How far away are those mountains?
Thanks, that's helpful.
It's a game, made in America, where we use inches feet yards and miles.
In any game you have to learn the rules, a square being 5 ft is a rule. What's the problem?
In WoW you have ranges in yards, that's even more global than pathfinder and they use imperial. Does anyone need to know how big a yard is to use that spell? No.
I can convert imperial to metric in my head close enough to visualize a dragon, that can't be a serious argument.
Feet/3 = meters. That's pretty much the only conversion that could really be needed in game.
Mark Seifter wrote:
When does the dying go away then? And you said awake? Healing awakens you? Or do you have to roll to wake up?
Mark Seifter wrote:
He has a CHANCE to die faster, the 18 con could fail too.
And I said given the same maximum HP.
Someone mentioned that the bbeg would take you to dying 2 rather than 1? If that's a misunderstanding then I take back that specific issue.
I'm not against dying being easier.
But a guy with 8 con should die faster than one with 18. Given the same maximum HP, the guy with more con should be better off.
And why an "important" guy can kill you deader than an unimportant one???
What about a crit from an important one? Will that auto kill?
It feels like an unnecessary change, I have not seen the major complaints about dying?
To me,there is nothing wrong with suddenly dying because you took a crit to the face with a scythe unexpectedly or a max roll fireball.
At high levels, you would still wait for them to die and hit them with breath of life because its 1 spell and will remove the dying condition completely, and it wakes you up!!
You can always go down at 5 hp, you're a bloody mess and if you go down and don't move most things will move on to the guy still attacking, so if you're low and stay up, that's a choice, it doesn't need to be a forced choice baked into the dying rules.
Yeah, because no one ever exaggerates on forums. Ever. Also, we all know it was an exaggeration, so let's not all be snowflakes and attack me.
Rather than just complain about my choice of exaggeration, why not add something useful to the conversation? Half the posts here add nothing to the topic.
I am very strongly against the change and thus used an extreme analogy.
The rule change doesn't improve anything, why wouldn't you be able to get up and back into the fight after ! MAGIC ! has completely restored you to 100%?
Why would you after taking 300 HP damage from 1-50 sword hits be 3 bad rolls away from death? Yes, that could happen before but was less likely.
In combat healing has always been a bad choice, maybe that is changing, but it's even worse now if that after you heal someone they are still out of the fight...
Reading/hearing about the new death rules makes me want to kill myself...which with the new rules would be basically impossible.
I don't understand why this had to change, it seems more complicated and less fun.
Why would someone suddenly go unconscious? Just because you are dying doesn't mean you lose consciousness. How would someone know you need healing without yelling for the medic? Maybe you were just tripped, being prone doesn't mean you're dying.
Why wouldn't being fully healed via "heal" automatically grant you consciousness? You still need to "wake up" on your turn?
Honestly I really hope this change gets nixed during playtest because it doesn't feel like pathfinder.
Please don't do this.
Strange... There is another thread about making multiclassing less good in PF2....
I just hope that customization doesn't decrease, that would be bad.
I like to call it "WoWification"(as in World of Warcraft) which basically means the simplification and reduction of options via updates/editions.
I don't want a 7 year old who is new to the game to be able to design a mechanically equal character when compared to an adult with years of system mastery... That is what WoW has become, that is what 5e became.
I like pathfinder because it's NOT that, if PF2 does that, I will not play it.
I don't understand how feet is so incomprehensible to imperial users here??
Look down at your adult male shoe... That's about a foot...
Now line 20 of your shoes in a row... That's 20 feet....
Feet are super easy to visualize because part of your body literally represents that unit of measure.
Or.. each story of a building is approximately 10 feet.. 2 story house? That's what a 20 ft dragon looks like.
4 story building? That's a gargantuan giant.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Shouldn't a certain amount of healing also provide a "smelling salts" effect?
In most cases you can force someone back into consciousness, I would think that getting healed for a large amount would do this and not require another save a round later... Maybe a free save when the healing hits with a bonus on your roll for every 10hp healed??
Bam I'm down dying 1.. my cleric buddy hit me with HEAL and I'm full health with no conditional ailments but I can't regain consciousness because I keep rolling a 2.... Ludicrous.
