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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8429380" data-attributes="member: 70468">This is a contradiction. If an activity is possible but hard, and a feat offers a bonus to overcome it, then it has an artificial limit that only the feat allows you to get past. Since you’ve cited players who would get upset at a GM’s ruling allowing someone else to attempt an activity at a higher DC, then you should know that there are players who would consider the kind of approach you describe as a form of punishment. I had one in my game once. If they didn’t get the thing they wanted without condition, then they were being punished.However, Pathfinder 2e already provides a way around the problem in this case. If you want to Make an Impression to a group without having Group Impression, it just takes longer. That’s a pretty natural cost. If you want to improve the attitude of a crowd, and you don’t have that feat, you’re going to have to get down into it and make your case individually to the people in it. That’s not preventing you from getting what you want. It’s just having to take a less than optimal route because you lack the benefit of a certain feat.This seems to be the key problem. Pathfinder 2e does not sufficiently communicate in your opinion that the GM is empowered to make rulings. It’s implied in the Core Rulebook, but the Gamemastery Guide makes it <a href="https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=892" target="_blank">explicit</a>. It goes on to list a few examples, including things that could possibly be feats someday (such as swinging from a chandelier or throwing sand in an opponent’s eyes), but it says it’s okay to let players try them.Can you provide a citation where it says the GM is not empowered to make rulings? The text of the game I’ve seen doesn’t support that assertion. Paizo says outright in the GMG that you should say “yes, but”, which suggests that PF2 is meant to be run “gaming as usual”.Pathfinder 2e has far fewer feats than Pathfinder 1e. Is it a problem that character all customization was named “feat” in Pathfinder 2e? Would it have been better if Paizo used different names (e.g., class abilities instead of class feats, ancestry traits instead of ancestry feats, skill tricks instead of skill feats, etc)?This claim is strange because the problem people had with 4e is it limited its mechanical depth to combat for the most part. That’s one of the reasons why Story Now people like it because it allows you to use a very narrative approach to resolving non-combat situations (e.g., with skill challenges). One should think if PF2 actually copied 4e, then it wouldn’t have the problems with infringing on the GM’s ability to make rulings that you claim it does. The reality is Pathfinder 2e takes much more from 3e than it does 4e when it comes to customization and its scope.Pathfinder 2e rejected 3e’s design where you could optimize your way past a problem. The meaningful impact of character build choices is meant to be in how they realize different concepts. However, if none of the choices have a meaningful impact, then it’s not a big deal if the GM makes a ruling allowing PCs to attempt something at a higher difficulty or with a check because the thing being invalidated or value-reduced was not meaningful in the first place, so that should be no big deal. Otherwise, it’s a contradiction to say on one hand the choices are not meaningful while also saying that people will be very upset that their choices were reduced in value. If they didn’t have value, it couldn’t be reduced!I’m not quite as enthused about the core engine of Pathfinder 2e, but it’s not worth digging into because those are mostly aesthetic issues.</blockquote>

Verification