Conditions

Friday, June 15, 2018

Conditions were a significant part of Pathfinder First Edition, giving a set package of rules to effects like being blinded or fatigued. You might be wondering what kind of condition our conditions are in!

For the playtest, we've expanded conditions to cover a little more ground in two different directions. In one direction, now any long-lasting effect can impose a condition on a character. These conditions might be defined by a specific spell or ability, and often include a specific type of bonus or penalty called a conditional bonus or conditional penalty. This broadens our definitions so that more rules can now speak to conditions as ongoing effects. In the other direction, we've expanded on the conditions from First Edition to create a solid set of basic conditions for the playtest. Some of these conditions cover common benefits, allowing us to clarify how multiple effects combine. For example, the accelerated condition increases your speed by a certain value, and the hampered condition decreases your speed by a certain value. You use only the highest accelerated value you have—it's not cumulative. So if one effect made you accelerated 5 and another made you accelerated 10, your speed would increase by 10 feet, not 15. Many other conditions are quite similar to those you're familiar with, such as blinded or paralyzed (plus some rules tweaks, of course).

Some of our other conditions speak directly to the new action system for the game. The two big ones here are quick and slowed, which increase and decrease your number of actions. When you're quick, you gain one extra action per turn that you can use in one or more ways, according to the effect that made you quick! For instance, a 20th-level monk with Enduring Quickness is permanently quick, and can use the extra action to Stride, to Leap, or as part of a High Jump or Long Jump. The haste spell makes its target quick, and lets them use the extra action to Stride or Strike. So, if our 20th-level monk benefited from haste, he would add Strike to his list of options for the extra action from the quick condition as long as the haste spell was in effect. Conversely, slowed removes actions and prevents the creature from readying actions. This, like accelerated above, is an example of a condition that comes with a condition value to indicate how severe the condition is. So, a creature that becomes slowed 1 loses 1 action per turn, a slowed 2 creature loses 2, and so on. These aren't cumulative, so if your barbarian gets slowed 2 by one creature and slowed 1 by another, she loses only 2 actions.

Let's look at some other conditions that have condition values! The frightened condition has a higher value the more scared you are, and this value is also the conditional penalty you take to your checks and saving throws. So if you're frightened 2, you take a –2 penalty to checks and saves. There's some good news, though, because fear tends to pass after the initial shock. Frightened's condition value decreases by 1 at the end of each of your turns, until it reaches 0 and goes away. This condition covers all types of fear, so there's no more shaken or panicked. Frightened doesn't automatically make you run away, but some effects give you the fleeing condition as well, potentially for as long as you remain frightened! The sick condition is similar to frightened in that it gives you a penalty to the same rolls, but it's more severe for two reasons. First off, you're too sick to drink anything—including potions! Moreover, it doesn't go away on its own. Instead, you have to spend an action retching in an attempt to recover, which lets you attempt a new save to end the sickness.

Some conditions reflect the relationship between one character and another—for instance, when you're concealed or flat-footed. In the office, we call these relative conditions (as opposed to absolute conditions, like stunned or deafened, that don't involve others). The two examples I gave are pretty straightforward. The flat-footed condition gives a –2 circumstance penalty to AC. Some things make you flat-footed to everyone, but usually you're flat-footed to a creature that's flanking you or that otherwise has the drop on you. With the new critical rules, that 2 points of AC can make a big difference. Plus, rogues can sneak attack flat-footed targets! The concealed condition works much like concealment used to—an attacker has to succeed at a DC 5 flat check to hit you. In the playtest, flat checks have replaced miss chances and other things that might fail or succeed regardless of skill. Attempting a flat check is like any other d20 roll against a DC, except that no modifiers alter your result, so you need to roll a 5 or higher on the die or you just miss.

Some effects that used to deal ability damage now impose new conditions instead. Enfeebled imposes a conditional penalty on attack rolls, damage rolls, and Strength-based checks equal to the enfeebled condition's value. Sluggish is similar, but for Dexterity-based values: AC, attack rolls, Dexterity-based checks, and Reflex saves. The stupefied condition covers mental effects, imposing a conditional penalty on spell DCs as well as on Intelligence-, Wisdom-, and Charisma-based checks. It also requires you to attempt a special roll each time you cast a spell or else your spell is disrupted (meaning you lose the spell!). Because the penalty from stupefied also applies to this roll, the worse the stupefied condition's value, the harder it gets to cast spells!

