| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So having heard the dying rules in action (with multiple people being dropped to dying 3), it definitely adds a lot more impact to going down. Doesn't have the instant "oh, passed my save, no threat", and has a lot more implicit danger. Also feels a lot more threatening, and giving you a small bit of a guaranteed buffer is nice. It is notable that an enemy that keeps attacking you while you're down can still pose an instant threat - there's an anecdote shared about someone was downed by a zombie critting, and then it crit on its free attack and instantly killed the guy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Folks,
I think there are a lot of interesting thoughts about resonance that we are going to need to fully consider as the playtest proceeds. How wands work is one of those questions. How resonance applies to over one use consumables. Whether or not the system is doing the work we want it to do. These are all valid questions are one of the biggest things we will be looking at in the playtest.
Hang in there, we will look at this in depth once the full system is revealed.
Personally I was hoping that wands (and staffs and similar items) would be like weapons/foci for spell casters that boost their spalls rather than the big gulp of consumable spells that they are in 3.X/PF1.
More Harry Potter, less ... actually I don't know of anywhere in fiction where wands are treated like consumable items that have a bunch of charges of a specific spell in them outside of DnD/PF related stuff.
Agree
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stronger healing potion is 2d8+4, probably level 3.
(Later options, by the way:
Moderate, Level 5, 20 gp: 3d8+8
Greater, Level 8, 60 gp: 5d8+12
Major, Level 12, 250 gp: 7d8+20
True, Level 18, 1200 gp: 9d8+30)
HOLY CRUD these are expensive in PF2 AND we're supposed to spend Resonance on them!? That's bull.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
HOLY CRUD these are expensive in PF2 AND we're supposed to spend Resonance on them!? That's bull.Stronger healing potion is 2d8+4, probably level 3.
(Later options, by the way:
Moderate, Level 5, 20 gp: 3d8+8
Greater, Level 8, 60 gp: 5d8+12
Major, Level 12, 250 gp: 7d8+20
True, Level 18, 1200 gp: 9d8+30)
They seem cheaper than PF1 potions. The Cure Critical Wounds potion healed 4d8+7 and costed 1490 GP. If money was actually given 10x it's old value, the Greater Heal Potion would be at old 600GP, so less than half. And I'm guessing the 2d8+4 costs around 10 GP (100) compared to old CMW potion costing 300.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main currency in PF2 is silver. This means the potion that cost 50 now costs 200.
There's 10 Silver to one Gold isn't there? So that would be 500. Edit: A first level 1st edition potion in 2e's economy would be 5g, not 500s.
By comparison these potions are cheaper and can go higher (I don't think you could make Cure Critical potions since they capped at 3rd level), so a Cure Serious potion = 3d8+5 was 750g, or 75g in the new economy.
The main currency in PF2 is silver. This means the potion that cost 50 now costs 200.There's 10 Silver to one Gold isn't there? So that would be 500. Edit: A first level 1st edition potion in 2e's economy would be 5g, not 500s.
By comparison these potions are cheaper and can go higher (I don't think you could make Cure Critical potions since they capped at 3rd level), so a Cure Serious potion = 3d8+5 was 750g, or 75g in the new economy.
Potions are still capped at 3rd level spells? Has this been confirmed? I thought PF2 would fix that
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Potions are still capped at 3rd level spells? Has this been confirmed? I thought PF2 would fix thatThe main currency in PF2 is silver. This means the potion that cost 50 now costs 200.There's 10 Silver to one Gold isn't there? So that would be 500. Edit: A first level 1st edition potion in 2e's economy would be 5g, not 500s.
By comparison these potions are cheaper and can go higher (I don't think you could make Cure Critical potions since they capped at 3rd level), so a Cure Serious potion = 3d8+5 was 750g, or 75g in the new economy.
They were capped in 1st, Potions aren't capped in 2e (as shown above in Cy's post), and they also aren't based on spells. I was comparing 1st and 2nd Edition potions.
|
|
The main currency in PF2 is silver. This means the potion that cost 50 now costs 200.There's 10 Silver to one Gold isn't there? So that would be 500. Edit: A first level 1st edition potion in 2e's economy would be 5g, not 500s.
By comparison these potions are cheaper and can go higher (I don't think you could make Cure Critical potions since they capped at 3rd level), so a Cure Serious potion = 3d8+5 was 750g, or 75g in the new economy.
Ah, I see my mistake earlier. I was looking at the Moderate Potion that costs 20gp and thought it was the Lv1 Potion like Cure Light Wounds in PF1.
Do we know anything about PF2 WBL? Because without that I don't think the prices of PF2 items are particularly meaningful.
Do we know anything about PF2 WBL? Because without that I don't think the prices of PF2 items are particularly meaningful.
The growth in price seems familiar to PF1 wealth scaling, though the scaling of spell in a can prices were functionally broken.
I think it's interesting to note that the potions at a given level have about the same level of effectiveness for an appropriate level character .
