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

[Campbell]

You will have to exemplify that claim.

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

There are rules for how climbing works. They are short, simple to comprehend, and let you know exactly the latitude they provide the GM. If you follow those rules no feat will cause you any issues.

I get you do not like the game rules actually having an impact on basically anything except combat, but it's obvious PF2 is not trying to be that type of game. It's been obvious since Day 1. It's not some breaking flaw. It's just not the design decision you would have made.

 

[Thomas Shey]

How can we ever criticize any ruleset if we are required to add a layer of Shey common sense first?

You aren't required to do anything. But when you jump to a conclusion that a feat that says "with this feat you can do X in Y specific fashion" that its saying X can't be done at all otherwise, I am not required to follow you there, because that doesn't follow from the first statement.

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?

Again, no one is suggesting you should be allowing it for free, just for a different cost, whether its in terms of a more difficult roll, a penalty while you're doing it, or something else. That's not the same thing as "can't do it without a feat.".

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

[Citation needed]. Every damn D&Doid that doesn't just toss it entirely in the GM's lap in the first place (and I don't see that as any improvement at all) has this same exception-based design issue. Its been a chronic issue all the way back to AD&D (or even arguably Greyhawk for OD&D).

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.

"Needlessly" is a judgment call, and can't be anything but.

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

And because you don't see it, everyone else is required to share your view. As per usual.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.



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.



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.

This reply is so antagonistic my belief in your good faith is wavering.

I am comparing to a system with DC based limits and thus no need for thousands and thousands and thousands of feats. It is clearly and obviously less complex; it is outrageous of you to try to claim otherwise.

Again, if your response to any rules criticism is "you can just fix it, just add what Kenada suggests" you are impossible to converse with.

If the feat gave a bonus that's fine. A feat that makes victory automatic for the haves against any have nots is extremely disruptive to the narrative. Especially handing out things to heroes that no monster or NPC can ever match is just absurd.

PF2 makes even the most basic things like climbing or jumping complicated. That's a valid criticism in my book.

PS. On phone, can't/won't reduce the quoted text to only the pertinent bits

 

[Thomas Shey]

With thousand of feats, this is not pertinent.

Of course it is. A small number of misdesigned feats is not a critique of a whole system.

(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)

So are we back to arguing exception based design is intrinsically fraught? Because if that's where we're at, you've picked the wrong person if you expect an argument.

I will argue however that you've vastly misrepresented what feats that enhance skill use do, for the same reason Keneda has.

 

[kenada]

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.

I’m responding to the use of Combat Climber as an example of how PF2’s character customization gets in the way of making a ruling to allow the player to attempt something that doesn’t work by default. The rules for making skill checks specifically allow the GM to decide the skill and DC appropriate to an activity, which is often a skill action, but often is not always. Based on the rules, a GM could make a ruling allowing someone to attempt to climb with a weapon in their hand.

That’s not “kenada’s style”. That’s just how RPGs work. The GM has to make rulings because the rules aren’t comprehensive. You’re accusing me of substituting my style of play, but I cite sources. If there’s anyone here who is making unsubstantiated assertions about how PF2 works and what’s intended, that person is not me. Ad hominems are not conducive to productive discourse.

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 you’re making one ruling to allow the fighter to climb with a weapon, then why can’t you make another for someone with the feat to compensate them accordingly? The GM in this situation has already decided to interpret the rules loosely regarding character customization, so why is ruling a class can do something extra okay but feats have to be interpreted as rigidly and inflexibly as possible?

 

[kenada]

PS. On phone, can't/won't reduce the quoted text to only the pertinent bits

For what it’s worth, you can select text in a post and tap reply to selectively quote those selected bits. If there’s already text in the box, it’ll just get added to the end of the post. It’s what I do when I’m on my phone, and it’s a lot easier than trying to edit posts down (especially since iOS 15 seems to have broken selecting text on some web forums).

 

[Justice and Rule]

This reply is so antagonistic my belief in your good faith is wavering.

I am comparing to a system with DC based limits and thus no need for thousands and thousands and thousands of feats. It is clearly and obviously less complex; it is outrageous of you to try to claim otherwise.

You're replacing thousands of feats with thousands of different kinds of checks with different DCs to remember. This is way more complex because, unlike feats, a GM has more reason to know skill checks because they have the potential to be used by any player. Compare this to a Feat, where you don't need to know it unless your player brings it up. Your version is far more complex.

Again, if your response to any rules criticism is "you can just fix it, just add what Kenada suggests" you are impossible to converse with.

No, you simply don't engage with things that fit outside your box.

If the feat gave a bonus that's fine. A feat that makes victory automatic for the haves against any have nots is extremely disruptive to the narrative. Especially handing out things to heroes that no monster or NPC can ever match is just absurd.

PF2 makes even the most basic things like climbing or jumping complicated. That's a valid criticism in my book.

No, it just means the person with the Feat automatically has it, and the GM can adjudicate whether or not the other person could attempt it.

You can't talk about PF2 making climbing and jumping complicated when your solution is just turning feat abilities into skill checks.

 

[Campbell]

It's hard for me to imagine any rules for climbing that would be simpler than what we have in PF2 that would count as specific rules at all. What rule other than GM calls for a check and decides what the check means would be simple enough?

 

[Justice and Rule]

It's hard for me to imagine any rules for climbing that would be simpler than what we have in PF2 that would count as specific rules at all. What rule other than GM calls for a check and decides what the check means would be simple enough?

Until you get really wacky speeds, it's basically 10 ft-5 ft- 0 ft - fall. If you invested in Assurance, it's not even a roll.

 

[kenada]

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

I just don’t agree that the existence of skill feats is the limiter you make it out to be. They don’t generally let you do something with a check. They let you do something without a check, do it with more effect, or do it more efficiently. If a GM wants to allow someone to Make an Impression against a group and allows it at higher DC (even though I think an Influence challenge would be better), then it’s not like Group Impression has suddenly become terrible or useless.

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

I can see the argument. If one set a DC to climb with a weapon, then eventually characters should be able to do it all the time even without the feat. In that situation, I think the feat would still have some value because it would let you succeed automatically well before you could do that naturally. It feels like a catch-22. How does one reconcile character customization with permissive improvisation?