Feats of Skill

Forgot to mention that I absolutely love that skill feats (and perhaps other feats as well?) scale up with your proficiency bonus! Finally! :)

And one generic tip of my dented dwarven helmet to the developers for the "unified" format and scale in the sense that feats, items, spells and monsters all are classified by level. I hope that the "black bar" is also used in the book's final layout, because it's a very good "divider" and makes it easy to differentiate each item/feat/spell/etecetera from each other.

Crayon wrote:

While I'm sure there are as many reasons for groups abandoning APs as there are groups playing the things, I would think that the fact they're supposed to take 2-3 years to complete is probably a much greater contributor to why many people never finish them.

They are? I thought they were supposed to take six months to complete, and my group was just slow.

Release of one book per month seems to suggest they expect people to finish each book in a month (or at least within 4ish session of play).

I'm fine with being wrong on that, it's just the assumption I've always had.

There's no way anyone's finishing an AP in six months - well, I guess if you played all weekend you could get it done, but not with any form of normal play density. 2-3 years seems more likely.

As a public example, just because I've recently started to listen to it, take the Glass Cannon podcast. They started playing the Giantslayer AP. I'm not that far into it yet, but it took them about 30 sessions, each of which is about 60-90 minutes long, to get through part one. Let's call it 35 hours. That's about 12 sessions of playing, if you include the traditional catching up every week and so on. If you play every week, that's about three months. Multiply by six and you get a year and a half. And many people don't play every week, they play maybe every other week or every month.

The idea behind the rapid release rate of the APs is so that there will be a greater chance of an AP that appeals to you being around. That, and Paizo having been built around a magazine publishing structure and that having carried over to the APs.

gwynfrid wrote:

Naturally, every PC does impact the narrative, but the folks Dudemeister is talking about feel that their impact is negligible relative to that of casters at high level. I think that assessment is correct. It's the most common and old complaint about the game, and in my opinion, a major reason why the first couple of books of any AP see a lot more play than the end book.

While I'm sure there are as many reasons for groups abandoning APs as there are groups playing the things, I would think that the fact they're supposed to take 2-3 years to complete is probably a much greater contributor to why many people never finish them.

gwynfrid wrote:

Short list of spells that directly change the narrative of the story: Discern Lies, Find the Path, Heal, Resurrection, Teleport, True Seeing. This is just a small sample of the most famous ones. There is nothing any of the martials can do that comes close in terms of story impact.

And, indeed, the Skill Feats reviewed so far don't match that impact either (except possibly Legendary Medic). Still, they feel like something of import a non-caster can do, closing some of the gap. If top-tier spells get a bit of a tweak down at the same time, then we may get somewhere that doesn't feel so grossly unbalanced anymore.

I'm not intimately familiar with all the spells listed and am away from by books, but those spells I do know don't really change the game's narrative beyond the obvious point of removing an obstacle (similar to hitting things with a stick). Granted, they resolve different types of obstacles, but then isn't that the point of a class-based system?

Besides, even if the GM does mess up and create a scenario where a given spell basically ruins the adventure, how does the inclusion of Skill Feats (Legendary or not) prevent that? If anything, it would seem to make such scenarios far more likely.

The issue here isn't that the problems are being solved. The issue is one type of character holds all the power to solve them. This might be OK if the martial classes really had the market cornered on combat. But casters can exceed martials there too. Heck, martials aren't even the best at skills, compared to a wizard or Bard.

Legendary skill feats present a way for martial characters to contribute more in and out of combat.

jimthegray wrote:

not seeing over powered, most can be done by a low level caster

We actually don't know that. They could in PF1, but we don't know how something like Feather Fall works in PF2.

I suspect you're partially right, but only partially...and that's just a suspicion. We don't really know anything.

Exactly this, given the example from Mark about Legendary Medicine being the best option I'm quite sure that several spell got nerfed.

bookrat wrote:

Crayon wrote:

While I'm sure there are as many reasons for groups abandoning APs as there are groups playing the things, I would think that the fact they're supposed to take 2-3 years to complete is probably a much greater contributor to why many people never finish them.

They are? I thought they were supposed to take six months to complete, and my group was just slow.

Release of one book per month seems to suggest they expect people to finish each book in a month (or at least within 4ish session of play).

I'm fine with being wrong on that, it's just the assumption I've always had.

There's no way anyone's finishing an AP in six months - well, I guess if you played all weekend you could get it done, but not with any form of normal play density. 2-3 years seems more likely.

2-3 years? My group just finished the Hardcover Crimson Throne, I was gming, in 13 months. We play once a week, 4.5 hours per session. We thought 13 months was slow, and there were a few unscripted side treks. I figure the average AP takes 12-18 months, if you play once a week. We did Reign of Winter in 12 months, and Rise of the Runelords in 14. Maybe we play longer than an average group does once a week though, not sure about that.

