It seems a common theme in these playtest feedback threads is that parties without a cleric constantly teeter on the brink of death/die and and don't have fun, while parties with a cleric don't have much of an issue all survive while having a good time
Right now it seems the encounter math makes clerics necessary to succeed without deaths the majority of the time.
Nope, you Need 20 Damage to cause a dent. As you ignore the first 10 Points of damage, the door only takes damage after that. That means in order to cause 10 damage to the door (and cause a dent), you Need to cause 20 damage initially.
This is actually unclear at the moment as the rule can be read 2 different ways. I made a thread about it here.
Putting aside the discussion of the DCs, I believe you may have just found a contradiction in the rules. Page 354 on the CRB says that you should double the hardness of doors and other reinforced objects (Assumedly walls and such), but page 7 of the bestiary has an entire section on demolishing objects and even table with their hardness and how many dents they can take, yet and makes absolutely no mention of ever doubling hardness.
I'm curious which one is meant to go by. Especially since the doubling hardness rule for doors means they'd basically be impossibly to tear down until high levels.
Item Damage, page 175 wrote:
An item can be destroyed if it takes damage enough times. An item reduces any damage dealt to it by its Hardness. The Hardness of various materials is explained in the Materials section on page 354. If an item takes damage equal to or exceeding the item’s Hardness, the item takes a Dent. If the item takes damage equal to or greater than twice its Hardness in one hit, it takes 2 Dents. For instance, a wooden shield (Hardness 3) that takes 10 damage would take 2 Dents. A typical item can take only 1 Dent without becoming broken. A second Dent causes it to become broken, though it can still be repaired. An item that would take a Dent or become broken while already broken is destroyed beyond salvage. Some magical or especially sturdy items can take more than 1 Dent before becoming broken, as noted in their descriptions.
So there appear to be 2 equally common interpretations of the rules for items taking damage and the text is vague enough that either could be correct.
Position 1: An item takes a dent if the total damage before subtracting hardness matches or goes past it's hardness.
Example: A fighter hits a wooden door for 11 points of damage. It is reduced by the hardness (10) to 1 point of damage, denting the door.
Position 2: An item takes a dent if the total damage after subtracting hardness is equal to or greater than the objects hardness.
Example: A fighter hits a wooden door for 11 points of damage. It is reduced by the hardness (10) to 1 point of damage, which does not dent the door because the damage actually given is not "equal to or exceeding the item's hardness" of 10.
This has come up in multiple threads and is especially important for how shields work. The sooner this gets a clarification the better.
See, that kind of ambiguity is exactly my issue.
As an example, let's say a GM is designing an adventure and wants to put a mountain that the PCs have to get up. He decides that this is quite a substantial mountain and that it's crumbling, sloped, and slick so he makes it a lvl 6 DC.
Now when the players get there, they toss a grappling hook up to the top with a rope attached and decide to climb up. The GM thinks this makes it 1 category easier, so he shifts the DC from 22 (High) to 19 (low).
A player makes a 17 climb check and is shocked when the GM tells him he failed. He reminds him that climbing a rope is a lvl 1 task and he has the cliff to brace against, so the DC should be 12 or perhaps 14 or 15 since it is in such poor condition.
Who is right in this scenario? As the rules are currently written, I'm genuinely unsure.
Basing the DC to break it down on the Thievery DC at all is problematic though. Because locks have diminishing returns and this makes it always harder to break down a door than pick the lock.
There's a point at which no matter what type of lock you put on your wooden door, it's still going to be just as easy to kick down because it's wood. and it's certainly not harder than picking it.
So when my group first ran the playtest we couldn't find any rules or guidelines on the DC to break down doors in the CRB, but I just recently managed to find it on Page 7 of the Bestiary of all places. And what I found was definitely......concerning.
For one, the DC to break open a locked door is equal to the unlock Thievery DC+5 which just doesn't make sense. Regardless of how fancy of a lock you put on a wooden door, it's still a wooden door. The DC absolutely should not be based on the Thievery DC at all, but the size and type of material of the door.
However, this page also held something perhaps even stranger. It also provides DCs for climbing up walls of various materials, and they absolutely do not seem to match up with the CRB. On page 338 of the CRB we can see that climbing a cliff is a level 2 activity, which when we check the DC chart makes it DC 15. Now the bestiary puts climbing wood slats as a level 5 activity which is a whopping DC 21 and is harder than climbing a Masonry Wall apparently. Something is definitely wrong when climbing wood slats is significantly harder than climbing a cliffside and even slightly harder than a masonry wall.
