What is the GM throwing at you that 5+ healing spells and the medicine skill aren't enough?
We are playing the Age of Ashes adventure path and even if it does not seem overly hard a lot of encounters seem to be level+x (x can be zero) instead of the recommended daily dosis of level-x.
And such enemies can easily hit and crit you with the first attack (even without nat 20) and some can also hit and crit you with the second attack.
The last fight (though considered a level+3 boss fight I guess) would see enemy hit and crit chances at 1+/6+/11+ respectively 11+/16+/nat20 vs our lowest AC char (Wizard) and still 6+/11+/16+ respectively 16+/nat20/--- vs our sword and board fighter. So despite chain healig for 3 to 4 rounds our fighter went down on a mix of regular hits and crits more than once that fight. And our GM didn't even play the boss to full effect.
And even on fights that aren't this hard enemies will usually hit their first and second attacks on something like 10+/15+ to 12+/17+ so even regular fights in P2E can consume a lot of HP even when no one is going down and the party is on stake.
I absolutely love how healing is handled in P2E.
Well, considering how combat is handled in P2E (aka you *will* get hit, aka xp only for blood) and the power level disparity in between martials and casters (at least at the low levels I am currently playing) I do seriously consider to memorize additional healing spells as the party cleric. Why bother giving a random enemy some -1 to xyz stat or DC when you can also just keep the martials going.
And yes, I am aware that considering infinite rolls that -1 could prove to be crucial and/or provide +x% of damage, however I am yet to see a -1 or +1 making a huge difference in any important fight so far. In stark contrast to the 2 action heals I am pumping out...
Being a buffer/healer (thing that 100% work and hard to replicate) does work, but it's not what many people want out of their caster.
Well, apart from pure HP even "healing" does not work 100% anymore. All "cure/remove" spells that did work automatically in the past are now subject to a counteract check and I know already how much it will svck to lose the one neutralize poison you happen to have memorized to a bad roll.
Currently playing a Warpriest I am not complaining so much about the power of spells but about the action economy. Due to 99% of all spells requiring 2 actions (some even 3) I feel hopelessly action starved in comparison to the melees. Want to do a AE heal? Neither can move nor raise shield nor attack. Do a normal spell? Chose to either move or raise shield or attack. Sustaining spells? Lol, you kidding? All the while our fighter is zooming around, using skills, multi-attacking or blocking as he sees fit. Caster gameplay is just so static.
Note that the description of the curse notes that only magical healing still works but if you use a spell you need to counteract the curse. Which leaves bringing your HP to maximum in order to break the curse using healing potions as a viable alternative as healing potions are magical but not a spell.
They are not mutually exclusive: You are expected to start every single battle from full health and you are usually expected to rest for 10mn after each encounter.
Of course they are not exclusive but the question is how realistic is such a scenario?
For example we started our last "adventure day (i.e. after resting)" with a severe encounter and my cleric already is out of combat heals after the very first encounter.
So, do we rest another "night", or do we press on with only 10min of medicine after every encounter, or do we rest like 30min to 40min after each encounter, so I can treat everyone at least once?
Because I can not see my group staying at somewhat near full health when I can "only" treat one guy after every encounter, even if we only have easy encounters for the rest of that day (apart from the fact that entering the fray without combat heals is not ideal to begin with).
Thats actually a very good question.
If a creature with weakness to fire receives 5 slashing and 5 fire damage via one hit of a flaming sword and it has a steel shield raised, how many damage does it take?
Just 5 damage because it opts to block the fire damage first or up to 10 damage (any other combination)?
Ofc If a game master allows them to rest after every single fight, then there would probably not be a great challenge at all.
And this is the exact problem with using this skill as out of combat healing.
Are you - from a meta point of view - expected or required to start every single battle from full health
are you, while exploring - from a meta point of view - expected to only rest for approx. 10 min after each encounter.
If the former is the case then any random encounter or tension pool for longer breaks is nonesense. If the later is the case then chances for a random encounter or a tension pool do make sense.
So what was the meta intention of Paizo?
