Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8428653" data-attributes="member: 12731">What that Group Impression tells me is:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">you can't address more than one person at a time. For combat intimidation that's okay - for general roleplaying it is incomprehensibly limited for no good reason... other than what I've been arguing the whole time: to create the design space for Paizo to sell you a new feat.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">if you allow what should have been obvious and natural - that is, allow a character to address a small crowd regardless of level - you are invalidating the feat. You're arguing it is not "terrible or useless" but that's relativizing. The feat has objectively lost value. Some players will consider the value lost to be significant. That others might not is small comfort to those that do. That's all there is to say.</li> </ul>In other words, thank you for bringing up yet another example of the rules design approach Paizo has chosen for 2E that I find reprehensible. PS. "permissive improvisation" Aaah a concept Paizo wouldn't recognize if it bit them on the ass. Yes, Paizo claims their game is all sorts of customization-friendly. I consider all of it smoke and mirrors. That is, it's utterly false marketing naughty word. I have never seen a more tweak-hostile game in my long long life as a ttrpger. Creating a new class is a nightmare where you're expected to come up with a full catalog of hundreds of feats.The worst part? None of it is necessary! In fact, the game would be unreservedly better if at least 50% of the options, of the wordage (probably more like 80%) were just cut out completely, thrown on the garbage pile without even replacing it with something else. Just removed, and the remainder would be straight up better in every way.</blockquote>

Verification