Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8143624" data-attributes="member: 70468">As I understand it, 3e was designed to empower players by creating rules that was serve as constraints on the GM. That carried forward into PF1. PF2 walks that back in some ways and doubles down in others.When I say it walks that back, I mean it in many places, it says explicitly to ask your GM or that something is determined by the GM. DCs are almost entirely up to GM fiat now. The GMG also adds subsystems where the GM can take things completely outside of the usual action economy. You can see some of what that looks like in the <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/exploration-mode-discussion.675191/" target="_blank">exploration thread here</a> with the raid system [USER=7026314]@!DWolf[/USER] <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/exploration-mode-discussion.675191/post-8136254" target="_blank">posted</a>.The place where it feels like it doubled down is skill actions and skill feats. I think they went too far enumerating so many things. They could have provided a generic approach to skill checks that would have covered most of the bases, and it wouldn’t have created this confusion about whether or how a GM can allow PCs to do anything outside of the box.Skill feats are more pernicious. I think the idea of non-combat customization is a good one, but they need to provide more guidance on how that interacts with ad hoc skill checks and adjudication. We can make inferences, but being explicit would be better. With that said, they generally seem to let you do things you couldn’t do otherwise (e.g., do something without a check, which doesn’t mean that doing something with a check somehow invalidates that feat choice).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kenada, post: 8143624, member: 70468"] As I understand it, 3e was designed to empower players by creating rules that was serve as constraints on the GM. That carried forward into PF1. PF2 walks that back in some ways and doubles down in others. When I say it walks that back, I mean it in many places, it says explicitly to ask your GM or that something is determined by the GM. DCs are almost entirely up to GM fiat now. The GMG also adds subsystems where the GM can take things completely outside of the usual action economy. You can see some of what that looks like in the [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/exploration-mode-discussion.675191/']exploration thread here[/URL] with the raid system [USER=7026314]@!DWolf[/USER] [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/exploration-mode-discussion.675191/post-8136254']posted[/URL]. The place where it feels like it doubled down is skill actions and skill feats. I think they went too far enumerating so many things. They could have provided a generic approach to skill checks that would have covered most of the bases, and it wouldn’t have created this confusion about whether or how a GM can allow PCs to do anything outside of the box. Skill feats are more pernicious. I think the idea of non-combat customization is a good one, but they need to provide more guidance on how that interacts with ad hoc skill checks and adjudication. We can make inferences, but being explicit would be better. With that said, they generally seem to let you do things you couldn’t do otherwise (e.g., do something without a check, which doesn’t mean that doing something with a check somehow invalidates that feat choice). [/QUOTE]

Verification