Feats of Skill

That its presented without any sort of rationale just makes it worse. If a ranger lives in the Old Forest for twenty years hunting and surviving like a master, suddenly... He can breath vacuum because he got the last level-up is just pants-on-head crazy. If he spent 10 levels as a horizon walker exploring the planes and forming connections with exotic places and beings, I could buy it. But if he stayed in his log cabin stopping Orc invasions every summer for 20 years, I've got questions that need answers.

I would argue that someone who keeps doing the same thing over and over again, even if it is impressive stuff, is not going to get to level 15. You don't get to level 15 without being out adventuring and doing the weird stuff that would perhaps lead you to figure out how to survive in the void of space.

Voss wrote:

That its presented without any sort of rationale just makes it worse. If a ranger lives in the Old Forest for twenty years hunting and surviving like a master, suddenly... He can breath vacuum because he got the last level-up is just pants-on-head crazy. If he spent 10 levels as a horizon walker exploring the planes and forming connections with exotic places and beings, I could buy it. But if he stayed in his log cabin stopping Orc invasions every summer for 20 years, I've got questions that need answers.

I would argue that someone who keeps doing the same thing over and over again, even if it is impressive stuff, is not going to get to level 15. You don't get to level 15 without being out adventuring and doing the weird stuff that would perhaps lead you to figure out how to survive in the void of space.

Also, like I noted earlier, buying inappropriate things is not a new problem in PF2. A character in PF1 who has never spent a single session learning a language or even interacting with people who speak languages he doesn't have, can nevertheless just spend all his Skill Points on Linguistics one level and suddenly gain 5-10 languages (or more) overnight.

NPCs don't do things like this because they don't make sense, and generally GMs keep PCs from doing them as well, for reasons of logic.

What's curious to me, though, is that all your personal explanations after the "Edit" lead me to believe that you'd support the Su tag, yet you say you don't want it.

]

The rest is really just a difference of opinion that can't really be resolved. I feel both our ways of viewing things are perfectly reasonable and its mostly a semantic divide which neither of us have to shift from in order to be consistent.

This last part is quite important to me though and I try (probably fail as everyone does) to be consistent on where I come down on these things. If there is a difference in equally valid ways to do things (as in there isn't a strong mechanical or balance reason it should be one way or the other), and one involves a restriction I'd lean on the side of going with the least restrictive direction so long as that restriction is easy to impose. This is my PoV on things like Goblins or Alignment restricted classes (don't want Goblins, cool don't have them. Don't like non-Lawful monks, don't have them!) In this case I fall on the side of preferring the restricted version and to advocate for implementing the restriction as part of the core rules when I could easily apply it myself in home games would be very hypocritical of me.

NetoD20 wrote:

What's curious to me, though, is that all your personal explanations after the "Edit" lead me to believe that you'd support the Su tag, yet you say you don't want it.

]

The rest is really just a difference of opinion that can't really be resolved. I feel both our ways of viewing things are perfectly reasonable and its mostly a semantic divide which neither of us have to shift from in order to be consistent.

This last part is quite important to me though and I try (probably fail as everyone does) to be consistent on where I come down on these things. If there is a difference in equally valid ways to do things (as in there isn't a strong mechanical or balance reason it should be one way or the other), and one involves a restriction I'd lean on the side of going with the least restrictive direction so long as that restriction is easy to impose. This is my PoV on things like Goblins or Alignment restricted classes (don't want Goblins, cool don't have them. Don't like non-Lawful monks, don't have them!) In this case I fall on the side of preferring the restricted version and to advocate for implementing the restriction as part of the core rules when I could easily apply it myself in home games would be very hypocritical of me.

Now I understand you perfectly. Thanks for explaining it to me, mate.

On the first part, though, yeah, I know it's just a difference of opinion and that it can't really be resolved. But sometimes I raise those matters anyway because it's kinda fun to speculate about magic Lol

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

You are asserting that it is more difficult to say "no skills can be raised to legendary, spend your increases on more skills at expert or master" than to create legendary ranks and associated skill feats for all the skills in the game? That is nonsensical on it face.

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

Right back at you.

_
glass.

I guess that the feat to get 10th-level spells is Legendary

Not sure the casters will love the No-Legendary option that much

“Falling from orbit” is something I’m seeing a lot as a demonstration of the absurdity of Legenday skills, but really it’s hyperbole.

