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
201 to 219 of 219 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Late to this, and I have not read the thread... I don't mind changing the flat-footed condition at all in theory...

Except it is easier to add than subtract, and easier to remember/apply temporary bonuses to rolls, than penalties to DCs, so with its application to flanking... well, I prefer thinking of flanking as a +2 bonus for the attacker than a -2 penalty for the target. I realize the result is exactly the same, it's just, for me, more intuitive to think of it the old way.

I realize changing this is complicated as I know flanking is not the only thing that inflicts the flat-footed condition.

As an aside, I will note that, despite many, many years of practice and teachers' and friends' best efforts, the arithmetic portion of my brain is just plain poorly developed, and people who are innately or by practice good at it may have trouble comprehending where I am coming from. I am preemptively asking folks whose urge is to respond to posts like mine with "git gud at math" to kindly please accept different brains work differently. This is feedback for the developers about what I find more intuitive, for them to consider or disregard as they see fit.

===
I do like the idea of the flat-footed condition itself being dramatically simplified, and always felt it needed a change.

Silver Crusade

DeathQuaker wrote:

Late to this, and I have not read the thread... I don't mind changing the flat-footed condition at all in theory...

Except it is easier to add than subtract, and easier to remember/apply temporary bonuses to rolls, than penalties to DCs, so with its application to flanking... well, I prefer thinking of flanking as a +2 bonus for the attacker than a -2 penalty for the target. I realize the result is exactly the same, it's just, for me, more intuitive to think of it the old way.

I realize changing this is complicated as I know flanking is not the only thing that inflicts the flat-footed condition.

As an aside, I will note that, despite many, many years of practice and teachers' and friends' best efforts, the arithmetic portion of my brain is just plain poorly developed, and people who are innately or by practice good at it may have trouble comprehending where I am coming from. I am preemptively asking folks whose urge is to respond to posts like mine with "git gud at math" to kindly please accept different brains work differently. This is feedback for the developers about what I find more intuitive, for them to consider or disregard as they see fit.

===
I do like the idea of the flat-footed condition itself being dramatically simplified, and always felt it needed a change.

*nods*

Something else as well, with flanking bonuses that's bonuses that need to be tracked for all the flankers, whereas with the flat footed penalty that's just one penalty on one character.

Liberty's Edge

DeathQuaker wrote:

Late to this, and I have not read the thread... I don't mind changing the flat-footed condition at all in theory...

Except it is easier to add than subtract, and easier to remember/apply temporary bonuses to rolls, than penalties to DCs, so with its application to flanking... well, I prefer thinking of flanking as a +2 bonus for the attacker than a -2 penalty for the target. I realize the result is exactly the same, it's just, for me, more intuitive to think of it the old way.

I realize changing this is complicated as I know flanking is not the only thing that inflicts the flat-footed condition.

As an aside, I will note that, despite many, many years of practice and teachers' and friends' best efforts, the arithmetic portion of my brain is just plain poorly developed, and people who are innately or by practice good at it may have trouble comprehending where I am coming from. I am preemptively asking folks whose urge is to respond to posts like mine with "git gud at math" to kindly please accept different brains work differently. This is feedback for the developers about what I find more intuitive, for them to consider or disregard as they see fit.

===
I do like the idea of the flat-footed condition itself being dramatically simplified, and always felt it needed a change.

I am quite good at mental math, but I agree that adding is more straightforward than substracting (and faster to process)

I guess it is also related to positive wording being easier / quicker to understand


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the flat-footed front, I think the main reason for having the condition give -2 AC is to have the condition only have modifiers on the one with the condition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Flat-footed over flanking bonus is also a part of the bounded maths. It reduces the number of (at least common) factors that can reduce your AC significantly. In a system where every +/- 1 counts more heavily, having an effective 4 AC in many combats may have been too much, but reducing each of those conditions to 1 (for a total of 2) may not have felt rewarding either.

It also allows them to broaden the scope of flat-footed and say things (like they have done) you get Sneak Attack versus flat-footed foes. Its an effective way to reduce the amount of different contidions that could give you your ability/class feature/what have you.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think I'm a big fan of flat checks. I disliked miss chances in 1e as well. It adds additional dice rolls to a situation where a penalty would suffice for producing the same statistical spread.

