| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the current playtest system, most of the skill feats allow actions that shouldn't need a special training in order to be attempted.
This can be very unsatisfying for the players, because it makes the character feel less competent than it should be,
while also breaking immersion by making it impossible to succeed at tasks without a solid in-game, coherent motivation
*** TRAINED characters do not perform as actually TRAINED unless they also get a tax feat ***
"Bargain hunter" should be a basic use of the Diplomacy skill, not a feat. A feat should make it easier or quicker.
There is no reason you cannot even try to do this unless you've got a feat.
"Bonded animal" should be a basic use of Nature. Everyone can attempt to tame an animal.
The skill check ensures that not everyone will succeed.
The feat, on the other hand, should let you do it better or more reliably or make the animal stronger and less prone to leave when scared, or know more tricks.
Cat Fall, I like that. This is actually very well designed.
"Defensive Climber" make sense technically but I believe it's too narrow for its cost. This costs as much as every other skill feat and it will almost never be used.
"One Handed Climber" why isn't it handled (wow such pun) with an increase in DC instead? I can easily picture someone strong enough managing to do it without specific training, maybe even on first try.
"pickpocket" anyone should be able to attempt to steal from pockets
"Recognize spell" should be a basic trained use or skills
"Train animal" again this should be a trained use for Nature. Merge this with Bonded Animal
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the current playtest system, most of the skill feats allow actions that shouldn't need a special training in order to be attempted.
This can be very unsatisfying for the players, because it makes the character feel less competent than it should be,
while also breaking immersion by making it impossible to succeed at tasks without a solid in-game, coherent motivation*** TRAINED characters do not perform as actually TRAINED unless they also get a tax feat ***
"Bargain hunter" should be a basic use of the Diplomacy skill, not a feat. A feat should make it easier or quicker.
There is no reason you cannot even try to do this unless you've got a feat."Bonded animal" should be a basic use of Nature. Everyone can attempt to tame an animal.
The skill check ensures that not everyone will succeed.
The feat, on the other hand, should let you do it better or more reliably or make the animal stronger and less prone to leave when scared, or know more tricks.Cat Fall, I like that. This is actually very well designed.
"Defensive Climber" make sense technically but I believe it's too narrow for its cost. This costs as much as every other skill feat and it will almost never be used.
"One Handed Climber" why isn't it handled (wow such pun) with an increase in DC instead? I can easily picture someone strong enough managing to do it without specific training, maybe even on first try.
"pickpocket" anyone should be able to attempt to steal from pockets
"Recognize spell" should be a basic trained use or skills
"Train animal" again this should be a trained use for Nature. Merge this with Bonded Animal
Some good points, but I can't agree with you on bonded animal and pickpocket.
Training an animal properly is not easy. Most animal behaviourists spend as much time training owners as they do the animals - it is neither easy nor basic.Pickpocketing also does not strike me as something that just anyone can pick up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Training an animal properly is not easy. Most animal behaviourists spend as much time training owners as they do the animals - it is neither easy nor basic.Pickpocketing also does not strike me as something that just anyone can pick up.
That is why you roll against a DC
Example
Character is TRAINED in nature and has to ROLL to befriend an animal
This already takes care of the difficulty.
Why does it require a feat, on top of that?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of agree with this. When my party created a rogue, reading through the Skill Feats, I found them mostly rather dull, or far too situational.
Sitting with my group afterward to think through what we'd take if we leveled our PCs up to 2nd level, it was a very long process - not because we were struggling between cool choices, but because all the options seemed incredibly underwhelming.
Example: Our cleric took Battle Medic, which ought to let him use his Medicine skill to provide some additional healing. Except that at 2nd level, his chance of rolling a 20+ is virtually the same as his chance of rolling a critical failure, so he's not really going to use this feat until he gains a bunch more levels. But he decided there wasn't anything else worth taking, so he'd get that one as an investment in the future. Which doesn't make him feel particularly excited about his character right now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Training an animal properly is not easy. Most animal behaviourists spend as much time training owners as they do the animals - it is neither easy nor basic.Pickpocketing also does not strike me as something that just anyone can pick up.