Overall, it seems that quite a few of these DCs were decided without it being considered whether they logically made sense. I think it would definitely be a step in the right direction to revisit these rules and change the Break DC for doors to not be based on Thievery, and make the climb DCs more sensical for what surface you're climbing.
Well upon checking there are more in depth actually guidelines for climbing and breaking down doors in the bestiary of all places.
However, they have some serious issues.
The climb examples contradict the ones in the CRB by being significantly higher. Climbing wooden slats probably shouldn't be DC 21 for example.
Also confusing, the break open DC for doors is equal to the Thievery DC+5 which seems very strange. A wooden door is still a wooden door regardless of how good of a lock you put on it.
Edit: Going to make this issue it's own thread for visibility.
I'm talking about things like climbing a cliff with a rope, having a wall to brace against, swimming in calm water vs stormy water, breaking a wood vs metal door down, etc.
Tables 10-3 through 10-6 list the level some of these ordinary tasks should be and at what level they become trivial, but make no mention of their starting Difficulty, just some factors that can affect their difficulty.
Also, the table is completely missing any guidelines on how to handle using Athletics to Break Open doors, chests, etc. It would be really nice to have example DCs or at least level/difficulty for things like "Flimsy Wooden Door", "Solid Wooden Door", "Solid Iron Door", "Adamantine Lockbox" etc.
However, Breaking Open objects is an Athletics check with default DC = unlock DC+5 for doors.
Where is the rule saying this is the DC located? I haven't managed to find it anywhere and it seems absolutely nonsensical that breaking down a door is harder because the lock is harder to pick.
A wooden door is still a wooden door regardless of what type of lock is on it.
Also, while I much prefer the Dying condition to P1e's dying rules -- no worrying about taking a level-one PC from alive to dead-dead in a single blow due to a high damage roll -- there really needs to be a better way to know what DC the PCs are rolling against to recover. I was jumping all over in the PDF trying to figure it out: class DC or ability DC but if it's a monster the GM may use a high-skill DC ... what? The encounter was listed as Severe 1, so I ended up using the Severe 1 option off Table 10-2, but I know it's supposed to be easier to recover vs. a minion than a big bad so one oughtn't just to use the encounter listing. Can there not be an associated DC listed in the Bestiary listing for the given monsters? Or in the statblock in the adventure?What DC to use for a recovery check is listed at the bottom of the Recovery Saving Throws paragraph.
Recovery Saving Throws wrote:
I just left my PDF open to that page for combats.
The only thing Assurance is really useful for is Athletics for climbing once you hit expert, since a playtest blog mentioned that the DC for climbing a cliff with a rope is a static 14 or 12 if you have a wall to brace against.
Part of the reason it's so poor is because it scales so slowly, but the bigger issue imo is that so many things that had set/known DCs in PF1 are now complete GM Fiat.
For example, in part 1 of Doomsday Dawn there is a door described as being made of ancient wood. We didn't have anyone to pick the lock, so I decided to force it open with Athletics. The GM decided that my roll of 19 wasn't enough on this "ancient wooden door" because the DC to pick it's lock was higher. His logic being that clearly the door must be meant to be an equally hard challenge to pass regardless of the skill used or any logical sense.
The first adventure limits your gear to what's contained in ch 6 and subsequent adventures have their own guidelines for what you can start with. If players started with potions or something that could certainly change how the adventure went and what feedback was given.
I'd definitely avoid deviating from what the adventure allows so as to make sure feedback is as useful as possible.
Enemies have attack bonuses that start at +6 as a minimum for a lvl 0 creature and only increase from there. Additionally, they can attack up to 3 times per turn now. Making these proposed changes would be suicide.
Trust me, it's plenty deadly. Try playing part 1 of doomsday dawn without a cleric and you'll get gritty pretty fast.
Look below the part you quoted. He says as much.
Natural Ambition grants a 1st level class feat. You can select any feat from your archetype in place of a class feat. Ergo, you can select an archetype feat in place of a 1st level class feat...
Am I reading this correctly that all magic items require 1 hour to identify now unless you take a feat? We didn't even bother identifying any of the magic items we found in the playtest because it didn't make sense to stop for an hour.
Overall, I feel like the time for Quick Identification should instead be the normal time, and Quick Identification should instead allow you to do it in 1 minute or less.
