Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Staffan" data-source="post: 9479763" data-attributes="member: 907">It's a matter of perspective. On one hand, if a rule says you can do X, well, you can do X. But there are also two other categories of potential actions. There are things the rules specify you can't do, and of course you can't do those. But then there's the grey area, where the rules don't specify either way – and that's what Snarf calls the Arnesonian space.But even that needs to be divided into at least two parts. There are some things the rules are genuinely silent about. But there are also the ones about how to do X if there are abilities enabling X, but you don't have them. To take a Pathfinder 2 example off the top of my head: there's a skill in the game called Diplomacy, which you can use to either make someone like you better (Impress), or to make them do things for you (Request). There's also a skill feat (upgrade) you can take called Group Impression, which lets you Impress more than one target at once (exact numbers depend on how good you are). So my Master Diplomat can try to charm 10 people at once. But what if I don't have that feat? Do I have to spend time charming each individual target? Or can try charming more than one at a penalty? And if so, how big is that penalty?Some would interpret the existence of a feat that says "If you have this feat, you can impress multiple people at once" as meaning "If you don't have this feat, you can't impress multiple people at once." And that's not an invalid interpretation – for example, you can't Treat Wounds on multiple people at once without the Ward Medic feat. But at the same time it rubs some people the wrong way – you should be able to talk to a crowd and impress them. And that's the tension.</blockquote>

Verification