Feats of Skill

The answer is that in real life sleight of hand, misdirection and distraction is key. You need someone deft and highly skilled to pull off the physical part, but if you can't keep them distracted well enough it's over immeadiately. But in fact with sleight of hand in real life you are almost always more likely to be caught by an onlooker than your mark.

Shoes are actually remarkably hard iirc, and pants aren't too bad, the deft guy needs to make sure that they won't trip on them when you move the mark . Jackets and button shirts are supposed to be the easiest when it comes to clothing iirc, with gloves being the hardest.

Most of sleight of hand is knowing psychology more than anything, though dexterity is still important. I'm super clumsy myself so I could never pick pocket someone or take off a piece of clothing, I can still take objects from people's hands or put something in their hands without making them notice, and move them across a building before they realize it. Just look into it and things like real life studies on perception, and you realize just how little we actually notice regularly.

Yes but....how? Like, there is, for example, no physical way to remove someone's T-Shirt, Shirt, Jacket, what have you without your "mark" having to move in very specific ways. Especially button shirts, where you have to unbutton them. The same is true for pants (and doubly true if they're wearing shoes.)

I mean, this is easy to see. Just put on a t-shirt and ask someone else to take it off you, without you helping them in any way. You'll see it's pretty much impossible, let alone taking it off without them noticing.

Like, I can see people taking your hat, your cloak, a belt. But your shirt? Your pants? A breastplate? That's when it goes from "really skilled" to "complete silliness".

Crayon wrote:

Specifically, in PF1 all you had to really know was whether a Skill could be made Untrained or not and whether the PC could make the DC. In PF2, it sounds like we'll also need to know whether the proposed application is appropriate to their UTEML rank and keep track of these Skill Feats.

We actually have zero evidence of non-Skill Feat skill uses that require a rank higher than Trained.

Skill Feats are an addition, sure enough, but having played many systems where there were things like them, IME they stick in your mind and are not difficult to keep track of.

We do have some language from the last blog that suggests we get new uses at higher skill levels. It could be referring to just skill feats, but reads ambiguous to me.

Each level of proficiency unlocks skill uses that are either intrinsic to the skill itself or that are uses you select as your character advances.

Disclosure: I haven't read a good ~75-80 posts, but where I stopped, there was some discussion about Hard Work, and Determination, and it not being a sufficient justification for some of the (admittedly) amazing feats for Legendary.

As someone who was literally looking at wheelchairs, as a permanent option for the rest of my life, I ask this: Do NOT outright dismiss the benefits of hard work and determination.

Go to a serious martial arts competition, go and (with permission) WATCH someone going through a physical therapy rehab, and talk to them about their experiences. Heck, google speed runs of your favorite video-game watch a couple, and then sit down, and see how you stack up, then check the amount of hours the people stated they spent getting that good. Yes, some speed runs rely on glitches within the programming, but there's still a significant element of skill involved.

Hard work, serious amounts of hours of practice, and determination? THAT, is more than magic enough for me.

Crayon wrote:

Specifically, in PF1 all you had to really know was whether a Skill could be made Untrained or not and whether the PC could make the DC. In PF2, it sounds like we'll also need to know whether the proposed application is appropriate to their UTEML rank and keep track of these Skill Feats.

We actually have zero evidence of non-Skill Feat skill uses that require a rank higher than Trained.

Skill Feats are an addition, sure enough, but having played many systems where there were things like them, IME they stick in your mind and are not difficult to keep track of.

I'm quite sure I've heard somewhere that the Rank determines the quality of items that can be created via the Craft skill though that may be a special case.

In any event, if you are right then they should be easily removable.

Ugghhh...Legendary level abilities are a COMPLETE turnoff for my interest in this edition. Not stoked about what it seems like the Mastery levels are going to be like either.

...PF 2e looks like its gonna require as much work to make something reasonable out of it as D&D 5e has.

Ugghhh...Legendary level abilities are a COMPLETE turnoff for my interest in this edition. Not stoked about what it seems like the Mastery levels are going to be like either.

...PF 2e looks like its gonna require as much work to make something reasonable out of it as D&D 5e has.

Same thing but replace every instance of PF 2e with D&D 5E and viceversa.

So if the early you can be Expert in a skill is level 3, and you need to be Expert in craft to create magic items, that means Scribe Scroll is not available to level 1 characters anymore? or the Wizard will gain Scribe Scroll earlier by class feature?

So if the early you can be Expert in a skill is level 3, and you need to be Expert in craft to create magic items, that means Scribe Scroll is not available to level 1 characters anymore? or the Wizard will gain Scribe Scroll earlier by class feature?

I just read the blog again and see that Magical Crafting is a level 2 feat, I guess it means that you can become Expert as earlier as level 1, which would be very good.

MusicAddict wrote:

The answer is that in real life sleight of hand, misdirection and distraction is key. You need someone deft and highly skilled to pull off the physical part, but if you can't keep them distracted well enough it's over immeadiately. But in fact with sleight of hand in real life you are almost always more likely to be caught by an onlooker than your mark.

Shoes are actually remarkably hard iirc, and pants aren't too bad, the deft guy needs to make sure that they won't trip on them when you move the mark . Jackets and button shirts are supposed to be the easiest when it comes to clothing iirc, with gloves being the hardest.