Finally, let's look at one of the conditions used frequently by the barbarian, as shown in Monday's blog. When you're fatigued, you're hampered 5 (the opposite of accelerated, so your speed is decreased), and you take a –1 conditional penalty to your AC and saving throws. Furthermore, your fatigue means everything takes more effort to do, so when you're fatigued, each action you use on your turn worsens this conditional penalty by 1 until the start of your next turn. So if you use all three actions on your turn when you're fatigued, your defenses are at a –4 penalty! In the barbarian's case, the fatigue from a rage goes away pretty quickly, but if you get fatigued from another source, it typically takes a night's rest to recover.

Are you looking forward to playing with these conditions? What do you think about the change to flat-footed? What conditions do you dread the most?

Logan Bonner
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest
51 to 100 of 219 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, one less use of the d% as there's no more miss chance. Hope there's lots of percentile tables in core rules!

--Vrock, Paper, Scissors


2 people marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Cuttlefist wrote:
Not a big fan of “quickened” giving you different types of actions depending on the source. Really unintuitive and messy, and basically means that haste and that monk ability don’t actually give you the same condition, but it has the same name anyway. Would quickened just giving you an additional action you can use for whatever really be that overpowered?
Probably not, definitely something to mention during playtest
I dunno. Casting 2 9th level spells in one turn seems pretty potent to me.
Considering that it will require a caster at least level 17 and spells per day is capped at 3, I don't see any issue in that.

It's a 20th level Wizard class feat to cast two spells at once, and even then they put a "same target" limitation on it. They are not going to let you have this capability through Haste.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Interesting. Fatigue seems kind of brutal, especially since each +1 is worth more. If I were a betting man, I'd say barbs likely get ways to reduce this, perhaps on the path leading to tireless rage (maybe something like "The first (& second, as a later feat) action you take in a turn, while fatigued, does not increase the fatigued penalty"), But I can definitely see the "to rage or not to rage" question being something more tactical. Like maybe you choose not to rage in the first two rounds, because you suspect that the fight won't last more than 5 rounds, so you won't deal with fatigue, especially when fighting the dude with a high-crit weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Looks good - simplified, and more depth. Works for me!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

One of my hopes for PF2 was that conditions would be less prevalent and easier to use. Not really sure about these changes as they seem very much the opposite

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yolande d'Bar wrote:
...it makes it harder for an attacker to roll miss chance, for instance, at the same time as an attack roll, unless there's two different colors of d20 that have been previously, verbally differentiated.

Absolutely agree with this. A flat DC 5 check is literally just a 20% miss chance. I always felt rolling d100 was a bit wonky, since 99.9% of the time probabilities increment by 5%, but the other side of that coin is that the vast majority of d% rolls are miss chance rolls being rolled in conjunction with an attack roll.

I think the only mitigating factor is that it sounds like people will get fewer total attacks, so it's a bit less onerous to have to roll two d20s for all of your attacks.

Silver Crusade

9 people marked this as a favorite.

The inconsistent naming convention is kinda bugging me. Quickend, and sickend, please!


8 people marked this as a favorite.

This and the Barbarian guide makes me kinda want to play a shield and spear barbarian. Spend 3 rounds trying to get the critical specialization for spears to weaken enemy attacks, then raise a shield in the fatigue round, the A.C. penalty and bonus cancelling out, and go on the defense for a round. Seems like an interesting exchange.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cuttlefist wrote:
Would quickened just giving you an additional action you can use for whatever really be that overpowered?

Yes.

Two-action abilities are balanced such that you can't do two of them in a round, but you can still do something else. This would remove the ability to balance anything that way; anything that can't be used twice in a round would need extra text to disallow it, or it would need to take three actions (ruining it for un-hasted use).

Three-action spells are balanced such that you can't apply metamagic to them normally, to the point where getting around that seems to figure into one of Cleric's capstone abilities. This would remove the ability to use that as a balancing point.

If quickened lets you do anything, it's really difficult to balance. You end up in a situation where you have to balance assuming people have it, and somebody who doesn't is in trouble.

Sovereign Court

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually, if you remake the Condition Cards for PF2, you really should include Poisons, Diseases, and Curse. I know they're afflictions now, but they happened enough that having a Card for a player under their effects would have been super useful. I mean my table uses the Condition Cards so much I need to buy a new deck already!

