Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: is it RAW or RAI to always take 10 minutes and heal between encounters?

[kenada]

Yeah, it's weird to attack what is pretty standard RPG skill design.

It’s a criticism I’ve seen made from the OSR perspective emphasizing player skill over character skill (“the answer is not on your character sheet”). I agree it’s a bit weird in this context since I don’t think OSR games are what CapnZapp has in mind. It could be he wants them to be handled more like approaches in Fate Accelerated, which decouples what you are doing from how you do it (e.g., one might roll Sneaky or Forceful depending on how you approach picking a lock). I don’t think that’s how PF2 or most D&Ds are designed though, and I wouldn’t fault them for that.

 

[Justice and Rule]

It’s a criticism I’ve seen made from the OSR perspective emphasizing player skill over character skill (“the answer is not on your character sheet”). I agree it’s a bit weird in this context since I don’t think OSR games are what CapnZapp has in mind. It could be he wants them to be handled more like approaches in Fate Accelerated, which decouples what you are doing from how you do it (e.g., one might roll Sneaky or Forceful depending on how you approach picking a lock). I don’t think that’s how PF2 or most D&Ds are designed though, and I wouldn’t fault them for that.

5E does it with tools, where you can use different ability scores for different uses of the tool proficiency: knowing something about the construction of a tunnel might be Mason's Tools (Int), while actually bricking up a wall could be Mason's Tools (Str). I know I liked letting different martials use Strength when it came to Intimidate checks.

 

[kenada]

5E does it with tools, where you can use different ability scores for different uses of the tool proficiency: knowing something about the construction of a tunnel might be Mason's Tools (Int), while actually bricking up a wall could be Mason's Tools (Str). I know I liked letting different martials use Strength when it came to Intimidate checks.

I had 5e in mind when I wrote “most D&Ds” because it has some OSR cues while not really being OSR. Since skills are technically optional, you’re supposed to roll the ability score that makes sense for the activity and add your proficiency as appropriate. I don’t know how often that gets done in practice. We ran skills more or less like we also did in 3e, 4e, and PF1. That was also how it was done in the few con games of 5e I’ve played.

I should also add that, technically, Pathfinder 2e lets you substitute ability scores when rolling skill checks as the GM sees fit (per Key Ability in the skills chapter).

 

[Thomas Shey]

While there's nothing wrong with that, my observation that it can start to degenerate into "I spend all my time trying to fish on my good attribute." Which doesn't mean it isn't a good approach, its just one that can be kind of fraught.

(And don't get me started on the inverse where the player gets to just declare the attribute and its expected that the GM will apply consequences for the approach. I understand it works for some people but I'd rather have a root canal.)

 

[Justice and Rule]

I had 5e in mind when I wrote “most D&Ds” because it has some OSR cues while not really being OSR. Since skills are technically optional, you’re supposed to roll the ability score that makes sense for the activity and add your proficiency as appropriate. I don’t know how often that gets done in practice. We ran skills more or less like we also did in 3e, 4e, and PF1. That was also how it was done in the few con games of 5e I’ve played.

I should also add that, technically, Pathfinder 2e lets you substitute ability scores when rolling skill checks as the GM sees fit (per Key Ability in the skills chapter).

Yeah, I typically didn't like switching up skills if I didn't need to. I tried solving that problem by doing my own homebrew with the skill system, but in the end I think this one was more up my alley. Some of the more freeform skill systems out there are interesting to me, but I wonder how much my players would litigate when such advantages would apply where. Probably should have a bit more faith, but I'm a worrywart at times.

While there's nothing wrong with that, my observation that it can start to degenerate into "I spend all my time trying to fish on my good attribute." Which doesn't mean it isn't a good approach, its just one that can be kind of fraught.

It's why I like avoiding big modifiers in Feat design: if you give them something huge, people will inevitably want to get as much out of it as they can. And that makes sense, but it can also be frustrating for both parties to litigate a bunch of edge cases on the matter.

