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?

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.

Sure, and I'm fine doing that but it creates more work than a better design.

Trained in Diplomacy
GM and players not studied feats
Player: "I'd like to Make an Impression on all 3 guards"
GM: "Sure, but increase the DC by 2 for multiple people at once"
Hmm...

Without knowledge of the feats, you don't have good signpoints on how to set the "cost".

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 :)".

Agreed, It's not that big of a deal. Rational friends playing together (the only way to play IMO!) can move past it as you outlined. PF2E isn't broken by this, but I think it's an annoying design choice and doesn't add much for net negative. So I'm not as extreme as CapnZapp, but I definitely prefer other design options.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

kenada

Legend
Supporter
Sure, and I'm fine doing that but it creates more work than a better design.

Trained in Diplomacy
GM and players not studied feats
Player: "I'd like to Make an Impression on all 3 guards"
GM: "Sure, but increase the DC by 2 for multiple people at once"
Hmm...

Without knowledge of the feats, you don't have good signpoints on how to set the "cost".
I’m more inclined to increase the DC by 5, but that seems fine. If the group later decides that increasing it by 2 wasn’t enough, they can adjust and carry on. That seems to be more or less what you’re proposing except in reverse. You’d have the feats grant a bonus against a universal DC, while I’m suggesting adding a cost (such as increasing the DC) to non-standard uses that could be negated by feats. Your proposal is conceptually simpler, but that’s separate from whether knowledge of all feats is required. I don’t think it is when you can do something that feels right and make adjustments if problems manifest later. Otherwise, making any ruling is potentially paralyzing, and that’s bad for the game.
 


Teemu

Adventurer
For non-Group Impression group Make an Impression, you can have the player make separate checks for each creature. That way Group Impression retains value since you could have modifiers or fortune effects on a single roll, whereas with the separate checks you would often only add a bonus or a reroll on one of them.
 

I’m more inclined to increase the DC by 5, but that seems fine. If the group later decides that increasing it by 2 wasn’t enough, they can adjust and carry on. That seems to be more or less what you’re proposing except in reverse. You’d have the feats grant a bonus against a universal DC, while I’m suggesting adding a cost (such as increasing the DC) to non-standard uses that could be negated by feats. Your proposal is conceptually simpler, but that’s separate from whether knowledge of all feats is required. I don’t think it is when you can do something that feels right and make adjustments if problems manifest later. Otherwise, making any ruling is potentially paralyzing, and that’s bad for the game.

Yes, I tend to use +5 bonus as well as most of the Feats are very specific. Increasing DC / cost is fine as well. The advantage I see with bonuses:

1) I can be expansive with skill use and expect proficient users to do more "on level" stuff.
2) Feat takers get to "punch above their weight" instead of become level at things that aren't really crazy uses of skills IMO
3) it's easier for me as GM to have the players keep track of when their bonuses apply. I can just set the DC relative to fiction and go

I guess I just like more expansive base skill use -- is Society really that valuable already you can't let someone contact a crime boss or impersonate a noble with it?

But you can do it your way as well. Another formulation is "you can use any feat at your proficiency level at a -5 penalty or other appropriate cost".

The +2 DC example was more an example of knowing the Feats helps you determine the cost, and an example GM maybe not doing a good job of penalizing because of this.

Anyway, I think I've beat this horse.

The only points I'm trying to make is that people that don't like the "permissive" feat design have ways to fairly easily change things. I like broad skills and Feats as bonuses for narrow circumstances design for the reasons above, but there are other ways to do it as well (cost based, hero point to gain the benefits of any feat, etc.).

And there are other design paradigmns that avoid most of this discussion, although they may introduce other issues.
 

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.

Oh no no no... don't mistake me. I get what you are proposing, but I just have a personal distaste for that sort of thing nowadays. I actually do really like creating the exceptions because I think the exceptions can create interesting situations rather than the players endlessly trying to modify things and playing around with DCs. At a certain level, sometimes I like soft-locking such things from players because it gets them to look at what they have or to use different options.
 

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).

I meant to come back to this, but I've been busy and wanted to make sure that bert knew I wasn't trying to come at him or anything.

