Raising the Flag

Monday, October 22, 2018

The time has come to once again move on to the next part of Doomsday Dawn, entitled "Red Flags"! This time, a group of new operatives is sent by the Esoteric Order to the Shackles as part of a desperate mission to stay one step ahead of the Night Heralds. Once you have had a chance to play this adventure, make sure to stop back here and take the surveys. Your responses are critical to our understanding of high-level play!

Player Survey | Game Master Survey | Open Survey

We know that the hectic pace has been hard to keep up with, but we would like to encourage you to keep playing and submitting your playtest results, even if the focus has moved on. As a reminder, all of the Doomsday Dawn surveys will remain open through the end of the playtest period!

Update 1.5 Is Alive!

Throughout the playtest we’ve been gathering a lot of feedback about spells and their relative power level in the game, especially regarding how they compare to spells as they were used in Pathfinder First Edition. While some of these changes were made to prevent problematic situations in play, others were made to help them function more cleanly in the new edition’s structure.

The survey results are pretty clear that we have succeeded in those goals for some areas of spellcasting and fallen short in others—sometimes significantly short. Fortunately, because this is a playtest, we can make adjustments and get more feedback. As of this update, we are increasing the power level of some spells, starting with those that deal damage, as they are the easiest ones to adjust, update, and test. Update 1.5 contains a list that includes the majority of the damage-dealing spells in the game, revising their overall damage values. Fireball, for example, has gone from dealing 6d6 fire damage to dealing 8d6 fire damage. This doesn’t affect how the spells scale, other than to adjust the base value (so a 4th-level fireball spell will deal 10d6 fire damage).

We want to stress that these are not the only changes that will be happening to spells between now and the final version of the game, but they are the ones that we can most easily present for additional playtesting.

This update also contains a few other small alterations. While the dying rules have been well received since Update 1.3, there are still some improvements that might be made. In this update, we’ve changed the saving throw for stabilizing when dying to a flat check (DC = 10 + the dying value). We want to stress that this is purely a test to see how players respond to this as opposed to the Fortitude saving throw with a DC set by the monster. This is a change that we might roll back depending on feedback.

There has also been a small change to Treat Wounds: the DC of the skill check is now set by the highest level of the character being treated. This was changed to clear up some odd issues with high-level characters having difficulty when healing targets that are of a much lower level. Again, Treat Wounds is still very much a rule that we are evaluating, and I think it is safe to say that it will probably change in some ways before we see a final version.

Ready to add these changes to your game? You can download the newest update right here!

Updates and Changes

There has been some amount of consternation here and on other sites about the changes that are being rolled out as part of the updates, and what those changes say about the other rules that aren’t included in the updates. Right now, to keep the test focused, we are releasing rules updates only for things that we feel we can cleanly update and that need more testing, but that is by no means the full scope of the changes happing to the game here in the office.

Your feedback has told us a great many things about the game, and we’ve been using that feedback to shape the rules as we move through the process. It is important for all of you to understand that even if you don’t see a rule being addressed in the updates or we aren’t speaking about it directly on the forums, that doesn’t mean it isn’t being modified or reevaluated for the final version of the game. As we said at the start of the playtest, every aspect of the game is on the table to change, depending on your feedback. Even if some of those changes might be too sweeping to implement in the midst of the playtest, we will make the changes needed to make the final game the best it can be. We’re excited to share what those changes and alterations will be, but the right time for that is after we have completed the playtesting process and are certain of what those changes will be.

Having participated in every open playtest this company has ever conducted, I can honestly say that this one has provided us with more valuable feedback and insight into how you play than any other test we have ever conducted. I am confident that it will show through in the new version of Pathfinder.

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

Join the Pathfinder Playtest designers every Friday throughout the playtest on our Twitch Channel to hear all about the process and chat directly with the team.

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest
51 to 100 of 165 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Cellion wrote:

Weirdly, these spell changes have really missed the mark for me.

Accounting for the value of hitting multiple targets, the AoE spells were in great shape already and needed basically no tweaks (really only needing some way for their save DCs to not get outpaced by enemy saves at high levels). They were already doing damage on par with a basic melee 2-hand wielder's full 3-action attack. Except they were doing it in an AoE. From my perspective, that was plenty powerful.

On the other hand, almost all of the single target damage spells needed much larger buffs. Almost all of them do inferior damage on average than an AoE spell of the same level, while only hitting a single target. Typically they have some rider effect that triggers on a critically failed save. But with single-target encounters being the ones that almost never critically fail their saves, these effects rarely have a chance to trigger.

Furthermore, the lack of buffs to damaging cantrips is baffling. They could easily be changed to "1dX+Stat w/ a Heightened (+1): +1dX" (a damage buff of +100% in most cases), and still be far worse than any real spell.

Earlier in the Playtest, I still had players talking about picking up a bow over using any cantrips. To me that means cantrips aren't doing their job at being a 'filler' spell.

a shortbow is only about 10% better than a cantrip, has no riders, requires to spent martial weapon proficiency on it (either through ancestry feat or multiclass or general feat) and requires to keep spending high level magic items just to keep that 10% over the natural progression of the cantrips

cantrips are flat out better than all simple ranged weapons

in short, cantrips are fine.

Pssst...it only takes one action to fire a bow.

pssst.... the 10% is exactly because it takes 1 action to fire a bow.

do the math.

or simply browse the forums, plenty of people have done them already.

bow at +0/-5 doing 2d6...

How many offensive cantrips can I cast after I cast a two action spell?

The Exchange

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

You could... cast the cantrip and also shoot the bow? Especially if the cantrip doesn't require an attack roll. This quite likely to be more effective then shooting the bow three times >.>

I don't mind the idea of SLIGHTLY buffed cantrips. Honestly I would prefer MORE spell slots to help prevent a caster from being forced to do cantrip spam when they have less then useful spells

This is somewhat tangential but I feel I must say it.

I'm not sure I actually care all that much for Cantrip reliance. It kinda reminds me of 4th Ed D&D At-Will powers. At-Will Powers WEREN'T exciting. You could only say "I cleave!" Or "I cast magic missile!" before it kinda means very little. At the same time, 4th Editions daily powers suffered from the usual problems Vancian casters suffer from (though perhaps more extreme). Players were hesitant to use them in all but the most dire situations which caused players to just overwhelm boss encounters by unleashing all their stored up Daily abilities at once.