Most of sleight of hand is knowing psychology more than anything, though dexterity is still important. I'm super clumsy myself so I could never pick pocket someone or take off a piece of clothing, I can still take objects from people's hands or put something in their hands without making them notice, and move them across a building before they realize it. Just look into it and things like real life studies on perception, and you realize just how little we actually notice regularly.

Yes but....how? Like, there is, for example, no physical way to remove someone's T-Shirt, Shirt, Jacket, what have you without your "mark" having to move in very specific ways. Especially button shirts, where you have to unbutton them. The same is true for pants (and doubly true if they're wearing shoes.)

I mean, this is easy to see. Just put on a t-shirt and ask someone else to take it off you, without you helping them in any way. You'll see it's pretty much impossible, let alone taking it off without them noticing.

Like, I can see people taking your hat, your cloak, a belt. But your shirt? Your pants? A breastplate? That's when it goes from "really skilled" to "complete silliness".

Usually this is done with an accomplice, who distracts the mark. It's still possible to do without an accomplice, but requires a much greater degree of skill.

TheFinish wrote:

MusicAddict wrote:

The answer is that in real life sleight of hand, misdirection and distraction is key. You need someone deft and highly skilled to pull off the physical part, but if you can't keep them distracted well enough it's over immeadiately. But in fact with sleight of hand in real life you are almost always more likely to be caught by an onlooker than your mark.

Shoes are actually remarkably hard iirc, and pants aren't too bad, the deft guy needs to make sure that they won't trip on them when you move the mark . Jackets and button shirts are supposed to be the easiest when it comes to clothing iirc, with gloves being the hardest.

Most of sleight of hand is knowing psychology more than anything, though dexterity is still important. I'm super clumsy myself so I could never pick pocket someone or take off a piece of clothing, I can still take objects from people's hands or put something in their hands without making them notice, and move them across a building before they realize it. Just look into it and things like real life studies on perception, and you realize just how little we actually notice regularly.

Yes but....how? Like, there is, for example, no physical way to remove someone's T-Shirt, Shirt, Jacket, what have you without your "mark" having to move in very specific ways. Especially button shirts, where you have to unbutton them. The same is true for pants (and doubly true if they're wearing shoes.)

I mean, this is easy to see. Just put on a t-shirt and ask someone else to take it off you, without you helping them in any way. You'll see it's pretty much impossible, let alone taking it off without them noticing.

Like, I can see people taking your hat, your cloak, a belt. But your shirt? Your pants? A breastplate? That's when it goes from "really skilled" to "complete silliness".

Usually this is done with an accomplice, who distracts the mark. It's still possible to do without an accomplice, but requires a much greater degree of skill.

I think he was referring more to the physical removal of the garment from a standing or sitting mark without their active cooperation.

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.

Here is your membership card to the "You're doing it wrong, having bad/wrongfun Enforcer Club."

Additionally...No. As almost every game can show, it's easier to add to a game than subtract from it.

And on general principle of your "do it my way or shut up", eff no.

1. Don’t be a hypocrite. Combat Mnster’s post was in response to yours saying exactly what you’ve accused him of.

Form the information they have put out so far, I think I will be able to make the kind of fighter I want, by around level 8 or 10.

Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQtg3t1hYC8

TheFinish wrote:

MusicAddict wrote:

The answer is that in real life sleight of hand, misdirection and distraction is key. You need someone deft and highly skilled to pull off the physical part, but if you can't keep them distracted well enough it's over immeadiately. But in fact with sleight of hand in real life you are almost always more likely to be caught by an onlooker than your mark.

Shoes are actually remarkably hard iirc, and pants aren't too bad, the deft guy needs to make sure that they won't trip on them when you move the mark . Jackets and button shirts are supposed to be the easiest when it comes to clothing iirc, with gloves being the hardest.

Most of sleight of hand is knowing psychology more than anything, though dexterity is still important. I'm super clumsy myself so I could never pick pocket someone or take off a piece of clothing, I can still take objects from people's hands or put something in their hands without making them notice, and move them across a building before they realize it. Just look into it and things like real life studies on perception, and you realize just how little we actually notice regularly.

Yes but....how? Like, there is, for example, no physical way to remove someone's T-Shirt, Shirt, Jacket, what have you without your "mark" having to move in very specific ways. Especially button shirts, where you have to unbutton them. The same is true for pants (and doubly true if they're wearing shoes.)

I mean, this is easy to see. Just put on a t-shirt and ask someone else to take it off you, without you helping them in any way. You'll see it's pretty much impossible, let alone taking it off without them noticing.

Like, I can see people taking your hat, your cloak, a belt. But your shirt? Your pants? A breastplate? That's when it goes from "really skilled" to "complete silliness".

Usually this is done with an accomplice, who distracts the mark. It's still possible to do without an accomplice, but requires a much greater degree of skill.

All due respect, repeating what has been said doesn't make it true. Again, put on a shirt, a normal, run of the mill t-shirt. Ask a friend, spouse, family member or trained monkey to take it off you. Don't help them in any way, by raising your arms, moving them back, etc (you know, all the stuff you have to do to take off your shirt.)

