How do I respond to a player's criticism that the breadth of feats available in Pathfinder 2e is by its nature restrictive?

Question

Not sure how better to phrase the title. Let me explain.

I recently migrated a 5e campaign across to PF2e. One player has been resistant to this move. As an example, he asked how a character might perform a Feint-like action, but making the target flat-footed to an ally, rather than themselves. I referred him to Distracting Performance, which he said wasn't what he meant, but we reached a point in the conversation where he made the following claim:

For every feat that says "you can do this thing", that inherently means "if you don't have this feat, you can't".

In other words, the breadth of character choices is actually restrictive.

So for instance, a character without Distracting Performance in principle has no way by which to get an enemy's attention. This appears to be his main gripe with PF2e as a system, as he sees 5e as flexible enough that a DM can 'just sorta make it up on the spot as necessary'.

I don't believe that a system is superior because it's easier to fill in gaps in the system ad-hoc. I know there's creating actions, as a route for DMs to create new actions on the fly, but this is different to a character attempting something that's already outlined, but behind a feat wall, so to speak. I understand his point - a character shouldn't be blocked entirely from trying to grab a creature's attention, just because they haven't taken the feat.

So I think the root of my question is how to handle a character attempting an action or set of actions that's facilitated by a particular feat (such as in the case of Distracting Performance), without having that feat, but also without drastically devaluing the feat.

RAW, is it a straight "no, the character cannot do that until they have the feat"? Or is there leeway in the system for "a character can attempt it, but the DC is then modified to hard / very hard (+2 / +5)?"

Answer 1

It's always been this way

And it sort of needs to be; otherwise there is no point in character abilities!

In 5e, if my Paladin wanted to "hit someone in the legs to trip them" with his glaive, well, I'm not able to do that, unless I pick up some Battlemaster Fighter Maneuvers through a feat, multiclass, fighting style, etc. In 5e, if I wanted say that my Eldritch Knight, with her opportunity attack, casts Booming Blade, but I don't have the Warcaster feat... well, I can't do that.

For a lot of cases, we have Aid in PF2e (as Matthew Wells wisely pointed out). This would include the feinting for your friend case, but I would argue that flanking already covers that concept (and gives flat-footed).

But, in basically every RPG ever, there has always been limitations to a characters abilities. This allows for characters to gain these abilities, uniquely distinguishing them from other characters and giving them a since of progression and growth.

Taking the slippery slope all the way to its end, an argument that "things shouldn't be constricted by feats" is an argument that "nothing should be constricted", so everyone should have the abilities of every class at 20th level. But that's not fun, because that doesn't create unique characters.

A solution

I've had a few similar occasions with my rogue player in my campaign. My rogue wanted to basically muffle an enemy and kill them (the enemy was not unconscious or anything, just not suspecting the rogue to be hostile). I made a quick ruling in session (it was awhile ago, I think I called for a Grapple check, but said if she managed to succeed at that and take him out by the end of the round I'd say she did so silently - She didn't succeed). However, I then followed up with the player this way:

• I apologized to her: "You know, I wasn't a big fan of that ruling in the end, and I want to come up with a solution that works better for both of us." (I did it in front of all the players; I think it is important that the players see that the GM really does care about player opinion, and really does care about a fun game for everyone)
• I proposed a solution: "I think this would be best represented by the addition of some skill feats; I think it is too specialized an ability that just anyone should be able to do it, but I think its niche enough that it doesn't need to be a class feat or feature." (in your case, you could propose Aid, or your could homebrew something along those lines)
• I got the player's thoughts: In this case, she liked the skill feats I had made, and Rogues have oodles of skill feats, so she said "yep, that works for me."

This worked out very well for my group! Note that the "solution" doesn't have to be homebrewing new mechanics every time - reflavoring existing mechanics is often easier (Using Aid for a distracting feint is exactly this)!