No, I think the best aspect of the 4th Edition system of combat was in Encounter powers. Encounter powers gave renewable and exciting abilities that asked the players "When is the best time to use this power?" each fight rather then over the course of an uncertain day. For At-Will powers the answer to that question was "When I have nothing else I can do or my daily/encounter abilities can't be of maximal use" and for daily powers the answer was "Boss fights or when someone is gonna die".

I am not advocating for a complete switch to such a system. I could just play 4e if I wanted to. But I would like to make the suggestion that perhaps introducing "encounter powers" to spell casters might be a different solution to the request for cantrips to be buffed. Maybe the idea of domains or wizard specializations could move towards that direction or maybe there could be an "Encounter Slot" at certain spell levels. I'm kinda just spitballing here but it wasn't really all that exciting constantly saying "I cast telekinetic projectile" every round as my goblin bard I played (especially since these cantrips heavily limited the rest of your tactical options).

Just my ¢2.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Can you tell us in the next blog what rules you're considering to rework in the final PF2 version, but not via Playtest Updates?

I think that would lessen a lot of certain people's concerns. :)

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
Joe M. wrote:

I definitely like that the new dying rule stops the "what's the DC this time?" hunt. Much cleaner in play. If I've counted right, the probabilities break down as follows. I'll be curious to see how it feels in action.

[. . .]

I'm really concerned about how this will play out. At dying 2, you have almost no chance to get out of dying. Yo ucan go back to dying 1, but then you have a 50/50 chance to go back farther into dying. It's very easy to see how rolls could lock someone into yo-yoing around in dying states for an extended period.

If you're making the save harder per level of dying, then making it should stabilize you immediately. Bouncing back between dying 2 and dying 1 for five turns due to dice luck is absolutely zero fun.

I did some quick calculations, and here's how it breaks down (details in spoiler below for folks to check my work). For characters who start at dying 1, who have nothing affecting their recovery checks, here's how they fare with no outside intervention:

After 1 Rounds: 50% Stable; 50% dying
After 2 Rounds: 52.25% Stable; 07.50% Dead; 40.25% dying
After 3 Rounds: 61.46% Stable; 19.83% Dead; 18.71% dying
After 4 Rounds: 63.08% Stable; 22.38% Dead; 14.54% dying
After 5 Rounds: 66.25% Stable; 26.70% Dead; 07.05% dying

That's not too bad, actually. Looking at that on-paper, I think it will probably feel pretty good at the table.

Calculations:
If we start at dying 1, then here is the set of probabilities for where we’ll be as each round passes, based on the following probability chart. After each round, we’ll apply the probability chart and advance.

Stable: 1.00 remain not-dying
Dying 1: 0.50 stop dying; 0.45 go to dying 2; 0.05 go to dying 3.
Dying 2: 0.05 stop dying; 0.40 go to dying 1; 0.45 go to dying 3; 0.10 die.
Dying 3: 0.05 go to dying 1; 0.35 go to dying 2; 0.60 die.
Dead: 1.00 remain dead

AFTER 1 ROUND:
50% will be stable
00% will be dead

00% will be at dying 1
45% will be at dying 2
05% will be at dying 3

After 2 Rounds:
52.25% will be stable (= 0.50 + 0.45*0.05)
07.50% will be dead (= 0 + 0.45*0.1 + .05*0.60)

18.25% will be at dying 1 (= 0.45*0.40 + 0.05*0.05)
01.75% will be at dying 2 (= 0.05*0.35)
20.25% will be at dying 3 (= 0.45*0.45)

After 3 Rounds:
61.46% will be stable (= 0.5225 + 0.1825*0.50 +0.0175*0.05)
19.83% will be dead (= 0.075 + 0.0175*0.10 + 0.2025*0.60)

01.71% will be at dying 1 (= .0175*0.40 + 0.2025*0.05)
15.30% will be at dying 2 (= 0.1825*0.45 + 0.2025*0.35)
01.70% will be at dying 3 (= 0.1825*0.05 + 0.0175*0.45)

After 4 Rounds:
63.08% will be stable (= 0.6146 + 0.0171*0.50 + 0.1530*0.05)
22.38% will be dead (= 0.1983 + 0.1530*0.10 + 0.0170*0.60)

06.21% will be at dying 1 (= 0.1530*0.40 + 0.0170*0.05)
01.36% will be at dying 2 (= 0.0171*0.45 + 0.0170*0.35)
06.97% will be at dying 3 (= 0.0171*0.05 + 0.1530*0.45)

After 5 Rounds:
66.25% will be stable (= 0.6308 + 0.0621*0.50 + 0.0136*0.05)
26.70% will be dead (= 0.2238 + 0.0136*0.10 + 0.0697*0.60)

00.89% will be at dying 1 (= 0.0136*0.40 + 0.0697*0.05)
05.23% will be at dying 2 (= 0.0621*0.45 + 0.0697*0.35)
00.92% will be at dying 3 (= 0.0621*0.05 + 0.0136*0.45)

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Varun Creed wrote:

Can you tell us in the next blog what rules you're considering to rework in the final PF2 version, but not via Playtest Updates?

I think that would lessen a lot of certain people's concerns. :)

Blog wrote:
Even if some of those changes might be too sweeping to implement in the midst of the playtest, we will make the changes needed to make the final game the best it can be. We’re excited to share what those changes and alterations will be, but the right time for that is after we have completed the playtesting process and are certain of what those changes will be.

In Friday's Twitch stream, Jason suggested previewing updated rules on whatever Twitch livestreams they're running after the playtest period ends. I'm sure we'll see preview blogs and a big playtest postmortem, too.

So we may not get this kind of discussion until 2019, but it is coming.

And I think that's fine. The playtest is a playtest, and I'm sure it's a *ton* of work for them just to keep this running and gathering data, without getting ahead of themselves to start conversations about the future. (Plus, tons of expectations-management reasons not to start speculating about "we're talking about X" until they know roughly what they're going to do about it!) I think the blog is right that after the playtest is the right time to indulge our curiosity about all that.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Elorebaen wrote:
Thank you for the update! I will reiterate for posterity, the Twitch playtest discussions are REALLY helpful.

This kind of bums me out as It's a major avenue of communication that isn't one I can use. I only wish other communication platforms got as focused and predictable feedback as twitch gets.

