MadScientistWorking posted:

Pathfinder 2E isn't perfect about this in their APs but typically speaking if you come across a feat involving log rolling your sure as hell probably going to be rolling logs in the book the log rolling feat comes from.

Also for the record most feats aren't that situational either. The log rolling feat basically triggers on uneven or narrow ground which is surprisingly more common than log.

Abomination Vault has a better example of this where the archetypes in the first and second book are specifically tied to deal with the challenges in the book.

EDIT:
Yes there's a log rolling feat for the record. I'm not sure if Arivia picked that deliberately.

Arivia posted:

RAW/RAI is a terrible nonfunctioning way to look at RPG books, please do better than that.

Arivia posted:

And exactly, no one is ever likely going to give up a class feat to do it. So what's the problem? It's an opportunity cost for something where the opportunity is nil. Pathfinder 2e is not about coming up with cool new plans and putting them into play to get an advantage, it's specifically the idea of using your existing proficiencies in the preconstructed set pieces.

If you're in a campaign where log-rolling is gonna be a big thing, then there's a bunch of subsystems to promote picking up log rolling.

It's not an issue unless you're making it out to be one, which is a common criticism of Pathfinder 2e - "I can't do everything I could in Pathfinder 1e with similar characters", when a big part of Pathfinder 2e's approach to character power and growth is specifically slimming down what characters can do and playing to their strengths as a direct focus.

KingKalamari posted:

The log rolling feat is an example of how this problem can become more pronounced, where a very specific action that will only come up in select scenarios, but would not require a whole lot of skill for a character to perform, has a feat with weirdly restrictive prerequisites attached to it.

Toshimo posted:

Toshimo posted:

To be clear, I think the Log Rolling thing has been presented poorly and the design work behind how it plays out portrayed even worse.

So, PF2E has a type of feat called archetypes, that handle a number of things including what previously would be multiclassing and prestige classes. Additionally, because Paizo acknowledges that sometimes you just want to have your players able to do cool dips, they added some rules to one of the recent books to cover giving players a free feat track that can only be used for achetype feats so that you can have these sort of distinctive characters without the push/pull of trying to work these feats into your class feat progression.

One of the things they've done with Archetypes is to create setting specific profressions/subclasses/prestige classes that get access to new and different feats that are placed into the specific adventures as opposed to their larger player-facing books. The idea is that, while playing an adventure, your players can "join up" with the locals and get access to some new specialized stuff. To me, this is cool. I don't get why that concept is painted in a negative light because any time I've seen something similar in various systems, where you can ally with in-game factions, players tend to eat that up.

In 1 specific adventure, you meet a lumberjack company. If you can befriend them, they'll induct you into their group and you get access to a few cool things. Yes, 1 of which is literally called Log Roll. But it's not specifically about log rolling and the description doesn't mention logs or rolling at all.

See here:


No, this isn't an "every fight" action. But it's the equivalent of Daniel-san learning to wax cars and paint fences in order to do sick karate moves. You learn to roll logs, and the next time you are on a narrow causeway or loose gravel or whatever, you apply your sick log rolling skills to get a better Trip action.

To me, this is cool, and sneering down your nose at "Oh, there better be 100 logs to roll" is kind of missing the point.

KingKalamari posted:

That's definitely a more reasonable system than it had been presented in the thread. As initially presented, I thought that these sorts of feats were competing with things like class and ancestry feats for space on the character sheet. Them using their own dedicated track makes them much more reasonable

Kurieg posted:

If it's an archetype feat you have to take it in place of one of your class feats. in addition to the prerequisite feat which is Also an archetype feat.

Basically Archetypes in PF2 are the design space for Prestige classes and multiclassing.

Piell posted:

The new common thing in PF2 is the Free Archetype variant which gives everyone free Archetype feats, so you don't have to spend class feats on them. Probably should have been core but at least its an official option now.

Kurieg posted:

So basically the way that Themes were basically assumed in 4E but Themes can now also be Multiclassing?

KingKalamari posted:

That's...a weirdly condescending reply?

quote:

But I don't think that really brings up the larger design issue that the feat was originally brought up as an example of, which is the general imbalance in utility of the various feats of Pathfinder 2e. It falls into much the same problem most other editions of D&D have had with feats, which is that there's a very wide gulf in utility from one feat to the next, and that codifying relatively simple actions with feats means that characters are unable to perform those actions without first taking the feat. This isn't necessarily a major drawback, but it's still a drawback to the design of the system as a whole.

The log rolling feat is an example of how this problem can become more pronounced, where a very specific action that will only come up in select scenarios, but would not require a whole lot of skill for a character to perform, has a feat with weirdly restrictive prerequisites attached to it.

King of Solomon posted:

Well, not anything. They're pretty specific that they will not tolerate hatred toward protected groups in products using their setting, which is important. A little narrow for my taste since it implies it's acceptable to use Lancer's rules to create racist properties so long as you don't use their setting, but it's something at least.