You only need to survive 1500 ft. That’s the falling distance required to hit terminal velocity.

1500 ft.

The real world record for surviving a fall is over 33000 ft; the woman in question was badly injured, it’s true, but she didn’t have the benefit of Legendary acrobatics. Or, so far as I am aware, even Trained. Or class levels; she was basically a Commoner.

Also her plane exploded. Which probably hurt.

Real life is far weirder than we give it credit for. But sometimes it’s harsher too. In real life, most people, if they got into a fight with a bear, would likely die. No one seems to think of bears as an existential threat at 15 though.

Pathfinder characters are legendary heroic characters; I’m fine with what I’ve heard of legendary skills.

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.

How are your likes discarded? If you have options 1, 2, and 3 and say to your table "Option 3 isn't allowed at my table." It's not a big deal. You just don't use a skill or feat or spell. If you lobby Paizo to not have options then those of us who might want to do those things can't without creating content.

I don't get how I'm the bad guy when Mr. Seifter came in here and said there are other options you could take that in most cases wouldn't hurt the party when compared to the monsters. There are also less flashy things that are still cool and useful you can do if some stuff hurts your sensibilities. But some people just keep stamping their feet and complaining that something may be in game..

Also how it easier to add something, to create a feat or spell or whatnot, and have to balance that, do the maths, blah blah, when you could simply say "At my table we don't allow X."

As far as speaking up, go ahead. I'll just be sure to point out the foolishness where I see it.

For the "you could do it PF1 crowd", Irori is the exception not the rule. As was Iomedae and Cayden.

So, now we no longer need to pass the Test of the Starstone to achieve godhood, we just have to advance to legendary. Got it.

As noted previously, I also haven't read a Pathfinder Tales that emulated scenarios closer to Beowulf than Conan.

And I think I've discovered the reason for the Gap in Starfinder. PF2 enabled all high-level adventurers to become demigods without an in-universe explanation and the resulting campaign-breaking paradox required Golarion to be retconned out of existence.

Booyah!

Additionally, there are other games out there that have non-nerfed spellcasters interacting with heroic, but mortal martials. I sometimes play those games, but PF is my preference, it has more content, and is easier to find players to game with. So, the "take your ball and go home stuff" isn't really convincing or compelling.

Seriously, if anyone is gaga about Legendary stuff, good on ya. Just because some of us aren't, doesn't make us "wrong" and you "right".

You literally just said this yourself, irori is not the exception, he is the rule seeing as PCs of 15th level or higher are actually in the tier of Demigod in Paizos own terms, no standard NPC could pull off the legendary abilities, but a person who has dedicated their life to training just might be able to pull it off. No you don’t have to pass the test of the Starstone because Irori didnt. Cayden was a drunk npc who managed to pass a test and gain god like powers, that is more idiotic to me then a man working his ass off to achieve transcendence.

Let’s put it this way, can you do the silk rope acrobatics, you know those people that twist and twirl and fall using silk ropes, only to catch themselves and twist back up them majestically? No you or I personally can’t, but I bet you would classify those people as legendary since you can’t do it.

You want an in game explanation for Cat Fall, during his downtime your character practices jumping off a cliff until it no longer hurts, more accurately until he learns to land without being hurt. As a grand ole video game taught me. “As long as you hold forward on the joystick you can roll when you land from a fall at any height and not take damage.” Points to whoever guesses the game.

Malk_Content wrote:

NetoD20 wrote:

What's curious to me, though, is that all your personal explanations after the "Edit" lead me to believe that you'd support the Su tag, yet you say you don't want it.

]

The rest is really just a difference of opinion that can't really be resolved. I feel both our ways of viewing things are perfectly reasonable and its mostly a semantic divide which neither of us have to shift from in order to be consistent.

This last part is quite important to me though and I try (probably fail as everyone does) to be consistent on where I come down on these things. If there is a difference in equally valid ways to do things (as in there isn't a strong mechanical or balance reason it should be one way or the other), and one involves a restriction I'd lean on the side of going with the least restrictive direction so long as that restriction is easy to impose. This is my PoV on things like Goblins or Alignment restricted classes (don't want Goblins, cool don't have them. Don't like non-Lawful monks, don't have them!) In this case I fall on the side of preferring the restricted version and to advocate for implementing the restriction as part of the core rules when I could easily apply it myself in home games would be very hypocritical of me.

