Lavielav's page

That ruling is very ambiguous, and there is nothing that states you'd go to 1hp.

ah yes my bad.

When you’re unconscious and at 0 HP but no longer dying, you naturally return to 1 HP and awaken after sufficient time passes

So, apparenty, if you succeed at your death saving throw, you lose 'dying X', but stays at 0 hp and unconscious. Thus you're at GM's mercy.

the only thing that can make you conscious is to have 1 hp.

either through heal, or through GM's mercy as noted on

When you’re unconscious and at 0 HP but no longer dying, you naturally return to 1 HP and awaken after sufficient time passes. The GM determines how long you remain unconscious, from at least 10 minutes to several hours.

and

If you ever return to 1 Hit Point or more, you become conscious. If you were dying when you regain conscious, you’re slowed for 1 round, with a slowed value equal to the dying value you had just before you returned to 1 HP.

what about that interpretation?

You get from above 0 to 0, you gain 'dying X' and unconscious. From here there are few options to regain consciousness

->you get healed, you go above 0, you lose 'dying x', gain 'slow x' and become conscious.

-> you get first aided/stabilized(the spell), you lose 'dying x', but still unconscious, you become conscious when you're healed to above 0 hp. (as per unconscious condition errata

-> you succeed at rolling death save throws multiple times, you lose 'dying x', you gain 1 hp, and you become conscious

So if you had the dying 3 condition, if you have a normal failure against a fireball spell, you now have the dying 1 condition... ?
ttack or have a critical failure on your saving throw."[/b]

(Also, it looks like the section should be called "Taking Damage while Unconscious" since you can be unconscious and NOT dying. And I'm not sure why it cross-references the rules for getting knocked out when only one of the bullet points applies - perhaps it should just state what happens (increase Dying value by 1 or 2) without cross-referencing another rule.)

I think this passage from page 319 address that

If you’re affected by a condition with a value multiple times, you apply only the higher value, although you might have to track both durations if one has a lower value but lasts longer.

So if you have 'dying 3' and get damaged, you will gain another 'dying 1' (or at most 'dying 2') condition , but since the general rule state apply only the higher value, you stay at dying 3.

With this, there's no real way to die except to fail your dying check.

There's actually no real point to make. This is just an observation that lvl 1 PC might not be as powerful as we (or at least I) think it is as compared to an unnamed NPC in the neighborhood.

ability-wise, The PC are literally just 2 ability boost better than your average Joe. It's in a scale from 0 to a potential perfection of let's say 18 ability boost (from average joe to lvl 20 PC)

the only big difference is the '1 full class'. but considering much class only gives the basic ability...

It all started when I want to know the power relation between 1st level PC and commoner. Are they already, truly set above the other people? Are the average ability of commoner still 10 (leading to the standarized +0)? That's the kind of question I feel the need to answer, And so I dig the playtest rulebook.

the only thing I found about commoner is when you hire a hireling.

Unskilled hirelings can do simple grunt work, and are untrained using most skills. Skilled hirelings have expert profciency in a particular skill. Hirelings are level 0. If a skill check is needed, an untrained hireling has a +0 modifer, while a skilled hireling has a +4 modifer in their area of expertise and +0 for other skill checks.

want to breakdown how the +0 and +4 comes out. so I start with appropriation. I suggest it's safe to say that this untrained hireling is as common and essentially and effectively the same as commoner.

We all know that skill check modifier = ability modifier + level + proficiency.
The text said that unskilled hirelings are untrained, thus the proficiency modifier should be -2.
This means the sum of ability modifier + level of the commoner should be equal to +2.......(this is point 1)
this also prove that the score for all ability core modifier should be the same........(this is point 2)

Then, I remember the concept of ancestry and background. I suppose it's not hard to assume this commoner to have ancestry and background too. after all, he's only human(oid).
Every ancestry gives you effectively 2 ability boost, and so does every background.
This makes the commoner to have 4 ability boost. However, (point 2) state that the boost should be equal to all ability.
Hence, they got 2 other ability boost. making each ability modifier 1.
From this and (point one), we can calculate that commoner has a level of 1.

