Pathfinder 2E Simplified PF2e?

[Thomas Shey]

Fair enough, I bow to your superior Wisdom score. It must just be our GM then, and not a feature of the text itself.

I'm now going to step back and be fair about this: its a common view of skill feats going all the way back to D&D3e. It was usually wrong there too, but for probably the same reasons: you usually have to read the text and note that what the feat is doing is modifying a process that is often not spelled out very specifically.

But that's the gig: its not spelled out. If its not spelled out under the basic skill system one way or the other, the presence of a skill feat that says you can do it under these conditions just tells you that it normally should not be assumed to be doable under those conditions. Anything else is extrapolating beyond the available data. But people have been doing it two editions of two different games now.

(I also should note that there absolutely are a few skill feats that are mandatory to do the thing needed at all, but they're things like the Magical Crafting feat, and its not surprising that requires some special by-in given the generally sharp lines the D&D-sphere usually draws between magical and non-magical things. I'm also not 100% sure they don't still do some of the "You normally do this thing with this skill, but this feat lets you do it with this skill instead" things which I'm not a massive fan of, but understand why its sometimes done.)

 

[Justice and Rule]

I roll my eyes at you rolling your eyes. It's super-effective.

Intimidation is particularly bad for this. The other social skills as well. It takes a minute to intimidate someone without a feat. You can only intimidate one person at a time without a feat. Intimidation doesn't last longer than a scene without a feat. This can be copy-pasted across the other social skills. So the canard has feathers, it quacks, walks and flies.

These are all coercion, and the whole "takes a minute" is wholly negotiable within the rules themselves. What it allows is that you can always do it in 6 seconds, or you can always hit multiple people instead of one. I've always found this sort of thing pretty okay, and gives me an idea of how something like coercion should generally work. I like it more for Diplomacy, actually, because I can put some generalized time costs on people trying to work different rooms.

Similarly, the whole "intimidation doesn't last longer than a scene" is largely meant to put rather logical roleplay limits on the table for a GM to use: you can intimidate people into doing something around you, but you can't make that last without something else at play, and there are always potential consequences even on a success. If your GM decides it's enough, that's fine, but you aren't entitled to indefinite influence over someone due to one check. Things like Lasting Coercion change that to a Week and a Month, which tells you what sort of skills you need to be a criminal kingpin.

To me, I like that stuff because not only does that help me understand how they intend it to work, I can start conceptualizing successes, failures, and different sorts of exceptions in my head before I get into play. YMMV, of course.

You can't start a rumour without a feat, and so on, and so forth. There's an argument that you could actually dispose of the skill system and just go with skill feats that spell out what your character can do.

You absolutely can. We've (not you specifically, the general we) had this discussion before, and if I'm frustrated it's not because of you but that this is always something that gets brought up. The only thing the feat does is make it so that you only have to make one roll and spend 2 hours (or a day, if you're the Dandy) doing it. That does not preclude you from spreading rumors, it just means that you always have this method open to you. If your GM says you can spread a rumor in an hour, that's fine. With the Dandy, they can just do that.



I feel like the problem is that because PF2 has so many of these rules that people think that these are the only ways to do something, but that's not really the case. You can still judge things by the situation, but these feats should be looked at as empowering the individual rather than excluding the masses: If you have a situation where someone could intimidate someone with a few words or scare a group, that's fine. But they aren't entitled to it like the feat holders.

 

[JAMUMU]

I'm now going to step back and be fair about this: its a common view of skill feats going all the way back to D&D3e. It was usually wrong there too, but for probably the same reasons: you usually have to read the text and note that what the feat is doing is modifying a process that is often not spelled out very specifically.

But that's the gig: its not spelled out. If its not spelled out under the basic skill system one way or the other, the presence of a skill feat that says you can do it under these conditions just tells you that it normally should not be assumed to be doable under those conditions. Anything else is extrapolating beyond the available data. But people have been doing it two editions of two different games now.

(I also should note that there absolutely are a few skill feats that are mandatory to do the thing needed at all, but they're things like the Magical Crafting feat, and its not surprising that requires some special by-in given the generally sharp lines the D&D-sphere usually draws between magical and non-magical things. I'm also not 100% sure they don't still do some of the "You normally do this thing with this skill, but this feat lets you do it with this skill instead" things which I'm not a massive fan of, but understand why its sometimes done.)

Man, years ago I used to collect money for a drug dealer. Taking a minute to Intimidate someone, then taking a minute to intimidate the next person in the room, and so on and so forth, would have made it a much more laborious task than it was.

Same with making an Impression with Diplomacy, or Performing. You need a feat to be able to use your Performance to distract more than one person in the audience. Now I ain't never been no gee-tar player, but I reckon that's phony.

But if it all balances out, as you say, then that's golden. It just doesn't pass the sniff test with the players at out table. The GM? Oh yeah, he thinks it works just fine. And so it goes...

 

[JAMUMU]

I feel like the problem is that because PF2 has so many of these rules that people think that these are the only ways to do something, but that's not really the case. You can still judge things by the situation, but these feats should be looked at as empowering the individual rather than excluding the masses: If you have a situation where someone could intimidate someone with a few words or scare a group, that's fine. But they aren't entitled to it like the feat holders.

Yeah I totes vibe with your assessment. I feel like PF2 is stuffed full of so many permissions and rules saying how things work in particular situations that the overall feeling is that without permission a player cannot do something.