Edge93 wrote:
I get what you're saying but really, with how much they'd been sharing leading up to the release of the playtest, how much they emphasized their desire for feedback, and the fact that they've been constantly and repeatedly updating things, could we really not have enough faith to give them the benefit of the doubt? Telling us all the stuff they're considering, especially stuff that can't get into the playtest, would have caused WAY more problems than it would have solved if a lot of people's responses to things on the forums here are anything to go by.

For some of us the playtest hasn't been very fun and the longer it drags on it gets harder to get the energy and motivation to continue. So anything that might keep people's interest and convince them that things they have issues with in the playtest might change is good, like giving a peek into things you're looking at. It's NOT a matter of "enough faith to give them the benefit of the doubt" as I'm sure they can make a good game: what I'm not sure of is if they'll make a good game I want to play or want to take more of my time to test out.

xevious573 wrote:
You could... cast the cantrip and also shoot the bow? Especially if the cantrip doesn't require an attack roll. This quite likely to be more effective then shooting the bow three times >.>

And right there is the issue: the best way to play a caster is to fire off a bow with your off actions. All people are pointing out is that fact, that having a minimum of 2 actions for a spell and 1 for a weapon in a 3 action system incentivises the use weapons in any round that they cast and quite a few people seem to want a casting option that competes for that last action so they can play a pure caster and not lose effectiveness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
You can always ask on twitch. I would be very interested to hear whether Paizo think the feedback they have received makes them think +level to everything and the class feat structure needs changing.

I don't know about class feat structure, but Jason posted recently (it was easy to miss because it was a moderation post ending an argument) saying that they are looking to address some of the issues people have, such as skill investment being weird, but that removal of +level is not currently on the table.


Tangent101 wrote:

Okay, two things.

First, to reduce the lethality of Criticals for spell effects, why not reduce the critical effect to +50% damage? Thus if someone suffers a critical failure saving against an 8d6 Fireball and the Fireball rolls 34 damage, they take another 17 damage. This means spell damage is quite dangerous... but not instant-kill if you suffer a critical.

Unless you're talking about monsters flinging them at PCs, really, we need to reach a point where crit fails actually happen (on creatures not below APL) before considering that sort of thing.


Fuzzypaws wrote:
Jason said in the other thread over the weekend they aren't currently considering a change to + Level. I would assume that will not be up for consideration unless the surveys indicate dissatisfaction with it in high level play in the last few playtest adventures... If they even ask about it.

Thanks. Good to hear so expectations (or lack thereof) are set.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Cellion wrote:

Weirdly, these spell changes have really missed the mark for me.

Accounting for the value of hitting multiple targets, the AoE spells were in great shape already and needed basically no tweaks (really only needing some way for their save DCs to not get outpaced by enemy saves at high levels). They were already doing damage on par with a basic melee 2-hand wielder's full 3-action attack. Except they were doing it in an AoE. From my perspective, that was plenty powerful.

On the other hand, almost all of the single target damage spells needed much larger buffs. Almost all of them do inferior damage on average than an AoE spell of the same level, while only hitting a single target. Typically they have some rider effect that triggers on a critically failed save. But with single-target encounters being the ones that almost never critically fail their saves, these effects rarely have a chance to trigger.

Furthermore, the lack of buffs to damaging cantrips is baffling. They could easily be changed to "1dX+Stat w/ a Heightened (+1): +1dX" (a damage buff of +100% in most cases), and still be far worse than any real spell.

Earlier in the Playtest, I still had players talking about picking up a bow over using any cantrips. To me that means cantrips aren't doing their job at being a 'filler' spell.

a shortbow is only about 10% better than a cantrip, has no riders, requires to spent martial weapon proficiency on it (either through ancestry feat or multiclass or general feat) and requires to keep spending high level magic items just to keep that 10% over the natural progression of the cantrips

cantrips are flat out better than all simple ranged weapons

in short, cantrips are fine.

Pssst...it only takes one action to fire a bow.

pssst.... the 10% is exactly because it takes 1 action to fire a bow.

do the math.

or simply browse the forums, plenty of people have done them already.

...

That's irrelevant.

In most occasions, like everybody else, your third action will either be supportive, movement, or defensive.

I see no reason why you should be able to use a full 2 round spell and a cantrip simultaneously in the same round.

If you do want this kind of offensive capabilities which are above the norm, then spend your resources on weapons.

I still see 0 reasons why this somehow translates to "buff cantrips"


7 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:


xevious573 wrote:
You could... cast the cantrip and also shoot the bow? Especially if the cantrip doesn't require an attack roll. This quite likely to be more effective then shooting the bow three times >.>
And right there is the issue: the best way to play a caster is to fire off a bow with your off actions. All people are pointing out is that fact, that having a minimum of 2 actions for a spell and 1 for a weapon in a 3 action system incentivises the use weapons in any round that they cast and quite a few people seem to want a casting option that competes for...

No where near "the best way".

It's the most offensive way if you somehow need to never move in a battle. Which is really rare in our table at least.

I still no see why "weapon+spell is the most offensive way" translates to "buff cantrips"

There are numerous other, non offence, 3rd actions that you can take in a round.

Concentration, Identifying mobs, intimidation, shield, movement, use an item, true strike, etc

In all of our playtest, the times where casters did nothing with their 3rd action because they didn't have a weapon was 0.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
In all of our playtest, the times where casters did nothing with their 3rd action because they didn't have a weapon was 0.

Right on, what did they do?


Thebazilly wrote:

About Flat Check recovery:

I liked because it's very simple. I just think that maybe Fortitude proficiency could help a bit?

I feel that character options should play a bigger role in determining the dying chance, such as Con modifier and any feats/effects that modify Fortitude rolls (e.g. Juggernaut / Improved Juggernaut feats)

I think it should effectively be just Fortitude save vs level + arbitrary DC, for example 12. But to reduce the treadmill effect perception the level should be stripped from both sides of the equation. Or it can be a Fort save vs Medium DC of your level for a probably better math at the expense of some treadmill feel. But this way frail characters will rely on help to avoid perma-death, while tough characters will be likely to eventually recover on their own, which in my opinion is how it should be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
shroudb wrote:
In all of our playtest, the times where casters did nothing with their 3rd action because they didn't have a weapon was 0.
Right on, what did they do?

