Feats of Skill

You guys need to let the indianna jones thing go he is at most 12th level at the very most.

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.

+1. Mythological examples include the above, or grappling fire with nothing but human badassery.

The Ramayana has 5his war lord who decides to devote himself to austerity and through sheer will power transforms himself into a being who doesn't need food, water, or rest, and who can ignore the effects of harsh environments and teach how to do that to others.

DC Comics has a guy who learned so much karate he judo flips people into other solar systems without himself having super powers, and kicks the ground to nullify earthquakes. He doesn't use qi, but there are of course various examples in fiction of people learning to channel qi to surpass human limits.

Hell, PF1 let you deflect bullets with a 1st level feat and later catch them.

How does Perception fit into this?

If Perception is not a skill, but is used parallel to them for things like initiative, then how does one deal with someone taking Assurance on their chosen "go-to" skill for initiative in Exploration mode.

I would think things like tracking, sense motive, wild empathy, and the like would all be uses of Perception that ought be improved with Skill Feats, but if perception is not a skill, even though it's used like a skill, then where do we go from here?

I love the new d20 engine, and I really like the uses of skills and different feats to gate abilities. I wish the rest of the game was designed with this in mind to reduce uncertainty as you progress, not to increase it. This is the best part of the new game.

I notice there is a lot of confusion for myself in the new system of having a bunch of things that function the same way, but are specified not to be the same thing, in an indistinguishable way aside from what's printed on paper telling me that it's different. Spells that aren't spells but are still spells, and a skill that isn't a skill but is used in the same scenarios as skills.

This I fell needs tightening up.

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.

Agreed on all counts.

You know I realized it awhile back but if you really look at it the skill system PF2 is putting out is actually very similar to AD&D 2e’s proficiencies Systems. With much simpler skills and no skill restriction based on class type. Feats I’m just seeing as a way to hone your skills both mechanically and narratively.

How does Perception fit into this?

If Perception is not a skill, but is used parallel to them for things like initiative, then how does one deal with someone taking Assurance on their chosen "go-to" skill for initiative in Exploration mode.

I would think things like tracking, sense motive, wild empathy, and the like would all be uses of Perception that ought be improved with Skill Feats, but if perception is not a skill, even though it's used like a skill, then where do we go from here?

I love the new d20 engine, and I really like the uses of skills and different feats to gate abilities. I wish the rest of the game was designed with this in mind to reduce uncertainty as you progress, not to increase it. This is the best part of the new game.

I notice there is a lot of confusion for myself in the new system of having a bunch of things that function the same way, but are specified not to be the same thing, in an indistinguishable way aside from what's printed on paper telling me that it's different. Spells that aren't spells but are still spells, and a skill that isn't a skill but is used in the same scenarios as skills.

This I fell needs tightening up.

Perception doesn't fit into it. As one of the proficiency outside of Skills I'm guessing the resource you use to interact with it will be the far more limited General Feat pool.

Assurance and Initiative doesn't strike me as a problem. If you've got something like a +10 you might want to roll anyway, but taking the safe option for a middling initiative may be appealing sometimes. Seems like an okay choice to make.

Tacking and Wild Empathy seem to be better fits for Survival and Nature respectively. Sense Motive is confirmed to be part of Perception.

I don't think it's all that confusing at all.

Funny how all over the place I seem to be. Something to offend the sensibilities of everyone. :)

I've been playing 3X since it came out and PF since the playtest (less a roughly 18 month 5E run). I've played sessions above 15th level maybe a dozen times, probably fewer. I think that is important to keep in mind for my assessments.

As I noted in the skills thread from Monday, I have a great deal of concern that the amount of advancements combined with the excessive reduction in skills will create a fun-sucking tendency to reduce differences between characters. I think some folks will see this right away and for a lot of others it will grow over time. There is absolutely such thing as giving too much and then wondering why having everything isn't nearly as fun as the game where you thought you wanted more.

However, getting to wildly supernatural powers in specific areas is really cool. It seems completely sensible to me that going a very long way into supernatural in areas of physical skills is only natural. Letting a fighter become a Beowulf level hero is cool.

