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
101 to 150 of 219 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
edduardco wrote:

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.

Is that martials cannot have niece things without taking something from casters?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
edduardco wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
edduardco wrote:

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.
Is that martials cannot have niece things without taking something from casters?

What was taken away from casters in this instance? Haste already doesn't allow you to cast two spells a round with it. Giving wizards a method in which they can do that is boosting them, not nerfing them.


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

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.
Is that martials cannot have niece things without taking something from casters?
What was taken away from casters in this instance? Haste already doesn't allow you to cast two spells a round with it. Giving wizards a method in which they can do that is boosting them, not nerfing them.

I never said Haste alowed casting extra spells. But that ability seems to imply quicken spell is gone


4 people marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
edduardco wrote:

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.
Is that martials cannot have niece things without taking something from casters?

Casters are way higher powered than non-casters in PF1. In order to rebalance, PF2 is boosting non-casters a bit, and reining casters in a bit. It's also giving a bunch of cool new stuff to everyone. I understand some of that is frustrating for long-time caster players (I'm one myself) but it had to be done. Frankly, Haste is one of the most obviously overpowered spells for its level in PF1, trimming it was long overdue. Now, is there going to be no equivalent of Quicken Spell at all? I'm hoping losing Quicken isn't necessary, but maybe the designers decided it was. On the flip side, it looks like there are a number of 1-action spells now.

Regarding the concern that the conditions are too complicated: They're in fact simplified here. The scaling by numbers is much easier to remember than the thesaurus-based description (was "scared" worse than "frightened"?), and the rules for moving up and down the scale can be unified easily (a critical fail on your save gives you the condition at grade 2). This system also greatly simplifies the matters of stacking.

That said, there's one thing I'm not sure of: We have both quick and accelerated. We'll have to remember which is which. Same goes for slowed and hampered. These things could maybe be merged.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Quicken seems unneccesary as still/silent/eschew reduce the actions associated with a spell, similar to what quicken did in 1e reducing the action needed for the spell to a swift instead of a standard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

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.

What different rules? Nothing here suggests there would be any more different types of jumping than 1e had.


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

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.
Is that martials cannot have niece things without taking something from casters?
What was taken away from casters in this instance? Haste already doesn't allow you to cast two spells a round with it. Giving wizards a method in which they can do that is boosting them, not nerfing them.
I never said Haste alowed casting extra spells. But that ability seems to imply quicken spell is gone

Quicken spell is not a condition it’s metamagic and I’m pretty sure it’s been mentioned as in the game. However, given the rest of the metamagic feats are used by adding extra actions I’m not sure what quicken is going to cost. Higher spell slot?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

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.

Really? The arcane spell is 5th level, personal and slow, the magic items are pricey, air walk is not the same (and has a relatively short duration).

AFAIK the only class that can do that reliably and early is the wild shaping druid.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
gwynfrid wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
edduardco wrote:

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.
Is that martials cannot have niece things without taking something from casters?

Casters are way higher powered than non-casters in PF1. In order to rebalance, PF2 is boosting non-casters a bit, and reining casters in a bit. It's also giving a bunch of cool new stuff to everyone. I understand some of that is frustrating for long-time caster players (I'm one myself) but it had to be done. Frankly, Haste is one of the most obviously overpowered spells for its level in PF1, trimming it was long overdue. Now, is there going to be no equivalent of Quicken Spell at all? I'm hoping losing Quicken isn't necessary, but maybe the designers decided it was. On the flip side, it looks like there are a number of 1-action spells now.

Regarding the concern that the conditions are too complicated: They're in fact simplified here. The scaling by numbers is much easier to remember than the thesaurus-based description (was "scared" worse than "frightened"?), and the rules for moving up and down the scale can be unified easily (a critical fail on your save gives you the condition at grade 2). This system also greatly simplifies the matters of stacking.

That said, there's one thing I'm not sure of: We have both quick and accelerated. We'll have to remember which is which. Same goes for slowed and hampered. These things could maybe be merged.

If, someone has said, haste is again a single target spell, we will see it way less on the battefield. And it was one of the best buffs for marials.

With a base of 3 spells slot at that level I would privilege personal defense spell first. Maybe it can be hightened to target more people, but that would require some careful consideration about costs.