I literally listed all the things they did 1 sentence above the one you quoted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
Not arguing the point per se, but something I think a lot of people don't catch that makes it less severe. If someone crit fails the patients are only bolstered against THAT person's Treat Wounds. Unless a thing specifies bolstered against "All castings/uses of x" then they're only bolstered against it from that individual. So a secondary healer could pick up if something goes wrong with the primary.

Ah yes, that helps some. Thanks for the clarification.

But it means you probably want multiple people with Medicine trained or better.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
And right there is the issue: the best way to play a caster is to fire off a bow with your off actions. All people are pointing out is that fact, that having a minimum of 2 actions for a spell and 1 for a weapon in a 3 action system incentivises the use weapons in any round that they cast and quite a few people seem to want a casting option that competes for...

You’re right. Variable-action spells are woefully underutilized. I hope many more spells will gain this treatment in a future pass, and I hope most attack cantrips change to work this way. Someone else said it - the new action economy is a strong point for 2e, yet casters do not get to interact with it very much due to the dearth of 1 action spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
tmncx0 wrote:
graystone wrote:
And right there is the issue: the best way to play a caster is to fire off a bow with your off actions. All people are pointing out is that fact, that having a minimum of 2 actions for a spell and 1 for a weapon in a 3 action system incentivises the use weapons in any round that they cast and quite a few people seem to want a casting option that competes for...
You’re right. Variable-action spells are woefully underutilized. I hope many more spells will gain this treatment in a future pass, and I hope most attack cantrips change to work this way. Someone else said it - the new action economy is a strong point for 2e, yet casters do not get to interact with it very much due to the dearth of 1 action spells.

I would love it if most damage cantrips could be extend to 3 actions for a boost in damage. Doesn't have to be much, like others have said Cantrips are not a caster's main thing so it's fine to let it fall behind in raw damage.

Adding effects to cantrips would also help.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:

I did some quick calculations, and here's how it breaks down (details in spoiler below for folks to check my work). For characters who start at dying 1, who have nothing affecting their recovery checks, here's how they fare with no outside intervention:

After 1 Rounds: 50% Stable; 50% dying
After 2 Rounds: 52.25% Stable; 07.50% Dead; 40.25% dying
After 3 Rounds: 61.46% Stable; 19.83% Dead; 18.71% dying
After 4 Rounds: 63.08% Stable; 22.38% Dead; 14.54% dying
After 5 Rounds: 66.25% Stable; 26.70% Dead; 07.05% dying

That's not too bad, actually. Looking at that on-paper, I think it will probably feel pretty good at the table.

That's valuable math, thanks for that.

I still see it as a problem though. If you're rolling dying checks for 5 rounds, that's 5 rounds where you are out of the combat and not doing anything. There's only four levels of dying, if you get to round 5 then exactly what I feared probably happened: you failed (going from say dying 2 to dying 3), succeeded (dying 3 to 2), failed (2 to 3), succeeded (3 to 2)...

That type of sequence is entirely possible here and it's utterly horrible for the person playing it. It does act as another incentive to bring a healer to break the sequence, but anyone spending that long doing nothing but making that one check is going to be totally disengaged from the game.

Succeeding should immediately end dying. This is not something that needs four levels of outcomes. It needs two: you recover and can act again, or you go up a dying level (and eventually, die).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Update 1.5 is disappointing to me. Thankfully it won't affect my players in the slightest; none of them are playing offensive casters, and in six combat encounters nobody has dropped to zero HP. I don't think they even know what Hero Points are (despite my frequent reminders).
Since the new dying mechanic is demonstrably disfunctional, I'll most likely be house-ruling it at my table before somebody finally dies from, or worse, rage-quits because they got locked into an extended 'recovery' loop.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see how the new dying mechanic is "demonstrably disfunctional", and how the fact that a sequence where you roll for 5 rounds is "horrible". Of course you can roll for dying save for 5 rounds, whatever the system.

According to Joe M's maths, your chances of staying at "dying" drastically drop the more rounds go, and both your chances of stabilizing and being dead raise at the same rate. To roll for 5 rounds, you need to be extremely unlucky, and you have more than one chance out of two to have woken up earlier.

You also forget to take into account that Pathfinder isn't a solo game. You're down ? Someone else will try to come and heal/stabilize you while the rest of the group keep the danger at bay as best as they can. Even if you have a medic or a healer, always carry emergency potions with you when you go adventuring, with everyone having at least one potion on them so that anyone can always come and make them drink it while they are unconscious. In five turns, someone should have tried to wake you up. At least that's how all of my groups play.

Edit : Plus, keep in mind that succeeding your stabilization check only makes you not dead. You don't wake up immediatly. Not until someone heals you or 10 minutes have passed. So rolling for 5 turns after being knocked down is no different from rolling for 1 turn or 20 turns, since you won't wake up and go back to fight anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do you guys know for how long the surveys will stay online? Anyone?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe it was said up to the end of the year, but for sure up through the end of November, because that's when the playtest runs through.

I don't expect we'll see them after December, so IMO if anyone is waiting as long as possible to get play time in, that's probably drop-dead time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Roswynn wrote:
Do you guys know for how long the surveys will stay online? Anyone?

At least through the end of the year IIRC.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
Tridus wrote:
FitzTheRuke wrote:

I'm super supportive of interesting mechanics for non-magical items and actions before moving on to magic. So, I really like treat wounds as a concept.

However, I think it's weird that RAW Treat Wounds - you only roll once for a group of six people. And if you fail, they're ALL Bolstered against your future attempts.

I get that this is a time-saver, but it'll be frustrating as heck when it happens. I assume that the first house-rule that absolutely *everyone* will use will be to roll for each patient individually.

The house rule I'll be using will be to eliminate failure as an option entirely from it and limit it to once after an encounter.

If the entire point of that is to enable out of combat recovery without a healer, the idea that rolling a nat 1 on the first one of the day locks it out for the entire day is absurd. As a skill, it would work a lot better if it didn't try to adhere to the four degrees of success, because a "expert" medic shouldn't be able to fail treating a minor injury so badly that the person can't be treated again for an entire day.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

Not arguing the point per se, but something I think a lot of people don't catch that makes it less severe. If someone crit fails the patients are only bolstered against THAT person's Treat Wounds. Unless a thing specifies bolstered against "All castings/uses of x" then they're only bolstered against it from that individual. So a secondary healer could pick up if something goes wrong with the primary.

