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
151 to 200 of 219 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Am I the only one that didn't find this that confusing?

Well there is a guy around that still thinks you get (Class ranks) + INT per level and Proficient means something else. So this isn't surprising.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Igwilly the "this stack, this doesn't" probably comes from the fact that in the very few examples given in the post, we already have two kinds of Quick that stack but don't really...

The Lv20 Monk Feat Enduring Quickness gives him permanent Quick... but is a "nerfed" Quick whose extra action can't be used to Strike or Step (I asume that last one should be in the list, since is a movement), so if he gets Quick on top of it, he doesn't gain any extra Actions (he stays at 4) but suddenly he can use that 4th Action to Strike.
Is not overly complicated, but it takes way longer to explain than "You get an extra Action" and seems to go against the simplification of the rules and how long it takes to explain them that PF2 is supposedly going after... So some people worry that before the game comes out we are already starting to have Move/Standard Actions **** all over again, with "This Feat gives you an Extra Action but can only be used for X, Y or Z". We could have expected that to come after a few books, but not in the Core Rulebook after "The Big Announcement" being that everything was now just 1 Action, easy and simple.

Also, Fatigue seems to be quite weak to me (5 Hampered, -1 AC, and extra -1 AC for each extra Action you take while Fatigued).
So usually, at worst, the Barbarian is at -4 AC for one turn after acting normally (no penalties other than -5 movement/stride) before he gains Temporal Hit Points again, seems quite mild to me, and I find weird it doesn't affect the Strikes.

I also liked Tayoyo idea of X Condition reaching X Number based on your CON/WIS/Whatever (depending on the Condition) having an extra effect, like having a Heart Attack at Fear 10 if your WIS is 10.

I'm still wondering if you can get Slow 3 and have no Actions left (and be kind of paralyzed) or if Slow will have a rule of "You always have at least 1 Action available".
Having all Slows in the game "coded" to only go up to 2 is not good enough imho, since it doesn't allow/cover for things like stacking mud-slow that can be removed spending actions or playing as a Zombie or any future Slow-Race.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Am I the only one that didn't find this that confusing?
Well there is a guy around that still thinks you get (Class ranks) + INT per level and Proficient means something else. So this isn't surprising.

Okay, morbidly curious. What does proficient mean there?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kaemy wrote:

Igwilly the "this stack, this doesn't" probably comes from the fact that in the very few examples given in the post, we already have two kinds of Quick that stack but don't really...

The Lv20 Monk Feat Enduring Quickness gives him permanent Quick... but is a "nerfed" Quick whose extra action can't be used to Strike or Step (I asume that last one should be in the list, since is a movement), so if he gets Quick on top of it, he doesn't gain any extra Actions (he stays at 4) but suddenly he can use that 4th Action to Strike.
Is not overly complicated, but it takes way longer to explain than "You get an extra Action" and seems to go against the simplification of the rules and how long it takes to explain them that PF2 is supposedly going after... So some people worry that before the game comes out we are already starting to have Move/Standard Actions **** all over again, with "This Feat gives you an Extra Action but can only be used for X, Y or Z". We could have expected that to come after a few books, but not in the Core Rulebook after "The Big Announcement" being that everything was now just 1 Action, easy and simple.

One of my suggestions in the surveys is almost certainly going to be tagging the various base actions with descriptors. So step, stride, leap, etc would all have the Movement tag. That way, there can be feats that do stuff like "Once per turn, when you drop an opponent to 0 HP you can take a bonus Movement action" rather than the needlessly wordy "Once per turn, when you drop an opponent to 0 HP you get Quick 1 but this bonus action can only be used for the Step, Stride, Leap, Climb, Swim, Fly, Crawl, and Withdraw actions."

Kaemy wrote:

Also, Fatigue seems to be quite weak to me (5 Hampered, -1 AC, and extra -1 AC for each extra Action you take while Fatigued).

So usually, at worst, the Barbarian is at -4 AC for one turn after acting normally (no penalties other than -5 movement/stride) before he gains Temporal Hit Points again, seems quite mild to me, and I find weird it doesn't affect the Strikes.