I'm going to bet good money they can't (well, not without destroying the shirt, if we're being honest.). Which begs the question, how would they do it without you noticing? Even if you're distracted, there's no physical way to take off someone's shirt, or jacket, or pants without them noticing. We can be pretty oblivious, but not that oblivious.

I actually searched for this on the net, and found about...zero examples. Lots of watches, rings, wallets, poker chips, a shrimp. But nobody ever takes off someone's clothes.

I think he was referring more to the physical removal of the garment from a standing or sitting mark without their active cooperation.

Yes, I am. Perhaps I should have been clearer. My apologies.

I just read the blog again and see that Magical Crafting is a level 2 feat, I guess it means that you can become Expert as earlier as level 1, which would be very good.

All indications are that no, you cannot. Rogues, however, get a Skill Rank at 2nd and could thus grab Expert Crafting and Magical Crafting at that level.

Much of this isn't my table's cup of tea but has been asked/begged for by a large number of players on the forums over the years. So good on Paizo for offering such to people.

For me, I'll be liberally borrowing a few things here and there for my games but am increasingly unlikely to make a full switch to PF2. This isn't a slam on the system, but rather on my own tables wants and needs.

As an aside to the "PF1 lets you do blah" posters: only if you allow it. I'm not much for allowing people to drop from orbit regardless of hit points, nor swim in lava. Then again, I also limit magic and make some things that people take for granted not exist in game. So there are ways to balance things without dragging everyone to 11. :)

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.

Here is your membership card to the "You're doing it wrong, having bad/wrongfun Enforcer Club."

Additionally...No. As almost every game can show, it's easier to add to a game than subtract from it.

And on general principle of your "do it my way or shut up", eff no.

1. Don’t be a hypocrite. Combat Mnster’s post was in response to yours saying exactly what you’ve accused him of.

2. Mark Seifter has already told you the exact house rule to achieve your desire, so you’re objectively incorrect in your statement above.

BS. I never told anyone not to tell Paizo what they wanted. Try again

Additionally...No. As almost every game can show, it's easier to add to a game than subtract from it.

When is that ever the case in Pathfinder? It’s way easier to limit access to spells or ban problem feats than it is to write brand new spells and feats and keep them balanced in the game.

Easy recipe to become legendary with every skill:

100 Push-Ups!
100 Sit-Ups!
100 Squats!
10KM Running!
Every! Single! Day!

Also, no air conditioning!

"Many magic items have special crafting requirements, such as access to certain spells, as listed in the item entry in Chapter 11." So... you can't actually be an item crafter unless you're a spellcaster. :/

given that some spells are now rituals, having learnt a crafting only version of a spell isn't to much of a stretch,

Fuzzypaws wrote:

TheFinish wrote:

MusicAddict wrote:

The answer is that in real life sleight of hand, misdirection and distraction is key. You need someone deft and highly skilled to pull off the physical part, but if you can't keep them distracted well enough it's over immeadiately. But in fact with sleight of hand in real life you are almost always more likely to be caught by an onlooker than your mark.

Shoes are actually remarkably hard iirc, and pants aren't too bad, the deft guy needs to make sure that they won't trip on them when you move the mark . Jackets and button shirts are supposed to be the easiest when it comes to clothing iirc, with gloves being the hardest.

Most of sleight of hand is knowing psychology more than anything, though dexterity is still important. I'm super clumsy myself so I could never pick pocket someone or take off a piece of clothing, I can still take objects from people's hands or put something in their hands without making them notice, and move them across a building before they realize it. Just look into it and things like real life studies on perception, and you realize just how little we actually notice regularly.

Yes but....how? Like, there is, for example, no physical way to remove someone's T-Shirt, Shirt, Jacket, what have you without your "mark" having to move in very specific ways. Especially button shirts, where you have to unbutton them. The same is true for pants (and doubly true if they're wearing shoes.)

I mean, this is easy to see. Just put on a t-shirt and ask someone else to take it off you, without you helping them in any way. You'll see it's pretty much impossible, let alone taking it off without them noticing.

Like, I can see people taking your hat, your cloak, a belt. But your shirt? Your pants? A breastplate? That's when it goes from "really skilled" to "complete silliness".

Usually this is done with an accomplice, who distracts the mark. It's still possible to do without an accomplice, but requires

...

T-shirts are damn near impossible because of this thing called a head and face that make it near impossible to take off cleanly and putting the item in fron of their face, if not impossible, but armor isn't put on and taken off like a t-shirt. This is why button shirts and jackets are easy, because you can slide them off the arms, and sliding pants off the legs, which don't have the same issues with tshirts in terms of ability to remove them.

Your average joe isn't going to be pulling this off. Someone trained in sleight of hand is going to be able to take off armor. You're REALLY overestimating yourself and people in general when it comes to observational skill, being capable of rationalizing thought has so many drawbacks, as we subconciously prioritize what we conciously observe. You don't notice your tongue until you realize it's there, you're breathing automatically until it's brought to your attention. Clothes generally aren't at risk of suddenly vanishing off your body, and the touch of their fabric is so constant it's not worth keeping them on your mind, so when your focus is intently on something else? Don't really notice when that changes until it's brought to your attention.

