Skill Feats In Pathfinder 2

Monday's Pathfinder 2 preview over at the Paizo blog talked about skills, so it only makes sense that the Friday preview would take a look at skill feats in the upcoming game.

"One that will stand out to risk-averse players is Assurance, which allows you to achieve a result of 10, 15, 20, or even 30, depending on your proficiency rank, without rolling. Are you taking a huge penalty or being forced to roll multiple times and use the lowest result? Doesn't matter—with Assurance, you always get the listed result. It's perfect for when you want to be able to automatically succeed at certain tasks, and the kinds of things you can achieve with an automatic 30 are pretty significant, worthy of legendary proficiency." This puts a new spin on critical results, as the Assurance feat lets you get the result that you might need for your character, even if it is a low roll.

Characters get a feat on every even-numbered level, so this is going to mean (at least) 10 feats for a character over the course of playing across 20 levels. "At their most basic level, skill feats allow you to customize how you use skills in the game, from combat tricks to social exploits, from risk-averse failure prevention to high-risk heroism. If you'd ever rather just have more trained skills than special techniques with the skills you already have, you can always take the Skill Training skill feat to do just that. Otherwise, you're in for a ride full of options, depending on your proficiency rank." We saw in the update about skills how the number of skills, and how your character advances in them. Skill feats are the road to further customization of your character's skills, and may be a missing piece of the advancement pie.

We know that skill mastery is going to be in "tiers" of expert, master and legendary, and the skill feats will give extra abilities with skills. For example, the cat fall feat: "Your catlike aerial acrobatics allow you to cushion your fall. Treat all falls as if you fell 10 fewer feet. If you're an expert in Acrobatics, treat falls as 25 feet shorter. If you're a master in Acrobatics, treat them as 50 feet shorter. If you're legendary in Acrobatics, you always land on your feet and don't take damage, regardless of the distance of the fall." At the cost of one feat, you receive a lot of new capabilities for your character's acrobatics skill. I suspect that more than a few Pathfinder 2 games are going to see a lot of high level rogues falling from very tall things.

Legendary characters, on either side of the screen, are going to be tough to beat in Pathfinder 2 games. "Legendary characters can do all sorts of impressive things with their skills, not just using scaling skill feats but also using inherently legendary skill feats. If you're legendary, you can swim like a fish, survive indefinitely in the void of space, steal a suit of full plate off a guard (see Legendary Thief below), constantly sneak everywhere at full speed while performing other tasks (Legendary Sneak, from Monday's blog), give a speech that stops a war in the middle of the battlefield, remove an affliction or permanent condition with a medical miracle (Legendary Medic, also from Monday's blog), speak to any creature with a language instantly through an instinctual pidgin language, completely change your appearance and costume in seconds, squeeze through a hole the size of your head at your full walking speed, decipher codes with only a skim, and more!" This is going to mean that there are going to be some pretty impressive high level characters in Pathfinder 2 games.

What do you think? Is the added flexibility that skill feats will give to character counter the changes to the skill system, or make them better?

 

[Azgulor]

Earth is an E6 world.

Not the way Paizo writes it.

Also, there's no E6 publisher of rulebooks, adventures, organized play, supporter of VTT that I'm aware of nor is there as large a pool of players as there is for Pathfinder.

E6 is a solution. Nothing says it is/must be the only one.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, as long as you are going there, no where ever in any edition has there ever been anything in the rules about physics. Physics are simply not mentioned. They aren't a part of the game.

Off the top of my head, in 1e, Gygax's Feather Fall references 'mass' in what seems to be the physics sense, and Freezing Sphere, 'absolute zero,' which doesn't have any other sense I can think of. Mind you, one's physically impossible and the other doesn't behave in accord with the label, but still.

Gygax also referenced Freudian psychoanalysis all over the darn place - soft science, I know, but he was no stranger to anachronism.

Yes, but none of that is physics. The amount of falling damage something takes is not calculated through any process that resembles anything that you'll learn in Physics, or Nature and Properties of Materials, or Statics, or Dynamics, or any other physics, science or engineering course you or I have ever taken.

It'll be wildly at odds with those things, indeed. Hps and falling damage being highly abstract.

I have not actually stated anything of the sort. I have not offered an opinion on people falling from orbit and landing safely, asleep or otherwise.

I think it's fun. Not one but two of my Champions! characters have fallen to earth from orbit, and survived the experience.

Now, wait a minute here. I have not offered any pseudoscientific justifications at all. On the contrary, I have offered some completely non-scientific justifications.

Some were history of science, which is way cooler than pseudoscience, even if it turned out to be every bit as wrong.

What I attempted to show was not science, or pseudoscience, or a justification, but a rather convincing basis for believing that any science as we know it does not exist in a typical D&D universe. You can have reasons for not want player characters to survive falling from orbit while asleep, but those reasons ultimately cannot and do not rest on 'science'.

I have reasons for not wanting there to be any such thing as 'orbit' in my D&D setting.

So if I made my game world that way, then you also have made your game world containing, "Science!", albiet in a very lose higgly piggly sort of way where you don't actually demand scientific accuracy unless it suits you, which suggests that there are actually deeper reasons that underlie this whole rant about "Science!" that are actually the real reasons.

