I think it'd make for a great rules variant too for particularly deadly game and a particularly well optimised group; rather than throwing harder encounters consistently and making things too difficult in that area, having a game where death can come more suddenly could be quite an interesting variant.
I am personally quibbling whether this is pure errata or clarification because of the fact that this discrepancy has existed between two sources - the Core Rulebook and the GM Screen - since the start, but the Core Rulebook has won out, because it is the main game source over an accessory product and it is what is available on online sources. However, neither have been errata'd to match the other until now.
And it's causing a lot of confusion because it seems to make the game harder and lead to major debates over the 'right' course of action to take when someone is unconscious, that didn't exist before. And it affects anyone playing PFS who are going to use the clarified / errata'd rules.
Is there any variant in the new GM Core that has less deadly rules around Dying, Wounded and Recovery Checks?
A different rule preference does not confer whether a group is 'sane' or not. Can we stop using loaded language? I don't even like what the rule is supposed to be. But insults do not lead to a constructive conversation.
The thing is, the Core Rulebook and the GM Screen have always disagreed; and they were released on the same day. The GM Screen states:
"Any time you gain the dying condition or increase it for any reason, add your wounded value to the amount you gain or increase your dying value. The wounded condition ends if you receive HP from Treat Wounds, or if you’re restored to full HP and rest for 10 minutes."
This verbage is apparently what playtest documents stated before.
So. Is this a mistake in the GM Screen, or the Core Rulebook?
It seems the Remaster assumes that the Core Rulebook was wrong.
To be fair, I haven't played; I'm seeing it from the perspective of a GM, and I might be looking at this too much from the worry of 'what if the players decisions could make it difficult for them to get weapons? What adaptions am I going to make to solve this?' As an actual player, I would care more about my life.
I can see that; but it is a major setback to lose a weapon that has runes on it, economy wise, and it's a major disadvantage if the fight is otherwise winnable, especially if it's important story wise - for example, it's totally possible for a fight to go in a way for a melee martial to have been the only one taking significant damage, while the rest of the party has only last resources; and several enemies are well damaged or dead.
In that scenario, getting up and running away without your weapon takes you out of the fight unless you have a backup... which I suppose may be wise, but is expensive. And that could cause friction at the table, or at-least cause issues for the Martial player in question unless they have another form of contribution.
It's also uneven in who it affects; quiet a number of Monks are going to be fun.
It is an interesting balance point, though I'm not sure how fun it is; on the one hand, it is quite a powerful thing for anyone reliant on unarmed attacks, or have backup weapons and magic items to support that, or those who carry ranged and melee weapons about. On the other hand, anyone using a shield is going to suffer.
It is something I'll keep an eye on, no matter what rules I'm running.
I admit; I'm not a fan of this.
While it does me going down once is okay if you get stabilised (and are facing enemies who won't just finish you off and you aren't hit by persistent damage), dying potentially instantly on one failed recovery roll once when you have Wounded 1 is extremely punishing. Essentially, if you get revived, you HAVE to run - which is kind of a problem for Martials in particular, who have to spend an action to get up, *and* an action to grab their weapon, and then have to Stride - or Step, if they're in range of an enemy (because while only 1/4 enemies have Attack of Opportunity, how can you ever truly know unless you've moved out of range before?) You'd need to be heal substantially and protected for that to work.
Ironically, this does give a serious advantage to Casters; they can get up, Step or Stride, and then Stride again.
... I just don't know. I feel this is too deadly and I wonder if this is partly why there is a gap between people who feel the game is too deadly versus people like I that feel the game is dangerous but not too dangerous; if the former were running RAW and RAI, then I think that criticism starts to be less based on the severity of encounters ran and perhaps some mistakes on players and GM parts, and more so that the rest of us were running a kinder version of the game...
I think this should be an optional rule, honestly. Wounded adding to your initial Dying condition - making it so that, if you're Wounded 1, one Critical Fail is all it takes to end you - is already a powerful incentive to to make sure someone doesn't go down, make sure they are stabilised, and clear enemies away from them.
With this rule in place, it's fairly arguable you shouldn't heal them at all until the end of the fight - because it seems like it's much more likely for them to die if you heal them and bring them back up at all, rather than giving them some chance at running and being more of a tactical decision.
Note, I'm a rather junior GM; only about 22 or 23 sessions under my belt, and I've only ran a few severe encounters - and I've only had a character gain Wounded once. Perhaps my view if this is rather skewed by my general worry of making encounters too hard and killing newer players or characters - to the point I may be making encounters a bit easier than the players could actually handle. But that fear is without the clarified RAW and without adding Wounded to every time you gain Dying. If I followed RAW and RAI, I would be even more afrad
By the by, there's now a Tan Ripper who's also one and two starring every Pathfinder 2e product.
