The Great Potato's page

You get so few Expert, Master, and Legendary skill increases, that I would put it on the player to know what their skill increases give them. The grapple example also makes perfect sense: improving your strength enough to pick someone up and pin them should (in a fantasy world at least) make you better at climbing as well. Heck, maybe you got into grappling shape by climbing a mountain.

The Great Potato wrote:

Now, that Athletics example is a perfect example of an "impossible ability" like Cat Fall. I think getting all four abilities would be a worthy skill feat.

Well, it's Acrobatics that provides that. The only impossible feats Athletics seems to give is that Wall Jumping one. Cool, but not as cool as surviving any fall.

Er, I should have said your Athletics example, the one where you combined the four Climb feats. And I'd say three of those four things are both very cool and also very impossible: climbing at your full movement speed with one hand and while fighting? Easily as cool as Cat Fall and probably better in a mechanical sense.

If we were just talking about increases to climb, then I'd agree about keeping track of your own abilities. There are plenty of places in the game where its reasonable to expect players to know their stuff. But climb is a single use of one of sixteen skills. If each of them had more than one use and each use has 3-4 passive benefits due to increased skill...that's ~96 separate rules to keep track which depending solely on skill level. (16 skills * assuming an average of 2 uses per skill * 3 passive increases, assuming Trained doesn't give you anything).

I'm speaking more for the GM's benefit here, but players seem to get somewhere between 15 and 25 skill increases, so that's still a solid number niche of rules that can be easily forgotten in the heat of combat.

I think we just fundamentally disagree with what a skill increase means to us. I believe being better at a skill should make it easier to accomplish tasks using that skill and that's really it. Skill feats are where you learn to accomplish those tasks with syle. Remember, each player gets a minimum of ten skill feats, which is a lot compared to PF1.

Speaking of PF1, first edition didn't give us many of these recommendations. If you could, would you also want them added there? Are you satisfied that skill differentiation in PF1 was primarily numerical?

Assurance is another good example of a "passive" benefit, as all the player would say is "Since I'm expert, I take 15 on this check instead of rolling." and the GM doesn't have to take issue with that.

I really like this idea! If everyone got increasing levels of Assurance as they increased rank, that would be a tangible benefit that would be consistent across all skills. On top of it all, it would protect players from nat 1's on checks they know are trivial.

I would say have skill feats give either new actions (Spell Thievery is a great example of this) or impossible abilities (Cat Fall is my favourite feat in this edition!). The boring stuff like Assurance, Defensive Climber, Terrain Stalker, and Steady Balance, should be either built into the skill by applying circumstance penalties or should be part of proficiency.

...

With Trained Athletics you are no longer flat-footed while climbing. With Expert Athletics you can Climb with one hand. With Master Athletics you Climb at half speed on a success and at full speed on a critical success. At Legendary Athletics you gain a Climb speed.

I see what you're getting at (and Cat Fall is indeed a really cool skill feat), though I still don't like gating certain uses of skills like that Athletics example does.

Unlocking more uses automatically at each tier:
- Gives players abilities they may not have intended to acquire. Someone who takes Athletics to boost their Grapple may not know their skill ranks also let them climb with one hand.
- Each skill-up automatically adds new rules and content for both the GM and players to keep track of. Imagine you were GMing a combat on a cliff-face where each player had different levels of skill in Athletics AND may not know the special climbing rules due to the above point.

Now, that Athletics example is a perfect example of an "impossible ability" like Cat Fall. I think getting all four abilities would be a worthy skill feat. (Not four, like the current version of the rules)

Great idea!

Maybe the Signature Skill bubble can also be incorporated in a way that indicates it is a requirement for Master and Legendary.

Something like:

+1 +2 +3 +4
--T---E--M--L
sig.-----(____)

Hats off if you can incorporate that without taking up too much vertical real estate in the list

I kind of dislike the idea of artificially gating off uses of skills behind 'you must be X good at this to enter' signs. Trained/Untrained is fine and is about as far as I'd like it to go.

My preference is more towards the current system of using feats to unlock certain uses of skills - it gives the impression of learning new uses of a skill through some effort.

For instance: the Battle Medic feat. Anyone can use Medicine to save someone's life (aka the first aid action), but it takes proficiency AND some training to heal HP in the span of 1 action.

Personally, I feel like the lack of meaningful difference between the skill tiers is more a problem with the proficiency system than the present uses of skills.

That's just my thought on the matter.