--HemVrock


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:
The inconsistent naming convention is kinda bugging me. Quickend, and sickend, please!

sick·en

ˈsikən/Submit
verb
past tense: sickened; past participle: sickened

quick·en
ˈkwikən/Submit
verb
past tense: quickened; past participle: quickened

I think it ends with "ed" for both, at least based on a quick Google search.


Paradozen wrote:
This and the Barbarian guide makes me kinda want to play a shield and spear barbarian. Spend 3 rounds trying to get the critical specialization for spears to weaken enemy attacks, then raise a shield in the fatigue round, the A.C. penalty and bonus cancelling out, and go on the defense for a round. Seems like an interesting exchange.

So long as you don't fight a lot of casters or things that force a save. Trading -1 to saves for +1 to AC is pretty risky.

Liberty's Edge

AnimatedPaper wrote:
edduardco wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
edduardco wrote:


Considering that it will require a caster at least level 17 and spells per day is capped at 3, I don't see any issue in that.
5, and that's just counting the options we know about, and not including preparing 9th level spells in 10th level slots.
From where do you get 5? Only Wizards has 4. And for what I have seen in other threads there will not be 10 level slots, the so called 10th level spells are just feats usable one per day.

Wizards get 5, including their arcane focus. Cleric's effectively get even more, although that more is just a bunch of heals.

I have not seen the same regarding spell slots. I've seen that the spells were feat locked, but haven't seen the same regarding the slots themselves. I recall the opposite in fact, but I may simply be misremembering or misconstrued that post. And to be honest I wouldn't even know where to start looking for it.

Edit: fixed the quote

Wizard get 3, +1 in the field of specialization (if any), + you can repeat one of the used spells if you drain your arcane focus.

So 3 + maybe 1 from a more limited list + 1 from a 4 spell ist. Not 5 spells without limitations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
edduardco wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
edduardco wrote:


Considering that it will require a caster at least level 17 and spells per day is capped at 3, I don't see any issue in that.
5, and that's just counting the options we know about, and not including preparing 9th level spells in 10th level slots.
From where do you get 5? Only Wizards has 4. And for what I have seen in other threads there will not be 10 level slots, the so called 10th level spells are just feats usable one per day.

Wizards get 5, including their arcane focus. Cleric's effectively get even more, although that more is just a bunch of heals.

I have not seen the same regarding spell slots. I've seen that the spells were feat locked, but haven't seen the same regarding the slots themselves. I recall the opposite in fact, but I may simply be misremembering or misconstrued that post. And to be honest I wouldn't even know where to start looking for it.

Edit: fixed the quote

Wizard get 3, +1 in the field of specialization (if any), + you can repeat one of the used spells if you drain your arcane focus.

So 3 + maybe 1 from a more limited list + 1 from a 4 spell ist. Not 5 spells without limitations.

They can also take a feat to get an additional use of their arcane focus, so that's 6 available to a specialist.


Diego Rossi wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
edduardco wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
edduardco wrote:


Considering that it will require a caster at least level 17 and spells per day is capped at 3, I don't see any issue in that.
5, and that's just counting the options we know about, and not including preparing 9th level spells in 10th level slots.
From where do you get 5? Only Wizards has 4. And for what I have seen in other threads there will not be 10 level slots, the so called 10th level spells are just feats usable one per day.

Wizards get 5, including their arcane focus. Cleric's effectively get even more, although that more is just a bunch of heals.

I have not seen the same regarding spell slots. I've seen that the spells were feat locked, but haven't seen the same regarding the slots themselves. I recall the opposite in fact, but I may simply be misremembering or misconstrued that post. And to be honest I wouldn't even know where to start looking for it.

Edit: fixed the quote

Wizard get 3, +1 in the field of specialization (if any), + you can repeat one of the used spells if you drain your arcane focus.

So 3 + maybe 1 from a more limited list + 1 from a 4 spell ist. Not 5 spells without limitations.

I didn't claim there weren't restrictions. I was correcting the number of 9th level spells a caster tops out at. And it's 5, with restrictions.

Of course, even that is just spell slots. Powers and Cantrips are also a thing.

Xenocrat wrote:
They can also take a feat to get an additional use of their arcane focus, so that's 6 available to a specialist.