The 50 how requirement is the damage of the blow needs to be at least 50 and also be at least half of the HP. It has nothing to do with how much hp the victim has.
You must do 50 dmg or more to cause a debilitating blow, that amount must also equal at least half of the victims max HP.
It's okay for ranged to do "full attack " when possible, and it's okay for it to be possible often. Melee want to full attack as often as they can too...
To balance the "ease" of full attacking the penalties for shooting into melee and for shooting people who have moved and people more than 30 feet away should be more severe. 1 feat and you have no penalty for shooting into melee.. that's more powerful than most feats.
There is no penalty for shooting someone who is running full speed , there is no penalty for shooting someone who is running in a zigzag.. if those penalties existed and there were ways to reduce those penalties via "careful aim"--1 attack no penalties and maybe some precision damage... Then archers would do different things.
Perception is letting you detect something that is hard to detect... Thus the modifiers.
There is no perception check to see a man standing in an empty field 1000' away, you just see him.
If he trying to hide he gets stealth + distance modifiers, because if you're hiding behind a bush from a distance you can't tell if it's just a bush or a bush with a guy behind it.
A mountain is not trying to hide, nor is the sun--which has a -trillion to see it--
Perception isn't tied to being able to see things, it's tied to being able to detect things that are not obvious.
That being said, archery should probably be changed..range should have a _far_ larger impact than it does.
If they remove alignment we can't have paladins. We need paladins and we need them to be LG.
*Opens can of worms*
Seriously though, alignment needs to exist, otherwise why bother playing?
90% of adventures: stop this bad guy / help this good guy.
Alignment is what separates the "good guys" from the "bad guys".
I'd guess 90%+ of games are played with the PCs fighting against " Evil ", if evil doesn't exist, what is there to fight against?
Maybe a large race.
Cantaurs! Half ogre? Something non-humanoid so enlarge person isn't a problem.
Personally, I love healing.
In almost every game (rpg/MMORPG/mud etc) I've played a healer if it was available.
People hate to heal, which makes people who do heal even more appreciated.
I don't want to see healing nerfed and wizards and fighters self healing.
Heal skill being more useful- that's good.
Choosing to play without a healer should be harder... Not impossible but it should hurt.
In general he would level when you are capable of having a higher level cohort, which is basically when you level.
He starts with level appropriate npc gear and after that you equip him out of your wealth.
You can't have multiples.
He doesn't get your modifiers.
As Taja said, Leadership is almost always banned in games, and when it is not how it works is always debated.
The problem with this is that you don't get SA on your first attack, the one that is most likely to hit. You still provoke AOOs, you have to have room to 5 foot. Obviously it's a good choice for a solo rogue but a rogue shouldn't be solo and after the first round you should have a flank to help you. That being said.. I REALLY like the mechanical idea of this feat. I think it shouldn't provoke and it would be great.
I agree that Exotic weapons are not really... exotic.
1st. Stat requirements: Str or Dex depending on type of weapon--starting at 22 which essentially removes the possibility of seeing them until level ~4.
2nd. Level requirements: Certain types of weapons take "years" of training, so to use a double-edged-dwarven-war-pickaxe-shovel-hammer you need to have +6 BAB and be proficient in the martial version of its weapon type.
3rd. Exotic weapons need to be "more" than just better damage dice. I use this "random named exotic weapon" because it has a 5% chance to disarm an opponent on a successful hit. Or I use this other "random named exotic weapon" because it bypasses shield bonuses to AC. etc. etc.
Just some thoughts...
Coordinated shot requires point blank shot, it requires you and your ally to have this feat, and requires your ally to be adjacent to your enemy.
Why would someone with point blank shot (a ranged build) be adjacent to an enemy?
Why would a melee build burn two feats to help you (sometimes ) do +1 damage?
I would allow the trait to counter the cover condition, but by absolute RAW, I guess not.
I would just forget the feat, pick a different trait, and a better feat.
I can't even fathom how this is an argument....
Power attack works with non lethal... Period.
If I am unarmed and don't have improved unarmed strike I can only deal non lethal... I most definitely can power attack with my fist.
I'm dumbfounded by what I've read in this thread trying to prove otherwise.
Plus all of the condition removal.... So probably another 10 different potions for another 8250...