Isn't that still really odd in the narrative? I've got six patients. One is very skilled. I can't seem to treat him, so I can't treat ANYBODY. Time to get my assistant to give it a go?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, but did you patch in the missing code for attacking objects and which effects can damage attended objects?

Because it's more important than anything on the list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Playtest Update 1.5 wrote:
The increased damage does mean rolling critical failures against a damaging spell is more likely to be instantly lethal to PCs or monsters alike. Let us know if this extra damage is appropriate, too much, or too little.

Does Paizo legitimately think the people playing spell casters are going to say the damage is too much?

The only way we'll see if it's too much in the hands of NPCs is if an extremely large number of players have to face NPC casters with those spells...and critically fail their saves. Do the remaining playtest scenarios provide for that?


N N 959 wrote:
Quote:
The increased damage does mean rolling critical failures against a damaging spell is more likely to be instantly lethal to PCs or monsters alike. Let us know if this extra damage is appropriate, too much, or too little.

Does Paizo legitimately think the people playing spell casters are going to say the damage is too much?

The only way we'll see if it's too much in the hands of NPCs is if an extremely large number of players have to face NPC casters with those spells...and critically fail their saves. Do the remaining playtest scenarios provide for that?

It'll probably be evident if the TPK rate on certain encounters in Heroes of Undarin goes way up.


Cyouni wrote:
It'll probably be evident if the TPK rate on certain encounters in Heroes of Undarin goes way up.

There are 36 spells that have been upgraded. All of those show up in Heroes of Undarin?


FitzTheRuke wrote:

I'm super supportive of interesting mechanics for non-magical items and actions before moving on to magic. So, I really like treat wounds as a concept.

However, I think it's weird that RAW Treat Wounds - you only roll once for a group of six people. And if you fail, they're ALL Bolstered against your future attempts.

I get that this is a time-saver, but it'll be frustrating as heck when it happens. I assume that the first house-rule that absolutely *everyone* will use will be to roll for each patient individually.

100% agree. I'll definitely be instituting that house rule.

Besides, it would take no more time than it would to cast Heal 6 times.


N N 959 wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
It'll probably be evident if the TPK rate on certain encounters in Heroes of Undarin goes way up.
There are 36 spells that have been upgraded. All of those show up in Heroes of Undarin?

Not all of them, but there's a few encounters in the middle that make heavy use of damage spells. If everyone suddenly starts TPKing on those encounters, it should serve as a pretty good clue.


N N 959 wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
It'll probably be evident if the TPK rate on certain encounters in Heroes of Undarin goes way up.
There are 36 spells that have been upgraded. All of those show up in Heroes of Undarin?

Players will get some perspective on what it feels like to get hit with the new versions of some spells, and the players themselves are likely to identify which ones seem strongest and test them. If the player identified ‘good ones’ aren’t the same as ones used against players in current encounters, then they can adjust future modules to test those spells.


Cyouni wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
It'll probably be evident if the TPK rate on certain encounters in Heroes of Undarin goes way up.
There are 36 spells that have been upgraded. All of those show up in Heroes of Undarin?
Not all of them, but there's a few encounters in the middle that make heavy use of damage spells. If everyone suddenly starts TPKing on those encounters, it should serve as a pretty good clue.

So that's what, 3 spells out of 36?

You won't see TPK's if hero points are being used to avoid them. More importantly, setting the bar at TPK suggests anything less than a TPK is not too high.


N N 959 wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
It'll probably be evident if the TPK rate on certain encounters in Heroes of Undarin goes way up.
There are 36 spells that have been upgraded. All of those show up in Heroes of Undarin?
Not all of them, but there's a few encounters in the middle that make heavy use of damage spells. If everyone suddenly starts TPKing on those encounters, it should serve as a pretty good clue.

So that's what, 3 spells out of 36?

You won't see TPK's if hero points are being used to avoid them. More importantly, setting the bar at TPK suggests anything less than a TPK is not too high.

Have you played or watched Heroes of Undarin? The question is not whether you TPK in that module, it is when.


shroudb wrote:
No where near "the best way".

It seems like that from what I've seen.

shroudb wrote:
It's the most offensive way if you somehow need to never move in a battle. Which is really rare in our table at least.

... I think everyone involved understood we are talking about rounds in which you have 3 actions available to use: as such, we aren't talking about rounds you have to move. :P It's like saying 'but movement!' in a debate on what to do with a melee weapon users 3rd action instead of a 3rd attack...

shroudb wrote:
I still no see why "weapon+spell is the most offensive way" translates to "buff cantrips"

I'm not sure why you can't... Giving cantrips a 3 action or 1 action use doesn't even have to be a traditional buff... People just want something to do for each of their actions that actually involves spell casting.

shroudb wrote:

There are numerous other, non offence, 3rd actions that you can take in a round.

Concentration, Identifying mobs, intimidation, shield, movement, use an item, true strike, etc

Technically yes, but I don't see them very often: if you aren't in melee, shield isn't very exciting and even then once broken it's a 10 min wait to recast. If you aren't a cha based caster, intimidate isn't that great. Movement I've covered above. items are VERY situational and not something to cover in a debate on average action use and the same true strike and concentration as they aren't something to do every round as a default...

So if you're not a cha based character that's intimidate focused, not in need of movement with a shield on cooldown... What's your 3rd action? are you ALWAYS casting a spell that needs concentration or needs an attack roll that could benefit from true strike [using up 2 spells]? maybe it's a difference in playstyle or something but I can't see how you ALWAYS have something useful to fill in that 3rd would if weapons are off the table.

shroudb wrote:
In all of our playtest, the times where casters did nothing with their 3rd action because they didn't have a weapon was 0.

And I've seen close to 0 non-weapon attack 3rd rounds when the combat doesn't warrant another 1+ level spell cast and they aren't in melee.


GM OfAnything wrote:
Have you played or watched Heroes of Undarin? The question is not whether you TPK in that module, it is when.

So if everyone is already going to TPK, remind me again how we'll know the spell damage increase is too much?


N N 959 wrote:
GM OfAnything wrote:
Have you played or watched Heroes of Undarin? The question is not whether you TPK in that module, it is when.

So if everyone is already going to TPK, remind me again how we'll know the spell damage increase is too much?

