Dubious Scholar's page

1,391 posts. Alias of Matthew Scheele.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,391 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sickened 1 for 2 turns doesn't mean you can't try to recover before then, it means Sickened ends, period, after 2 turns. And possibly earlier, unless something (e.g. Evil Eye) specifically forbids recovery while the effect is active.

"Whenever you’re affected by a condition, its effects last until the condition’s stated duration ends, the condition is removed, or terms dictated in the condition itself cause it to end."

Frightened almost never has a duration applied, so it's almost never applicable to try and extend it, because the rules for the condition cause you to recover automatically over time in short order. And duration does not prevent recovery, so even if you could extend it, that wouldn't prevent recovery without text explicitly doing so (such as the old Evil Eye).

This, of course, is why you use conditions that don't have built-in recovery mechanisms, like Slow. Or Enfeebled. They could still use an ability that clears conditions to break it, but that's pretty rare on enemies in my experience.

The condition extending effects are less useful against groups of enemies, but as has been noted, spellcasters are strong against groups of enemies in general. But if a campaign tends to not have single big enemy boss fights, Resentment loses relative value compared to other patrons. Faith and Weaver in particular don't really care about how many enemies you have (as you can just empower your frontliner to cut down stuff faster either way). Winter is going to be chipping away HP at the same rate with their hex no matter how many enemies there are, etc. This doesn't really make Resentment bad though, it's just that it ranges from "the best" to "really good" depending on the campaign.


Captain Morgan wrote:

Page 387: Nudge Fate seems like if got mixed up with some other spell.

NUDGE FATE [one-action] CANTRIP 1
UNCOMMON CANTRIP CONCENTRATE HEX WITCH
Patron Spinner of Threads
Range 30 feet; Targets 1 creature
Defense Will; Duration 1 minute

First off, it shouldn't have a Defense because it is a buff. Secondly, it doesn't mention Sustained in its duration. These completely break the patterns of all the other hexes so they are likely unintended, much as I am sure spinner of fates players might wish otherwise.

Funny enough, the saving throw bit was in the original.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fire benefits significantly from level 5 and taking the aura junction. It's very easy to apply 2-3 ticks of fire a round to everything to trigger that weakness over and over. (Thermal Nimbus, Flying Flame, Elemental Blast will basically always do 2 hits in aoe of it, plus decent odds of a third hit to on target). It's basically an automatic 4 damage to all enemies in 10', Flying Flame is 3d8 (+2 weakness), and your blast is 2d8 (+2 weakness). The damage also increases every level since your aura bumps on even levels and Flying Flame on odd.

A quick skim of enemies at level 3 is most stuff in the range of 30-60 HP, so a lot of standard enemy compositions greatly suffer from that. Definitely weaker at single target, but I think it should still hold up well on a single level 7 target? (Mostly 100-130 HP, but assuming hard DCs/reflex saves by level... I get 18.2 DPR)

Bonus points in that it doesn't need Safe Elements for its damage aura since it applies fire resistance to your allies.

For a comparison to the build I'm planning on with water/wood - I'd be looking at Safe Elements+Hail of Splinters turn 1, and turn 2 Winter's Clutch+Blast (which gets... 9.2 the first round and 15 after that, assuming bleed doesn't end). Upside is this probably offers more defense as it can pivot to healing/trees, and has Winter Sleet on the aura to debuff... I'm not entirely sure mono-fire is doing quite enough damage under these assumptions compared to the utility elsewhere. I wonder if bleed immunity (that can't be bypassed via Extract Elements) is more common than fire?

Although I should note that level 5 may be a bad comparison point, as the water/wood build gains no damage at 6, and the fire build adds 3.15 or so). The odd levels scale slightly better for the water/wood (1.375 bleed), but not as well as the even levels do for mono-fire. Of course, mono fire isn't burning a whole turn setting up damage each round (and Hail of Splinters is much swingier - since the save for the bleed is all up front, it's got high variance on that part of the damage)

I do wonder if the base damage of fire needs to be a little better though - it's definitely the best scaling damage build, but it doesn't offer as much utility and seems like it ends up being one-note burn everything easily.