That is why you roll against a DC
Example
Character is TRAINED in nature and has to ROLL to befriend an animalThis already takes care of the difficulty.
Why does it require a feat, on top of that?
By that logic, why make anything a feat?
A feat represents that you spent time learning how to do something.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
By that logic, why make anything a feat?
A feat represents that you spent time learning how to do something.
So what does skill proficiency represent if not time spent learning?
Either way, the skill feats are largely underwhelming and mostly irrelevant. So I agree with you, skill feats could be removed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Training an animal properly is not easy. Most animal behaviourists spend as much time training owners as they do the animals - it is neither easy nor basic.Pickpocketing also does not strike me as something that just anyone can pick up.
That is why you roll against a DC
Example
Character is TRAINED in nature and has to ROLL to befriend an animalThis already takes care of the difficulty.
Why does it require a feat, on top of that?
By that logic, why make anything a feat?
A feat represents that you spent time learning how to do something.
That's the definition of a skill. A FEAT is "an achievement that requires great courage, skill, or strength". EI, extraordinary. If the activity can be done without "great courage, skill, or strength", it's not a feat.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Skill feats should be unlocking new possibilities that weren't part of the normal uses of the skill, or to let them be done better or faster. Quick Sneak and Foil Senses are good examples: they do cool stuff that was previously rogue talents and that you can believe that only the true master of Stealth can do.
Skill feats shouldn't be used to lock people out of basic uses for the skill that most trained people should be able to do. Kip Up and Survey Wildlife might be the most egregious examples of this.
Kipping up is a pretty basic move that anyone who's trained in gymnastics or breakfall would probably know how to do. I even learned how to do it as a teenager, although I was never any good at it, somebody with a higher Dex probably would be. It was a DC 15 Acrobatics check in 3E/PF1. Making it require you to be Trained makes sense (frankly, there's a serious shortage of trained-only uses of Acrobatics). Making it require you to be a Master and 7th level doesn't. This isn't something that only Olympic-level athletes can do, which is how they described Master abilities.
As for Survey Wildlife... really? Someone Trained in Survival needs a feat to see deer tracks and realize that there are deer in the area? Maybe if it reduced the time needed from the ten minutes in the description to the one-action that the icon by the name indicates (we're gonna need errata for that inconsistency, BTW) that would be worth having.
I do think skill feats need work, and there are a couple that feel like they could easily be parts of the skill (trick magic item, for example), but on the whole, most seem reasonable as skill feats, rather than base uses for skills. I'm not seeing much that I look at and say, "wait, I couldn't do that before?"
Training an animal properly is not easy. Most animal behaviourists spend as much time training owners as they do the animals - it is neither easy nor basic.Pickpocketing also does not strike me as something that just anyone can pick up.
That is why you roll against a DC
Example
Character is TRAINED in nature and has to ROLL to befriend an animalThis already takes care of the difficulty.
Why does it require a feat, on top of that?
Because PF2 is moving away of taking care of everything based on DC. Which is a big problem because specialized characters used to pass with 2+ rolls that other characters cannot pass with a 20.
Moving away from DC, and numeric bonus, as the only thing that matters, is a good thing. Then, some, many, or most of those individual feats might need more work, or changing things, or some clean up. But moving away from raising DC for everything, is a good idea.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because everyone in the party is roughly the same level, and every skill goes up by +1 per level, everyone in the party has the same skills, except for a) proficiency, b) attribute, c) feats.
Once you get to Trained, proficiency makes very little difference in itself (+1/+2/+3 and no extra effects) in the vast majority of cases. And Master and Legendary kick in very late, if at all. Bonuses from attributes might be something like 2-3 different between PCs. Neither of those are significant or interesting. So that leaves feats as the big differentiator. In other words, to state the problem clearly:
Feats should be significant and interesting because nothing else is.
