PF2 Playtest Panel


Prerelease Discussion

251 to 300 of 321 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starbuck_II wrote:

Well, the issue is str isn't use in PF2 for shortswords, Dex is for hit.

Short swords have the finesse and agile property. So Double slice must max dex more than Str.

"Finesse weapons like the rapier use your Dexterity modifier for attack rolls if you prefer."

If you've got a strength build, you just use strength to hit with for finesse weapons.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I don't think I've seen people discuss Volley yet, which was referenced by one of the playtest feats.

I don't recall the exact details but basically the archer in the group had point blank _stance_. Added a plus to damage, not to hit. And couldn't be used with weapons with the Volley trait. The archer had a shortbow (which didn't have the trait), but Logan mentioned that the Longbow had it.

Sounded like a purely archer based character might want to carry around two bows one for long range/initial engagement, and one for shorter range, in the thick of things.

Edit: Whoops meant to post this in the weapons thread. But seems relevant here... Let me know if you think I should delete/re-post it. Otherwise I'll just leave it here.

Paizo Employee Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
As for the tertiary attack thing, I agree that it looks like agile for a -8 is the best I have seen, and if you're saying it, probably the best they have officially shown so far. I didn't want to fall into the trap of thinking that it is the best available ever, and I wanted to acknowledge that at least one source of compiled information has the same -2/-4 that master_marshmallow was using. For all I know it was a decision change between announcement and sending the playtest for print.

If you are looking at an unofficial compilation, you have to accept a risk that something in there is wrong, and you should default to what we have directly told you in blogs when they conflict (that still won't always be right, as some of those things have changed since then if the blog was before the ship date). -2/-4 was not correct at any point in time. My guess is that it was extrapolated from something that happened in a podcast, especially considering just how early I started seeing the -2/-4 misconception pop up alongside the correct one (speculating here, but maybe someone made an agile third attack at -4 in the podcast because of miscounting the number of attacks so far, which then led to this conclusion, or someone listening at least thought that happened).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RicoTheBold wrote:

A 5% chance of getting 2x damage on a power attack adds 10% to expected damage. (.05 * 2)

A 5% chance of getting 2x damage on the first attack of a double slice also adds 10% to that attack's damage, and same with the second attack. However, since each weapon only provides a portion of the total damage of a double slice, compared to the total damage of the double slice, each individual crit only adds the same portion of that (.5 if each weapon does the same base damage), so each crit only adds that portion of 10% to the total double slice expected damage (.5 * .05 * 2) and both crits have to happen to add the full 10% to damage. Since the chances to crit are independent, over the long haul, they add 10% to expected damage, or exactly the same as a power attack crit.

I agree with this in principle. However, there is one benefit to getting more crits over stronger crits: critical specialization. The weapons blog mentioned that characters could "unlock their weapon's critical specialization" (however that is done), which means you get an additional effect on a crit. Judging by the examples listed, they don't seem directly related to damage (except maybe the axe), so double-slice would give you more chances to inflict those.

That sort of makes sense with what I imagine about the combat styles: TWF being more about tricksiness than straight damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:

A 5% chance of getting 2x damage on a power attack adds 10% to expected damage. (.05 * 2)

A 5% chance of getting 2x damage on the first attack of a double slice also adds 10% to that attack's damage, and same with the second attack. However, since each weapon only provides a portion of the total damage of a double slice, compared to the total damage of the double slice, each individual crit only adds the same portion of that (.5 if each weapon does the same base damage), so each crit only adds that portion of 10% to the total double slice expected damage (.5 * .05 * 2) and both crits have to happen to add the full 10% to damage. Since the chances to crit are independent, over the long haul, they add 10% to expected damage, or exactly the same as a power attack crit.

I agree with this in principle. However, there is one benefit to getting more crits over stronger crits: critical specialization. The weapons blog mentioned that characters could "unlock their weapon's critical specialization" (however that is done), which means you get an additional effect on a crit. Judging by the examples listed, they don't seem directly related to damage (except maybe the axe), so double-slice would give you more chances to inflict those.

That sort of makes sense with what I imagine about the combat styles: TWF being more about tricksiness than straight damage.

Indeed~ the two weapon fighter can take advantage of the effects of both their weapon choices rather than just one. They pay for that in part by literally having to pay for both weapons. I bet you can be a real bag of tricks if you go with something like a whip and a shield breaker and double slice will keep you from falling well behind your greatsword friend in damage and you get two chances at activating whatever crit effects you have going foe you. Hopefully, this is all balanced for in the final math of the game.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

^I want bragging rights and maybe a cookie for saying this like 3 pages ago.

That's So Raven:
LuniasM wrote:

tl;dr, Double Slice improves your crit chance.

I think people are missing the most important part of Double Slice - you're basically getting two attacks with no iterative penalty. That's a 20-25% increase in both your chance to hit and your chance to critically hit on your second attack. Plus, characters with Twin weapons can hit even harder as their weapons deal bonus damage when hitting the same enemy in one turn.