I'm kind of glad that alchemist is sticking to potions. I was actually expecting Bard to be the item activation class, ever since Resonance and Bard=Occult were announced.

Resonance seems purpose-built for a future PF2 Occultist class/archetype.

Alchemist was one of my least favorite PF1 classes, but I really like the idea of the resonance system (even if the execution has some kinks) so I'm building the hell out of every idea that springs to mind which uses RP, alchemy, and staves.

That's a pretty intensive rework you've thought up and I totally missed it earlier!

While it is a little complicated in my opinion, I like the idea of having specific specializations. In fact, that gives me an idea for fixing Quick Alchemy in a way that could satisfy many of the concerns in this thread.

Here's my idea, with some of my favorite ideas from SnarkyChemist mixed in:

Alchemy: Infusions and poisons you create during daily prep use your class DC.

Quick Alchemy: Restricted to elixirs only (for now).

Bombs: Deal splash damage to the primary target, even on a success. (this will make sense in a second)

Bombardier (specialization feat):
- Splash damage dealt to the main target is equal to half your intelligence modifier.
- You may use Quick Alchemy to craft bombs. Spending RP to craft bombs is optional, but bombs created without spending RP deal one less die of damage (let's give this kind of bomb the "Unstable" keyword).

Elixir of Life: provides fast healing for a few rounds to set it apart from other healing sources. The healing totals should be roughly the same as the average for equivalent-level healing potions.

Apothecary (specialization feat):
- Your elixirs with the infusion trait do not cost RP for other people to consume.
- Your Elixirs of Life last for 2 more rounds.

Toxician (specialization feat):
- You may use Quick Alchemy to craft poisons. Spending RP to craft poisons is optional, but poisons created without spending RP only last for one round. (These are Unstable).
- All poisons and elixirs you create (even outside daily prep) use your class DC.

Poison Weapon: Available at level 4. Per rogue feat, but does not include the simple poison.

Additives: Can be applied to non-Unstable items as a free action when created by Quick Alchemy. Can be applied as a standard action to any alchemical item, even Unstable items and even items you did not create.

-

If something remotely resembling these changes or the ones detailed by SnarkyChymist were implemented, I think it would be a large step in the right direction. I think both changes address the possible RP issues for bombers while making non-bomb builds more viable (including a new healer option!) I did my best to keep power roughly equivalent to the other classes, but obviously this isn't perfect.

I'm not gonna get into mutagens since this is already pretty long. I don't think it should be a level 1 field, rather I think the different specializations could have extra things they can do with a mutagen: apothecaries can give weaker and short-lived mutagens to others; poisoners can poison others with the drawbacks; and bombers can do...something. idk.

...

Nice to know that by agreeing to nearly all of your points "half of my assumptions are wrong".

I respect your opinion that RP is the crippling issue here and I may come around to it as I play more. My play experience seems to have been different from yours. My opinion is simply that there are other flaws that need attention first.

RP being used for both crafting and attunement doesn't seem too limiting to me, since elixirs and mutagens give item bonuses. I view it as a trade-off between flexibility (potions) and always-on bonuses (items).

In the two games I played (one at 1, one at 5), my alchemist had a bomb or two left by the time the cleric was out of healing and the wizard was out of spells. I can definitely see table variation happening, but please consider that there other classes with limited per-day resources. In all three of the games I've played so far the party was considering resting after the 3rd non-trivial encounter.

When I do Doomesday Dawn at 9th level I'll see if Expanded Resonance helps with RP as much as I think it will.

These are my bigger fish to fry:
- Alchemists need a 10th level feat and three Rogue multiclass feats before being able to use poisons semi-effectively. And that is still the best (and really only) poisoner build available to players.
- Alchemist healing is numerically subpar to all other forms of healing.
- Double dipping RP on potions.
- DC scaling.
- The short duration on many elixirs/mutagens makes them useless in exploration mode.
- There is very little variety in Alchemist builds. The ones I've seen in person are all bomb/weapon switch hitters.

Maybe if we discuss constructively and report future play experience, we can raise awareness for both of our perspectives.

...

I built my goblin with 14 strength and used a +1 dogslicer on my off turns (at level 5). It's not as good as my bomb damage, but it seemed comparable to wizard cantrips. My mileage may have been above average, idk. \㋡/

I'll try a different build next time and see if I can find a different contingency that works. Alchemists do seem to be punished more than other classes when you don't pace yourself. It might be an issue with RP, it might be due to other gaps in the class (or in the alchemy list). I'm undecided at the moment.

