log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

If it doesn't already exist it will likely exist by a year from now. But don't get hung up on the example. The point is that having exception-based rules design with a thousand exceptions to choose from (feats) where within a party you can easily have dozens to remember makes the game more difficult to run.

The vast majority of those feats aren't going to do that, though, and most of them are exceptions on what the player can do, not what the GM has to remember.

A lot of abilities are this way. Maybe I'm thinking about charm abilities (which saves against are counted as one step better if you're higher level than the enemy).

I think you are thinking about how you get a +4 bonus to save against Charm if they attacked or acted hostile to you previously.

Or the flaming sphere that allows a basic save that means no damage on a success (and not merely on a critical success like every other basic save spell).

Edit: Huh, no, it's a regular basic, but it's in the spell description versus the stat block.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Retreater

Legend
I think you are thinking about how you get a +4 bonus to save against Charm if they attacked or acted hostile to you previously.
No. I'm thinking about how a ghoul's paralysis doesn't affect higher level characters. Only a crit fail can be a regular fail. This is something a GM just has to remember - a special exception for these types of powers. And trust me, I've run plenty of ghouls in Abomination Vaults.

Edit: Huh, no, it's a regular basic, but it's in the spell description versus
Not sure what you're saying here, but the spell description was very specific in "this spell can't do partial damage." I had one character who was pretty hamstrung by this rule.
 

No. I'm thinking about how a ghoul's paralysis doesn't affect higher level characters. Only a crit fail can be a regular fail. This is something a GM just has to remember - a special exception for these types of powers. And trust me, I've run plenty of ghouls in Abomination Vaults.

I mean, this is the entirety of 5E for me. There's no consistent rules for anything, so you just have to remember everything. Generally speaking I find having the universal systems with some exceptions way easier to get the hang of.

Not sure what you're saying here, but the spell description was very specific in "this spell can't do partial damage." I had one character who was pretty hamstrung by this rule.

Go to Archive of Nethys, where it lists it as a "Reflex Save" versus a "Basic Reflex", but has it in the spell description.
 


kenada

Legend
Supporter
It's little senseless exceptions like these and others that make me feel like the game is over-designed. At least for my taste.
This seems more like an editing problem than a rules design problem. As written, there’s not enough space to enumerate the degrees of success. If they did, it would impact the layout of the rest of the book. However, they could make a few small tweaks to get it to fit (moving the damage from the description to the degrees of success would be the most obvious), but they didn’t.
 

Retreater

Legend
Also, the Ghoul thing isn't an exception: it just has the Incapacitation trait.
Yes, the incapacitation trait is the exception. Even keeping up with that is too much fiddling for me.
It's like "all other traits save the same, but we gotta call out this one trait, and you have to look at every similar ability and spell to see if it's a special exception because it could be incapacitation."
 


Yes, the incapacitation trait is the exception. Even keeping up with that is too much fiddling for me.
It's like "all other traits save the same, but we gotta call out this one trait, and you have to look at every similar ability and spell to see if it's a special exception because it could be incapacitation."

dsmGaKWMeHXe9QuJtq_ys30PNfTGnMsRuHuo_MUzGCg.jpg


If you go broad, I suppose you could call it an "exception", but the Incapacitation trait is closer to a straight-up rule. When I think "exception", I think individually, not broadly.

Frankly, if that's the price of avoiding some of the more egregious save-or-suck in the system, seems like a small price to pay, but YMMV.

Yeah. I've seen complaints about it, but honestly it's a pretty good fix for what it is. It also helps that it works both ways, so you don't have a 10th level Mage getting messed up by a few ghouls who keep slapping him over and over to get him to fail Con Saves before they slowly eat him piece by piece.

Not that I've done that sort of thing before.

nervous-guilty.gif
 

glass

(he, him)
If it doesn't already exist it will likely exist by a year from now. But don't get hung up on the example. The point is that having exception-based rules design with a thousand exceptions to choose from (feats) where within a party you can easily have dozens to remember makes the game more difficult to run.
I am sure if a PC has such an ability, they will tell you about it when it becomes relevant. No need for the GM to keep track of that kind of thing (with a partial exception for newer players).

