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?

Retreater

Legend
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
Hilariously, the pebble issue did come up at my table. In 3.5 there was an elementist wizard who could detect the presence of rocks and wanted to know how many auras were in the cavern. Haha.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.

Yeah, if you wanted to do some sort of ruling where someone could hold onto a sword while climbing, you could just put on a harsh modifier (+2/+5, maybe dependent on the size of the weapon). Hell, if you wanted to you could have someone swing a two-handed weapon and make a crazy Balance check to keep their feet in place if they so desire. Failure would be, to put it lightly, bad, but you can totally make that sort of ruling. I probably wouldn't (or I'd be pretty clear that this is not a good thing to attempt), but there's no rules preventing it.

Same with the Dandy feat: what it does is lock in a way for the player to do something, rather than the GM making something up. If you want to change a rumor and don't have the Dandy archetype, you just have to wheel and deal with the GM in a way that the Dandy simply does not. That's the benefit of the feat: it's not that it necessarily prevents other players from using those sorts of actions, but rather it guarantees that player from being able to do it.

Another good example of this is A Home in Every Port. You can find free lodging if you spend 8 hours in a town or village. There's nothing that says you can't do that with other players as a matter of course; you spent 8 hours as a cost and now you get free lodging for a night. But they never get that guarantee, while someone with that feat does.

Hilariously, the pebble issue did come up at my table. In 3.5 there was an elementist wizard who could detect the presence of rocks and wanted to know how many auras were in the cavern. Haha.

The old guys in my group often tell about the one time in a wargame that someone had a gun pulled on them (it ended with no one hurt and that guy obviously hasn't gamed with them in 30+ years since he had real problems), and it's always been a topic of discussion as to what would be the thing that causes you to draw on a guy.

I wouldn't do it for that, but it'd be close. And I would make that fact known to my player if they wanted to do that again.
 
Last edited:

Retreater

Legend
The old guys in my group often tell about the one time in a wargame that someone had a gun pulled on them (it ended with no one hurt and that guy obviously hasn't game with them in 30+ years since he had real problems), and it's always been a topic of discussion as to what would be the thing that causes you to draw on a guy.

I wouldn't do it for that, but it'd be close. And I would make that fact known to my player if they wanted to do that again.
I had the number of rock auras in the cave stagger the character, being overloaded with the presence of rocks. The player didn't like the ruling, but he never used that power again.
 

I had the number of rock auras in the cave stagger the character, being overloaded with the presence of rocks. The player didn't like the ruling, but he never used that power again.

Someone in our group was using the UA Ranger and they chose Humanoid as their Favored Enemy. We were campaigning in Waterdeep and every time he used his Primeval Awareness we all made jokes about overloading him. He would put his hands to his temples and shake his head a little. It was funny.
 

kenada

Legend
Supporter
Same with the Dandy feat: what it does is lock in a way for the player to do something, rather than the GM making something up. If you want to change a rumor and don't have the Dandy archetype, you just have to wheel and deal with the GM in a way that the Dandy simply does not. That's the benefit of the feat: it's not that it necessarily prevents other players from using those sorts of actions, but rather it guarantees that player from being able to do it.
I was thinking the same thing. If you wanted to do that without the feat, one could use the VP subsystem to resolve it. The same goes for Group Impression (use the Influence subsystem). Obviously, if one isn’t using the GMG, the GM can just make something up instead. The point is these feats are still valuable because they reduce the need to roll, reduce the time it takes, or make the outcome more certain. In a d20 game, those are all very desirable especially when the GM is making rulings.
 

Yeah, I've never understood the idea that just because there's a feat that lets you automatically do something or do it with an easy roll, that somehow implies you can't do it otherwise without that feat.

Now, maybe someone doesn't like that the presence of that feat and/or the entry in the skill writeup makes doing something otherwise, by implication, difficult, but that's not an argument against the feat structure (and to be clear, I'm not intrinsically a massive fan of the heavy exception based design present in those, but given other parts of D&D and its kin (which tend to be about as heavily exception based as any family of games out there), getting into it about feats is like complaining water is wet) or the skill structure, that's just an argument about where you want to draw the lines.
 

payn

Legend
Yeah, I've never understood the idea that just because there's a feat that lets you automatically do something or do it with an easy roll, that somehow implies you can't do it otherwise without that feat.