Because everyone in the party is roughly the same level, and every skill goes up by +1 per level, everyone in the party has the same skills, except for a) proficiency, b) attribute, c) feats.
Once you get to Trained, proficiency makes very little difference in itself (+1/+2/+3 and no extra effects) in the vast majority of cases. And Master and Legendary kick in very late, if at all. Bonuses from attributes might be something like 2-3 different between PCs. Neither of those are significant or interesting. So that leaves feats as the big differentiator. In other words, to state the problem clearly:
Feats should be significant and interesting because nothing else is.
While I wouldn't word it quite that way, I largely agree with the bolded part. The way I look at it, in 2e, skill feats are the (very) rough equivalent of skill points in 1e. I mean this in the sense that in 1e, investing in a skill usually meant pumping a skill point in that skill every level. Now, with the +Level addition, investing has a vastly different scope, namely, skill feats. Since 2e narrows the gap between the highest and lowest skill modifiers, the distinction between skilled characters is largely an expansion of what they can do with the skill. I personally like this change a lot, and while some skill feats do seem needlessly restricted, or underwhelming, I think the way of changing skills to be less of a "I've invested in this skill, so I have a +40 bonus compared to the rest of the party" to be "I've invested in this skill so I can do [cool thing X]" is a worthwhile design goal.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I wouldn't word it quite that way, I largely agree with the bolded part. The way I look at it, in 2e, skill feats are the (very) rough equivalent of skill points in 1e. I mean this in the sense that in 1e, investing in a skill usually meant pumping a skill point in that skill every level. Now, with the +Level addition, investing has a vastly different scope, namely, skill feats. Since 2e narrows the gap between the highest and lowest skill modifiers, the distinction between skilled characters is largely an expansion of what they can do with the skill. I personally like this change a lot, and while some skill feats do seem needlessly restricted, or underwhelming, I think the way of changing skills to be less of a "I've invested in this skill, so I have a +40 bonus compared to the rest of the party" to be "I've invested in this skill so I can do [cool thing X]" is a worthwhile design goal.Because everyone in the party is roughly the same level, and every skill goes up by +1 per level, everyone in the party has the same skills, except for a) proficiency, b) attribute, c) feats.
Once you get to Trained, proficiency makes very little difference in itself (+1/+2/+3 and no extra effects) in the vast majority of cases. And Master and Legendary kick in very late, if at all. Bonuses from attributes might be something like 2-3 different between PCs. Neither of those are significant or interesting. So that leaves feats as the big differentiator. In other words, to state the problem clearly:
Feats should be significant and interesting because nothing else is.
I don't see that as a bad thing.
Yeah okay the +40 might be bloody overkill but if someone wants to invest into a skill to be better at that skill, why is that a problem?
Especially now with the +1 per level and Proficiency, everyone should be able to at the very least take a crack at a skill, at least on paper.
If the Rogue wants to specialize in Thievery, why is that a problem? If the Fighter wants to focus on Athletics to Shove and Trip, it's a problem if he gets a couple points higher why? Rest of the team should be able to make that climb check unless you're making it hard to challenge the Fighter.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Skill feats should be handled and gated by proficiency level. You cannot seriously convince me that someone who is Legendary in Thievery can't pick a pocket. Or a true Master of arcane knowledge can't recognize a spell being cast. Or an expert acrobat can't kip up.
They already glossed over the revolutionary "Skill ranks don't matter as much because you can't attempt certain things until you reach certain mastery" they need to knuckle down and flesh out tables of DCs and proficiency levels and they'll find they need to erase a bunch of skill feats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kipping up is a pretty basic move that anyone who's trained in gymnastics or breakfall would probably know how to do. I even learned how to do it as a teenager, although I was never any good at it, somebody with a higher Dex probably would be. It was a DC 15 Acrobatics check in 3E/PF1.