9d8+30 heals on average 70.5 hit points, while your average fighter might be looking at having around 180 (class levels)+ 8 (race) +72 (18-19 con) for 260 hit points, healing somewhat over fifth of a characters HP, similar to a first level healing potion healing 1d8 or 4.5, compared to the same fighter at level 1, with 20 Hit points(10 class+8 race +2 from 14 con)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only thing I didn't like is the no reroll on searching. Its not like if I can't find my wallet in the first ten minutes of looking for it I will never find it.Yeah, but if you've thoroughly searched your couch and didn't find it there, you're not likely to search the couch again, because you already "know" that it's not there... even if it is there and you just failed your search check.
Actually, I pretty reliably search things again if I can't find what I'm looking for. This is one of many reasons I'm good at finding things.
A rule preventing this would, frankly, be pretty dumb, so I hope it's a bit more nuanced than 'you can't do that'. One check maximum every [period of time] would be fine, for example.
Only thing I didn't like is the no reroll on searching. Its not like if I can't find my wallet in the first ten minutes of looking for it I will never find it.Yeah, but if you've thoroughly searched your couch and didn't find it there, you're not likely to search the couch again, because you already "know" that it's not there... even if it is there and you just failed your search check.Actually, I pretty reliably search things again if I can't find what I'm looking for. This is one of many reasons I'm good at finding things.
A rule preventing this would, frankly, be pretty dumb, so I hope it's a bit more nuanced than 'you can't do that'. One check maximum every [period of time] would be fine, for example.
But would you search the couch a second time if you weren't looking for anything in particular? (like the way you search a room for treasure once after killing all the orcs).
|
|
But would you search the couch a second time if you weren't looking for anything in particular? (like the way you search a room for treasure once after killing all the orcs).
I probably would under the circumstances PCs usually do it, as long as I had time to do so. If I was in a profession where I was paid in looting rights, I suspect I'd give everything at least two goings over.
But really, they've said that there will be an equivalent of 'Taking 20' (though it won't work quite the same), which covers thorough searching just fine as long as you don't flatly forbid searching an area ever again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But would you search the couch a second time if you weren't looking for anything in particular? (like the way you search a room for treasure once after killing all the orcs).I probably would under the circumstances PCs usually do it, as long as I had time to do so. If I was in a profession where I was paid in looting rights, I suspect I'd give everything at least two goings over.
But really, they've said that there will be an equivalent of 'Taking 20' (though it won't work quite the same), which covers thorough searching just fine as long as you don't flatly forbid searching an area ever again.
One good way to handle it might be by stepping up the amount of time each subsequent search takes.
Like: first search is 1 minute per 10x10 square and then the second is 10 minutes etc. etc. Subsequent searches take longer because you really need to rack your brain to think of more places you missed the first time.
That said, I still think doing multiple searches in a room can get kinda metagame-y.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whether multiple searches or not is metagamey really depends on why you're searching multiple times, and if that reason is based on other information. For example, in PF1 if you detect magic and you don't have a line of sight to it because it's blocked by a thin enough barrier of appropriate materials, you know that there's something there you aren't seeing. Searching until you find it isn't metagaming in that respect. Similarly, if you're going on gathered intel that there is a hidden secret passage from room A to room B, it wouldn't be metagaming to keep searching room A until you find the secret entrance. Also if you drop your weapon because you're playing with those sorts of fumble house rules and that weapon then sinks into knee-deep, churning mud it's not metagaming to keep searching until you find it.
Stretching credulity a bit more are the old chestnuts of "I refuse to believe this corridor isn't trapped" and "there's got to be something in this room, or there wouldn't be a point to it."
So I'm not sure there needs to be any mechanics dedicated to saying when you can or can't search an area again. Ideally that would be left as a ruling by the GM based on the circumstances.
HOLY CRUD these are expensive in PF2 AND we're supposed to spend Resonance on them!? That's bull.Stronger healing potion is 2d8+4, probably level 3.
(Later options, by the way:
Moderate, Level 5, 20 gp: 3d8+8
Greater, Level 8, 60 gp: 5d8+12
Major, Level 12, 250 gp: 7d8+20
True, Level 18, 1200 gp: 9d8+30)
Well you see, it HAS to cost Resonance, so you don't use the obviously vastly more cost-efficient lower level potions. /sarcasm
Not a fan of systems designed to enforce a paradigm of the developers liking, when simply making the choice you want taken to be the best choice available.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
HOLY CRUD these are expensive in PF2 AND we're supposed to spend Resonance on them!? That's bull.Stronger healing potion is 2d8+4, probably level 3.
(Later options, by the way:
Moderate, Level 5, 20 gp: 3d8+8
Greater, Level 8, 60 gp: 5d8+12
Major, Level 12, 250 gp: 7d8+20
True, Level 18, 1200 gp: 9d8+30)Well you see, it HAS to cost Resonance, so you don't use the obviously vastly more cost-efficient lower level potions. /sarcasm
Not a fan of systems designed to enforce a paradigm of the developers liking, when simply making the choice you want taken to be the best choice available.
I don't get why that is sarcastic? Shouldn't the game be balanced around fights having consequences that can eat into a party's daily resources?
Otherwise, the only meaningful fights will be those that stand a real chance of killing the players when they are at full health.
When you can just chug 30 level 1 potions after every fight then it is hard to make damage matter. I am sure this conversation rages in the wand of CLW thread even as we speak. I am mostly avoiding that, though.
