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?

 

[Caliburn101]

Wouldn't the same argument apply to feather fall? That a boulder falling into your head would be the same as you falling head first into a boulder?

Thus if you apply physics... feather fall would make you immune to bludgeoning damage, and give resistance 5 to any other physical damage (as the attack is slowed, but still sharp).

I can see where you get the idea that it's mundane (though I disagree)

But it very much has a cost of a feat and your skill points. Which is more expensive than some gold for a 100% reliable, infinitely repeatable supernatural outcome ring of feather fall.
Or spending the feat on magical crafting and making your own ring, along with other stuff.
Or 1 level of wizard, and just not falling more than twice a day.

You haven't bothered to read Feather Fall then?

It slows you to 10 feet per second... so now apply physics and admit you got the wrong end of then stick.

Plus, Feather Fall specifically slows your body down in a fall - it doesn't make you immune to the consequences of falling like this ridiculous mundane skill.

Anyway - no point in me wasting further time explaining the blindingly obvious. If all you care about is 'rules balance' and not even the slightest verisimilitude in your roleplay, then find some like-minded players and go have a campaign with them.


You can all jump off a tall bridge together...

 

[Caliburn101]

I'm not going to quibble over your specific complaints which would be any number of rabbit holes to go down. But I do want to quibble with the bolded part of your statement because I don't think it's sustainable, at least not in the way you stated it.

While there might be some setting where it would be reasonable to conclude that if magic wasn't producing an exception to the usual rules, that you could assume that physics applied, the typical high fantasy high magic world of D&D is not such a setting.

D&D not only assumes the existence of magic. D&D assumes the existence of a physical universe very different - very very different - from the observable physical universe.

For example, D&D assumes the existence of four elemental planes and elemental creatures from those planes. Therefore there is no reason to assume that the periodic table of elements exists in any D&D universe, and no reason to assume that the fundamental building blocks of matter look and behave anything like those of the real universe - no strong and weak nuclear forces, no electrons, no protons, no nuclear mass or weight or atomic numbers, no valences, and indeed no basis of any physical chemistry as we know it.

Further, there are strong hints that the world that exists is the world the ancients believed existed, and as such any number of physical experiments in a D&D universe might produce subtly different but profoundly different results than those obtained in the real world. For example, it could be that kinetic energy increases linearly with velocity rather than with the square of it. It could be that if you burn an object the products of the combustion weigh less than the burnt object rather than more than it, meaning that mass is not conserved and that combustion doesn't necessarily involve binding oxygen atoms to other atoms (and for that matter that oxygen isn't an element but a compound). It could mean that if you submerge a cannon in a pool of water and start grinding, eventually you stop producing heat. Further you have to deal with concepts like ethereal and astral, and animism suggesting that things don't move because they are governed by universal laws, but because of individual animus that animates them according to the will and properties of the individual bit of matter. This suggests that the Galilean/Newtonian universe doesn't exist. For example, in my own game gravity doesn't exist and isn't a property of mass. Rather, things fall because earth spirits pull things back to the ground, and birds fly not merely out of aerodynamics but because they are creatures of the air not subject only to the command of earth spirits.

In short, there is no reason at all to think that a typical D&D universe has anything but the most superficial resemblance to the real worlds laws of physics. And even if you prefer your own D&D setting to have that maxim, there is no basis for asserting that the maxim is a fact rather than simply a personal preference.

Finally, while I don't particularly endorse the first draft mechanics Pazio is throwing out there, I can in fact give you a physical basis to most of them that would not violate the 'laws of physics' as they exist in a D&D setting. For instance, I can tell you how a thief without magic (per se) steals the shoes off a person while that person is standing in them. However, much of that is I think going to come down a quibble about what magic actually is. So, purely in the interest of provoking some thought, what does it mean to do magic in D&D. Please give your answer in a form that gives magic a tangible physical basis, because one thing you'll note about magic in the real world and all dictionary definitions of it is that they assume it is something that doesn't exist or isn't understood, and none of those definitions hold up in a D&D universe. In the D&D universe, magic is natural and not supernatural.