Now, maybe someone doesn't like that the presence of that feat and/or the entry in the skill writeup makes doing something otherwise, by implication, difficult, but that's not an argument against the feat structure (and to be clear, I'm not intrinsically a massive fan of the heavy exception based design present in those, but given other parts of D&D and its kin (which tend to be about as heavily exception based as any family of games out there), getting into it about feats is like complaining water is wet) or the skill structure, that's just an argument about where you want to draw the lines.
I think much of it harkens back to the action economy of 3E/PF1 and attacks of opportunity. It was often painful to try things without feats because it was always an inferior choice to just attacking or using feat based abilities.
 

I think much of it harkens back to the action economy of 3E/PF1 and attacks of opportunity. It was often painful to try things without feats because it was always an inferior choice to just attacking or using feat based abilities.

Yeah, I'm kind of having an argument with someone on the Paizo board about this, because my experience with 3e was just what you say; if you hadn't baked a cake during character generation and advancement, there were very few things that were actually worth doing other than slugging away. One thing I will argue strenuously about in regard to PF2e is most character builds actually have some real decisions to make about what to do with their third action that actually matter (which doesn't mean you can't have, say, a sword-and-board fighter who just does Hit-Hit-Raise Shield and have it work, but that at least some of the time one of those actions can be usefully used other ways).
 

kenada

Legend
Supporter
It goes further back than 3e. It’s been that way since the thief was introduced to OD&D. As soon as classes have differentiation, people assume others are locked out of even attempting those activities.
 

It goes further back than 3e. It’s been that way since the thief was introduced to OD&D. As soon as classes have differentiation, people assume others are locked out of even attempting those activities.

Well, that was compounded by the fact the thief was the first time there was any mechanics applied to some of those actions at all. If you wanted to figure out how to determine whether a group of PCs in OD&D could climb something or hide from something, you were entirely on your own with nothing but, at best the (in my opinion inadequate) single-D6 rolls for some things to use as a model.

So when you only really have one set of things to use as a model, and that set seems to be set up for only a specific class...
 

payn

Legend
Yeah, I'm kind of having an argument with someone on the Paizo board about this, because my experience with 3e was just what you say; if you hadn't baked a cake during character generation and advancement, there were very few things that were actually worth doing other than slugging away. One thing I will argue strenuously about in regard to PF2e is most character builds actually have some real decisions to make about what to do with their third action that actually matter (which doesn't mean you can't have, say, a sword-and-board fighter who just does Hit-Hit-Raise Shield and have it work, but that at least some of the time one of those actions can be usefully used other ways).
Yeap, I have a handful of stickler issues about PF2, but the three action economy isnt one of them. Its my favorite thing because it simplified the overly complicated action type of PF1, and opened a lot of design space to allow characters to do more in combat.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
This just continues the tradition from 3E/PF1.
I have DMd both and feel the difference is profound.

PF2 is full of artificial limits there mostly to add a need for lots of feats that relax those limits. "There's a feat for that" covers just about everything imaginable, making it impossible to just be generous and allow something, since that would probably invalidate a feat or three.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Eh. Most feats just make things you can already do more efficient, or let you swap around rules components to your convenience as a player.
With thousand of feats, this is not pertinent.

(Just because 1500+ feats aren't targeted by this criticism does not mean the remaining 50 or 100 hidden throughout twenty levels of more than dozen classes spread over a dozen sourcebooks aren't problematic)
 

CapnZapp

Legend
If you use the rules in the skills chapter there's no real danger of a feat overriding the rulings you have to make. If you are ignoring the skills chapter not sure why you care about the feats chapter.
You will have to exemplify that claim.

(Please don't suggest I am basing my criticism on ignoring core rules, it is unbecoming)
 

CapnZapp

Legend
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.
What are you talking about?