But the system is complex in its simplicity, and it's interesting. The idea there is that you'll need to read your opponent and their personality to know how to properly get around them, which may require you use an approach that you normally don't but is better suited here: some people you can't just brute force with your best stat, but you need to tailor your approach to.

Like, another thing is that the ring you choose defines your "stance", which basically means you are locked into that ring for things like defensive rolls until you switch to another ring. What is interesting here is that certain techniques can be stronger against certain rings, meaning that you can have a Fire Kata (combat technique) which is specifically meant to hit Earth Ring guys hard, or a Water technique that disrupts Fire Ring guys. It's really cool. I just wish the book laid some of this stuff out better because my initial found it very difficult to grok until I made a concerted effort at it.

But when I did, it was like something like this.

200.gif
 
Last edited:

CapnZapp

Legend
The only difference between what you’re suggesting and what we’re suggesting is that your approach explicitly enumerates the trade-off instead of leaving it up to the GM to decide. If I say, “you can do (some activity) with a cost, and the feat lets you do it free,” and you say, “the rules let you do some activity, and the feat gives you a bonus while doing it,” what’s the difference? The cost has been shifted, but there’s still functionally a cost. The only difference is in how it’s accounted.

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?

On the other hand, if the players hate that and prefer you don’t do it, then where’s the problem? They don’t want you to be a permissive GM. They want you to take a very rigid approach to adjudicating the system that preserves (though I would argue increases) the value of their feat choices. Maybe it makes for a miserable experience, but that’s what they asked for and received.

It does tell you. Crawl tells you how fast you move (5′ in one action). Climb indicates in its requirements you must have both hands free. Leap and Long Jump tell you how far you can jump (Leap up to 10′ and Long Jump up to your speed based on the DC). Again, that’s how exception-based design works: you follow the general rule until you something brings the exception into play (a feat, a spell, the GM, etc).

They don't tell you how you get rid of these very severe and artificial restrictions. PF2 is a game where even high-level characters suffer from inexplicably harsh limitations - it comes across as a game where high-level heroes aren't trusted to do simple things: like crawl (or squeeze or jump etc) at more than a snail's pace.

At level 1 this might not be a big issue given how limited characters are otherwise. At level 10 or 20 it sticks out like a sore thumb. Having to find and take a specific feat just to get rid of a borderline-unplayable restriction is not a solution since it is no solution at all: if you pick quick crawler you can't afford to take quick squeezer, and if you pick quick squeezer you can't afford to pick quick climber. (Names might vary. I can't be arsed to remember the names of these obnoxious little pesky feats)

The core issue is that the game is incredibly ungenerous. What should be given out for free has been reserved for Paizo's design space. At every turn, Paizo has chosen to not just hand out something to everybody (that is sufficiently experienced and/or skilled), but instead to create this exasperating feats mini-game, thus ensuring nobody gets to ever feel whole.

It is unreasonable to ask a player to devote all his feat choices just to get rid of stupid limits that should not have been there in the first place, and are only there for Paizo to be able to brag about loads of options.

Options whose entire purpose of existance is only to negate or reduce artificial or reductive limitations are not solutions, they are problems.

I am arguing Paizo chose just about the shittiest solution to the problem imaginable: they wanted loads of options, but did not want to hand out actual agency for players to truly impact their characters, so they went the 4E nickel and dime route: they offer loads of "options" but very few that actually make a real difference.

And in this case, "options" that only allow you to act like a real hero could, unburdened by artificial and exceedingly harsh limitations.

That is not a case of "it's just a small difference between what you discuss and we discuss".

This is a fundamental issue to the core of the game design. It permeates the entire product, and it is one of the worst aspects of the game, that I maintain I need to rightly criticize.

Suggesting you can fix this by simply... ignoring what the feats do and the limits they alleviate... feels so reductive and unconstructive.

If we aren't allowed to criticize any game rules simply on grounds on "you can simply not use it if you don't like it" then you don't allow any meaningful critical discussion of any game ruleset ever.