(And don't get me started on the inverse where the player gets to just declare the attribute and its expected that the GM will apply consequences for the approach. I understand it works for some people but I'd rather have a root canal.)

Okay, so Legend of the Five Rings 5E has the interesting aspect of choosing "approaches" via your "Ring" (basically your different personality traits, associated with elements). So you can use your best attribute on something, but in doing so you might raise the difficulty because that specific approach is ill-suited for this situation.

This is most-obviously seen in their NPC design, which often have "demeanors": quick personality types which grant bonuses and penalties to social checks against them with certain rings. For example, a "Shrewd" NPC is generally clever, and thus more difficult to trick (which is done with the Air Ring), but also more easily cowed by direct conflict (using the Fire Ring approach). On the other hand, an "Assertive" NPC generally will stand up to simple appeals to logic and reason (Earth Ring) since they are stubborn, but can be more easily tricked through their stubbornness (Air Ring).

It's honestly fascinating. I desperately want to play a game with my friends because the basic mechanics are simple, but it also creates a complex give and take when it comes to one's strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Okay, so Legend of the Five Rings 5E has the interesting aspect of choosing "approaches" via your "Ring" (basically your different personality traits, associated with elements). So you can use your best attribute on something, but in doing so you might raise the difficulty because that specific approach is ill-suited for this situation.

That's a legitimate decision on that, but it also is--perverse?--because it can end up meaning that you either didn't actually gain anything by choosing that approach (because the benefit of the higher attribute is washed out by the difficulty modification) so it can feel like a gotcha.

(Its one of the things I have against Storypath, the system used in some of the newer non-CoD games from Onyx Path; I understand the problem it was designed to address since I was a Scion 1e GM, but its a cure as bad as the disease far as I'm concerned since it pushes attributes toward meaninglessness).

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Ugh... Just granting bonuses to certain actions is exactly the sort of thing that I'd want to get away from. Not only are you going to create a laundry list of new penalties and skill actions to memorize, but granting a bunch of expansive bonuses is going to get you into territory where "Well, can I get this bonus to count for this action because I'm doing it like this?" sort of stuff. I'd rather avoid negotiations as to whether this adjacent usage of something counts for this situation and just give clear-cut exceptions.

Feats in PF2e are narrow by design so not sure I see the worry. "You get a +5 bonus when using Society to try to gain an audience with crime bosses". "You get a +5 bonus when using Society to impersonate a Noble". I guess you could have players that argue the evil king is a sort of 'crime boss' or the barmaid is the 'nobility of scutlery', but that sounds like a different issue...

This is less of a burden on the game to me, because as GM I can just set a DC and the player can speak up if they have the bonus. Skills become more expansive. There doesn't have to be a big list of skill actions because if it makes sense under the skill there's no reason why you can't try it and there are no permission/gating feats to step on. You can just say yes and move on. Level 7 party. You want to use Society to impersonate a Duke in a country inn where they've heard stories but never seen the Duke -- Level 4 check. You want to impersonate a minor noble at a ball filled with nobles in the capital city. Level 15 check. That kind of impersonation is just likey outside your "tier of play" right now. But if you have the Feat, you might be able to punch above your weight.

In general, I actually like the idea of feats only adding options or giving new uses to skills. However, the way it's been implemented there are too many feats gating actions that seem like they should be part of the core skill use so it becomes unintuitive. I don't think anyone has a problem with Scare to Death gating.

Again, I don't think this is as big a deal as CapnZapp because I find it fairly easy to make some houserules and move on.

That’s only the case if you take it that way. I don’t think the system necessitates running it the way you claim it does. If you let someone do something at a cost, and a skill feat lets them do it for free, you haven’t invalidated the skill feat by your affordance. Yes, maybe now it’s less valuable in a strict sense, but if the game is more fun for everyone, then isn’t that a good thing?