On the other hand, if you are not even "trained" in athletics, the you shouldn't be even try to climb a rope free handed. I don't care that you are a 16th level wizard. Cast a spell. If you learned by example then become trained, spend resources on it. If you don't spend the resources, then you are not trained. Therefore you can't climb ropes, wobbly ladders, sure, ropes, no.

If someone doesn't like the Beowulf level of power, then imo, they probably should not be playing PF. Or, as has been no problem for me, just don't go above L15.

If I find that the skills lack enough diversity and every wizard ends up "trained" in athletics because, "why not"? Or things like rope climbing
are not locked behind trained. Or any other barrier to characters having reasonable weaknesses alongside their awesome areas of power, the PF2 will not be for me. I'll happily express why. But I'll follow my own advice and simply not play.

master_marshmallow wrote:

How does Perception fit into this?

If Perception is not a skill, but is used parallel to them for things like initiative, then how does one deal with someone taking Assurance on their chosen "go-to" skill for initiative in Exploration mode.

I would think things like tracking, sense motive, wild empathy, and the like would all be uses of Perception that ought be improved with Skill Feats, but if perception is not a skill, even though it's used like a skill, then where do we go from here?

I love the new d20 engine, and I really like the uses of skills and different feats to gate abilities. I wish the rest of the game was designed with this in mind to reduce uncertainty as you progress, not to increase it. This is the best part of the new game.

I notice there is a lot of confusion for myself in the new system of having a bunch of things that function the same way, but are specified not to be the same thing, in an indistinguishable way aside from what's printed on paper telling me that it's different. Spells that aren't spells but are still spells, and a skill that isn't a skill but is used in the same scenarios as skills.

This I fell needs tightening up.

Perception doesn't fit into it. As one of the proficiency outside of Skills I'm guessing the resource you use to interact with it will be the far more limited General Feat pool.

Assurance and Initiative doesn't strike me as a problem. If you've got something like a +10 you might want to roll anyway, but taking the safe option for a middling initiative may be appealing sometimes. Seems like an okay choice to make.

Tacking and Wild Empathy seem to be better fits for Survival and Nature respectively. Sense Motive is confirmed to be part of Perception.

I don't think it's all that confusing at all.

It's not the mechanism which confuses me, but rather the implementation.

If it works like a skill, and is used the sane way (and sometimes in the same scenario) as a skill, then why isn't it a skill?

Are there skill feats that enhance perception to allow you to "see" invisible or ethereal things? A skill feat that allows you to perceive and thus attack and damage enemies that are incorporeal?

The potential for treating Perception like a skill again go beyond what I think we are going to get, and I think Perception being treated like a skill and having options to enhance it like a skill may end up creating a better game.

The potential for treating Perception like a skill again go beyond what I think we are going to get, and I think Perception being treated like a skill and having options to enhance it like a skill may end up creating a better game.

I think they want Perception to autoscale roughly in line with the characters best Skills which is why it was divorced from the Skill List. In any event, the option actually being removed is to NOT enhance it like a skill though whether that's a significant difference depends upon one's perspective.

Milo v3 wrote:

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

I concur, I mean the GM can remove/add as it suits the campaign they are running, and in my case, sometimes I advise my players that it's going to be a slow progression, and we won't be going beyond level 10 or 11, or that we will be running e6..

Funnily enough, my group will probably doing the opposite and skipping the low-levels once the playtest adventures are done.

NetoD20 wrote:

Wait a sec, you're telling a need to spend a feat to get 10th level spells?? wuuuuuutt Where is that referenced?

You do, and the Feat is 20th level only. It's been stated a few different places by designers, though it doesn't seem to have shown up in a Blog yet.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

As I understand it you will get 10th level spell slots automatically (so you can heighten things that high) but each 10th level spell (things on the order of Wish) will cost a class feat. It came up in the Wizard preview.

This is not correct. You get no 10th level slots normally, with the Feat giving you one such slot per day.

What? That is even worse that I have originally imagined, and a deal breaker for me, hopefully this is the playtest, it can and it should be corrected, this is as bad design as it gets

master_marshmallow wrote:

The potential for treating Perception like a skill again go beyond what I think we are going to get, and I think Perception being treated like a skill and having options to enhance it like a skill may end up creating a better game.

