Feats of Skill

As an example I am currently running a Ravenloft game with Pathfinder.

The 'Semblance of Reason' in the setting shifts all spell and magical effects to be more subtle, to keep casters as is mechanically while only changing descriptions.

Other unbelievable things not effected by an AMF include:

[...]

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

Barbarian Rage powers are also fun for a source of supposedly natural, non-magical things:

- Rip out someone's vital organ with your bare hand, even from someone clad in full-plate armor, an elephant, or a dragon. Bonus points, that someone does not bleed to death in mere moments despite you wrenching out one of their vital organs. (Bloody Fist)
- Using a halfling as an improvised weapon. But only if they're alive. A dead body is no good as an improvised weapon. (Body Bludgeon)
- Heal (or recover from fatigue, replenish luck, what have you) by biting people. (Feasting Bite)
- Punch concrete to make it crack in a 15ft-radius. (Greater Ground Breaker)

I guess my main issue with all of this right now -- and I'm sure someone has said this already -- is that Skill modifiers scale with your level. I thought part of this updated system was a "number crunch" of sorts (one of the few things I like about 5E), but it seems like in Playtest we will still be getting huge bonuses to rolls -- particularly Skill rolls -- that seem to get bigger for the sake of differentiating between your character's current and previous levels.

If I understand correctly, your Skill modifier is your Proficiency modifier (Proficiency rank bonus/penalty + your level) + Ability Score modifier + any extra things from feats and abilities. So at 1st level, my rogue who might be an expert in Stealth has a maybe +5 or so bonus to that skill. Remember, he is an EXPERT in Stealth. However, a Paladin who is level 7 and UNTRAINED in Stealth -- a skill he probably rarely uses or finds a need for -- will likely have an equal or higher bonus to that same skill. Maybe I'm splitting hairs about the words Untrained, Trained, Expert, Master, and Legendary, but even for the simplest action for a skill that can be performed without a skill feats, it doesn't make sense that an untrained character would be better at performing than a trained or higher character who lacks the same amount of XP.

I think I know where they are coming from: Proficiency Rank represents training, the level component of the Prof. modifier represents experience, and the Ability Score modifier represents talent. Still, getting a +1 EVERY time you level just seems to give huge weight to experience which -- let's not be coy -- mostly shows that you've fought a lot of monsters... And I believe that a level of experience is more or less implied in becoming an expert with something.

I could understand if it was half your level + your rank to make your Proficiency mod, but as it is now, this Skill system is just doing more or less what PF 1st Ed. already does -- simulates numbers getting bigger and bigger. Don't get me wrong, I love PF1 and I am very excited for nearly all of the changes in PF Playtest, but this one is not doing it for me. Maybe I'm reading something wrong, or not looking at it right. If so, please correct me and attempt to change my mind.

I guess my main issue with all of this right now -- and I'm sure someone has said this already -- is that Skill modifiers scale with your level. I thought part of this updated system was a "number crunch" of sorts (one of the few things I like about 5E), but it seems like in Playtest we will still be getting huge bonuses to rolls -- particularly Skill rolls -- that seem to get bigger for the sake of differentiating between your character's current and previous levels.

If I understand correctly, your Skill modifier is your Proficiency modifier (Proficiency rank bonus/penalty + your level) + Ability Score modifier + any extra things from feats and abilities. So at 1st level, my rogue who might be an expert in Stealth has a maybe +5 or so bonus to that skill. Remember, he is an EXPERT in Stealth. However, a Paladin who is level 7 and UNTRAINED in Stealth -- a skill he probably rarely uses or finds a need for -- will likely have an equal or higher bonus to that same skill. Maybe I'm splitting hairs about the words Untrained, Trained, Expert, Master, and Legendary, but even for the simplest action for a skill that can be performed without a skill feats, it doesn't make sense that an untrained character would be better at performing than a trained or higher character who lacks the same amount of XP.

I think I know where they are coming from: Proficiency Rank represents training, the level component of the Prof. modifier represents experience, and the Ability Score modifier represents talent. Still, getting a +1 EVERY time you level just seems to give huge weight to experience which -- let's not be coy -- mostly shows that you've fought a lot of monsters... And I believe that a level of experience is more or less implied in becoming an expert with something.

I could understand if it was half your level + your rank to make your Proficiency mod, but as it is now, this Skill system is just doing more or less what PF 1st Ed. already does -- simulates numbers getting bigger and bigger. Don't get me wrong, I love...

The only excuse I can see for the large numbers is the 4-tiers of success system.

I guess my main issue with all of this right now -- and I'm sure someone has said this already -- is that Skill modifiers scale with your level. I thought part of this updated system was a "number crunch" of sorts (one of the few things I like about 5E), but it seems like in Playtest we will still be getting huge bonuses to rolls -- particularly Skill rolls -- that seem to get bigger for the sake of differentiating between your character's current and previous levels.