Science is not the kind of thing that lends itself to selective application.

Pathfinder as a RPG is a game emulating a fantasy experience.

Well, the fantastical experience of playing 3.5 D&D. ;P

Although the fantastical is present, there is typically an internal logic/consistency to it. Yes, PF1 the game produces mundane results that are at odds with the mundane results we see on Earth.
...However,...according to Paizo, Golarion inhabits the same reality as Earth. There are AP installments that interact with Earth. Yes, it is a game representation/alternate reality of Earth but things like breathing, gravity, etc. are assumed to be equivalent within the representation of the game.

OK, that's a little weird, in itself. Mind you, I've crossed over D&D with alternate-Earths plenty of times, sometimes they're worlds where magic is weak or doesn't exist, and the NPCs can't even /see/ some of the PCs. But there's a difference between that and 'same reality as Earth.' So Golarion is a planet somewhere? But with magic, for no reason? Or is there a Krell Thought Machine or something involved?

However, the #1 issue I have with it is that it has been presented as being a mundane result. While things like hit points and other abstractions are presented that way as well, they are intrinsic to the DNA of the game. Legendary tier feats/unlocks, on the other hand, feel like a step too far.
I admit it's a purely subjective benchmark, but it's not a baseless one.

There's subjective, and there's arbitrary.

 

[Shasarak]

Not the way Paizo writes it.

Yeah but which Earth? Even Star Trek has more then one.

 

[Starfox]

My worry is that PCs will have TOO FEW of these abilities - each seems to require a significant investments of feats (first to gain grade in the skill, then to learn the specific feat). And these are competing with other feats as far as I can see - the texts says you gain a feat every other level, not that you gain a *skill* feat every other level.

 

[Celebrim]

My worry is that PCs will have TOO FEW of these abilities - each seems to require a significant investments of feats (first to gain grade in the skill, then to learn the specific feat). And these are competing with other feats as far as I can see - the texts says you gain a feat every other level, not that you gain a *skill* feat every other level.

You can only hope that combat classes will gain enough bonus combat feats and enough free grades in combat related skills that it will match up with the increased prowess that spellcasting progressions give spellcasting classes. Likewise, we can hope that skill monkey classes will gain a ton of advancement in skills and skill feats to make it worth while to be a skill monkey. Now of course, skill monkeys that are secondarily combat classes always face the risk of a game that is entirely focused on combat, but that is more of an encounter design/campaign focus issue that you can't solve with rules alone.

But one of the faults I have with 3.X is that it started out way too conservative with respect to skills and feats, both in the numbers of bonus feats and excess skills that non-spellcasters received, and in what you were allowed to accomplish with that skill.

My impression is that in some fashions, PF2 might be going a bit too far the other way, but they do obviously recognize that it was a problem with the original system that requires addressing. That at least is hopeful, even if the exact implementations so far don't really impress me.

Also they do seem to be trying to make the game less fiddly than the 3.X inspired game. I understand the need for that at some level, but do wonder whether they are appealing to much to people who aren't their customers and will turn off the people who stuck with the 3.X game because they preferred the tradeoff of fiddly to depth that 3.X provided. I'd personally rather they focus more on making that payoff bigger, than necessarily remaking the game as a non-fiddly version of PF.

 

[MichaelSomething]

E6 is a solution. Nothing says it is/must be the only one.

True. You could alter the rules/expectations so that high level play isn't high powered. I hear that's what 5E did.

 

[quickshadow94]

As a former high level gamer of previous editions of TtRPGs (D&D 1E, 2E, 3E, 3.5, Gurps, and Pf 1E) I can attest that high level characters (up to and past 20) could do some ridiculous things. For instance, I had a character who could rip open a portal to the astral plane at will and survive there, so things like legendary skills at level 20 doesn't seem too outside the realm of possibilities. So one of the arguments is about the legendary cat fall feat, being able to fall from any height and land on your feat. Think about the movie Avatar when Jake Sully was being taught to fall on those huge leaves. The first few times he never landed on his feat, but after time passed he learned how to hit each leaf properly and roll and eventually land on his feat. This is how I envisioned this feat. But let's be serious, how many rogues are going to be jumping off a flying mount 100 feet in the air to sneak attack an enemy? Now if you're jumping 20-40 feet, that's not outside of the realm of possibilities if you know how to tuck and roll. Also, this is a fantasy based game, so realistic physics isn't really something that exists. Calling it a legendary or magical feat (skill) isn't as important as the fun it can present. Plus this is part of the reason you have a playtest, to work all of these bugs out. Finally, it is always up to the decision of the GM to alter the rules as they see fit (unless you are playing Pathfinder Society where the rules are law) and they are always allowed to say, "you can fall from any height up to 50 feet and land without taking damage." Or just suggest it during the playtest.

"As the party walked into the tarrasque's lair the ranger commented, "what has this creature done that warrants it's death?" To which the rogue replied, "Death? Who said we were going to kill it, I just want that sword under it's left foot."

