| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some of the playtest skill feats were examples of things I felt should be baked into the use of the skill, or at least gated by proficiency level and not feats.
I'm planning on house ruling out any such feat, and letting people perform such tasks with a simple check. What I'm wondering is how to formalize this rule so I can tell my players which feats, now and in the future, they can safely ignore without having to list them all.
Here are some feats from the playtest I felt should be baked in:
* Assurance (just like taking 10)
* Bargain Hunter
* Expeditious Search (Should just increase DC)
* Experienced Tracker (Should just increase DC)
* Forager (Should be built into proficiency increase)
* One-Handed Climber (Should just increase DC)
* Pickpocket
* Recognize Spell
* Survey Wildlife
What do you think constitutes a skill feat that should be baked in? Are you fine with most of the skill feats I listed as they were in the playtest?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea of skill feats with gated proficiency because it enables you to have a lot of options (provided in the form of feat) if you combine increasing skill proficiency with providing a free skill feat (for that specific skill) when you upgrade it.
So personally, I think the best thing to do is to just give out a free skill feat when they increase their proficiency beyond trained.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some thoughts:
“Take 10” was not a great mechanic in practice. I might introduce a “Take 4” mechanic, or give everyone Assurance of any expert Lore, but the old rule meant you went from 50% success to 100% with just a +1. I’m not thrilled with Assurance and the crit fail rules, but Take 10 had to be turned off for whole sections of non-combat AP stuff.
Edit: I’m referring to the updated Assurance. The playtest one wasn’t something I’d use even if it were free instead of a feat.
Bargain Hunter lets one of the best skills replace any sort of job skill. I’d rather have that be a skill feat than the default mechanic.
I agree on the rest, though, especially on Pickpocket.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An important thing to note is that Assurance was a lot unlike Take 10.
Take 10 was effectively rolling a 10 on the dice.
Assurance was taking 10 including all your skill ranks and other bonuses into that 10. It was actually a really terrible feat if you invested heavily in that skill, because it was pretty easy to be very close to the values it allowed you to take.
And on "Take 10" personally I loved the mechanic as it allowed characters to show they were good at a task and didn't risk looking incompetent with a bad roll. I was very okay with non-combat sections of APs being done by specialist who used take 10 and didn't roll. They were rewarded for their investment. And in some cases there were still things that those who had invested (not like super invested but had max ranks and decent ability modifier) couldn't succeed at by taking 10.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An important thing to note is that Assurance was a lot unlike Take 10.
Take 10 was effectively rolling a 10 on the dice.
Assurance was taking 10 including all your skill ranks and other bonuses into that 10. It was actually a really terrible feat if you invested heavily in that skill, because it was pretty easy to be very close to the values it allowed you to take.
And on "Take 10" personally I loved the mechanic as it allowed characters to show they were good at a task and didn't risk looking incompetent with a bad roll. I was very okay with non-combat sections of APs being done by specialist who used take 10 and didn't roll. They were rewarded for their investment. And in some cases there were still things that those who had invested (not like super invested but had max ranks and decent ability modifier) couldn't succeed at by taking 10.
Mark has said that the final version of Assurance takes 10 and adds your proficiency (but not other mods like ability or condition). I've also been assured that it lets you feel confident in your life choices, but as I type that, I hear teeth grinding noises coming from the general direction of wherever Jason is
So it would be a bit better than the play test version. I would have to try it out before I can really comment then, but the version I wrote about was practically worthless, unless you we're normally bad at the skill (like my dwarf barbarian with intimidate and a charisma penalty).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the weirdest skill disconnects for me in the playtest was that Pick a Locka and Disable Device were both base uses of the skill, while Pickpocket was a skill feat. That feels...backwards. I mean, I get the game reason they did it: PCs are probably going to use those two uses of the skill most often. But those two things logically both seem harder to attempt at baseline than picking a pocket.
Like, I haven't practiced doing any of those things (so I'd be untrained for all of them), but I'd at least be able to make an attempt at picking a pocket. I wouldn't be good at it and would probably be noticed instantly, but I'd at least have a decent idea of how to attempt it, whereas my lock-picking knowledge extends only to "stick the lockpick in the lock and wiggle it around...somehow?"
The explanation I read of the final version of Assurance made it sound like it works better for characters who don't have much investment in the skill rather than a lot, which again seems weird, but it's hard to judge based on forum posts. (I might just house-rule take 10 back. We'll see.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that pickpocketing and general filching seem like things an Untrained user should be able to do, but picking locks and disabling traps needs to be trained.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The explanation I read of the final version of Assurance made it sound like it works better for characters who don't have much investment in the skill rather than a lot, which again seems weird, but it's hard to judge based on forum posts. (I might just house-rule take 10 back. We'll see.)