If you are fine with taking feats with your precious feat slots even though another player can simply get their benefits through sweet-talking the GM, this discussion is not applicable to you.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
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.)



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.
There are far too many such rules.

If you say "sure you're a high level fighter of course you can climb with a weapon in hand" you're shafted by the rules design.

If the general rule allowed you to try stuff; though you needed to make a level-appropriate skill check to pull it off (and being untrained gave you a reduced rather than a non-existent chance), then and only then would feats like Combat Climber make sense.

Then the benefit wouldn't be "you can do something not even a level 20 hero or monster can do". Instead it would be "you get to skip a very specific check where everybody else stands a risk of failure".

I believe I have discussed Cloud Jump. It is inexcusable to me to add a feat where any long-jumping contest is an automatic win for a hero with the feat. Monsters can't have feats so monsters simply cannot compete. Such discrete instances really plague the rules.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
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.
You are clearly playing the game in your own style, Kenada.

But please do not dismiss my criticism based on me not adopting your playing style. Just because something makes sense to you doesn't mean it is so, and that we can't criticize the rules.

I am sure a hypothetical game that ships a copy of you along with every purchase will be infinitely better than anything else on the market.
 

There are far too many such rules.

If you say "sure you're a high level fighter of course you can climb with a weapon in hand" you're shafted by the rules design.

Why? Why are you shafted by the rules design? You can just do what @kenada said and give a penalty. It's that simple. There's nothing that says you can't.

If the general rule allowed you to try stuff; though you needed to make a level-appropriate skill check to pull it off (and being untrained gave you a reduced rather than a non-existent chance), then and only then would feats like Combat Climber make sense.

Then the benefit wouldn't be "you can do something not even a level 20 hero or monster can do". Instead it would be "you get to skip a very specific check where everybody else stands a risk of failure".

I mean, there's nothing that says you can't do that currently in the rules, as @kenada points out. But taking your suggestion, you're just adding a bunch of complexity and rules because now you probably need to create a bunch of DCs to remember and possibly skill levels to gate these abilities at. You can't make this argument about there being too many rules and then proposing a huge expansion of abilities, checks, and DCs. It's incoherent.

I believe I have discussed Cloud Jump. It is inexcusable to me to add a feat where any long-jumping contest is an automatic win for a hero with the feat. Monsters can't have feats so monsters simply cannot compete. Such discrete instances really plague the rules.

This argument is absurd. Why is it inexcusable to add a feat where a player can win a contest against a monster because they invested in that feature? That's something that should be encouraged, not removed. If you're dedicated to making it so that the monster makes it a contest, then give them something similar. This is not a system problem, this is a weird problem about you not wanting to have to change something because you have a certain encounter in mind.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Yeah, I've never understood the idea that just because there's a feat that lets you automatically do something or do it with an easy roll, that somehow implies you can't do it otherwise without that feat.
How can we ever criticize any ruleset if we are required to add a layer of Shey common sense first?

Since the rules do not accommodate or recognize the notion that "yes you paid for that feat, but you shouldn't bitch when I talk myself into it at the table for free", why aren't I allowed to point to the inhibiting consequence as a drawback of the system?

Especially since so many other games give you D&Dish goodness without this ever being such a prevalent problem?

The core issue I see with PF2, after all, is how Paizo again and again chooses the needlessly complicated - and complicating - approach to every little rule.

For no apparent benefit as far as I can see, except creating a void for splat books they can then fill.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
It goes further back than 3e. It’s been that way since the thief was introduced to OD&D. As soon as classes have differentiation, people assume others are locked out of even attempting those activities.
And it is up to rules to set up mechanisms to regulate it.

A game that lets a trained medium-level hero succeed at medium-level challenges and untrained high-level heroes as well satisfies this criteria. (Setting various Athletics DCs for various ways to climb a cliff, for instance)

PF2 fails in two ways:

Primarily through not offering such a framework (instead making feats out of it).

Secondarily through proficiency with level; ensuring any DC based scheme would still fail even if it was introduced.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top