Say for example, that before the change 10% TPK on round 5, 30% on round 6, 50% on round 7, and 10% on round 8.

After the change, let's say the rates become 50% on round 5, 40% on round 6, and 10% on round 7.

What does that suggest in terms of danger resulting from the change?


Cyouni wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
GM OfAnything wrote:
Have you played or watched Heroes of Undarin? The question is not whether you TPK in that module, it is when.

So if everyone is already going to TPK, remind me again how we'll know the spell damage increase is too much?

Say for example, that before the change 10% TPK on round 5, 30% on round 6, 50% on round 7, and 10% on round 8.

After the change, let's say the rates become 50% on round 5, 40% on round 6, and 10% on round 7.

What does that suggest in terms of danger resulting from the change?

You're asking the wrong question. You're making an an assumption that if the spells are too good that we'll see an increase in TPKs. That doesn't necessarily follow.

1) You're talking about a really small section of the total spells. How many of the damaged increases spells are in those sections that you mentioned?

2) The PCs will also be armed with better spells, so this reduces the likelihood of a TPK.

3) If a percentage of those playing the scenario are replays simply to test out the changes, then that will further reduce the likelihood of TPKs

4) How many groups will test with the improved spells and actually report?

5) How many groups will report results after the update but not actually use the new spells (for whatever reason)?

So I'll answer your question with a better one, If the spells are too good, what is the likelihood that it also results in increased TPKs?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
Not arguing the point per se, but something I think a lot of people don't catch that makes it less severe. If someone crit fails the patients are only bolstered against THAT person's Treat Wounds. Unless a thing specifies bolstered against "All castings/uses of x" then they're only bolstered against it from that individual. So a secondary healer could pick up if something goes wrong with the primary.

Ah yes, that helps some. Thanks for the clarification.

But it means you probably want multiple people with Medicine trained or better.

You generally want two, yes. A third and you start running into diminishing returns most days, since you'll usually run out of other resources before the second person crit fails.


N N 959 wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
GM OfAnything wrote:
Have you played or watched Heroes of Undarin? The question is not whether you TPK in that module, it is when.

So if everyone is already going to TPK, remind me again how we'll know the spell damage increase is too much?

Say for example, that before the change 10% TPK on round 5, 30% on round 6, 50% on round 7, and 10% on round 8.

After the change, let's say the rates become 50% on round 5, 40% on round 6, and 10% on round 7.

What does that suggest in terms of danger resulting from the change?

You're asking the wrong question. You're making an an assumption that if the spells are too good that we'll see an increase in TPKs. That doesn't necessarily follow.

1) You're talking about a really small section of the total spells. How many of the damaged increases spells are in those sections that you mentioned?

2) The PCs will also be armed with better spells, so this reduces the likelihood of a TPK.

3) If a percentage of those playing the scenario are replays simply to test out the changes, then that will further reduce the likelihood of TPKs

4) How many groups will test with the improved spells and actually report?

5) How many groups will report results after the update but not actually use the new spells (for whatever reason)?

So I'll answer your question with a better one, If the spells are too good, what is the likelihood that it also results in increased TPKs?

1. The top-level spells are definitely there, with one monster having 5 spells that just jumped in power in the highest 2 spell levels. In the accompanying enemies, there's 2 spells in their highest two slots. So odds are that's 3 buffed spells in the first round against 4 PCs.

There's an 8th- and 9th-level spell on another monster, and another copy of one of those spells on the "additional enemies".

2. Very true, but you can also filter with/without through the results.

3. Somewhat true, but I don't think knowing the scenario will help that much in this particular example.

4. I don't think everyone's on-time with the very quickly moving playtest - our group's just about to begin Mirrored Moon ourselves. So there's likely quite a few that have yet to do it. Regarding actual reporting, that's harder to tell, but the GM's more likely to do so than the players, and that's probably the most relevant one to get information on the monsters.

5. If they're running the monsters, they'll be using the spells. Players are a different story, but that's one they can get a general sampling of through party makeup.

So the obvious answer is: I have no idea, because I don't know the base numbers. I can certainly tell you that if the number of people dying in those encounters spikes upwards, it's 100% due to the spell increase.
What would be too much? I'd have to know what their expectations for that section are to answer that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
shroudb wrote:
No where near "the best way".

It seems like that from what I've seen.

shroudb wrote:
It's the most offensive way if you somehow need to never move in a battle. Which is really rare in our table at least.

... I think everyone involved understood we are talking about rounds in which you have 3 actions available to use: as such, we aren't talking about rounds you have to move. :P It's like saying 'but movement!' in a debate on what to do with a melee weapon users 3rd action instead of a 3rd attack...

shroudb wrote:
I still no see why "weapon+spell is the most offensive way" translates to "buff cantrips"

I'm not sure why you can't... Giving cantrips a 3 action or 1 action use doesn't even have to be a traditional buff... People just want something to do for each of their actions that actually involves spell casting.

shroudb wrote:

There are numerous other, non offence, 3rd actions that you can take in a round.

Concentration, Identifying mobs, intimidation, shield, movement, use an item, true strike, etc

Technically yes, but I don't see them very often: if you aren't in melee, shield isn't very exciting and even then once broken it's a 10 min wait to recast. If you aren't a cha based caster, intimidate isn't that great. Movement I've covered above. items are VERY situational and not something to cover in a debate on average action use and the same true strike and concentration as they aren't something to do every round as a default...

So if you're not a cha based character that's intimidate focused, not in need of movement with a shield on cooldown... What's your 3rd action? are you ALWAYS casting a spell that needs concentration or needs an attack roll that could benefit from true strike [using up 2 spells]? maybe it's a difference in playstyle or something but I can't see how you ALWAYS have something useful to fill in that 3rd would if weapons are off the table.

shroudb wrote:
In all of our playtest, the times where casters did
...

so, since you want something comparable to the 3rd attack of a martial, you want something that's equivalent to a -10 attack.

that's... something that would be really, really trivial.

we're talking about a less than 5% -10% increase in total dpr.

You're talking on the power level of "spend an extra action on the cantrip, that cantrip deals +1 damage /spell level"

that's not even worth it to be put in the game.

One way or another, the 3rd action is supposed to be something different than "3rd attack".