At the very least, it requires knowledge of all feats so that you know when to give something a cost. There are various ways to fix it -- let anyone of the right proficiency level use any feat at a cost, rewrite the feats as bonuses, etc. So I don't consider it a terminal flaw, but I don't like the design choice.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

In short, it is baffling Paizo went this way. I could have predicted dozens of ways the successor to Pathfinder 1 might turn out, and I would never have guessed they would go for "let's take the worst aspects of 4E and double down on those! Let's flood our game with thousands of feats, spells and items, the vast majority of each category being either interchangeable or downright suboptimal!"

To be fair, 4e did not have this permissive feat/skill issue at all that I remember. 4e had a weird two track system that some people did not like having to switch between but I actually prefer I think.

There were combat/grid uses that were very specific uses of skills and some feats modified, then out of combat 4e had a very, very abstract skill system. This was most clear in skill challenges where basically the uses were dictated by fiction and table agreement. This allowed the skill use to ramp up through the fictional tiers without any permissive feats. Permission was dictated by level / tier / table agreement. (the underlying math was the math was the math which some people didn't like). I believe feats (and powers) were mostly things like rerolls and bonuses so they remained relevant regardless of fictional positioning.

 

[kenada]

At the very least, it requires knowledge of all feats so that you know when to give something a cost. There are various ways to fix it -- let anyone of the right proficiency level use any feat at a cost, rewrite the feats as bonuses, etc. So I don't consider it a terminal flaw, but I don't like the design choice.

Skill actions tell you what their constraints and requirements are, so it shouldn’t be necessary to have knowledge of all feats. Just run them as written, and when a PC wants more than that, they can attempt it at a cost. This approach has the benefit of accommodating activities for which a feat hasn’t been created yet (since knowledge of all feats is unnecessary). As a rule of thumb, one should be safe increasing the DC, requiring more time, requiring more actions, etc because feats generally rely on having taken the feat as the cost for the benefit.

 

[JmanTheDM]

I admit, this conversation, as its evolved over 18 pages is simply baffling to me - especially the ongoing objections CapnZapp has WRT the skill and feat design of PF2.

How is the below simulated exchange not a viable approach to PF2's skills and Feat "bloat".

GM: you are in a room with a chasm between you and the far door, hanging in the middle of the chasm is a chandelier.
Player: I'd like to swing across the chasm on the Chandelier
GM: OK, awesome! do you have any feats that will help you to get across?
Player option 1: Yes, I have a Chandelier swinger feat
GM: [either knows the feat or looks it up to understand how it works] OK, cool. make an acrobatics check, DC 20.
Player option 2: yes, I have monster surfing feat, which if you squint hard enough and loosely interpret could be used for this exact situation
GM: either: sure, that sounds cool, and PC's being awesome is "fun"; or sorry, that feat doesn't apply in this circumstance you'll need something else. you can use acrobatics at a DC of 20 to try and cross. the "sure, that sounds cool, do it" answer is the only case where the GM may have popcorn thrown at him - especially if 2 PCs are attempting the same thing, 1 with Chandelier swinging and the 2nd with monster surfer. adjudicate on the spot, back out of a potentially bad call once you get more information and move on...
player option 3: no, I don't have any feats to help me here
GM: [either I know there may be a feat that can support this action, in which case, I may increase the difficulty of a no-feat attempt, or I don't know (or don't care), and keep the DC at 20] OK, make an acrobatics check at DC 20.
player option 4: no, I don't, but can I try and do this with Society?
GM: no but maybe someone else can attempt the crossing with a feat or acrobatics instead? [PC brainstorming ensues]

if you have players that are anything like my players, they will:
a) chime in at decision time, letting the GM know about the special Chandelier swinger feat that THEY have. "hey, I have the chandelier swinger feat, can I try it also?", or "why are you letting him try this, they don't have the chandelier swinger feat", or "cool, let me tell you about my knowledge of PF2, by referencing the chandelier feat". any of those are signals to me, the GM, that someone has invested in this feat and therefore someone without it should likely have a higher DC, or the player with the feat more likely have a lower DC for the task. IME, players are not at all shy about speaking up about the awesome things they have, or object if I step into their niche by allowing something for another PC that they have invested in...
b) Grub for any advantage they can get to simplify this task, aid others, spending hero points, and like literally weaving all their stowed 50' lengths of ropes into a net ...