Since you add proficiency modifier, investment in proficiency for the skill is actually the most important aspect for Assurance. If you're high level and just stay at trained, there's still a fair amount it can do for you and I can see the uses for it, but if you want the best benefits, you want Assurance in a skill you have with high proficiency.
The explanation I read of the final version of Assurance made it sound like it works better for characters who don't have much investment in the skill rather than a lot, which again seems weird, but it's hard to judge based on forum posts. (I might just house-rule take 10 back. We'll see.)Since you add proficiency modifier, investment in proficiency for the skill is actually the most important aspect for Assurance. If you're high level and just stay at trained, there's still a fair amount it can do for you and I can see the uses for it, but if you want the best benefits, you want Assurance in a skill you have with high proficiency.
So it's for skills which you invest in BUT have low Ability Score? Because if I'm a Rogue with 20+ DEX and Master in Acrobatics, assurance is gonna do almost nothing.
Actual scenarios where this feat shines are pretty specific, you put it on a skill you want to be good at while keeping the stat dumped. Like the same Rogue getting it on Athletics and having 10-12 STR for the entire campaign.
Does it still ignore Armor Check Penalty? That could make it very good on Tin Cans!
So... Assurance is just 10+proficiency bonus? Hmmm ... In a vacuum it doesn't sound like something I'd want to spend a feat on.
Unless I am missing something, when someone picks up Master, then they can be Assured of a 16 or they can roll at no less than +13?
It feels like after a while all Assurance does for you is maybe prevent a critical failure for the cost of certainty preventing a critical success.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... Assurance is just 10+proficiency bonus? Hmmm ... In a vacuum it doesn't sound like something I'd want to spend a feat on.
Unless I am missing something, when someone picks up Master, then they can be Assured of a 16 or they can roll at no less than +13?
It feels like after a while all Assurance does for you is maybe prevent a critical failure for the cost of certainty preventing a critical success.
Level is part of the proficiency modifier. A level 7 master has an assurance value of 23, not just 16.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... Assurance is just 10+proficiency bonus? Hmmm ... In a vacuum it doesn't sound like something I'd want to spend a feat on.
Unless I am missing something, when someone picks up Master, then they can be Assured of a 16 or they can roll at no less than +13?
It feels like after a while all Assurance does for you is maybe prevent a critical failure for the cost of certainty preventing a critical success.
The proficiency modifier includes level, from the description Mark just gave
Okay, I was missing that proficiency bonus and level bonus are not separate things. Thank you.
One of the weirdest skill disconnects for me in the playtest was that Pick a Locka and Disable Device were both base uses of the skill, while Pickpocket was a skill feat. That feels...backwards. I mean, I get the game reason they did it: PCs are probably going to use those two uses of the skill most often. But those two things logically both seem harder to attempt at baseline than picking a pocket.
Like, I haven't practiced doing any of those things (so I'd be untrained for all of them), but I'd at least be able to make an attempt at picking a pocket. I wouldn't be good at it and would probably be noticed instantly
Well the Playtest book agreed with your thoughts almost exactly. Palming an object and stealing an object were both untrained manipulate actions under the thievery skill. The Pickpocket feat allowed you the ability to steal anything on a person that wasn't being actively wielded or overly noticeable without negatively affecting the roll and opened the doorway to stealing from people unnoticed while engaged in combat at mastery level. Legendary thievery was the next step up and as long as you were concealed while attempting it - you could cart off massive objects without being noticed.
In short - anyone can try to pick a pocket - but someone with the feat would be able to do so far easier and with an XP sink of two feats could become a master thief.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So it's for skills which you invest in BUT have low Ability Score? Because if I'm a Rogue with 20+ DEX and Master in Acrobatics, assurance is gonna do almost nothing.Actual scenarios where this feat shines are pretty specific, you put it on a skill you want to be good at while keeping the stat dumped. Like the same Rogue getting it on Athletics and having 10-12 STR for the entire campaign.
Does it still ignore Armor Check Penalty? That could make it very good on Tin Cans!
Assurance helps assure that you can cover easier DCs and make them every time, and that's a function of what those DCs are. In the 20 Dex example, taking you from 80% success rate (with 5% crit failure in the mix) to 100% is certainly no slouch, and as you mention, you get to ignore your penalties while you're at it. Now are you right that it helps even more for someone who can't max their ability score quite as much but still wants to see success with that skill because they don't have as good of an alternative when they roll? Sure thing! That it can help diversify characters is an extra plus, but it doesn't change what it can do for you otherwise.
Now it is possible to create a character around level 20 (or sooner in certain situations with a bunch of temporary bonuses) with such a high bonus that Assurance is just going to help avoid a natural 1 or bypass situations with penalties, a truly world-class specialist with pretty much every task involving that skill in the bag from modifier alone. It's relatively less useful then, so depending on how you value effects to help avoid worst-case, it might be worth retraining at that point.