I'm a bit torn. I do think the master/caster disparity was a real issue that needed to be solved. But I would have preferred an overall lower power setting that isn't quite so super-heroic. On the third hand (!), I understand that marketing PF2 has to be about "look at all these awesome things your character can do!" I'll definitely stick with it because I love Paizo and its APs, but I do wonder if I should give some low-magic, grittier RPGs a try as well--does anyone have some good suggestions?

I don't think it's much of a marketing thing. Much more of a solution to caster-martial disparity. If you want a lower power setting, you can do that by removing the Legendary skill tier. But if you do that and want a balanced game, you also need to turn a lot of high-level magic off. Notice how some of the posters protesting against Legendary skills on this thread said that they limited magic at their table?

By the way, folks who limited magic in PF1 can totally do the same in PF2. Whereas, if the Paizo team had done that - refrained from creating Legendary skills and adjusted caster power down for balance - then I can barely begin to imagine the forum uproar they'd have generated.

Dragonstriker 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.

Here is your membership card to the "You're doing it wrong, having bad/wrongfun Enforcer Club."

Additionally...No. As almost every game can show, it's easier to add to a game than subtract from it.

And on general principle of your "do it my way or shut up", eff no.

1. Don’t be a hypocrite. Combat Mnster’s post was in response to yours saying exactly what you’ve accused him of.

2. Mark Seifter has already told you the exact house rule to achieve your desire, so you’re objectively incorrect in your statement above.

BS. I never told anyone not to tell Paizo what they wanted. Try again

Huh? Where did I say you did? Don’t try and strawman me.

BPorter wrote:

Additionally...No. As almost every game can show, it's easier to add to a game than subtract from it.

When is that ever the case in Pathfinder? It’s way easier to limit access to spells or ban problem feats than it is to write brand new spells and feats and keep them balanced in the game.

Ever try restricting the "Big 6" in PF1 without being told how those dependencies are built into the math? And since PF Unchained acknowledged it, it is an actual thing...

Mythic was an optional rules set in PF1. In PF2, it appears that it's called "Legendary".

Again, as I stated in earlier posts (not that Dragonstriker cares), I hope cutting Legendary out will be a simple proposition. My concern is that Legendary will be made accessible to different classes at different times. If Fighters get access to Legendary proficiency with weapons as early as level 13, is it really out of the realm of possibility that the rogue would get legendary skill unlocks at that level or sooner?

Also, as I've stated earlier (not that Dragonstriker cares), if Legendary is your thing, cool. But since I'm also a Pathfinder fan and have spent 1000s of $s with Paizo supporting Pathfinder over the last decade, I just might feel like I have a right to express what I and my groups would like in PF2.

MusicAddict wrote:

The answer is that in real life sleight of hand, misdirection and distraction is key. You need someone deft and highly skilled to pull off the physical part, but if you can't keep them distracted well enough it's over immeadiately. But in fact with sleight of hand in real life you are almost always more likely to be caught by an onlooker than your mark.

Shoes are actually remarkably hard iirc, and pants aren't too bad, the deft guy needs to make sure that they won't trip on them when you move the mark . Jackets and button shirts are supposed to be the easiest when it comes to clothing iirc, with gloves being the hardest.

Most of sleight of hand is knowing psychology more than anything, though dexterity is still important. I'm super clumsy myself so I could never pick pocket someone or take off a piece of clothing, I can still take objects from people's hands or put something in their hands without making them notice, and move them across a building before they realize it. Just look into it and things like real life studies on perception, and you realize just how little we actually notice regularly.

Yes but....how? Like, there is, for example, no physical way to remove someone's T-Shirt, Shirt, Jacket, what have you without your "mark" having to move in very specific ways. Especially button shirts, where you have to unbutton them. The same is true for pants (and doubly true if they're wearing shoes.)

I mean, this is easy to see. Just put on a t-shirt and ask someone else to take it off you, without you helping them in any way. You'll see it's pretty much impossible, let alone taking it off without them noticing.

Like, I can see people taking your hat, your cloak, a belt. But your shirt? Your pants? A breastplate? That's when it goes from "really skilled" to "complete silliness".

To be honest, of all these things, the armor seems like the easiest to do. Metal doesn't stretch and deform like cloth does when put on, so armor by necessity will be plates held together with straps. Loosen the right straps, tug the plates in the right way, and maybe some precision application of your dagger, and it seems like generally it would probably slide off quite easily. You'd probably need a good distraction, but well, that's where the Legendary part comes in.

Huh? Where did I say you did? Don’t try and strawman me.
Also, you’ve ignored point 2, repeatedly. Try again.

Strawman you? Please. I was responding to Combat Monster specifically saying to me -- "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."

Since you said "Combat Mnster’s post was in response to yours saying exactly what you’ve accused him of.", that would seem to indicate that was why you were calling me a hypocrite (VERY classy, by the way).

As for ignoring point #2 --- from my first post in this thread:
"Note: if Legendary floats your boat, good for you. It kills enthusiasm for me, however, so I really don't need the "then you must of have been playing PF1 wrong" crap."

And

from my 2nd post in this thread:

Tangent101 wrote:
There is another way around that, BPorter. Just end leveling before it hits Legendary levels.