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

I think y'all are missing the potential of a flat-footed condition vs a flanking bonus. For one, assuming the condition is applied universally (and not just to specific actions), that means a rogue can sneak attack with a ranged weapon when their allies are flanking. The big bad is distracted by two beefy swordsdudes, and the rogue can unleash holy retribution on those heretics. The sorcerer now has a higher chance to crit their ray of disintigration by virtue of their allies flanking it. This is just speculation, but could open some really awesome strategic options! (Summon monster anyone?)

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Camellen wrote:
I think y'all are missing the potential of a flat-footed condition vs a flanking bonus. For one, assuming the condition is applied universally (and not just to specific actions), that means a rogue can sneak attack with a ranged weapon when their allies are flanking. The big bad is distracted by two beefy swordsdudes, and the rogue can unleash holy retribution on those heretics. The sorcerer now has a higher chance to crit their ray of disintigration by virtue of their allies flanking it. This is just speculation, but could open some really awesome strategic options! (Summon monster anyone?)

I read that differently from you. To me: "usually you're flat-footed to a creature that's flanking you " means that only the flanking creatures treat the one in the middle as flat-footed.

Can anyone clarify that?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Camellen wrote:
I think y'all are missing the potential of a flat-footed condition vs a flanking bonus. For one, assuming the condition is applied universally (and not just to specific actions), that means a rogue can sneak attack with a ranged weapon when their allies are flanking. The big bad is distracted by two beefy swordsdudes, and the rogue can unleash holy retribution on those heretics. The sorcerer now has a higher chance to crit their ray of disintigration by virtue of their allies flanking it. This is just speculation, but could open some really awesome strategic options! (Summon monster anyone?)

I had considered the effect on other people attacks but waited to see if it is a universal effect. Hadn't thought about using summoned monsters. In PF1 they are generally weak unless you take the feats to strengthen them (or you are a summoner).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the quick conditions having limitations on the possible action types. This helps to balance different effects that give extra actions. It's also possible to give Monsters Quick 2 but only to make some special attack...

If the rules will not already state so, I will probably rule that Slow takes away your normal actions when you are targetted by both Quick and Slow. So you still have actions but only your limited options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Ectar wrote:
Camellen wrote:
I think y'all are missing the potential of a flat-footed condition vs a flanking bonus. For one, assuming the condition is applied universally (and not just to specific actions), that means a rogue can sneak attack with a ranged weapon when their allies are flanking. The big bad is distracted by two beefy swordsdudes, and the rogue can unleash holy retribution on those heretics. The sorcerer now has a higher chance to crit their ray of disintigration by virtue of their allies flanking it. This is just speculation, but could open some really awesome strategic options! (Summon monster anyone?)

I read that differently from you. To me: "usually you're flat-footed to a creature that's flanking you " means that only the flanking creatures treat the one in the middle as flat-footed.

Can anyone clarify that?

"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."

I should have re-read that bit. Oh well, we can always hope! I'm always excited for options that might make combat a little more exciting. Maybe a feat (like the teamwork feats) that treats an enemy as flat-footed to you if allies are flanking you? We could get some pretty exciting builds out of this!


I'd expect there to be a rogue feat where you consider something being flanked as being flat footed. We had it in 4th ed. I'd expect it in this edition


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I suspect the main reason flat-footed and flanking are now one and the same is to cut down on the total number of ways to boost your accuracy, really. With PF2's math if they retained PF1 levels of circumstantial bonuses then the amount of DPR would quickly spiral out of control.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
Yeesh, I'm suddenly very worried about the Barbarian... It sounds like on the fatigued round you're basically going to be dead weight.

Isn't that the whole point?


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

4 different ways? I'd count "apply the relevant condition" as one way. What are the other three?

Milo v3 wrote:
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.

Interesting. I assumed that Leap is the normal move available to everyone, and High Jump and Long Jump are Monk features or feats that give more impressive jumping actions.

_
glass.


JulianW wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Yeesh, I'm suddenly very worried about the Barbarian... It sounds like on the fatigued round you're basically going to be dead weight.
Isn't that the whole point?

Yeah, everyone seems to want their cake and Edith too, these days.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Looks very good to me! A couple of points I'd like to make; first of all, is there any reason why *all* conditions shouldn't work mechanically the same way, i.e. 'Enfeebled 2', 'Sick 4' or 'Sluggish 3'? I think it'd be more consistent and elegant that way, also easier to keep track of all the conditions.