TL/DR 1: Untrained Hireling is a 'lvl 1 commoner'( with 2 ancestry boost, 2 background boost, and 2 free ability boost). He got no proficiency and has a flat ability score of 12, resulting in all skill roll of +0

Next is the Trained hireling. The text state he is expert, this a skill modifier of +1.
This is an increase of 3 in roll of that skill compared to the noob commoner. That leaves us with another +1 difference that's gained from another source.
Since all his other roll is not affected, thus he should still be a 'lvl 1 commoner'. this means it's the relevant ability score that's increased.
This possible Increase in ability should come from another free ability boost.

TL/DR 2: Trained Hireling is a 'lvl 1 commoner'( with 2 ancestry boost, 2 background boost, and 3 free ability boost). He got no proficiency except for 1 skill (at trained) and has the relevant ability score at 14 while all other ability score is 12, resulting in one skill roll of +4 and other skill roll of +0.

Few things can be concluded.

• It seems, the aaverage joe score is now all 12 instead of all 10
• PC is only '1 full class (with all the feature) + 2 free ability boost' away from being an Untrained Commoner.
• The difference is '1 full class +1 free ability score' from a Trained Commoner.

It seems, first time Adventurers and commoner are not so much different.

Is there something i missed?

No rules for spell research? :(

Good thing I'm the GM and can houserule that back in for my players, but I feel bad for anyone with a GM who doesn't feel comfortable adjudicating that without guidelines and won't allow it now. :/

spell research as in making new spells from scratch? i guess not for now. we're still in the pre-playtest after all. neither it will come in the playtest i think (??). come on man, we're still on pre-playtest

however, it might come in the avtual release, i don't know

i guess, at the 19th level, the option to be legendary at all martial and simple weapon could be exchanged to another stuff? with the 'choose your own capstone power'?

I think letting the "The sky is falling! This is the. Worst. Possible. Thing!" crowd cry themselves dry now might reduce the amount of useless whining we'll get once the actual playtest comes out.

man, this is golden. i love you, you're absolutely right. make it sound bad, and BAM, when it comes out "hey, this is actually better than what we imagined"

but seriously though, i really like the idea of the new edition. i'm excited. thanks, everyone at paizo, keep up the good work, i'm fan of 1st edition(my first pnp campaign) and think i'll be the fan of 2nd too. don't be discouraged by the criticism (eventhough i know you won't), i think most have their own reason, it's not overly unreasonable.

My hope is that Reactions do not always need to be called out. If you have a feat that allows a Reaction to a Trigger, then the character has the option to spend his action on the Reaction or save it for another Trigger.

I think the only time a Reaction should need to be called out ahead of time is if there is no feat supporting it.

and this is what happened woth AoO, people can still 'make attack out of own turn because of [trigger]' sure, nothing is preventing that. but if you take the class options, you just don't need to get ready anymore, no need to call it out.

and i think there would be differing options for different classes

i imagine AoO for fighters and few others martial class, counterspells for magical class
something like tripping an opponent.

heck, in this state of knowledge, the 'Aoo only for fighter' could turn out to be the worst option among those other option

It also sounds like they turned the whole thing up to 11 with all kinds of new options. Love the Sudden Charge feat concept!

yea man, totally. i think it will be exciting.

some class will be better at some stuff than other class, but i think, with these action system, those can be replicated, albeit in a less-efficient ways.

just like woth aoo and charging.

and with this same action system, i love how spells and other different power can be fine tuned by altering the action price. big stuff require 3 action, small stuff require 1. some feat (maybe like metamagic) alter the action price. imagine the potential man.

Vic Wertz wrote:

Without that feat, you,can double-move and attack in one turn. With the feat, you can do that *and* take another action. Like attack again, or move away, or drop your weapon and draw a different one, or... lots of different options.

What about attacks of opportunity? Why can't every character do those from the get-go now? Why do only 2 classes get to "learn" that when previously anyone could do it?

but of course, i believe you, everyone, anyone, can use 2 action and ready an attack(1 action) if they about to move out of your threat range. you can maybe even try to... grapple(??) them, or maybe, i dunno move along with them? (i assume, all as a reaction, by sacrificing 1 action).

with the class option, you can take 3 action and attack if they move out of threat as reaction.

i dunno man, it seems... too soon to judge we don't even know what all the options are.