I'm okay with the root design of Fatigue in its worsening penalty but yes, only applying to AC is bizarre. Getting an AC penalty at Fatigued at all is itself bizarre, I'd expect that from Exhausted. So I guess we'll see when we eventually get to know what Exhausted does, but I'd go with:

Fatigued X: You are Hampered 5. You take a -X penalty on all attack rolls, skill checks and ability checks. X starts at 1, and resets to 1 at the start of your turn. After each action you take, X goes up by 1.

Exhausted X: You are Fatigued and Slowed 1, and your Exhausted counter is the same as your Fatigued counter. Additionally, you take a -X penalty to AC and saving throws.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Stone Dog wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Am I the only one that didn't find this that confusing?
Well there is a guy around that still thinks you get (Class ranks) + INT per level and Proficient means something else. So this isn't surprising.
Okay, morbidly curious. What does proficient mean there?

As far as I can tell he thinks you still advance skills like you do in PF1 and the Proficiency tiers just happen every 5 ranks or so.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Kaemy wrote:

Igwilly the "this stack, this doesn't" probably comes from the fact that in the very few examples given in the post, we already have two kinds of Quick that stack but don't really...

The Lv20 Monk Feat Enduring Quickness gives him permanent Quick... but is a "nerfed" Quick whose extra action can't be used to Strike or Step (I asume that last one should be in the list, since is a movement), so if he gets Quick on top of it, he doesn't gain any extra Actions (he stays at 4) but suddenly he can use that 4th Action to Strike.
Is not overly complicated, but it takes way longer to explain than "You get an extra Action" and seems to go against the simplification of the rules and how long it takes to explain them that PF2 is supposedly going after... So some people worry that before the game comes out we are already starting to have Move/Standard Actions **** all over again, with "This Feat gives you an Extra Action but can only be used for X, Y or Z". We could have expected that to come after a few books, but not in the Core Rulebook after "The Big Announcement" being that everything was now just 1 Action, easy and simple.

One of my suggestions in the surveys is almost certainly going to be tagging the various base actions with descriptors. So step, stride, leap, etc would all have the Movement tag. That way, there can be feats that do stuff like "Once per turn, when you drop an opponent to 0 HP you can take a bonus Movement action" rather than the needlessly wordy "Once per turn, when you drop an opponent to 0 HP you get Quick 1 but this bonus action can only be used for the Step, Stride, Leap, Climb, Swim, Fly, Crawl, and Withdraw actions."

Kaemy wrote:

Also, Fatigue seems to be quite weak to me (5 Hampered, -1 AC, and extra -1 AC for each extra Action you take while Fatigued).

So usually, at worst, the Barbarian is at -4 AC for one turn after acting normally (no penalties other than -5 movement/stride) before he gains Temporal Hit Points again, seems quite mild to me,
...

Fatigued applies to AC and saving throws. Taking too many actions leaves you pretty vulnerable.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:

Getting an AC penalty at Fatigued at all is itself bizarre, I'd expect that from Exhausted.

I'd expect that Exhausted doesn't exist, given Fatigued 1...N covers the same conceptual space as Fatigued->Exhausted.

I mean, they explained how Shaken/Panicked are collapsed to Frightened 1...N and present this all as coherent format, so...


Quandary wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:

Getting an AC penalty at Fatigued at all is itself bizarre, I'd expect that from Exhausted.

I'd expect that Exhausted doesn't exist, given Fatigued 1...N covers the same conceptual space as Fatigued->Exhausted.

I mean, they explained how Shaken/Panicked are collapsed to Frightened 1...N and present this all as coherent format, so...

See, I would think so too if the penalty didn't rack up so fast in a round and was persistent. But it resets every round to only a -1 penalty. So I'm thinking Exhausted is still separate, and is Fatigued Plus.


Stone Dog wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Am I the only one that didn't find this that confusing?
Well there is a guy around that still thinks you get (Class ranks) + INT per level and Proficient means something else. So this isn't surprising.
Okay, morbidly curious. What does proficient mean there?

You start off with x+ int modifier skills ranks to assign for proficiency, every odd level (or is it even level can't remember off the top of head) you get another rank to assign to a skill to increase proficiency with some restriction (can't raise to x prof before y level).

Proficient refers to your proficiency level in a skill, untrained, trained, expert, master, legendary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Quidest & The Rot Grub,

I agree that the conditions are (perhaps) more streamlined than 1e. 1e conditions are a lot of effects you just have to memorize.