Of course we must be able to say that Paizo's balance is derived in a large part on the assumption players and GMs obey the multitudinous niggling senseless little restrictions. Pointing this out to prospective players - without defending or dismissing it - is valuable consumer information.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
This whole argument @CapnZapp is trying to make is just so steeped in broad-generalities and stupid minutiae that it is borderline incoherent. We can't actually be specific about which feats do what, but we're going to complain about the basics of movement and why you can't just immediately break them?
No I have started several threads and written countless posts on a large number of issues, oftentimes providing suggestions for fixes and workarounds.

You dismissing all of it as "borderline incoherent" just tells me you aren't genuinely open to the prospect of PF2 being a deeply, deeply flawed game; a game whose design is extreme in a surprising number of regards.

You clearly don't want to listen.

I can only hope that for each person that chooses to deny their chosen game having deep flaws, there exists two persons that are saved a big headache by only going into PF2 knowing what they will be getting.
 

Nilbog

Snotling Herder
No I have started several threads and written countless posts on a large number of issues, oftentimes providing suggestions for fixes and workarounds.

You dismissing all of it as "borderline incoherent" just tells me you aren't genuinely open to the prospect of PF2 being a deeply, deeply flawed game; a game whose design is extreme in a surprising number of regards.

You clearly don't want to listen.

I can only hope that for each person that chooses to deny their chosen game having deep flaws, there exists two persons that are saved a big headache by only going into PF2 knowing what they will be getting.

I've never known one person have such a crusade against a game, did Paizo run over your cat?
Everyone knows you think the game is flawed, and to you it is. What you don't seem to be grasping is that other people aren't experiencing these flaws.
why not put your effort into building a system that works for you, you'd save yourself a lot of frustration
 

kenada

Legend
Supporter
They don't tell you how you get rid of these very severe and artificial restrictions. PF2 is a game where even high-level characters suffer from inexplicably harsh limitations - it comes across as a game where high-level heroes aren't trusted to do simple things: like crawl (or squeeze or jump etc) at more than a snail's pace.
It literally does. I cited where they said how one can make rulings, but you dismissed it as the designers’ not understanding their own game.

At level 1 this might not be a big issue given how limited characters are otherwise. At level 10 or 20 it sticks out like a sore thumb. Having to find and take a specific feat just to get rid of a borderline-unplayable restriction is not a solution since it is no solution at all: if you pick quick crawler you can't afford to take quick squeezer, and if you pick quick squeezer you can't afford to pick quick climber. (Names might vary. I can't be arsed to remember the names of these obnoxious little pesky feats)
That’s just how 3e-style games work. Your level matters less than the choices one makes via customization.

The core issue is that the game is incredibly ungenerous. What should be given out for free has been reserved for Paizo's design space. At every turn, Paizo has chosen to not just hand out something to everybody (that is sufficiently experienced and/or skilled), but instead to create this exasperating feats mini-game, thus ensuring nobody gets to ever feel whole.
Again, this is nothing new. 3e and Pathfinder 1e are the same way. Look at equipment tricks in PF1 or the silly stuff one can do in 3e. There’s a trick where you can counterbalance your climb with an anvil! Why should that require a feat, right?

It is unreasonable to ask a player to devote all his feat choices just to get rid of stupid limits that should not have been there in the first place, and are only there for Paizo to be able to brag about loads of options.

Options whose entire purpose of existance is only to negate or reduce artificial or reductive limitations are not solutions, they are problems.
But that’s kind of the point. The designers of 3e wanted to give to non-casters what casters have had from the beginning with their spells: specific elements of the game that afforded them a definite benefit. What you’re arguing for is a more rulings-oriented approach. It’s fine to want or prefer that kind of approach, but a game isn’t flawed just because it doesn’t do that (or does it in a way one dislikes).

I am arguing Paizo chose just about the shittiest solution to the problem imaginable: they wanted loads of options, but did not want to hand out actual agency for players to truly impact their characters, so they went the 4E nickel and dime route: they offer loads of "options" but very few that actually make a real difference.
3e is a better comparison than 4e. Having very little structure outside of combat, 4e has much more in common with 5e than it does with PF2. I’m also certain 3e has more feats, especially once one includes PF1, than 4e ever did.

And in this case, "options" that only allow you to act like a real hero could, unburdened by artificial and exceedingly harsh limitations.

That is not a case of "it's just a small difference between what you discuss and we discuss".

