Skill Suggestion: Hustle (Str)

[Artificial 20]

Remember bending bars and lifting gates?

I'm struggling for a superior name, but bypassing obstacles through direct force can come up in many adventures. P1E has large quantities of data on breaking down doors, escaping bindings, damaging objects etc. whether by a single "strength burst" or chipping away with damage vs. HP and hardness.

It's popular enough to call staple, it's something some characters might want to invest in being good at, and those characters may reasonably not be the same characters who excel at climbing, swimming, track and field.

It seems like a good skill.

[Planpanther]

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...

[Hurká]

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.

[Fuzzypaws]

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.

[Quandary]

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.

[Stone Dog]

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of BB/LG feat tucked behind an advanced Athletics rank.

[Vorpal Laugh]

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.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

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).

[Drewg]

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.

[KingOfAnything]

Drewg wrote:

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?

[PossibleCabbage]

I learned how the steps to the Hustle in Jr. High gym class, so I am fine with all of this falling under athletics.

[Tallow]

wouldn't this just be covered under Athletics?

[Deadmanwalking]

Tallow wrote:

wouldn't this just be covered under Athletics?

I suspect so, yes.

[rainzax]

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Might (Str), which is bending bars, busting doors, lifting heavy things etc.

Like this a lot.

Where the Bulk system would break down, this could pick up the slack.

[Lemartes]

Can you use it everyday?

[gwynfrid]

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?

[rainzax]

Well a push-up competition is clearly Athletics.

Rigging the bets on the push-uppers is totally Hustle.

But lifting an object that might break your back is Might.

[Drewg]

KingOfAnything wrote:

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.

[Gorbacz]

Peeps, while we at it, we really need a skill for using ropes and tying up people and honestly I believe that a separate skill for spotting hidden objects, actively searching for them, listening and smelling is a really great idea that would boost the game immensely.

[Orville Redenbacher]

scent skill could have a feat for finding truffles...

[KingOfAnything]

Drewg wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

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 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?

Quote:

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.

[Drewg]

KingOfAnything wrote:

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.

[Malk_Content]

Drewg wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

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.

I think this can be ameliorated somewhat by giving most skills useful combat applications. I don't think Athletics will have them all (although it will have many.) I see Theivery being used for disarms, Deception for feints and distractions, Intimidate for well intimidating. There may even be more stuff to do than we have in PF1. I can, for example, see something like "Sever Connection" as an Occult skill use to unattune an opponents Resonance from their magic items.

Or allowing multiple skills to apply.

E.G You can use your Crafting instead of Athletics to Sunder an item (I know just where to hit it vs I can hit it very hard.)

[HWalsh]

See, I do feel that Strength needs another skill.

Strength gets shafted with only one while most of the others have 3+

Strength, physical strength, contributes to much more than just athletics. As far as lifting heavy objects not being a skill, tell that to professional power lifters and people in strong man competitions. They will tell you that you have to understand things like leverage and center of gravity to actually pull off those amazing stunts.