Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Justice and Rule" data-source="post: 8143607" data-attributes="member: 6778210">Because that's already out there and some people desire a game with more structure. I mean, I've run 5E since it came out and continue to run it today (I'm DMing a game Sunday and possibly one Friday) and if I just wanted more 5E, I'd go for it.Instead, I do kind of want to see a game that has similar mechanics, but more depth. I mean, clearly other people want that, too, otherwise this site wouldn't be doing a "5E Advanced" project. But the problem is that 5E's looser design fights against more minutiae rather viciously: for example, it's hard to create gradations in different circumstances because the one go-to for the system is Advantage/Disadvantage, and that's it. The only exception to that are cover penalties, but otherwise there's just not much there, and that can be immensely frustrating as a DM when you want to create small differences between situations.That can be fine, but at the same time that breeds its own problems: if you can do everything with skills, there's less differentiation between characters unless you do really in-depth breakdowns of skills and allow for people to specialize in them.Like, if I have a strength fighter who is a sailor and I have a strength fighter who is just a knight, both are likely to have athletics and high strength. Seems natural, right? So how do I differentiate the sailor as someone who climbs better because he spends time in the rigging of the ship more?(Yes, I know the Sailor background has <a href="https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=858" target="_blank">Underwater Marauder</a>, but I find the Rigger background from EC to be very fitting as long as you change the Lore skill)To me, <a href="http://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=768" target="_blank">Combat Climber</a> serves that purpose well: it gives that person something special that is fairly specialized (being a better combatant while climbing) while other players don't lose anything: they can still fight, they can still climb, they just can't do it at the same time.Even if the knight were as good a climber as the sailor, that doesn't mean they know exactly the same techniques and the sailor could still know some nuances better than the knight, and this captures that.I mean, that's an apple and oranges comparison. Tumbling is an action, just like Climbing. The Combat Climber feat is not an action, but a modifier to an action based on the character having a specialized expertise.Again, the problem with "everyone can do it with a roll" is that everyone can do it with a roll. It limits the ability to distinguish and specialize characters in some way. This is one of the most frustrating things about 5E having run it for years: at a certain point it becomes dull because there are clear paths as to how to do things with your character because classes and subclasses have so little variation within them: if you are Cleric of Light, there's just not much variation in how you build that because your class features are basically completely set and you have little in the way of selection.Pathfinder 2e's ala carte way of doing things is refreshing as hell by comparison: there tons of little options for customization that aren't just straight skill bonuses, but instead allow you small modifications of how different actions interact or allowing you to just do things. And while you look at it as a limit on the other players, I see it as a benefit to the game: instead of everyone trying to do the same thing with varying penalties, it forces people to make plans or use other skills in interesting ways.For example, my sailor fighter can climb and fight more effectively, so if we're getting attacked by harpies on the side of a cliff, he's probably going to take a more frontline role in things. The Rogue or Ranger would be able to use their <a href="https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=498" target="_blank">Quick Draw</a> to attack better while managing their action economy, while the knight uses his <a href="https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=360" target="_blank">Reactive Shield</a> to help defend himself better in the same way. What you see as limits to me are part of the fun: you have a problem where everyone has different tools and must all solve it in their own way.[USER=6801252]@The-Magic-Sword[/USER] 's example with the rumor feats is another good example: There's nothing that says you can't spread a rumor if you don't have those feats. Rather, you have an easy mechanical way of doing this without having to possibly go through a bunch of roleplay and hoops to do it. And I'm fine with that: it gives the player an interesting niche where they can do something quickly and easily while other players would have to go into more in-depth roleplaying to do.I feel like this would make PF2 a more homogenized experience and just make it seem like a cut-rate 5E. The feats they have are generally good at giving interesting effects or niches to players, and I'm all for that sort of thing.Are there really a lot of gotchas in this game? Like, is not being able to climb with a weapon in your hand really a "gotcha"?I mean, you could literally say this about any sort of limitation within the book. Like, you could just as well say this:Per the rules, all Elves have a move speed of 30 feet. Unless you have a feat. Do you you allow corner cases, and if so, how do you justify taking those feats?It's the exact same thing. Can you allow situational cases? Well, as a GM I would say "It depends on the situation." But most of what you identify don't seem to actually be problems. Is having a crawling speed of 1 space per action actually a problem? Is falling prone if you take damage on a fall actually a problem?I mean, that last one in particular feels even more out of place given your idea of allowing people to roll for it: you take damage on a fall by failing a check. The roll is already made, this is just an effect for failure. Do you think there should be a second roll? That seems needlessly complex. Do you think it should just be up to GM Fiat? In this case, I like the firmness of the rules: they give a concrete definition to the player as to what happens, there's a feat that gets around it, and if I find a situation where it'd be appropriate to not use it, I don't.Because why should I have to roll to do everything? Maybe there are just things that I should be able to do or not do depending on whether I trained for it.Also, "grabbing a leg while wielding a two-handed weapon" wouldn't be a problem since "wielding" isn't the same as just holding it: you release one hand and the two-handed sword dangles in your other. Now you won't be able to attack with it, unless you are going to start questioning why we have a two-handed restriction to begin with. I mean, if you have a high enough strength, right?Why can't I just wield a two-handed weapon one-handed? Why can't I cast spells if my Arcana is really high? Why can't I Rage like a Barbarian?These aren't problems, these are just questions. Like with what you've done, you really haven't established why not being able to climb with a weapon hand is some sort of problem, or why crawling only one space per action is a problem, or why you land prone if you take damage on a fall is a problem. You need to establish why these things are problematic to really have an argument.For example, people have problems with the crafting system in PF2, and I can understand why they do because they actually explain why it's a problem. For example, 4+ days to make a bunch of arrows is a long time for a small amount of ammunition. They've identified a problem and identified why it is a problem.With all this, you don't really identify why these specific rules are a problem. You seem to take more issue with the fact that there are rules about these things at all.I don't even know what you are talking about with the first feat (Are you talking about the Warden spell?) but the second feat is absolutely off. You can track down leads intelligently with any character, but the Investigator is just better at it because that's part of their class gimmick. I don't understand the problem here with that.I don't understand why you couldn't just let the monster fail trivially. It seems like your Barbarian was really clever and found an interesting advantage. I mean, if my badass monster challenged a 5E Monk to a climbing contest and he finds out that the monk is going to smoke him because he can just run up walls, that's not a problem with the system. That's things working as intended. If I wanted that to actually be a challenge, then I need to know how my monster works. And if your monster should be able to compete with a cloud-jumping Barbarian in a leaping contest, then I don't see what stops you from saying "This was my intention, thus this is how I'm going to do it". Maybe your view of that monster was different than Paizo's, but I'm not sure this is actually a problem.I mean, why does everyone need to be as good at everything as long as they have the same theoretical "skill level"? Why not allow people to specialize, so that my Titan Wrestler Barbarian is actually unique because he invested in that specialization and can now wrestle dragons to the ground, while your player's Barbarian can cloud jump around? That way we have different purposes compared to each other. If we could both do the same things equally, you just homogenize us and allow us to play exactly the same way, rather than making choices and having to deal with situations using the tools we chose, rather than just having all the tools all the time.I used to think that, but I've found out over the years that having visible structure for things can be a real help to new players: when you say "You can do anything", people just sort of freeze up with all their options. It also helps to have a good idea of what something will do rather than bargaining with the GM to it: instead of trying to hash out what could happen, you can just do it and have a good idea of what the result will be. I understand the aversion to it and depending on the game I can fall on either side.</blockquote>

Verification