Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8131270" data-attributes="member: 70468">I’m pretty sure the devs said in response to some of the APG skill feats that the intent is skill feats let you do things you couldn’t do (like do something automatically instead of having to make a check) or more quickly than you could otherwise. Even if you don’t trust that to always be the case, PF2 doesn’t really use penalties to balance out feats or actions. I think allowing that check with a penalty would be fine.If you really want to hedge, then have them roll with Disadvantage. Yep, roll twice and take the lowest result. If the PC is suffering a misfortune effect, roll three dice and take the lowest result. Nothing uses that kind of mechanic (outside of misfortune effects), so you should be safe. Also, it saves you from having to come up with a reasonable modifier. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😃" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f603.png" title="Grinning face with big eyes    :smiley:" data-shortname=":smiley:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />I don’t think you’re necessarily wrong for reading it the way you do, but I also don’t think it’s wrong to allow those kinds of things with a penalty. Given that PF2 tries to leave a lot up to GM discretion, it should have been more clear that you could do this. Also, “the system should have been more clear” is a worrisome and recurring theme with PF2. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😓" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f613.png" title="Downcast face with sweat    :sweat:" data-shortname=":sweat:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />Everything is called a feat, but they’re not interchangeable. You’re going to be focusing on a handful of choices at any given time. If you take a multiclass dedication or certain archetypes, you might have a bit more than or up to two handfuls to consider. They could have given them different labels, but what would you propose Paizo do differently?Keep in mind that the economic reality is Paizo’s core audience wants customization. Many are were already going to be unhappy with a system that isn’t compatible with two decades worth of content, but I expect not offering a customization-focused system at all would have been economically fatal. WotC could shift gears because D&D has history and cultural cachet that Pathfinder does not, but it also belongs to a large corporation that can keep the lights on while they’re off redesigning the system.Honestly, I hate skill actions. I didn’t like them in the playtest, but I tried to give them an honest shot in the final game, but I ended up disliking them in the end for the same reasons I disliked them in the playtest. It’s not that they constrain creativity. They’re problematic because you normally only use a few, and then when you use one of the other ones, you’re like: “Okay, hold on. Gotta look this thing up.” If you’ve got Archive of Nethys on a laptop or tablet, you can be quick and hide it while people are rolling dice. You shouldn’t need an app or a website to run a game. It is incredibly irritating that even after 20+ sessions I still haven’t fully internalized them. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="☹️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/2639.png" title="Frowning face    :frowning2:" data-shortname=":frowning2:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />I’ll totally concede that this aspect is really fiddly. They enumerated too many things. They got rid of the myriad of modifiers from PF1, but they should have also done the same to the various uses (instead of codifying them in freaking actions!). I wanted to believe that they were a part of the modularity, but they’re more like modularity gone wrong. And I was wrong about them.This is what I would do to fix them, and I may incorporate some of this in my game. First, I would move the combat maneuvers into the combat section. Put everything together, so you can actually find it using the book. Second, get rid of almost all other skill actions and activities. Replace them with a simplified skill check. In essence, if you are in a situation where both success and failure have interesting results, roll to see how it goes.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Critical Success: Like success but with an additional benefit. This can be something in the fiction, or it could be a hero point. The GM decides.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Success: You accomplish what you were trying to do.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Failure: Like success but with a complication, or you fail forward.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Critical Failure: You fail at your task. This could be straight failure, or it could be an especially bad situation that results from your lack of success. The GM decides.</li> </ul>That covers almost any time you’d need to make a skill check. I would even include the social stuff. You want to convince the guard to let you inside, but he’s going to lie to you why he can’t? Roll Diplomacy versus his Deception DC. The system is designed so that any modifier can be turned into a DC. Take advantage of that.This probably invalidates a swath of skill feats. Is that a bad thing? It would make it abundantly clear that skill feats were not meant to stomp on skill checks. You’d probably need to look at a handful of situations where the actions are still wanted or needed. Treat Wounds probably needs to go in the exploration chapter as an exploration activity.Anyway, I digress. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😂" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f602.png" title="Face with tears of joy    :joy:" data-shortname=":joy:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /></blockquote>

Verification