But the design team has been clearly working on a philosophy of cohesion. Everything is a feat. 3 actions. Spells that only scale if you overcast.

Mark Seifter had a great post when reference to the action economy change talking about quarks and bamzoms pointing out the huge variety in the types of actions currently available in pf1 and how their interactions rely on the player memorizing the process.

Then we now have a similar situation with conditions and there is no cohesive structure. It may be fun. It may be better and simpler than 1e. But I think it doesn't match their design philosophy and is bad design.

To go to 5e - the game system revolves around advantage/disadvantage and adding dice. The designers talk about they wanted to get rid of +1s and +2s and +4s. In most places they succeeded- except for projectile weapons into cover. Partial cover grants +2 to ac, full cover gives +5 to ac. To me that's bad design as it doesn't fit their philosophy. It's also a question I hear repeatedly from tables playing 5e such as "what happens if I fire at the goblin in the bushes?"


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

Quidest & The Rot Grub,

I agree that the conditions are (perhaps) more streamlined than 1e. 1e conditions are a lot of effects you just have to memorize.

But the design team has been clearly working on a philosophy of cohesion. Everything is a feat. 3 actions. Spells that only scale if you overcast.

Mark Seifter had a great post when reference to the action economy change talking about quarks and bamzoms pointing out the huge variety in the types of actions currently available in pf1 and how their interactions rely on the player memorizing the process.

Then we now have a similar situation with conditions and there is no cohesive structure. It may be fun. It may be better and simpler than 1e. But I think it doesn't match their design philosophy and is bad design.

To go to 5e - the game system revolves around advantage/disadvantage and adding dice. The designers talk about they wanted to get rid of +1s and +2s and +4s. In most places they succeeded- except for projectile weapons into cover. Partial cover grants +2 to ac, full cover gives +5 to ac. To me that's bad design as it doesn't fit their philosophy. It's also a question I hear repeatedly from tables playing 5e such as "what happens if I fire at the goblin in the bushes?"

Again, there seems to be a pretty cohesive structure for the conditions. That there are a few exceptions doesn't negate that-- sometimes one size doesn't fit all. Not EVERYTHING is a feat in PF2, for example. We still have class features. Everything we get to choose is basically a feat now, but not stuff that doesn't fit in that bucket. A few conditions not fitting in the bucket doesn't negate the usefulness of the bucket.

Personally, I think 5e's over-reliance on advantage is to the game's detriment. There just aren't a lot of other things you can do besides grant advantage and disadvantage, double advantage isn't a thing besides one racial feat, and 2 advantage + 1 disadvantage is still just a neutral roll.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Quick specifying what actions it allows you to perform actually makes a lot of sense if you think of it as the way the Condition “stacks.” Instead of Quick 1 > Quick 2 > Quick 3, etc. you have Quick (Stride) > Quick (Stride, Strike) > Quick (Stride, Strike, Leap), etc.


Captain Morgan wrote:


Personally, I think 5e's over-reliance on advantage is to the game's detriment. There just aren't a lot of other things you can do besides grant advantage and disadvantage, double advantage isn't a thing besides one racial feat, and 2 advantage + 1 disadvantage is still just a neutral roll.

Yes, I would like a few more + 2s here or there. As for Advantage, a common houserule is to stack cases of advantage/disadvantage: Advantage x2 vs. Disadvantage x1 = Advantage. Many things were brutally streamlined in the name of simplicity for 5th Ed (the -5/+10 damage feats should obviously be based off of Proficiency Bonus, things like that). I like the base chassis, but definitely a DIY Edition, for me. Some grave design mistakes, luckily easily rectified.

Liberty's Edge

Many conditions that impact the same stats and that you have to track separately and that do not follow the same rules for refreshing/improving does seem like a mess, or at least not intuitive

One might hope that there are few times when conditions will actually stack in game even though it seems unlikely. Beyond two, it sounds complicated already

Also what happens when opposed conditions apply must be clarified (because Quick actually has conditional impacts while Slow does not).

Readying is still a thing. Good to know :-)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:

Many conditions that impact the same stats and that you have to track separately and that do not follow the same rules for refreshing/improving does seem like a mess, or at least not intuitive

One might hope that there are few times when conditions will actually stack in game even though it seems unlikely. Beyond two, it sounds complicated already

Also what happens when opposed conditions apply must be clarified (because Quick actually has conditional impacts while Slow does not).