One of the weirdest skill disconnects for me in the playtest was that Pick a Locka and Disable Device were both base uses of the skill, while Pickpocket was a skill feat. That feels...backwards. I mean, I get the game reason they did it: PCs are probably going to use those two uses of the skill most often. But those two things logically both seem harder to attempt at baseline than picking a pocket.
Like, I haven't practiced doing any of those things (so I'd be untrained for all of them), but I'd at least be able to make an attempt at picking a pocket. I wouldn't be good at it and would probably be noticed instantly
Well the Playtest book agreed with your thoughts almost exactly. Palming an object and stealing an object were both untrained manipulate actions under the thievery skill. The Pickpocket feat allowed you the ability to steal anything on a person that wasn't being actively wielded or overly noticeable without negatively affecting the roll and opened the doorway to stealing from people unnoticed while engaged in combat at mastery level. Legendary thievery was the next step up and as long as you were concealed while attempting it - you could cart off massive objects without being noticed.
In short - anyone can try to pick a pocket - but someone with the feat would be able to do so far easier and with an XP sink of two feats could become a master thief.
Actually the playtest rules for Thievery said you couldn't steal an object from a pocket without the feat. You could only attempt to steal loosely attached things like pouches. That didn't sit right with me, and the fiddly distinctions between the "steal and object" action and the "pickpocket" feat fall well within the GM judgement call territory for the success or failure of a check based on a DC.
Actually the playtest rules for Thievery said you couldn't steal an object from a pocket without the feat. You could only attempt to steal loosely attached things like pouches. That didn't sit right with me, and the fiddly distinctions between the "steal and object" action and the "pickpocket" feat fall well within the GM judgement call territory for the success or failure of a check based on a DC.
The act of stealing any object as a cutpurse falls "well within the GM judgement call territory for the success or failure of a check based on a DC" based on the rules as written since the GM is empowered to raise and lower the DC based on a number of factors within the skill write up. The distinction between being able to steal from a bag or pouch or pick a pocket on the other hand is clearly defined via the feat. Loose, on a string? Roll against DC as determined by the situation. In a pocket, otherwise secured? - need the feat. Roll against the Perception DC of the target.
How does that not "sit well" with you?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually the playtest rules for Thievery said you couldn't steal an object from a pocket without the feat. You could only attempt to steal loosely attached things like pouches. That didn't sit right with me, and the fiddly distinctions between the "steal and object" action and the "pickpocket" feat fall well within the GM judgement call territory for the success or failure of a check based on a DC.
The act of stealing any object as a cutpurse falls "well within the GM judgement call territory for the success or failure of a check based on a DC" based on the rules as written since the GM is empowered to raise and lower the DC based on a number of factors within the skill write up. The distinction between being able to steal from a bag or pouch or pick a pocket on the other hand is clearly defined via the feat. Loose, on a string? Roll against DC as determined by the situation. In a pocket, otherwise secured? - need the feat. Roll against the Perception DC of the target.
How does that not "sit well" with you?
Because if someone is Trained, or Expert or higher, in a skill called Thievery and asks me if they can pick a pocket I don't say "Do you have the feat?" I say "Well the item's in his coat pocket, it'll be a tough roll but you can try". As such, I want to let my players know in advance that they needn't take the feat and can spend their precious skill feats elsewhere.
Lots of GM calls I make are based on whether or not I can enforce a rule with a straight face.
Because if someone is Trained, or Expert or higher, in a skill called Thievery and asks me if they can pick a pocket I don't say "Do you have the feat?" I say "Well the item's in his coat pocket, it'll be a tough roll but you can try". As such, I want to let my players know in advance that they needn't take the feat and can spend their precious skill feats elsewhere.Lots of GM calls I make are based on whether or not I can enforce a rule with a straight face.
So a post ago - you said it didn't work because its ability to succeed is based entirely on a nebulous GM Judgement call. So you would rather remove that nebulous GM judgement call to replace it with your own nebulous GM judgement call of it being "a tough roll."
That argument doesn't make sense.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because if someone is Trained, or Expert or higher, in a skill called Thievery and asks me if they can pick a pocket I don't say "Do you have the feat?" I say "Well the item's in his coat pocket, it'll be a tough roll but you can try". As such, I want to let my players know in advance that they needn't take the feat and can spend their precious skill feats elsewhere.Lots of GM calls I make are based on whether or not I can enforce a rule with a straight face.
So a post ago - you said it didn't work because its ability to succeed is based entirely on a nebulous GM Judgement call. So you would rather remove that nebulous GM judgement call to replace it with your own nebulous GM judgement call of it being "a tough roll."
That argument doesn't make sense.
I think the main crux is that it is possible to attempt, whereas not having the Feat means you can't attempt at all on a coat pick pocket.
That also makes little sense in the context of Thievery as a Skill and not being able to pick pocket.