For most people, martials and casters combines, it's movement.
for defence, martials and casters alike is shield.
skill wise, casters are either Cha based, and thus have access to Intimidation, or Int based and thus have access to Recall knowledge.
Spell wise, there's True strike to boost offensive magic and shield to boost defense, and heal. There's also magic missile, but that's one is crap as a single action, i give you that.

Concentration is an exlusive, caster only, 3rd action.

And it's pretty damn impressive.

If your casters aren't using concentration spells, then that's their choice, but when flaming sphere+cantrips can keep you in comparable DPR as a greatsword fighter at level 5 for a whole encounter, at the cost of just 1 2nd level spell, then you can't really complain about not having stuff to do.

To summurize:

Casters have actually MORE things to do with their 3rd action compared to martials.
And yes, weapon attack is amongst them, and is actually better for them compared to a martial (because a caster would have either +0 or -5 on it, while a martial would have -10 on it)

So... what's the problem?

Why, when casters already have way more options for a 3rd action compared to a martial, do you need even more?

edit: fixed some of my numbers


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

On Cantrip DPR: Let's remember that cantrips are a secondary strategy at best, when you can't or don't want to use actual spells. So our comparison isn't to an archer-- it is to a melee combatant who has to pull out a bow. So let's assume a 16 dex wizard compared to a 16 dex character without expert in all weapons-- which at low levels can be any class other than the fighter. You are looking at equal values to hit at level 1.

Keep in mind, many characters won't actually have 16 dex at level-- heavy armor users like the paladin will probably favor other stats first, and barbarians may as well.

Also keep in mind that if archery is a back up option, you're not getting the best bow on the market. Upgrading your back up weapon will lag behind your main weapon.

Let's use Telekinetic Projectile as a point of comparison so we aren't trying to look at TAC vs AC. I don't know if it is optimal, but it is simpler.

At level 1, our rainy day archer can only afford a normal shortbow. They're hitting for 1d6= 3.5. Our TKP shooter has 1d10= 5.5. The TKP does more 2 more damage on a hit. The archer does 1.5 more damage if he lands two hits-- but with MAP that doesn't seem like a huge difference. (The possibility of using that second action for something more utility focused exists, but is counterbalanced by needing to draw your backup weapon and/or sheath the main weapon, among other things.)

If the rainy day archer invests in a couple levels, they can get probably afford an expert bow and get an edge in accuracy, and a composite shortbow can add +2 damage if the character has 18 strength, which most wizards won't, obviously. But looking at the WBL tables, you probably can't afford a +1 backup weapon until level 6 at the earliest, and by level 5 our TKPist is doing 1d10+4=9.5. At level 8, the caster can choose to buy a spellduelist's wand, and at 9 they get another damage dice without spending any money.

You can get a cantrip or bow proficiency for a feat. But your cantrip actually scales fore free while the bow does not, and if you aren't focused on archery the gold cost is a very real deterrent.

Also, I'll add that the damage numbers on the short bow have a lot in common with the damage numbers you get on a finesse melee weapon that a caster could wield. The finesse weapon will probably have some traits giving it advantages, but also has to deal with movement more often and such =.

And that's without touching a wide variety of other tactical factors, such as cantrips triggering weaknesses more often.

In short, I'm not entirely convinced there's a problem with cantrip damage so much as a perception of a problem. While it isn't happening in this thread, I've seen other people compare cantrip damage to a fighter or barbarian swinging a greatsword, as if the two of those SHOULD be in anyway comparable. Addressing the perception of a problem is harder to address and buffing the numbers isn't necessarily the solution.

Personally, I'd like to see more cantrips in the vein of Daze with non-damaging effects-- and stuff that can be stacked with mundane strategies like flanking or demoralize. The Bard's composition cantrips are a really excellent design space, and stuff like Dirge of Doom or Inspire Courage are quite fun to have in play. But right now stacking rules prevents one from getting as much mileage here.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

On Cantrip DPR: Let's remember that cantrips are a secondary strategy at best, when you can't or don't want to use actual spells. So our comparison isn't to an archer-- it is to a melee combatant who has to pull out a bow. So let's assume a 16 dex wizard compared to a 16 dex character without expert in all weapons-- which at low levels can be any class other than the fighter. You are looking at equal values to hit at level 1.

Keep in mind, many characters won't actually have 16 dex at level-- heavy armor users like the paladin will probably favor other stats first, and barbarians may as well.

Also keep in mind that if archery is a back up option, you're not getting the best bow on the market. Upgrading your back up weapon will lag behind your main weapon.

Let's use Telekinetic Projectile as a point of comparison so we aren't trying to look at TAC vs AC. I don't know if it is optimal, but it is simpler.

At level 1, our rainy day archer can only afford a normal shortbow. They're hitting for 1d6= 3.5. Our TKP shooter has 1d10= 5.5. The TKP does more 2 more damage on a hit. The archer does 1.5 more damage if he lands two hits-- but with MAP that doesn't seem like a huge difference. (The possibility of using that second action for something more utility focused exists, but is counterbalanced by needing to draw your backup weapon and/or sheath the main weapon, among other things.)

If the rainy day archer invests in a couple levels, they can get probably afford an expert bow and get an edge in accuracy, and a composite shortbow can add +2 damage if the character has 18 strength, which most wizards won't, obviously. But looking at the WBL tables, you probably can't afford a +1 backup weapon until level 6 at the earliest, and by level 5 our TKPist is doing 1d10+4=9.5. At level 8, the caster can choose to buy a spellduelist's wand, and at 9 they get another damage dice without spending any money.

You can get a cantrip or bow proficiency for a feat. But your cantrip actually scales fore free while...

The melee combatant may never have to pull out the bow in the entire campaign. The Caster will have to resert to cantrips under very different circumstances and frequency.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
The melee combatant may never have to pull out the bow in the entire campaign. The Caster will have to resert to cantrips under very different circumstances and frequency.

and that's why a caster is much, much better with cantrips compared to the alternate weapon of a martial.

but that doesn't mena that cantrips should do comparable damage to the main thing of a class, that is unless there's a feat somewhere that removes all their spell slots for comparable ranged cantrips as an archer's attacks. I don't think such a feat would be ever picked though.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
ChibiNyan wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

On Cantrip DPR: Let's remember that cantrips are a secondary strategy at best, when you can't or don't want to use actual spells. So our comparison isn't to an archer-- it is to a melee combatant who has to pull out a bow. So let's assume a 16 dex wizard compared to a 16 dex character without expert in all weapons-- which at low levels can be any class other than the fighter. You are looking at equal values to hit at level 1.