Readying is still a thing. Good to know :-)

All of that was true for PF1 as well, though. More so, even.

Liberty's Edge

Captain Morgan wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

Many conditions that impact the same stats and that you have to track separately and that do not follow the same rules for refreshing/improving does seem like a mess, or at least not intuitive

One might hope that there are few times when conditions will actually stack in game even though it seems unlikely. Beyond two, it sounds complicated already

Also what happens when opposed conditions apply must be clarified (because Quick actually has conditional impacts while Slow does not).

Readying is still a thing. Good to know :-)

All of that was true for PF1 as well, though. More so, even.

From the blog post I get the feeling that conditions will be more prevalent in PF2 and I think PF2 should be clearer and more intuitive than PF1 in all aspects, including conditions

Sovereign Court

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

Adding up multiple bonuses and penalties to attack rolls (for instance) is way better than multiple bonuses and penalties to the same plus bonuses and penalties to ability scores that you have to halve (and maybe add 50% for two-handers)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

Many conditions that impact the same stats and that you have to track separately and that do not follow the same rules for refreshing/improving does seem like a mess, or at least not intuitive

One might hope that there are few times when conditions will actually stack in game even though it seems unlikely. Beyond two, it sounds complicated already

Also what happens when opposed conditions apply must be clarified (because Quick actually has conditional impacts while Slow does not).

Readying is still a thing. Good to know :-)

All of that was true for PF1 as well, though. More so, even.
From the blog post I get the feeling that conditions will be more prevalent in PF2 and I think PF2 should be clearer and more intuitive than PF1 in all aspects, including conditions

The former is impossible to judge right now (but seems unlikely because conditions were pretty common in PF1) and the latter already seems demonstrably true, even without having the full rules text.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:
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 ^^

Based on context from a preview of the free bestiary, there's an enervated condition that probably works as the equivalent.


A unified conditional penalty for all mental stats that specifically penalizes casters?
Hmmm... Hope there's more granular conditions than that for mental stats.

On another note, are there conditions that effect bulk? Do those that effect strength effect bulk?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
1of1 wrote:

A unified conditional penalty for all mental stats that specifically penalizes casters?

Hmmm... Hope there's more granular conditions than that for mental stats.

On another note, are there conditions that effect bulk? Do those that effect strength effect bulk?

On mental stats: honestly, I don't know if we need them. If your not thinking right, you're not thinking right.

On the second question: I expect bulk will effect your condition, rather than the other way around. Something like aj Encumbered condition. I feel like making Enfeebled effect carrying capacity would be going in the opposite direction for their simplification. (Also, I don't it was impacted by strength damage in PF1, we all just played it wrong.)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

On regards of the unified conditional penalty for all mental stats, I think is a great idea.

I assume you will still have individual stuff like "Alergic Reaction" to a Goblin Dog lowering your carisma because of the skin rashs and what not; but having a global INT/WIS/CHA Stupefy Condition is a great tool to build balanced Encounters in general where you want to aim at hurting the casters (just like some other encounters aim at hurting the martials) without it becoming a cake walk because the monster happened to affect INT and the group had a Sorcerer instead of a Wizard.

Also it makes sense that being "stupefied" would affect all 3 mental stats. Doesn't feel metagamey or out of context at all.

Man, I'm so sad we didn't get extra bits on info on the commments from the developers this time around :(


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:

Getting an AC penalty at Fatigued at all is itself bizarre, I'd expect that from Exhausted.

I'd expect that Exhausted doesn't exist, given Fatigued 1...N covers the same conceptual space as Fatigued->Exhausted.

I mean, they explained how Shaken/Panicked are collapsed to Frightened 1...N and present this all as coherent format, so...

Based on the blog post, the Fatigued condition itself is binary, but taking actions gives you an escalating penalty to defenses for one round.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that the Stupified condition makes a great precedent for things like Encumbered 1 affecting STR & DEX and applying hindered 10. It also allows for an all encompassing condition affecting all stats, say shriveled or something (Im bad with naming).