Consider at Level 1 with the same bonuses a Greatsword Fighter and a character wielding Twin d6 weapons. The first attacks at +6 (+4 STR, +1 Expert, +1 Level) and deals 2d12+4 on a Power Attack, while the second uses Double Slice +6/+6 (1d6+4/1d6+4). Against the same enemy AC 12 the first has DPR 17 while the second has DPR 15. However, the first has a 25% chance of critting and the second has a 43.75% chance of critting at least once (and a 6.25% chance of critting twice). This matters because weapons have abilities that proc off a critical hit, and these abilities can shift the math in favor of Double Slice or grant other bonuses that DPR can't easily measure.


My issue comes in when we consider that it is a principle of the new game's design that critical hits happen more often.

As a result, if the probability for primary attacks landing a crit ever reaches one (or 95% for us) then comparing the damage linearly results in double slice being better.

WBL being factored into the game's damage engine seems faulty, but it works so eh.

I'm more inclined to be affirmative to this if there's more of a solid base for power attack, the belle curve problem seems hard to design around.

And if it matters, my calc came from 18 STR and +2 from proficiency that fighters get at 3rd level.


master_marshmallow wrote:

My issue comes in when we consider that it is a principle of the new game's design that critical hits happen more often.

As a result, if the probability for primary attacks landing a crit ever reaches one (or 95% for us) then comparing the damage linearly results in double slice being better.

I'm prepared to eat my words later if I'm wrong, but I'm going to state this with confidence:

A 95% chance to crit with a weapon against a meaningful enemy will not be common enough to factor into any balance considerations.

Paizo Employee Designer

21 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

My issue comes in when we consider that it is a principle of the new game's design that critical hits happen more often.

As a result, if the probability for primary attacks landing a crit ever reaches one (or 95% for us) then comparing the damage linearly results in double slice being better.

People have been breaking this down several times, so I'll try to do so definitively here. Let's suppose that the damage between Power Attack and Double Slice is roughly equivalent not counting critical hits. For this purpose, we'll use level 1, where this is definitively true (Power Attack 17, Double Slice 16 from one 8.5 hit and one 7.5 hit, so Power Attack does more). There is simply no way in which the damage from critical hits can adjust this in Double Slice's favor, at any critical hit rate.

Consider a 20% critical hit rate (meaning you hit on a 7, critical hit on a 17, so 70% hit rate). Without criticals, Power Attack's expected damage is 17*.7 (70% hit rate), or 11.9 and Double Slice is 8.5*.7+7.5*.7, or 11.2.

But let's add in criticals to see who that helps more. Power Attack adds on 17*.2 damage for the one big hit being doubled 20% of the time, so 3.4 more damage, total 15.3. Double Slice adds on 8.5*.2+7.5*.2 damage, or 3.2 damage, for a total of 14.4. Power Attack has actually grown its absolute advantage from .7 to .9 (the proportional advantage remained the same). This plays out no matter what you choose for the crit rate, even if you somehow crit on a roll of 2 (in a situation as bizarre and unlikely as that, though, making separate greatsword attacks is more powerful than both options).

Now Double Slice does have some good situations for it if you only need one hit, or if you need about 24 damage but not 32, or if you want to inflict a critical specialization effect, and many other situations (Power Attack excels in others, for instance if you *do* need about 32 damage it's very unlikely to crit twice on Double Slice). But critical hits simply don't increase its expected damage any differently than they do Power Attack; they are a flat multiplier on expected damage, so whichever was in the lead before will remain in the lead. Had they started as equal before crits, they would be equal after crits.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Mark Seifter is a real American hero.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
All of this is wrong - not how the "Pathfinder"/Golarian world operates (or any other D&D/fantasy world that I know of), and is indicative of a very strange approach that birthed with 3rd Ed.

This is a game designed to allow high level fighters survive several direct hits from a 10 ton hammer wielded by a 64 feet titan that said fighter cannot hit above the ankles, and the direct fire of a wyrm's fire breath, which can melt walls of stone.

Surviving long falls and contact with lava is a feature, not a bug.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

My issue comes in when we consider that it is a principle of the new game's design that critical hits happen more often.

As a result, if the probability for primary attacks landing a crit ever reaches one (or 95% for us) then comparing the damage linearly results in double slice being better.

People have been breaking this down several times, so I'll try to do so definitively here. Let's suppose that the damage between Power Attack and Double Slice is roughly equivalent not counting critical hits. For this purpose, we'll use level 1, where this is definitively true (Power Attack 17, Double Slice 16 from one 8.5 hit and one 7.5 hit, so Power Attack does more). There is simply no way in which the damage from critical hits can adjust this in Double Slice's favor, at any critical hit rate.

Consider a 20% critical hit rate (meaning you hit on a 7, critical hit on a 17, so 70% hit rate). Without criticals, Power Attack's expected damage is 17*.7 (70% hit rate), or 11.9 and Double Slice is 8.5*.7+7.5*.7, or 11.2.