Utterly off the point, and another straw man argument.

Nowhere, in any edition, EVER, has there been a rule, a bit of cosmological fluff or anything else that completely ignores the laws of physics unless magic is involved.

You throw something up, it comes down. It takes fall damage if it's far enough and yada yada.

Stating that there are other planes with different laws and so a normal campaign world is somehow different enough to allow 0.001% pf people to fall from orbit and land safely whilst asleep is the same misplaced argument as 'because magic'.

As for the rest of your pseudoscientific justifications - nice try... and that something doesn't exist in your game is once again, utterly irrelevant to the point I made. You made your game world that way - the rules didn't force you to.

On your last point - you miss the point. The jump skill feat is NOT MAGIC. It still works in an antimagic field, it still works if the user doesn't have a magical bone in their body or a single magical item on them.

Do try to apply some logic to your argument.

I am done here, these fake news complaints and illogical knee-jerk defences of this laughable skill feat are beginning to get nearly as surreal as the thing itself.

 

[Caliburn101]

I bolded your quote for emphasis.

Why do you assume it is a mundane skill? Why does everyone else have to abide by your assumptions?

In my games, the legends don't talk about that guy who did fell 30' and only got a little bit banged up. The legends talk about the legendary hero who fell from the chariot of Apollo and walked away.

It is blindingly obvious, surely?

The rules ALWAYS state when something is ki based, magic based or divine etc. etc.

This feat doesn't say anything of the sort.

Are you going to tell me slicing someone with a dagger is supernatural or magical now?

No - because it al also blindingly obvious that it isn't, even if a legendary knife fighter sticks it into you...

 

[Caliburn101]

Incredible - I'm off to bed and not visiting this ridiculous thread any longer.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Nowhere, in any edition, EVER, has there been a rule, a bit of cosmological fluff or anything else that completely ignores the laws of physics unless magic is involved.

He gave you multiple examples. Hit points, alone, break the laws of physics to pieces with regard to falling, in every edition. Humanoid giants, large flying creatures, etc, do likewise. It's not like a character falling in an anti-magic field starts breaking bones, or dragons fall out of the sky when a Mordenkainen's Disjunction goes off on them, so it's not like you can cry "but magic!"
D&D just isn't a physics simulator.
It can't pretend to the title of fantasy-genre simulator, either, but it's definitely no physics simulator.

 

[pemerton]

I often see people assert that D&D/PF worlds are governed by gravity. But all they seem to mean by this is that (some) unsupported objects will fall to the ground. I say some because birds, dragons etc can fly - and given that dragons can fly, we already know that real world physical laws of fluid dynamics, lift etc don't operate in D&D/PF.

In the real world, gravity is not/I] just "unsupported objects fall". It is a phenomenon that (i) establishes the rate of motion between masses, (ii) involves all masses exerting force on all others, (iii) explaining planetary motion, etc. What causes planets to move in D&D? I have no idea how Gygax thought of this in his GH campaign (except that his DMG suggests that he would allow flying to the moon on a pegasus), but from what I know of Spelljammer it does not put forward a Newtonian theory of planetary motion.

When a high level PF2 character falls and survives, what explains it? A pact with air elementals? The ability to land on one's feet combined with strong bones and ligaments? Maybe the rulebooks will answer this or maybe, much as with high level PCs' hit points, they'll leave it as a table thing. But given that the musculature of dragons somehow allows them to fly, the idea that the musculature of a legendary thief allows him/her to land without being hurt seems tenable enough.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Are you going to tell me slicing someone with a dagger is supernatural or magical now?

No - because it al also blindingly obvious that it isn't, even if a legendary knife fighter sticks it into you...

Is it magical to kill six guys with two knifes in six seconds? Kill something the size of a condo? Stab through stone?

And that's before magical weapons and spells.