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

How do either of those statements ignore "point #2"? Or did you just skip 90% of the thread and go straight to threadcrapping on me?

Also, as I've stated earlier (not that Dragonstriker cares), if Legendary is your thing, cool. But since I'm also a Pathfinder fan and have spent 1000s of $s with Paizo supporting Pathfinder over the last decade, I just might feel like I have a right to express what I and my groups would like in PF2.

Lots of people have spent thousands of dollars on Pathfinder products. Some have spent over ten thousand dollars. I'm sure there are people who have purchased every single product. And there are no doubt folk like myself who bought the last couple hardcover rulebooks and felt they wasted their money because the products didn't really offer anything significant to improve the game.

You can say whatever you want on the forums. But just because you've bought stuff doesn't mean your voice is worth more than anyone else's. No doubt that's not your intention, but that is sort of the tone I caught out of your comment here.

No one should be allowed to shut you up. But you shouldn't be doing an Intimidation Roll against the Anarchists or Chelish Loyalists waiting for the Kintargo riots to begin. ;)

I'm a bit torn. I do think the master/caster disparity was a real issue that needed to be solved. But I would have preferred an overall lower power setting that isn't quite so super-heroic. On the third hand (!), I understand that marketing PF2 has to be about "look at all these awesome things your character can do!" I'll definitely stick with it because I love Paizo and its APs, but I do wonder if I should give some low-magic, grittier RPGs a try as well--does anyone have some good suggestions?

In truth, the only way it would have been solved for real would have been to actively remove almost the entire middle and upper tiers of spells (basically, 5th level spells and up), which is something Paizo would not be able to do. In PF1, by the time characters reached 15th level, wizards and clerics could perform outright physics-destroying miracles a dozen times a day due to spell slots.

On a different note, more gritty RPGs include the old 2nd Edition a Warhammer game - a free clone of this game exists called Zweihander RPG, which is well worth checking out; also, an older d20 game called Grim Tales exists whose stated design purpose is a low-magic gritty system in the style of Conan or John Carter.
http://www.badaxegames.com/products/grim-tales/ is a link, though it may be found cheaper in various distribution channels and resale.

BPorter wrote:

Also, as I've stated earlier (not that Dragonstriker cares), if Legendary is your thing, cool. But since I'm also a Pathfinder fan and have spent 1000s of $s with Paizo supporting Pathfinder over the last decade, I just might feel like I have a right to express what I and my groups would like in PF2.

Lots of people have spent thousands of dollars on Pathfinder products. Some have spent over ten thousand dollars. I'm sure there are people who have purchased every single product. And there are no doubt folk like myself who bought the last couple hardcover rulebooks and felt they wasted their money because the products didn't really offer anything significant to improve the game.

You can say whatever you want on the forums. But just because you've bought stuff doesn't mean your voice is worth more than anyone else's. No doubt that's not your intention, but that is sort of the tone I caught out of your comment here.

No one should be allowed to shut you up. But you shouldn't be doing an Intimidation Roll against the Anarchists or Chelish Loyalists waiting for the Kintargo riots to begin. ;)

I haven't told anybody to not share their opinions of PF2 with Paizo.

I HAVE been specifically asked not to do that by someone in this thread.

I've never said my voice was worth more than anyone else.

If identifying myself as a loyal Paizo customer in the hopes that I will be allowed to express my opinions of PF2 blog releases and my hopes for the game in the same manner as everyone else offends, then I apologize.

Okay, my problem is not with the power level itself of the Legendary feats, it's the why of them. I was never talking about balance, I was talking about flavour. You want Wuxia stuff? Fine, then give me a better in-world explanation. Why not easy-to-fullfill story prerequisites? The above of example of, if your ranger spent all his life in a non-magical forest cutting logs then he can't survive in the void. But if he went through some horizon walking planes wandering shenanigans, got forbidden lore from a half a dozen planes, and was exposed to all kinds of reality warping planar vibrations, then yes, you can do it. Or if your fighter already wrestled with a dozen giants, slayed a wyrm, and dons a magic power suit, then I guess his body can sustain that ridiculous fall.

On another topic, I think that I'm gonna houserule that everytime you get a skill rank you also get something else, maybe a whole new skill feat, because really, skill rank is just a gateway to unlock tier appropriate skill feats, nothing more, that +1 is meaningless in the math compared to your level. But not during the playstest, not doing house rules during the playtest, gonna play as written, because that would kinda ruin the data.

P.S. still hate the "stealing full plate" stuff, that one is the only one I can't compromise with in any level.

T-shirts are damn near impossible because of this thing called a head and face that make it near impossible to take off cleanly and putting the item in fron of their face, if not impossible, but armor isn't put on and taken off like a t-shirt. This is why button shirts and jackets are easy, because you can slide them off the arms, and sliding pants off the legs, which don't have the same issues with tshirts in terms of ability to remove them.

Your average joe isn't going to be pulling this off. Someone trained in sleight of hand is going to be able to take off armor. You're REALLY overestimating yourself and people in general when it comes to observational skill, being capable of rationalizing thought has so many drawbacks, as we subconciously prioritize what we conciously observe. You don't notice your tongue until you realize it's there, you're breathing automatically until it's brought to your attention. Clothes generally aren't at risk of suddenly vanishing off your body, and the touch of their fabric is so constant it's not worth keeping them on your mind, so when your focus is intently on something else? Don't really notice when that changes until it's brought to your attention.