Exactly this, given the example of Mark about Legendary Medicine being the best option I quite sure that several spell got nerfed.

What they've specifically said is that spells that replace skills generally now either give you a decent result on the Skill (maybe by letting you use another Skill), or a bonus to the Skill rather than auto succeeding.

Discern Lies, for example, now just gives a +4 bonus on Perception checks to determine whether someone is lying.

Whether, and how, that effects things like condition removal spells we'll need to wait and see, and I wouldn't necessarily expect it to effect something like Feather Fall at all, but it certainly will effect something like Disguise Self (which I am positive will be useful...but equally positive will not grant a +10 bonus on Disguise, and may well take more than a round to cast).

We certainly shouldn't just make a blanket assumption that because something is seemingly worse than a PF1 spell it's worse than the PF2 version of that spell.

2-3 years? My group just finished the Hardcover Crimson Throne, I was gming, in 13 months. We play once a week, 4.5 hours per session. We thought 13 months was slow, and there were a few unscripted side treks. I figure the average AP takes 12-18 months, if you play once a week. We did Reign of Winter in 12 months, and Rise of the Runelords in 14. Maybe we play longer than an average group does once a week though, not sure about that.

This more or less matches up with my experience (though we go a trifle faster with less side treks). I suspect the people citing 2-3 years don't play every week. Every two weeks gives more or less exactly that result, just by doubling your timeline.

edduardco wrote:

Exactly this, given the example of Mark about Legendary Medicine being the best option I quite sure that several spell got nerfed.

What they've specifically said is that spells that replace skills generally now either give you a decent result on the Skill (maybe by letting you use another Skill), or a bonus to the Skill rather than auto succeeding.

Discern Lies, for example, now just gives a +4 bonus on Perception checks to determine whether someone is lying.

Whether, and how, that effects things like condition removal spells we'll need to wait and see, and I wouldn't necessarily expect it to effect something like Feather Fall at all, but it certainly will effect something like Disguise Self (which I am positive will be useful...but equally positive will not grant a +10 bonus on Disguise, and may well take more than a round to cast).

I think spells like Feather Fall are going to have a cap on the number of feets that mitigate the damage with the option of Heightening in order to not make Cat Fall look bad, or Fly most probably is going to require maintain Concentration.

We certainly shouldn't just make a blanket assumption that because something is seemingly worse than a PF1 spell it's worse than the PF2 version of that spell.

Maybe you are right, but that still looks like a nerf to power level to me.

You're kidding yourself if you thought caster power was going to stay at its same astronomical levels. Of course casters are getting nerfed, that needed to happen for the game to function at all at high levels.

You're kidding yourself if you thought caster power was going to stay at its same astronomical levels. Of course casters are getting nerfed, that needed to happen for the game to function at all at high levels.

I knew that there will be nerfs, but not so severe or many, this is starting to look worse than 5e

I think spells like Feather Fall are going to have a cap on the number of feets that mitigate the damage with the option of Heightening in order to not make Cat Fall look bad, or Fly most probably is going to require maintain Concentration.

Not necessarily. Feather Fall is an investment of a spell, or spell known, after all. And can only be done once per usage. Catfall is unlimited in uses, and is only a Trained Skill Feat rather than something difficult to acquire. I wouldn't be surprised if Feather Fall is limited, but it also might not be.

As for Fly, I wouldn't necessarily expect it to be limited in that specific way, but I'd also expect a fairly limited duration.

Maybe you are right, but that still looks like a nerf to power level to me.

Actually, I was saying we shouldn't judge Skill Feats by PF1 spell standards because PF2 spells weren't the same.

But now that you bring it up, I strongly believe that combat spells have not been nerfed at all. Utility spells, specifically of the sort that eliminate the need for skills? Those have turned into buff spells for the skill in question. Whether that's a power up or a power down will depend on the group in question and how good they are at that skill without magic.

For example, for a group with someone with really good Perception, the +4 from PF2 Discern Lies is probably better than the PF1 version (which simply forced a Save), while for a group with bad Perception overall it's probably worse. See, a +4 increases your odds of spotting a lie by 20%. If that drives the chance higher than their chance of failing a Save, it's a net gain, if it doesn't it's a net loss.

Arachnofiend wrote:

You're kidding yourself if you thought caster power was going to stay at its same astronomical levels. Of course casters are getting nerfed, that needed to happen for the game to function at all at high levels.

I knew that there will be nerfs, but not so severe or many, this is starting to look worse than 5e

I'm not sure what 5E game your playing, but I've found that spell casting has broken combat in the adventure were currently running so badly that it has trivialized almost every encounter. Casters were certainly not nerfed in Dungeons and Dragons based on my experience. However I also know that my experience doesn't suddenly invalidate the possibility that martials are far stronger in 5E that I have seen.