I don't want to be cranky, but please Paizo, can this be dealt with? Or can someone explain an easy way to leave a review on a product? This is actually making it very hard to evaluate whether any Pathfinder 2e book is worth it, because a heckler's veto is being applied to the products and being one and two starred in such a blatantly false way. There's no way this isn't spam, considering they are all blank reviews and it's every 2e product.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Trained skills lose value over time as the game assumes proficiency boosts in all skills ever acquired. This is why Intelligence is a bad stat.
The GM isn't supposed to make every skill check an a level based skill check though. You are supposed to continue using both lower level and simple DC trained, expert etc. skills when it is appropriate. Mind you I haven't ran higher levels and I don't know how adventure paths handle this, but for a lot of skills, especially ones like Athletics and so, I think it's pretty important to have those less intensive checks still there
After all, it serves to help highlight those who have invested in those skills versus who hasn't when, say, your party ends up falling into a stormy sea, and some automatically always Crit Succeed their rolls, some nearly always succeed - and some need help to stay above water.
I think its weirder that some people are against playing the game for what it is: A combat simulator with a splash of RP and a heaping dose of worldbuilding.
Different people get different things out of a TTRPG.
Yes, a significant amount of focus on Pathfinder 2e is on the combat. But it's a flexible enough system that you could have skill challenges without combat and focus mostly on roleplay, diplomacy, and saving people rather than fighting something and still have a great time.
People just have a different way of playing and running things, so I think it's weird to say that people are 'against playing the game for what it is' when their concept of the game is different to yours and the system is very clearly designed to support that type of play. The subsystems available, including some for much more narrative based combat, along with the extensive skill and skill feat system, make that clear.
Sy Kerraduess wrote:
Ah okay. Understood.
I don't think you understand. In the Elementialist spell list, you can select the Inner Sea Elementialist option to see the exact same spells as the old archetype. The same content is still there.
See the updated archetype.
Elementalist Archetype from Rage of Elements wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
Using the number filter on AoN to select creatures with at-least Weakness 1 to Acid, I found four creatures with a Weakness to Acid. For Cold, I found 77.
In comparison, about 133 creatures are resistant to Acid, with 199 resistant to Cold.
That indicates to me that there should be more creatures weak to Acid added. May the next version of the Bestiary take this into account.
So essentially casters should be able to get a Gate Attuner like item? That seems fine to me. If True Strike is a problem, then remove True Strike or make it a two action spell that applies on your next Strike (for up to a minute).
Honestly - is it not possible the Remaster will have Gate Attuners for caster classes? Have Paizo stated that won't happen or revealed enough items for us to believe it won't happen?
3-Body Problem wrote:
Okay, fair enough, but I'd be very careful about changing the action economy like that for reaction spells - that could lead to very strange situations.
3-Body Problem wrote:
Feather Fall is a reaction spell that has the trigger that it has to be cast on a creature within range that is falling. Unless the creature is falling, it can't attempt to Cast the Spell before jumping. Changing the spells action economy to be a full Action to avoid the effect is also bizarre. If a creature jumps out, they could use Grab an Edge instead to attempt to hold on.
Whatever about players*, the second solution particularly strikes me as essentially denying the player's successful spell** against the boss, which would feel pretty bad. How could a player ever expect that a GM would rule that the spell essentially works anyway, especially in a context whether the loss of an action - out of three - isn't going to matter? I'd be gutted as a player.
Isn't that what we're trying to avoid here? You seem to be arguing against yourself in this case - or at the least, rewarding players for good play and being somewhat adversarial against them?
(* generally, I think players knowing metaknowledge is a lot more allowable than bosses knowing metaknowledge due to the power dynamics - but I think that's something to talk about at the table for spell effects that aren't obvious)
(** and the first one strikes me a little about it as well, because how does the boss know? But less egregious since it still blocks the boss from doing an escape, and forces them to engage).
From a GM perspective, it feels to me that Magus and Wizards do need special consideration as spellcasters when it comes to spell availability and being able to learn more, since their Spellbook adaptability is a critical component of their class.
It does seem to be an issue where certain classes require special consideration - Inventor, Investigator, Magus, Wizard etc. - when it comes to ensuring they have access to different critical components that may not be as obvious as ordinary loot, or that the game structure enables their base assumptions to work. That advice would be most potent in non Adventure Path play, but would still be useful in Adventure Path play as a reminder to the GM that these considerations need to be taken into account if a player plays one of those classes.
I think a good question to ask is: would prepared spellcasters break the system if they all had Flexible Spellcaster without losing spellslots per day, cantrips learned, or having a specific collection of spells to prepare from?
I would like that to be a variant rule presented in the GM Core - mainly to hear the designers' thoughts on it. Does that make prepared spellcasters too strong?