Regarding the stacking well it looks like conditions stack base on whether they are good, like in PF1 where bonuses didn't stack unless said otherwise. Ex: It says only the highest accelerated applies, so a hampered 1 person walking over mud that also makes you hampered 1 may make you hampered 2. (Can anyone verify this? im not sure Im current with the conditions info)


So, if a target is fatigued and fleeing, that basically forces a -4 penalty on saves right? Because they have to get away and doing so penalizes their saves?


We know that if you are inflicted with hampered 1, and then again with hampered 1, they do not stack and you stay at 1.

What we do not know is if there are hampered +1 effects.

It seems likely that there will be enervated +1 effects, so that you can negative level someone to death.

Also stunned and dazed may be replaced by slowed 2 or 3. I suspect that conditions that stop you from having a turn will be very rare now. That is the whole point of these varying levels of success and conditions having a sliding scale.


Paradozen-
It sounds like it depends on how fleeing is written, and whether it says how many actions must be used to flee. Regardless the problem is Frigtened X (it said that Fleeing might be linked to it). Ex: Frightened 5 and Fatigued gives up to -9 penalty on the first turn.

Malthraz-
Thx, I wasn't totally sure whether that was shown. Regarding stunned, I dont think it fits with slow at all, because Stunned (in pf1) also includes an AC & Dex penalty. Dazzled however, totally fits Slow 3 as it was simply you can't take actions (same as what Slow 3 would indicate).

Liberty's Edge

willuwontu wrote:
Stone Dog wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Am I the only one that didn't find this that confusing?
Well there is a guy around that still thinks you get (Class ranks) + INT per level and Proficient means something else. So this isn't surprising.
Okay, morbidly curious. What does proficient mean there?

You start off with x+ int modifier skills ranks to assign for proficiency, every odd level (or is it even level can't remember off the top of head) you get another rank to assign to a skill to increase proficiency with some restriction (can't raise to x prof before y level).

Proficient refers to your proficiency level in a skill, untrained, trained, expert, master, legendary.

While the concept is clear (after some post explaining it) I really hope they will get better terms for the playtesting and the actual game. People with a background in D&D 3/3.5 and Pathfinder 1 will have problems adjusting.

Seeing the level of changes, it would be possible to remove a few uses of the term "level" (like spell level, even today there is people that has troubles with it in PF1, there are questions about that every few weeks).

Liberty's Edge

For now the conditions seem reasonably clear. We will be able to judge when we see the playtest version.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Seeing the level of changes, it would be possible to remove a few uses of the term "level" (like spell level, even today there is people that has troubles with it in PF1, there are questions about that every few weeks).

The rules themselves never use 'level' for degree of Proficiency. They use 'Rank' which is not used elsewhere.

People on the forums often use level just because we're used to it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Do "hampered" and "slowed" seem switched to anyone else?

As in hampered should mean "I can do less," and slowed should mean "I move slower"?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Bruno, a handsome and beautiful tetori monk, has question: is Flat-Footed only a -2 AC penalty?

Since combat maneuvers attack FORT or REF defense now (and not CMD), it seem flanking an opponent not help you trip, disarm, grapple, etc.; in PF1 you get +2 attack bonus for flanking which apply to your maneuver (as it is an attack roll). In PF2, opponent get -2 to AC...but you don't target AC with maneuver check in PF2.

Bruno understand we don't have all information yet, but just in case: is it intentional that maneuvers don't benefit from flanking?


Charlaquin wrote:
I think Quick specifying what actions it allows you to perform actually makes a lot of sense if you think of it as the way the Condition “stacks.” Instead of Quick 1 > Quick 2 > Quick 3, etc. you have Quick (Stride) > Quick (Stride, Strike) > Quick (Stride, Strike, Leap), etc.

Partially agree because some effects may give you more than one action, so the desirable would be Quick X (actions allowed), as in the example: Quick 1 (Stride, Strike), Quick 2 (Stride, Strike, Leap), etc.


I did the demo and Rose Street at Origins this weekend and I like how they're doing conditions. The only feedback I have is that Hamper follows the same formula as the other conditions, we have frightened 1,2,3, Hamper should be 1,2,3, not go in steps of 5,10,15. Consistency is very important.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Jason S wrote:

I did the demo and Rose Street at Origins this weekend and I like how they're doing conditions. The only feedback I have is that Hamper follows the same formula as the other conditions, we have frightened 1,2,3, Hamper should be 1,2,3, not go in steps of 5,10,15. Consistency is very important.