One last edit: Thinking about it though... Flying Flame has a big advantage in the boss fight for being trivial to hit with without hitting allies. Winter's Clutch is easy to place but if allies are setting up flanks there's no way to land it safely (Assuming orthogonal and not diagonal flanking). I'd have to use Safe Elements to make it land or switch my routine completely - either way loses significant damage (At least 4/round), so fire may be fine there. Air is the only other element with as easy a way to aim AoEs (Aerial Boomerang being a line - even if you never recall it, they should be easily be able to align a safe shot and then blast each turn thanks to their impulse junction), everything else is cones or bursts for their early options. (Or a wide line, in one case, but it still has trouble landing on a boss engaged by multiple allies)


Yeah, Ceremonial Knife is a toss-up. It's a clearly useful feat, because it's 2 extra slots for utility/buffs/debuffs a day (overcharge casts the spell for sure, it's just a tossup if the dagger survives... and you don't actually care about that). But there's absolutely other options you can take there.

I'm not sure I can bring myself to ever skip the familiar attack feats, especially the occult/divine one. Spend 1 action to command familiar to deal significant damage and also heal an ally is hard to beat.


Inscribed is in a rough spot, for sure. It's still an awkward, niche ability and you're basically paying a lot to get that arcane spell list.

Meanwhile there's great choices for every other spell list and the gaps between lists are much smaller these days anyways.

Resentment is really good at picking one specific enemy and crippling them, for sure. Spinner of Threads offers constant party support between the two abilities. The single divine patron in Flamekeeper retains its excellent buff hex, and gains another valuable party support effect by handing out HP buffers. And with the divine list having much better cantrips now, it's another great starting point for party support. For primal, the winter patron has an unimpressive familiar ability but the hex is some of the best blasting magic available thanks to the excellent action economy, so this is the obvious choice for doing raw damage.

Wilding Word is the other awkward patron, since it's mostly focused on self-defense. The familiar ability is good, but niche. It's more useful than Inscribed, but it's probably the second weakest patron. (There was a really cool suggestion to make the hex protect any minions you have out, much like the Protect Companion cantrip, which would bump this up significantly by offering obvious routes of specialization into summons or the Beastmaster archetype)

Edit: And yes, Familiar of Balanced Luck doesn't stack with Frightened/Sickened for debuffing, but status bonuses to AC aren't as common I think. Still, it's true it does have issues there - Faith's Flamekeeper has no real conflicts on its support abilities to worry about by comparison (and temp HP stacks nicely with other defensive reactions your party may have to really soak damage)


On the other hand, the class is very light on stat use, so it's pretty flexible on what skills you do take. But yes, they're on the weaker side outside of combat, unless it's a situation where their impulses are relevant.

I had a GM just look at me and then skip over a "find food and water for the people you're rescuing" bit because I was playing a Water/Wood kineticist. And instead of rolling survival or something I can just Base Kinesis fresh water and vegetables out of thin air, without limit.


Wild Mimic is just begging to get added onto a Monk, but probably works great with a lot of martials, so I'm going to have to try that out sometime.


Frightened ticking down is definitely not prevented by this. The value of the condition reduces on its own, that's separate from duration. Look at Dirge of Doom and friends.

If a spell said a creature was Enfeebled 3, but reduced this Enfeebled at the end of its turn, this wouldn't be able to extend that either (it could extend the duration of the effect, but it wouldn't remove the clause saying Enfeebled is ticking down, and a condition with a value of 0 is cleared by the rules)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, the action cost to activate alchemical ammo is a real killer for anything with Reload. And that's basically the issue - you have to spend two actions per attack, your action economy sucks. The feats letting you compress actions help, but they aren't able to get you to the point of shooting twice a round (Risky Reload is the only one that does that, and it's only saving an action some of the time... and yet it's also the best of all the compressors because you can actually shoot twice a turn with it. Anti-synergy with Fake Out, but that's fine)

I really wish there was something that said you could activate ammo as part of loading it or something (if it's a reload 1+ weapon). Nobody uses heavy crossbows as a main weapon because reload 2 is an impossible action tax to overcome, and magic/alchemical ammo runs into that same issue.


ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Most of the time I do not see Magus players go into Witch/Wizard Multiclass, just Psychic for that sweet, sweet imaginary weapon which is dumb. Then again do you really need any other cantrip outside Gouging Claw, Telekinetic Projectile and Ignition? Hell you only need Ignition and Gouging Claw, to be viable. The changes to cantrips just made iNT less worthwhile if you only cast "Attack" cantrips, so maybe that is why I haven't seen FA into Witch or Wizard or if I have it tends to be higher level past 2, so they can get a bunch of slots already.

Why Phasebolt is 3d4 is beyond me, it as someone pointed out earlier the real winner of the cantrip world.

1d4+4 is 6.5 average. 3d4 is 7.5. It's basically because that makes it worthwhile at level 1. (it's the same as what TKP used to do with +4 in your main stat anyways). The d4 scaling means it'll fall behind the d6 cantrips over time in raw damage but retain a niche (well, not really for Magus as much, but other casters) due to its anti-cover/shield properties.


This is why my sniper for PFS is a sprite - cover's everywhere when you're tiny!

But yeah, gunslinger could have used just a bit less swinginess in damage. Let them treat 1s on damage dice as 2s or something, bring the floor up without adding damage? I don't think they're TOO far off overall. Some of the subclasses have more issues than others, for sure.

Combination weapons are rough because most of them are MAD, but the later Triggerbrand isn't bad I think (as a backup ranged option you don't have to upgrade separately. I dunno about good for gunslingers, but it's a neat toy for a rogue or something). At least it's not Inventor's horrifyingly bad transforming weapon feat?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think this impacts Summoner significantly in the long run - they lose about 1.5/target on EA at low levels, but their ability to play as a martial is mostly unaffected (and the damage loss is basically flat at all levels so it's less impactful the higher you get). Depends a bit on your GM and all due to how the class works, as usual.

Magus doesn't care at all I think. Gouging Claw's buff is solid, the damage of amped psychic spells is still big. They can trigger weakness via arcane cascade off a cantrip still, even if they didn't spellstrike it - weakness doesn't care about the amount of damage as long as it's not zero. (Plus, matching damage type of weapon and spell punches through resists better)

Psychic... hmm. It only impacts some of the conscious minds. I think Oscillating Wave is better (Reflex save on amped Frostbite improves expected damage a lot), the other d4 cantrips are basically the same damage as before anyways, so Distant Step is unaffected. Imaginary Weapon was already hard to use, so I'm not sure how much Tangible Dream cares (Astral Rain is slightly better on average now).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
Tunu40 wrote:

Don’t think that works. Nothing keeps their Fly speed when you mount them unless it specifically has the Mount special ability.

...

So I see that rule specifically for Animal Companions.

PC1, pg. 207 wrote:

RIDING ANIMAL COMPANIONS

You or an ally can ride your animal companion as long as it is at least one size larger than the rider. If it is carrying a rider, the animal companion can use only its land Speed, and it can’t move and Support you on the same turn. However, if your companion has the mount special ability, it’s especially suited for riding and ignores both of these restrictions.
But interestingly, I can't find a rule that covers flying mounts that aren't animal companions in either PC1 or GMC.

It's why the Sprite's Corgi familiar feat has a special clause saying no flying.


Gisher wrote:
Outl wrote:

...

Why are familiars allowed to fly from level 1, when most other instances of fly are restricted to higher level?
...
Do you consider a Familiar having the ability to fly as having the same impact on low-level threats/obstacles that character flight would?

I think the earliest you can really do anything silly with that is level 3 by casting Enlarge on a familiar with a fly speed. Which makes it a flying mount for five minutes.


Not all classes have easy access to offensive focus spells though, and not all subclasses, etc.

Definitely optimal if you're Elemental or Draconic Bloodline and can just throw out explosions on par with your highest slots liberally, sure.


I am actually curious how a martial stacks up against a kineticist pulling Sustain (Ignite the Sun), Sustain (Ignite the Sun), Channel+Blast, Blazing Wave each round (during Furnace Form for good measure and with Fire Aura). That's a ludicrous amount of dice (27d8 over three Reflex saves, 7d8 attack roll, and potentially 4 ticks of 10 fire weakness - I know this leaves blaster casters in the dust, and it even buffs the party for good measure)

But more on topic...