Note that is not about story or detailed scenarios like a chase, where time constraints may be way more prominent. I would just like to know how the supposed X battles a day are to be handled in regards to after combat healing.
Anybody already found out how this works for hardness?
a) Hardness only stops physical damage?
For example if an attacks deals 3 slashing and 6 acid damage, how many damage is assigned to my hardness 5 shield?
* 0 slashing and 6 acid damage?
Deriven Firelion wrote:
You can't regain hit points at all until you are fully healed by magic according to the curse. Not by rest or non-magical means. Magic has to beat that lvl 10 DC 29 counteract effect.
This is not as per the wording of the curse. Yes, you have to use magical healing, which potions are, however the curse is specifically referring to healing spells, which potions aren't. It is not referring to all magical healing effects, so healer's gloves would also work, at least that is my interpretation of the curse wording.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Counteract doesn't go off the casters level, but the level of the effect. 8th lvl caster can only cast 4th level spells.
I stand corrected.
However while reading the exact curse description, how about healing potions? They are magical healing that is not a spell, so they don't need to counteract the effect.
I guess you got this wrong, however counteracting level+2 is not especially easy as you need a critical success to make it work.
So while a level 8 character might easily be able to beat the DC29 roll (spellcasting ability modifier plus your spellcasting proficiency bonus), the problem is the level difference, which will require a natural 20 to go critical.
Once you reach level 9 you only need regular successes to heal the cursed wound which will make it much more easy to succeed.
Well at least the camps are clear, one is supporting the old-school, single-decisive-roll philosophy of the early RPGS and MMORPGS (often also called rogue-like games), the other camp is representing the (more?) modern type of approach, which more likely boils down to a chain of consecutive actions in order to get a result.
The former players are accepting that their or their adversary's demise can be dependant on any single check in any single round, while the later players explicitly do not want this kind of randomness in their games.
Both forms of play have their cons and benefits as well in the cineastic narrative as well as in the rules department.
And while one camp might argue that from a narrative point of view "it is anti-climatic if the enemy we were after for one year fails prone to just one single save" the other side may argue that from a rules meta point of view it is "anti-climatic to know that the enemy can never ever fail prone to just one save and always has to be grinded down to zero HP".
Having played RPGs and MMORPGs since the 1980's, respectively early 2000's, every single game development so far was a further step away from this early "randomness" (which often wasn't so random at all once you were familiar with the rules), simply to cater for the masses who would not bother to familarize themselves with the rules in order to be able to mitigate much of the apparent randomness. And a broader player base equals more money, so here we go...
To quote from my most loved DnD short: "What is your saving throw against spells and effects that do not allow for a saving throw?" ;)
I am a little thorn about the current boss fight mechanics as they scream "xp only for blood" right into my face. Of course it can be quite anti-climatic if the bad guy falls victim to the very first save, however it can also be quite anti-climatic when your whole party knows that in order to bring that enemy down you need to wear down every single of his HP, spending yours in the process. No other way or outcome possible.
Also every character should be entitled to his very own Inigo Montoya moment. And if my (AD&D) party wizard manages to disintegrate the evil dragon that mauled his home town with a defiant, bold and valiant remark in the very first round than so be it. Damn those "but it is a boss, so there must be an elaborate and artificially prolonged fight" shackles.
And I have also seen my fare share of "lost" fights (either due to a series of bad rolls or bad decisions) that were in dire need of "swingy" effects in order to at least have a fighting chance to avoid a TPK (or massive GM intervention, e.g. monsters suddenly acting stupid, which however is always cheesy). If both players and GM can tell who will win in round 6 by round 3 and you just have to play out the remaining rounds this is not a good game design (which seemed to be especially true for 4E).
So yes, I am for incapacitation / insta-kill effects, however they need to be limited in terms of success chance in order to keep them viable. E.g. some MMORPGs operate with something that is called "immunity timer", i.e. if somebody has successfully saved against paralysis he will be immune to paralysis for quite some time (usually the rest of the fight). It is one easy and elegant way keeping those potentially devastating effects in game while making spamming them useless.