This is a fundamental issue to the core of the game design. It permeates the entire product, and it is one of the worst aspects of the game, that I maintain I need to rightly criticize.
So Paizo should have gone with the meaty feat design of 5e? The 5e designers intentionally rejected the design of feats from 3e. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad approach, and it would make choices more “meaningful” in that there would be fewer choices with more benefits per choice, but I don’t think that kind of change was have gone over well with Pathfinder’s target audience (those who like character building and customization as it was done in 3e and PF1).

Suggesting you can fix this by simply... ignoring what the feats do and the limits they alleviate... feels so reductive and unconstructive.
My issue is with taking a strict view on feats and their impact on the game while ignoring other elements of the game that don’t support that narrative. I don’t find arguments that the designers don’t understand their own game very compelling when it comes across as a way to reduce the game only to its “bad stuff”.

If we aren't allowed to criticize any game rules simply on grounds on "you can simply not use it if you don't like it" then you don't allow any meaningful critical discussion of any game ruleset ever.
Oh, come on. You should know I’ve offered my own criticism of PF2. I could go on about how it screwed up by handling skill actions the way it did, or how the proficiency and DC treadmills are a fundamental design mistake, but it’s obvious those things aren’t problems for those who like the game. I expect many people would consider the latter table stakes for a system. If I did that, people would be right to dismiss me as a OSR troll.

So I think criticism is fine, but so is criticism of that criticism. That many of us here don’t agree with your assessment or don’t see the game in the same negative light that you do doesn’t mean you are disallowed from expressing that opinion. It’s just going to result in an endless discussion when neither side is likely to be convinced by the other.

Of course we must be able to say that Paizo's balance is derived in a large part on the assumption players and GMs obey the multitudinous niggling senseless little restrictions. Pointing this out to prospective players - without defending or dismissing it - is valuable consumer information.
Sure, but you have to accept that some people might actually want that as a feature. They’re not being contrary or trying to suppress criticism of the system when they express that. What they’re saying is these purported problems are not actually problematic for them, or they’re desirable features.

Honestly, I’ve been trying to get at the core of why you dislike PF2. I think that’s more interesting than just articulating and litigating over whatever perceived problems it has. As far as I can tell, it comes back to wanting: 1. meaningful character customization, and 2. a heavy deference to the GM to make rulings to allow heroic characters to do their thing. Am I making a bad inference?

If that’s the case, then I don’t think systems with a lineage back to 3e will every be satisfactory. The things you cited as problems were done intentionally in order to empower the players (not to reduce the space for GMs to be permissive but to provide balance against GMs who would not be). I don’t see those ever changing without creating a new system that targets a different audience. Is it really surprising that those who stuck with PF1 don’t particularly like 5e? If you did that, they’d just stick with the old thing until someone iterated it, but it’d still have those problems because the people playing those games consider them features.

I’ve suggested it to @Retreater, but I’ll also suggest it to you. You should check out Worlds Without Number. While it bills itself as an OSR-adjacent game, the core character customization is via foci (feats, basically) that are meaty and impactful. The game assumes by default that characters are competent, and skill checks are reserved for exceptional situations with interesting outcomes for success and failure. As the game says, don’t make the PCs look incompetent at their role in life. It’s very much a “say yes or roll the dice” kind of game. It’s a bit lethal by default, but you can change that with the heroic rules.

The biggest issue I think you’d have with it, based on our discussions here, is that it’s absurdly verbose. I’ve described it before as Gygaxian. WWN does a good job of designing with the spread in mind, but it still uses a ton of words to say things that don’t need that many. You can see in the thread here where I’ve asked questions about some fairly basic things, or other elements were not understood correctly because the answer is in an unexpected place (e.g., how bonus skills work when you take a foci after gaining a level).
 

No I have started several threads and written countless posts on a large number of issues, oftentimes providing suggestions for fixes and workarounds.

I mean, sometimes you have suggested fixes, but when you have people have disagreed with them. What works for you does not seem to be what others desire for the system.

Which is to say that maybe you should dedicate your talents to do something with that instead of constantly populating threads with the same arguments over and over that people are just tired of having because we've hashed this out ad nauseum.

You dismissing all of it as "borderline incoherent" just tells me you aren't genuinely open to the prospect of PF2 being a deeply, deeply flawed game; a game whose design is extreme in a surprising number of regards.

