Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8143310" data-attributes="member: 12731">In my opinion the heavy (and I do mean superheavy) reliance on feats to gate and control the littlest thing actively undermines the "yes but" GM-generosity playing style.PF2 is all about balance, where every little bonus or advantage is meant to be a significant investment to treasure.If you then play in a game where the GM can invalidate your feat at any time it quickly becomes pointless.I mean, at that stage why not simply play a looser less rules-heavy game?I would totally have appreciated the game more if things like crawling faster or climbing with one hand free just came with the various skills. That is, instead of having to take this or that feat (with the implication that if you don't have the feat, you're simply out of luck), you'd simply gain the various benefits (=lifting the very hard restrictions) at various levels.Also I don't like the binary nature of either being able to do it automatically or not at all. I much prefer rpg systems that involve the dice.Sometimes PF2 does do this - for instance <a href="https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=29" target="_blank">tumbling through an enemy's space</a>. Have a look at the rule:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">everybody can do it, no feat needed <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="☑️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/2611.png" title="Check box with check    :ballot_box_with_check:" data-shortname=":ballot_box_with_check:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">it isn't automatic, you need a decent die roll <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="☑️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/2611.png" title="Check box with check    :ballot_box_with_check:" data-shortname=":ballot_box_with_check:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /></li> </ul>Why this natural intuitive playable implementation wasn't used more is anyone's guess. (You still need Acrobatics, so it's still a wonky implementation if your position is that any high level hero should be able to tumble through a villager's space. But it's infinitely preferable to having a feat called, say, "Tumbler" without which you can't even attempt the maneuver. In this case, there is no such feat - Tumbler doesn't exist, or at least it does something else - but unfortunately there are dozens if not hundreds of Tumbler-like feats in the game. It is also wonky in that you get to attempt to tumble through ONE enemy's space, meaning you need to spend all three of your actions to tumble through three guards even if the total distance moved is just 20 ft or so)My guess is that Paizo became greedy about feats - making as many feats as possible. Selling as many feats as possible. Reserving the right to the itties bittiest space of rules possibility that you can think of.This approach ruins Pathfinder 2.This statement might come across as bold, but I stand by it:Pathfinder 2 contains over two thousand feats (eight hundred in the CRB). The game would have been unquestionably better with half as many.It would create far fewer instances of gotchas where the player realizes that the rules actually doesn't let her character do this completely basic and natural thing, that in other games even a level 1 hero would be able to do, much less your supposedly badass level 19 megahero. And if the GM accidentally is generous and allows something, chances are the play group will realize at a later date a feat just got invalidated.Feats whose function is only to make your hero suck less should never have been in the game in the first place.</blockquote>

Verification