 

[Schmoe]

Is it magical to kill six guys with two knifes in six seconds? Kill something the size of a condo? Stab through stone?

And that's before magical weapons and spells.

To take that farther, when was the last time you saw someone hew through 5' of solid stone using an axe in a matter of seconds? This is easily in the realm of possibility in high-level fantasy RPGs.

 

[Wyvern]

I have mixed feelings about this. I read the description of what Legendary characters can do, and my first reaction is that it sounds ridiculously over-the-top. Then again, I've never played in an epic-level game, and I don't really have any desire to. But some people enjoy that sort of thing. To some people, being ridiculously over-the-top is the whole point of epic-level play. Who am I to tell them they can't play the game they want to? Isn't there room for both? If you don't like that sort of thing, there's an extremely simple solution: don't play an epic level game.

Now, I get that some people would rather not have that sort of thing in the game at all. And there's nothing wrong with having an opinion, and with stating it -- as someone else suggested, one reason Paizo is posting these tidbits is to gauge people's reactions. And not wanting to see ridiculously over-the-top feats in the game is just as valid an opinion as wanting them. But some of you have progressed beyond stating your opinions to bludgeoning people over the head with them. To those who think that non-spellcasting characters shouldn't be capable of these things, I have a few questions:

- What's your benchmark for epic-level characters? In other words, if you think the examples of Legendary feats in the OP are beyond the pale, what do you think an epic-level character should be able to accomplish without the aid of magic?

- Would you allow something like this in an epic-level game? If so, under what conditions?

- What would you make of a character who, according to legend, could survive nine days without breathing or sleeping, grow as tall as a tree, radiate heat from his hands, and strike blows with a sword that could not be healed? Would you call them a superhero? A demigod? A wizard?

[sblock]
The person I'm describing is Sir Kay.

You know, this guy:

[/sblock]

 

[Celebrim]

Utterly off the point, and another straw man argument.

I'm afraid I don't think you know what either of those statements even mean.

Nowhere, in any edition, EVER, has there been a rule, a bit of cosmological fluff or anything else that completely ignores the laws of physics unless magic is involved.

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.

You throw something up, it comes down. It takes fall damage if it's far enough and yada yada.

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.

Stating that there are other planes with different laws and so a normal campaign world is somehow different enough to allow 0.001% pf people to fall from orbit and land safely whilst asleep is the same misplaced argument as 'because magic'.

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.

As for the rest of your pseudoscientific justifications...

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. But so what. Science does not appear in the game at all. Science is not a part of D&D. It's not a part of the rules. It's not a part of the setting. And it's not a part of the game's background or development as a game. At no point does the game attempt to philosophically justify any adherence to or lack of adherence to science. 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'.

nice try... and that something doesn't exist in your game is once again, utterly irrelevant to the point I made. You made your game world that way - the rules didn't force you to.

In a sense you are right. But you are completely missing the implications of your own words. Just as the rules don't force any of the elements of my world, neither does anything in the game prevent any of the elements that I chose and decided on. 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.

On your last point - you miss the point. The jump skill feat is NOT MAGIC. It still works in an antimagic field, it still works if the user doesn't have a magical bone in their body or a single magical item on them.

So? This is the sort of statement which reveals that you completely missed the point. If a player jumps 70' through the air and can do so in an antimagic field, because of their jump skill I am completely OK with that not being magical. If a player can leap off of a 8 story building and land without suffering harm and can do so in an antimagic field, then I am also completely OK with that not being a magical act.

Do try to apply some logic to your argument.

LOL. Sir, you have nothing to teach me about logic, I assure you.

I am done here, these fake news complaints and illogical knee-jerk defences of this laughable skill feat are beginning to get nearly as surreal as the thing itself.

That's the best you can do? Really?

The real irony of this is that I'm not even defending the skill feat as written. My impression of the skill feats as written are actually pretty poor. But it has nothing to do with 'science' or any illogical and irrelevant crap like that.