Keep in mind, many characters won't actually have 16 dex at level-- heavy armor users like the paladin will probably favor other stats first, and barbarians may as well.

Also keep in mind that if archery is a back up option, you're not getting the best bow on the market. Upgrading your back up weapon will lag behind your main weapon.

Let's use Telekinetic Projectile as a point of comparison so we aren't trying to look at TAC vs AC. I don't know if it is optimal, but it is simpler.

At level 1, our rainy day archer can only afford a normal shortbow. They're hitting for 1d6= 3.5. Our TKP shooter has 1d10= 5.5. The TKP does more 2 more damage on a hit. The archer does 1.5 more damage if he lands two hits-- but with MAP that doesn't seem like a huge difference. (The possibility of using that second action for something more utility focused exists, but is counterbalanced by needing to draw your backup weapon and/or sheath the main weapon, among other things.)

If the rainy day archer invests in a couple levels, they can get probably afford an expert bow and get an edge in accuracy, and a composite shortbow can add +2 damage if the character has 18 strength, which most wizards won't, obviously. But looking at the WBL tables, you probably can't afford a +1 backup weapon until level 6 at the earliest, and by level 5 our TKPist is doing 1d10+4=9.5. At level 8, the caster can choose to buy a spellduelist's wand, and at 9 they get another damage dice without spending any money.

You can get a cantrip or bow proficiency for a feat. But your

...

If your melee character never has to use their bow, your GM is probably soft balling encounters TBH. Which makes balance kind of a meaningless point-- a GM could also use nova friendly encounter design that let's you cast an actual spell every round, for example.

Yeah, cantrips might need to be used a little more often than a back up weapon, but they still shouldn't be compared to a primary weapon. They aren't why you play a Caster.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:


If your melee character never has to use their bow, your GM is probably soft balling encounters TBH. Which makes balance kind of a meaningless point-- a GM could also use nova friendly encounter design that let's you cast an actual spell every round, for example.

Yeah, cantrips might need to be used a little more often than a back up weapon, but they still shouldn't be compared to a primary weapon. They aren't why you play a Caster.

I think that's particularly true when you remember that casters have actual spells which are generally going to be significantly stronger than cantrips (particularly with these buffs getting rolled out). A better comparison between martials and casters than "what does a cantrip look like compared to a martial's secondary weapon" would involve taking something like an APL+1 encounter with a mix of flying and melee opponents and calculating contributions across a 2-3 round span.

If a wizard is going
Round 1: Recall Knowledge, chain lightning
Round 2: ray of frost, shield
Round 3: true strike, ray of frost

and the fighter is doing something like

Round 1: Sudden Charge, Certain Strike, [R]Attack of Opportunity
Round 2: Intimidate, Attack, Shatter Defenses
Round 3: [F] Drop melee weapon because remaining enemies are flying, Draw bow, Attack, Attack -5

Then you're going to end up with the numbers being pretty close. The wizard will most likely do more damage on the initial round, particularly if the fighter doesn't get to make that attack of opportunity (I assume they'll get at least one about every three rounds) or that Recall Knowledge check reveals that the creature(s) have a weakness to a particular elemental spell. The fighter will deal marginally more damage on the subsequent rounds, but he's catching up to that big burst of damage the wizard dealt on Round 1 when he burned a high level spell. If the wizard's cantrips were equivalent to a fighter's "full attack" routine then the wizard would be roughly equivalent to the fighter on rounds when using cantrips while spiking above the fighter when using high level spells, meaning that wizard is flat out better overall. It's really hard to compare efficacy when you're only looking at two direct points of comparison on classes or combat styles that operate under completely different paradigms.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

For the record, I hope Assurance is one of those things they're going to change in the final draft.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
The melee combatant may never have to pull out the bow in the entire campaign. The Caster will have to resert to cantrips under very different circumstances and frequency.

and that's why a caster is much, much better with cantrips compared to the alternate weapon of a martial.

but that doesn't mena that cantrips should do comparable damage to the main thing of a class, that is unless there's a feat somewhere that removes all their spell slots for comparable ranged cantrips as an archer's attacks. I don't think such a feat would be ever picked though.

Cantrips should do enough damage that they feel like they're doing something useful rather than being a dead turn, though.

Honestly, half the time I use a cantrip I'm annoyed when I'm doing it, because they're just not impactful.

That's kind of the thing here. Even if it is effective, the feel doesn't work that well for me. I was having more fun doing aid actions with the Human feat to give a +4 attack to someone else, hoping they'd land a crit or something. I'm not sure if that was actually better than shooting off my own cantrip, but it certainly felt more interesting.


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Tridus wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
Not arguing the point per se, but something I think a lot of people don't catch that makes it less severe. If someone crit fails the patients are only bolstered against THAT person's Treat Wounds. Unless a thing specifies bolstered against "All castings/uses of x" then they're only bolstered against it from that individual. So a secondary healer could pick up if something goes wrong with the primary.

Ah yes, that helps some. Thanks for the clarification.

But it means you probably want multiple people with Medicine trained or better.

You generally want two, yes. A third and you start running into diminishing returns most days, since you'll usually run out of other resources before the second person crit fails.

Four of my players picked up Medicine. In our last session, three of them crit failed in the first four Treat Wounds attempts that any of them made.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
caps wrote:
Four of my players picked up Medicine. In our last session, three of them crit failed in the first four Treat Wounds attempts that any of them made.

Sure. The odds of that are literally 1 in 8000 in most cases, though (the odds of rolling three ones). Well, unless they're terrible at Medicine.

Heck, if two of them have the minimum possible Medicine at level 10 and the other is decent at it, it's still only a 1 in 320 chance.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:


3) If a percentage of those playing the scenario are replays simply to test out the changes, then that will further reduce the likelihood of TPKs

From various posts here (admittedly, that isn't great evidence but it IS evidence) most groups are finding it very hard to get through ONE run of Heroes. I'm not the only one to find it incredibly draining work and not very enjoyable at all.

Paizo would have to literally (and by literally I DO mean literally) PAY me to run that twice (I'd accept store credit, mind :-)).

51 to 100 of 165 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Raising the Flag All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.