On the topic of skill feats I love them and cannot wait to test them out when the Playtest releases.

edduardco wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

You're kidding yourself if you thought caster power was going to stay at its same astronomical levels. Of course casters are getting nerfed, that needed to happen for the game to function at all at high levels.

I knew that there will be nerfs, but not so severe or many, this is starting to look worse than 5e

I'm not sure what 5E game your playing, but I've found that spell casting has broken combat in the adventure were currently running so badly that it has trivialized almost every encounter. Casters were certainly not nerfed in Dungeons and Dragons based on my experience. However I also know that my experience doesn't suddenly invalidate the possibility that martials are far stronger in 5E that I have seen.

On the topic of skill feats I love them and cannot wait to test them out when the Playtest releases.

I GM for a solo Level 20 Necromancer, and he destroys mid level adventures (designed for 5 Level 14-16 PCs). We're about to start some Level 17-20 adventures just to see if he can do it. I strongly suspect this one single PC will be able to complete modules designed for a group of 5 Level 20s, because 5e mages are still strong as all get up, despite the nerfs 5e had done.

I admit that I initially balked at Cat Fall due to the players at my table as well as myself really enjoying that feeling of “we could really, really, die due to falling off the cliff”

If you wanted to die falling off a cliff, wouldn't you just... not take the feat that lets you not die falling off a cliff?

Icy Turbo wrote:

edduardco wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

You're kidding yourself if you thought caster power was going to stay at its same astronomical levels. Of course casters are getting nerfed, that needed to happen for the game to function at all at high levels.

I knew that there will be nerfs, but not so severe or many, this is starting to look worse than 5e

I'm not sure what 5E game your playing, but I've found that spell casting has broken combat in the adventure were currently running so badly that it has trivialized almost every encounter. Casters were certainly not nerfed in Dungeons and Dragons based on my experience. However I also know that my experience doesn't suddenly invalidate the possibility that martials are far stronger in 5E that I have seen.

On the topic of skill feats I love them and cannot wait to test them out when the Playtest releases.

I GM for a solo Level 20 Necromancer, and he destroys mid level adventures (designed for 5 Level 14-16 PCs). We're about to start some Level 17-20 adventures just to see if he can do it. I strongly suspect this one single PC will be able to complete modules designed for a group of 5 Level 20s, because 5e mages are still strong as all get up, despite the nerfs 5e had done.

This really surprise me given the low number of spells per day at higher levels

bookrat wrote:

Crayon wrote:

While I'm sure there are as many reasons for groups abandoning APs as there are groups playing the things, I would think that the fact they're supposed to take 2-3 years to complete is probably a much greater contributor to why many people never finish them.

They are? I thought they were supposed to take six months to complete, and my group was just slow.

Release of one book per month seems to suggest they expect people to finish each book in a month (or at least within 4ish session of play).

I'm fine with being wrong on that, it's just the assumption I've always had.

There's no way anyone's finishing an AP in six months - well, I guess if you played all weekend you could get it done, but not with any form of normal play density. 2-3 years seems more likely.

I got that time frame stuck in my head because when Starfinder came out, they announced the first AP would be released once every two months. And man, were there complaints on the forums over that. "What will we play while we're waiting for the next book?! Two months is way too long!"

And yet, if the average game took one year, two months would be the perfect release schedule. But it seemed that was not the case for quite a few people, as they complained that two months was too long.

I still remember one guy saying his group completed Book 1 in a single weekend, playing both Saturday and Sunday.

I walked away from that thread feeling like my own group, usually giving up on an AP after a year, were the slow players of Paizo customers.

This really surprise me given the low number of spells per day at higher levels

Wizards and a few other full casters have an ability to regain half their spell slots on a short rest, once per long rest. So depending on their spell usage, they could have up to 1.5x what's listed in the book. Plus they can have some class abilities allowing them to cast a couple of lower level spells more times per day.

edduardco wrote:

This really surprise me given the low number of spells per day at higher levels

Wizards and a few other full casters have an ability to regain half their spell slots on a short rest, once per long rest. So depending on their spell usage, they could have up to 1.5x what's listed in the book. Plus they can have some class abilities allowing them to cast a couple of lower level spells more times per day.

I guess that thanks to Bounded Accuracy low level spells keep their effectiveness.

Staffan Johansson wrote:

bookrat wrote:

Crayon wrote:

While I'm sure there are as many reasons for groups abandoning APs as there are groups playing the things, I would think that the fact they're supposed to take 2-3 years to complete is probably a much greater contributor to why many people never finish them.

They are? I thought they were supposed to take six months to complete, and my group was just slow.