If I understand correctly, your Skill modifier is your Proficiency modifier (Proficiency rank bonus/penalty + your level) + Ability Score modifier + any extra things from feats and abilities. So at 1st level, my rogue who might be an expert in Stealth has a maybe +5 or so bonus to that skill. Remember, he is an EXPERT in Stealth. However, a Paladin who is level 7 and UNTRAINED in Stealth -- a skill he probably rarely uses or finds a need for -- will likely have an equal or higher bonus to that same skill. Maybe I'm splitting hairs about the words Untrained, Trained, Expert, Master, and Legendary, but even for the simplest action for a skill that can be performed without a skill feats, it doesn't make sense that an untrained character would be better at performing than a trained or higher character who lacks the same amount of XP.

I think I know where they are coming from: Proficiency Rank represents training, the level component of the Prof. modifier represents experience, and the Ability Score modifier represents talent. Still, getting a +1 EVERY time you level just seems to give huge weight to experience which -- let's not be coy -- mostly shows that you've fought a lot of monsters... And I believe that a level of experience is more or less implied in becoming an expert with something.

Look at it from the reverse perspective: your rogue, a callow youth with not much more than scrappiness to his name yet, can match the efforts of a grizzled veteran who has exceeded normal human capabilities, and can pull off at least one stunt the latter never could.

If I understand correctly, your Skill modifier is your Proficiency modifier (Proficiency rank bonus/penalty + your level) + Ability Score modifier + any extra things from feats and abilities.

As far as we can tell, there are no extra things from Feats and abilities. There's occasionally a small bonus from magic, and there's a bonus from an Item, but that's it.

I think I know where they are coming from: Proficiency Rank represents training, the level component of the Prof. modifier represents experience, and the Ability Score modifier represents talent. Still, getting a +1 EVERY time you level just seems to give huge weight to experience which -- let's not be coy -- mostly shows that you've fought a lot of monsters... And I believe that a level of experience is more or less implied in becoming an expert with something.

Well, you can't actually be an Expert until 2nd level at best, and not a Master until 7th, so there's that in terms of 'you need experience to have this skill rank'. You do, in fact, need experience, it's just not a whole lot for Expert.

It might be best to think of anything beyond Trained as the equivalent of having Skill Focus in PF1 rather than just more ranks. A particular focus that nevertheless does not usually outweigh a greater level/more ranks from the other person.

And it's definitely a bit odd that you get better at skills by killing monsters. But that was true in PF1 as well, and I don't find it notably more odd that they get better at everything than I did when they got better at Craft (Jewelery), Knowledge (Geography), Linguistics, and Profession (Scribe). It's a metagame conceit that's necessary for the game to function that level represents your experience just in general rather than simply the experience that's been shown 'on screen'.

I do worry a bit about some of these skills on a thematic basis (particularly Athletics), but certainly not a realism one.

I guess my main issue with all of this right now -- and I'm sure someone has said this already -- is that Skill modifiers scale with your level. I thought part of this updated system was a "number crunch" of sorts (one of the few things I like about 5E), but it seems like in Playtest we will still be getting huge bonuses to rolls -- particularly Skill rolls -- that seem to get bigger for the sake of differentiating between your character's current and previous levels.

They have stated previously that they want to ensure that situations along the lines of "swordmaster surrounded by ruffians" will always favour the higher level character. That means experience has to be the dominant component.

Plus, if they had used half level instead of level, people would be making even more unfavorable comparisons to 4e than they already do.

I guess my main issue with all of this right now -- and I'm sure someone has said this already -- is that Skill modifiers scale with your level. I thought part of this updated system was a "number crunch" of sorts (one of the few things I like about 5E), but it seems like in Playtest we will still be getting huge bonuses to rolls -- particularly Skill rolls -- that seem to get bigger for the sake of differentiating between your character's current and previous levels.

If I understand correctly, your Skill modifier is your Proficiency modifier (Proficiency rank bonus/penalty + your level) + Ability Score modifier + any extra things from feats and abilities. So at 1st level, my rogue who might be an expert in Stealth has a maybe +5 or so bonus to that skill. Remember, he is an EXPERT in Stealth. However, a Paladin who is level 7 and UNTRAINED in Stealth -- a skill he probably rarely uses or finds a need for -- will likely have an equal or higher bonus to that same skill. Maybe I'm splitting hairs about the words Untrained, Trained, Expert, Master, and Legendary, but even for the simplest action for a skill that can be performed without a skill feats, it doesn't make sense that an untrained character would be better at performing than a trained or higher character who lacks the same amount of XP.

I think I know where they are coming from: Proficiency Rank represents training, the level component of the Prof. modifier represents experience, and the Ability Score modifier represents talent. Still, getting a +1 EVERY time you level just seems to give huge weight to experience which -- let's not be coy -- mostly shows that you've fought a lot of monsters... And I believe that a level of experience is more or less implied in becoming an expert with something.

I could understand if it was half your level + your rank to make your Proficiency mod, but as it is now, this Skill system is just doing more or less what PF 1st Ed. already does -- simulates numbers getting bigger and bigger. Don't get me wrong, I love...