Kai Tave posted:

To clarify, it actually does say "setting or system" in that clause.

Arivia posted:

There's not really any other way to respond to "well this looks bad according to this very stupid idea about how to read RPG books from 20 years ago which doesn't match how people read books at all or have discussions with other people and gets passed around like a bad cold." If you want to make a criticism, say it - don't fall back on the sophistry of "well this feels bad if I silo my readings in these very specific ways that have no relation to reality."

Kai Tave posted:

To clarify, it actually does say "setting or system" in that clause.

thetoughestbean posted:

Okay, I’ll bite. What’s the problem with Rules As Written? Hell, what is Rules as Written/Rules as Intended as a method of critique?

Arivia posted:

"Rules as Written" is the strict idea that only the exact wording, punctuation, and grammar of the written rulebook's text matter, like it's the Ten Commandments or the US Constitution or some other holy text carved in stone. "Rules as Intended" is adding strictly the developer or designer's interpretation of the "RAW" text to interpreting it.

Neither of these methods match how humans read and write, period. Neither of these allows for any difference in reading between the readers, any other interpretations, or any understanding of the game beyond the most basic level of reading the printed word. (To put it another way, there are literary criticism techniques for solely looking at the text on a page, but they require a lot more rigor, care, and depth of analysis than you get from "RAW.")

They're shibboleths flung around from forums arguments about D&D 3e 20 years ago, and neither of them is actually a productive way to approach reading, understanding, or criticizing RPGs (any of them, whether it's Pathfinder 2e or Lasers and Feelings.)

thetoughestbean posted:

I kind of get you. Do you have any examples of stuff like this?

Arivia posted:

There's not really any other way to respond to "well this looks bad according to this very stupid idea about how to read RPG books from 20 years ago which doesn't match how people read books at all or have discussions with other people and gets passed around like a bad cold." If you want to make a criticism, say it - don't fall back on the sophistry of "well this feels bad if I silo my readings in these very specific ways that have no relation to reality."

thetoughestbean posted:

Okay, I’ll bite. What’s the problem with Rules As Written? Hell, what is Rules as Written/Rules as Intended as a method of critique?

Arivia posted:

That's the whole point that Pathfinder 2e is making though: there isn't any "relatively simple action" that people should be able to do without the game explicitly letting them do it. There isn't some "basic level of character skill" beyond the actual defined basic actions and untrained skill actions that anyone can do. Nothing else exists.

Arivia posted:

So the focus changes from "this feat is lovely because it takes away something everyone should be able to do" to "this feat adds a thing that you can do and that is explicitly not something else other people can do," which is how Pathfinder 2e already defines character capabilities starting from level 1 in the CRB with skill proficiencies.

Arivia posted:

Then you have the question of "what is the utility of this feat" - and that utility is a much more diffuse question, because Pathfinder 2e also repeatedly says that not all feats, archetypes or other options are going to be useful in all games. It's okay for them to print stuff that's only useful in "Jim's Log Rolling Game" because there's a bunch of tools (free archetypes, rarity and access, etc) to say "hey, this is good for this game and this other feat is not." And it's okay for Log Rolling to not be as good as the best feat for your class at level 4, because it's not a thing you immediately need to take at level 4, nor is it immediately restricted to one class (as it's an archetype), and it ties in with your other abilities regarding Acrobatics, falling enemies, getting enemies flat-footed, et cetera.

thetoughestbean posted:

I meant people using RAW as a critique/method of engaging the work, sorry.

KingKalamari posted:

That...doesn't sound like a good game design decision? If the feats are as weirdly situational as the log-rolling example is, there's no way that you're given enough of them to actually cover the full extent of what your character would be able to do

This is not even a criticism of Pathfinder 2e, it's a criticism of how you're presenting Pathfinder 2e as you're making this game sound like VTNL.

KingKalamari posted:

But that opens up the design problem that there is no amount of class resource that could cover all the actions a character could possibly do? Like, what you are describing is straight-up the straw-man people used to use to argue that players can't improve or reflavour their actions in 4e, except applied as a benefit to a system?

That...doesn't sound like a good game design decision? If the feats are as weirdly situational as the log-rolling example is, there's no way that you're given enough of them to actually cover the full extent of what your character would be able to do

This is not even a criticism of Pathfinder 2e, it's a criticism of how you're presenting Pathfinder 2e as you're making this game sound like VTNL.

quote:

But feat selection is limited, this particular feat is incredibly situational and most likely trumped by more versatile or effective feats. It's basically just cluttering up the list of options. You could apply this exact same line of reasoning to the ridiculously off-balanced feats and ivory tower design of 3.x, or the Crossbow Mastery debacle of Pathfinder 1e.