Secondly, I hope the system works like the "condition track" in 4E, so that you won't instantly get hit with SoS/SoD -effects. For example, if you are savaged by a ghoul, you are first 'sluggish' or 'staggered' or whatever, maybe even 'sluggish 1'. Then, each failed save would either improve or worsen the condition by one step, until you're finally either paralyzed or freed from the effect.

Thirdly, I wish we could get rid of 'flat-footed' as a term, because I'm sure there are better words in English to describe the condition.


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

It does not matter. A lvl 5 wizard with haste would be able to cast 2 lvl 3 spells too. The lvl requirment itself for the spell is irrelevant, all wizards would be able to cast 2 spells per round, and it does not need to be max lvl spells. A 9th lvl wizard could cast a lvl 5 and a lvl 3 spell in the same round for example.

So unless your point is "casting 2 spells per round is not overpowered", the level requirement is not important. And if your point is that, I disagree, and DnD 3.0 already playtested that for a long time, which is why 3.5 nerfed Haste.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I'd expect there to be a rogue feat where you consider something being flanked as being flat footed. We had it in 4th ed. I'd expect it in this edition

Someone who is flanked is flat footed for those who flank him, rogues or not.

This is just a clearing of the wording. In 3.0/3.5/3.PF, flanking gave you a +2 bonus to hit, which was a different thing from flat footed (which was a loss of DEX), but then we had an exception that said that flanked characters counted as flat footed characters for the sneak attack, but not for the rest of flat footed rules (like loss of DEX).

This solution is simpler, and more elegant. Because Flat Footed now is a -2 to AC, effectively the same as the flanking bonus, we don't need a sub-rule specifying some tid bits for the rogue. Flanked guys are flat footed, that's it. Rogues already sneak vs flat footed guys.

About Camellen's question, besides flanking giving flat footed to the flankers, I think it's something to be expected that some abilities or skill feats have flat footed for conditional sitiuations. For example, "Feint" can be something you do with bluff, that make the target flat footed, but only vs you, or only vs your first attack, depending on Feint's level, success, and resources spent to get it (number of feats for feint, improved, great feint, etc)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nice, I like. I think that:
- the names are rather intuitive
- haste should work well
- adding a number to a condition instead of coming up with a myriad synonyms for different things is definitely better
- flat-footed being a condition allows for it being flat-footed towards anyone and drawing attacks like a magnet (really lethal!)
- the ones that substitute ability damage are absolutely reasonable (and smart, considering stupefied hits all 3 casting stats)
- and fatigue doesn't sound too terrible a price to pay for raging (and still undesirable in general, but no deal-breaker).

I'm also having this fun mental image of people retching for various rounds and just failing their vomit check, but I don't dislike it (and puking was exactly what my alchemist did when she was bitten by a venomous giant bug of some kind, nice to see it formalized).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This is the first blog post that I think is poor design.

We have a multitude of conditions. Some stack (frightened) some don't (haste). Some are flat modifiers, some are variable modifiers (depending on the number after the condition). All have different ways to remove them.

Yes they will be interesting individually but the lack of coherence is messy.

For all this talk about how the 1e action economy is clunky and how difficult the stacking of bonuses is ... now we have this. Yes the conditions are cool but they are all different and they all need to be learnt


2 people marked this as a favorite.

How will the same condition stack/not stack?

Let's say I have Slow 2 for five rounds.

Then something puts Slow 1 on me for ten rounds.

Am I immune to the Slow 1, because I already have Slow 2? Or do I have to track both (lose Slow 2 at round five, at which point Slow 1 shows up for those last five rounds)?


gustavo iglesias wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I'd expect there to be a rogue feat where you consider something being flanked as being flat footed. We had it in 4th ed. I'd expect it in this edition
Someone who is flanked is flat footed for those who flank him, rogues or not.

Right. But that's not what the feat does. It allows someone the rogue isn't flanking to be considered flat-footed for the rogue so long as the creature is being flanked by 2 other allies. This allows 3 people to be "flanking" a target without having to do the 5-foot step shuffle (which is no longer a quasi-free action but now an action). It also lets rogue's get sneak attack on ranged attacks so long as a target is being flanked by allies.

Overall I am open to the blog content. It's definitely different. But I'll have to see how it plays out to see if it's better, worse or simply different.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
John Whyte wrote:

This is the first blog post that I think is poor design.