I think they want Perception to autoscale roughly in line with the characters best Skills which is why it was divorced from the Skill List. In any event, the option actually being removed is to NOT enhance it like a skill though whether that's a significant difference depends upon one's perspective.

Then does it also automatically scale in proficiency as well? How else is it used?

Sense motive is also no longer a skill, thus it wouldn't have these options either.

I'm fine with everyone getting perception trained as a base (like Craft and Profession in PF1), but what's the actual applicable difference between the Perception mechanic and skills?

This is what I would like to know; why isn't Perception a skill?

What? That is even worse that I have originally imagined, and a deal breaker for me, hopefully this is the playtest, it can and it should be corrected, this is as bad design as it gets

Based on what? What is wrong with having your capstone be basically getting Epic Level spells?

Crayon wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

The potential for treating Perception like a skill again go beyond what I think we are going to get, and I think Perception being treated like a skill and having options to enhance it like a skill may end up creating a better game.

I think they want Perception to autoscale roughly in line with the characters best Skills which is why it was divorced from the Skill List. In any event, the option actually being removed is to NOT enhance it like a skill though whether that's a significant difference depends upon one's perspective.

Then does it also automatically scale in proficiency as well? How else is it used?

Sense motive is also no longer a skill, thus it wouldn't have these options either.

I'm fine with everyone getting perception trained as a base (like Craft and Profession in PF1), but what's the actual applicable difference between the Perception mechanic and skills?

This is what I would like to know; why isn't Perception a skill?

Unlike skills, Perception is something pretty much everyone is always using. You could force it to be a skill, but I think it works better as a separate stat.

On the other hand, if you are not even "trained" in athletics, the you shouldn't be even try to climb a rope free handed. I don't care that you are a 16th level wizard. Cast a spell. If you learned by example then become trained, spend resources on it. If you don't spend the resources, then you are not trained. Therefore you can't climb ropes, wobbly ladders, sure, ropes, no.

I'm not sure rope-climbing is the best example (don't Physical Education classes often require the schoolkid population at large to do just that?), but I heartily agree with the general principle.

I predict PF2 follows this principle satisfactorily, based on the proficiency rankings that we know are used as gates.

edduardco wrote:

What? That is even worse that I have originally imagined, and a deal breaker for me, hopefully this is the playtest, it can and it should be corrected, this is as bad design as it gets

Based on what? What is wrong with having your capstone be basically getting Epic Level spells?

That it breaks the progression of previously 18th levels, that is another nerf to casters making original level 9 spells 1/day pushed to level 20, that is gated behind a feat tax.

Epic Levels Spells? Given Paizo tracking I don't believe for a moment that these 10 level spells are going to be the equivalent of Epic level Spells, no even Mythic accomplished that.

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.

I love Kung Fu Panda, and I love all that wuxia stuff, but just because the guy trained and trained and become legendary at it, it doesn't mean that it isn't magical, that cannot be mundane. To me it clearly derives from ki abilities, and I'm not even saying that a monk needs to spend a ki point to do it, it might be usage of passive ki-relyant abilities, but ki is clearly magical. Why can't we just call it magical??

People choose to play nonmagical characters and then want to be able to do magical stuff, okay, fine, but at least call it what it is.

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).

John John wrote:

That's beautiful.

Thanks! :)

John John wrote:

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:...

Wait, what? I thought there were not going to be class skills anymore, you chose a x + Int mod number and you got those as trained in 1st level.

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.

If you're not willing to have things occasionally be luck/preparation based then you're really limiting the kind of Legendary character people can conceptually play, IMO.

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.

This sort of goes back to the luck thing: Why was there even a life raft in the plane?

But yeah, let's just drop it.

That it breaks the progression of previously 18th levels, that is another nerf to casters making original level 9 spells 1/day pushed to level 20, that is gated behind a feat tax.

Epic Levels Spells? Given Paizo tracking I don't believe for a moment that these 10 level spells are going to be the equivalent of Epic level Spells, no even Mythic accomplished that.