HOLY CRUD these are expensive in PF2 AND we're supposed to spend Resonance on them!? That's bull.Stronger healing potion is 2d8+4, probably level 3.
(Later options, by the way:
Moderate, Level 5, 20 gp: 3d8+8
Greater, Level 8, 60 gp: 5d8+12
Major, Level 12, 250 gp: 7d8+20
True, Level 18, 1200 gp: 9d8+30)
Hah! They should be MORE expensive
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stronger healing potion is 2d8+4, probably level 3.
(Later options, by the way:
Moderate, Level 5, 20 gp: 3d8+8
Greater, Level 8, 60 gp: 5d8+12
Major, Level 12, 250 gp: 7d8+20
True, Level 18, 1200 gp: 9d8+30)
Wait, is this for real? Because gee willigers batman, that is some horrible pricing structure right there.
So the 2d8+8 Jump from Greater to Major is worth 190 gp, but the 2d8+10 jump from Major to True is worth 950? What? How? In what planet?
For 50 GP more I can get 5 Majors for 1 True. That's an average of 257 healing versus True's 70.5. Sure, it costs more resonance, but at that price difference? I'll take the resonance hit, especially at level 18, where even a Cha 0 guy will have 18 Resonance to spend.
Man oh man I can't see how Wands turn out in this system. It'll be a hoot.
But would you search the couch a second time if you weren't looking for anything in particular? (like the way you search a room for treasure once after killing all the orcs).I probably would under the circumstances PCs usually do it, as long as I had time to do so. If I was in a profession where I was paid in looting rights, I suspect I'd give everything at least two goings over.
But really, they've said that there will be an equivalent of 'Taking 20' (though it won't work quite the same), which covers thorough searching just fine as long as you don't flatly forbid searching an area ever again.
My sense is that the one roll comprises all of your instances of searching. Not simply “once”. Moreover, if you believed you did a thorougg search, I am not sure that you would search again unless something had changed.
So rather the one roll comprises one search or multiple seaches, much easier just to deal with one roll, to describe the search any way you like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
HOLY CRUD these are expensive in PF2 AND we're supposed to spend Resonance on them!? That's bull.Stronger healing potion is 2d8+4, probably level 3.
(Later options, by the way:
Moderate, Level 5, 20 gp: 3d8+8
Greater, Level 8, 60 gp: 5d8+12
Major, Level 12, 250 gp: 7d8+20
True, Level 18, 1200 gp: 9d8+30)Well you see, it HAS to cost Resonance, so you don't use the obviously vastly more cost-efficient lower level potions. /sarcasm
Not a fan of systems designed to enforce a paradigm of the developers liking, when simply making the choice you want taken to be the best choice available.
Not sure I get this, the ruleset is always going to set the parameters for choices in a game, that is the whole point of rulesets.
Stronger healing potion is 2d8+4, probably level 3.
(Later options, by the way:
Moderate, Level 5, 20 gp: 3d8+8
Greater, Level 8, 60 gp: 5d8+12
Major, Level 12, 250 gp: 7d8+20
True, Level 18, 1200 gp: 9d8+30)Wait, is this for real? Because gee willigers batman, that is some horrible pricing structure right there.
So the 2d8+8 Jump from Greater to Major is worth 190 gp, but the 2d8+10 jump from Major to True is worth 950? What? How? In what planet?
For 50 GP more I can get 5 Majors for 1 True. That's an average of 257 healing versus True's 70.5. Sure, it costs more resonance, but at that price difference? I'll take the resonance hit, especially at level 18, where even a Cha 0 guy will have 18 Resonance to spend.
Man oh man I can't see how Wands turn out in this system. It'll be a hoot.
I'm decently sure it's accurate, as I copied it from the shown page at the Paizocon Banquet video, at 1:04:41. You're welcome to check it yourself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm decently sure it's accurate, as I copied it from the shown page at the Paizocon Banquet video, at 1:04:41. You're welcome to check it yourself.Stronger healing potion is 2d8+4, probably level 3.
(Later options, by the way:
Moderate, Level 5, 20 gp: 3d8+8
Greater, Level 8, 60 gp: 5d8+12
Major, Level 12, 250 gp: 7d8+20
True, Level 18, 1200 gp: 9d8+30)Wait, is this for real? Because gee willigers batman, that is some horrible pricing structure right there.
So the 2d8+8 Jump from Greater to Major is worth 190 gp, but the 2d8+10 jump from Major to True is worth 950? What? How? In what planet?
For 50 GP more I can get 5 Majors for 1 True. That's an average of 257 healing versus True's 70.5. Sure, it costs more resonance, but at that price difference? I'll take the resonance hit, especially at level 18, where even a Cha 0 guy will have 18 Resonance to spend.
Man oh man I can't see how Wands turn out in this system. It'll be a hoot.
I'm not doubting you man, the "Is this for real?" is for effect, as in "I can't believe this isn't a joke." I'm sure it's accurate.
'Sides I don't even know what video you mean so...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really get the reason for changing the "standard" from silver to gold. It's one of those distinctions without a difference (call your currency "skittles" or "florins" and the effect is the same) that doesn't really accomplish much besides confusing older players. I'd rather changes from PF1 to PF2 be focussed only on what's really necessary to enhance enjoyment, not change just for the sake of change.