Rebalanced attack roll cantrips are roughly even - TKP is slightly weaker than the 3d4 options at level 1, but pulls ahead slowly. The expected damage for these is very close to their unchanged versions (3d4=7.5, same as 1d4+4, 2d6 is 7, slightly worse than the old 7.5 average)

The changes to save based cantrips generally still leave EA as the winner, but there's more arguments for other stuff now, and being 2d4 for all the save based cantrips balances them a bit against attack rolls. (Vitality Lash is still 2d6, because it's a really narrow spell. Void Rend is a welcome upgrade over Chill Touch and divine cantrips are in a great place now). Frostbite is a real competitor with EA depending on your GM, etc. due to the 60' range.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Megistone wrote:
What happens if a minion has persistent damage going on and you don't spend an action to command it? A literal interpretation of the rule would be that it doesn't take damage this round.

A non-acting minion is no different from an non-acting PC. Does a PC who is slowed 3 or stunned or outright unconscious stop taking persistent damage?

Not quite - the question is when the minion's turn in initiative is to begin with. A PC who can't act still has a turn come around.


I think it's more that Cast Down is a really strong effect to tack onto Harm. (Also, not a terrible option for Warpriests to just use a level 1 Cast Down Harm to slap an enemy onto the ground for two actions, you're free to strike or shield after that, you've set them up for your allies nicely, etc)


We all know Thief is kind of silly. They're a subclass that uses Dex for everything, they're the most flexible character build of any class in terms of stats. And then they get the best debilitations too (Scoundrel and Mastermind could have used a buff on theirs I think).

But honestly... Rogue is good enough overall that not being as good as Thief doesn't do much to stop a build. Ruffian and Scoundrel both got some upgrades with the remaster, neither are as easy mode as Thief but they were viable before and they're better now, so I find it hard to complain too much about it I guess - I don't worry about whether I'll be effective in or out of combat regardless of which I pick.


From talking to the owner at my FLGS it sounds like he was definitely seeing different things from different distributors, so another anecdote on the pile I guess?

On a more positive note, they're absolutely gorgeous in person and I'll absolutely be getting sketch cover on PC2 if I can.


Lost Omens: Impossible Lands

Clearly, anything that drinks a Vishkanya's blood should be exposed to their venom.


Yeah, this is an old one that never got a definitive answer. I've seen people going both ways on it. I feel like rolling each time makes more sense from the text and is also less susceptible to metagaming and such, though it's a bit of a pain for the GM.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I noticed that Repeat a Spell doesn't automatically fatigue you anymore, unless it's a spell that "requires complex decisions such as figment". A lot of potential there now! Not just Shield, but Bard and Witch have a lot of useful focus cantrips that would be great to have running at the start of a fight already, etc. (And in the case of Witch, I'd argue some of those also keep the familiar ability running for bonus fun?)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Monk having basically all of their cool stuff available via archetype at full strength was probably a mistake, yes.


Yup, it's basically Chill Touch with 30' range. They took away the old effect it had on undead and it just doesn't do anything to them, but that's fine - nobody used Chill Touch for that anyways, right?

Oh and yeah, the upgrading Gouging Claw is just the automatic default Spellstrike choice now unless you're burning spell slots or trying to hit a weakness.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Void Rend replacing Chill Touch is a significant boost for the Divine list, since you can now do damage with a fort save at range to anything that's not a construct (using Vitality Lash for undead).

I'm really happy that between this and Needle Darts in RoE the Divine list no longer feels like you're being pushed to spend feats to get a better cantrip from somewhere else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
pH unbalanced wrote:
Dubious Scholar wrote:
Sy Kerraduess wrote:

Given Tangible Dream has Imaginary Weapon, I doubt they're much worried about the fact they're nerfing its other cantrip.

Plus amped Figment and Imaginary Weapon actually have synergy, since Imaginary Weapon can benefit from the flanking figment.

Not everyone wants to run into melee range with a 6 HP spellcaster! Imaginary Weapon's always been a bit of a puzzle, and Figment doesn't really change the fundamental question of using it I feel.

It's a pretty big difference in utility - as noted, why not just make it Amped Light and maintain the existing functionality like Oscillating Wave did with the new fire/ice cantrips. That flashbomb effect is part of what sold me on the conscious mind in the first place because I didn't feel like trying to make Imaginary Weapon work (and wanted Astral Rain).