Release of one book per month seems to suggest they expect people to finish each book in a month (or at least within 4ish session of play).

I'm fine with being wrong on that, it's just the assumption I've always had.

There's no way anyone's finishing an AP in six months - well, I guess if you played all weekend you could get it done, but not with any form of normal play density. 2-3 years seems more likely.

I got that time frame stuck in my head because when Starfinder came out, they announced the first AP would be released once every two months. And man, were there complaints on the forums over that. "What will we play while we're waiting for the next book?! Two months is way too long!"

And yet, if the average game took one year, two months would be the perfect release schedule. But it seemed that was not the case for quite a few people, as they complained that two months was too long.

I still remember one guy saying his group completed Book 1 in a single weekend, playing both Saturday and Sunday.

I walked away from that thread feeling like my own group, usually giving up on an AP after a year, were the slow players of Paizo customers.

Purely anecdotal, but I've played with one group who knocked out 3/4 of Incident at Absalom Station in a single 5 hour session (which was also the first Starfinder game for most of the players, and the first TTRPG ever for two of them), another group that finished Rise of the Runelords in about a year almost exactly, and then yet another group who still haven't haven't finished Iron Gods after a couple years of infrequent sessions. My impression has been that if you're playing regular weekly sessions for about 4-6 hours, you should be able to wrap an average Pathfinder AP in about a year, and it seems like the Starfinder APs go a bit quicker.

Wizards and a few other full casters have an ability to regain half their spell slots on a short rest, once per long rest. So depending on their spell usage, they could have up to 1.5x what's listed in the book. Plus they can have some class abilities allowing them to cast a couple of lower level spells more times per day.

I think you should reread that ability. It's half your wizard level, rounded up, in spell slots, with none of the slots being higher than 5th level. So a 12th level wizard could recover slots with a total level of 6 - so 5+1, 4+2, 3+3, 4+1+1, or something like that. They do not recover half their total spell slots. It is basically the same as getting one of your highest-level slots back, at least up to 10th level.

I got that time frame stuck in my head because when Starfinder came out, they announced the first AP would be released once every two months. And man, were there complaints on the forums over that. "What will we play while we're waiting for the next book?! Two months is way too long!"

Even if you average 8 sessions per Book (which not everyone does, I mentioned averaging 6 earlier), that's gonna be an average. What happens if you finish a book extra quick?

And then there's people who want the whole AP before they start running it, and that's not a small group (heck, I'm part of that group for the most part).

One per two months is just a bit slow for most people.

bookrat wrote:

Wizards and a few other full casters have an ability to regain half their spell slots on a short rest, once per long rest. So depending on their spell usage, they could have up to 1.5x what's listed in the book. Plus they can have some class abilities allowing them to cast a couple of lower level spells more times per day.

I think you should reread that ability. It's half your wizard level, rounded up, in spell slots, with none of the slots being higher than 5th level. So a 12th level wizard could recover slots with a total level of 6 - so 5+1, 4+2, 3+3, 4+1+1, or something like that. They do not recover half their total spell slots. It is basically the same as getting one of your highest-level slots back, at least up to 10th level.

Ah yes, you're right. But still, it's more than simply what's listed.

(That's what I get for trying to do it based on memory)

edduardco wrote:

Exactly this, given the example of Mark about Legendary Medicine being the best option I quite sure that several spell got nerfed.

Whether, and how, that effects things like condition removal spells we'll need to wait and see,

My prediction: Removing things like Curses will come down to the level of the spell cast. A 3rd level Remove Curse (or its equivalent, see 2nd prediction) will auto-remove a curse from a 1st or 2nd level slot, but will need to roll a check to remove a 4th level curse.

This is consistent with Mark's specific comments comparing Legendary Medic to high level condition removal spells IIRC, and with how spells like Detect Magic interacts with illusions of different spell levels or Dispel Magic auto-succeeding on lower level spells. How this will interact with non-spell conditions like poison, but since items also now have levels it may be something similar.

A prediction I'm less sure about: while spells will have a tougher time removing conditions than they used to, there will be less specific spells to do it with. So Remove Curse will be gone, and Dispel Magic will now be able to effect curses. This is consistent with different versions of the same spell getting collapsed into each other, there seeming to be a smaller number of conditions, and no mention of clerics being able to leave slots open for later in the day.

If I'm right, this is very good news for spontaneous casters being able to fill the healer role.

Combat Monster wrote:

I don't think any of us believe that magic users are going to be gimped to close the gap with martials, so we need to boost the martial to be able to compete with high level magic users.

I do, for what has been revealed so far I think casters are being nerfed, the actual playtest documents will reveal how much

Good, they deserve to be nerfed.

So Legendary is only for Signature Skills, and you only get one Signature Skill, which is locked in based on your class?

Legendary is only for signature skills, yes.