I strongly agree that all alch builds have to specialize to the extreme to try and stay relevant. I also agree that bombs are the only specialization that succeeds at staying relevant.

I agree that the infused trait should remove the resonance cost. It's already been paid.

Thirded.

About quick alchemy: I view is as similar to wizards leaving slots unprepared - less efficient, but good for dealing with unexpected situations.

As for everything else, I wish there was a bit less of an emphasis on bombs. Alchemists are great at making poisons, but not at using them. Alchemists also seem well situated to be great single-target healers, if only they had better numbers and more delivery options.

I'm hoping it won't be long before PF2 gets a hypodermic dart-gun, personally.

Simply put, I'd like archetypes to start at level 1 because most archetypes in PF1 replaced or altered first level abilities and I'm used to that. And the class feats I miss out on by archetyping at 2 all have a "1" next to them.

To put it less bluntly:

PF1 archetypes were meant to replace class features which don't quite match your character concept with abilities that do. In PF2, what if I want a particular chassis, but the level 1 feats don't fit my concept? For instance, this afternoon I built a alchemist/rogue that specialized in potions and poisons instead of bombs. I ended up being unsatisfied with my options at levels 1 and 6.

I don't see any harm in letting players dedicate a little earlier so they can have their character concept fully represented right out the gate. That is the main reason I've always preferred archetypes to multiclasses and prestige classes. In addition, most classes have super impactful level 1 feats which, in raw numerical terms, are more powerful than the level 2 dedications.

I agree that the options at creation should be pared down for new players, but I suspect that's the reason archetypes are sequestered in the "advancement" section.

Level bonus is a great way to add a sense of progression and it's not new: in PF1 skills should be greater than your level if you want to succeed frequently. Saves and attacks, too.

Going back to dragons for a sec:
PF1 DIDN'T apply level to save DCs and AC, so some peculiarities arose. Ever notice that against an Adult Red Dragon (lvl 14), its attacks pretty much auto hit unless you pull crazy shenanigans with your AC? And that it pretty much auto-succeeds its saves except against the latest and greatest 7th level spells?

Pulling the level bonus across the board is Paizo's way of keeping the progression while making defense consistent above level 12.

Feedback time: I think PF2 has made some good steps, but they way things are at, I think we're a little overbalanced into the level add side.

My wizard's touch attack at lvl 5 is +7, which is roughly coinflip compared to the TAC I can expect of ~18. Looking at the ways I can improve those odds, I can:
- Level up and get a cool +1 each level
- Level up, get expert proficiency at 12
- Level up, give my dex another boost at 10

(notice how they are all acquired the same way?)

So at 12, those adds bring me up to a total of +16! Sweet! So what's TAC at that level? ~27-28. That's still coinflip, even though I've specialized in bad touch as much as I'm allowed to.

The epicness of the battle can come from the level bonuses, but the battle should still be won on incidental bonuses due to player choices, specialization, and preparation. There are too few of those at this stage, and they give too little to make a significant difference. The difficulty of every "High DC" encounter I've played so far has come down to how often we rolled above 10.

Renown. Easily fluffed as getting to know the people in the community and leveraging them to your advantage. The intimidate bonus that it would give you in your vigilante identity (whcih you're virtually giving up) is really unimportant compared to the boost in diplomacy you'll get, which functions just fine in your social identity regardless.

I never thought of it that way...I'd always regarded the renown talents as something inaccessible to public vigilantes, flavor-wise. That's a good way to reconcile the two! Now I'm thinking of a lucha libre style PC that is both public and really flamboyant, so he has fans following him around even when he's fighting crime. XD

There are a lot of examples of heroes giving up a secret identity, or not havinv one

Steve rogers, tony stark, and soldier 76(imo)

I think Soldier 76 is more the other way around: he gave up his social identity. Still has the renown from it, though.

On topic: I'm constantly going back and forth with the Vigilante. The Avenger is very well designed and implemented - it's easily my favorite full-BAB "class" - but it's the only specialization that really stands out to me.

To make the Vigilante a truly outstanding non-caster, I think we need two things in the future:
1) An archetype that replaces all social identity stuff with conventional bonuses. I like Dual Identity, but I can understand why so many people are balking at it - it's a bit of enforced flavor that doesn't work with a lot of character ideas. Including some characters we'd otherwise classify as "vigilantes".
2) More archetypes that don't replace your spec! Psychometrist is a really interesting addon; I'd like to see more archetypes that give the Stalker and Avenger some love rather than more caster-alikes.