 

[Caliburn101]

Let's count the number of times your logic fails you just in this little distance.

#1. So, being quite happy with PC's jumping a great distance is not the same as defending a skill feat. They simply aren't the same thing. I can be quite happy with PC's jumping a great distance and not happy with the skill feat. They are independent of one another. So, you fail.

#2. The word impossible is misused. Why do you think it is impossible to do a 70' long jump? Well, you think that because in real life, a jump of just 29' is a very long jump. In real life, it is impossible for a normal human to jump 70' on the surface of the Earth. The problem with this statement is that all of its logical basis of that statement is inapplicable to the situation. It's not logical to apply an argument from real life to this situation. We aren't discussing real life. We aren't discussing a game trying to simulate real life. The game takes place in another universe and not on Earth. The game does not and is not trying to simulate real life. Moreover, the characters in question have levels and hit points and all sorts of things that they would not have if we were in any way trying to simulate real life. It's pretty easy to show that even if levels were a reasonable way to simulate real people - and they are not - that there are no people Earth that are more than about 5th level characters. So, the skills attributed to 5th level and lower characters are not implausible for people in the real world, but the ones attributed to say 15th or 20th level characters are impossible for ordinary people - but these are not ordinary people. 15th level characters are not simulating the real world in any fashion and never ever have been. (Heck, even first level characters though more plausible as simulations of real life abilities are still not actually motivated primarily with simulating real abilities.) High level characters are simulating fantasy super-heroes. They are potential members of some sword swinging, spelling-slinging justice league, and Batman and Captain America have nothing on them. So the distances are not impossible given the actual conditions being simulated. They are only impossible in a situation you are illogically including in the game, and one that is irrelevant to the discussion - real life. It's not impossible for a superhero to jump 70', and if you don't want to simulate superheroes than you shouldn't be playing a high level game because high level characters have always been superheroes. It's not even implausible for a high level character to jump 70' and quite arguably it is necessary for the game.



#3 Again, just because I don't like the skill feat as written it is illogical to conclude from that that I actually agree with you. Those are again two completely different things. There aren't only two possibilities here. I can both not like the skill feat as written and still disagree with you. In fact I'm doing both, but you lack the basic logic to deal with that. There is a contrary point of view and the fact that I'm being contrary to you in no way means that I actually like the skill feat and am defending it. If you had a bit of logic in your thoughts in this thread, you would realize that.

Wow, there really is no point debating with you is there?

None of what you just said makes sense in any context relevant to what I said.

So I'll leave this here. I have no desire to continue a conversation which can go nowhere logical, and certainly no patience with someone who just wants to state things, pretend they are relevant to the point of the conversation and score points on issues they made up simply to appear to score points on.

 

[Celebrim]

Wow, there really is no point debating with you is there?

None of what you just said makes sense in any context relevant to what I said.

So I'll leave this here. I have no desire to continue a conversation which can go nowhere logical, and certainly no patience with someone who just wants to state things, pretend they are relevant to the point of the conversation and score points on issues they made up simply to appear to score points on.

*yawn* Weak.

What you began ranting about in this thread was the idea that high level characters being super-heroic was a "trivialization of the fantasy genera". I can quote the whole post if you like, but it doesn't really matter because it's still there for everyone to read.

In my game of D&D, a 13th level Monk has had the ability to fall an infinite distance and take no damage since like 1978. The ability to do this was generally presented as an act of skill. And in my game of D&D, an 8th level fighter was a "superhero" who could among other things reliably survive falling from heights that would kill any realistic normal person. But that was ok, because he was in fact a "superhero".

The problem with your rant is that you seem to be OK with certain classes achieving levels of power that are obviously superheroic as long as in your head you can give some plausible excuse, where just saying something like "magic" or "ki" or whatever is enough for you to nod along and say, "Oh, that's plausible." But if I don't say the magic words, somehow it's not plausible and instead it is a "joke in your eyes".

And frankly, that's ridiculous. There is as I have been pointing out all manner of plausible reasons why you wouldn't expect a fantasy game to be a realistic simulation of real life. And further there are all manner of reasons for wanting all classes upon obtaining high level to be on the same tier, and not have some classes nigh demigods and other classes strictly limited to what is realistic. There is nothing mundane about any character that is 15th level. They may not be magical, and they may have obtained their power through non-magical means, but they are not mundane because mundanity got left behind about 10 levels ago. Thus a character of that level may have fantastic skills and abilities, far beyond what any realistic character may have, simply because it is a fantasy. You are like Vizzini, except carrying on about "implausible" and "implausible" that, when in fact that word does not mean what you think it means.

But what is even more ridiculous is rejecting that what I have said makes sense in a context relevant to what you did in fact say as if you didn't say it.

Further, no one really cares whether you stamp your foot and petulantly declare for like the third time that you have no desire to continue the conversation.

 

[Starfox]

I'd personally rather they focus more on making that payoff bigger, than necessarily remaking the game as a non-fiddly version of PF.

In all the examples, low-level characters are even more bare-bones than in PF 1 (except with regards to hit points). What used to be 1st level class abilities and race abilities are now feats you have to earn over levels.