You get more than one signature skill for each class, and there's at least one skill feat that adds to signature skills

as far as we know you get more than 1 signature skill from class (I think there was mention of Druid having 4?) and there's supposedly ways to get them outside of class.

So Legendary is only for Signature Skills, and you only get one Signature Skill, which is locked in based on your class?

No.

Legendary and Master are only for Signature Skills, but you get several from your Class (Druid gets at least 4, for example, and we know Cleric gets at least that many as well), and can get other in other ways (though we have yet to be told how).

Alvah wrote:

2-3 years? My group just finished the Hardcover Crimson Throne, I was gming, in 13 months. We play once a week, 4.5 hours per session. We thought 13 months was slow, and there were a few unscripted side treks. I figure the average AP takes 12-18 months, if you play once a week. We did Reign of Winter

This more or less matches up with my experience (though we go a trifle faster with less side treks). I suspect the people citing 2-3 years don't play every week. Every two weeks gives more or less exactly that result, just by doubling your timeline.

Skull & Shackles took about 2 1/2 years, with a 3 hour evening session most weeks, but there were a fair few side treks added on to the plot.

Giantslayer is just starting book 4 after 2 years, one 7-8 hour sessions per month. If it's dragging it's because the ref has issues keeping the naughty end of the table under control.
Strange Aeons is halfway through book 4 after a year of irregular play, but that's a 3 man party, so everything goes faster.
RotRL was about 2 years. CotCT took forever because of scheduling issues - I think there were over 4 years between the first and last sessions. But I do remember we did most of book 3 in one all day session.
My gut feeling is that 2 years is about average.

Me: Hasn’t finished an AP in less than 5 years.

None of that affects the narrative though. Besides, all four examples are basically identical - solving challenge put in by the DM.

I have no idea how you see "Going on an adventure for a week or more" is narratively equivalent to solving a crisis immediately.

It's interesting, however, that to me your example PF1 sounds far more entertaining than the PF2 one as it leads to potential for adventures rather than just casting a spell that's not a spell or rolling a skill check.

Then do that sort of quest at an appropriate level? That's like complaining level 1 kobold warrens aren't a threat to level 15 characters...

Crayon wrote:

While I'm sure there are as many reasons for groups abandoning APs as there are groups playing the things, I would think that the fact they're supposed to take 2-3 years to complete is probably a much greater contributor to why many people never finish them.

They are? I thought they were supposed to take six months to complete, and my group was just slow.

Release of one book per month seems to suggest they expect people to finish each book in a month (or at least within 4ish session of play).

I'm fine with being wrong on that, it's just the assumption I've always had.

When my playing group and I where younger and we played 5-8 ore or more every week we would have been able to finish an AP in 6 months. Now that we play 3-4 hours every week it take about 2 years.

Crayon what is your definition of narrative? Because to me it isn't merely the end result of events but the journey as well. How long and how hard it is to achieve something absolutely is important to narrative. An epidemic that gets cured by the various faiths pooling resources in a few days is a much different story than thousands dying while a small band of adventurers traverse the mountains looking for the rare Meiklar Orchid held in the halls of the mountain giant Bromar. Yeah end result "The disease got cured" but the narrative is vastly different.

Especially for the thousand of dead. :-/

If you have a rampant epidemy neither remove disease or a few guys with a Legendary feat will make the difference.

A cleric devoting every slot to remove disease will have 8 spells at level 9 (assuming that a level 3 remove disease is enough, Mark said that for some disease higher spell level are needed for a good chance to cure the patient). Let's say that you have a 75% chance of success as an average of the different spell levels. That is 6 guys cured in a day.

Our legendary healer? Working all day he could cure 18 persons with near 100% chance of success.

6 level 5 doctors with a 25% chance of success will heal the same number of people working overtime like the legendary healer. Sure, the recovery time will be longer, but it is easier to find 5 doctors than 1 level 15+ legendary healer and 1 level 9 cleric.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Rob Godfrey wrote:

JoelF847 wrote:

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.

then remove either casters or martials from the game. CMD is really that bad.

At that point you can remove the game from the game.

There are good games with very little magic or magic only in the hands of NPCs, but those aren't D&D derivates. Very far off from Pathfinder intended target.

and to keep competitive martials need to be mythic (in fact it works fairly well as a fudge in PF1 as well, give martials a mythic level or 2 and they matter again), otherwise it has been wall to wall hybrid and pure casters in my experience.

If you want to be competitive in things outside "killing the enemy way faster" you need to devote resources to do that. That will probably reduce the damage you deal, but that is a choice you will have to make.

Too often people using that argument at some point slip and let out that the caracter has 8 intelligence and/or wisdom, has traded away the human extra skill points for other stuff and spend the preferred class points for something different from the extra skill to think that it is only a problem of how the classes are made.

