Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pathfinder 2e: is it RAW or RAI to always take 10 minutes and heal between encounters?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JmanTheDM" data-source="post: 8431822" data-attributes="member: 6791902"><p>I admit, this conversation, as its evolved over 18 pages is simply baffling to me - especially the ongoing objections CapnZapp has WRT the skill and feat design of PF2. </p><p></p><p>How is the below simulated exchange not a viable approach to PF2's skills and Feat "bloat".</p><p></p><p><em>GM: </em> you are in a room with a chasm between you and the far door, hanging in the middle of the chasm is a chandelier. </p><p><em>Player: </em> I'd like to swing across the chasm on the Chandelier</p><p><em>GM:</em> OK, awesome! do you have any feats that will help you to get across? </p><p><em>Player option 1: </em> Yes, I have a Chandelier swinger feat</p><p><em>GM: </em> [either knows the feat or looks it up to understand how it works] OK, cool. make an acrobatics check, DC 20.</p><p>Player option 2: yes, I have monster surfing feat, which if you squint hard enough and loosely interpret <em>could</em> be used for this exact situation</p><p><em>GM:</em> either: sure, that sounds cool, and PC's being awesome is "fun"; or sorry, that feat doesn't apply in this circumstance you'll need something else. you can use acrobatics at a DC of 20 to try and cross. the "sure, that sounds cool, do it" answer is the only case where the GM may have popcorn thrown at him - especially if 2 PCs are attempting the same thing, 1 with Chandelier swinging and the 2nd with monster surfer. adjudicate on the spot, back out of a potentially bad call once you get more information and move on...</p><p><em>player option 3: </em> no, I don't have any feats to help me here</p><p><em>GM: </em> [either I know there may be a feat that can support this action, in which case, I <em>may</em> increase the difficulty of a no-feat attempt, or I don't know (<u>or don't care</u>), and keep the DC at 20] OK, make an acrobatics check at DC 20.</p><p><em>player option 4: </em> no, I don't, but can I try and do this with Society?</p><p><em>GM:</em> no but maybe someone else can attempt the crossing with a feat or acrobatics instead? [PC brainstorming ensues]</p><p></p><p>if you have players that are anything like my players, they will:</p><p>a) chime in at decision time, letting the GM know about the special Chandelier swinger feat that THEY have. "hey, I have the chandelier swinger feat, can I try it also?", or "why are you letting him try this, they don't have the chandelier swinger feat", or "cool, let me tell you about my knowledge of PF2, by referencing the chandelier feat". any of those are signals to me, the GM, that someone has invested in this feat and therefore someone without it should likely have a higher DC, or the player with the feat more likely have a lower DC for the task. IME, players are not at all shy about speaking up about the awesome things they have, or object if I step into their niche by allowing something for another PC that they have invested in...</p><p>b) Grub for any advantage they can get to simplify this task, aid others, spending hero points, and like literally weaving all their stowed 50' lengths of ropes into a net <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />...</p><p></p><p>I have <strong><u>never</u></strong> had a group of players who, when facing a chasm and a chandelier, simply walk away because, you know, nobody picked up the feat. mission failed, adventure over. this is 100% of the time a situation where the time a GM informs the player they can't do something. the failure state here is not the players, its not the rules (as the rules have AMPLE allowances for on-the-spot rulings), its the GM.</p><p></p><p>worst case scenario here. I as GM, "allow" someone to attempt to swing from a chandelier without a feat (oh god no!!), at a DC that would have been similar to someone who spent feats on having this skill. Now, this contradiction is VERY likely to only happen only after time passes - for example. in one session I allow the swing without a feat, 3 months later there is a similar situation where a PC with the feat tries it and the inconsistency is noted (<u>if remembered at all</u>), OR a player after the swinging "incident" takes this feat and then objects to the past ruling, with a "well actually..." comment. </p><p>"hey GM, why did you let player A 3 months ago swing across with their acrobatics skill at a DC of 20, but this time, when I do have a feat, you are making me roll against a DC of 22?"</p><p>"hey GM, remember 3 months ago when I swung across the chasm, and you let you use Acrobatics for this. did you know there is a Chandelier swinger feat for this and you shouldn't have allowed this?"</p><p></p><p>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 <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />".</p><p></p><p>This is a collaborative game where the GM is supposed to <em><u>be on the players side</u></em>. a game about <em><u>heroic moments</u></em> when swinging from a chandelier is <em><u>supposed</u></em> <em><u>to be attempted</u></em>, be epic, and to make players feel awesome. limiting these heroic moments to situations when <strong>only </strong>players who, at the exact right moment happen to have specific feats - WHEN NO PLAYER HAS ACTUALLY PICKED THIS FEAT - is bad gm'ing (yup!). expecting only the GM to know every feat is an unreasonable expectation and an undue burden to place on the GM - players should know their Character's capabilities and advocate for their use thank you very much! If any player is going to rage quit because I made a ruling that supported fun over slavish literal interpretation of feat lists - then this is not a player I'm interested in having in my group to begin with. the notion of the GM needing to know 1400 feats (or whatever the number is) in order to play the game or to play (any) game "correctly" is, simply put, a logical fallacy that says more about your mindset as GM than it does about any game "system".</p><p></p><p>Literally <u><em>asking the player if they have any feats that support the action</em></u>, otherwise, as GM, simply consult tables 10-4, 10-5 and 10-6 with maybe a quick reference to the skill and the training levels is all that you need to play the game fairly and consistently...</p><p></p><p>its this easy:</p><p>"I would like to do x"</p><p>"do you have a feat to support x"</p><p>"yes I do" or "no I don't" </p><p>Adjudicate accordingly, and accept from time to time, you may screw up, but likely the screw up will be in favour of the PC and them having a great, awesome, fun time...</p><p></p><p>[shrug]</p><p></p><p>ya, but, what about the chandelier swinger feat and taking away its agency within the rules???? well, if nobody picked it in your game - THE FEAT FUNCTIONALLY DOES NOT EXIST, and if someone did, you are guaranteed that the player will tell you they have it and its important to them! how is this hard? </p><p></p><p>Cheers,</p><p></p><p>J.</p><p></p><p>note 1: totally recognizing I too just spewed a bunch of stylistic nonsense about how <em>I</em> run my games, and to each their own and all that. but I honestly read these posts and feel like I must not know something inherent about a certain unwritten style of Pathfinder play, which my laissez faire style seems anathema towards</p><p>note 2: I recognize what I said above would get me fired from Organized play, as those game runners <em>should</em> have a better command of all the rules. but I play in home games, not OP, so [shrug?]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JmanTheDM, post: 8431822, member: 6791902"] I admit, this conversation, as its evolved over 18 pages is simply baffling to me - especially the ongoing objections CapnZapp has WRT the skill and feat design of PF2. How is the below simulated exchange not a viable approach to PF2's skills and Feat "bloat". [I]GM: [/I] you are in a room with a chasm between you and the far door, hanging in the middle of the chasm is a chandelier. [I]Player: [/I] I'd like to swing across the chasm on the Chandelier [I]GM:[/I] OK, awesome! do you have any feats that will help you to get across? [I]Player option 1: [/I] Yes, I have a Chandelier swinger feat [I]GM: [/I] [either knows the feat or looks it up to understand how it works] OK, cool. make an acrobatics check, DC 20. Player option 2: yes, I have monster surfing feat, which if you squint hard enough and loosely interpret [I]could[/I] be used for this exact situation [I]GM:[/I] either: sure, that sounds cool, and PC's being awesome is "fun"; or sorry, that feat doesn't apply in this circumstance you'll need something else. you can use acrobatics at a DC of 20 to try and cross. the "sure, that sounds cool, do it" answer is the only case where the GM may have popcorn thrown at him - especially if 2 PCs are attempting the same thing, 1 with Chandelier swinging and the 2nd with monster surfer. adjudicate on the spot, back out of a potentially bad call once you get more information and move on... [I]player option 3: [/I] no, I don't have any feats to help me here [I]GM: [/I] [either I know there may be a feat that can support this action, in which case, I [I]may[/I] increase the difficulty of a no-feat attempt, or I don't know ([U]or don't care[/U]), and keep the DC at 20] OK, make an acrobatics check at DC 20. [I]player option 4: [/I] no, I don't, but can I try and do this with Society? [I]GM:[/I] no but maybe someone else can attempt the crossing with a feat or acrobatics instead? [PC brainstorming ensues] if you have players that are anything like my players, they will: a) chime in at decision time, letting the GM know about the special Chandelier swinger feat that THEY have. "hey, I have the chandelier swinger feat, can