Good catch, I forgot that.

Hmm, does it stack with generalists ability to use their arcane focus at their max level, and again at every level (including their max level again)?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pretty sure I caught that Haste is single-target now. Also glad to see that multiple Quick conditions don't stack to give tons of bonus actions - this solution nips that potential issue in the bud.

So... Bard?


Tholomyes wrote:
Interesting. Fatigue seems kind of brutal, especially since each +1 is worth more. If I were a betting man, I'd say barbs likely get ways to reduce this, perhaps on the path leading to tireless rage (maybe something like "The first (& second, as a later feat) action you take in a turn, while fatigued, does not increase the fatigued penalty"), But I can definitely see the "to rage or not to rage" question being something more tactical. Like maybe you choose not to rage in the first two rounds, because you suspect that the fight won't last more than 5 rounds, so you won't deal with fatigue, especially when fighting the dude with a high-crit weapon.

I had the same thought regarding barbarians reducing fatigue penalties. Maybe we've managed to tap into the dev's brain waves?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
King of Vrock wrote:

Actually, if you remake the Condition Cards for PF2, you really should include Poisons, Diseases, and Curse. I know they're afflictions now, but they happened enough that having a Card for a player under their effects would have been super useful. I mean my table uses the Condition Cards so much I need to buy a new deck already!

--HemVrock

I sure hope they make condition cards for second edition as they're incredibly useful.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I admit I prefer the Spooked, Shaken, Scared, Frightened, Panicked, Terrified system from Horror Adventures to Frightened 1-6, but I understand why you want to make the system as clear as possible. I can always reskin it.

I might have to get the thesaurus out for all the various numbered conditions.

Silver Crusade

QuidEst wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
...
...

That's what I get for quick posting from my phone. Thanks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Do we really need 4 different ways to have an ability score penalized?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sinistrad wrote:
Yolande d'Bar wrote:
...it makes it harder for an attacker to roll miss chance, for instance, at the same time as an attack roll, unless there's two different colors of d20 that have been previously, verbally differentiated.

Absolutely agree with this. A flat DC 5 check is literally just a 20% miss chance. I always felt rolling d100 was a bit wonky, since 99.9% of the time probabilities increment by 5%, but the other side of that coin is that the vast majority of d% rolls are miss chance rolls being rolled in conjunction with an attack roll.

I think the only mitigating factor is that it sounds like people will get fewer total attacks, so it's a bit less onerous to have to roll two d20s for all of your attacks.

On the other hand, any ability which lets you pick up and reroll a d20 will now apply to a miss chance, or similar flat checks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Do we really need 4 different ways to have an ability score penalized?

Since there's not ability damage or drain anymore, I would have thought there would actually be six such conditions: one for each ability score. The spell failure chance from stupefied should actually be part of the three mental conditions, applying to spells cast with that ability score.

That way, poison disease etc can just apply the relevant ability condition. And something like Feeblemind can just apply all three mental conditions.


QuidEst wrote:
Paradozen wrote:
This and the Barbarian guide makes me kinda want to play a shield and spear barbarian. Spend 3 rounds trying to get the critical specialization for spears to weaken enemy attacks, then raise a shield in the fatigue round, the A.C. penalty and bonus cancelling out, and go on the defense for a round. Seems like an interesting exchange.
So long as you don't fight a lot of casters or things that force a save. Trading -1 to saves for +1 to AC is pretty risky.

Hmm, I'd missed that. Perhaps I'll need the superstitious totem for it to work.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I've really been digging the overall simplification and cleaning up of various systems previewed so far, and I have played the playtest delve and loved it, but honestly this system feels like a big mess compared to the rest of the core ideas presented so far.

All of these conditions do different things and penalize different aspects of your character in somewhat arbitrary ways. Track all of them but only keep the highest ones, and remember which ones work against each other or cancel each other out? Some of them tick up when you do something while you have it, some of them tick up when you don't do anything, some tick down when you do something specific. Some of them count 1 2 3 4, others count 5 10 15 20. Quick giving an action that can only be used for a specific type of action brings us back to "what kind of action do I have? A move or a standard? Is this a standard?" type of stuff that I thought the playtest was trying to move away from. Trying to intuit and then remember what a condition does on top of all that sounds like a nightmare.