You guys consider a barbarian a martial? He has a good set of extra abilities.

How about paladins and rangers? Martials or casters? Monks?

Yes, the figther has received less support until recently (item mastery feats), but narrative power is as much in the hands of the players as it is dependant on the ruleset.

Spellcaster are dependant on everything working their way: time to recover spells, having the right spells and so on. Most AP don't emphasize that, but it isn't automatic that they always have things going their way. The GM need to challenge that every so often.

Rob Godfrey wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Rob Godfrey wrote:

JoelF847 wrote:

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.

then remove either casters or martials from the game. CMD is really that bad.

At that point you can remove the game from the game.

There are good games with very little magic or magic only in the hands of NPCs, but those aren't D&D derivates. Very far off from Pathfinder intended target.

and to keep competitive martials need to be mythic (in fact it works fairly well as a fudge in PF1 as well, give martials a mythic level or 2 and they matter again), otherwise it has been wall to wall hybrid and pure casters in my experience.

If you want to be competitive in things outside "killing the enemy way faster" you need to devote resources to do that. That will probably reduce the damage you deal, but that is a choice you will have to make.

Too often people using that argument at some point slip and let out that the caracter has 8 intelligence and/or wisdom, has traded away the human extra skill points for other stuff and spend the preferred class points for something different from the extra skill to think that it is only a problem of how...

While you are right that int dumping unskilled humans will have almost 0 out of combat relevance. The problem with the must devote resources is that martial have 3 options: They can be good at combat, which casters beat them at for all relevant encounters; They can be good at skills, which are often useless and the caster is better at them (why climb or swim?); or they can be balanced (some skills and some combat), but then the caster could already do both.

Regardless this is not the thread to go over that, as its about feats. Its easier to just go to another of the caster vs martial thread instead of derailing this one.

Shortened for forum readers sake.

The problem with all that is it applies to casters just as much (in PF1 and PF2) as it does for martials. Spellcasters have all the same options for picking up out of combat abilities as Martials AND have spells with more in combat and out of combat utility. People keep saying like skills are this massive boon to martials. They aren't, they are a massive boon to everyone.

Why are you guys arguing PF1 CMD on the play test forums?

Diego Rossi wrote:

Shortened for forum readers sake.

The problem with all that is it applies to casters just as much (in PF1 and PF2) as it does for martials. Spellcasters have all the same options for picking up out of combat abilities as Martials AND have spells with more in combat and out of combat utility. People keep saying like skills are this massive boon to martials. They aren't, they are a massive boon to everyone.

Well I don't think anyone is saying its just for martials, just that it helps them more. For example (assuming no items): In pf1 at lv 15, you had 3 choices for fall dmg: Survive due to a class ability (ex: be a ninja or paladin), that most classes lack; Be a caster, aka free pass; Or, straight up die (classes without anti-fall abilities). In pf2 they added: If you are really worry about fall dmg, here take this feat and be at least master at acrobatics (which sounds like all classes could take it).

So by adding that one feat they prevented casters (and a few martials coughninjacough) from being the only chars that could survived a large fall without dedicated anti-falling items. It also means casters who take the feat and signature skill can save up on a few spells if feather fall is still in the game.

Why are you guys arguing PF1 CMD on the play test forums?

Because people want to make sure one of the biggest flaws in the pf1 system, a whole set of classes who at high level serve as a glorified meat shield (in the worst cases), is removed or at least fixed to a degree.

(Separate post to keep the C/MD discussion out of my view on skill feats themselves).

My views on skill feats, at the moment they seem to really add diversity of what characters can o without having to multiclass. Allowing for a player to either remain consistent, ex: I like this set of skill I will always choose them. To always changing, one time you could be a charming fighter fascinating people left and right, the next you could be a healing fighter capable of helping the main healer save up on resources. Auto-scaling also makes them very nice as it avoids having to pay feat taxes to gain the better abilities.

My one concern is the amount of feats. What I mean is that there are only so many feats that each skill can have before they just start to either repeat with ever stronger effects (making early edition skill feats null); or, they simply change the rules of what previous feat already did (ex: Add another condition to Medical Miracle) which may later make the original feat a feat tax.

bookrat wrote:

Crayon wrote:

While I'm sure there are as many reasons for groups abandoning APs as there are groups playing the things, I would think that the fact they're supposed to take 2-3 years to complete is probably a much greater contributor to why many people never finish them.

They are? I thought they were supposed to take six months to complete, and my group was just slow.

Release of one book per month seems to suggest they expect people to finish each book in a month (or at least within 4ish session of play).

I'm fine with being wrong on that, it's just the assumption I've always had.

When my playing group and I where younger and we played 5-8 ore or more every week we would have been able to finish an AP in 6 months. Now that we play 3-4 hours every week it take about 2 years.