I try it also?", or "why are you letting him try this, they don't have the chandelier swinger feat", or "cool, let me tell you about my knowledge of PF2, by referencing the chandelier feat". any of those are signals to me, the GM, that someone has invested in this feat and therefore someone without it should likely have a higher DC, or the player with the feat more likely have a lower DC for the task. IME, players are not at all shy about speaking up about the awesome things they have, or object if I step into their niche by allowing something for another PC that they have invested in... b) Grub for any advantage they can get to simplify this task, aid others, spending hero points, and like literally weaving all their stowed 50' lengths of ropes into a net :)... I have [B][U]never[/U][/B] had a group of players who, when facing a chasm and a chandelier, simply walk away because, you know, nobody picked up the feat. mission failed, adventure over. this is 100% of the time a situation where the time a GM informs the player they can't do something. the failure state here is not the players, its not the rules (as the rules have AMPLE allowances for on-the-spot rulings), its the GM. worst case scenario here. I as GM, "allow" someone to attempt to swing from a chandelier without a feat (oh god no!!), at a DC that would have been similar to someone who spent feats on having this skill. Now, this contradiction is VERY likely to only happen only after time passes - for example. in one session I allow the swing without a feat, 3 months later there is a similar situation where a PC with the feat tries it and the inconsistency is noted ([U]if remembered at all[/U]), OR a player after the swinging "incident" takes this feat and then objects to the past ruling, with a "well actually..." comment. "hey GM, why did you let player A 3 months ago swing across with their acrobatics skill at a DC of 20, but this time, when I do have a feat, you are making me roll against a DC of 22?" "hey GM, remember 3 months ago when I swung across the chasm, and you let you use Acrobatics for this. did you know there is a Chandelier swinger feat for this and you shouldn't have allowed this?" 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 :)". This is a collaborative game where the GM is supposed to [I][U]be on the players side[/U][/I]. a game about [I][U]heroic moments[/U][/I] when swinging from a chandelier is [I][U]supposed[/U][/I][B][U][I] [/I][/U][/B][I][U]to be attempted[/U][/I], be epic, and to make players feel awesome. limiting these heroic moments to situations when [B]only [/B]players who, at the exact right moment happen to have specific feats - WHEN NO PLAYER HAS ACTUALLY PICKED THIS FEAT - is bad gm'ing (yup!). expecting only the GM to know every feat is an unreasonable expectation and an undue burden to place on the GM - players should know their Character's capabilities and advocate for their use thank you very much! If any player is going to rage quit because I made a ruling that supported fun over slavish literal interpretation of feat lists - then this is not a player I'm interested in having in my group to begin with. the notion of the GM needing to know 1400 feats (or whatever the number is) in order to play the game or to play (any) game "correctly" is, simply put, a logical fallacy that says more about your mindset as GM than it does about any game "system". Literally [U][I]asking the player if they have any feats that support the action[/I][/U], otherwise, as GM, simply consult tables 10-4, 10-5 and 10-6 with maybe a quick reference to the skill and the training levels is all that you need to play the game fairly and consistently... its this easy: "I would like to do x" "do you have a feat to support x" "yes I do" or "no I don't" Adjudicate accordingly, and accept from time to time, you may screw up, but likely the screw up will be in favour of the PC and them having a great, awesome, fun time... [shrug] ya, but, what about the chandelier swinger feat and taking away its agency within the rules???? well, if nobody picked it in your game - THE FEAT FUNCTIONALLY DOES NOT EXIST, and if someone did, you are guaranteed that the player will tell you they have it and its important to them! how is this hard? Cheers, J. note 1: totally recognizing I too just spewed a bunch of stylistic nonsense about how [I]I[/I] run my games, and to each their own and all that. but I honestly read these posts and feel like I must not know something inherent about a certain unwritten style of Pathfinder play, which my laissez faire style seems anathema towards note 2: I recognize what I said above would get me fired from Organized play, as those game runners [I]should[/I] have a better command of all the rules. but I play in home games, not OP, so [shrug?] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pathfinder 2e: is it RAW or RAI to always take 10 minutes and heal between encounters?
Top