I don't really get the reason for changing the "standard" from silver to gold. It's one of those distinctions without a difference (call your currency "skittles" or "florins" and the effect is the same) that doesn't really accomplish much besides confusing older players. I'd rather changes from PF1 to PF2 be focussed only on what's really necessary to enhance enjoyment, not change just for the sake of change.
On the one hand, I don't feel like it's all that necessary, but on the other hand, I don't think it's all that difficult a change, and assuming WBL is different in 2e, it's not like you wouldn't have to adjust if you're adapting prior modules or APs, but as a setting thing, I like it because it always feels weird that gold was the standard unit, whereas if you switch it to silver, 1 gp is roughly ~$50-$100, or so, which seems more reasonable. It's not like you'll never see a $100 bill, but it'll be a bit out of the ordinary for most common folk.
But it's a fantasy game in a fantasy world with a fantasy economy :) Given all the crazy unrealistic things in Pathfinder, is the "value" of a "gold coin" really that important? If justification for value is really important, one can just assume standard coins aren't pure gold or something.
Bat Swarms have [[A]] Swarming Bites: Everyone within the swarm takes 1d4 piercing, plus 1 persistent bleed. DC 15 Ref halves. Bleed is on your turn. They can do this every time they have an action, apparently, though the bleed doesn't stack.
Distracted is no longer a swarm trait.
Good to see swarms behaving more like an actual creature with actions, and losing that horrifying universal distraction trait. Though man, being able to do that 3 times a turn really hurts at low levels.
Bleeding stops on a natural 20. On your turn, you can spend your turn trying to staunch the bleeding (1 action), and it stops on a 15 or higher.
Bleed not stacking is... weird. I thought they'd have cleaned that up to be logical in this edition. If you take multiple bleeding wounds, it's not like the blood coming out of each one suddenly decreases to keep a constant outflow.
I still disagree with a universal low DC to stop bleeding. It shouldn't be as easy to fix an arterial gusher doing multiple dice of bleeding damage every round as it is to stanch a scratch bleeding at only 1 point per round.
Burning Hands is exactly 2d6, but it looks like you can't use the corner trick to cast cones upwards anymore.
Not being able to able to cast spells up is weird as hell. You can't aim cones up? Does that mean you can't aim lines up either? It's either a spell you can target or a ranged weapon or not at all? o.O
A torch is 1 bludgeoning, 1d3 fire.
So either there are no batons and clubs in PF2, or they are being really inconsistent with damage. Hitting someone with a burning torch should be like hitting them with a flaming baton or flaming club.
Stronger healing potion is 2d8+4, probably level 3.
(Later options, by the way:
Moderate, Level 5, 20 gp: 3d8+8
Greater, Level 8, 60 gp: 5d8+12
Major, Level 12, 250 gp: 7d8+20
True, Level 18, 1200 gp: 9d8+30)
So a true healing potion is 60 times as expensive as a moderate healing potion for only 3x as much healing. 4 true healing potions are more expensive than a 4500gp PF2 holy avenger. Sounds like they're back on their drugs from Starfinder with ludicrous consumable prices again. :/
Yeah, I agree with the Finish, people will just eat the resonance cost to drink two Greater potions instead of ever touching a True potion unless that insanity is fixed.
Searching is now secret Perception checks by the GM, and you likely can't re-search an area.
Secret check was expected, a lot of groups do that anyway. It prevents metagaming based on what you saw come up on the dice.
Not being able to search again is pretty dumb. As Leedwashere points out, if you know something is there, you should just be able to search indefinitely until you find it. I could see giving a -2 "morale penalty" from frustration to repeat searches though.
However, as Leedwashere also points out, I agree with not being able to search again when you're just looking to see if there is something there, and you didn't have prior knowledge that something is in fact there.
Bull rush is vs Fort DC.
Not vs Reflex? I kinda expected the "bullfighter" thing where you could dodge out of the way and make them rush past you without hitting you. So it's assumed that they automatically hit you and you are trying to resist being moved. ... Huh.
Falling is half the distance fallen in feet.
So a level 0 halfling commoner who falls out of bed and critically fails his reflex save dies. A halfling who falls out of a bunk bed automatically dies, and a member of any other race except dwarf dies on a failed reflex save.
Dying rules:
You stay at 0 HP, and get dying 1 (dying 2 from a crit). Hitting an unconscious person increases the dying condition by the appropriate amount (prone penalties still apply, which might be flat-footed). If you fail the Fort save, you go up a step, with fumbling going up two steps. You die at dying 4. Critically succeeding lets you stabilize. Getting healed leaves you unconscious, but you need to succeed at the Fort save to regain consciousness. DC of the save is set by what knocked you down - level 0 skeleton is apparently DC 12, and you take a penalty equivalent to your dying amount. If you get up after being downed, you keep your dying penalty, but it begins to fade at the end of your next turn.
I prefer negative HP, just with an increased threshold before death like half your max HP. But I can live with this system, I guess.