 

[payn]

Yeah I totes vibe with your assessment. I feel like PF2 is stuffed full of so many permissions and rules saying how things work in particular situations that the overall feeling is that without permission a player cannot do something.

I think its an impression carried over from 3E/PF1. Where you could always do it without a feat but it was usually likely to fail and get your PC hurt. To be fair to PF2, I think they backed that off some for some of the reasons J&R states, but I still think there is an issue with cool fighting against utility in the lists. That's my biggest beef with PF2.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Man, years ago I used to collect money for a drug dealer. Taking a minute to Intimidate someone, then taking a minute to intimidate the next person in the room, and so on and so forth, would have made it a much more laborious task than it was.

Maybe you bought into the feat.

Same with making an Impression with Diplomacy, or Performing. You need a feat to be able to use your Performance to distract more than one person in the audience. Now I ain't never been no gee-tar player, but I reckon that's phony.

Wait, which one is that? Create a Diversion is actually a really open one that doesn't actually have a limit on how many people you can actually distract. Are you talking about Fascinating them? That's a bit different (and arguably more powerful).

But if it all balances out, as you say, then that's golden. It just doesn't pass the sniff test with the players at out table. The GM? Oh yeah, he thinks it works just fine. And so it goes...

Yeah I totes vibe with your assessment. I feel like PF2 is stuffed full of so many permissions and rules saying how things work in particular situations that the overall feeling is that without permission a player cannot do something.

I think that with PF2, people need to remember that most things are meant to be generalized rules and can be change in specific instances or circumstances. What they do, like all rules, is provide guidance on how to they intend most situations to be adjudicated. Remaining adaptable and flexible should always be the focus.

 

[JAMUMU]

I think that with PF2, people need to remember that most things are meant to be generalized rules and can be change in specific instances or circumstances. What they do, like all rules, is provide guidance on how to they intend most situations to be adjudicated. Remaining adaptable and flexible should always be the focus.

That would be a solid foundation, but the existence of this thread and people's played experience definitely suggest that the propensity of rules feels like a straitjacket, or at least something like a weight around the necks of players. And GMs! My thoughts on slimming down the rules stem from and center around wanting to run it without referencing minutiae every fifteen minutes and letting things just flow. If you get that from PF2 I'm happy, but our group keep snagging our wizard sleeves on the janky bits.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Man, years ago I used to collect money for a drug dealer. Taking a minute to Intimidate someone, then taking a minute to intimidate the next person in the room, and so on and so forth, would have made it a much more laborious task than it was.

Yeah, but this again confuses the map for the territory.

You don't need the Intimidate skill to intimidate people.

What the skill does, is for the most part, do so when there's no particular reason to be intimidated. its finessing your charisma and knowledge of people to make yourself frightening in a way that may make no sense.

If you're a 6'6" barbarian covered in blood red tattoos and carrying a great axe, you don't need the Intimidate skill. Similarly, if people know you're backed up by criminal sources that will Do Something Bad to them if they don't fess up, you don't need it; it might expedite things, but that's not what the skill is doing.

Same with making an Impression with Diplomacy, or Performing. You need a feat to be able to use your Performance to distract more than one person in the audience. Now I ain't never been no gee-tar player, but I reckon that's phony.

Again, look at what those things do mechanically. Don't confuse the common-English usage of things with terms of art. In the common English usage you can do all those things--but that doesn't mean it'll have those specific mechanical effects. Those are there because you're focusing your attentions on someone.

But if it all balances out, as you say, then that's golden. It just doesn't pass the sniff test with the players at out table. The GM? Oh yeah, he thinks it works just fine. And so it goes...

Again, I think that's because your looking at a term in a broad sense, when its being used in a narrow sense.


Again, ask yourself how easy it is for an unarmed slightly built man to walk into a a room with a dozen people, and try to intimidate them without outside situational context backing them up. Frankly, to claim that's doable without something pretty extraordinary seems to fail a sniff test much more than anything in the PF2e rules do.

 

[JAMUMU]

@Thomas Shey I wish our GM thought in those terms. That's definitely the terms I think in as a GM, but reading the text of PF2, I can see why GMs (especially) and players (hunkering over their online character sheets) play the game in the strictest, most literal terms.

As an aside, I've known unarmed, slightly built men who did not seem in the least but intimidating. Lovely guys. Clark Kents. Until they wanted to walk into a room and intimidate every mother-morber in the mother-morbing place. In those cases, anyone Trained in Assess Opponent knew who they were. As an aside to the aside, they were usually ex-special forces.

Anyway, i like PF2 and want to love it, and before I can love it I need to be able to run it comfortably. A lot of what you've said in this thread has helped me move towards that, so thank you.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That would be a solid foundation, but the existence of this thread and people's played experience definitely suggest that the propensity of rules feels like a straitjacket, or at least something like a weight around the necks of players. And GMs! My thoughts on slimming down the rules stem from and center around wanting to run it without referencing minutiae every fifteen minutes and letting things just flow. If you get that from PF2 I'm happy, but our group keep snagging our wizard sleeves on the janky bits.

But that swings both ways. Yeah, people are going to sometimes feel its narrower than I think its intended to be; but if you don't also have elements that spell out at least some specific cases, all that does is produce the always lovely "Let's play a guessing game as to whether the GM will let you do that at all." As without those would most GMs let you get the result Intimidate does on even a single opponent without the backup up I mentioned? Would you care to bet on it? I certainly wouldn't.