Examples we've been given of 10th level spells include literally turning into an Avatar of your god, destroying an entire environment, and a spell, as described, that sounds like turning into the Tarrasque.

That's pretty damn epic.

But yeah, skill feats are something I'm looking forward to.

I might pick Rogue first just to fully embrace the mechanic from day one.

Wait, what? I thought there were not going to be class skills anymore, you chose a x + Int mod number and you got those as trained in 1st level.

This is correct as far as it goes, however, it's also been revealed that each Class does get Signature Skills, and that only Signature Skills can be bought to Master or Legendary.

They did also say there were non-Class ways to get additional Signature Skills, but which ones your class gets remains a relevant thing.

oksananana wrote:

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.

I love Kung Fu Panda, and I love all that wuxia stuff, but just because the guy trained and trained and become legendary at it, it doesn't mean that it isn't magical, that cannot be mundane. To me it clearly derives from ki abilities, and I'm not even saying that a monk needs to spend a ki point to do it, it might be usage of passive ki-relyant abilities, but ki is clearly magical. Why can't we just call it magical??

People choose to play nonmagical characters and then want to be able to do magical stuff, okay, fine, but at least call it what it is.

It's really easy to flavor it as magic in your head though. Leaving it without an explanation let's the players fill in the gaps. I happen to share Malik's headcannon that you are gradually infused with more and more Magic as Resonance demonstrates, but you could also call it ki, divine favor, or just being that good.

Basically, just because no explanation is given doesn't mean the explanation doesn't exist, they just haven't figured it out in universe yet.

BryonD wrote:

On the other hand, if you are not even "trained" in athletics, the you shouldn't be even try to climb a rope free handed. I don't care that you are a 16th level wizard. Cast a spell. If you learned by example then become trained, spend resources on it. If you don't spend the resources, then you are not trained. Therefore you can't climb ropes, wobbly ladders, sure, ropes, no.

I'm not sure rope-climbing is the best example (don't Physical Education classes often require the schoolkid population at large to do just that?)

No. Not at all.

I predict PF2 follows this principle satisfactorily, based on the proficiency rankings that we know are used as gates.

I hope so.

NetoD20 wrote:

oksananana wrote:

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.

I love Kung Fu Panda, and I love all that wuxia stuff, but just because the guy trained and trained and become legendary at it, it doesn't mean that it isn't magical, that cannot be mundane. To me it clearly derives from ki abilities, and I'm not even saying that a monk needs to spend a ki point to do it, it might be usage of passive ki-relyant abilities, but ki is clearly magical. Why can't we just call it magical??

People choose to play nonmagical characters and then want to be able to do magical stuff, okay, fine, but at least call it what it is.

It's really easy to flavor it as magic in your head though. Leaving it without an explanation let's the players fill in the gaps. I happen to share Malik's headcannon that you are gradually infused with more and more Magic as Resonance demonstrates, but you could also call it ki, divine favor, or just being that good.

Basically, just because no explanation is given doesn't mean the explanation doesn't exist, they just haven't figured it out in...

I can agree with part of that, but "just being that good" doesn't cut it to me. If they don't wanna explain, fine, don't, but at least in game mechanics terms those abilities should get a Supernatural tag or whatever it is equivalent to that in 2nd ed and don't get to work inside antimagic fields and such.

That it breaks the progression of previously 18th levels, that is another nerf to casters making original level 9 spells 1/day pushed to level 20, that is gated behind a feat tax.

Epic Levels Spells? Given Paizo tracking I don't believe for a moment that these 10 level spells are going to be the equivalent of Epic level Spells, no even Mythic accomplished that.

Oh no, the most broken thing in 3e and PF 1e (Fullcasters of high level, especially epic spellcasting) is being nerfed so that it breaks the game less while still being present :P

John John wrote:

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.

If you're not willing to have things occasionally be luck/preparation based then you're really limiting the kind of Legendary character people can conceptually play, IMO.

Because for a lot of people, you can't prepare to do any of these things. You can't "prepare" to survive a terminal velocity fall (well, except for having a parachute) it's all down to luck. And the feats, presented, aren't luck. They're skill.