As far as I know, in PF1, there is only Ki Stand if you wanted to stand up without provoking. I am reasonably sure that you cannot do it with an acrobatics check. Also, you couldn't (by RAW) crawl away. You can, of course, argue that it should be available earlier or that someone who is a master in Acrobatics shouldn't need a feat to do it. I think it's okay. I am with you when it comes to Survey Wildlife, that needs work. It also has an action symbol, even though it says "you spend 10 minutes".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I know, in PF1, there is only Ki Stand if you wanted to stand up without provoking. I am reasonably sure that you cannot do it with an acrobatics check.
Hmm... looking at the books again that seems to be the case. That really surprises me, because I'm quite certain that standing up as a free action existed in older versions of the game. I know it was a DC 15 Acrobatics check in SWSE.
(Apparently it was a DC 35 check in the 3.5 Complete Adventurer? That's nuts. Kipping up is not something that only a handful of people in the world can do, it's a fairly common move. In 3.0 a DC 40 would let you move 10 feet in a 5 foot step.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, skills came out a much different than I'd expected/been promised.
The way it sounded was like each level of skill proficiency would unlock whole new capabilities, which sounded really cool. I thought each skill would need its own page of coolness, not just with untrained & trained, but with expert, master, & legendary too.
Nope. You most often need to take a feat. And you practically need to be a Rogue to do more than a couple cool things with skills via feats (or arguably at all).
And I agree, Cat Fall works. Perhaps the simplest level should be open without a feat, but as you scale up the feat truly reflects your heroic skill proficiency. It becomes feat-worthy. I'd say having scaling with each feat for each level of skill proficiency would go a long way in improving them (and I have very few requests for PF2 improvements).
So my recommendation would be to review Skill Feats.
1. Make those that can, scale up by proficiency. Not down, but up, so that mid-level ones would add only upward and the Legendary ones would be fine on their own (as they pretty much are).
2. If the skill feat can't scale up, probably they should unlock w/ higher skill proficiency instead. If they can't be tuned to do wondrous things with Master or Legendary proficiency, they probably aren't worth being called feats. Especially those that can be learned in an afternoon by athletes or star pupils. That should be a minimal metric for a heroic deed to outdo.
3. Add some ability to unlock Signature Skills, maybe two for a feat. There are too many PC concepts that have distinct skill sets not represented by the default Signature Skills. Each character should have at least one floating Signature Skill they can choose.
It's kind of sad when one puts a point in a skill to make it Legendary and it unlocks...a +1? :(
Skill feats should be handled and gated by proficiency level. You cannot seriously convince me that someone who is Legendary in Thievery can't pick a pocket.
Thieves specialize quite often. If a given rogue has devoted their efforts, training, and practice to being an exceptional lockpick/safecracker, why would you assume they know the first thing about being a pickpocket? Do you assume everyone who is legendary in Deception must also be able to put a disguise together in moments?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
skill feats (and many feats in general) need work on increasing their wow factor by the team. have them do something above and beyond the skills' regular uses, and even go into outright supernatural/magical territory for legendary--sneaking so hard you gain Invisibility or the Blur effect, acrobatics/athletics-ing so hard you run or jump on air for a time (letting you cross gaps or make otherwise impossible leaps), diplomacy/deception-ing so hard you can Charm people, and so on.
feats should be a tough choice between interesting and exciting options for making your character unique and skilled as the legendary hero they are/are becoming, not a checklist of basic competence!
and on your kip-up mention, i agree that it should be moved to trained or expert--learning to properly fall and get up are two of the first things you ever learn in any self-defense class, eastern or western.
|
skill feats (and many feats in general) need work on increasing their wow factor by the team. have them do something above and beyond the skills' regular uses, and even go into outright supernatural/magical territory for legendary--sneaking so hard you gain Invisibility or the Blur effect, acrobatics/athletics-ing so hard you run or jump on air for a time (letting you cross gaps or make otherwise impossible leaps), diplomacy/deception-ing so hard you can Charm people, and so on.
feats should be a tough choice between interesting and exciting options for making your character unique and skilled as the legendary hero they are/are becoming, not a checklist of basic competence!