Yeah, my psychic tends to stand back and use Shield on the frontline and Dancing Lights on the enemies. Imaginary Weapon is only for emergencies.

I'll certainly get some use out of Figment -- providing flanking for *allies* -- and it is absolutely thematic, but losing Dancing Lights is disappoint.

It's listed as an optional swap at the start of the DA section, at least. I was very annoyed until I found that bit.


Moonbeam (p. 377): The base damage of the spell was increased to 2d6, but the Heightened entry is unchanged. Unclear if this was intended, but I'm assuming it was meant to match Fire Ray on both base and heightened. (Especially as being half the damage of it previously was a clear case of being completely underpowered)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sy Kerraduess wrote:

Given Tangible Dream has Imaginary Weapon, I doubt they're much worried about the fact they're nerfing its other cantrip.

Plus amped Figment and Imaginary Weapon actually have synergy, since Imaginary Weapon can benefit from the flanking figment.

Not everyone wants to run into melee range with a 6 HP spellcaster! Imaginary Weapon's always been a bit of a puzzle, and Figment doesn't really change the fundamental question of using it I feel.

It's a pretty big difference in utility - as noted, why not just make it Amped Light and maintain the existing functionality like Oscillating Wave did with the new fire/ice cantrips. That flashbomb effect is part of what sold me on the conscious mind in the first place because I didn't feel like trying to make Imaginary Weapon work (and wanted Astral Rain).


Tunu40 wrote:
It’s a small thing, but I like that Baba Yaga’s Spirit Object buff means my object (puppet) familiar can pack a bigger punch.

It's fairly minor as buffs go - 2d4 is +1 damage over spell mod at level 1 on average, but yeah.

*

1 person marked this as a favorite.

FYI, https://paizo.com/pathfinderSociety links to the old domain still on the Guide to Organized Play link. Not directly an issue on the guide itself, but.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Amped Figment is drastically inferior to Amped Dancing Lights and represents a serious nerf to Tangible Dream if you go with that.

Especially because Figment requires CHA investment and Psychic is supposed to be a class that works for Cha OR Int, but even beyond that - providing a single attack of flanking with a sustain, with the requirement that you don't fail Create a Diversion (which probably doesn't help you much anyways either, depending on your spell selection)... it doesn't feel comparable to a 120' range AoE flashbang spell. I've gotten so much mileage out of just opening any fight by throwing Dazzled onto half the enemies, basically always negates an attack or two (and in one memorable instance... a boss critically failed and lost two turns to Fascinated and then Dazzled basically)

*

Ah, there's also Enforced Order from Aasimar, which is the Lawful version of those feats. Doesn't seem to be a Chaotic equivalent on Tiefling though.


Karneios wrote:
I feel like the strength of the witch has become so much more tied into the question "how fast will the DM kill the familiar each adventuring day", at least for the strong familiar abilities, for stuff like a 5 foot burst of difficult terrain that's less so

Depending on interpretation of the familiar ability to be a tattoo or otherwise inconspicuous and whether that impacts them using those abilities.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Eoran wrote:
Dubious Scholar wrote:
So, Resentment patron. That familiar ability reads like 1e cackle nonsense, "oh hey you saved against my debuff. That didn't matter, you're never escaping anyways". Like, Slow is just insane with that, right? Anything other than a critical success on a save and you steal an action for the rest of the fight. Similar for basically any other debuffing spell that does 1 round on a success or longer on failures.

Approximately, yes.

Is there a problem with that?

No. This makes me cackle with glee. I see nothing wrong with being able to build a witch around slowly piling up more and more debuffs on a target as the martials beat it down, it really captures one of the core concepts.

As a balance question... it seems fine to me anyways since it doesn't really increase the ceiling for debuffs so much as make it easier to get there. Well, in a vacuum. I won't deny it's one of the stronger such abilities. (It is, however, clearly specialized towards single strong opponents - it's a lot less potent on multiple targets, though it can still shore up AoE debuffs)


So, Resentment patron. That familiar ability reads like 1e cackle nonsense, "oh hey you saved against my debuff. That didn't matter, you're never escaping anyways". Like, Slow is just insane with that, right? Anything other than a critical success on a save and you steal an action for the rest of the fight. Similar for basically any other debuffing spell that does 1 round on a success or longer on failures.