It's much easier to accept "magic" as an explanation than "I'm just that good" because for a lot of us, we know you can't be that good. It's impossible in a world trying to emulate our world's underlying laws (and Golarion, aside from magic and a few system glitches, does). Therefore the only logical conclusion for me and others is that they have supernatural aid.

NetoD20 wrote:

Wait, what? I thought there were not going to be class skills anymore, you chose a x + Int mod number and you got those as trained in 1st level.

This is correct as far as it goes, however, it's also been revealed that each Class does get Signature Skills, and that only Signature Skills can be bought to Master or Legendary.

They did also say there were non-Class ways to get additional Signature Skills, but which ones your class gets remains a relevant thing.

Wut. I was liking this system so much, but signature skills prohibiting you instead of given you something more? Damn, devs, just let people get whatever skill they want and develop it over years/levels. I'm gonna be really pissed if my elf wizard can't get Nature to Legendary or has to spent a feat or similar resource just to make it signature. Also if Wizards in general don't get Occultism, which seems to me like the most esoteric skill of those, I'm also gonna be really sad about it, wizards need to get away from the "scientist of magic" trope and finally be able to be more mystical, and mysterious.

That said, I hope the legendary skill feats for stuff like Alchemy and Arcana and Nature and Occultism be just as epic as falling an infinite distance to the ground unscathed or surviving in the void of space. Really pumped for those. I can imagine nature being things like the Train Plants and Grow Plant Creature feats in 1ed.

I can agree with part of that, but "just being that good" doesn't cut it to me. If they don't wanna explain, fine, don't, but at least in game mechanics terms those abilities should get a Supernatural tag or whatever it is equivalent to that in 2nd ed and don't get to work inside antimagic fields and such.

Where exactly do you draw this line?

Because, as I've mentioned previously, in PF1 an 8th level Fighter can generally out-wrestle a rhinoceros with nothing but Str and BAB. A higher level Fighter can likewise survive immersion in lava.

Do those need to be Supernatural? And given that they are inevitable consequences of BAB and HP, how do you make them so?

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

BryonD wrote:

On the other hand, if you are not even "trained" in athletics, the you shouldn't be even try to climb a rope free handed. I don't care that you are a 16th level wizard. Cast a spell. If you learned by example then become trained, spend resources on it. If you don't spend the resources, then you are not trained. Therefore you can't climb ropes, wobbly ladders, sure, ropes, no.

I'm not sure rope-climbing is the best example (don't Physical Education classes often require the schoolkid population at large to do just that?)

No. Not at all.

?

I don’t think it’s common anymore, but that was absolutely a thing, at least in the US.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

John John wrote:

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.

If you're not willing to have things occasionally be luck/preparation based then you're really limiting the kind of Legendary character people can conceptually play, IMO.

Because for a lot of people, you can't prepare to do any of these things. You can't "prepare" to survive a terminal velocity fall (well, except for having a parachute) it's all down to luck. And the feats, presented, aren't luck. They're skill.

It's much easier to accept "magic" as an explanation than "I'm just that good" because for a lot of us, we know you can't be that good. It's impossible in a world trying to emulate our world's underlying laws (and Golarion, aside from magic and a few system glitches, does). Therefore the only logical conclusion for me and others is that they have supernatural aid.

Yes! Exactly! And honestly, what's the problem of admiting those are supernatural in nature?? As an example, I still maintain that Heracles holding the sky should be clearly considered magical, he's not just strong as a mortal is, he is supernaturally strong.

Wut. I was liking this system so much, but signature skills prohibiting you instead of given you something more? Damn, devs, just let people get whatever skill they want and develop it over years/levels.

It's not my favorite mechanic they've revealed thus far, though I'm willing to roll with it if getting new Signature Skills is relatively easy (heck, maybe you just get Lore and one of your choice for free or something), so I'm withholding judgment for the moment.

I'm gonna be really pissed if my elf wizard can't get Nature to Legendary or has to spent a feat or similar resource just to make it signature. Also if Wizards in general don't get Occultism, which seems to me like the most esoteric skill of those, I'm also gonna be really sad about it, wizards need to get away from the "scientist of magic" trope and finally be able to be more mystical, and mysterious.