I don't disagree but care will have to be taken to make sure that the Rogue doesn't become the only character worth playing in the game :-).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was honestly kind of hoping for things like "taking athletics feats can let you leap to impossible heights in order to tackle flying things" but in practice more of the athletics feats are like "you are pretty good at jumping".
I get that we have to build the foundation before we get to the really fun stuff, but in this case the foundation isn't very exciting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
skill feats (and many feats in general) need work on increasing their wow factor by the team. have them do something above and beyond the skills' regular uses, and even go into outright supernatural/magical territory for legendary--sneaking so hard you gain Invisibility or the Blur effect, acrobatics/athletics-ing so hard you run or jump on air for a time (letting you cross gaps or make otherwise impossible leaps), diplomacy/deception-ing so hard you can Charm people, and so on.
feats should be a tough choice between interesting and exciting options for making your character unique and skilled as the legendary hero they are/are becoming, not a checklist of basic competence!
I don't disagree but care will have to be taken to make sure that the Rogue doesn't become the only character worth playing in the game :-).
if the rogue ends up getting several interesting utility spells through their mastery of skills, that would still put him below most casters by a wide margin for utility and narrative agency (and indicates that perhaps noncasters should get more skills in general, so they can also approach these new options--though sometimes not as far or wide as a rogue can--rather than keeping skills/feats intentionally weak or boring)
BUT, I don't know many fighters that are going to waste points in wisdom just to increase their initiative.
Stats go up four at a time, you don't really benefit from more dex than your armor accomodates (so 12 or 14 for fighters, who are strongly encouraged to wear heavy armor), so what else are you going to increase if not Wisdom?
I figure Str and Con every time, then Dex if it adds AC, otherwise Wisdom (for will saves and perception) and Cha (for resonance).
Why is perception no longer a skill? Why is it totally controlled by class? Why is Wisdom now used to determine initiative? Why is there only one feat to increase the prof, and it only goes to expert? Why is it that only rogues can be masters in perception?
Don't get me wrong, I like the use of perception for all the things that it is designed for. BUT, I don't know many fighters that are going to waste points in wisdom just to increase their initiative.
it also helps their worst save, which is kind of important
Why is perception no longer a skill? Why is it totally controlled by class? Why is Wisdom now used to determine initiative? Why is there only one feat to increase the prof, and it only goes to expert? Why is it that only rogues can be masters in perception?
Don't get me wrong, I like the use of perception for all the things that it is designed for. BUT, I don't know many fighters that are going to waste points in wisdom just to increase their initiative.
I'm pretty sure level...9? fighters get Battlefield Surveyor, which is master in Perception, as well as +1 to initiative based off Perception.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
skill feats (and many feats in general) need work on increasing their wow factor by the team. have them do something above and beyond the skills' regular uses, and even go into outright supernatural/magical territory for legendary--sneaking so hard you gain Invisibility or the Blur effect, acrobatics/athletics-ing so hard you run or jump on air for a time (letting you cross gaps or make otherwise impossible leaps), diplomacy/deception-ing so hard you can Charm people, and so on.
feats should be a tough choice between interesting and exciting options for making your character unique and skilled as the legendary hero they are/are becoming, not a checklist of basic competence!
I don't disagree but care will have to be taken to make sure that the Rogue doesn't become the only character worth playing in the game :-).
Given that they've had about 10 years of getting kicked in the stomach, maybe it's time we balance that out.
I for one welcome our new Rogue overlords.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Skill feats are the solution to a problem that was basically created when they decided to add level to everything.