If I'm a Rogue who is a Master/Expert in a Skill, I expect to be able to perform a staple of that Skill (picking a pocket).
Now I will say, as someone else mentioned, getting Disable Device for free without a Skill Feat (when Trapfinding was originally an exclusive Class Feature) and forcing a Skill Feat for Pick Pocket seems bass ackwards.
Now if it was possible, but the Feat relieved some penalties, I could see that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because if someone is Trained, or Expert or higher, in a skill called Thievery and asks me if they can pick a pocket I don't say "Do you have the feat?" I say "Well the item's in his coat pocket, it'll be a tough roll but you can try". As such, I want to let my players know in advance that they needn't take the feat and can spend their precious skill feats elsewhere.Lots of GM calls I make are based on whether or not I can enforce a rule with a straight face.
So a post ago - you said it didn't work because its ability to succeed is based entirely on a nebulous GM Judgement call. So you would rather remove that nebulous GM judgement call to replace it with your own nebulous GM judgement call of it being "a tough roll."
That argument doesn't make sense.
I'm afraid you're misinterpreting my stance. I'm fine with the GM being empowered to tell someone what they can or can't do and adjusting DCs as necessary based on their judgement about the difficulty of a task.
I'm not okay with a feat chopping a GM's ability to make such a call at the knees. This was a persistent problem in PF1e, where new feats would be introduced that ostensibly allow an action that was previously assumed to be possible innately.
In this case the arbitrary line between stealing something from a pouch and stealing something from a pocket requiring a feat to cross would be similar to requiring a feat to go from being able to climb a ladder to being able to climb a rope.
Things that are clearly within the realm of a DC modification should not be locked behind feats unnecessarily.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss how other people feel about when a feat crosses the line between being an unnecessary gate and being a useful addition.
That also makes little sense in the context of Thievery as a Skill and not being able to pick pocket.
I would argue it makes perfect sense. Cutting the strings of someones coin purse requires no real skill and works untrained (as written.) Disabling a trap requires experience using the thievery skill and thus requires training at some level (as written.) And Picking someones pocket requires both thievery and either stealth or deception which are their own separate skills. The feat allows you to ignore the need of the other skill in making the attempt and makes the roll to succeed as minimal as palming an apple in the marketplace.
If I'm a Rogue who is a Master/Expert in a Skill, I expect to be able to perform a staple of that Skill (picking a pocket).
Right, I think the point was in trying to recreate the classic 2E D&D Thief as a Rogue build, so you're not just building a generic boring Rogue who can do all the Rogue stuff.
Now I will say, as someone else mentioned, getting Disable Device for free without a Skill Feat (when Trapfinding was originally an exclusive Class Feature) and forcing a Skill Feat for Pick Pocket seems bass ackwards.
Again, I think they're trying to give you the Rogue basics for free and encourage you to build new and different Rogues - one of which being a Thief.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Skill Feats should look like this.
All Skill Feats require EITHER Trained /OR/ Legendary in the accompanying Skill. Adding "mid level" Skill Feats is a waste of time, you need only ensure that all "Trained level" minimum Skill Feats provide Bonuses/Boons/Abilities at the following Prof Gates Trained, Expert, Master. Legendary Skill Feats should simply put, require Legendary Training in said Skill, and grant the PC something cool, unique, powerful, and at-will, not some "If obscure check X happens you can Y" I'm talking about granting them an action that DOES something Legendary whenever they like, not a Bonus to existing things, but instead something NEW and COOL.
Trained Level Skill Feats should open up a few new things you can do with your Skill, regardless of what it applies to in ADDITION to granting you more powerful versions of this ability or new ones as you increase your Prof in said Skill.
For ex: Skill Feat Diplomacy Legendary
Platinum Tongue- Your words are just like... so awesome... you can spend three consecutive Actions to deliver a speech using a Diplomacy Skill Check. If you beat a 10+1/2 NPC Level+Cha Mod you are able to keep the target of your speech Fascinated for as long as you continue talking up to 1 round per Character Level. The opponent takes no hostile actions or attacks towards you if in combat unless physically threatened during the duration of the speech. If used during other non tactical modes of play, you may use this to automatically treat any non-hostile creature you're communicating with as friendly on a DC 10+1/2 NPC Level+Cha Mod.
Skill Feat Diplomary Trained
Silver Tongue- You know how to read people and have learned to say what they want to hear. At Trained- You may make a Diplomacy Check to affect the attitude of a creature even if you or another ally has failed to do so recently. At Expert- You may reroll any Diplomacy Check made against neutral or friendly NPCs once per encounter. At Master- You may roll Diplomacy at the start of any combat with an enemy you can communicate with in order to speak up and act first.
I'm fine with the GM being empowered to tell someone what they can or can't do and adjusting DCs as necessary based on their judgement about the difficulty of a task.I'm not okay with a feat chopping a GM's ability to make such a call at the knees.