Now I understand you perfectly. Thanks for explaining it to me, mate.

On the first part, though, yeah, I know it's just a difference of opinion and that it can't really be resolved. But sometimes I raise those matters anyway because it's kinda fun to speculate about magic Lol

All conversation is good conversation, so long as it happens in good faith and doesn't sour anyone else reading it (I don't think your posts do this, but some seem to be a more "f#@$ PF2 if this is what its like" tone, which I think can be damaging to the mood of even generally positive folks.)

Let’s put it this way, can you do the silk rope acrobatics, you know those people that twist and twirl and fall using silk ropes, only to catch themselves and twist back up them majestically? No you or I personally can’t, but I bet you would classify that ability as legendary since it takes hard work and dedication to get the good.

You want an in game...

Expert. Master maybe.

Looking forward to more of these in the playtest; an encouraging start.

BPorter wrote:

Combat Monster wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe what I should have said is "Yo, quit trying to take away toys because you don't like them." Sure, everybody is welcome to their opinion, and likes and dislikes, but it seems really asinine to me to gimp stuff just because a person doesn't want to exclude it from their table.

For example, if I didn't want to play a Mythic game in PF1, I'll just not buy the Mythic book, not complain that Paizo wanted to sell one.

Alric Rahl wrote:

Let’s put it this way, can you do the silk rope acrobatics, you know those people that twist and twirl and fall using silk ropes, only to catch themselves and twist back up them majestically? No you or I personally can’t, but I bet you would classify that ability as legendary since it takes hard work and dedication to get the good.

You want an in game...

Expert. Master maybe.

Understandable, but an NPC might view you as legendary since they can’t do it, is all I’m saying

To me legendary is diving into mythological examples and I'm cool with that. For example Beowolf ripping Grendel's arm off (Legendary athletics?) Or Orpheus using performance to well do about everything he did in that story. I think It makes for a more interesting story when you characters hit high levels it should feel like high levels.

Before I saw this, I thought that it would represent some kind of impressive pseudo-skill-unlock thing.

What I'm seeing now is that it's an overall weakening of the power level of PCs.

We've seen three Legendary feats so far: Cat Fall (does what a 2000gp item or first-level Pathfinder spell does), Legendary Medic (does what a night's rest, a visit to a temple, and a small amount of gold does) and Legendary Impersonator (does what an 1800gp item or first-level spell does).

All of these are situational, and really feel like a pointless feat.

I am hoping that this is not the case, but I am yet to see evidence to the contrary.

I think the comparison between PF2 Legendary skill feats and PF1 spells or magic items cannot work because the system changed so much

Feather Fall might not be 1st-level anymore. And even 1st-level spell slots are precious in PF2. And the usual workaround through wands does not work anymore, so I guess the ring will not be at-will use anymore either

All of this makes unlimited Cat Fall far more attractive than it would be in PF1

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Voss wrote:

That its presented without any sort of rationale just makes it worse. If a ranger lives in the Old Forest for twenty years hunting and surviving like a master, suddenly... He can breath vacuum because he got the last level-up is just pants-on-head crazy. If he spent 10 levels as a horizon walker exploring the planes and forming connections with exotic places and beings, I could buy it. But if he stayed in his log cabin stopping Orc invasions every summer for 20 years, I've got questions that need answers.

I would argue that someone who keeps doing the same thing over and over again, even if it is impressive stuff, is not going to get to level 15. You don't get to level 15 without being out adventuring and doing the weird stuff that would perhaps lead you to figure out how to survive in the void of space.

Also, like I noted earlier, buying inappropriate things is not a new problem in PF2. A character in PF1 who has never spent a single session learning a language or even interacting with people who speak languages he doesn't have, can nevertheless just spend all his Skill Points on Linguistics one level and suddenly gain 5-10 languages (or more) overnight.

NPCs don't do things like this because they don't make sense, and generally GMs keep PCs from doing them as well, for reasons of logic.

People seem to forget about downtime, where a character does stuff in between adventuring and leveling up. Here’s a great way to explain those 5 languages, during my characters down time he read books and studied those other languages, now when he gains his next level he has spent enough time studying that he understands them. Hence the skill point dump in linguistics. Not that I have ever heard anyone doing this but ya sure.