Michael Alves wrote:
ONE AOE spell against 4 targets will do more damage them the fighter will do on the entire rest of the combat.
One level 5 Fireball 6d6 vs 4 enemies, two making their saves, two will not is dealing about 18d6 or 63 damage as an average.
A fighter using a decent +1 striking weapon (d8, d10, d12) will deal in between 2d8+4 to 2d12+4 damage per single attack (13 to 17 damage per hit), so it takes only 4 to 5 successful hits to deal that 63+ damage, which seems more than managable even if the average combat only lasts about 4 rounds.
I give you that the mage dealt a lot of frontloaded damage in only two actions, but any reasonabily build fighter should easily be able to keep up over time. However in contrast to the mage he will be able to do so be it the 1st, 10th or 100th battle this very day just by continuing to turn that circular saw that is attached to his arm.
Note that I am not saying mages are OP/UP, I haven't played enough so far to make such a statement, however I found your example a little off.
Well the thing is, all of the monsters are mind-linked via the GM!
So to be on even footing you either have to a) allow mind-link-like play by the players or b) play the monsters as individuals too to the best of your ability.
In my point of view either both sides mind-linked or both sides individual works best. If you mix them up you either make the fights harder or easier.
Otherwise you can easily run into problems like the OP, where one side plays like robotic damage machines, always applying "optimal" group tactics and going as far as sacrificing themselves just to get that additional strike(s) in and on the other hand you have the players playing as living, breathing people.
And that is where you are wrong kiddo. I am playing a roleplaying game and not a mindless and immoral computer hack & slash adventure. So my warpriest of Sarenrae will do all the above except in the the most obvious cases. Everybody gets a chance to declare themselves (if they don't attack on sight that is), everybody gets a chance to surrender if they don't want to fight to the finish, everybody gets a chance to proove himself if he can plausibly explain that and how he will do so.
However I have to admit that the new rules do not make it especially easy to not accidentially kill someone (need to use non-lethal damage on the very last hit, which can be hard to guess).
First World Bard wrote:
Edit: To be clear, I'd find jumping over a Large enemy with the Jump spell to be fairly difficult if you want to get back on the ground without falling at the end. But jumping over Medium and smaller enemies should be pretty easy to do.
Well if it follows the rules of physics then jumping 30 feet (maximum distance at an angle of 45°) will let you clear 15 feet of height in the middle of your jump (that is after 15 feet). So if you start 10 feet away from a large creature it is not unreasonable to assume you will be able to jump over it.
Basically, whenever my players "spend 10 minutes" in a dungeon (resting, searching a room, loitering) I add a d10 to the tension pool. If they stay in the same place for another 10 minutes (because they want to more thoroughly search a room, or want to rest even more) the dice gets progressively smaller (d8, d6, d4). If an area is under "high alert", I will also roll smaller dice.
How do you handle things if an AP expects the heros to spend time searching? Something like: "If the PC's search here for at least 20 minutes, then..."
Still tension building up?
Matthew Downie wrote:
Well thats because maybe, just maybe, there was a valid in-game reason for the "good guys" to go there and kick some butt apart from muh XP and gold/items?
Perhaps the scheming baron shouldn't have captured and imprisoned the pricess? Perhaps the merciless bandits shouldn't have terrorized the nearby villages? Perhaps the bloodthirsty ogres shouldn't have decided that cooking humans on their stove might be a good idea? Perhaps the greedy mercenaries shouldn't have accepted the contract to guard the evil artifact of Rovagug?
Purpose man, purpose...
However you are supposed to kill them on a battlefield or in a battlefield-like situation.
There is a reason why we have war heroes and serial killers.
Kicking in doors and shooting divine lances at random people wont certainly net you hero status...
I worry less about malicious GMs and more about inexperienced GMs who gain the impression from the PF2 rules that information is to be reserved until the players earn it. If the GM throttles down information flow or gives best-known information that does not warn the players about the creature's next attacks, then players might stop using Recall Knowledge due to the low return for an action. The game would lose a tactical dimension.