Again, how are you sliding someone's jacket/button shirt off them without them noticing. Unless you have them with their arms dangling next to them while your friend distracts them. Dude has arms crossed? Impossible. Dude is sitting? Impossible. Dude has hands in pockets? Impossible. Dude is Italian or Latin American, and therefore speaks as much with their arms and hands as with their mouth? To quote the preacher from Blazing Saddles: "Son, you're on your own."

And pants. Really, what kind of people are you with that they don't notice it got noticeably breezier down under? Not to mention, if they're standing, you have to a)get them to raise their foot; b)somehow get the pants off them without trouble (seriously, just try taking your own pants off, now, with whatever shoes you're wearing). Oh and you have to do b) in the small ammount of time the mark does a), unless your making him pretend he's a flamingo or something. And again, if they're sitting down? Impossible. They try to walk? Well now they know something's up. Wind picked up? Boy, they'll notice their pantaloons are halfway down right quick.

But again, you can convince me otherwise by showing me a video. A stage magician doing it, dudes on the street pranking people, whatever. So far, the most I've been able to find is Darren Brown taking off people's ties. Which is absolutely impressive, but not, y'know, pants. Or shirts.

I mean, I know people aren't usually paying a lot of attention, but you make it sound like you're surrounded by Mr.Magoos.

To be honest, of all these things, the armor seems like the easiest to do. Metal doesn't stretch and deform like cloth does when put on, so armor by necessity will be plates held together with straps. Loosen the right straps, tug the plates in the right way, and maybe some precision application of your dagger, and it seems like generally it would probably slide off quite easily. You'd probably need a good distraction, but well, that's where the Legendary part comes in.

It'd depend on the armor, obviously. A chain shirt for example, would have the same problems as a normal shirt. Except it'd be noisier. Removing greaves and such, absolutely. Removing a full helm is obviously a no-no. Breastplates and such I'd imagine you theoretically could, though the weight going all weird would probably be a tip off.

Still, while I think it's really silly and wouldn't allow it, I'm not saying PF2 can't have Skyrim level shenanigans going on. I'm just saying, we just gotta accept it's basically magic and move on.

Okay, my problem is not with the power level itself of the Legendary feats, it's a why of them. I was never talking about balance, I was talking about flavour. You want Wuxia stuff? Fine, that give me a better in-world explanation. Why not easy to fullfill story prerequisites? The above of example of, if your ranger spent all his life in a non-magical forest cutting logs then he can't survive in the void. But if he went through some horizon walking planes wandering shenanigans, got forbidden lore from a half a dozen planes, and was exposed to all kinds of reality warping planar vibrations, then yes, you can do it. Or if your fighter already wrestled with a dozen giants, slayed a wyrm, and dons a magic power suit, then I guess his body can sustain that ridiculous fall.

On another topic, I think that I'm gonna houserule that everytime you get a skill rank you also get something else, maybe a whole new skill feat, because really, skill rank is just a gateway to unlock tier appropriate skill feats, nothing more, that +1 is meaningless in the math compared to your level. But not during the playstest, not doing house rules during the playtest, gonna play as written, because that would kinda ruin the data.

P.S. still hate the "stealing full plate" stuff, that one is the only one I can't compromise with in any level.

I’m pretty sure that in-game explanation is for the player to decide on.

Assuming you're not opposed to a Legendary tier in general, what kind of abilities do you personally expect from such a tier for non-magical characters?

I think this question got lost in the shuffle, and it’s one I’d love to see some suggestions for. If indeed Legendary is TOO “mythic”, then what kinds of powers would people opposed to the Legendary tier like to allow a 15th Level Martially-based character, to be on-par in with spellcasters?

NetoD20 wrote:

Okay, my problem is not with the power level itself of the Legendary feats, it's a why of them. I was never talking about balance, I was talking about flavour. You want Wuxia stuff? Fine, that give me a better in-world explanation. Why not easy to fullfill story prerequisites? The above of example of, if your ranger spent all his life in a non-magical forest cutting logs then he can't survive in the void. But if he went through some horizon walking planes wandering shenanigans, got forbidden lore from a half a dozen planes, and was exposed to all kinds of reality warping planar vibrations, then yes, you can do it. Or if your fighter already wrestled with a dozen giants, slayed a wyrm, and dons a magic power suit, then I guess his body can sustain that ridiculous fall.

On another topic, I think that I'm gonna houserule that everytime you get a skill rank you also get something else, maybe a whole new skill feat, because really, skill rank is just a gateway to unlock tier appropriate skill feats, nothing more, that +1 is meaningless in the math compared to your level. But not during the playstest, not doing house rules during the playtest, gonna play as written, because that would kinda ruin the data.

P.S. still hate the "stealing full plate" stuff, that one is the only one I can't compromise with in any level.

I’m pretty sure that in-game explanation is for the player to decide on.