Wait, I thought you didn't add your level to a check if you were untrained. I thought it was:

Untrained: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier -2
Trained: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier + Your Level + 1
Expert: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier + Your Level + 2
Master: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier + Your Level + 3
Legendary: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier + Your Level + 4

You're telling me we add our level even if we are untrained?? That doesn't make ANY sense.
Also, that paladin in your example should get some problems with his clunky armor.

EDIT: I do think it would go better if it was half level, though, like this:

Untrained: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier -1
Trained: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier + Half Your Level + 2
Expert: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier + Half Your Level + 4
Master: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier + Half Your Level + 6
Legendary: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier + Half Your Level + 8

It is interesting to see the game go more for an anime feeling with skills, which arent magic, allow for normal individuals to perform such feats, like falling from any place and take 0.

Just checking the blogs now, but still cant wait for the book.

kaid wrote:

Varun Creed wrote:

If you wouldn't want a 'Legendary' style game, your campaigns wouldn't go above level 15 anyhow in Pathfinder 1.

In PF1 once people start slinging around wish and opening new dimensions and some of those crazy spells a thief who is really good at stealing pants does not seem to be that far fetched.

In PF1, one doesn't survive the vacuum of space without magic or a magical or technological item, i.e. an in-game explanation. Having access to reality altering magic as a high level spellcaster = an in-game explanation.

Surviving in a vacuum in PF2? "I'm just that skilled/good at Survival that the environmental effects of vacuum no longer apply." In other words, my knowledge and training is so good, the laws of the in-game universe cease to apply to me. WTF?

PF2 character - I can survive a fall from ANY height without being the offspring of a god, being a spellcaster, or possessing a magic item that provides that ability. "I'm just that skilled/good that gravity causes me to fall like any other object but momentum doesn't exist when I land." Again, WTF?

In game explanations of the fantastic I can get behind. It's one of the appealing facets of fantasy games. However, saying "I can now break the realities of the game solely on the basis of 'I leveled high enough'" is way past the line of internal consistency. I'd hate it in a video game and I sure as hell hate it in my tabletop RPGs.

Even the superhero genre and its associated RPGs require that a fantastic power has a source/in-world explanation. That has not be presented or even hinted at with respect to PF2's Legendary tier.

Think it this way "I have leveled high enough that now I have a supernatural ability at survival and can survive even in the vacuum." or "I have become so good at controlling my fall that now I have a supernatural ability at spreading the energy from the fall on a wide surface and avoid all damage from it."

Those are the equivalent of SU abilities of PF1. Apparently the distinction about SU and EX abilities don't exist in PF2.

Wait, I thought you didn't add your level to a check if you were untrained. I thought it was:

Untrained: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier -2
Trained: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier + Your Level + 1
Expert: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier + Your Level + 2
Master: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier + Your Level + 3
Legendary: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier + Your Level + 4

No, it's as follows:

Untrained: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier + Your Level -2
Trained: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier + Your Level + 0
Expert: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier + Your Level + 1
Master: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier + Your Level + 2
Legendary: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier + Your Level + 3

You're telling me we add our level even if we are untrained?? That doesn't make ANY sense.

It does in some genres. Acquiring a high general level of competence in most things is common among pulp fantasy protagonists, for example. It's not super realistic, but neither is how HP works.

Also, that paladin in your example should get some problems with his clunky armor.

Mechanically, he absolutely does. Assuming he's wearing anyway (which, with low Dex, he probably is). Armor check penalties are a thing.

EDIT: I do think it would go better if it was half level, though, like this:

Untrained: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier -1
Trained: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier + Half Your Level + 2
Expert: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier + Half Your Level + 4
Master: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier + Half Your Level + 6
Legendary: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier + Half Your Level + 8

This defeats a couple of the primary goals of PF2 systemically:

1. To have everything work the same way. You'd thus need to do this for attacks and armor and everything, which has huge issues systemically.

2. To have people who are untrained have some small chance of accomplishing things that are within the scope of experts. They want to eliminate the possibility of Person A not being able to succeed and Person B not being able to fail.

It's thus not a good idea IMO, and probably not gonna happen.

Could we have the possibility to combine legendary feats. Cause all I am imagining right now is buying ballerina dresses at level 1 leaving the DM wondering, and once I get both those feats just redress all npc in silly costumes.

"Before you stands king Leoford, a champion of the people, a god among men, a legen.... Who is now wearing a nothing but female lingerie."

One thing I like a lot about the importance of skill feats is that this moves the potential silver bullet to solve a given problem from "the 8,000 different spells that a 13th level cleric could cast" to "the 6 skill feats a 13th level non-rogue has".

Which is to say it's less about memorizing all of the obscure spells in all of the splat books and more about knowing what your own skill feats do.

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.