So your response rather than simply making the call as a GM to allow the attempt at a higher DC without the feat is to disallow the feat entirely and fold it all into the skill roll - eliminate the higher level effects of the feat and leave Legendary Thief without a prereq. It would really be simpler to just say "You're not a pickpocket so it's going to be 'a tough roll'"
This was a persistent problem in PF1e, where new feats would be introduced that ostensibly allow an action that was previously assumed to be possible innately.
Perhaps the problem was in assuming what was and was not possible.
In this case the arbitrary line between stealing something from a pouch and stealing something from a pocket requiring a feat to cross would be similar to requiring a feat to go from being able to climb a ladder to being able to climb a rope.
First the line between something being loose in a bag or a pouch vs. being secure in a pocket is not arbitrary. They are legitimately two separate states of being. Secondly: cutting a purse vs. Picking a pocket compared with climbing a ladder vs climbing a rope is the most apples to oranges comparison you could make. Thirdly go to a middle school gym class during the President's Physical Fitness Challenge and you'll find that there is definitely a skill gap between climbing a ladder and climbing a rope.
Things that are clearly within the realm of a DC modification should not be locked behind feats unnecessarily.
I don't think it's locked there unnecessarily.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss how other people feel about when a feat crosses the line between being an unnecessary gate and being a useful addition.
And anyone who thinks that a certain feat doesn't actually cross a line should just shut the hell up?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've started judging the worthiness of rules based on how many times people give me the, "Are you kidding me?" face. In that regard, I'm hoping that the Pickpocket feat gets an adjustment, because it never went over well when I tried to explain that Thievery doesn't necessarily cover picking pockets.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I might houserule it as no feat = hefty penalty. This way taking the feat is not necessary but simplifies your life a lot by making you succeed far more often. Like a proficiency on a subset of the skill.
This reminds me of the ruckus about the Ultimate Intrigue feats that were intended to make life easier for PCs who took it but were misinterpreted as forbidding PCs without the feat to even try.
As said, I do agree that pickpocketing should be gated behind a proficiency level and not through a separate feat just to allow the attempt.
I do think there is room for a Pickpocket feat though. It would have to do something mechanically better than just allow a roll. Something like, "grants Assurance when using Thievery to remove secured items from a creature. If the character already has Assurance for Thievery then [INSERT SPECIAL EFFECT HERE].".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I might houserule it as no feat = hefty penalty.
That will be an impossible houserule to make (technically). Therefore it is a very clever idea.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I might houserule it as no feat = hefty penalty.That will be an impossible houserule to make (technically). Therefore it is a very clever idea.
wha...? Does this confirm you can't pickpocket without a feat or... does it de-confirm it? It's hard to interpret.
It would have to do something mechanically better than just allow a roll. Something like, "grants Assurance when using Thievery to remove secured items from a creature. If the character already has Assurance for Thievery then [INSERT SPECIAL EFFECT HERE].".
Just spitballing here. What if, it allowed you to pick the pockets of someone who was looking out for thieves, or maybe even people engaged in combat?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One area that should be part of the default rules, IMO, but I wound up making into a skill feat is climbing on monsters. Climbing up the giant to stab its eyes is a time honored fantasy trope, and it is something new players often want to try. It is weird that we don't have rules enabling it outside of one rogue archetype in PF1.
I made it into a skill feat because that's easier to introduce into a game than rewriting the base rules. But I also lumped it in with the benefits of Defensive Climber and One-Handed Climber.
While I do get the idea that pick pocketing seems easier to attempt than lockpicking, I will point out that I doubt most rogues are going to have a hard time picking pockets given how many skill feats they have to spare.
Assurance helps assure that you can cover easier DCs and make them every time, and that's a function of what those DCs are. In the 20 Dex example, taking you from 80% success rate (with 5% crit failure in the mix) to 100% is certainly no slouch, and as you mention, you get to ignore your penalties while you're at it. Now are you right that it helps even more for someone who can't max their ability score quite as much but still wants to see success with that skill because they don't have as good of an alternative when they roll? Sure thing! That it can help diversify characters is an extra plus, but it doesn't change what it can do for you otherwise.
Now it is possible to create a character around level 20 (or sooner in certain situations with a bunch of temporary bonuses) with such a high bonus that Assurance is just going to help avoid a natural 1 or bypass situations with penalties, a truly world-class specialist with pretty much every task involving that skill in the bag from modifier alone. It's relatively less useful then, so depending on how you value effects to help avoid worst-case, it might be worth retraining at that point.