Completely disagree, if they aren't giving us a minimum explanation in the books, then the DM should decide what explains it, or the player should provide an explanation for the DM to approve. I'd approve almost anything (except the stealing armor nonsense) given a good explanation that isn't just "determination!" or "courage!" or "hard work!" uggh

MusicAddict wrote:

T-shirts are damn near impossible because of this thing called a head and face that make it near impossible to take off cleanly and putting the item in fron of their face, if not impossible, but armor isn't put on and taken off like a t-shirt. This is why button shirts and jackets are easy, because you can slide them off the arms, and sliding pants off the legs, which don't have the same issues with tshirts in terms of ability to remove them.

Your average joe isn't going to be pulling this off. Someone trained in sleight of hand is going to be able to take off armor. You're REALLY overestimating yourself and people in general when it comes to observational skill, being capable of rationalizing thought has so many drawbacks, as we subconciously prioritize what we conciously observe. You don't notice your tongue until you realize it's there, you're breathing automatically until it's brought to your attention. Clothes generally aren't at risk of suddenly vanishing off your body, and the touch of their fabric is so constant it's not worth keeping them on your mind, so when your focus is intently on something else? Don't really notice when that changes until it's brought to your attention.

Again, how are you sliding someone's jacket/button shirt off them without them noticing. Unless you have them with their arms dangling next to them while your friend distracts them. Dude has arms crossed? Impossible. Dude is sitting? Impossible. Dude has hands in pockets? Impossible. Dude is Italian or Latin American, and therefore speaks as much with their arms and hands as with their mouth? To quote the preacher from Blazing Saddles: "Son, you're on your own."

And pants. Really, what kind of people are you with that they don't notice it got noticeably breezier down under? Not to mention, if they're standing, you have to a)get them to raise their foot; b)somehow get the pants off them without trouble (seriously, just try taking your own pants off, now, with whatever shoes you're...

https://youtu.be/W1_BpNAeeX0

Maliloki wrote:

Ugghhh...Legendary level abilities are a COMPLETE turnoff for my interest in this edition. Not stoked about what it seems like the Mastery levels are going to be like either.

...PF 2e looks like its gonna require as much work to make something reasonable out of it as D&D 5e has.

Same thing but replace every instance of PF 2e with D&D 5E and viceversa.

Oh, I wasn't saying 5e was a superior system. I think PF2 is going to be a better written and better thought out game than 5e is. But if I wanted to play superheroes, I'd play a different system.

I was more mentioning that its looking more and more like switching to PF2 and making minor mods to suit my needs is less and less likely because of the ridiculousness of some of the things they want the PCs to be able to do. 5e does have SOME of that same issue, but nowhere near the same degree as what they're making PF2 lean into.

That, and I've already houseruled 5e into a game that is functional and does a reasonable job at reflecting reality while still giving players ways to improve, stand out, and be badasses. I was hoping that PF2 was going to be a better base system for me to use, but I think its just going to be something to mine for ideas.

Mythic was an optional rules set in PF1. In PF2, it appears that it's called "Legendary".

I think after some comments from people on Mythic, one of the devs humored the idea of putting a Mythic Proficiency above Legendary for a +4 in one of the comments sections, that would be something, lol (nothing confirmed, don't worry, but the thought amused me given the reactions some have given to Legendary).

I genuinely love these skill feats. If a scrawny guy wiggling his fingers can cause mass death, I don't see why your Monk can't Suplex the Demon Train as it were. Hell, besides the story reasons of studying the spiritual, I took the Serpent-Fire Adept for my Unchained Monk for the crazy shenanigans it let me do.

One Rounding Pit Fiends and fist fighting your friend possessed by an evil god to free them is something worthy of telling a story about.

There's no reason either house ruling said feats out or limiting the level can't resolve issues for those who aren't big on that problem.

I want to see the Fighter of the group chuck a small mountain at the Red Great Wyrm. End him Typhon style. If he's still shaking things, let the Druid spam Earthquake until he's gelatin.

https://youtu.be/W1_BpNAeeX0

Now that sir, is impressive. Although I am 100% sure that isn't a real shirt, and those are not the man's "shorts" as the good showrunner says. Good for a laugh though.

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

In addition to the aforementioned Level Cap, our homebrew setting has very few magical items, restricted spell availability, and while there's no actual rule, players generally favour Feats that have passive effects and that provide exemption from conditional rules over those that add new action types or confer situational modifiers. In short, we would like PF2 to be more streamlined and player-friendly than PF1 something Paizo cites as a design consideration, but don't seem to have provided many examples of yet.

Which is fine as you're able to pare down what you want from the new system. However, before the explanation that you play in a very limited version of the game you presented your opinion as if it were against a more vanilla version of the game.

Context of being in a limited environment like that which technically wouldn't ever hit high enough level to even worry about any Legendary level skills is helpful for others to see where you're coming from.

Dragonstriker wrote:

Huh? Where did I say you did? Don’t try and strawman me.
Also, you’ve ignored point 2, repeatedly. Try again.

Strawman you? Please. I was responding to Combat Monster specifically saying to me -- "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."

Since you said "Combat Mnster’s post was in response to yours saying exactly what you’ve accused him of.", that would seem to indicate that was why you were calling me a hypocrite (VERY classy, by the way).