We have a multitude of conditions. Some stack (frightened) some don't (haste). Some are flat modifiers, some are variable modifiers (depending on the number after the condition). All have different ways to remove them.

Yes they will be interesting individually but the lack of coherence is messy.

For all this talk about how the 1e action economy is clunky and how difficult the stacking of bonuses is ... now we have this. Yes the conditions are cool but they are all different and they all need to be learnt

In Pathfinder, frightened conditions stacked, except they usually had text saying they didn’t stack in that particular case. I suspect that learning the conditions will be clearer for a new player than learning the PF1 conditions. (See: people running ability damage in different ways, arguments over what exactly a negative level impacts, etc.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JRutterbush wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
Okay, I'm calling it now: getting reliable access to the "Quick" condition is going to be a staple of high-level play.
And then, three or four books from now, we'll see the first ability that gives access to the fabled "Quick 2" condition.

How about a lesser timestop that gives you Quick 3, but with the conditions of a timestop spell? That could make for some fun new ways to access stuff.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Stone Dog wrote:
That fatigue round is pretty rough for a barbarian, at least on a second glance considering this blog. I wonder what sort of things a rage actually does now that covers this hindrance?

It's one round of taking a breather and 3 rounds of badassery. I'm pretty sure there will be plenty of reasons to like the new barbarian.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I'd expect there to be a rogue feat where you consider something being flanked as being flat footed. We had it in 4th ed. I'd expect it in this edition
Someone who is flanked is flat footed for those who flank him, rogues or not.

Right. But that's not what the feat does. It allows someone the rogue isn't flanking to be considered flat-footed for the rogue so long as the creature is being flanked by 2 other allies. This allows 3 people to be "flanking" a target without having to do the 5-foot step shuffle (which is no longer a quasi-free action but now an action). It also lets rogue's get sneak attack on ranged attacks so long as a target is being flanked by allies.

Overall I am open to the blog content. It's definitely different. But I'll have to see how it plays out to see if it's better, worse or simply different.

How about a archer rogue with alchemy who uses poisoned arrows and tanglefoot bags?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am very pleased at the cutting down, I think Dazed and Dazzled can be rolled into one, while we're at it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheFinish wrote:
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. :)

Flanking was only +2 to hit versus the flanked target and nobody else in PF1, and we didn't have problems with it then.

Mechanically, +2 to hit and -2 to AC both work out the same with the new 4 degrees of success except in some edge cases. But "I have +2 to hit this dude" is a bit easier to remember than "This dude has -2 AC versus my attacks".

I mean, in the games I've played it I never saw anybody confused about their flanking bonus, but I have had to pull out the rulebook more than once to show a GM that a prone enemy is at -4 AC versus an attacker in melee, the attacker doesn't get +4 to hit.

It's not a deal breaker, it'll just take some getting used to.

Not a deal breaker, but it does make more sense the other way. A situational AC modifier that only applies to one or two enemies is odd, whereas to hit bonuses are personal in the first place.

Anyway some of these changes look good (like ditching ability damage in favor of conditions), but wow there is an absurd amount of bookkeeping with some of these. I'll echo what John Whyte said above- the fact that they operate in entirely different ways makes it a mess. Some increment, some don't, some stack, some don't, versions of the same condition at a mess of other conditionals (you'd think slow specifically would be bad enou on its own without a bunch of other details on top)

Stupefying is another horror. Penalty to ALL mental DCs and checks AND the possibility to lose spells? I'd hate to see that in something spamable on either side of the screen, or at low level at all. It's a one stop shop for shutting down all casters and probably some innate abilities as well.


I really dig the new Flat-Footed, I just wish they'd drop TAC.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

We misplayed it in the playtest demo on Wednesday. We thought that the opponent got the flat-footed condition because he was flanked and it didn't matter that a non-flanker was the one attacking.

I'd think as a _condition_ I think it would make more sense as we misplayed it. As a conditional bonus/penalty it makes more sense to be evaluated in terms of the attacker.


Love: that fear now automatically lessens over time, so you can get back into the fight and perhaps even contribute.

Hate: that quickened grants different types of bonus actions depending on the source of the condition. Just make it 1 bonus action across the board and be done with it.

Meh: new number stacking vs old progressively worse conditions. IMO, the old way was pretty simple and easy to keep track of, and this new way looks just as simple and easy to keep track of.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I'd expect there to be a rogue feat where you consider something being flanked as being flat footed. We had it in 4th ed. I'd expect it in this edition

We also had it in PF1, it's called Gang Up.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Whyte wrote:

This is the first blog post that I think is poor design.