To me legendary is diving into mythological examples and I'm cool with that. For example Beowolf ripping Grendel's arm off (Legendary athletics?) Or Orpheus using performance to well do about everything he did in that story. I think It makes for a more interesting story when you characters hit high levels it should feel like high levels.

Fully agreed. I like that PF2 goes away from the "more of the same only with biggest numbers" that was high-level martial play in previous editions

Well, a lot of campaigns don't have much downtime over the course of a level, but given a fantasy setting with magical tutors I've never had a problem with people learning however many languages overnight.

Which raises the question of teaching as a skill in PF2.0---it'll exist for stealth, since the rogue blog(?) said something about an option making your allies less noisy as you're skulking about; any other tutor/leadership/teamwork skill aspects in the works?

I guess that the feat to get 10th-level spells is Legendary

Not sure the casters will love the No-Legendary option that much

It could also just have a level requirement of 20. Feats having level requirements is very much a thing.

People seem to forget about downtime, where a character does stuff in between adventuring and leveling up. Here’s a great way to explain those 5 languages, during my characters down time he read books and studied those other languages, now when he gains his next level he has spent enough time studying that he understands them. Hence the skill point dump in linguistics. Not that I have ever heard anyone doing this but ya sure.

This is totally a valid explanation. But he can also do it in a campaign that has had zero downtime or opportunity to do it. Nothing mechanical is stopping him.

And you're right, almost nobody does this, but almost nobody is gonna do the 'I'm buying the survive in space Skill Feat despite that situation never having come up and probably never going to.' either. Which is sorta my whole point.

Pathfinder has always had the mechanical ability for your character to buy things that don't make sense. If you want to talk about how to fix that then by all means do so, but it's a completely separate issue from Legendary Skill Feats.

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

BPorter wrote:

I never said he did. I said he was the exception, not the rule.

Good thing the PC's are exceptions to the normal populace of lvl 1-5 commoners right?

Good thing they can eliminate the speed bump that was the Test of the Starstone, right?

I wanted to adress this because I find it terribly disingenuous: getting to do SOME exceptional and/or supernatural acts at high level DOES NOT turn a character into a god. It just makes them incredibly good at something very specific.

I feel like requiring training or what have you to gain skills and languages should be more of a DM decision then it being forced into the rules. If it is baked into the rules unless it is truly amazing It would probably be the first thing I dropped. It seems more on the role play side of things to me.

I'm very happy with this blog.

Thank you Paizo for these abilities.

I think they make Pathfinder better.

Indiana Jones demonstratably has the Catfall Skill Feat and Legendary Acrobatics, to provide a concrete 'down to earth' example.

Really, I am not a fan of Indiana Jones, so I have no idea about where this happens. I would never imagine indiana Jones making a straight fall 1000 feet on solid concrete and taking no damage.

Anyway, here's a chart:

1st: Background granted Skill Feat, Ancestry Feat, Class Feat, starting Skills.
2nd: Skill Feat, Class Feat,
3rd: Skill Rank, General Feat,
4th: Skill Feat, Class Feat,
5th: Skill Rank, Ancestry Feat, Ability Scores Raise
6th: Skill Feat, Class Feat,
7th: Skill Rank, General Feat,
8th: Skill Feat, Class Feat,
9th: Skill Rank, Ancestry Feat,
10th: Skill Feat, Class Feat, Ability Scores Raise
11th: Skill Rank, General Feat,
12th: Skill Feat, Class Feat,
13th: Skill Rank, Ancestry Feat,
14th: Skill Feat, Class Feat,
15th: Skill Rank, General Feat, Ability Scores Raise
16th: Skill Feat, Class Feat,
17th: Skill Rank, Ancestry Feat,
18th: Skill Feat, Class Feat,
19th: Skill Rank, General Feat,
20th: Skill Feat, Class Feat, Ability Scores Raise

That's beautiful.

Now for inevitable discussion of which legendary skills belong to which class.

@ John john

What about hiding in a old lead refrigerator and being close to ground zero for a nuclear bomb thus flying and bouncing around tens of thousands of feet?

@ John john

What about hiding in a old lead refrigerator and being close to ground zero for a nuclear bomb thus flying and bouncing around tens of thousands of feet?

I assume the shock wave could destroy the refrigator and not bounce it around. Its sounds more like courage and ingenuity allows for lady luck to help you out big time kinda thing, than anything else really (which I like to see in movies and actually has a kind of connection to real life, buts that's not what legendary abilities seem to be about).