The DC being based on the level of the enemy that hits you remains incomprehensible to me. If we're going with a saving throw based system, houldn't it be based on the damage of the attack? :/ As written, a boss who rolls badly and does 5 damage will still kill you harder than a minion who rolls really well and does 30 damage. That's so insanely stupid I can't even wrap my head around it.
Climbing appears to be just one roll/turn, but you only fall when you fumble.
You should only have to make another Climb check if the conditions / surface change - e.g., moving from a rough surface to a smoother surface, or the wind picks up, or you get hit. Otherwise, one check should carry you unless you're climbing a really excessive distance. Same with Swim. What the heck.
Thievery is confirmed for what Disable Device was rolled into.
This was known. But still not a fan of this specific combination.
Acid flasks do persistent acid damage (1d4?) and 1 splash. Persistent happens on your turn.
Antipaladin has a Retributive Strike reaction that only triggers on him being crit.
I'm just remembering Magic Weapon is actually relevant now since it adds an extra die.
Invisibility bonus is just flat-footed.
All of this is good, actually.
Coup-de-grace no longer exists.
W-why?
Assuming that things like a months wages haven't changed, but only things like weapons/magic items to silver, it means that every 3rd level adventurer isn't walking around decked out in more wealth than an entire village.
But it's a fantasy game in a fantasy world with a fantasy economy :) Given all the crazy unrealistic things in Pathfinder, is the "value" of a "gold coin" really that important? If justification for value is really important, one can just assume standard coins aren't pure gold or something.
PF1's economics or lack thereof bother a lot of people. I'm not one of them either, but I think it's reasonable for Paizo to address their concerns this way.
On the topic of silver pieces as a standard I like it because it makes a little more intuitive sense for players unfamiliar with Pathfinder. IRL Gold is valuable in Pathfinder even at level one a single gold piece is pocket change. I would personally prefer if they went further, kept a silver standard and made 1 gp = 100 sp. But I have never also never played in Golarion and therefore don't care about narrative consistence in that setting.
Falling is half the distance fallen in feet.So a level 0 halfling commoner who falls out of bed and critically fails his reflex save dies. A halfling who falls out of a bunk bed automatically dies, and a member of any other race except dwarf dies on a failed reflex save.
I think you're doubling instead of halving or you have super high bunk beds. To automatically kill a lvl 0 halfling with 8 HP you need to drop them at least 16 feet.
I think you're doubling instead of halving or you have super high bunk beds. To automatically kill a lvl 0 halfling with 8 HP you need to drop them at least 16 feet.Falling is half the distance fallen in feet.So a level 0 halfling commoner who falls out of bed and critically fails his reflex save dies. A halfling who falls out of a bunk bed automatically dies, and a member of any other race except dwarf dies on a failed reflex save.
Ah, I missed the "half" part. Well, that's better then. The halfling commoner would still have 4 HP and probably die falling out of a bunk bed, but at least they won't die falling out of a /regular/ bed. XD
The damage does ramp up pretty fast though. Basically they made it 1d10 per 10 ft instead of 1d6, except you just take automatic average damage instead of rolling for some reason. I wonder if this also means other environmental hazards like cold etc now just do automatic flat damage as well, instead of rolling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm on mobile, and I'm not going to be able to manage quotes.
@Fuzzypaws:
The check to stop the bleed was a flat check on a d20. It might have been harder on higher bleed, but the 1 bleed was the example we got.
I think you can still cast cones up, just that you can't start it above your head to hit the cloud of bats but not your allies. It might also be that the bats were just occupying a 10x10x5 square as well.
I think it's 1 bludgeoning, 1d3 fire, but it's totally possible that it has a die. The thing that was mentioned was that it couldn't overcome the swarm's weapon resistance, and it sounded like 1 damage was mentioned very briefly.
Falling damage is still somewhat similar to PF1. Assuming a halflimg commoner only has 6 HP, they'd still have to fall an equivalent of 12 feet and land badly before they start dying. It's just a flat 5 per 10 ft instead of 1d6.
I should point out that if that minion does that much damage compared to the boss, they were probably near in level and the minion crit, which would put that person to dying 2.
Jason only had them make one Athletics check (and 3 actions) to climb down the 42 ft deep out. So it's entirely possible it's as you say, but there's no comparison right now.
I think it's because it was mostly subsumed into the dying rules (critting a dying 1 person makes them very likely to die), but we'll have to see for other scenarios. This was just explicitly for an in-battle one against a dying person.
I think you're doubling instead of halving or you have super high bunk beds. To automatically kill a lvl 0 halfling with 8 HP you need to drop them at least 16 feet.Falling is half the distance fallen in feet.So a level 0 halfling commoner who falls out of bed and critically fails his reflex save dies. A halfling who falls out of a bunk bed automatically dies, and a member of any other race except dwarf dies on a failed reflex save.Ah, I missed the "half" part. Well, that's better then. The halfling commoner would still have 4 HP and probably die falling out of a bunk bed, but at least they won't die falling out of a /regular/ bed. XD
The damage does ramp up pretty fast though. Basically they made it 1d10 per 10 ft instead of 1d6, except you just take automatic average damage instead of rolling for some reason. I wonder if this also means other environmental hazards like cold etc now just do automatic flat damage as well, instead of rolling.