Disregarding stuff like Cat Fall, Pickpocket 100, and other physical stuff, "just being that good" should absolutely be enough for some things. The legendary diplomat giving a speech so moving, so emotional, that the enemy lays down their arms. The power of that speech spreading through both armies, soldier to soldier, prompting everyone to desire to come together in harmony. Why couldn't someone just be that danged good at Public Speaking aka Diplomacy? ("give a speech that stops a war in the middle of the battlefield") Or the codebreaker that has seen so many codes that code is almost another language, and by now they're fluent. ("decipher codes with only a skim") Neither of these need be even remotely 'magical' to function, just an application of exceptional skill and/or experience. Ruling out an entire explanation without knowing all the possibilities seems a bit like jumping the gun to me.

The "its easier to add than remove" argument is troubling to me. As several posters have already pointed out, it's not easier to create balanced, effective abilities than it is to create a list of such abilities that aren't allowed at a table.

But I don't think that's really what is meant by "it's easier to add." I think it's referring to the human cost, the psychology. It's easier to tell your players "look, I've added this new tier of legendary proficiency that allows you to do these cool things" than it is to tell your player "we're not going to use legendary proficiencies in this game." It's the difference between having something you expected removed vs. the addition of something positive that was not expected.

I think this is where people have a problem with goblins or non-LG paladins or Leadership in the core rulebook too. In the minds of some, everything after the core book is more optional and therefore easier to say "no" to, but the core is supposed to be completely allowable and they don't want to have to come across as a jerk for removing what they don't like from the core book.

And this is where I have a problem: the mentality that the core game should be the most restrictive part of the rules (LG-only paladins, no legendary proficiency, no goblins, etc) and that the other stuff can be there but shouldn't be the default. The only way that mentality makes sense is if you plan to use the rules as written as a bludgeon to get your way. It's a plea to be able to argue "but it's the rules" to get what you want. If everyone in your group also didn't like legendary skill feats or whatever other rule, then it wouldn't matter what the default or "most official" way was; you'd decide as a group not to allow it.

I think the "it's easier to add" argument often comes from people who know that their group may not agree with their taste but want their way anyway. And that's deplorable. This is a social game, where the taste of more than one person matters. If a down-to-earth aesthetic is important to you and so you don't want legendary proficiency, you should have to convince your group to play that way, as a GM or as a player. If your group sees the legendary aesthetic and likes it better, you should have to either suck it up or find a group that thinks like you. The answer should never, ever be to hide behind the rules/default assumptions/core book to overrule the majority preference. There's only one case where rules you don't like affect you, and that's when others in your group want to use them; at that point, they should affect you and your group should work something out.

That said, I do appreciate the desire for controversial systems to be modular enough that removing something that isn't to ones taste doesn't take extreme amounts of work or break other parts of the game. That way a group doesn't have to work very hard to get the experience they want.

I also acknowledge that this argument doesn't apply to Society play, where group taste doesn't affect the rules.

BPorter wrote:

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.

Argh! I quoted the wrong thing, making this a total non sequitur, and it is well past the edit window. FWIW, it was supposed to be the bit about being easier to add than subtract.

_
glass.

Malk_Content wrote:

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...

I'm also in the mindset that Perception should be a skill. If they want to give every class automatic proficiency, that's fine. I just want it to behave in a consistent way with all the other skills and interact with the same systems, and have skill feats to represent those characters who have keener senses and broader awareness than others.

NetoD20 wrote:

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.

NetoD20 wrote:

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).

I'd be much more okay with the signature skills and would actually like them if rather than those being the ONLY skills you can advance past a certain point, they instead deducted 2 from the level threshold where you can advance them.

So a Fighter would actually have "weapon proficiency" as a signature skill, because they can get to Expert at 1st level instead of 3rd, Master at 5th instead of 7th, and Legendary at 13th instead of 15th. A rogue could have the same thing going on with its signature skills like Stealth, a paladin would do the same thing with armor proficiency, etc. But that wouldn't preclude anyone else from spending their skill increases / proficiency feats to get to expert / master / legend at 3rd, 7th and 15th level respectively.

I remember reading that 18 ability score represents peak human performance, the equivalent of an Olympian for the physical scores. This means that once you have 20 or higher ability score, the character is superhuman, and this doesn't require the use of any in-world magic.

master_marshmallow wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

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

...

Yes, absolutely, if Perception is gonna interect like and with other skills then it should totally be skill, even if, as you said, they want to give everybody proficiency with it.

Urg I was kinda hyped about the second edition but this legendary thing it´s such a letdown. I play mundane characters and this looks like they pretty much removed them from the game, not everyone it´s magic! I would rather have a little nerf on mage characters that just eliminating mundane of the game, not everyone wants to play in an anime-like world.

Yes, absolutely, if Perception is gonna interect like and with other skills then it should totally be skill, even if, as you said, they want to give everybody proficiency with it.

Agreed. I have yet to hear any rumors about Perception that justify violating the "things should be the same, or they should be different" rules design principle as explained by SKR.

I think Perception doesn't count as a skill because even though it uses the same resources in dice rolling, there are no Skill Feats for it and you can't use Proficiency increases to improve the rank.

If there is anything that improves perception AND I'm right, it will have to be in the categories of Class Abilities, Class Feats and General Feats.

