mind is that they felt like great examples of what Mythic rules might look like in PF2, but aren't something I want in the core rules. I strongly believe that there's room in the game for full 20th level high fantasy support without it simply becoming mythic.

By adding "mythic" style legendary rules into core, I strongly feel like it's getting peanut butter in my chocolate. I might like both separately, but don't necessarily like them combined (which admittedly wasn't the point of the Reeses Peanut But Cup commercials). It's great to have these types of abilities as an add on system for games that want to emulate characters becommming demi-gods and such, but please keep it out of my high fantasy heroism default game.

Question: for those who feel that Legendary skills are too close to mythic, what are your proposed alternatives, and how do they remain somewhat impressive compared to things like 6th-8th level spells?

"Please keep X out of my game."

Is such a weird thing to say, because it isn't just your game. It's everyone's game. I want non-magical characters to do cool things. And having an option to just say: "No Legendary Proficiency" if you don't want to allow rad things in the game. But by having the option in there from the get-go, it means we can have superheroic high level adventures for more than just spellcasters.

The biggest complaint I hear from my players when we get to high levels is from the martials/skilled characters (fighters/rogue types) saying that they don't feel they are contributing enough to the narrative. They regret their class choice because without spells they are barely able to nudge the needle as far as narrative is concerned.

So PF2e is directly addressing this issue, which is definitely not localized to my table (see every thread about caster/martial disparity), and people are mad that martials can do rad things and how dare they include this in the core rulebook instead of relegating it to a later book that can be safely ignored (you know like Mythic was).

The biggest complaint I hear from my players when we get to high levels is from the martials/skilled characters (fighters/rogue types) saying that they don't feel they are contributing enough to the narrative. They regret their class choice because without spells they are barely able to nudge the needle as far as narrative is concerned.

So PF2e is directly addressing this issue, which is definitely not localized to my table (see every thread about caster/martial disparity), and people are mad that martials can do rad things and how dare they include this in the core rulebook instead of relegating it to a later book that can be safely ignored (you know like Mythic was).

I don't really understand this line of reasoning. By definition everything the protagonists do and say affects narrative (though I suspect you may be using a nonstandard definition of that term).

PS. It did, briefly, occur to me that you meant 'directly', but very few Spells actually do that in PF1 and none of the Skill Feats previewed for PF2 do so I remain puzzled.