It's very possible Wizards will get all the Knowledge-type stuff. Or that you'll get a Signature Skill of your choice. Or a lot of other possibilities. I'd honestly be surprised if they didn't at least get all the Int skills, though (which would include Occultism).

That said, I hope the legendary skill feats for stuff like Alchemy and Arcana and Nature and Occultism be just as epic as falling an infinite distance to the ground unscathed or surviving in the void of space. Really pumped for those. I can imagine nature being things like the Train Plants and Grow Plant Creature feats in 1ed.

Well, we know you can use those skills for Ritual Magic to some degree, so I suspect their options will be fairly impressive (though, to be pedantic, there is no Alchemy skill, just Crafting with the 'Craft Alchemical Item' Skill Feat).

TheFinish wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

John John wrote:

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.

If you're not willing to have things occasionally be luck/preparation based then you're really limiting the kind of Legendary character people can conceptually play, IMO.

Because for a lot of people, you can't prepare to do any of these things. You can't "prepare" to survive a terminal velocity fall (well, except for having a parachute) it's all down to luck. And the feats, presented, aren't luck. They're skill.

It's much easier to accept "magic" as an explanation than "I'm just that good" because for a lot of us, we know you can't be that good. It's impossible in a world trying to emulate our world's underlying laws (and Golarion, aside from magic and a few system glitches, does). Therefore the only logical conclusion for me and others is that they have supernatural aid.

Yes! Exactly! And honestly, what's the problem of admiting those are supernatural in nature?? As an example, I still maintain that Heracles holding the sky should be clearly considered magical, he's not just strong as a mortal is, he is supernaturally strong.

Hercules' strength is like dragons' flight or golems' mobility: there may be beyond-physics stuff in it somewhere, but it keeps working in an AMF anyway, so it can't be made (Su).

Golarion isn't trying to emulate our world's underlying laws. The underlying laws of our world make dragons, giants, surviving a dip in lava, or tanking several hits from a greatsword impossible. These things are mundane in Golarion.

NetoD20 wrote:

I can agree with part of that, but "just being that good" doesn't cut it to me. If they don't wanna explain, fine, don't, but at least in game mechanics terms those abilities should get a Supernatural tag or whatever it is equivalent to that in 2nd ed and don't get to work inside antimagic fields and such.

Where exactly do you draw this line?

Because, as I've mentioned previously, in PF1 an 8th level Fighter can generally out-wrestle a rhinoceros with nothing but Str and BAB. A higher level Fighter can likewise survive immersion in lava.

Do those need to be Supernatural? And given that they are inevitable consequences of BAB and HP, how do you make them so?

To me if it's impossible it requires as magical or high tech... I will not say "explanation" because it's not about explaining how it's done but rather where it comes from, so I'm gonna say reason. However people probably are gonna yell at me and tell me that wrestling a rhinocerous shouldn't be explained as magical, as impossible and ridiculous as that is. So I'm forced to compromise and draw the line further ahead, at the epic legendary abilities, which certainly seem way more impossible than wrestling a rhinocerous. (just for clarification: epic is a descriptive term in this sentence, not using it as a game term, the game term is obviously legendary)

Golarion isn't trying to emulate our world's underlying laws. The underlying laws of our world make dragons, giants, surviving a dip in lava, or tanking several hits from a greatsword impossible. These things are mundane in Golarion.

To be fair I always hated surviving a dip a lava without magical assistance just using hit points as a buffer.

NetoD20 wrote:

TheFinish wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

John John wrote:

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.

If you're not willing to have things occasionally be luck/preparation based then you're really limiting the kind of Legendary character people can conceptually play, IMO.

Because for a lot of people, you can't prepare to do any of these things. You can't "prepare" to survive a terminal velocity fall (well, except for having a parachute) it's all down to luck. And the feats, presented, aren't luck. They're skill.

It's much easier to accept "magic" as an explanation than "I'm just that good" because for a lot of us, we know you can't be that good. It's impossible in a world trying to emulate our world's underlying laws (and Golarion, aside from magic and a few system glitches, does). Therefore the only logical conclusion for me and others is that they have supernatural aid.