We know that a Fighter starts out with Expert Perception, but if it takes a Class Feat to get up to Master, then it might be more of a hard choice instead of an automatic no-brainer for a Proficiency increase.

It is an important enough change that I hope we get a specific blog just on the topic of Perception to explain the design decision.

The "its easier to add than remove" argument is troubling to me. As several posters have already pointed out, it's not easier to create balanced, effective abilities than it is to create a list of such abilities that aren't allowed at a table.

But I don't think that's really what is meant by "it's easier to add." I think it's referring to the human cost, the psychology. It's easier to tell your players "look, I've added this new tier of legendary proficiency that allows you to do these cool things" than it is to tell your player "we're not going to use legendary proficiencies in this game." It's the difference between having something you expected removed vs. the addition of something positive that was not expected.

I think this is where people have a problem with goblins or non-LG paladins or Leadership in the core rulebook too. In the minds of some, everything after the core book is more optional and therefore easier to say "no" to, but the core is supposed to be completely allowable and they don't want to have to come across as a jerk for removing what they don't like from the core book.

And this is where I have a problem: the mentality that the core game should be the most restrictive part of the rules (LG-only paladins, no legendary proficiency, no goblins, etc) and that the other stuff can be there but shouldn't be the default. The only way that mentality makes sense is if you plan to use the rules as written as a bludgeon to get your way. It's a plea to be able to argue "but it's the rules" to get what you want. If everyone in your group also didn't like legendary skill feats or whatever other rule, then it wouldn't matter what the default or "most official" way was; you'd decide as a group not to allow it.

I think the "it's easier to add" argument often comes from people who know that their group may not agree with their taste but want their way anyway. And that's deplorable. This is a social game, where the taste of more than one person matters. If a down-to-earth aesthetic is...

Not really. The reason for favoring a vanilla, setting agnostic core is that it makes it easier to learn and play as well as more flexible. If you then want to add stuff to that, Paizo or its 3pp will no doubt be producing supplements to that purpose.

Also, designing new mechanics is objectively easier than removing parts of an existing game engine as you don't need to worry quite so much about unintended effects on other parts of the system as you can freely choose where and how the new system intersects with other rules.

It also related to Paizo's business model which involves putting out new content on a semi-regular basis. How many Paizo supplements in the past have offered suggestions for removing broken systems as opposed to just piling more on in the hopes of achieving some sort of equilibrium?

I remember reading that 18 ability score represents peak human performance, the equivalent of an Olympian for the physical scores. This means that once you have 20 or higher ability score, the character is superhuman, and this doesn't require the use of any in-world magic.

This hasn't been stated anywhere in regards to PF2, at least not to my knowledge.

I will note that evidence suggests you can have a 19 by level 5, but can't hit 20 until level 10.

Urg I was kinda hyped about the second edition but this legendary thing it´s such a letdown. I play mundane characters and this looks like they pretty much removed them from the game, not everyone it´s magic! I would rather have a little nerf on mage characters that just eliminating mundane of the game, not everyone wants to play in an anime-like world.

If your only issue is personally wanting to play a more grounded character, then that's actually easily done. It's been repeatedly mentioned that you can simply not take any Legendary skills or Skill Feats and still do fine, assigning them elsewhere (to a greater number of Master Skills and Skill Feats, presumably). Your character will be more of a generalist and less of a specialist skill-wise, but that's pretty appropriate for a 'mundane' character.

If you object to such characters existing, that doesn't help...but if you object to such characters existing how in the world were you dealing with Monk or Magus in PF1? Or any one of a vast number of other examples I can think of in PF1 that played into being 'anime-like' (or, IMO, just high powered and/or mystical).

Not really. The reason for favoring a vanilla, setting agnostic core is that it makes it easier to learn and play as well as more flexible. If you then want to add stuff to that, Paizo or its 3pp will no doubt be producing supplements to that purpose.

I wasn't really speaking about setting agnosticism. Obviously, there has to be something that is the core game that is later expanded upon. There's a difference between acknowledging that not everything can fit in a book and encouraging Paizo to drop aesthetics from the core because they don't like them and don't want to have to reach agreement with other players.

Also, designing new mechanics is objectively easier than removing parts of an existing game engine as you don't need to worry quite so much about unintended effects on other parts of the system as you can freely choose where and how the new system intersects with other rules.

I completely disagree. You can just as easily throw existing systems out of wack or obsolete them by adding poorly designed mechanics. Imagine PF1 without magic item crafting or Leadership. Perfectly functional, right? No holes making the system fundamentally not work. Now add those back in. In the opinions of many on these boards, you have wildly unbalanced the game with your additions. And that's ignoring the actual effort of creating the new content. I think your "objectively easier" is wildly overstated.

It also related to Paizo's business model which involves putting out new content on a semi-regular basis. How many Paizo supplements in the past have offered suggestions for removing broken systems as opposed to just piling more on in the hopes of achieving some sort of equilibrium?