To elaborate, until level 10 a character with maximum stat investment only has a +4 to the roll. That means they need a 6 on the dice to beat the results of Assurance, or to have a skill boosting item (which we know are going to be less of an assumed thing than the playtest from previous comments Mark made.) That means there's a theoretical 20% of failing a DC that Assurance would let you pass on, plus the 5% chance of critical failure. If the DC is low enough that 20% is reduced, but the crit failure chance is maintained. A character with a lower stat, an armor check penalty, or what have you can grow that threshold, but that doesn't make the feat useless for the character with the better ability score.
I'll add that *I* probably won't be taking Assurance, because I don't mind interesting consequences happening on a nat 1 and would rather pick up something new and exciting I can do. But there are players who favor consistency and this seems like a good option to include for them.
I might houserule it as no feat = hefty penalty.That will be an impossible houserule to make (technically). Therefore it is a very clever idea.
Reading between the lines, this could mean they have already implemented the solution The Raven Black suggests here, so it wouldn't be a house rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So your response rather than simply making the call as a GM to allow the attempt at a higher DC without the feat is to disallow the feat entirely and fold it all into the skill roll - eliminate the higher level effects of the feat and leave Legendary Thief without a prereq. It would really be simpler to just say "You're not a pickpocket so it's going to be 'a tough roll'"
No, the feat would be baked in. As far as prerequisites are concerned, I consider it a positive to eliminate one.
Perhaps the problem was in assuming what was and was not possible.
Well the game isn't going to go very far if every time a player asks to do something I have to check the entire feat list before saying yes or no.
First the line between something being loose in a bag or a pouch vs. being secure in a pocket is not arbitrary. They are legitimately two separate states of being. Secondly: cutting a purse vs. Picking a pocket compared with climbing a ladder vs climbing a rope is the most apples to oranges comparison you could make. Thirdly go to a middle school gym class during the President's Physical Fitness Challenge and you'll find that there is definitely a skill gap between climbing a ladder and climbing a rope.
If the final rules say that you need the feat to pickpocket, that's fine. You can play by the book. I won't be able to look my players in the eye and tell them that their Master rank in Thief won't let them pick a pocket, so I need to house rule.
And there definitely is a skill gap between climbing a ladder and a rope. Which can be adequately accounted for via DC and training level. The fact that there is no feat required to make that jump only adds to my point.
I don't think it's locked there unnecessarily.
Great! What are your thoughts on the other feats I mentioned? Is it possible in your opinion for a feat to be unnecessary? What would constitute that? I'm trying to determine where people stand on the issue.
No one is telling you to shut up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would have to do something mechanically better than just allow a roll. Something like, "grants Assurance when using Thievery to remove secured items from a creature. If the character already has Assurance for Thievery then [INSERT SPECIAL EFFECT HERE].".Just spitballing here. What if, it allowed you to pick the pockets of someone who was looking out for thieves, or maybe even people engaged in combat?
The combat thing would be pretty cool!
The combat thing would be pretty cool!It would have to do something mechanically better than just allow a roll. Something like, "grants Assurance when using Thievery to remove secured items from a creature. If the character already has Assurance for Thievery then [INSERT SPECIAL EFFECT HERE].".Just spitballing here. What if, it allowed you to pick the pockets of someone who was looking out for thieves, or maybe even people engaged in combat?
That's part of the Pickpocket feat. Once you reach Master in Thievery you can attempt to steal in combat.
I feel that such a feat should be built into the proficiency level increase, as was insinuated in the introduction of the new skill system. Unlocking new levels unlocks new capabilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The combat thing would be pretty cool!It would have to do something mechanically better than just allow a roll. Something like, "grants Assurance when using Thievery to remove secured items from a creature. If the character already has Assurance for Thievery then [INSERT SPECIAL EFFECT HERE].".Just spitballing here. What if, it allowed you to pick the pockets of someone who was looking out for thieves, or maybe even people engaged in combat?
I think one potential solution is to make the feat allow for a roll where you couldn't before, but have it also do other things. My house ruled version of pick pocket reads as such:
PICKPOCKET FEAT 1
Prerequisites trained in Thievery
You can Palm or Steal Objects that are closely guarded, such as an object in a creature’s pocket or a loose ring. You can’t steal objects that are actively wielded or that would be extremely noticeable or time-consuming to remove (like worn shoes or armor). If you’re an expert in Thievery, you can attempt to steal from a creature even if it’s in combat or otherwise on guard. When you’re doing so, Stealing an Object requires 2 manipulate actions instead of 1. If you’re a master it is only 1 action. If you’re legendary, you can use your thievery bonus when you attempt a Disarm action; on a success you are now holding the item and on a critical success they aren’t aware you stole the item until either of you attempts to use it.