Yes! Exactly! And honestly, what's the problem of admiting those are supernatural in nature?? As an example, I still maintain that Heracles holding the sky should be clearly considered magical, he's not just strong as a mortal is, he is supernaturally strong.

Hercules' strength is like dragons' flight or golems' mobility: there may be beyond-physics stuff in it somewhere, but it keeps working in an AMF anyway, so it can't be made (Su).

I am quite certain that all constructs stop working inside antimagic fields, and the breath weapon is Supernatural.

How about dragons?
Or owlbears?
Or alchemy which is definitely not magical but still nonsense?

Frankly, the fact that you and others are using your incredulity to try to limit the game for those of us who want non-magical, but still superhuman legendary fighters is starting to get on my nerves and coming across as very arrogant and dismissive.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

NetoD20 wrote:

TheFinish wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

John John wrote:

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.

If you're not willing to have things occasionally be luck/preparation based then you're really limiting the kind of Legendary character people can conceptually play, IMO.

Because for a lot of people, you can't prepare to do any of these things. You can't "prepare" to survive a terminal velocity fall (well, except for having a parachute) it's all down to luck. And the feats, presented, aren't luck. They're skill.

It's much easier to accept "magic" as an explanation than "I'm just that good" because for a lot of us, we know you can't be that good. It's impossible in a world trying to emulate our world's underlying laws (and Golarion, aside from magic and a few system glitches, does). Therefore the only logical conclusion for me and others is that they have supernatural aid.

Yes! Exactly! And honestly, what's the problem of admiting those are supernatural in nature?? As an example, I still maintain that Heracles holding the sky should be clearly considered magical, he's not just strong as a mortal is, he is supernaturally strong.

Hercules' strength is like dragons' flight or golems' mobility: there may be beyond-physics stuff in it somewhere, but it keeps working in an AMF anyway, so it can't be made (Su).

I am quite certain that all constructs stop working inside antimagic fields.

It would make sense, but it is not so.

The spell has no effect on golems and other constructs that are imbued with magic during their creation process and are thereafter self-supporting (unless they have been summoned, in which case they are treated like any other summoned creatures). Elementals, undead, and outsiders are likewise unaffected unless summoned. These creatures' spell-like or supernatural abilities may be temporarily nullified by the field.

I don't understand what's so hard about this.

People keep handwaving away Irori as an exception and entirely missing the point in his constant referencing.

The point is that the Zenith capabilities of mundane characters, human or otherwise on Golarion are much higher than most people seem to think.

I am quite certain that all constructs stop working inside antimagic fields, and the breath weapon is Supernatural.

Constructs, as a creature type, are unaffected by an AMF. And yes, the breath weapon is supernatural. Flying however, despite being just as physically impossible, is not.

EDIT: Ninja'd. Ah, well.

NetoD20 wrote:

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

NetoD20 wrote:

TheFinish wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

John John wrote:

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.

If you're not willing to have things occasionally be luck/preparation based then you're really limiting the kind of Legendary character people can conceptually play, IMO.

Because for a lot of people, you can't prepare to do any of these things. You can't "prepare" to survive a terminal velocity fall (well, except for having a parachute) it's all down to luck. And the feats, presented, aren't luck. They're skill.

It's much easier to accept "magic" as an explanation than "I'm just that good" because for a lot of us, we know you can't be that good. It's impossible in a world trying to emulate our world's underlying laws (and Golarion, aside from magic and a few system glitches, does). Therefore the only logical conclusion for me and others is that they have supernatural aid.

Yes! Exactly! And honestly, what's the problem of admiting those are supernatural in nature?? As an example, I still maintain that Heracles holding the sky should be clearly considered magical, he's not just strong as a mortal is, he is supernaturally strong.

Hercules' strength is like dragons' flight or golems' mobility: there may be beyond-physics stuff in it somewhere, but it keeps working in an AMF anyway, so it can't be made (Su).

I am quite certain that all constructs stop working inside antimagic fields.

It would make sense, but it is not so.

Antimagic Field wrote:

The spell has no effect on golems and other constructs that are imbued with magic during their creation process and are thereafter self-supporting (unless they have been summoned, in which

...