Are you saying Indiana Jones could survive lets say 3 repeated 1000 feet free falls on concrete?

Vidmaster7 wrote:

@ John john

What about hiding in a old lead refrigerator and being close to ground zero for a nuclear bomb thus flying and bouncing around tens of thousands of feet?

I assume the shock wave could destroy the refrigator and not bounce it around. Its sounds more like courage and ingenuity allows for lady luck to help you out big time kinda thing, than anything else really (which I like to see in movies and actually has a kind of connection to real life, buts that's not what legendary abilities seem to be about).

Again I would have to see the movies to have an informed opinion.

Are you saying Indiana Jones could survive lets say 3 repeated 1000 feet free falls on concrete?

It was mostly a joke cause he actually did that thing I mentioned. And uh maybe? depending on the director... I would I actually say John Mcclain (die hard) could do it then go on to kill some thugs barefoot shortly there after.

But seriously Really I would only put both those fellas at level 8-10 at the most.

Now if we are talking Hercules or some like really epic mythological hero then yeah probably without being facetious.

So is Assurance the mechanic that's supposed to keep Olympic swimmers from rolling a 1 and failing to even stay afloat in calm water? Because I don't see how it's supposed to do that in a situation like a race where everyone wants to roll to try for the best result. Any situation where a player decides they need to roll(opposed check, unknown DC, just forgot they could use Assurance) they risk the chance of looking idiotic at something they're nominally good at.

Not looking forward to high level characters running into tress because the GM had us try to notice a tiny detail of the area and someone rolled a 1.

Assurance would work better as a minimum on the roll, insulating you from the natural 1 even if you choose to roll. 5% is far to often for failing the kinds of things even basic skills should do.

It was mostly a joke cause he actually did that thing I mentioned. And uh maybe? depending on the director... I would I actually say John Mcclain (die hard) could do it then go on to kill some thugs barefoot shortly there after.

That's what I assumed to be case, that it actually did happen in some movie. John Mcclain has a good bleed resistance for sure.

To me most these things seem to be the hit points mechanic in action.
With which I have no real problem.

Now if we are talking Hercules or some like really epic mythological hero then yeah probably without being facetious.

I am actually a very big fan of how they are treating legendary levels and one of the main reasons I am ready to give this edition a go is their very existance.

Really, I am not a fan of Indiana Jones, so I have no idea about where this happens. I would never imagine indiana Jones making a straight fall 1000 feet on solid concrete and taking no damage.

He doesn't do that, but this isn't actually a hell of a lot more plausible (and he manages to bring people with him to boot).

How you justify something like Catfall in-story is a matter of personal preference. Indiana Jones justifies it with luck. Increasingly unlikely coincidences just save him. That seems a perfectly reasonable way to work that Skill Feat to me.

Of course, as noted, Indiana Jones would probably not actually be Legendary (and could maybe pull those falls off with Catfall and Master...maybe).

That's beautiful.

Thanks! :)

Now for inevitable discussion of which legendary skills belong to which class.

Well, there's gonna be some overlap. We know Paladins have Diplomacy, for example, but I'd be shocked if Bards don't as well. Paladins and Clerics also seem very likely to both have both Religion and Medicine, and so on and so forth.

But we really don't even know how many different Classes get, swo it's hard to say. Druids get 4 (the same as the number of Skills they get) but how meaningful that is we have no idea.

I mean, if we were just doing 4 per Class (with extra for Bards, Rogues, and Rangers) it might be something like this (based almost purely on PF1 skills):

Alchemist: Arcana, Crafting, Medicine, Thievery,
Barbarian: Acrobatics, Athletics, Intimidation, Survival
Bard: Deception, Diplomacy, Performance, Occultism, Society, Stealth,
Cleric: Medicine, Performance, Religion, (+1 per Deity...we actually know all these are Cleric Signature Skills pretty much for sure making this the only one that isn't entirely speculative except for Druid)
Druid: Crafting, Nature, Survival, (+1 per Order, this one's official)
Fighter: Acrobatics, Athletics, Survival, (we know they don't have Intimidation at the moment, though they likely will later, they may also get Crafting instead of, or even in addition to, Acrobatics)
Monk: Acrobatics, Athletics, Religion, Stealth,
Paladin: Diplomacy, Medicine, Religion, (I have no idea what their fourth skill would be...maybe Nature for Handle Animal and Ride? Or Performance to give them a second Cha skill?)
Ranger: Athletics, Crafting, Medicine, Nature, Stealth, Survival,
Rogue: Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Society, Stealth, Thievery,
Sorcerer: Arcana, Crafting, Deception, Intimidation,
Wizard: Arcana, Crafting, Occultism, Society,