Very much this. Why stop to use Recall Knowledge to check for fire resistance if you can also use Produce Flame? Granted it is two actions instead of one, however it also has some potential for damage in addition to the answer to your question.
In my current campaign (currently at character level 3) our GM has not been overly restrictive when it comes to Recall Knowledge (and we passed our check) and we still don't use Recall Knowledge that often because a move, raise shield or additional attack (not 3rd of course) might look more promising. However this might still be attributed to low level where ending a non-boss enemy often seems a lot easier than studying it.
Our GM started doing secret rolls then almost quit as he disliked the idea of either memorizing (our having a copy of) our character sheets / profiles and/or using the question "what's your modifier on skill xyz" all over.
And while we are at it, how do you handle knowledge checks using skills that don't apply, e.g. if somebody is using recall knowledge on undead using nature? Some basic information (no natural beings), automatic failure or can it get even worse?
Saros Palanthios wrote:
Aiding an ally is dead low skill or char level where your chances of failing are bigger than contributing anything. On the other hand you will almost auto-succeed higher level. Having aiding run against a fixed check is always strange. I would have prefered a DC-X method.
Most of the time it is all about clear communication. When GM'ing I usually specify the allowed source material upfront, so everything is clear and all players have the same source material available (usually the books or PDFs I own). For example when I started our Rise of the Runelords campaign I limited the players to just the CRB and the APG and everybody was fine with it.
Keep in mind that no GM in the world will have memorized everything that has ever been published (and which can usually be accessed on the D20PFSRD site or the Nethys archives), so before my adventure path gets ruined by cheesy class combinations and poorly written feats and spells I reserve my right to restrict the players to manageable levels.
That is not to say that players can not deviate from those restrictions at all, e.g. if they want to use a different class, however everything will solely be down to GM approval then (and I usually request the player to either own a hardcover or the respective PDF if I do not own the source material myself, so I can have a look at the additional content).
I think the thing people need to realize is that Detect magic has had part of its utility put into read aura. Detect magic is a simple yes/no in 30 ft while read aura can let you start going through various items that seem magical and confirm those items individually, and at higher levels use it on multiple items at a time.
Thats all nice and fine and easy going once you reached 5th or 7th level. However at low levels those spells, even when combined do not provide the utility and convenience the old one did (for finding magic items that is). Not even close.
You stand in an abandoned old armory containing dozens of weapons and pieces of armor. You use detect magic. You detect magic. Good luck now lowbie, searching for that one lego brick that you know is somewhere in your big box of spare lego bricks.
A generous GM might allow a perception or craft check to single out items of exceptional craftmanship, however you can not call on that.
Having DM only be "precise" from 7th level onward is a bad design decision which is making life unnecessarily annoying for low level chars, which have to rely on triangulation tactics or overly meticulous searches. And while read aura may certainly help you identify items as magic you first need to have a basic idea which items to scan.
Well stacking focus points is only on side of the coin because without special means you can only recover one at a time. So even if you start your day at a maxium of three, after some encounters you will be down to using one focus point per encounter, i.e. exactly the same as the guy who started his day with only one focus point.
Well the question is, if we skip all RPG fluff, is there any reason for any character to chose any exploration ability apart from "search"?
What is +1 initiative, a raised shield or stealth for initiative worth if you miss hidden treasure / secret doors or hazards?
Apart from having a low perception guy spamming detect magic the benefits of having as many people as possible searching are simply to good to ignore.
And yes the other activities will provide a minor bonus once you transition into encounter mode, however if you find or miss a secret door or hidden treasure or avoid a trap is a much bigger bonus, at least as far as I am concerned.
Did you read the description of the activity ? "You scout ahead and behind the group to watch danger". This describe scouting, not guarding.
Did you read the description of the scout activity ? "You scout ahead and behind the group to watch danger". This is exactly what scouting is about.
The name of the activity is "scout" and the description of the activity describe scouting. What do you need more to accept this is the rules for scouting? Do you need a personal message from JB explaining "scout" means "scout" and not "guard" nor "basketweawing" ?