The combat thing would be pretty cool!It would have to do something mechanically better than just allow a roll. Something like, "grants Assurance when using Thievery to remove secured items from a creature. If the character already has Assurance for Thievery then [INSERT SPECIAL EFFECT HERE].".Just spitballing here. What if, it allowed you to pick the pockets of someone who was looking out for thieves, or maybe even people engaged in combat?I think one potential solution is to make the feat allow for a roll where you couldn't before, but have it also do other things. My house ruled version of pick pocket reads as such:
PICKPOCKET FEAT 1
Prerequisites trained in Thievery
You can Palm or Steal Objects that are closely guarded, such as an object in a creature’s pocket or a loose ring. You can’t steal objects that are actively wielded or that would be extremely noticeable or time-consuming to remove (like worn shoes or armor). If you’re an expert in Thievery, you can attempt to steal from a creature even if it’s in combat or otherwise on guard. When you’re doing so, Stealing an Object requires 2 manipulate actions instead of 1. If you’re a master it is only 1 action. If you’re legendary, you can use your thievery bonus when you attempt a Disarm action; on a success you are now holding the item and on a critical success they aren’t aware you stole the item until either of you attempts to use it.
Interestingly, the strength of that feat would make me pause before baking it in. I would not like that it cuts out picking a pocket from the base use of the skill. I would probably house rule it to giving a bonus to pick pocket attempts, and then all the higher level stuff and making picking pockets baseline.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it assumed here that you will always know the target DC and thus whether Assurance will succeed?
.
Not necessarily, though you will in some cases. (Treat Wounds DC springs to mind.) But not knowing a DC can also be a useful reason to use Assurance, especially if its a check you can retry. If 10+ proficiency doesn't succeed, there may be a better than 5% chance you roll a critical failure on the check, and that might determine if you think rolling for it is actually worth that risk.
Honestly, it seems like something I'd use occasionally if it was free, but I really wouldn't want to invest anything in it.
I actually agree with this, personally, but just because you or I wouldn't want to use it doesn't mean others wouldn't. Some folks are really into statistics and consistency. There are people in this very thread who have complained loudly about having to rely on dice rolls to determine success.
The line that needs to be walked is making sure it is an appealing option for those folks without becoming such a sure thing it is a must have auto pick for everyone.
Interestingly, the strength of that feat would make me pause before baking it in. I would not like that it cuts out picking a pocket from the base use of the skill. I would probably house rule it to giving a bonus to pick pocket attempts, and then all the higher level stuff and making picking pockets baseline.The combat thing would be pretty cool!It would have to do something mechanically better than just allow a roll. Something like, "grants Assurance when using Thievery to remove secured items from a creature. If the character already has Assurance for Thievery then [INSERT SPECIAL EFFECT HERE].".Just spitballing here. What if, it allowed you to pick the pockets of someone who was looking out for thieves, or maybe even people engaged in combat?I think one potential solution is to make the feat allow for a roll where you couldn't before, but have it also do other things. My house ruled version of pick pocket reads as such:
PICKPOCKET FEAT 1
Prerequisites trained in Thievery
You can Palm or Steal Objects that are closely guarded, such as an object in a creature’s pocket or a loose ring. You can’t steal objects that are actively wielded or that would be extremely noticeable or time-consuming to remove (like worn shoes or armor). If you’re an expert in Thievery, you can attempt to steal from a creature even if it’s in combat or otherwise on guard. When you’re doing so, Stealing an Object requires 2 manipulate actions instead of 1. If you’re a master it is only 1 action. If you’re legendary, you can use your thievery bonus when you attempt a Disarm action; on a success you are now holding the item and on a critical success they aren’t aware you stole the item until either of you attempts to use it.
I don't really object to that approach either per se, but I do think that IF you want to pickpockets and IF you want to improve your Thievery proficiency you probably ALSO want the higher level benefits of this feat.
Of course, it doesn't answer folks who don't invest heavily in thievery and want to try picking a pocket anyway. I will point out that a lot of people complained about the idea that a locksmith would need to have Thievery skills just to pick locks, and making picking pockets a base use would kind of validate that complaint. On the other hand, I've usually found this idea of "the game prevents me from being bad at stuff" idea to be a strawman, anyway, so I don't think I care too much about that.
I will point out that a lot of people complained about the idea that a locksmith would need to have Thievery skills just to pick locks, and making picking pockets a base use would kind of validate that complaint.
Well, people who just want to pick pockets and not locks are in that boat as is. I think of it as a necessary concession to having a manageable sized skill list.
Stepping back to a game design perspective, it makes sense that opening doors and disabling traps, which progress the story, are core while picking pockets, which in my experience primarily derails stories, is feat gated.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
wha...? Does this confirm you can't pickpocket without a feat or... does it de-confirm it? It's hard to interpret.I might houserule it as no feat = hefty penalty.That will be an impossible houserule to make (technically). Therefore it is a very clever idea.
Mark's post heavily implies that The Raven Black's idea is how it works in the final version of the official rules, since that is the only way to make it impossible to House Rule it in that fashion.