You specifically cannot use diplomacy on the goblins as long as Drakus lives. I'd hazard a guess the Drakus fight would've went a lot different for you had you fought that extra combat and the GM had remembered to give Drakus his Sneak Attack damage.
The Lost Star wrote:
Aidan Winlaw wrote:
Against Draxus, we were able to enter the fight with full health after the barbarian used some potions that she purchased with her starting gold.You actually can't buy potions to start as of the playtest rules. I'm betting this is a significant reason why the fight went so much better for you.
The Lost Star wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
It shouldn't be in the encounter, but it's such a minor presence that if it IS it's not really going to affect the playtest.
It actually had a pretty big effect on our run through the playtest. Drakus already had all of us but me low on HP and the rat (who has a whopping +6 to hit, the same as a lvl 1 fighter with 18 str) did about 3/4 of my hp and knocked me unconscious while Drakus mopped up everyone else.
I'll definitely pass along the word that it shouldn't be there though.
Your experience matches up with mine; The main difference being that we didn't have a cleric and our bard didn't want to be forced to take a healing spell, so we TPK'd to the Faceless Stalker and Giant Rat Fight.
Human Monk (me)
As high as the enemy to hit bonus is compared to PCs, you pretty much have to bring a cleric along or you're going to die.
I'll be running through it again with a different group that has a cleric on Thursday and will probably make a post comparing the two runs.
In the Adventuring Gear table of the Equipment chapter the Grappling Hook is listed, but is not actually detailed anywhere in the chapter. Instead, it skips directly from Formula Book to Healer's Tools.
It's fairly important that we have it's description as we need to know it's range and what kind of roll is required in order to land it somewhere when swinging it from a rope.
So the big thing about flying kick is that it lets you Long Jump and make a strike. A Long jump normally costs 2 actions and allows you to Stride and to make a check to leap up to your speed.
So essentially Flying Kick is giving you the potential to move up to twice your speed and strike as only 2 actions.
Upon reviewing the rule for climbing under Athletics, I realized that climbing is by far the biggest challenge low level characters will face.
Athletics, Climbing wrote:
PF2 "Running the Game" Blog wrote:
For instance, climbing a rope that's hanging in mid-air is a level 1 task, so it's normally a high DC (14), but it might have a low DC (12) if you can brace yourself against a wall while climbing through a narrow area, and maybe even a trivial DC (10) if you can brace against two walls.
Let's say we're a human adventurer. We need to climb up a 60 foot wall, so we throw up a grappling hook tied to a rope and brace ourselves against the wall to start our climb. It's DC 12 and we move only 5 feet on a success or 17.5 feet on a crit success.
Now, there's pretty decent odds that we're going to roll a 1 at some point and fall. You would think this would be where the Assurance feat comes in, but it only lets you get a total of 10 until you become an Expert in a skill, which you can't do for Athletics until level 3 at the earliest. At that point, you could then use assurance to receive a 15 and be able to climb up.
Basically the issue is this: From levels 1-2 climbing any significant distance is near impossible and continues to be so for many levels onward for any character that does not spend a feat on assurance and skill increases to get Athletics to Expert.
I'm currently struggling to understand if Perception proficiency can be increased or not. It's not a skill, so it seems it can't be increased with your skill increases.
There's the Alertness feat which increases it's proficiency to Expert, but that seems to be it.
So does this mean that if you're not a class with inherent perception proficiency increases like fighter, then you can't increase your perception proficiency past expert?
Gonna quote myself here on this issue.
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
I do have to wonder why monk only has 3 skill ranks while the paladin gets 4 and the ranger gets 6. It seems extremely limiting to put a class that was at the 4+ skill point level in PF1 to only 3 skill ranks while elevating Paladin from 2 to 4 and leaving Ranger at 6 in PF2.
I can't imagine it's an issue of balance since the Ranger (another full martial class) was left at 6 just like in PF1.
But maybe I'm missing something here. Thoughts?
Long Jump wrote:
So what I'm confused by is that we're told the max distance we can leap is equal to our speed, but a failure does that already? Is a success meant to override the rule on our speed being the maximum?
A direct hit with an alchemists fire does 1d6 fire damage which you would multiply by 1.5. Any other interpretation would leave the line about them taking 1.5x damage worthless.
"Splash weapons" are their own category of item and aren't a "weapon" in the sense listed there, so it's #2. They do 1.5x damage to swarms.