*

That's good to hear. I'll just have to wait for Wednesday for the update then.

Plenty of time to roll a new Witch between that posting and a game starting that evening, I'm sure.

*

On another note - since going forward Witches will have to use the remaster rules, how does this interact with the boons for rare witch patrons? Since they're missing features present in remaster patrons I'm not sure if they would fall under the same header as Runelords (which I assume is because of spell school dependence) until updated.

*

Is the Tiefling's Fiendish Strikes feat subject to the same change as Aasimar Celestial Strikes?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, the ancestry feats have always had scaling proficiency since the original CRB - the level 5 feat was only to grab crit spec. They all just worked by lowering the tier you looked at, but it effectively meant certain martial weapons would use your simple proficiency (which every class has automatically scale now), and advanced could use martial (or simple, in the case of Tengu).

I do think that just saying "whenever you get expert or better with simple weapons, this proficiency increases to match" is the best way to go in general. Martials get expert at 5, casters get it later, always at the same level they get it for anything else.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
ssims2 wrote:

Page 264, "Trick Magic Item" feat.

If you activate a magic item that requires a spell attack
modifier or spell DC and you don’t have the ability to cast spells
of the relevant tradition, use your level as your proficiency
bonus and the highest of your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma
modifiers. If you’re a master in the appropriate skill for the item’s
tradition, you instead use the trained proficiency bonus; if you’re
legendary, you instead use the expert proficiency bonus.

Since spell attack & DC proficiency is no longer split up by tradition, the bold section can be omitted, leaving it as "If ... you don't have the ability to cast spells, use your level..."

While spell attack and DC aren't split up, a Wizard is still not a Divine spellcaster, so the highlighted text does have mechanical impact I would think. Whether that's intended, of course... (On the other hand, why would you be using Trick Magic Item if you were a caster of that tradition anyways? So I assume the intent was proficiency, and it's just doubly wrong?)


Flurry of Blows being available via archetype was probably a mistake tbh.

Rogue's always had some pretty good synergy with Monk though since the stances are superb sneak attack "weapons".


3-Body Problem wrote:
arcady wrote:

Actually the Wounded Rules there contradict the "new" rule in recovery checks.

In the quote there for Wounded it says to add wounded value when you GAIN the dying condition. Not to re-add it to every time you increment your dying value.

So if we go by that text in Wounded remaster has NOT changed how dying and wounded works. If we go by the parenthetical included to the side of the recovery checks - then remaster has changed it.

Gain doesn't only mean the first time you get something, in this case, the Dying status. Gain can also mean when your Dying value increases.

Examples: Gaining weight, gaining value, gaining muscle. These all require you to already have the thing you are gaining more of.

If they wanted it to only work the first time you become Dying after being in a different state they'd need to use much tighter wording.

So by the same logic, losing a condition can also mean a decrease in value, so going from Dying 2 to Dying 1 increases your Wounded value?


Well, without this change, Stabilize always improves their odds of survival at least slightly, just by making them not have to roll recovery checks unless something hits them again. (because Dying 2 is Dying 2 either way)

With this change, casting Stabilize on anyone who isn't already Dying 3 makes it easier for them to die, not harder. And possibly even then. (Dying 3 Wounded 0 has better odds of survival than Dying 2 Wounded 1)


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Stabilizing an ally isn't any better with the change though. That brings them to Dying 0... and increases their wounded condition. But they're still unconscious. If they were Wounded 0, stabilizing them actually makes it easier for them to die to a stray AoE!

Think about that for a second. If they're at Dying 1, you're being a helpful teammate and Stabilize, they go to Dying 0 Wounded 1. Getting hit makes them Dying 2 Wounded 1. If you hadn't helped them, they'd only be Dying 2 Wounded 0, which has drastically higher odds of not dying, and you could have spent those actions damaging whatever is threatening them.

How does it make any sense for the rules to outright penalize leaping to an ally's aid like that?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Another issue - lethality enforces minmaxing for survival. Do we want to just mandate everyone build their characters to maximize their AC/saves? How risky should it be to not max your AC? Because higher lethality increases that risk and punishes suboptimal defenses.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
LandSwordBear wrote:
I’m just here waiting for the spoilers….