I'm flabbergasted, I was really sure that was the case, I'm sorry for spewing wrong information on that one, folks. Maybe I confused it as a reminiscent of 3.X? I don't know. Again, I'm sorry.

How about dragons?

Or owlbears?
Or alchemy which is definitely not magical but still nonsense?

Great Corellon, how I despise that alchemy isn't magical anymore, in 1ed edition it said it wasn't divine or arcane magic, just "magic". I always house-ruled it to be arcane magic, and probably am going to do so again in 2nd ed. I always flavored alchemy very differently, in a way that an alchemist doesn't mix chemicals, he works with mystical ingredients, like if he wants to make a bomb he uses the trapped breath of a fire elemental and stuff like that.

Other unbelievable things not effected by an AMF include:

-A Paladin or Monk's Immunity to Disease (and many other Immunities).
-Evasion in general.
-A Monk's 'Tongue of Sun and Moon' ability to talk to anyone.
-Earth Glide
-Fast Healing and Regeneration
-Being Incorporeal
-Some varieties of Natural Invisibility

And that's just from skimming some Classes and the Universal Monster Abilities section.

You know I realized it awhile back but if you really look at it the skill system PF2 is putting out is actually very similar to AD&D 2e’s proficiencies Systems.

Ah, the good old roll under system, elegant, and works well when the PCs rarely have an ability score over 18.

Lets face it, almost every being over level 5 should just have (Su) beside its name.

MER-c wrote:

You know I realized it awhile back but if you really look at it the skill system PF2 is putting out is actually very similar to AD&D 2e’s proficiencies Systems.

Ah, the good old roll under system, elegant, and works well when the PCs rarely have an ability score over 18.

I am hoping of turning some AD&D proficiencies into Skill Feats, mainly Planescape stuff, like using Planes or Occultism or Arcana to shape Aether in the Ethereal Plane.

Weather Report wrote:

MER-c wrote:

You know I realized it awhile back but if you really look at it the skill system PF2 is putting out is actually very similar to AD&D 2e’s proficiencies Systems.

Ah, the good old roll under system, elegant, and works well when the PCs rarely have an ability score over 18.

I am hoping of turning some AD&D proficiencies into Skill Feats, mainly Planescape stuff, like using Planes or Occultism or Arcana to shape Aether in the Ethereal Plane.

Ooh, I am a big fan of Planescape, since back in the day, I have an ongoing Planescape campaign I started in 2005 (3rd Ed rules), in hiatus as of now; I converted the Factions to 3rd Ed/PF1 and 5th Ed rules. Also converted missing monsters in 3rd Ed/PF1 and 5th Ed (5th Ed is like 3rd Ed Lite, to me).

I go to bed, get up and there 4 or 5 new pages.

I take the reason for selecting things as: it is a game.

I am rather an easy going DM.

For the magical or pseudo-magical our culture and society is a product of the Scientific Revolution and Age of Enlightenment. This is our 'common sense'.

We find 'magic' outside that. Older societies would have a different worldsense. The smith forging tools of metal from rock. Putting seeds in the soil applying water and plants growing from it. Childbirth is called a miracle.

The division between natural, supernatural and supranatural were blurred or non-existant.

The tag of (Su) was to give clarity of rules interaction. Note that without carrying items or active spells if you scan a monk or a dragon, detect magic will find nothing.

BryonD wrote:

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

BryonD wrote:

On the other hand, if you are not even "trained" in athletics, the you shouldn't be even try to climb a rope free handed. I don't care that you are a 16th level wizard. Cast a spell. If you learned by example then become trained, spend resources on it. If you don't spend the resources, then you are not trained. Therefore you can't climb ropes, wobbly ladders, sure, ropes, no.

I'm not sure rope-climbing is the best example (don't Physical Education classes often require the schoolkid population at large to do just that?)

No. Not at all.

?

I don’t think it’s common anymore, but that was absolutely a thing, at least in the US.

It depends on what you mean by "require." They might have had a rope and told kids to climb it one day (I vaguely recall that from childhood) but that doesn't mean that most could or there were any consequences for failure or not really trying very hard.