EDIT: This has the following number for how many times each skill is a Signature Skill:

Acrobatics: 4
Arcana: 3
Athletics: 5
Crafting: 5
Deception: 3
Diplomacy: 2
Intimidation: 2
Medicine: 4
Nature: 2
Occultism: 2
Performance: 2
Religion: 3
Society: 3
Survival: 4
Stealth: 4
Thievery: 2

That leads me to believe this list is almost certainly wrong, and people get more Signature Skills than that (Clerics and Rogues should probably get Diplomacy, while Bards should get Intimidation, and Barbarians Nature, all just for example...of course, some of that might just be rearrangement).

A beautiful example of Legendary in action is surely Tai Lung from Kung Fu Panda -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os5wI6zIFEM

Alot of what he does here sounds ON PAPER ridiculous and magical in nature. For example, defying gravity, leaping from falling block to block to climb up hundreds of meters in the air.

Alot, maybe not always, but alot of the time, of the 'laws of physics breaking' legendariness can be rationalised with is a creative enough DM. Instead of your character actually landing on his feet from orbit without a scratch, he has not only manoeuvred himself to slow his terminal velocity, he has landed on birds in the air to delay his fall and found himself a bush to execute a perfect tumbling landing to kill off the momentum.

Instead of passing his body through a head sized hole in a force wall, he has managed to find the shimmering cracks in the surface, and pried them open just enough that he slides through with ease.

KingOfAnything wrote:

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.

I think you missed it, but Mark said all you would have to do is say you can’t take Legendary proficiency and then those skill feats never unlock. And that is only a -1 to Checks. Then it doesn’t matter if the Rogue can get legendary in a skill before 15th. We will of course need to see the play test to know for sure but if it is that easy, it will give you some interesting options.

As I look at that it also means e6 is now no Master proficiency only Level 3 spells (higher spell slots can be used for heightened versions) and no items of higher then level 6.

You can always cap play levels, and from what I hear, most sessions do not run 10+ level characters.

PF2 seems to be building in epic, as people seem to like ripping arms off of Grendel at high levels and all that.

Running on water (or liquide cement), balancing on the top of slim bamboos while fighting with zero chance of falling

That is Legendary in my book and not magical in any way in the source movies

Whoever said assurance giving a minimum result instead of a flat 10 not a bad idea!

Whoever said assurance giving a minimum result instead of a flat 10 not a bad idea!

It is only a 10 if you are only trained in a skill. At expert it is a 15, master a 20; and legendary a 30

Wow a 30. holy cow. Yeah guys When I do push ups i'm not pushing myself up I'm pushing the world down.

Of course by the time you get to that your skill check is going to be a d20+3+15+ability score modifier.

You can always cap play levels, and from what I hear, most sessions do not run 10+ level characters.

PF2 seems to be building in epic, as people seem to like ripping arms off of Grendel at high levels and all that.

There is also the fact that with the easy xp system, if your players still like recieving xp and working towards the next level, but you don't want to go past 10 you can just make the xp needed to ding be 2000 not 1000. This would allow you to play for a length of time that would normally get you to level 20 while only hitting 10.

Of course by the time you get to that your skill check is going to be a d20+3+15+ability score modifier.

+Item as well, and items seem to go up to +5 (though probably not quite that high at 15th).

But yeah, your bonus is gonna be pretty hefty (up to +28 or so) by the time you have that. Of course, it might also be as low as +20 depending on your stats and investment in that specific skill.

Justin Franklin wrote:

Of course by the time you get to that your skill check is going to be a d20+3+15+ability score modifier.

+Item as well, and items seem to go up to +5 (though probably not quite that high at 15th).

But yeah, your bonus is gonna be pretty hefty (up to +28 or so) by the time you have that. Of course, it might also be as low as +20 depending on your stats and investment in that specific skill.

So continuing my example: I can't do the push ups with the clap because its causes earth quakes.