It IS consistent, is the thing. The value after the condition name is the penalty you apply to relevant scores. Hamper 5 means your speed is reduced by 5 feet, just like Slow 1 means you lose one action, or just like Enfeebled 2 means your strength based rolls are reduced by 2.

Hamper 1, 2, and 3 are meaningless because anything other than 5 foot increments might as well not exist in PF. Why would you make someone have to do multiplication for it? The only way I think you could justify it is if we stopped measuring movement/distance in feet and switched to squares as our metric.


Captain Morgan wrote:
...if we stopped measuring movement/distance in feet and switched to squares as our metric.

::Shudder::


Bruno Breakbone-
From my understanding CMD and CMB are gone, and Combat Manouvers are likely to pretty much just be attacks against AC, so the -2 AC from Flat Footed would make it easier to use a Combat Manouver on a flanked enemy.
But we don't know enough (any?) info on PF2 Combat Manouvers yet, so you will just have to wait to know.

Liberty's Edge

\/\/arlok wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
...if we stopped measuring movement/distance in feet and switched to squares as our metric.
::Shudder::

Yes!

But I doubt there are enough players from lands not using the imperial system to be worth making the switch. It has been used for decades and even the European, Asian and South America players are used to it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

At this point using ft (and to a lesser extent miles) is easily the biggest sacred cow (or whatever the correct term was) in all rpgs.

Liberty's Edge

Temperans wrote:
At this point using ft (and to a lesser extent miles) is easily the biggest sacred cow (or whatever the correct term was) in all rpgs.

Shadowrun use meters and Km, same for Traveller, GURPS and plenty of other games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

True, for all Paizo's work towards inclusivity, there is one aspect in which it remains Imperial :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don’t get the hate on using imperial for fantasy. I grew up using the metric system and never use the imperial system in real life but it gives D&D and Pathfinder a nice old world feel.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
\/\/arlok wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
...if we stopped measuring movement/distance in feet and switched to squares as our metric.
::Shudder::

#

I wouldn't mind that (so long as Squares related to some actual in game world measurement) 5ft as the minimum unit of measurement is a bit too big for my liking. I think it only exists because it is easy to divide units of five into the defacto squares. It does however means that things like "Jumping 20ft!" sounds impressive until you realize its only 4 minimum tactical units. In tactical terms apparently I have to squeeze around my living room because there isn't space for a dwarf to lie down between my wall and my sofa.


Diego-
I didn't mean it was the only thing used just that its very wide spread, I should had taken more time to write it.

Rek Rollington-
The thing with imperial is that its slightly harder to convert between regular and overland movement.

Silver Crusade

Kaemy wrote:

Bruno Breakbone-

From my understanding CMD and CMB are gone, and Combat Manouvers are likely to pretty much just be attacks against AC, so the -2 AC from Flat Footed would make it easier to use a Combat Manouver on a flanked enemy.
But we don't know enough (any?) info on PF2 Combat Manouvers yet, so you will just have to wait to know.

Maneuvers will be an Athletics skill check against the opponent’s (REF or FORT save + 10). Bruno explain why that is a possible issue in Bruno original post ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmm, for me as a MTG player this system is just extremly familiar and easy to get your head around even without knowing the condition itself.
Then again we had this "Ability/Condition X" for ages now, here you have one character with First Strike and Scry 2, or this thing has hit with infect/wither and have now 4x -1/-1 etc. etc.

So i really look forward to the consistency, and what rules and designspace this will open up for the entire system.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:
\/\/arlok wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
...if we stopped measuring movement/distance in feet and switched to squares as our metric.
::Shudder::

Yes!

But I doubt there are enough players from lands not using the imperial system to be worth making the switch. It has been used for decades and even the European, Asian and South America players are used to it.

Actually, I meant using squares as out unit of measurement, not converting to the metric system. That was pretty poorly worded on my part.

I guess if squares became one meter you could use Hampered 1 as a meaningful label. Though I'm not sure about all the implications of shrinking the square size.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:


I guess if squares became one meter you could use Hampered 1 as a meaningful label. Though I'm not sure about all the implications of shrinking the square size.