Yes, I have read the respective paragraph and found that the rules effect is not matching the fluff text in the rules description execptionally well.
As such we reserve our right to interpret the rules as we players and GM see fit.
For example if the party decides to stay together we agreed that the fighter will take the lead, using the "Scout" action to "clear" any new and nearby area in order to avoid other characters being jumped by enemies or other obvious dangers. This means that he will the one to enter any new room / location first and take a look around before any other party member is doing their respective "Seek", "Detect Magic" and "Investigate" actions. And if combat really breaks lose while sweeping the area the fighter will provide the +1 to initiative for all. As a side effect this procedure also eliminates any discussions about who is in the front or back lines once combat really erupts (usually by hidden/undetected/unnoticed enemies).
However if the party decides to spilt and any party member (usually rogue or ranger) decides to conduct a long range reconnaissance mission we will use the "Avoid Notice" exploration activity instead, being fully aware of the dangers of sneaking around in enemy territory on your own.
If the intent is to split the party when a character is scouting, then why did they write the scouting activity in a way that prevents any party splitting?
Because they didn't and the "Scout" exploration ability is badly named (if I were to chose I would rename it Guard instead)?
CRB Page 496 wrote:
While players usually hew close to these default activities, there’s no need for them to memorize the exploration activities and use them exactly. Instead, allow each player to describe what their character is doing. Then, as the GM, you can determine which activity applies. This also means you determine how an activity works if the character’s actions differ from those on the list.
So if the party rogue is telling me that he is "scouting" ahead and the party fighter is telling me that he will be on high alert for the rest of the party members that stay behind, I will put the rogue on the Avoid Notice exploration activity and the fighter on the Scout exploration activity.
Sliska Zafir wrote:
Can anyone who's watched Jason Buhlman's twitch stream of the campaign he's broadcasting enlighten us about how he treats familiars outside of encounter mode?
As far as I have been able to follow the story of the Everflame (currently at 5 of 7 episodes) for starters his players did't even try to use or abuse their familiars, neither in encounter, nor in exploration mode. However it should be noted that this particular group has so far not been dungeoneering much and Jason was handling his combats without a battle mat or similar.
Most of the time a familiar was involved in actual gameplay it was handled as a "shared" NPC in between GM & player, making for a great storytelling tool for both player and GM instead of a mere game mechanics tool for player use only.
For example there was this one instance when an enemy army were approching a city in order to attack and probably sack it, however the party wizard did not send his owl familiar on a scouting mission, which considering nightime was approching fast would have been totally reasonable (owl + woods + night = perfect), but the party cleric just put an alarm spell on the road to the city to warn them from the incomming danger.
Instead the owl was extensively used to create a great narrative later on.
This isn't a video game. Let's not restrict it like it was one.
Well, the thing is that many of those rectrictions (and therefore threads in this forum) are directly linked to the topic how exploration mode should be handled respectively on how written-in-stone the respective rules are seen by different people.
When we first received a copy of the rules a friend of mine and I had a huge argument if exploration mode would only be valid for overland travel (where is seems to work better, due to increased time scale) and/or dungenoneering and I called him nuts for trying to apply such a set of strict rules for the in-between-encounters parts of the dungeon/adventure, because I felt that would be like going from free-flow exploration to being hand-cuffed and herded through the dungeon.
However following arguments like these and especially while looking how Jason is handling things in his Everflame campaign I have come to the conclusion that all exploration actions are more like mechanical background actions, not prime roleplaying actions. I thus consider them to be "tell me what your character will be doing if you are not telling we what he is currently doing" kind of actions, and I will recommed our GM to handled them as such.
That is, if the party ranger declares that he is constantly vigilant and always looking for enemies while traversing the dungeon he will provide the party the scout action +1 initiative, no matter what he is currently actually doing (at least if he is not too distracted). Or the rogue that announced to be sneaky throughout will be allowed to roll stealth for initiative, even if his last role-played activity wasn't exactly stealth.