I can already see tracking these conditions and what they do becoming major pain points for newer players and even the experienced players at my table. Explaining which each one does over and over again and only take the highest one and do this to get rid of this one and this one gets worse if you do this. We're going to be explaining this 100 times every time someone has a condition.

If this is the replacement for ability drain and damage then I'm pretty disappointed. Dealing damage or drain to an ability and seeing the results of that damage naturally cascade down into the numbers through the core character system is so much easier to understand than this new condition system. I can see wanting to no longer track between panicked, shaken, stirred, etc -- but this doesn't feel like it's quite there yet.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Do we really need 4 different ways to have an ability score penalized?

Since there's not ability damage or drain anymore, I would have thought there would actually be six such conditions: one for each ability score. The spell failure chance from stupefied should actually be part of the three mental conditions, applying to spells cast with that ability score.

That way, poison disease etc can just apply the relevant ability condition. And something like Feeblemind can just apply all three mental conditions.

I think they're doing it for ease of combat design. For APs, you can generally expect that at least someone will be playing a full caster, in most cases, but not necessarily what caster (and thus casting stat) they'll be playing. If you just have one condition for all, you won't have the case where an encounter will wreck a party with a wizard, but will be cakewalk for a party with a Sorcerer.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

I'm guessing High Jump and Long Jump are multi-action abilities that give you a bonus over a normal Leap.

I really like the quick condition and how it stacks. There are two or three things in PF1 that act like haste but aren't haste so you have to figure out what stacks and what doesn't. With this, you know that any quick condition will only give you more options, not take any away.

The cleric spell blessing of fervor will likely give quick(stride,strike,stand, and manipulate*)

*is manipulate is the extra action necessary to apply metamagic to spells? Or is that called something else?

I can imagine a speed spell that gives quick(Stride) and accelerated(5) for super mobility without increasing stand-still attack potential.


Overall I like it, but I do have a concern. Flat footed applying to individuals and quick having a varying list of actions you can use with it depending on the source. Both of these just feel like they'll be a pain to track and kind of work against the simplification of conditions overall. Like how the 3.5 version of dodge applied to a particular target, while in PF1 it was a flat bonus which made it much simpler. This is going more the 3.5 dodge route.

And it is odd that the interactions between opposing conditions was never mentioned even while pointing out the lack of stacking with the same conditions. Do they follow the same rule and you only get the better condition? That doesn't make a lot of sense. But if they counteract isn't that kind of an exception of the no stacking rule? Or is it more that since it's a different condition they both come into play, which results in an effective stacking? This is an odd omission from the blog.


I'm not a huge fan of "Quick" giving a list of acceptable actions that varies from source to source.

I'd much rather the monk ability be worded like 5e's Bonus Action. It's a freebie that you get one of per round that can be spent on anything that specifically mentions it.

Honestly, I know it might be broken, but for simplicity's sake, Quick should just be a flat extra action.

Maybe specify that the extra action granted by Quick cannot be used to cast a spell if you are worried about casters running amok.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

What happens with a 20th level monk (Enduring Quickness) under the effect of haste and under the effect of slowed 1?

Does the slowed 1 remove both sources of extra action from the monk? Does it only remove one source, and the monk can decide if he wants his extra action to allow strikes or leaps? Something else?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like it. A lot of this has already been hinted at. Definitely some good new information.

Very good to get more information on barbarian fatigue. I think it is very good from a tactical choice perspective.

I like the way quicken works. While there is a bit more overhead for tracking the type of action that you can use with the bonus, this stops some overpowered options.

I think the various levels of conditions is the best element. Also some automatic recovery for fear is great.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

*Looks at two pages of questions/arguments about how 2E conditions work*

Ah yes, this will be much simpler.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
At first I was going to agree that giving an AC penalty was more problematic than a bonus to-hit for flanking... but then I realized something. You can't just give someone a blanket +2 to hit because they might decide to attack someone other than their flanked target. For instance, a Summoned Monster might not attack the flanked target and might instead go after someone next to them or perform some action other than combat attacks. So it's not actually more work. It's just different than what we're used to. :)

As I understand it, there is no flanking/flanked condition. Instead there is the flat-footed condition, which can be triggered by flanking among other things. The main difference is that this means it won't stack with other things that make a target flat-footed.

In PF1, you could have two combatants that beat an opponent on initiative both flank the poor sod for +2, and also attack the opponent's Dex-less AC because he was flat-footed. In PF2, it seems that doing so will be redundant.