Mark's post heavily implies that The Raven Black's idea is how it works in the final version of the official rules, since that is the only way to make it impossible to House Rule it in that fashion.wha...? Does this confirm you can't pickpocket without a feat or... does it de-confirm it? It's hard to interpret.I might houserule it as no feat = hefty penalty.That will be an impossible houserule to make (technically). Therefore it is a very clever idea.
Ah! Thanks DMW I was over here scratching my head lol also sweet!
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assurance helps assure that you can cover easier DCs and make them every time, and that's a function of what those DCs are.Mark,
Has it been explained why Take 10 was removed? I am confused as to how a PC can be highly skilled at something but can never perform at a consistent level without Assurance. Was Take 10 removed because all skill were getting +level bonuses?
I'm obviously not Mark but he's commented before on some of the problem with Taking 10 as a core mechanic:
It makes there precisely two categories of Skill DCs: Ones you have a 100% chance on, and ones you have a 50% or less chance on.
The removal of the very possibility of having between a 55% and 95% chance to do something, the weird binary of 'If your bonus was 1 higher you'd have a 100% chance, but as is it's only 50%' is unfortunate and difficult to balance around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Assurance helps assure that you can cover easier DCs and make them every time, and that's a function of what those DCs are.Mark,
Has it been explained why Take 10 was removed? I am confused as to how a PC can be highly skilled at something but can never perform at a consistent level without Assurance. Was Take 10 removed because all skill were getting +level bonuses?
I'm obviously not Mark but he's commented before on some of the problem with Taking 10 as a core mechanic:
It makes there precisely two categories of Skill DCs: Ones you have a 100% chance on, and ones you have a 50% or less chance on.
The removal of the very possibility of having between a 55% and 95% chance to do something, the weird binary of 'If your bonus was 1 higher you'd have a 100% chance, but as is it's only 50%' is unfortunate and difficult to balance around.
It also has a third case - the DC where you have between 55% and 95% chance, and you argue with the GM on why you should automatically pass.
Assurance clears the issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assurance helps assure that you can cover easier DCs and make them every time, and that's a function of what those DCs are.Mark,
Has it been explained why Take 10 was removed? I am confused as to how a PC can be highly skilled at something but can never perform at a consistent level without Assurance. Was Take 10 removed because all skill were getting +level bonuses?
I'm obviously not Mark but he's commented before on some of the problem with Taking 10 as a core mechanic:
It makes there precisely two categories of Skill DCs: Ones you have a 100% chance on, and ones you have a 50% or less chance on.
The removal of the very possibility of having between a 55% and 95% chance to do something, the weird binary of 'If your bonus was 1 higher you'd have a 100% chance, but as is it's only 50%' is unfortunate and difficult to balance around.
It also has a third case - the DC where you have between 55% and 95% chance, and you argue with the GM on why you should automatically pass.
Assurance clears the issue.
DMW and Ediwir have a very good sense of it. Most players like having a better than half chance of succeeding, but while a minority really do want to autosucceed, most enjoy rolling for it with a big advantage, my guess is since it feels like more of an achievement (there's no right or wrong here so if you do enjoy auto-win or super hard mode, that's cool too, it's just how we each feel about stuff!).
And this dichotomy can lead to some really bad situations. While a home GM could easily achieve either of DMW's two outcomes by picking different numbers in PF1, given that we know people like succeeding more often than not and the uncertainty of what the party will have available, published adventures universally err towards the direction of DMW's first case. Even in a home game where the GM can make sure the DC is set high enough for case 2, it's honestly not very fun, as the PCs fail important checks most of the time.
But if you go for case 1, which as I said above is typically what prepublished adventures and home GMs both go for, you can wind up with some big problems. Take my PF1 PFS investigator, an empiricist like you do. Thanks to his Int and some rather crazy combinations I took to use Int as the key ability score for tons of skills, he is so skilled in not just some skills but in more or less all skills that come up during the adventure that if I chose to Take 10 all the time and the GM was OK with it, there wouldn't really be a need for the other characters on any skill check in 90%+ of scenarios (basically, all but the ones that cleverly force you to have multiple characters try things, some of my favorites!). Since that's not really fun for anyone, I have him always roll, allowing me to call out outlandishly high numbers occasionally (and sometimes the GM plays along and gives me some outlandish description of a stylish success, which I dig!) but also sometimes roll low enough that other characters get a chance to shine.
I don't follow that math.
It makes there precisely two categories of Skill DCs: Ones you have a 100% chance on, and ones you have a 50% or less chance on.
Sounds like they are saying two classes are 1) I can take 10 and succeed or 2) I have to roll to succeed. If you know that a DC is in the first, it is 100% without a roll. If you know that the DC is in the second, then you have a 50% chance at best. If you don't know and you take ten and fail, then you know that you never had a better than 50% chance in the first place.
So the "problem" is mainly that anybody can take-10, while Assurance limits the ability to people willing to spend resources to specialize in a skill?