I think Paizo would disagree with you that those systems were broken. In the cases where they did think there was serious improvement to be made, they replaced them in Unchained, which I think is to their credit.

Something quite new IMO is that the devs made PF2 with the goal of including many goodies that are contentious (say Alignment, Legendary Skill Feats) but also an eye on making them easy enough to remove for those who are not interested

If your only issue is personally wanting to play a more grounded character, then that's actually easily done. It's been repeatedly mentioned that you can simply not take any Legendary skills or Skill Feats and still do fine, assigning them elsewhere (to a greater number of Master Skills and Skill Feats, presumably). Your character will be more of a generalist and less of a specialist skill-wise, but that's pretty appropriate for a 'mundane' character.

If you object to such characters existing, that doesn't help...but if you object to such characters existing how in the world were you dealing with Monk or Magus in PF1? Or any one of a vast number of other examples I can think of in PF1 that played into being 'anime-like' (or, IMO, just high powered and/or mystical).

I don´t find crippling myself by not taking the best options available to be a great solution. I´m aware that people like their characters to be anime-like, but I would rather have it as a supplement to play a wuxia-like campaign than in core, so it would be easier to agree as a group to ignore it. About monks and magus being able to do incredible feats the answer it´s easy, they are magic users, not mundane characters (Ki just being another type of magic).

So how do I play a non-magical acrobat, low levels ofc I would take Cat Fall it would fit the theme of such a character. So at high levels when I become a legendary acrobat I suddenly don't take fall damage and I'm less questioning why after doing no magic the entire campaign I am suddenly doing something clearly magic? Is this now one of those setting where fighters are magic they just use it internally?

I feel like if Perception gets skill feats and what not it will have the same problem it had in PF1: TOO GOOD not to keep maxed. We do know there will some rogue feats and Gnome feats and spells which help in specific forms of Perception though, which seems like a decent compromise. Guess we will see.

Most classes must opt to take legendary feats to access legendary skills.

To make a character without them, you make a character without them.

I may write up a guide once the playtest materials are available.

I don´t find crippling myself by not taking the best options available to be a great solution.

Who says it cripples you? Indeed, Mark Seifter, who is one of the designers of the system, seemed to strongly imply that never taking a Legendary Skill Feat was a totally valid option mechanically.

I´m aware that people like their characters to be anime-like, but I would rather have it as a supplement to play a wuxia-like campaign than in core, so it would be easier to agree as a group to ignore it.

I'm not sure most of the Legendary Feats qualify as 'wuxia' like. Most seem high powered, but in a more 'ancient myths/superheroes' kind of way.

And making martials better in the core has been something a lot of people have wanted for a very long time, myself included. I'm very pleased to see it.

About monks and magus being able to do incredible feats the answer it´s easy, they are magic users, not mundane characters (Ki just being another type of magic).

What about my oft repeated Fighter wrestling a rhinoceros? That's not magic.

Anyways I´m just expressing my thoughts on the matter.

Sure, and I'm just commenting on them.

So how do I play a non-magical acrobat, low levels ofc I would take Cat Fall it would fit the theme of such a character. So at high levels when I become a legendary acrobat I suddenly don't take fall damage and I'm less questioning why after doing no magic the entire campaign I am suddenly doing something clearly magic?

Nothing forces you to take Legendary skills. If you take them, you get to be Legendary in them. That's what taking them means.

Is this now one of those setting where fighters are magic they just use it internally?

Golarion has always been a world where human beings, without magic, can survive being immersed in lava and wrestle a rhinoceros into submission. It's not that they're magic, it's that peak human capability in Golarion is vastly higher than peak human capability in real life.

So how do I play a non-magical acrobat, low levels ofc I would take Cat Fall it would fit the theme of such a character. So at high levels when I become a legendary acrobat I suddenly don't take fall damage and I'm less questioning why after doing no magic the entire campaign I am suddenly doing something clearly magic? Is this now one of those setting where fighters are magic they just use it internally?

In PF2, you don't need to take the Legendary proficiency if you feel that its abilities are too out of the ordinary for your character. It's been heavily implied that that won't lessen the power of your character, and other than the Legendary Skill Feats, the +1 isn't really going to affect you too much if you invest your options in other thematically appropriate abilities.

You can easily play your character just by not upgrading to Legendary; it's not compulsory to take your proficiency that far.

In addition, I feel like the Legendary feats are putting the narrative control in the hands of the player-gm team storytelling-wise. Yes, mechanically, you don't take fall damage, but it's up to you whether you flavour that as some magically advanced superpower, Irori-style hard work and training, skill and preparation alone, incredible luck or any combination of these things. And if none of those fit... you can always, as above, not go Legendary at all.

Yea most of the legendary feats would actually be Xianxia which is a subset of Wuxia. It deals with the higher level stuff like spliting mountains in half. Traditional Wuxia caps out with skills at around crouching tiger hidden dragon level.

it feels as though most people who would have critical things to say about this munchkin mania that second edition PF looks like it is becoming, are just shrugging and sticking with PF1 like me.

have fun everyone with „slow fall any distance“ without even a wall next to you, like the monk used to need.

thanks, but... no thanks
I‘ll be out at this point.