We have a multitude of conditions. Some stack (frightened) some don't (haste). Some are flat modifiers, some are variable modifiers (depending on the number after the condition). All have different ways to remove them.

Yes they will be interesting individually but the lack of coherence is messy.

For all this talk about how the 1e action economy is clunky and how difficult the stacking of bonuses is ... now we have this. Yes the conditions are cool but they are all different and they all need to be learnt

I disagree. It seems like in PF1 that every single condition had 2-5 things you had to memorize.

As a GM, I hope they make it easier to run monsters without having to internalize ALL the rules associated with each keyword. For example in first edition now, if something says "incorporeal" or "swarm" or "engulf" you know you're going to have to look stuff up in order to avoid running stuff incorrectly.

And right now, you have to know how stunning affects AC, the nuances between frightened vs. panicked, and so on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:

How will the same condition stack/not stack?

Let's say I have Slow 2 for five rounds.

Then something puts Slow 1 on me for ten rounds.

Am I immune to the Slow 1, because I already have Slow 2? Or do I have to track both (lose Slow 2 at round five, at which point Slow 1 shows up for those last five rounds)?

You are slow 2 for 5, then Slow 1 for 5: since only highest applies each time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It'd be interesting to see if some of the conditions had a sort of max where they'd become lethal. For example for the frightened condition if it got to equal or greater than your WIS score then you'd have to make Fort saves or have a heart attack, or maybe something like that. Maybe for the sickened condition if it reaches your CON score than you fall unconscious or can't take any actions until the sickness is completely gone.
I like all what they're going for for simplifying all the conditions, but having so many different ways for them to work makes them not as clear. Having some things stack and some things not shouldn't be to hard to remember.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like this new way of codifying conditions. Stuff like Shaken/Frightened/Panicked/Cowering, Sickened and Nauseated somehow being related conditions despite having nothing in common, and ability penalties versus damage versus drain were all weird decisions that made the game pointlessly complicated and harder to learn or play. This also helps cut down on word counts for various abilities - "The target gains Accelerated 10" is much shorter than "The target gains a +10' Enhancement bonus to their base land speed", for instance. With all the space that saves they can put more content into each book!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
necromental wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I'd expect there to be a rogue feat where you consider something being flanked as being flat footed. We had it in 4th ed. I'd expect it in this edition
We also had it in PF1, it's called Gang Up.

It existed in 4th ed so that fact must be brought up.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
It existed in 4th ed so that fact must be brought up.

yep

Speaking as someone who wasn't shy about his significant disappointment in 4E as a game system, there are tons of clever bits buried throughout.
Guilt by association is even weaker in this context than it normally is.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

To be honest, even 4th edition and PF1 are pretty much indistinguishable for non-enthusiasts. My brother in law occasionally plays with us (sometimes PF, sometimes 4e, but more recently just 5th edition) and it is all just D&D to him. I tried to explain the concept of edition wars to him, and the concept of a small handful of nerds arguing about relatively insignificant rules and presentation differences is laughable to him (and 90% of the rest of the casual player base as well, I’m sure).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Weather Report wrote:
I am very pleased at the cutting down, I think Dazed and Dazzled can be rolled into one, while we're at it.

Because having problems to see because the light is too strong is parent of being unable to act?

Maybe not?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
I am very pleased at the cutting down, I think Dazed and Dazzled can be rolled into one, while we're at it.

Because having problems to see because the light is too strong is parent of being unable to act?

Maybe not?

Yeah, that one didn't make sense to me either. I could see Dazed being rolled into either slowed or stunned though.

Or being a whole new thing entirely, like "Dazed 1: you lose one reaction. Dazed 2: you lose all reactions." I can't remember if more than one reactions per round is a thing, but it ought to be, and why not future proof against it if its not already a thing?

Dazzled fits well into blinded.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
I am very pleased at the cutting down, I think Dazed and Dazzled can be rolled into one, while we're at it.

Because having problems to see because the light is too strong is parent of being unable to act?

Maybe not?

Yeah, that one didn't make sense to me either. I could see Dazed being rolled into either slowed or stunned though.

Or being a whole new thing entirely, like "Dazed 1: you lose one reaction. Dazed 2: you lose all reactions." I can't remember if more than one reactions per round is a thing, but it ought to be, and why not future proof against it if its not already a thing?