Sure, it's easy and "no one gets left behind". But oh no! Now everyone can eventually do everything, so let's find a way to make sure the barbarian can't serviceably play the harp after he kills a million bugbears. Hey, let's make it so the skills actually do very little at all and add skill feats. It boggles the mind. It's all just an illusion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure level...9? fighters get Battlefield Surveyor, which is master in Perception, as well as +1 to initiative based off Perception.Why is perception no longer a skill? Why is it totally controlled by class? Why is Wisdom now used to determine initiative? Why is there only one feat to increase the prof, and it only goes to expert? Why is it that only rogues can be masters in perception?
Don't get me wrong, I like the use of perception for all the things that it is designed for. BUT, I don't know many fighters that are going to waste points in wisdom just to increase their initiative.
that their level 9 ability is flat-out a worse version of a level 1 general feat ("incredible initiative" grants a perception bonus in all cases, rather than just for initiative only like surveyor) really irks me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
that their level 9 ability is flat-out a worse version of a level 1 general feat ("incredible initiative" grants a perception bonus in all cases, rather than just for initiative only like surveyor) really irks me.I'm pretty sure level...9? fighters get Battlefield Surveyor, which is master in Perception, as well as +1 to initiative based off Perception.Why is perception no longer a skill? Why is it totally controlled by class? Why is Wisdom now used to determine initiative? Why is there only one feat to increase the prof, and it only goes to expert? Why is it that only rogues can be masters in perception?
Don't get me wrong, I like the use of perception for all the things that it is designed for. BUT, I don't know many fighters that are going to waste points in wisdom just to increase their initiative.
Incredible Initiative grants a +1 bonus to Initiative rolls, not to Perception. Battlefield Surveyor is a +1 to Perception-based initiative rolls and Master proficiency in Perception, which is completely different. Only Battlefield Surveyor grants a bonus to all Perception checks via improved proficiency.
You're right, but quoth the book:Incredible Initiative grants a +1 bonus to Initiative rolls, not to Perception. Battlefield Surveyor is a +1 to Perception-based initiative rolls and Master proficiency in Perception, which is completely different. Only Battlefield Surveyor grants a bonus to all Perception checks via improved proficiency.that their level 9 ability is flat-out a worse version of a level 1 general feat ("incredible initiative" grants a perception bonus in all cases, rather than just for initiative only like surveyor) really irks me.I'm pretty sure level...9? fighters get Battlefield Surveyor, which is master in Perception, as well as +1 to initiative based off Perception.Why is perception no longer a skill? Why is it totally controlled by class? Why is Wisdom now used to determine initiative? Why is there only one feat to increase the prof, and it only goes to expert? Why is it that only rogues can be masters in perception?
Don't get me wrong, I like the use of perception for all the things that it is designed for. BUT, I don't know many fighters that are going to waste points in wisdom just to increase their initiative.
General
You react more quickly than can in any situation. You gain a +1 circumstance bonus to all initiative rolls, whether they're perception checks, skill checks, or any other kind of rolls.
this needs some serious clarification/re-wording in it's description, as it specifically lists perception checks (it got me, and I've no doubt it could confuse confuse newer players as well).
i had to go check and double-check the perception and initiative sections after your post to understand that it meant it was referring to the context of the initiative check, rather than listing what it applied to or somehow implying that one needed to roll initiative before they could roll for perception/skill checks/etc.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Skill feats should be handled and gated by proficiency level. You cannot seriously convince me that someone who is Legendary in Thievery can't pick a pocket.Thieves specialize quite often. If a given rogue has devoted their efforts, training, and practice to being an exceptional lockpick/safecracker, why would you assume they know the first thing about being a pickpocket? Do you assume everyone who is legendary in Deception must also be able to put a disguise together in moments?
But this is a consequence of combining skills. If it's important to have Sleight of Hand and Disable Device separate again, then they should separate them. Otherwise Theivery should do what it says on the tin.
Removing skills and adding them to a feat list is a wonky way of handling things.