As for ignoring point #2 --- from my first post in this thread:
"Note: if Legendary floats your boat, good for you. It kills enthusiasm for me, however, so I really don't need the "then you must of have been playing PF1 wrong" crap."

And

from my 2nd post in this thread:

Tangent101 wrote:
There is another way around that, BPorter. Just end leveling before it hits Legendary levels.

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

How do either of those statements ignore "point #2"? Or did you just skip 90% of the thread and go straight to threadcrapping on me?

Point #2 was referring to Mark’s post:

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 :)

This seems a lot better suggestion then the ones you replied to as this doesn’t stop you playing at lvl15 but also allows your players to keep using their skill rank and feat increases. I would suggest you still let Fighters get legendary in weapons and Paladins in armour since they are class abilities which to my knowledge doesn’t do anything mythical.

I'm so hyped for these Legendary jawns.

Sounds like we need at least one more proficiency rank between Master and Legendary — apart from the numeric bonus, this jump is greater than the ranks before. The same problem exists in Pathfinder 1st Edition (and D&D editions before that) with spells as you get into the upper levels — the jumps get larger. That’s why in one of the earlier blogs I said that spells should really decompressed to at least 12 levels (not just 10).

I really hope Skill Feats and proficiencies do the gating of abilities right.

I really like ones like Catfall, improving your capabilities beyond the norm. But I'm a bit wary of the ones like Legendary Impersonator and the presumed effects of it's prereq Quick Disguise.

If You need Quick Disguise in order to not take a long time to use the disguise skill, and that's the only way to access non-magical disguises on a time scale measured in rounds, then the game loses a bit of it's options for low-powered uses of skills.

Skill Feats (and the like) which include their own rules and options instead of building upon existing ones tend (in my experience) to lead to these cases where I can't do something I should be able to do because I haven't accessed the amped up version.

There's a big difference between a Quick Disguise feat that reads:

"you can use 3 actions to make a regular disguise! Normal: making a disguise takes relatively long time"

and one that reads:

"You can use 3 actions to create and put on a disguise! Normal: You must create the disguise separately which takes a relatively long time. putting on a disguise takes like, 2-6 actions depending on the complexity of the disguise"

Even if the end result is basically the same.

Secret Wizard wrote:

Maliloki wrote:

Ugghhh...Legendary level abilities are a COMPLETE turnoff for my interest in this edition. Not stoked about what it seems like the Mastery levels are going to be like either.

...PF 2e looks like its gonna require as much work to make something reasonable out of it as D&D 5e has.

Same thing but replace every instance of PF 2e with D&D 5E and viceversa.

Oh, I wasn't saying 5e was a superior system. I think PF2 is going to be a better written and better thought out game than 5e is. But if I wanted to play superheroes, I'd play a different system.

I was more mentioning that its looking more and more like switching to PF2 and making minor mods to suit my needs is less and less likely because of the ridiculousness of some of the things they want the PCs to be able to do. 5e does have SOME of that same issue, but nowhere near the same degree as what they're making PF2 lean into.

That, and I've already houseruled 5e into a game that is functional and does a reasonable job at reflecting reality while still giving players ways to improve, stand out, and be badasses. I was hoping that PF2 was going to be a better base system for me to use, but I think its just going to be something to mine for ideas.

ah yeah too bad PF2E can't be houseruled to function.

also you play with 9th level spells. let the 15th level Rogue have a handy bag of costumes that they can quickly pull from.

MusicAddict wrote:

T-shirts are damn near impossible because of this thing called a head and face that make it near impossible to take off cleanly and putting the item in fron of their face, if not impossible, but armor isn't put on and taken off like a t-shirt. This is why button shirts and jackets are easy, because you can slide them off the arms, and sliding pants off the legs, which don't have the same issues with tshirts in terms of ability to remove them.

Your average joe isn't going to be pulling this off. Someone trained in sleight of hand is going to be able to take off armor. You're REALLY overestimating yourself and people in general when it comes to observational skill, being capable of rationalizing thought has so many drawbacks, as we subconciously prioritize what we conciously observe. You don't notice your tongue until you realize it's there, you're breathing automatically until it's brought to your attention. Clothes generally aren't at risk of suddenly vanishing off your body, and the touch of their fabric is so constant it's not worth keeping them on your mind, so when your focus is intently on something else? Don't really notice when that changes until it's brought to your attention.

Again, how are you sliding someone's jacket/button shirt off them without them noticing. Unless you have them with their arms dangling next to them while your friend distracts them. Dude has arms crossed? Impossible. Dude is sitting? Impossible. Dude has hands in pockets? Impossible. Dude is Italian or Latin American, and therefore speaks as much with their arms and hands as with their mouth? To quote the preacher from Blazing Saddles: "Son, you're on your own."

And pants. Really, what kind of people are you with that they don't notice it got noticeably breezier down under? Not to mention, if they're standing, you have to a)get them to raise their foot; b)somehow get the pants off them without trouble (seriously, just try taking your own pants off, now, with whatever shoes you're...

See, this is actually where I'd like to see things go the other way. If the legendary thief could disarm/dearmor enemies during combat, I'd be very happy.

Unfortunately, for me, I am becoming less and less enthused about PF2, but I am not sure why.