Aroden dies.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

As a simple question though: Does this actually improve anything? Because all it seems to do is make things more lethal.

And I get that Wounded was added to the game to address a specific mechanical issue with PCs popping up and down from healing. But I assert that it accomplishes its goal solely by increasing the initial dying value - stacking additional increases on recovery saves/damage is unnecessary to avoid the play patterns Wounded is intended to prevent.

At that point, I'm forced to ask whether there is any benefit to this? Because the way I've been playing all these years has certainly never run into the issues Wounded aims to address - there's just too much of a cost to going down even once already (and in fact, I'm wondering if a large part of the original issue is quadratic wizards, which is much less of a problem in 2e, and how martial classes are hurt more by being downed than casters)

Ultimately, lethality is not a virtue. It's a balancing act and part of creating tension in the game and story. However, the way I've been playing all these years has never felt lacking in that tension due to how going down can already snowball, well tuned encounter math, etc. As such, I see no reason to increase lethality - it's pointless, because lethality is a tool, not a goal.

I would like to see Paizo errata this change out (and de facto, this is a rules change for a lot of players), because it provides no benefit to the game as a whole, while at the same time it hurts the game in other areas (such as how Orc Ferocity goes from being a cool risk/reward choice to suicide, or how it makes Fast Healing effects extremely risky)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

If I had to sum up my thoughts - I think the change (and it's absolutely a change for a large portion of the playerbase, if not the majority) is pointless and detracts from the game for a few reasons.

First, it increases the lethality of low levels. This is basically objectively bad (there's a reason Society play ended up making massive damage impossible at level 1, after all - it was just too easy for a boss to randomly crit for double the HP of a backline character, and that's not fun for anyone)

Second, it breaks the clean progression of wounded and odds of dying. Before, you have the math break down as "probably stabilizes", "toss up", "probably dies", "is dead" for getting dropped at Wounded 0-3. This change makes it go from "probably stabilizes" to "probably dies" immediately, which is unappealing to me (the linear progression is good).

Third, the already noted issues with persistent damage. It becomes basically instant death to get dropped with persistent damage even if you aren't wounded! (Because even if you make the flat check for persistent damage, you either make your recovery save... go to Wounded 1... and then get dropped to Dying 2 / Wounded 1 immediately, or don't make it and it drops you to Dying 3. In either case the most likely outcome is you die within 2 rounds)

Fourth, considering how easily Wounded is cleared out of combat, it really doesn't make sense for it to a binary "barely hanging on" type condition, which is what the math works out to for this change. It's going from "you're dazed and groggy but still in this" to "you're holding your guts in" narratively it feels like when you look at the math and survivability just drops off a cliff at just Wounded 1. And yet 10m of treatment makes it so it never happened? That makes more sense for Wounded 1 being less crippling.

Fifth, as an extension of that - this change makes healing up between fights basically mandatory, because a second fight without a heal break is just going to murder anyone who got unlucky and dropped to 0 the last fight. Being able to press on under narrative pressure, or have surprise reinforcements show up, etc - this change is actively hostile to that kind of narrative development because of how a PC with Wounded is now at "avoid all damage no matter what or die". Which, really - gets to a more basic point:

Lethality is not compatible with a heroic narrative. Heroes, by definition, survive impossible odds, wounds that should have killed them, etc. This change is antithetical to the basic premise of the game system I feel. It's fine for a GM to feel a campaign is better suited to higher risk of death, but that should be something decided on a campaign basis and not baked into the base rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:
I wasn't aware people didn't interpret it this way from the very start... good on the remaster team for making it more clear this time around, maybe this explains why some people never thought the first four levels were as deadly serious as they really are and got into the habit of using (wasting) Hero Points on stuff like rerolls as opposed to holding onto them in order to save your PCs life in the event of a single mid-high damage roll crit against your character in round 1 or 2 which destroys any momentum a party could hope to have in an at or above level threat encounter.

The hero point doesn't really do much here though - you still end up unconscious and with no hero points. Generally, it's saved for use only when you'd go to dying 4 anyways, since it clears it no matter how far down you are and you need help to get back up whether you use it or not. It's just a free Stabilize (without increasing Wounded).

1 to 50 of 1,391 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>