_
glass.
 

Retreater

Legend
I am sure if a PC has such an ability, they will tell you about it when it becomes relevant. No need for the GM to keep track of that kind of thing (with a partial exception for newer players).

_
glass.
Oh, I agree. I was referencing an earlier statement about how the design of PF2 is sometimes antithetical to the fiction a GM tries to present. There are so many individual facets to characters that it is difficult to present something that can be challenging or even descriptive for the players.
"Oh, I can't be damaged by smelling stuff."
"Oh, I can climb up a waterfall."
"Oh, I can detect how many pebbles are in this room."
Granted these aren't necessarily real examples, but they're not far off.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
If it doesn't already exist it will likely exist by a year from now. But don't get hung up on the example. The point is that having exception-based rules design with a thousand exceptions to choose from (feats) where within a party you can easily have dozens to remember makes the game more difficult to run.
This.

Very much this.

Every time a player asks if her character can "cut a corner" as it were, and I'm inclined to be a good GM by saying "yes" (or at the very least "yes but") I need to remind myself that Paizo has taken that right away, since saying so would likely invalidate a feat specifically designed to relax that particular restriction.

This sucks hard, is my technical analysis.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
If it doesn't already exist it will likely exist by a year from now. But don't get hung up on the example. The point is that having exception-based rules design with a thousand exceptions to choose from (feats) where within a party you can easily have dozens to remember makes the game more difficult to run.


A lot of abilities are this way. Maybe I'm thinking about charm abilities (which saves against are counted as one step better if you're higher level than the enemy). Or the flaming sphere that allows a basic save that means no damage on a success (and not merely on a critical success like every other basic save spell).

It's little senseless exceptions like these and others that make me feel like the game is over-designed. At least for my taste.
This-ing your comment a second time!
 

payn

Legend
This.

Very much this.

Every time a player asks if her character can "cut a corner" as it were, and I'm inclined to be a good GM by saying "yes" (or at the very least "yes but") I need to remind myself that Paizo has taken that right away, since saying so would likely invalidate a feat specifically designed to relax that particular restriction.

This sucks hard, is my technical analysis.
This just continues the tradition from 3E/PF1.
 



This.

Very much this.

Every time a player asks if her character can "cut a corner" as it were, and I'm inclined to be a good GM by saying "yes" (or at the very least "yes but") I need to remind myself that Paizo has taken that right away, since saying so would likely invalidate a feat specifically designed to relax that particular restriction.

This sucks hard, is my technical analysis.

I mean, they didn't, but we've already had this battle a thousand times. The existence of COMBAT CLIMBER~! doesn't remove anything. Rather, it forces different situations on people so that they can have different ways of dealing with said situations. Every time we go at this, you refuse to get into specifics because all you have on the topic are vague generalities because that's all you can argue.
 
Last edited:

kenada

Legend
Supporter
Every time a player asks if her character can "cut a corner" as it were, and I'm inclined to be a good GM by saying "yes" (or at the very least "yes but") I need to remind myself that Paizo has taken that right away, since saying so would likely invalidate a feat specifically designed to relax that particular restriction.

This sucks hard, is my technical analysis.
You make this claim all the time, but you refuse any of the advice people give for making rulings in PF2 — never mind that skill feats don’t actually work the way you say they do.
 

glass

(he, him)
Oh, I agree. I was referencing an earlier statement about how the design of PF2 is sometimes antithetical to the fiction a GM tries to present. There are so many individual facets to characters that it is difficult to present something that can be challenging or even descriptive for the players.
"Oh, I can't be damaged by smelling stuff."
"Oh, I can climb up a waterfall."
Still not seeing an issue with either of those (even if they existed). You describe the situation, PC has a relevant feat and uses it, happy days!

