Close Match

[Dean HS Jones]

A skill feat to be androgynous, requiring that you be trained in Deception to use it.

I think this needs some rethinking before it goes to live for reasons I hope would be obvious.

[dragonhunterq]

Androgynous with a mechanical benefit - nothing saying you can't otherwise be androgynous.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

dragonhunterq wrote:

Androgynous with a mechanical benefit - nothing saying you can't otherwise be androgynous.

If you look at the Impersonate deception activity it doesn’t provide any mechanical benefit at all. There is no listed penalty for disguising as a different genders, races or ages. It’s both offensive and pointless.

[Megistone]

I can't check the rules now, but I remember the feat saying that you can impersonate a different, specific gender or race without penalties. This means that there should be penalties for that, and that they may be mistakenly missing.

As for why it should be offensive, I really can't get it.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

Megistone wrote:

I can't check the rules now, but I remember the feat saying that you can impersonate a different, specific gender or race without penalties. This means that there should be penalties for that, and that they may be mistakenly missing.

As for why it should be offensive, I really can't get it.

That doesn't mean there should be penalties for disguising as a different gender, race or age. The rules are clear: The player sets the DC that opposition must roll against for Perception. There's no need to be more complicated than that.

There are far better places on the internet than here to educate you on why it's offensive.

[Epic Meepo]

There should be no game mechanics tied to gender. In fact, aside from Close Match, there are no game mechanics tied to gender (based on a search of the rulebook for the word, "gender"). Close Match really stuck out like a sore thumb when I read it.

[CrystalSeas]

Epic Meepo wrote:

In fact, aside from Close Match, there are no game mechanics tied to gender (based on a search of the rulebook for the word, "gender"). Close Match really stuck out like a sore thumb when I read it.

Check out this thread

Non-Binary Gender Inclusion but with a Contradiction

[Megistone]

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Megistone wrote:

I can't check the rules now, but I remember the feat saying that you can impersonate a different, specific gender or race without penalties. This means that there should be penalties for that, and that they may be mistakenly missing.

As for why it should be offensive, I really can't get it.

That doesn't mean there should be penalties for disguising as a different gender, race or age. The rules are clear: The player sets the DC that opposition must roll against for Perception. There's no need to be more complicated than that.

I'll explain myself better.

The fact that there is a feat that removes those penalties implies that such penalties were in the mind of the developers to put in the game, but for some reason they didn't.
Apart from that, I think it definitely makes sense that an halfling has an harder time to disguise herself as an orc, or vice versa.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

There are far better places on the internet than here to educate you on why it's offensive.

I don't think I need to educate myself on this matter more than I already am. I know the sexual identity is a complex matter. But I'm of the opinion that getting offended (or even harmed!) because of a feat about how one looks is over the board.

[Xenocrat]

I can understand the desire to ignore reality in a fantasy game, but imposing a penalty for impersonating a different sex is a very realistic rule and one that existed in PF1. There needs to be some limitation on what and how often someone can fluidly identify as (rather than always resemble) or everyone can disguise themselves as an Apache gunship or red dragon without penalty.