And going from there action economy suddenly is of no concern anymore, because if all the official exploration mode activities are just treated as secondary actions and the usual role-playing actions take the drivers seat it does not matter anymore if your rogue, ranger or animal companion tries to sneak into the next room in order to provide some intel. They all will have to roll stealth and the outcome of this roll will determine the further course of events...
Its a composition spell that costs 1 focus point and can be used as a reaction.
COUNTER PERFORMANCE FOCUS 1
UNCOMMON BARD COMPOSITION ENCHANTMENT FORTUNE MENTAL
Cast [reaction] somatic or verbal
Trigger You or an ally within 60 feet rolls a saving throw against an auditory or visual effect.
Area 60-foot emanation
Your performance protects you and your allies. Roll a Performance check for a type you know: an auditory performance if the trigger was auditory, or a visual one for a visual trigger. You and allies in the area can use the better result between your Performance check and the saving throw.
My reply was not in relation to the familars rules, but in relation to the "not-allowed-to-split-the-party-in-exploration-mode" post. I am perfectly fine with the familiar rules as written, even if they do not make sense apart from game mechanics.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Well, at least two apparently... ;)
CR-2 and CR-1 are usually less of a problem. They cause attrition but are not likely to provide a great variety of outcome. However when you face CR+1 creatures (Warg, Giant Bat) things can go south very fast, at least at level 1. Those mobs usually have enough to-hit and damage to conduct a good old one-two punch and down any non-fighter/champion character very easy.
The scout activity doesn't indicate any distance; scouting *far* ahead is the same as scouting ahead, it's covered by the scout activity and it doesn't split the party. The only way I see to split the party is to have the other PC stopping the adventure and going home. If they are still exploring, then the scouting PC provide a bonus to init and no information.
Lol. Forced party cohesion in exploration mode?
Well if faced with arbitrary GM decisions like this I'll just stay in initiative the complete adventure, thank you. And with complete I mean complete, even in the roleplaying scenes.
"Exploration mode and its stupid rules? Never heard of..."
Considering you are not at the high end (tank) or low end (early casters) of your levels AC range a typical mob (+7) will hit an average player (AC18 for 1st level) with an 11+ and 16+ on the first and second attack. That is a pretty high chance of at least hitting one attack per round and still a decent chance to hit 2. And keep in mind that those values are for mobs on or below your level. If you up the ante and take a better mob things look even worse as the first two attacks are even more likely to connect and a third attack might still be feasable.
For example we fought a Warg, and while I am well aware that a CR2 monster is a severe thread to level 1 chars, at +11 to hit and 1d8+4 damage per attack the monster one-shotted nearly one character each round, while all it needed to do so were some slightly above average to-hit and damage rolls (7+ and 12+ on the attacks with 8 to 9 damage each and 17+ on the first roll will probably crit already).
But even if you disregard stronger opponents it looks like regular enemies will always be able to hit you on 11+ with their first attacks (due to auto-scaling) which is way better than any regular enemy could have hoped for in 1E.
Damage for sure looks more common and "spikey" than in former editions, which makes me think that the increased damage and out of combat healing capabilities are designed to make combat more interesting/dramatic/dangerous/tense.
While in former editions combat often was more about conserving HP by avoiding damage, this editions look more like you need to be willing to trade HP in order to win (with the party hopefully being able to make the better trade).
Not a huge fan of this "roller-coaster" HP though...
What do you get when 7 dwarfs and a gnome decide to throw pie at a cleric? Find out on NVNG actual play
So it is either a min 1-foot-square "opening" in between target and point of origin (AoE) or a min 1 foot-square "opening" in between the caster and the target, which means that for caster <> target it really is any corner to any corner BUT with the additional requirement of the 1-foot-square "opening", which excludes cutting corners and passing alone lines.
Just for me because I am not quite clear with the explainations so far?
Checking for cover is center to center, right?
Is line of effect also center to center? Or any corner to any corner? How about when you move along a line that borders both open space and a solid barrier?
Consider two guys C and O standing in alcoves. Can they hit each other with (non-AOE) spells?