"Oh, I can detect how many pebbles are in this room."
This one would be more of an issue, because it requires the GM to come up with the number of pebbles in the room, despite that not being particularly useful information for anyone. I agree that would not be great design, but since by your own admission you made it up, I concur with @Justice and Rule's challenge: How about some real examples?

_
glass.
 

Still not seeing an issue with either of those (even if they existed). You describe the situation, PC has a relevant feat and uses it, happy days!

In fairness, not all of those are feats. With the Waterfall, there's an Athletics check to do so. If you can beat a DC40 Athletics check, you can indeed start swimming up a waterfall.

But really, those things are player-facing powers, where the player has to know it more than the GM. You don't get damaged from stuff based on smell? Well, that's on you to tell me. Though I think these examples aren't great. Why not go with:

"Oh, I have Smell as an imprecise sense, which means I can actually move an undetected creature to hidden just based on smell!"

(That sounds complicated, but it's just that while other people might notice a bad smell in a room, you can basically narrow down where that bad smell is likely coming from. The big thing is that, at close range, you can potentially identify hidden creatures with your nose, even if they are invisible.)

This one would be more of an issue, because it requires the GM to come up with the number of pebbles in the room, despite that not being particularly useful information for anyone. I agree that would not be great design, but since by your own admission you made it up, I concur with @Justice and Rule's challenge: How about some real examples?

_
glass.

The only one I can think of that got discussed in one of the previous discussions was the opening feat from the Dandy archetype about being able to, as an individual, spend a day to influence a rumor as a downtime activity. I don't see that as a huge deal, to be honest, but it's the one feat that I feel like even resembles what is being talked about.

Instead, most feats are, indeed, exception-based: they create exceptions for the player, whether it be through specialized actions, less restrictions for certain actions, etc. I always bring up COMBAT CLIMBER~! because I think it's actually a really good example of a small but neat little feat.

Unlike 5E, where beyond movement speed climbing is largely about rulings in what you can and can't do, there are specifics to PF2's climbing. There are checks for speed, but also you have to have both hands free and you're flatfooted while climbing, unless you have a climbing speed. This tells your players two things:
  1. If you climb, you're going to be extra vulnerable, since you won't be able to have weapons or shields at the ready, as well as having an effective -2 to your AC.
  2. Having a climb speed is a huge advantage. Spider Climb and things that can grant Climbing Speeds are a real boon to strategy.
To me, these are big things. Not only do the players have a solid idea of what I'm going to tell them before they attempt climbing something (instead of having a discussion and hashing out how I'd rule), but there are avenues in which their individual feats can start to come into play. COMBAT CLIMBER~! obviously allows a player to be able to climb with a weapon in-hand and also are no longer flatfooted. Someone with Quick-draw can pull out their weapon on their turn to fight back and only lose one action putting it back to continue climbing. Someone with Reactive Shield can pull out their shield as a Reaction while they're climbing to get extra defense.

These all influence what people can do in that situation, and give them unique ways to interact as such. It makes for interesting plans and such if you are going to go far up a cliffside as to who can do what and such: who is on defense, how you are going to climb, etc. You start with a basic set of restrictions, and the player's unique abilities attempt to get around the problem in different ways. My immediate thought is something like COMBAT CLIMBER~! is especially valuable to people who have good reactions, like Champions.

Now if you find that restrictive, that's your taste. I personally like having players have not only the knowledge of what a challenge is likely to look like, but defined unique ways to interact with them. To me, that's a feature, not a bug.
 

kenada

Legend
Supporter
Now if you find that restrictive, that's your taste. I personally like having players have not only the knowledge of what a challenge is likely to look like, but defined unique ways to interact with them. To me, that's a feature, not a bug.
Another important thing about Combat Climber is it does not prevent you from still allowing the PC to try it with a (suitably challenging) roll. Combat Climber allows it without a cost, so why would ruling it can be attempted with a cost be prohibited? That makes no sense.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top