It also matters how much of a tendency a group has to insert their own side plots into an AP rather than just move only where prompted.

Diego Rossi wrote:

bookrat wrote:

Crayon wrote:

While I'm sure there are as many reasons for groups abandoning APs as there are groups playing the things, I would think that the fact they're supposed to take 2-3 years to complete is probably a much greater contributor to why many people never finish them.

They are? I thought they were supposed to take six months to complete, and my group was just slow.

Release of one book per month seems to suggest they expect people to finish each book in a month (or at least within 4ish session of play).

I'm fine with being wrong on that, it's just the assumption I've always had.

When my playing group and I where younger and we played 5-8 ore or more every week we would have been able to finish an AP in 6 months. Now that we play 3-4 hours every week it take about 2 years.

It also matters how much of a tendency a group has to insert their own side plots into an AP rather than just move only where prompted.

Or just interact more with existing things not really relevant to the plot. I've had games that crawled forward because players spend tons of time role-playing with random NPCs they liked.

Why are you guys arguing PF1 CMD on the play test forums?

I blame goblins... That are paladins... Using poison...

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Why are you guys arguing PF1 CMD on the play test forums?

I blame goblins... That are paladins... Using poison...

That are Chaotic Neutral with oversized weapons.

Really? Legendary Cat Fall means you can fall from a height of 1,000 feet and take literally no damage whatsoever? I don't know how I feel about that. While it would certainly take a lot of feats to accomplish this, it seems a bit cartoonish to me. I realize characters are superheroes, but zero damage from this sort of thing is bit much for me. At least this ability is behind a ton of feats costs. Will take some getting used to, if possible. Seems like "mythic" all over again.

Legendary Thief skill will undoubtedly need to have concise wording for GMs so that players don't take advantage of it.

That said, the necessary houserule to avoid them is easy to employ and doesn't even penalize the PCs compared to a more well-rounded build: Just tell them they can't raise a skill to legendary rank, even when they hit 15th. They can still use the skill rank increases to get another master skill and another expert instead, and then the whole group wins if they aren't into legendary skill feats :)

If the devs are saying legendary can be house-ruled out without effecting other rules, then I'm ok with that. My fear would be ruining other aspects of the game when removing them. It is OK, in my opinion, to keep the rules in core, as the more options the better for those players who want them. But Legendary ability starting at level 15 seems a bit much; epic/mythic should be 20+ in my opinion, so in my games legendary would be prohibited if they don't make sense or fit or are too cartoonish- which the legendary proficiency appear to be (again, for those that like this sort of thing, that's fine, but it's not for me). if people want to play Thor, more power to them, leave the rules in! But also leave an out for those who don't want that silliness. I wonder what the general consensus is on these legendary skills?

BPorter uses the vacuum of space as an example for Survival Assurance...will it mean players can ignore basic physics? That's the part that bothers me.

I believe overall the skill system could be a better way to go about playing. Removing perception and not allowing "skill points" to be put only into a few skills should make for better, more interesting character builds, especially for martials.

Going to back to the Legendary Thief...stealing plate mail off a fighter who is standing at attention? This just defies logic. I can understand unbuckling all the holds and such, but then stealing the item from them without them even noticing is just preposterous.

A "fix" talked about was to explain legendary actions as magical. Well, does that mean dispel magic can have an effect on it?

Really? Legendary Cat Fall means you can fall from a height of 1,000 feet and take literally no damage whatsoever? I don't know how I feel about that. While it would certainly take a lot of feats to accomplish this, it seems a bit cartoonish to me. I realize characters are superheroes, but zero damage from this sort of thing is bit much for me. At least this ability is behind a ton of feats costs. Will take some getting used to, if possible. Seems like "mythic" all over again.

Legendary Thief skill will undoubtedly need to have concise wording for GMs so that players don't take advantage of it.

Mark Seifter wrote:

That said, the necessary houserule to avoid them is easy to employ and doesn't even penalize the PCs compared to a more well-rounded build: Just tell them they can't raise a skill to legendary rank, even when they hit 15th. They can still use the skill rank increases to get another master skill and another expert instead, and then the whole group wins if they aren't into legendary skill feats :)

If the devs are saying legendary can be house-ruled out without effecting other rules, then I'm ok with that. My fear would be ruining other aspects of the game when removing them. It is OK, in my opinion, to keep the rules in core, as the more options the better for those players who want them. But Legendary ability starting at level 15 seems a bit much; epic/mythic should be 20+ in my opinion, so in my games legendary would be prohibited if they don't make sense or fit or are too cartoonish- which the legendary proficiency appear to be (again, for those that like this sort of thing, that's fine, but it's not for me). if people want to play Thor, more power to them, leave the rules in! But also leave an out for those who don't want that silliness. I wonder what the general consensus is on these legendary skills?