In addition, there may be a greater emphasis on keeping track of things that make you better/worse at performing a task versus things that makt the task inherently easier/harder. For skill checks, this would affect something like Assurance (auto-success on skill check with DC X or lower depending on skill rank). While I'm pretty sure there won't be an Assurance-like mechanic for combat, it makes sense to maintain discipline about whether something affects difficulty or prowess.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:

I'm not a huge fan of "Quick" giving a list of acceptable actions that varies from source to source.

I'd much rather the monk ability be worded like 5e's Bonus Action. It's a freebie that you get one of per round that can be spent on anything that specifically mentions it.

Honestly, I know it might be broken, but for simplicity's sake, Quick should just be a flat extra action.

Maybe specify that the extra action granted by Quick cannot be used to cast a spell if you are worried about casters running amok.

It is definitely much easier if they define Quick in a universal way, and simply specify it can't be used for a spell. Then later, if they want a Wizard capstone feat or a monster ability to allow multicasting, the ability can simply remove that restriction from Quick, under the "specific trumps general" rule.

Liberty's Edge

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Furdinand wrote:

*Looks at two pages of questions/arguments about how 2E conditions work*

Ah yes, this will be much simpler.

A lot of those questions only exist because we lack the full rules. Also, many only exist because it's new, and there's always gonna be a learning curve.

So once we have the full rules and are used to them, it might well decrease complexity. We don't know that for sure yet, but the current confusion isn't really indicative of anything.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Furdinand wrote:

*Looks at two pages of questions/arguments about how 2E conditions work*

Ah yes, this will be much simpler.

A lot of those questions only exist because we lack the full rules. Also, many only exist because it's new, and there's always gonna be a learning curve.

So once we have the full rules and are used to them, it might well decrease complexity. We don't know that for sure yet, but the current confusion isn't really indicative of anything.

The other question is, is it simpler for beginners? Obviously, those of us with heads full of P1e rules are going to get them mixed up with playtest/P2e rules for a while, just like going from 3.x to P1e. The real goal is to make a ruleset that's easier to pick up from scratch than 3.x/P1e.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I really think this will be simpler, even for beginners. Instead of three different conditions to describe the same thing, it’s one condition name with a number attached. Works for me.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Joana wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Furdinand wrote:

*Looks at two pages of questions/arguments about how 2E conditions work*

Ah yes, this will be much simpler.

A lot of those questions only exist because we lack the full rules. Also, many only exist because it's new, and there's always gonna be a learning curve.

So once we have the full rules and are used to them, it might well decrease complexity. We don't know that for sure yet, but the current confusion isn't really indicative of anything.

The other question is, is it simpler for beginners? Obviously, those of us with heads full of P1e rules are going to get them mixed up with playtest/P2e rules for a while, just like going from 3.x to P1e. The real goal is to make a ruleset that's easier to pick up from scratch than 3.x/P1e.

I make the same argument regarding spell points. WE'RE going to get confused, because what good is a spell point that doesn't equal a spell slot? But for a beginner: "Most spells are cast from spell slots, some (called powers) you use a spell point, and some, cantrips, have no cost to cast," is probably not all that complicated.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Clearing up the conditions is legitimately a good idea. Stacking codified, even better.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Neat to know. Doesn't get me as inherently stoked as other stuff has, but it is good background info. I wonder if the character sheets will include something for penalty tracking-- a box for each condition where you can write numbers seems reasonable, and maybe it could even be formatted so it appears next to each relevant check. (though that would mean a lot of erasing stuff.)

The Barbarian fatigue is interesting. I think this raises the appeal of them raising a shield. +2 AC offsets the extra action and then they can get DR. Certainly looks like we will see some more variety than the standard two hander.

Definitely looks like the new "ability damage" will be easier to use. I don't think there's a Con damage equivalent condition, since it hasn't been mentioned and the Evisceration barbarian feat did what sounds like con damage but didn't have a specific name. So I imagine that will be less common. And I think lumping all the mental stats together is probably good-- you ever see the wizard set off the CHA drain trap and just shrug because it doesn't matter to them? I have.

I don't mind Quick only working for specific actions, but it does make me question if we need it to be a specifically named condition. I guess the advantage is that this saves room in spells and abilities that used to say "this does [or doesn't] stack with haste."


