Hustle would be a nice skill for streetsmarts. I'm assuming breaking stuff down falls under athletics? This is the problem with consolidated skills. Though an expanded list would need tons of more feats which is the problem with skill feats...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wouldn't all of those things (breaking doors, bindings, objects) be a strength check?
Granted, you can gain some skill, but isn't it very limited? Like, being sneaky/knowledgeable/deceptive/etc. are things that you can train at specifically to become much better at without raising your ability score. One might say that they are mostly about training/experience and only enhanced by one's ability. IRL I probably have ~10 str and I imagine that without becoming stronger, I can only get so good at bending metal bars. It's not terribly skillful. It's mostly about being strong. Someone with 20 str will beat me at bending bars every time.
Also as Planpanther said, some skills just get lost in the mix. "General memory" is certainly something you can train, but in PF it's just an INT check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As mentioned, bending bars / lifting gates is mostly just a matter of getting stronger. However, there is some minor skill element to it. In PF2, I would suggest that your Athletics proficiency rank could be applied as a bonus to this Strength check - or your Lore (Metal) rank or whatever, if you have a relevant Lore. So if you are a Master of Athletics, you'd add the +2 from Master to your Strength check.
BB/LG *was* simply a function of STR score, so the idea it should be skill distinct from STR score in "homage" to original seems bizarre.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of BB/LG feat tucked behind an advanced Athletics rank.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think feats of strength should fall under the Athletics skill. Technique can really help you apply the strength you got. Look at Olympic weight lifters or field events like the hammer throw.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my games I have Athletics (Str), which is strength based mobility and Might (Str), which is bending bars, busting doors, lifting heavy things etc.
I also have Endurance (Con) which is for dealing with natural weather, staying awake without taking fatigue, or running long distances (So Fort saves are exclusively for poisons diseases and spells).
I'm a fan of the idea. I'll toss up some alternative names.
Labor
Grip
Pry
Haul
Drudge/Drudgery
I'm also a fan of separating Athletics from Combat Maneuvers into a non-skill proficiency. Sort of like Perception. Its progression would be based on class, rather than skill point investment. Call it "Maneuver" and call it a day.
|
I'm also a fan of separating Athletics from Combat Maneuvers into a non-skill proficiency. Sort of like Perception. Its progression would be based on class, rather than skill point investment. Call it "Maneuver" and call it a day.
Maneuvers don't have the same reasons to be separated out as Perception does. Why do you think it needs to be its own thing, and complicated by a varying class progression?
I learned how the steps to the Hustle in Jr. High gym class, so I am fine with all of this falling under athletics.
Can you use it everyday?
While this is a cool idea, I think it fits better with PF1 than PF2. In PF2 the list of skills is consolidated, one of the major reasons for that is to make it easier to learn and remember the rules. More skill types go contrary to that goal. A practical consequence would be player and DM confusion, as in, I want to do a push-up competition, is this Hustle or Athletics?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maneuvers don't have the same reasons to be separated out as Perception does. Why do you think it needs to be its own thing, and complicated by a varying class progression?
Think of it this way. Weapon proficiency is based on class, and not skill investment. Is the weapon proficiency system too "complicated"?
I think Maneuvers should be a separate proficiency from Athletics because Maneuvers are attacks, and attacks operate differently from skill checks--So when you make an attack roll that is also a skill check, that raises some questions:
How does an Athletics check to Disarm interact with Flanking? What if you have a morale bonus to Athletics and a morale bonus to attack rolls? Does proficiency bonus in your weapon also factor into your Disarm attempt? Do you add both? Do you get to add your weapon's potency rune bonus to the attempt?
A separate cut-and-dry proficiency in Maneuvers would answer many of these questions.
If we're allowed to get subjective for a moment, using Athletics for a trip or a bull rush just doesn't feel right. The ability to push people around, trip them up, and wrench something from their hands requires a very different skill set from scaling a rock wall or performing a long jump. It's the control over yourself/control over others divide which I think warrants a separate proficiency.
scent skill could have a feat for finding truffles...
|
|
Think of it this way. Weapon proficiency is based on class, and not skill investment. Is the weapon proficiency system too "complicated"?Maneuvers don't have the same reasons to be separated out as Perception does. Why do you think it needs to be its own thing, and complicated by a varying class progression?
I don't think that maneuvers are as closely tied to class concept as weapons are. If I want my rogue or druid to keep up with maximum advancement, could I?
I think Maneuvers should be a separate proficiency from Athletics because Maneuvers are attacks, and attacks operate differently from skill checks--So when you make an attack roll that is also a skill check, that raises some questions:
How does an Athletics check to Disarm interact with Flanking? What if you have a morale bonus to Athletics and a morale bonus to attack rolls? Does proficiency bonus in your weapon also factor into your Disarm attempt? Do you add both? Do you get to add your weapon's potency rune bonus to the attempt?
What makes attacks and skills so different? You attack with spells using your spell proficiency, it makes sense to attack with skills using your skill proficiency. Any actions with the 'attack' trait would interact the same with other attack rules, and those actions should specify if you use a weapon to perform them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What makes attacks and skills so different? You attack with spells using your spell proficiency, it makes sense to attack with skills using your skill proficiency. Any actions with the 'attack' trait would interact the same with other attack rules, and those actions should specify if you use a weapon to perform them.
What makes attacks and skills so different is that you have a greater degree of control over what skills you invest in. I think it's fair to say that players, if given a choice between taking a combat option and talking a non-combat option, they will take the combat option (generally speaking).
This is why things like weapon and spell proficiency are based on class. They are "freebies" because if players were given the choice, they would max out these proficiencies anyway.
Spell proficiency is based on class. Weapon proficiency is based on class. If you make maneuvers based on skills rather than class, you artificially increase the opportunity cost of non-combat skills and skill feats. You will see less build variety because players will feel obligated to take the combat option over the non-combat option.