Dazzled fits well into blinded.

We already know that you can get more than one reaction per turn, yeah. Dazed could interact with that, or instead of Dazed maybe we get "Stunned 1" that removes reactions, and so on.

I also figured Dazzled would just be "Blinded 1."


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:

We already know that you can get more than one reaction per turn, yeah. Dazed could interact with that, or instead of Dazed maybe we get "Stunned 1" that removes reactions, and so on.

I also figured Dazzled would just be "Blinded 1."

That was more or less what I was thinking for dazzled, and that's a great suggestion for removal of reactions. The daze spell itself could apply Stunned 1 and Slowed 3 for one round, maybe?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
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. :)

Flanking was only +2 to hit versus the flanked target and nobody else in PF1, and we didn't have problems with it then.

Mechanically, +2 to hit and -2 to AC both work out the same with the new 4 degrees of success except in some edge cases. But "I have +2 to hit this dude" is a bit easier to remember than "This dude has -2 AC versus my attacks".

I mean, in the games I've played it I never saw anybody confused about their flanking bonus, but I have had to pull out the rulebook more than once to show a GM that a prone enemy is at -4 AC versus an attacker in melee, the attacker doesn't get +4 to hit.

It's not a deal breaker, it'll just take some getting used to.

Not a deal breaker, but it does make more sense the other way. A situational AC modifier that only applies to one or two enemies is odd, whereas to hit bonuses are personal in the first place.

Anyway some of these changes look good (like ditching ability damage in favor of conditions), but wow there is an absurd amount of bookkeeping with some of these. I'll echo what John Whyte said above- the fact that they operate in entirely different ways makes it a mess. Some increment, some don't, some stack, some don't, versions of the same condition at a mess of other conditionals (you'd think slow specifically would be bad enou on its own without a bunch of other details on top)

Stupefying is another horror. Penalty to ALL mental DCs and checks AND the...

Am I the only one that didn't find this that confusing? I went and reread the blog a couple times to try and see where the confusion was coming from. As far as I can tell, almost everything works on the same principle. There are three conditions that don't have a value attached to them-- Flatfooted, Quick, and Concealment, and that seems to be because they don't allow for any numeric variance like the other conditions. At worse, I'd think they could make it Flatfooted 2, Quick 1, and Concealment 5 and we'd be pretty consistent.

We also only got one condition that seems to stack, and that's fatigue, and it looks like that's because your character's actions affect the fatigue, not because you're likely to get another fatigue layered onto it. I'm not sure if fatigue will have a number attached to it, but I imagine I might use "Fatigue [value]" as my personal nomenclature at the table, because it seems intuitive. If anything else is supposed to stack, it isn't apparent from here-- though I imagine there are certainly going to be things which can gradually work you from Sick 1 to Sick 2 over time and such.

Other than that, everything seems to follow the "[Condition Name]+[Value]" forumla. And this is just from the blog-- one has to imagine the rules will be clearer when we actually get, you know, the rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I liked it. I didn't personally find this to be complex, but other people may have different opinions.
I think this is an easy format to remember. I mean, you remember what the condition does, you have the number, go for it.
I don't see where this all "this stacks, this doesn't" is coming from. Fatigued looks like it increases while you try to do stuff, and that's logical. But it doesn't look like we'll have a bunch of "this condition stacks, this doesn't" stuff to remember...

One curiosity: what happens to energy/level drain? What mechanic would replace it for our cute special undead which players are terrified? Just got curious ^^


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:

I liked it. I didn't personally find this to be complex, but other people may have different opinions.

I think this is an easy format to remember. I mean, you remember what the condition does, you have the number, go for it.
I don't see where this all "this stacks, this doesn't" is coming from. Fatigued looks like it increases while you try to do stuff, and that's logical. But it doesn't look like we'll have a bunch of "this condition stacks, this doesn't" stuff to remember...

One curiosity: what happens to energy/level drain? What mechanic would replace it for our cute special undead which players are terrified? Just got curious ^^

I guess if we needed one (and I'm not sure we do) it could just be a flat -1 to every number on your sheet? Basically, reducing your Proficiency Modifier, which seems to work the same across the board. And if you take more drain than your level you die or whatever.

Glad to see other people are confused as to why people are confused, haha.

101 to 150 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