This reminds me very strongly of the variant poisons and diseases from unchained, expanded to all aspects of buffing and debuffing. I liked those rules a lot, but remembering to apply the changes all the time became cumbersome and confusing since all the adventures and stat blocks and class features and everything all continued to use the default system.

So I'm looking forward to this condition style becoming the default. It's very clean, and I eagerly anticipate the last time I ever have to explain the difference between ability damage and drain, and which things are and aren't affected by them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Cuttlefist wrote:
Not a big fan of “quickened” giving you different types of actions depending on the source. Really unintuitive and messy, and basically means that haste and that monk ability don’t actually give you the same condition, but it has the same name anyway. Would quickened just giving you an additional action you can use for whatever really be that overpowered?
Probably not, definitely something to mention during playtest
I dunno. Casting 2 9th level spells in one turn seems pretty potent to me.
Considering that it will require a caster at least level 17 and spells per day is capped at 3, I don't see any issue in that.
It's a 20th level Wizard class feat to cast two spells at once, and even then they put a "same target" limitation on it. They are not going to let you have this capability through Haste.

Wow PF2 really went hard on caster, I will check the playtest but looks like PF2 is not going to be do it me


2 people marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Cuttlefist wrote:
Not a big fan of “quickened” giving you different types of actions depending on the source. Really unintuitive and messy, and basically means that haste and that monk ability don’t actually give you the same condition, but it has the same name anyway. Would quickened just giving you an additional action you can use for whatever really be that overpowered?
Probably not, definitely something to mention during playtest
I dunno. Casting 2 9th level spells in one turn seems pretty potent to me.
Considering that it will require a caster at least level 17 and spells per day is capped at 3, I don't see any issue in that.
It's a 20th level Wizard class feat to cast two spells at once, and even then they put a "same target" limitation on it. They are not going to let you have this capability through Haste.
Wow PF2 really went hard on caster, I will check the playtest but looks like PF2 is not going to be do it me

Some people like playing things that aren't casters without feeling like they've made a mistake because casters always do their job better.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So, the first thing that happened when I read out the stupefied condition is that my husband started playing Stupefied by Disturbed (warning for coarse language), so now "I begin to stupefy" is certain to be referenced every time that condition comes up...

That said, I do appreciate that the English language only has so many synonyms for "your brain has been compromised", and confused, dazed, staggered and stunned have already been used in the game. I might have gone with 'addled', maybe, but the meaning of stupefied really is the most accurate for what it is being used for.

Dark Archive

I'm not a big fan of flanking applying the flat-footed condition instead of giving the attacker a bonus. I understand that mechanically it's equivalent. To me, however, there's a different feel to it.
Just in general, I like to give a benefit to the PCs, instead of a negative to the NPCs. It's better to give the players something good than the enemies something bad, even if it works out the same. You're rewarding THEM.
It also seems like it'll be very slightly harder to adjudicate regularly. Most of my players are pretty casual, and I can just about guarantee that as GM I'll have to remind them that they're flat-footed because they're being flanked every single instance that it happens. Which is gonna suck.
It's awesome being able to sometimes turn a PC's miss into a hit when I remind them that they're flanking in PF1.
It's gonna feel worse turning a miss into a hit when I remind them to apply that minus 2 to their AC and turn a monster's miss into a hit in PF2.


I think Leap action will just be a 1 action start a jump, while High Jump and Low Jump being enhanced by quick will be mechanics which deal with the fact that jumping in 1e had a limit on how far you could travel based on how much movement you had remaining in your turn, so this means that you could use the quick to extend the "how much travel remaining" by your effective move speed.


Do we need a lot of different rules for jumping in a game where characters are going to be literally flying a lot after a certain level?

I mean, perhaps that has changed with fewer spell slots, but I saw "all-day flying" a ton in PF1.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

The monk had extra jumping abilities in PF1, too. It's kind of a monk thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd actually assume with magic being reined in and skills being enhanced, jumping is going to be a lot more relevant.

Dunno if that means it needs lots of complicated rules, but it is a thing.

Silver Crusade Contributor

6 people marked this as a favorite.

For those worrying about complexity in play: it's admittedly a small sample size and anecdotal, but at the module demo at PaizoCon, we found the conditions very easy to play with, understand, and remember. ^_^

51 to 100 of 219 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Conditions All Messageboards