I have never had a group of players who, when facing a chasm and a chandelier, simply walk away because, you know, nobody picked up the feat. mission failed, adventure over. this is 100% of the time a situation where the time a GM informs the player they can't do something. the failure state here is not the players, its not the rules (as the rules have AMPLE allowances for on-the-spot rulings), its the GM.

worst case scenario here. I as GM, "allow" someone to attempt to swing from a chandelier without a feat (oh god no!!), at a DC that would have been similar to someone who spent feats on having this skill. Now, this contradiction is VERY likely to only happen only after time passes - for example. in one session I allow the swing without a feat, 3 months later there is a similar situation where a PC with the feat tries it and the inconsistency is noted (if remembered at all), OR a player after the swinging "incident" takes this feat and then objects to the past ruling, with a "well actually..." comment.
"hey GM, why did you let player A 3 months ago swing across with their acrobatics skill at a DC of 20, but this time, when I do have a feat, you are making me roll against a DC of 22?"
"hey GM, remember 3 months ago when I swung across the chasm, and you let you use Acrobatics for this. did you know there is a Chandelier swinger feat for this and you shouldn't have allowed this?"

what should I do? Is PF2 broken? has my responsibility of GM needing to memorize thousands of pages of text ruined the game? no, I answer thusly: "yeah, my bad. sorry, it was a call in the moment. the next time we need to swing across chandelier's you remind me that you have a feat for this, OK? thanks for keeping me honest ".

This is a collaborative game where the GM is supposed to be on the players side. a game about heroic moments when swinging from a chandelier is supposed to be attempted, be epic, and to make players feel awesome. limiting these heroic moments to situations when only players who, at the exact right moment happen to have specific feats - WHEN NO PLAYER HAS ACTUALLY PICKED THIS FEAT - is bad gm'ing (yup!). expecting only the GM to know every feat is an unreasonable expectation and an undue burden to place on the GM - players should know their Character's capabilities and advocate for their use thank you very much! If any player is going to rage quit because I made a ruling that supported fun over slavish literal interpretation of feat lists - then this is not a player I'm interested in having in my group to begin with. the notion of the GM needing to know 1400 feats (or whatever the number is) in order to play the game or to play (any) game "correctly" is, simply put, a logical fallacy that says more about your mindset as GM than it does about any game "system".

Literally asking the player if they have any feats that support the action, otherwise, as GM, simply consult tables 10-4, 10-5 and 10-6 with maybe a quick reference to the skill and the training levels is all that you need to play the game fairly and consistently...

its this easy:
"I would like to do x"
"do you have a feat to support x"
"yes I do" or "no I don't"
Adjudicate accordingly, and accept from time to time, you may screw up, but likely the screw up will be in favour of the PC and them having a great, awesome, fun time...

[shrug]

ya, but, what about the chandelier swinger feat and taking away its agency within the rules???? well, if nobody picked it in your game - THE FEAT FUNCTIONALLY DOES NOT EXIST, and if someone did, you are guaranteed that the player will tell you they have it and its important to them! how is this hard?

Cheers,

J.

note 1: totally recognizing I too just spewed a bunch of stylistic nonsense about how I run my games, and to each their own and all that. but I honestly read these posts and feel like I must not know something inherent about a certain unwritten style of Pathfinder play, which my laissez faire style seems anathema towards
note 2: I recognize what I said above would get me fired from Organized play, as those game runners should have a better command of all the rules. but I play in home games, not OP, so [shrug?]