There wouldn't be really any implications, not that mattered anyway, if you just made 5 Feet = 1 Metter everywhere, including the spell ranges, jumping distances, etc.

Yeah, the characters would make smaller jumps and run at lower speeds when compared to actual real world people, but not like it would matter in-game.

I play in Spanish and we always say "1 Metter Step" instead of "5-Foot Step" and stuff like that.

And Diego Rossi, about not being enough "players from lands not using the imperial system to be worth making the switch", you know that pretty much only the USA (and two small countries) uses the Imperial System, right? And I'm pretty sure people play Pathfinder, just like D&D, all around the world.

I kinda agree with Rek Rollington that using the Imperial System on a Fantasy Setting is not too bad, it gives a sense of "old times" (because its ACTUALLY a medieval system that shouldn't have survived to modern times), but it brings nothing good to the game other than having to multiple/divide by 5 many stuff that relates to the grid, or having conversion problems between the different units.

Just think about the possibilities! We could have Hampered 1, 2 and 3 instead of 5, 10 and 15! :-P
You would know how far away something is in the map when it 375 Feet Away, without having to divide, if you were just told it was 75 Metters away (75 grid units!).


Kaemy wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:


I guess if squares became one meter you could use Hampered 1 as a meaningful label. Though I'm not sure about all the implications of shrinking the square size.

There wouldn't be really any implications, not that mattered anyway, if you just made 5 Feet = 1 Metter everywhere, including the spell ranges, jumping distances, etc.

Yeah, the characters would make smaller jumps and run at lower speeds when compared to actual real world people, but not like it would matter in-game.

I play in Spanish and we always say "1 Metter Step" instead of "5-Foot Step" and stuff like that.

And Diego Rossi, about not being enough "players from lands not using the imperial system to be worth making the switch", you know that pretty much only the USA (and two small countries) uses the Imperial System, right? And I'm pretty sure people play Pathfinder, just like D&D, all around the world.

I kinda agree with Rek Rollington that using the Imperial System on a Fantasy Setting is not too bad, it gives a sense of "old times" (because its ACTUALLY a medieval system that shouldn't have survived to modern times), but it brings nothing good to the game other than having to multiple/divide by 5 many stuff that related to the grid.

Just think about the possibilities! We could have Hampered 1, 2 and 3 instead of 5, 10 and 15! :-P

That brings about a question: in the spanish translation of Pathfinder, is 1 square equal to 1 meter? or (like in the german translation) 1,5m? (which brings up a whole bunch of other problems...)

Spell-ranges and such are defined in feet and other imperial measurements (hp per inch thickness and such). Reworking the system to use squares is not that easy.

Rope is surely not going to be bought in 10 square's length.
The (infamous?) 11 ft. pole?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding imperial systems and use in our world: that doesn't matter. Pathfinder, and Paizo's market is centered on the US. I don't know the actual number but I'd guess that most (>75% I'd say) are US-based. The rest is either used to the system as is, or using translated material, where the burden of conversion might be on the translator/publisher.

(That same discussion came up with Starfinder using imperial)

(I am from Austria)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Franz Lunzer wrote:


That brings about a question: in the spanish translation of Pathfinder, is 1 square equal to 1 meter? or (like in the german translation) 1,5m?

I wouldn't know, I always read the stuff in English. Do they even translate all their products to Spanish? As soon as you can't find the one you want, it doesn't matter if they translated 5% or 95% of the stuff...

And when looking on forums/etc about how "Power Attack" works, you are better of googling it in English than in any other language, so I just read/search everything in English.

Franz Lunzer wrote:


Regarding imperial systems and use in our world: that doesn't matter. Pathfinder, and Paizo's market is centered on the US.

Well, I know they are physically placed in the USA, but one would asume they make a game for everyone and that they would aim to sell it everywhere... No?

They could just go for "units" and be done with it. 1 Square = 1 Unit, spells are now 3-Unit Cones or 2-Unit Radius, etc. Add a small "1 Unit = 5 Feet" or "1,5 Metter" or whatever at the begining of the book depending on where it's published.

I mean... When you are reading the range of a spell, you don't care if its 60 Feet, 18 metters or 3 and a half Ogres Lenght; what you are looking for is how many grid units away it reaches to know if you can heal/harm this token or not.

151 to 200 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