I love that there it´s at least an intention of making fighters and rogues to be more on par with the magic-oriented classes, but there it´s no point to it if it cost them their very soul. I want to play fighter and rogues because they are characters that are tied to certain rules and need to find more or less plausible ways to solve their problems in contrast with just snapping their fingers and fixing everything.

I'm really curious if folks who don't like the Legendary skills played PF1 past level 15, and if so why they bothered.

I do not mind Legendary characters being able to do their fantastic thing in a AMF :-)

I love that there it´s at least an intention of making fighters and rogues to be more on par with the magic-oriented classes, but there it´s no point to it if it cost them their very soul. I want to play fighter and rogues because they are characters that are tied to certain rules and need to find more or less plausible ways to solve their problems in contrast with just snapping their fingers and fixing everything.

The way I see, the problem is that you can't have both things. So okay, you chose to play a muggle, and you like the flavour of it, you like being a muggle, that's fine. But at the same time you want your muggle somehow to compete with magic at everything, and you don't even have high tech to do it. That just doesn't make any sense. Magic is altering reality, you wanna do stuff on par with altering reality without altering reality, it doesn't make sense.

There are two solutions to that, either you accept you're a muggle and have fun with it, or you do what PF2nd is doing and make everyone magical at high levels (even if you don't admit it). The first option is PF 1st ed, the second is PF 2nd ed, I'm fine with either, but I still would like an in-world explanation for the later. After all, mythic did this to explain its reality breaking shenanigans, and now they want to insert more Golarion flavour text/worldbuilding into the core line, so if they are putting a little more flavour text than in 1st ed, I think it would be fine if they gave me a line or three or four about how legendary feats are not mundane abilities.

The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is why people continually try to chain Humans/muggles/martials to the realities of our world despite it being made clear over and over again with lore examples that the "Limit" of such characters is not equivalent to that of which we commonly recognize to be possible in either our worlds or some works of fiction.

The same way how Spellcasters in Pathfinder are laughably elevated by several tiers against most other Spellcasters in fiction but just being magical somehow gives them a pass, despite many of those other universes offering explanations as to how their powers work, how far their scope extends and the consequences involved in its practice/dangers. Things PF magic by and large either neglects or hand waves away as simply being universal/Magic.

There are two solutions to that, either you accept you're a muggle and have fun with it, or you do what PF2nd is doing and make everyone magical at high levels (even if you don't admit it).

<snip>
I think it would be fine if they gave me a line or three or four about how legendary feats are not mundane abilities.

You think they're not mundane abilities.

There's another solution:
We don't admit anything
Paizo doesn't add any lines that change legendary mundane feats into magic.
You admit that mundane abilities aren't magic abilities.

We accept we are muggles who have legendary mundane abilities. And Paizo doesn't have to change anything for that to be true.

NetoD20 wrote:

There are two solutions to that, either you accept you're a muggle and have fun with it, or you do what PF2nd is doing and make everyone magical at high levels (even if you don't admit it).

<snip>
I think it would be fine if they gave me a line or three or four about how legendary feats are not mundane abilities.

You think they're not mundane abilities.

And the rest of us, who think they *are* mundane abilities are simply not "admitting" it?
And Paizo needs to confirm your thinking by adding words that turn mundane abilities into magic abilities?

There's another solution:
We don't admit anything
Paizo doesn't add any more lines that change legendary feats into magic.
You admit that mundane abilities aren't magic abilities.

We accept we are muggles who have legendary mundane abilities. And Paizo doesn't have to change anything for that to be true.

I never said Paizo needs to do anything. If you had read my post attentively, you would have seen that I used the expressions "I still would like", and if they did A and are doing B then "it would be fine if" they did X. And when I say "it would be fine if" I mean to say that to me it would be reasonable if they did X. I also used the expression "The way I see, the problem is" Q, so I clearly did not say that what I see as a problem is something objective, quite the contrary.

Meophist wrote:

I remember reading that 18 ability score represents peak human performance, the equivalent of an Olympian for the physical scores. This means that once you have 20 or higher ability score, the character is superhuman, and this doesn't require the use of any in-world magic.

This hasn't been stated anywhere in regards to PF2, at least not to my knowledge.

I will note that evidence suggests you can have a 19 by level 5, but can't hit 20 until level 10.

I’m pretty sure all abilities point will be in twos. So if you are starting a stat at 18 you can raise it to 20 at lvl20. There’s no signs so far there will be any odd-number ability scores, especially since ability drain and damage are gone.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Meophist wrote:

I remember reading that 18 ability score represents peak human performance, the equivalent of an Olympian for the physical scores. This means that once you have 20 or higher ability score, the character is superhuman, and this doesn't require the use of any in-world magic.

This hasn't been stated anywhere in regards to PF2, at least not to my knowledge.

I will note that evidence suggests you can have a 19 by level 5, but can't hit 20 until level 10.