You clearly don't want to listen.

I mean, yeah, I do find it borderline incoherent. Telling me that PF2 is too restrictive and rules heavy, only to put all these things under a bunch of skill DCs to me comes off as the opposite: you're making things far more complex by making people roll for stuff instead of letting people have some level of mechanical distinction through soft-gating feats, since I as a GM need to know and prepare for less.

Really, it's not that I'm not listening. You're not listening to just about everyone in this subforum. You've made your points. That we all don't find them convincing isn't on us, or necessarily even on you. Rather, people have different tastes. Just let it be already.

I can only hope that for each person that chooses to deny their chosen game having deep flaws, there exists two persons that are saved a big headache by only going into PF2 knowing what they will be getting.

:ROFLMAO:
 

Philip Benz

A Dragontooth Grognard
I just want to chime in here, even if I'm late to the party.
PF2 is a fine game. I ran session 46 of a homebrew campaign last Tuesday, and we have introduced no significant rules variants or homebrewes fixes. It simply isn't necessary.

The things that I have changed, at least compared to published APs that have their own problems, are as follows:
  • most skill DCs are borrowed from the list of example static skill DCs.
  • I tend to use larger numbers of lower level adversaries, and only rarely have +2 or +3 level foes (though more often now that the PCs have reached 11th level). I still haven't used a +4 level adversary, except on a couple rare occasions when I was really foreshadowing a recurring villain, and had the guy cut out of the fight for plot reasons.
  • I also tend to seed magic items in loot a little earlier than the expected guidelines suggest. I'm convinced that many items in PF2 have inflated item levels and costs, and so have compensated a bit.

None of those "changes" involve fundamentally rewriting the game, and I recognize no "fundamental flaws" in the game. Like any RPG, a clever DM is going to adjust things on the fly, so as to create a more enjoyable gaming experience for his players.
 

Oh no no no... don't mistake me. I get what you are proposing, but I just have a personal distaste for that sort of thing nowadays. I actually do really like creating the exceptions because I think the exceptions can create interesting situations rather than the players endlessly trying to modify things and playing around with DCs. At a certain level, sometimes I like soft-locking such things from players because it gets them to look at what they have or to use different options.

So I probably shouldn't but I'll bite here. Curious, despite the risk of talking past each other for 5 pages...

I've explained what I see as some of the advantages of not doing it this way, and I buy into the argument that this is not a system breaking deal and you can do various not overly onerous things to not restrict characters actions while still rewarding feat takers.

What I don't get is why somone would prefer this gating design.

For you, what are the pros and cons of the narrow skills/ feat gating design vs. the broad skills / feat bonus for specific situations design?

It may just be play styles/table norms, as I really don't relate to the players "finding ways to use their bonuses at any cost" or if you have broader skills "you have to have tables and tables of DCs". What creative exceptions arise from "Survey Wildlife"?
 

So I probably shouldn't but I'll bite here. Curious, despite the risk of talking past each other for 5 pages...

I've explained what I see as some of the advantages of not doing it this way, and I buy into the argument that this is not a system breaking deal and you can do various not overly onerous things to not restrict characters actions while still rewarding feat takers.

What I don't get is why somone would prefer this gating design.

For you, what are the pros and cons of the narrow skills/ feat gating design vs. the broad skills / feat bonus for specific situations design?

No no, it's cool.

For starters, when you gate things way easier to keep things straight because, through gating, you don't need to worry about about a bunch of special abilities or anything. You have the basic stuff, and if someone has a feat that modifies an action, then you can apply it. Instead of memorizing a huge book of different options of through skills and unlocks of what you can do at any time, the players will tell you when they can do something special. Also has the added benefit of keeping modifiers down.

Secondly, compared to "allow for broad skills and just make things bonuses", a lot of PF2 Feats are new actions, which allow each player to have a different take on a situation. My constant example Combat Climber, because I think climbing is a good example where gating makes for interesting situations. The feat doesn't require a skill check, it just changes what you can do, which is not only simpler but way more interesting: now you can advance up a cliff face in a way different than someone without it because you're not only less vulnerable, but you can fight back more easily. A guy with Reactive Shield can use their reaction to fend off attackers, while someone with Quickdraw can advance slowly while fighting back, instead of being forced to sit while under attack. Each of those feats are adding exceptions gated by feats, rather than everyone being able to hold a weapon in their hand but have to roll a -2/-5 to their climb check. It forces players to look at what they have, rather than finding an optimum route via skills and just using it despite a modifier or two.