Here's another question: would Wizard be too strong if they had Flexible Spellcaster but with the same amount of spellslots and cantrips learned as of now, and being able to use any spell in their spellbook whenever?
So, as a GM, the impression I am getting is that it's better to give wands as loot while letting players buy a variety of scrolls?
At the very least, an official variant rule for upgrading specific magic items would be useful. I'm going to allow my players to do that - because I want them to have cool items and be able to use them until the ydon't want to.
Do we know what the balance implications of this would be? I think it would certainly make MAD characters stronger - which could be appealing.
I feel like I'm missing something about Flexible Casting being default for Prepared Casters versus Spontanious Casters as they are now, and that being something that wouldn't make the Spontanious Caster chasis strictly worse at spellcasting.
What is the advantage, as a chasis, for Spontanious Casters if Prepared Casters got Flexible Casting for free? Not as a class - I can accept that with class abilities, Spontanious Casters have a place still. But it would seem to me then that being a Spontanious Caster would be a limit on your raw spellcasting power versus being a Prepared Flexible Spellcaster.
Am I misreading the rules?
What would be the point of playing Spontanious Casters if other spellcasters got Flexible Casting for free?
My argument would be that while class features and specific exclusive spells do make a difference, but there would still be quite the power imbalance when it comes to spellcasting versatility and being able to react to handle different situations.
I think it's good that you have a choice between maximum flexibility in exchange for less spellslots and only being able to prepare a number of given spells at a time; flexibility in spell rank and how many spells you can know but you have to plan out your day; and flexibility in what spells you can cast but only knowing a few and only getting a little flexibility in spell rank.
I am interested in seeing arguments for flexibile spellcasting to be a default thing, but I am somewhat skeptical.
Red Metal wrote:
That is a real shame :(
Could Tandem Strike be worth it for a class such as Fighter to take if they get the Summoner Archetype (particularly in a Free Archetype game?) It could take a while to scale up but it could be somewhat attractive. I know you do not get Act Together unfortunately, but there could be other ways to make the character concept work, and you can get Tandem Movement beforehand.
"An aura is an emanation that continually ebbs out from you, affecting creatures within a certain radius"
I feel that contradicts assuming all emanations just pulse out from the caster.
At the same time, Bless and Bane seem really difficult to use without being auras.
I think we do need a clarification on this; it seems like a strange rules bug.
Vali has stated players will also increase their level and that they are going for a Mythic feel. I assume they are planning quite the long campaign or want their players to feel an extreme powerlevel.
Why are Dexterity Fighers bad in PF2e? Just unable to take account of the correct feats etc? Could they not be great archers?
Reading this thread has been interesting, as I had been wonderign about Aid and aiding attacks, and whether the DC should be set to the AC of the creature, as that sounded like what would be appropriate following the rules.
But I think staying to DC20 to encourage its use and distinguish between success and critical success is important.
That is a good point and criticise. It is difficult to balance; though the Magus is a lot more offense minded and a better striker, since the Divine spell list is typically pretty restricted outside of what spells you get from following particular gods.
I haven't played or ran the system yet (as much as I want to!), so I haven't seen if there are any problems with the Warpriest versus Cloister in terms of balance or how good it feels; though I would guess that Cloister is better in more parties, while Warpriests might require specific combinations of party classes.
To clarify, everything I was suggesting is in addition to what it also gives you. Not having greater weapon specialsation and more armor profiency is unfortunate, but I feel that those might push warpriest over too being too much. Perhaps maybe giving better armmor proficiency instead for Final Doctrine?
My proposals for Warpriest would be:
Fourth Doctrine: you would also gain expert in all martial weapons.
Fifth Doctrine. you gain master weapon profiency with your diety's favoured weapon.
Final Doctrine: you would also gain master weapon profiency with martial weapons.
How do people feel this would land with how Warpriests are right now? Too good?
I t hink it all depends on the approach the author takes in their post.
Personally, I take an approach that Subjectivity is Implied when talking about things like this. Nothing I am trying to put across in my arguments is meant to be taken as 100% objective besides the facts themselves. Where I to say what I think is the best class, I would say "x is the best class", but I would mean it from my perspective... without having to put in all the qualifiers for it.
It is obviously fine and useful to sprinkle in terms such as "from my point of view" or "in my opinion", but otherwise it can bog down the point if you constantly have to qualify where you're coming from; or it dilutes the point and makes it too weak for what you want to come across with.
So while postulating the conclusion you have in the form of a question as a potential means of bait is wrong, I don't think it's problematic if you're not pretending to be objective on anything and you're willing to argue your case.
If you can't see how religion (particularly organised religion) can be used to harm and hurt people; that it is okay to criticise that harm and hurt without spreading religious hatred / hatred of anyone of a particular religion (which is often tied to racism); and that those criticisms are different from the transphobia faced by trans people...
I don't know how else to explain it.