Wow a 30. holy cow. Yeah guys When I do push ups i'm not pushing myself up I'm pushing the world down.

I contemplate that when I lay in the park, it's like the planet is my jetpack as I soar through the galaxy.

Finally, an article about feats that are actually feats instead of the not-feat feats that we call feats but are legally distinct from feats.

Also I really hope that there's some way for characters to "cheat"-in a higher level effect, like for Cat Fall (make some check to improve the effects of their fall prevention up a rank or something, though I guess that's kind of the point of the skill check in that case). That could make the feats feel more dynamic, plus give players a little bit of early access to the higher-level effects that, unfortunately, a lot of games will never even see. Might also help bridge the gap a bit between magic and skills.

Though at the same time, I hope that these aren't going to start eliminating interesting options that used to exist. The pidgin one, for example, was Xenoglossy, which was an interesting flavor feat with surprising utility (even if it was kind of overkill because by the time you could get the feat you likely knew the language anyway), and being able to squeeze your head through a hole the size of your head was just a skill check you could make with a high enough bonus instead of a specialized feat that requires legendary proficiency.

John John wrote:

Really, I am not a fan of Indiana Jones, so I have no idea about where this happens. I would never imagine indiana Jones making a straight fall 1000 feet on solid concrete and taking no damage.

He doesn't do that, but this isn't actually a hell of a lot more plausible (and he manages to bring people with him to boot).

How you justify something like Catfall in-story is a matter of personal preference. Indiana Jones justifies it with luck. Increasingly unlikely coincidences just save him. That seems a perfectly reasonable way to work that Skill Feat to me.

Of course, as noted, Indiana Jones would probably not actually be Legendary (and could maybe pull those falls off with Catfall and Master...maybe).

Maybe its just my personal preference and the fact I like supernatural pc's but luck doesn't cut it out for me, at least for an ability that's repeatable without any cost.

I am reaching pinnacle thread derailment status but the comments lead me to this (though its once person instead of 3). Also it seems the whole scene with the nuclear explosion is pretty controversial in the Indiana Jones fan community.

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

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

Maliloki wrote:

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.

Of course PF2 can be houseruled. My point wasn't that it can't, but that, based on the scaling of these abilities I'm betting the class abilities have a similar scaling problem (for me) that either doesn't exist in the system I use from the beginning, or I've already made the necessary changes.

I've massively overhauled the spell lists already for better balance and how magic works in my world, haven't looked at the stuff above 5th level yet to see what's available. Beyond that, I don't like non-magical abilities that allow characters to break the laws of physics or common sense. No one is stealing a suit of armor off someone and NOT having that be noticed.

PF is looking like its superpowering its way out of my gaming collection because of its base design philosophy. If you like fantasy superheroes, good for you, but I've spent a significant amount of time and energy getting a streamlined system to make life an actual challenge for my players while still giving them options to improve and be badass.

What I've been seeing in much of PF2 so far has been about making things less of a challenge because players don't like being bad at things and then amping everything up on steroids for combat because that's the only area for challenge.

So, as I said (basically), good luck to Paizo and the fans, but this edition (despite me hoping it's make a better base system for me) is more of a thing to mine for ideas vice switching and spending money on FOR ME (I don't actually care if you like it or think the mid to high level effects are the best thing and really going to bring your game to the next level. I like the world making sense).

I don't understand the need to have high level martials/non-casters having to abide by what humans can normally do in real life. Sure a ≤ 8lvl fighter should fall in the line of what a normal to olympic athlete can do to some extent, but after that, especially in the teens, a adventurer, magic or no magic, should have abilities far beyond what a human can do. I mean, pathfinder 1 already has decently levelled martials doing superhuman things in combat, like surviving a direct hit from a axe wielding giant-man, or getting pelted 20 or more crossbowmen all at once (and the dm in that campaign actually buffed crossbow damage too). High level barbarian can already survive even the maximum fall damage in pathfinder 1. Is it really unreasonable that they have legendary feats that close the gap between martials and spellcasters? A high level fighter shouldn't restricted to doing what a mook can do.

Also lets not forget that, apart from the Rogue so far, the Casters are going to be able to do all this stuff as well as if not better (Wizards Intelligence focus means more trained skills) than the martials. This isn't even a matter of giving martials "cool stuff." It is giving everyone that stuff.