In addition, changing miss chances from an extra roll to a flat penalty would create the additional effect that concealment increases the chance for critical failures, and reduces the chance for critical successes. That would also make sense for being unable to see clearly.


Lady Funnyhat wrote:

I don't think I'm a big fan of flat checks. I disliked miss chances in 1e as well. It adds additional dice rolls to a situation where a penalty would suffice for producing the same statistical spread.

In addition, changing miss chances from an extra roll to a flat penalty would create the additional effect that concealment increases the chance for critical failures, and reduces the chance for critical successes. That would also make sense for being unable to see clearly.

Agreed. I've always preferred penalties to miss chances, and you're right, a penalty makes even more sense than ever with PF2's >10< system.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Lady Funnyhat wrote:

I don't think I'm a big fan of flat checks. I disliked miss chances in 1e as well. It adds additional dice rolls to a situation where a penalty would suffice for producing the same statistical spread.

In addition, changing miss chances from an extra roll to a flat penalty would create the additional effect that concealment increases the chance for critical failures, and reduces the chance for critical successes. That would also make sense for being unable to see clearly.

Agreed. I've always preferred penalties to miss chances, and you're right, a penalty makes even more sense than ever with PF2's >10< system.

A miss chance makes more sense with the >10< system. It is a valuable way to lower the chance to hit without increasing the chance to critically fumble. Miss chance may have been unnecessary in PF1, but it does serve a purpose in PF2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Lady Funnyhat wrote:

I don't think I'm a big fan of flat checks. I disliked miss chances in 1e as well. It adds additional dice rolls to a situation where a penalty would suffice for producing the same statistical spread.

In addition, changing miss chances from an extra roll to a flat penalty would create the additional effect that concealment increases the chance for critical failures, and reduces the chance for critical successes. That would also make sense for being unable to see clearly.

Agreed. I've always preferred penalties to miss chances, and you're right, a penalty makes even more sense than ever with PF2's >10< system.
A miss chance makes more sense with the >10< system. It is a valuable way to lower the chance to hit without increasing the chance to critically fumble. Miss chance may have been unnecessary in PF1, but it does serve a purpose in PF2.

Is there a NEED for lowering the hit chance without increasing fumble rate, though? I would think for something like concealment, when you literally cannot SEE your opponent, it makes it so much harder for you to do something exceptionally well and so much easier for them to take advantage of your misses. It's actually one of the cases where it makes a lot of sense to introduce a flat penalty.

There might be other situations where changing the success rate without impacting criticals is necessary, but I can't really think of such a situation...

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Lady Funnyhat wrote:
There might be other situations where changing the success rate without impacting criticals is necessary, but I can't really think of such a situation...

The blink spell came to mind for me. Missing because the enemy is not on this plane should probably avoid the crit fail conditions.


The way I see miss chances right now is that its 2 rolls, this means that its increasing the chances of a "crit fail" (deal no dmg) without affecting the defenders AC (or other relevant defense).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the new conditions (without having played them for in game flavour) compared to the many different names that there were for heavier versions of the same thing, like shaken into frightened or whatever.

I love the change to flat-footed because it was always such a detriment to high dex characters, but less so to high Con armoured houses. A Paladin in Full plate with no Dex doesn't have a different armour class when flat-footed or not, so it was really abusable in certain cases. While a Rogue loses so much of their dex when flatfooted.

Making it a standardised -2 means it WILL definintely apply to everyone, and it works fine in Starfinder so far, and it still does it's most important job of letting the Rogues sneak attack.

So I am very hopeful re Conditions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady Funnyhat wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Lady Funnyhat wrote:

I don't think I'm a big fan of flat checks. I disliked miss chances in 1e as well. It adds additional dice rolls to a situation where a penalty would suffice for producing the same statistical spread.

In addition, changing miss chances from an extra roll to a flat penalty would create the additional effect that concealment increases the chance for critical failures, and reduces the chance for critical successes. That would also make sense for being unable to see clearly.