You're right, but quoth the book:Incredible Initiative grants a +1 bonus to Initiative rolls, not to Perception. Battlefield Surveyor is a +1 to Perception-based initiative rolls and Master proficiency in Perception, which is completely different. Only Battlefield Surveyor grants a bonus to all Perception checks via improved proficiency.that their level 9 ability is flat-out a worse version of a level 1 general feat ("incredible initiative" grants a perception bonus in all cases, rather than just for initiative only like surveyor) really irks me.I'm pretty sure level...9? fighters get Battlefield Surveyor, which is master in Perception, as well as +1 to initiative based off Perception.Why is perception no longer a skill? Why is it totally controlled by class? Why is Wisdom now used to determine initiative? Why is there only one feat to increase the prof, and it only goes to expert? Why is it that only rogues can be masters in perception?
Don't get me wrong, I like the use of perception for all the things that it is designed for. BUT, I don't know many fighters that are going to waste points in wisdom just to increase their initiative.
General
You react more quickly than can in any situation. You gain a +1 circumstance bonus to all initiative rolls, whether they're perception checks, skill checks, or any other kind of rolls.this needs some serious clarification/re-wording in it's description, as it specifically lists perception checks (it got me, and I've no doubt it could confuse confuse newer players as well).
i had to go check and double-check the perception and initiative sections after your post to understand that it meant it was referring to the context of the initiative check, rather than listing what it applied to or somehow implying that one needed to roll initiative before they could roll for perception/skill checks/etc.
Yeah, that should probably be reworded.
Skill feats should be handled and gated by proficiency level. You cannot seriously convince me that someone who is Legendary in Thievery can't pick a pocket.Thieves specialize quite often. If a given rogue has devoted their efforts, training, and practice to being an exceptional lockpick/safecracker, why would you assume they know the first thing about being a pickpocket? Do you assume everyone who is legendary in Deception must also be able to put a disguise together in moments?But this is a consequence of combining skills. If it's important to have Sleight of Hand and Disable Device separate again, then they should separate them. Otherwise Theivery should do what it says on the tin.
Removing skills and adding them to a feat list is a wonky way of handling things.
It does do what it says on the tin. You can use Thievery to steal things via a few related methods. It just can't be used to pickpocket unless you've learned how. Not every thief is a pickpocket, or has interest in being one.
Yes it's related to skill consolidation, but I'd say that getting the equivalent of disable device (which itself in pf1 was already a combination of disable device and open lock) and slight of hand at the same time is a far better use of character resources than taking two skills to avoid having to take a single feat (from a pool of feats given specifically to demonstrate special skills training/uses a character has). One can apply the "somebody with X skill should know how to do what this feat allows automatically" argument to every skill feat, because the skill feats exist to represent increasing ability in a skill.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It does do what it says on the tin. You can use Thievery to steal things via a few related methods. It just can't be used to pickpocket unless you've learned how. Not every thief is a pickpocket, or has interest in being one.Yes it's related to skill consolidation, but I'd say that getting the equivalent of disable device (which itself in pf1 was already a combination of disable device and open lock) and slight of hand at the same time is a far better use of character resources than taking two skills to avoid having to take a single feat (from a pool of feats given specifically to demonstrate special skills training/uses a character has). One can apply the "somebody with X skill should know how to do what this feat allows automatically" argument to every skill feat, because the skill feats exist to represent increasing ability in a skill.
In PF1e, a person could specialize in picking pockets and not locks. In PF2e, a Thievery focused person does not get that option. Remember, one use of Thievery is to steal things off of a person's body. Your specialist argument doesn't hold water.
So, baseline, a Legendary Thief could have a +28 to stealing things off a person, but the inside of a pocket would be off limits.
These are the kinds of things that exactly should be covered in proficiency levels.
Now, if we were talking about a feat that lets you steal out of everyone's pocket within 20 ft with one check? That would be a worthy feat.