BPorter uses the vacuum of space as an example for Survival Assurance...will it mean players can ignore basic physics? That's the part that bothers me.

I...

Again, people have been able to catch bullets, slash lasers out of the air, fight things triple their height with swords, use alive enemies as a weapon, fall 1000 feet as long as there's a wall near the bottom, and run 825 feet in 6 seconds, all non-magically...

And this is what you have a problem with?

Again, people have been able to catch bullets, slash lasers out of the air, fight things triple their height with swords, use alive enemies as a weapon, fall 1000 feet as long as there's a wall near the bottom, and run 825 feet in 6 seconds, all non-magically...

And this is what you have a problem with?

Yeah, let's ignore all the world bending done by those with spells and focus on some mundane abilities like not taking falling damage. Something a level 1 wizard can do.

The only thing I can think of is that they want make sure the only people with cool world changing abilities are the spell casters because they don't want the rogue to show them up.

Cyouni wrote:

Again, people have been able to catch bullets, slash lasers out of the air, fight things triple their height with swords, use alive enemies as a weapon, fall 1000 feet as long as there's a wall near the bottom, and run 825 feet in 6 seconds, all non-magically...

And this is what you have a problem with?

Yeah, let's ignore all the world bending done by those with spells and focus on some mundane abilities like not taking falling damage. Something a level 1 wizard can do.

The only thing I can think of is that they want make sure the only people with cool world changing abilities are the spell casters because they don't want the rogue to show them up.

For myself, it has nothing to do with the rogue showing up the caster. It has to do with the complete lack of in-world explanation about how the game world's physics suddenly stop applying to a martial character without magic.

Feather Fall, that level 1 spell people keep citing, doesn't allow for unlimited falling at the same rate of acceleration without taking damage. That magical spell spell alters reality and slows the person's descent. Legendary skill feat says you can fall an unlimited distance and land without taking any damage.

Mythic, by way of example, would provide an in-world justification for why a character could do that.

The mundane (as in non-magical) effect of leveling up shouldn't facilitate reality-altering effects the way magic does. It's that simple.

And if it was possible to do something broken or ridiculous in PF1, that doesn't really address the issue for me because we're talking about a new edition where, presumably, you're looking to fix/address problem areas (like things that don't make any sense).

YMMV

The mundane (as in non-magical) effect of leveling up shouldn't facilitate reality-altering effects the way magic does. It's that simple.

And this is why CMD has been a thing for the longest time - because martials can't have cool things or people complain.

Toblakai wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Again, people have been able to catch bullets, slash lasers out of the air, fight things triple their height with swords, use alive enemies as a weapon, fall 1000 feet as long as there's a wall near the bottom, and run 825 feet in 6 seconds, all non-magically...

And this is what you have a problem with?

Yeah, let's ignore all the world bending done by those with spells and focus on some mundane abilities like not taking falling damage. Something a level 1 wizard can do.

The only thing I can think of is that they want make sure the only people with cool world changing abilities are the spell casters because they don't want the rogue to show them up.

For myself, it has nothing to do with the rogue showing up the caster. It has to do with the complete lack of in-world explanation about how the game world's physics suddenly stop applying to a martial character without magic.

Feather Fall, that level 1 spell people keep citing, doesn't allow for unlimited falling at the same rate of acceleration without taking damage. That magical spell spell alters reality and slows the person's descent. Legendary skill feat says you can fall an unlimited distance and land without taking any damage.

Mythic, by way of example, would provide an in-world justification for why a character could do that.

The mundane (as in non-magical) effect of leveling up shouldn't facilitate reality-altering effects the way magic does. It's that simple.

And if it was possible to do something broken or ridiculous in PF1, that doesn't really address the issue for me because we're talking about a new edition where, presumably, you're looking to fix/address problem areas (like things that don't make any sense).

YMMV

If calling it Mythic fixes the issue for you, why not simply think of Legendary as Mythic? It seems pretty easy to come up with ways to justify Legendary Skills, as it has been done repeatedly in this thread.

Also, doing broken ridiculous things in PF1 wasn't a bug, it was a feature. At least for many of us.

BPorter wrote:

The mundane (as in non-magical) effect of leveling up shouldn't facilitate reality-altering effects the way magic does. It's that simple.

And this is why CMD has been a thing for the longest time - because martials can't have cool things or people complain.

...or...

A) don't ramp up casters at the rate they've been ramped up
B) Provide an in-world explanation for why these things are suddenly possible so that if we don't want to play a beer-n-pretzels game where such things are handwaved away there is an explanation beyond "you leveled up".

and the tangential one:

C) those that complain that martials can't have cool things really would be better off playing a straight up four-color superhero RPG instead.