Agreed. I've always preferred penalties to miss chances, and you're right, a penalty makes even more sense than ever with PF2's >10< system.
A miss chance makes more sense with the >10< system. It is a valuable way to lower the chance to hit without increasing the chance to critically fumble. Miss chance may have been unnecessary in PF1, but it does serve a purpose in PF2.

Is there a NEED for lowering the hit chance without increasing fumble rate, though? I would think for something like concealment, when you literally cannot SEE your opponent, it makes it so much harder for you to do something exceptionally well and so much easier for them to take advantage of your misses. It's actually one of the cases where it makes a lot of sense to introduce a flat penalty.

There might be other situations where changing the success rate without impacting criticals is necessary, but I can't really think of such a situation...

I think there are important things that it allows. Importantly with stuff like the fighters "damage even on a fail" having a miss chance that represent not even attacking in the right place can negate that. It also means for example if an enemy has an ability like "Sundering Parry: As a reaction attempt to Sunder an enemy's melee weapon if they Critically Fail a melee strike against you" doesn't become more likely when you attack the Mirror Image of that enemy.

It also allows the GMs to do things like giving the chance for a low level minor baddy (who you would be auto hitting anyway) to get away. For example I can see a small story about an Arsonist who is targetting the players holdings. I don't want the Arsonist to be a high level enemy (they are representative of citizens that don't like the PCs rule/presence for whatever reason) but I do want them to have the chance at getting away through the smoke of the burning buildings without being arbitrary about the whole encounter.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

So a flat check DC 5, is the same as a 20% miss chance for concealment. So that seems in the spirit of "everything is a d20 roll." By making such a change, do you open up to things like rerolls and bonus like a luck stone applying to them, or saying "precise shot decreases the DC of concealment checks by 5" or something like that?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

With the move to conditions and other keywords I hope the GM screen will have a handy cheat sheet for reference. Having such a quick reference will aid in learning what all the new terms for conditions, buffs, and weapon qualities do.


Given how conditions work, I feel having a cleric or bard in the party may be helpful. Debuffs on the enemies and buffs on party may be even more valuable than in PF1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saint Bernard wrote:
Given how conditions work, I feel having a cleric or bard in the party may be helpful. Debuffs on the enemies and buffs on party may be even more valuable than in PF1.

Heaven knows, I love me some bard in a party. And cleric is pretty great as well.

Note that even traditional martial classes seem to be able to inflict conditions on enemies at times. In the Crypt of the Everflame preview (Glass Cannon Podcast), the paladin's Retributive Strike was applying Enfeebled 1 (2 on a crit) if it hit.

Crit specialization on weapons also has the potential to add conditions. Monks who critically hit with unarmed attacks may be able to apply the Slowed 1 condition on a crit,* which is huge.

I'm sure there are other options; we just need to see them.
--
*with Brawling Focus at level 4

Liberty's Edge

Bruno Mares wrote:
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.

We should consider that some special ability require more than one action to perform. So it is very relevant that quick is limited to a specific actions instead of giving x actions. Doing otherwise would imbalance classes that have several 2 actions powerful effects and classes that have only one powerful effect that can be used only once a round.

I suspect that there will be plenty of very powerful single character combo available if we get a way to make 4 actions without limitations to the kind of action we will be able to use.

Liberty's Edge

Kaemy wrote:
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.

I had too many encounters with bad translations when I started playing, so I try to bui the books in the original language if I know it.

There are two common problems with translations even today:
- the translator isn't a gamer, so he translate the words without knowing the intended meaning (terrible with the rules, I recall an infamous example where, in a boardgame, translating Bog, Uppercased and bolded, as mud, made the whole map a swamp);
- the traslator is a gamer but don't know English so well, so he translate Factory as Fattoria, i.e. Farm.
- or both defects at the same time, and that is the worse thing.

Kaemy wrote:


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.

What matter is the percentage of the buyers. If more than 50% of them is used to the Imperial system and will loathe the change, you keep using the Imperial system.

The players that have problems with the Imperial system either already have a local translation or have adapted somehow or don't play Pathfinder.
It isn't a good move to displease the current player base to acquire a potential small pool of new players.

1 to 50 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