The Problem isn't the Problem

Now, you say in your answer:

I recently migrated a 5e campaign across to PF2e. One player has been resistant to this move. As an example,

If I'm reading this correctly, it doesn't sound like your player wants to like Pathfinder 2e. So they won't. You can answer this objection, and they probably still won't like the game. I can't speak for what kind of player they were when playing 5e, but I'd recommend approaching them (personally/privately) and asking something along the lines of: "Hello friend! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that you might not be the biggest fan of Pathfinder 2e. It seems to me that the rest of the players (and myself) enjoy this system, perhaps even more so than 5e, but I want you to be able to have fun too! Is this a correct assessment? Can it be fixed short of switching systems back to 5e?"

There's a very real chance that your player says that it cannot be fixed short of switching back to 5e. At that point, you really only have 'tough love' responses, such as: "Hmm. Well, for the sake of the group and myself, switching back to 5e isn't an option. Perhaps we can both try really hard to approach next session with an open mind, seeing the virtues of different systems with different philosophies?"

If the player simply ruins the fun for everyone else and shows no signs of repentance, you may have to ask them to leave the group. This question and answer may be helpful then.

Answer 2

Feats allow abstraction of particular tasks away from the player, and ensure that certain checks will always pass. Unless a feat explicitly grants a new magical or otherwise supernatural ability, a player can still attempt the exact same task. They will face higher DCs, and may need to use more actions, but there is nothing making certain activities exclusive to feats.

The GM decides whether a task requires a particular proficiency rank.

-Skill Actions, Core Rulebook, pg. 233

General feats also include a subcategory of skill feats, which expand upon what you can accomplish using skills.

-Feats, Core Rulebook, pg. 255

If you're not sure what action a task uses, look for the most similar basic action. If you don't find one, make up an undefined action adding any necessary traits

-Adjudicating the Rules, Core Rulebook, pg. 491

In the scenario your player asks about, they would be making an Aid attempt to give another creature a bonus. This is perfectly allowable under the rules.

Answer 3

Frame Challenge - Have a Session 0

First of all, I don't have much experience with PF2e, but this issue seems more table interaction to me more than anything. You've written your question in a manner to suggest you're looking for a RAW answer, but that's irrelevant since the player's uncomfortable with the rules and you're the GM who can change the rules if that's what the game needs.

Session 0 is something that's appropriate before starting any new game for the purposes of determining what general tone and rules everyone wants to play by. Given that your group is making a major shift from 5e to PF2e, I think it's probably appropriate to have a Session 0 so that issues like the feats described above can be laid out in a manner wherein everyone can discuss and agree to what is going to be played.

From the way you've phrased your question, it does not sound like this occurred prior to the shift to PF2e, but that doesn't mean you can't still do it. Better late than never. In fact, there's some benefit because now players can raise concerns after having played with the system.

Regarding your player's concern, I would recommend considering the notion that he is correct. Jeremy Crawford spoke on this a bit a few years ago as part of the UA for weapon feats that was out for consideration.

To build on Crawford's point, I can personally attest to a LARP I play in where they were making major updates to the rules and were so overly specific that they ended up making it so that only Artisan characters could learn the skills Craft Beverage and Craft Food. This was a problem, though, because by RAW it meant that only Artisans could make food and drinks. Obviously, this issue in the rules strained believability for a functioning world; but for whatever reason the game's creator insisted it was perfectly fine. As a community we pretty much all ignored it until it was errata'd out about 2 months later.

That said, your player seems concerned that you may argue that somebody can't cook a grilled cheese without the feat Cook Grilled Cheese (given the plethora of feats in Pathfinder systems, I'm not prepared to say this feat doesn't exist). I don't know if you'd rule that way or insist on there being a rule written down that indicates that someone can make grilled cheese without the feat but they take a -2 penalty or something.

Either way, the best way to address the concerns your player is to have a Session 0 where as a group you can work out areas of concern held by all participants. This one player stepped up and push back on the system change, but they may not be the only one who has concerns which haven't been address proactively. Thus, a group Session 0 is a good way for everyone to express concerns without putting anyone under the spotlight.