I’m pretty sure all abilities point will be in twos. So if you are starting a stat at 18 you can raise it to 20 at lvl20. There’s no signs so far there will be any odd-number ability scores, especially since ability drain and damage are gone.

In one of the blog posts they mentioned using Starfinder as a guide, and in starfinder, when you get an ability score boost, it's +2, unless the score would be raised above 18, in which case it's +1

Edit: This is where it was stated.

You'll also amp up several of your ability scores every 5 levels. The process might be familiar to those of you who've been playing Starfinder for the last several months! There are, of course, a few tweaks, and we made all ability boosts work the same way instead of being different at 1st level. Learn it once, use it in perpetuity.

And from the Starfinder SRD:

Every 5 levels (at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th levels), you get to increase and customize your ability scores. Each time you reach one of these level thresholds, choose four of your ability scores to increase. If that ability score is 17 or higher (excluding any ability increases from personal upgrades), it increases permanently by 1. If it’s 16 or lower, it increases permanently by 2. You can’t apply more than one of these increases to the same ability score at a given level, but unlike at 1st level, these increases can make your ability scores go higher than 18.

it feels as though most people who would have critical things to say about this munchkin mania that second edition PF looks like it is becoming, are just shrugging and sticking with PF1 like me.

have fun everyone with „slow fall any distance“ without even a wall next to you, like the monk used to need.

thanks, but... no thanks
I‘ll be out at this point.

Added to my list... Let's see what you are doing in 2 years.

I'm really curious if folks who don't like the Legendary skills played PF1 past level 15, and if so why they bothered.

I know, a level 1 wizard can fall any distance, and these people are going to complain about a level 15 rogue being able to do it. I just don't get it.

Captain Morgan wrote:

I'm really curious if folks who don't like the Legendary skills played PF1 past level 15, and if so why they bothered.

I know, a level 1 wizard can fall any distance, and these people are going to complain about a level 15 rogue being able to do it. I just don't get it.

That´s because you can´t see the game as anything but a collection of stats.

I wasn't really speaking about setting agnosticism. Obviously, there has to be something that is the core game that is later expanded upon. There's a difference between acknowledging that not everything can fit in a book and encouraging Paizo to drop aesthetics from the core because they don't like them and don't want to have to reach agreement with other players.

True, but I feel it was sufficiently connected to the idea of keeping the core as simple as possible that it was worth mentioning, if only in passing. As for the other aspect, I think your assumptions about other gamers' motives is pretty off-base. In any event, Paizo clearly wants feedback as evidenced by the public playtests and solicitation of feedback in each and every Blog we've seen to this point.

I completely disagree. You can just as easily throw existing systems out of wack or obsolete them by adding poorly designed mechanics. Imagine PF1 without magic item crafting or Leadership. Perfectly functional, right? No holes making the system fundamentally not work. Now add those back in. In the opinions of many on these boards, you have wildly unbalanced the game with your additions. And that's ignoring the actual effort of creating the new content. I think your "objectively easier" is wildly overstated.

Maybe. The point was that you can at least see where the points of connection are and thus try to avoid them. On a tangential note, however, my opinion regarding 'balance' as it relates to TTRPGs is as follows:

I think Paizo would disagree with you that those systems were broken. In the cases where they did think there was serious improvement to be made, they replaced them in Unchained, which I think is to their credit.

Perhaps not the actual authors when they first wrote them, but based on some of the PF2 interviews it seems that at least some Paizo employees seem to feel that now. Also, while alternate and optional rules do exist (as they have since at least AD&D), that's not really the same thing as providing support for actually removing mechanics from the game altogether which I was referring to.

In any case, I'm stepping back here as my personal objection to Skill Feats is that they add too much complexity and I'm having a difficult time trying to comment from perspective I don't actually share regarding aesthetics and/or power level.

Toblakai wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

I'm really curious if folks who don't like the Legendary skills played PF1 past level 15, and if so why they bothered.

I know, a level 1 wizard can fall any distance, and these people are going to complain about a level 15 rogue being able to do it. I just don't get it.

That´s because you can´t see the game as anything but a collection of stats.

Hi. I'm probably the biggest advocate on this forum for what I call "Looking beyond the character sheet" and playing the game without just pushing the Ability Buttons like it's a video game. I strongly encourage people to make a character as if you're writing a book first, and don't sweat the stat block. Granted, it's harder to do that with Pathfinder, because of how easy it is to accidentally make a broken character (meaning a character that can't play the game because of how pathetic they are).

So even I, someone who is hugely on the role-playing side above the roll-playing side of the debate, even I agree that martial classes should be able to do legendary things at high level on par with equivalent level magic without it being called magic.

This *is not* an issue revovling around the "Role-play vs Min-Max" side of things, this is an issue revovling around wheather people want their martial classes to adhere to Earth Reality or Pathfinder Reality. Whether someone looks beyond the character sheet or stares unblinking at their own ability buttons like a video game controller trying to figure out which spell will bypass the challenge is irrelevant to the discussion.