Thirdly,

It may just be play styles/table norms, as I really don't relate to the players "finding ways to use their bonuses at any cost" or if you have broader skills "you have to have tables and tables of DCs". What creative exceptions arise from "Survey Wildlife"?

I don't really like Survey Wildlife because it's two checks, but if you take my advice of making it one check at a penalty, it creates solid niche protection. Why? Well, let's look at 5E, because this was always a bit problem with me and the open-ended skill system: the Survival and Nature skill really didn't have clear niches and it was easy to make arguments for big overlap. I mean, why wouldn't you use Survival to survey what's around you and figure out what animals are in the area? It makes sense, right? But then why have a Nature skill?

In this case, limiting the skills to specific niches allows for solid distinctions: someone who has "Survival" is able to find and follow tracks well, but that doesn't necessarily make them good at knowing who those tracks come from. Survey Wildlife would give you a solid workaround, where you don't need to have the formal Knowledge Skill to do such a thing, but you take a simple Penalty to it. It makes it so that everyone doesn't suddenly just take Survival, but puts a small cost compared to someone who is just naturally good at Nature.

Let's take another one: Group Impression. It was mentioned earlier, but I think it's a pretty interesting feat, especially if you gate it: if you are limited to making an Impression on one person, you're obviously going to do it on the leader of a group, right? They'll also likely have the best Will Save. However, if you try to sway the Henchmen individually, it'll not only take longer but be kind of obvious to the leader, who probably won't want you influencing them. With Group Impression, you can more subtly influence a group since you can hit a few of the lower Will save followers. Maybe they won't suddenly work for you, but if the Leader isn't open to talking to you they might drop a hint or something without the leader noticing; advice about a trap on the upcoming trail, etc. It's a neat roleplaying advantage, and one that isn't just a bonus; you can do something that others cannot.

Let's look at a similar feat: Glad-Hand. This basically allows you to make an immediate check on Make an Impression rather than take a minute to do it. Worth noting it's only in casual or social settings, but it allows for different tactics: a Glad-hander would identify different people you might want to hit up quickly to influence and hit them quickly, while someone with Group Impression would take the time and hit a group up simultaneously. Different approaches crated by gating, rather than just applying a bonus or penalty.

I could go on, because I think most of the feats are built like this: not about modifiers to dice, but more about modifiers to actions. It gets people planning differently rather than trying to find the ideal route and boost the roll however they can.
 

Philip Benz

A Dragontooth Grognard
Those are great examples of feats that offer additional options.
My only quarrel with some feats is when they propose an action that really ought to be available to anyone with the skill. PF2 is better about avoiding "feat locking" actions than past editions, but it's still a risk, anytime new books come out and new feats appear.
 

One of the intrinsic risks with any exception based design is that as widgets expand over time, the initial design constraints will get lost. Its why I'm not actually much of a fan of that paradigm, but that ship sailed on D&D derivatives pretty much from day one.
 

Those are great examples of feats that offer additional options.
My only quarrel with some feats is when they propose an action that really ought to be available to anyone with the skill. PF2 is better about avoiding "feat locking" actions than past editions, but it's still a risk, anytime new books come out and new feats appear.

I think it's a case-by-case, but overall I prefer the restrictions with some exceptions because I think it gets players to look at what they can do rather than trying to minimize a bunch of penalties. That's obviously my personal preference and not the actual codified game rules.
 

Uni-the-Unicorn!

Adventurer
I've never known one person have such a crusade against a game, did Paizo run over your cat?
Everyone knows you think the game is flawed, and to you it is. What you don't seem to be grasping is that other people aren't experiencing these flaws.
why not put your effort into building a system that works for you, you'd save yourself a lot of frustration
Just to be fair, Cap had a similar crusade against 5e, probably why h doesn’t seem to play it anymore
 


Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top