Per the halfling/gnome blog halflings start with 8 HP from ancestry before class, I assumed that is what you had meant by lvl 0 halfling. So they did increase the damage from falling but also increased the standard HP. I like the more normalized fall damage but fully agree it sticks out as odd since most everything else is dice based.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bleeding stops on a natural 20. On your turn, you can spend your turn trying to staunch the bleeding (1 action), and it stops on a 15 or higher.Bleed not stacking is... weird. I thought they'd have cleaned that up to be logical in this edition. If you take multiple bleeding wounds, it's not like the blood coming out of each one suddenly decreases to keep a constant outflow.
I still disagree with a universal low DC to stop bleeding. It shouldn't be as easy to fix an arterial gusher doing multiple dice of bleeding damage every round as it is to stanch a scratch bleeding at only 1 point per round.
It's a fair point on bleed stacking, that does seem like it would make more sense. Though honestly, lots of things seem like they should stack if you actually think about them.
On the DC: I'm not clear that that IS a universal DC, that was just the DC used from the bats.
Burning Hands is exactly 2d6, but it looks like you can't use the corner trick to cast cones upwards anymore.Not being able to able to cast spells up is weird as hell. You can't aim cones up? Does that mean you can't aim lines up either? It's either a spell you can target or a ranged weapon or not at all? o.O
I'd really be hesitant to jump to Cyouni's conclusion.. Erik was targeting two swarms, and his entire party seemed to be engulfed between the two. Without seeing the map and how they were laid out, I wouldn't be sure it was simply a matter of aiming up.
A torch is 1 bludgeoning, 1d3 fire.So either there are no batons and clubs in PF2, or they are being really inconsistent with damage. Hitting someone with a burning torch should be like hitting them with a flaming baton or flaming club.
More important context: we never actually got told the bludgeoning damage for a torch. What we were told is that the rogue couldn't deal relevant damage with it to overcome Resistance 5. Said rogue probably has a strength mod between 0-2.
So a level 0 halfling commoner who falls out of bed and critically fails his reflex save dies. A halfling who falls out of a bunk bed automatically dies, and a member of any other race except dwarf dies on a failed reflex save.
What are you talking about here? A halfling gets 8 HP, plus potentially his con bonus. He'd need to fall 16 feet to get knocked to 0, which doesn't actually kill him anyway, or 8 on a fumble, which was explained to be basically falling on your head. I feel like being dropped 8 feet on your head isn't an unreasonable deadly threat to someone with the durability of "a dude."
Otherwise, a fall from 16 feet that you aren't mitigating the damage somehow doesn't see far off from a potentially deadly threat either. In real life, 6-9 meters tends to be the cut off where most people die. But death's can happen at much shorter heights as well.
And again, you don't auto die if you get knocked to 0. You just have to start rolling checks. You can critically succeed, stabilize, and eventually get up without any outside intervention.
You should only have to make another Climb check if the conditions / surface change - e.g., moving from a rough surface to a smoother surface, or the wind picks up, or you get hit. Otherwise, one check should carry you unless you're climbing a really excessive distance. Same with Swim. What the heck.
Setting aside that nothing in the podcast actually precluded it from working as you describe, since the only climb checks were completed within a single turn anyway, didn't the old system require you to make a check with every action, potentially multiple times a turn?
Also, if you want to get technical, if you are measuring time in rounds then you are in encounter mode and something dangerous is going on. If I spend 3 rounds climbing a wall while arrows clatter around me or a buddy bleeds out below me, I don't think it is unrealistic to say you might have be distracted enough to make a mistake regardless of the surface you are climbing.
Coup-de-grace no longer exists.
W-why?[quote/]I don't recall this ever being stated-- we just saw that mindless undead continued attacking downed opponents with their normal attacks. The things could just not have been smart enough to Coup-de-grace.
But for what it's worth, if you spend a 3 actions and hit someone unconscious 3 times, it sounds like they are dying anyway. The target would start at dying 1 and be knocked down to dying 4, which is dead. So there's not really a need for full round Coup-de-grace in combat as far as I can tell.
Now, if we are talking about slitting someone's throat when they are asleep, I dunno, but that situation never arose in what we heard.
I'd really be hesitant to jump to Cyouni's conclusion.. Erik was targeting two swarms, and his entire party seemed to be engulfed between the two. Without seeing the map and how they were laid out, I wouldn't be sure it was simply a matter of aiming up.
At least in PF1, a swarm is a cube. Using the corner method of cones, you could use the cone above allies' heads. Given that wasn't useable, something has to have changed between editions.
Bleeding stops on a natural 20. On your turn, you can spend your turn trying to staunch the bleeding (1 action), and it stops on a 15 or higher.Bleed not stacking is... weird. I thought they'd have cleaned that up to be logical in this edition. If you take multiple bleeding wounds, it's not like the blood coming out of each one suddenly decreases to keep a constant outflow.
I still disagree with a universal low DC to stop bleeding. It shouldn't be as easy to fix an arterial gusher doing multiple dice of bleeding damage every round as it is to stanch a scratch bleeding at only 1 point per round.
It's a fair point on bleed stacking, that does seem like it would make more sense. Though honestly, lots of things seem like they should stack if you actually think about them.