Arivia posted:

I guess? I'm not familiar with the strawman, but the idea is very much "you only do what the rules explicitly tell you you can do, not what you think you can do" - that's been one of the major criticisms of Pathfinder 2e from 1e holdouts, that they CAN'T do everything they think their character should do.

Pathfinder 2e doesn't really care about what you think your character should be able to do, it specifically dictates what your character can do and lets you move around in that space of gameplay choices. It's incredibly gamey with a literal whitelist of actions per character.

Roadie posted:

I find it weird to call PF 2e here 'incredibly gamey' when compared to 1e, the list of stuff you can actually do with any chance of success from the word go is much larger.

Like, remember, Pathfinder 1e is the game where you have to spend a feat just to be able to punch somebody without a penalty, restraining equal-level enemies is basically impossible without endless min-maxing, and you have to spend literally all of your skill points if you want your fighter to be good at both fishing and cooking.

Roadie posted:

As has already been mentioned repeatedly (and in a post that you replied to!) the 'log-rolling example' is not, in fact, weirdly situational.

Arivia posted:

I don't think you understood, so I'll try and rephrase it. Pathfinder 2e gives the GM and the group explicit tools right in the core system for deciding what the usable game options are for the campaign; what to keep, what to not use, and how accessible literally anything in the game is. This includes archetypes and feats. Because of this, the value of any game object beyond the most basic (off the top of my head, this would be ability scores, skills but not skill feats, and the basic action list) is always conditional on the predetermined style and agreed upon ideas of the campaign.

It's explicitly repudiating the idea of there being one big list of feats that you're always returning to, because you're instead looking at what is contextually available to your character in the campaign. You have limited selections, yes, but you're NEVER choosing from full felicitous access to everything.

Because of this, Paizo printing the Lumberjack archetype to enable being a Lumberjack in the Lumberjack game makes much, much more sense, as the whole way they are expanding the system as a whole is by facilitating specific additions to set up specific campaigns. You're not looking at "why would I take Lumberjack compared to the 220 other archetypes" you're instead looking at "what does Lumberjack do for me compared to the five other archetypes I have access to in this campaign."

Arivia posted:

I guess? I'm not familiar with the strawman, but the idea is very much "you only do what the rules explicitly tell you you can do, not what you think you can do" - that's been one of the major criticisms of Pathfinder 2e from 1e holdouts, that they CAN'T do everything they think their character should do.

Pathfinder 2e doesn't really care about what you think your character should be able to do, it specifically dictates what your character can do and lets you move around in that space of gameplay choices. It's incredibly gamey with a literal whitelist of actions per character.

KingKalamari posted:

And I think my other point of confusion is that you'd previously chastised someone for applying a very RAW-focused interpretation of the rules as a criticism of the system, while also espousing a very RAW-centric explanation of the system as a whole. I feel like this might be a case of you presenting your point in the same way you would to the 1e holdouts you mentioned, which are confusing to people like myself not already familiar with the existing discourse?

Lynx Winters posted:

I have never wanted to find out something like "Greg Stolze eats live babies" than I do right now.

admanb posted:

Somehow weird Twitter callouts seem soothing in comparison to an edition war between PF1e and 2e by people who play neither.

Arivia posted:

"Rules as Written" is the strict idea that only the exact wording, punctuation, and grammar of the written rulebook's text matter, like it's the Ten Commandments or the US Constitution or some other holy text carved in stone. "Rules as Intended" is adding strictly the developer or designer's interpretation of the "RAW" text to interpreting it.

Neither of these methods match how humans read and write, period. Neither of these allows for any difference in reading between the readers, any other interpretations, or any understanding of the game beyond the most basic level of reading the printed word. (To put it another way, there are literary criticism techniques for solely looking at the text on a page, but they require a lot more rigor, care, and depth of analysis than you get from "RAW.")

They're shibboleths flung around from forums arguments about D&D 3e 20 years ago, and neither of them is actually a productive way to approach reading, understanding, or criticizing RPGs (any of them, whether it's Pathfinder 2e or Lasers and Feelings.)

Liquid Communism posted:

That's a pretty reductionist take, unsurprisingly.

RAW is about what actually got published in the book, and how players who do not have the benefit of developers' knowledge of design intent and iterative playests will interpret the text.

Arivia posted:

They're shibboleths flung around from forums arguments about D&D 3e 20 years ago, and neither of them is actually a productive way to approach reading, understanding, or criticizing RPGs (any of them, whether it's Pathfinder 2e or Lasers and Feelings.)

Arivia posted:

That may be your interpretation, but the thousands of endless arguments it has spawned over the years on the internet are overwhelmingly in my experience "RAW is that only the written words mean anything and nothing else is valid at all."

That definition is also what got cited by Crawford and the GitP posters in the thread I linked.

e: i don't think it's worth arguing this point further, as both of us have different viewpoints of 20 years old forums lingo. Unless hyphz wants to pop up with specifically what he meant originally, we should probably let it go.