On the DC: I'm not clear that that IS a universal DC, that was just the DC used from the bats.
They mentioned the DC 15 to treat a bleeding wound with a Medicine skill check in one of the blogs too. They didn't imply anything about a higher DC for worse wounds.
They mentioned the DC 15 to treat a bleeding wound with a Medicine skill check in one of the blogs too. They didn't imply anything about a higher DC for worse wounds.
Bleeding stops on a natural 20. On your turn, you can spend your turn trying to staunch the bleeding (1 action), and it stops on a 15 or higher.Bleed not stacking is... weird. I thought they'd have cleaned that up to be logical in this edition. If you take multiple bleeding wounds, it's not like the blood coming out of each one suddenly decreases to keep a constant outflow.
I still disagree with a universal low DC to stop bleeding. It shouldn't be as easy to fix an arterial gusher doing multiple dice of bleeding damage every round as it is to stanch a scratch bleeding at only 1 point per round.
It's a fair point on bleed stacking, that does seem like it would make more sense. Though honestly, lots of things seem like they should stack if you actually think about them.
On the DC: I'm not clear that that IS a universal DC, that was just the DC used from the bats.
Hmm, so it is the same as Pathfinder 1 then. Seems like an ease of use thing. I'd imagine if there are particular injuries that would be harder to staunch, an increased DC would just be mentioned in the ability.
|
|
At least in PF1, a swarm is a cube. Using the corner method of cones, you could use the cone above allies' heads. Given that wasn't useable, something has to have changed between editions.
I'd really be hesitant to jump to Cyouni's conclusion.. Erik was targeting two swarms, and his entire party seemed to be engulfed between the two. Without seeing the map and how they were laid out, I wouldn't be sure it was simply a matter of aiming up.
That seems to assume that cones are two-dimensional, something I have never thought to be the case.
That seems to assume that cones are two-dimensional, something I have never thought to be the case.At least in PF1, a swarm is a cube. Using the corner method of cones, you could use the cone above allies' heads. Given that wasn't useable, something has to have changed between editions.
I'd really be hesitant to jump to Cyouni's conclusion.. Erik was targeting two swarms, and his entire party seemed to be engulfed between the two. Without seeing the map and how they were laid out, I wouldn't be sure it was simply a matter of aiming up.
Not...particularly? If you can aim a cone in the same way that cone templates demonstrate (originating from a corner), you should be able to fire it above allies' heads by aiming it upwards. I'm not sure why that would require a two-dimensional cone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks a bunch Cyouni!
Those are some great notes, I would like to add to these comprehensive notes...
When rolling on a save there is a chance that a Nat 1 could just fail not a fumble. That's if the bonus to the save is higher than the DC itself. High level stuff but interesting nonetheless...
The Skeletal Champion interested me. He definitely had a level in Anti-Paladin with his Wrathful Strike. He also had a few feats like Sudden Charge, Power Attack, and Attacks of Opportunities. So did he get those feats from being a Skeletal Champion, levels in Fighter, or all Anti-Paladin?...
You can't raise your Shield in exploration mode.
Shield Block is a reaction that anyone who is proficient with a Shield can take. "You snap your shield into place to deflect a blow prevents you from taking an amount of damage up to your shield's hardness. (A heavy steel shield has a hardness of 9) If the shield takes damage equal to or exceeding its hardness the shield takes a dent" Taking a dent seems to render the shield broken. (I added some knowledge that I had from Paizocon)
I can infer that people take a -4 AC penalty when prone. Emmerich (who had an AC of 17) was prone, the skeleton hit with a 14. So DC 13?...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a few of the concerns about potion pricing in this thread are very premature and a bit melodramatic regardless.
There are so many factors at play here and so many unknowns that to start calling design choices horrible or "on drugs" is full of assumptions, unproductive and pretty disrespectful.
- The issue of resonance has been raised but is not trivial. Sure you could have 0 charisma and have 18 resonance at 18th level, but do you really want to be using that all up on tiny potions or be using that giant stockpile of magic loot you have? I expect resonance is going to be a valuable resource, and being able to use less of it on stuff like healing means you can use your more powerful items. I think saying "I have 18 resonance to use on potions" is hyperbole.
- ACTIONS. Sure you can do P1 CLW spamming with cost effective small potions and milk as much as you want out of your buck, but in the middle of combat every potion you need to draw and drink will cost you 2 actions (for the most part). It is a HUGE advantage in a dire situation to get more HP per action.
- We don't know a characters WBL. At level 18, the fraction of your total wealth for up to 100 hp healed with one resonance (maybe?) and two actions might be perfectly reasonable.
Tl;dr chill.
Thanks a bunch Cyouni!
Those are some great notes, I would like to add to these comprehensive notes...When rolling on a save there is a chance that a Nat 1 could just fail not a fumble. That's if the bonus to the save is higher than the DC itself. High level stuff but interesting nonetheless...
The Skeletal Champion interested me. He definitely had a level in Anti-Paladin with his Wrathful Strike. He also had a few feats like Sudden Charge, Power Attack, and Attacks of Opportunities. So did he get those feats from being a Skeletal Champion, levels in Fighter, or all Anti-Paladin?...
You can't raise your Shield in exploration mode.
Shield Block is a reaction that anyone who is proficient with a Shield can take. "You snap your shield into place to deflect a blow prevents you from taking an amount of damage up to your shield's hardness. (A heavy steel shield has a hardness of 9) If the shield takes damage equal to or exceeding its hardness the shield takes a dent" Taking a dent seems to render the shield broken. (I added some knowledge that I had from Paizocon)
I can infer that people take a -4 AC penalty when prone. Emmerich (who had an AC of 17) was prone, the skeleton hit with a 14. So DC 13?...
I personally think the Skeletal Champion was effectively Fighter 1/Antipaladin 1. Antipaladin 1 would account for Retributive Strike and Sudden Charge, while Fighter 1 would account for Power Attack and AOO.
Thanks for the extra math on the notes which I didn't note down myself. Being able to block 9 damage on an attack is pretty solid on a heavy steel shield, but one dent breaking it seems a little odd, because then shields would be really hard to use at higher levels. We'll have to take a look at that when we have more complete numbers on that.
Good math on him being prone, though since Jason did the math silently, I wonder if there was some other penalty from Emmerich being unconscious? A -2 from prone (I think some people heard that flat-footed is applied?) and then losing 2 Dex from being unconscious is another theoretical possibility.
|
On the topic of silver pieces as a standard I like it because it makes a little more intuitive sense for players unfamiliar with Pathfinder. IRL Gold is valuable in Pathfinder even at level one a single gold piece is pocket change. I would personally prefer if they went further, kept a silver standard and made 1 gp = 100 sp. But I have never also never played in Golarion and therefore don't care about narrative consistence in that setting.
Falling is half the distance fallen in feet.So a level 0 halfling commoner who falls out of bed and critically fails his reflex save dies. A halfling who falls out of a bunk bed automatically dies, and a member of any other race except dwarf dies on a failed reflex save.I think you're doubling instead of halving or you have super high bunk beds. To automatically kill a lvl 0 halfling with 8 HP you need to drop them at least 16 feet.
I Agree to this, i woud like it to be more like warhammer fantasy roleplay from back in the days, were 12 cp = 1 silver and 21 silver = 1 gold. It is easy for us that is 1 to 10 or 100, but i like it a bit crooked.
Thanks a bunch Cyouni!
Those are some great notes, I would like to add to these comprehensive notes...When rolling on a save there is a chance that a Nat 1 could just fail not a fumble. That's if the bonus to the save is higher than the DC itself. High level stuff but interesting nonetheless...
The Skeletal Champion interested me. He definitely had a level in Anti-Paladin with his Wrathful Strike. He also had a few feats like Sudden Charge, Power Attack, and Attacks of Opportunities. So did he get those feats from being a Skeletal Champion, levels in Fighter, or all Anti-Paladin?...
You can't raise your Shield in exploration mode.
Shield Block is a reaction that anyone who is proficient with a Shield can take. "You snap your shield into place to deflect a blow prevents you from taking an amount of damage up to your shield's hardness. (A heavy steel shield has a hardness of 9) If the shield takes damage equal to or exceeding its hardness the shield takes a dent" Taking a dent seems to render the shield broken. (I added some knowledge that I had from Paizocon)
I can infer that people take a -4 AC penalty when prone. Emmerich (who had an AC of 17) was prone, the skeleton hit with a 14. So DC 13?...
I personally think the Skeletal Champion was effectively Fighter 1/Antipaladin 1. Antipaladin 1 would account for Retributive Strike and Sudden Charge, while Fighter 1 would account for Power Attack and AOO.
Thanks for the extra math on the notes which I didn't note down myself. Being able to block 9 damage on an attack is pretty solid on a heavy steel shield, but one dent breaking it seems a little odd, because then shields would be really hard to use at higher levels. We'll have to take a look at that when we have more complete numbers on that.
Good math on him being prone, though since Jason did the math silently, I wonder if there was some other penalty from Emmerich being unconscious? A -2 from prone (I think some people heard that flat-footed is applied?)...
Yes, I think I agree with the Fighter 1/Anti-Pal 1. I'm excited that their's a possibility for the Paladin (the mirror image of the Anti-Paladin) to get Sudden Charge or Power Attack. We have had NO info on combat type feats for the Paladin. Though they could give it to the Anti-Paladin exclusively.
Yeah, I thought it was odd. I remember seeing something about shields having two dents then they're broken. And then there's the background feat for the Warrior called "Quick Repair" could that help the loss of shield situation?... Also during the Paladin twitch video, Mark spoke about Paladin's getting a late level feat that'll regenerate their shields. So it seemed broken shields would be a common trend. Adamantine shields anyone?... Or that Magical Invincible shield from the Banquet Video.
Jason either had to do some math silently or find the page that listed prone AC. It's hard to tell. And I think they are moving away from applying penalties to ability scores (in fact no 2e spell or ability comes to mind...)
It's a change for changes sake or, as I've seen one or two posts say 'to make gold meaningful' or something like that. I might be mis-remembering,
I mean, it never really made much sense to begin with to have "the party sells the +3 weapon they found in the dungeon and don't have a use for to the merchant, who hands the party a sack filled with 180 pounds of gold".