But let's add in criticals to see who that helps more. Power Attack adds on 17*.2 damage for the one big hit being doubled 20% of the time, so 3.4 more damage, total 15.3. Double Slice adds on 8.5*.2+7.5*.2 damage, or 3.2 damage, for a total of 14.4. Power Attack has actually grown its absolute advantage from .7 to .9 (the proportional advantage remained the same). This plays out no matter what you choose for the crit rate, even if you somehow crit on a roll of 2 (in a situation as bizarre and unlikely as that, though, making separate greatsword attacks is more powerful than both options).

Now Double Slice does have some good situations for it if you only need one hit, or if you need about 24 damage but not 32, or if you want to inflict a critical specialization effect, and many other situations (Power Attack excels in others, for instance if you *do* need about 32 damage it's very unlikely to crit twice on Double Slice). But critical hits simply don't...

I really tried to get him to tell us about enemy design and AC on monsters guys, I really tried.

Liberty's Edge

master_marshmallow wrote:
And if it matters, my calc came from 18 STR and +2 from proficiency that fighters get at 3rd level.

Just as an aside Proficiency doesn't add to damage.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
And if it matters, my calc came from 18 STR and +2 from proficiency that fighters get at 3rd level.
Just as an aside Proficiency doesn't add to damage.

Could've sworn someone did say any time you add an ability modifier you also add proficiency. I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time I didn't have all the relevant information that changes things.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
And if it matters, my calc came from 18 STR and +2 from proficiency that fighters get at 3rd level.
Just as an aside Proficiency doesn't add to damage.

This is also true. If it did, Double Slice would indeed be drastically more powerful than Power Attack at higher levels.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
All of this is wrong - not how the "Pathfinder"/Golarian world operates (or any other D&D/fantasy world that I know of), and is indicative of a very strange approach that birthed with 3rd Ed.

This is a game designed to allow high level fighters survive several direct hits from a 10 ton hammer wielded by a 64 feet titan that said fighter cannot hit above the ankles, and the direct fire of a wyrm's fire breath, which can melt walls of stone.

Surviving long falls and contact with lava is a feature, not a bug.

Weather Report's stance also makes the environment sentient, as it senses intent and treats the same action differently depending on if it's voluntary or involuntary. For instance lava ACTIVELY kills people intending on entering it while only damaging those that accidently do so. And the ground might do less damage to someone that falls vs someone that jumps. I'd rather not game in a world where every inanimate object can read my mind and figure out my intent...


graystone wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
All of this is wrong - not how the "Pathfinder"/Golarian world operates (or any other D&D/fantasy world that I know of), and is indicative of a very strange approach that birthed with 3rd Ed.

This is a game designed to allow high level fighters survive several direct hits from a 10 ton hammer wielded by a 64 feet titan that said fighter cannot hit above the ankles, and the direct fire of a wyrm's fire breath, which can melt walls of stone.

Surviving long falls and contact with lava is a feature, not a bug.
Weather Report's stance also makes the environment sentient, as it senses intent and treats the same action differently depending on if it's voluntary or involuntary. For instance lava ACTIVELY kills people intending on entering it while only damaging those that accidently do so. And the ground might do less damage to someone that falls vs someone that jumps. I'd rather not game in a world where every inanimate object can read my mind and figure out my intent...

Though that brings up the death save rules. Id assume environmental damage is a set low DC but it could be higher on unholy ground or in hell or similar.

EDIT: If an enemy throws a PC into say a giant pit is the death save DC the enemies DC or the fall damage DC?


Bardarok wrote:
graystone wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
All of this is wrong - not how the "Pathfinder"/Golarian world operates (or any other D&D/fantasy world that I know of), and is indicative of a very strange approach that birthed with 3rd Ed.

This is a game designed to allow high level fighters survive several direct hits from a 10 ton hammer wielded by a 64 feet titan that said fighter cannot hit above the ankles, and the direct fire of a wyrm's fire breath, which can melt walls of stone.

Surviving long falls and contact with lava is a feature, not a bug.
Weather Report's stance also makes the environment sentient, as it senses intent and treats the same action differently depending on if it's voluntary or involuntary. For instance lava ACTIVELY kills people intending on entering it while only damaging those that accidently do so. And the ground might do less damage to someone that falls vs someone that jumps. I'd rather not game in a world where every inanimate object can read my mind and figure out my intent...

Though that brings up the death save rules. Id assume environmental damage is a set low DC but it could be higher on unholy ground or in hell or similar.

EDIT: If an enemy throws a PC into say a giant pit is the death save DC the enemies DC or the fall damage DC?

Massive Damage is an Optional Rule, so not part of the setting at large. It also requires a minimum of 50 points of damage so a lava dive might not hit that level.

As to DC, it's fixed 15. That's it. So by the time you can take 50 hp it's just don't roll a 1.


graystone wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
...

Massive Damage is an Optional Rule, so not part of the setting at large. It also requires a minimum of 50 points of damage so a lava dive might not hit that level.

As to DC, it's fixed 15. That's it. So by the time you can take 50 hp it's just don't roll a 1.

Not massive damage. The new death and dying rules.

When reduced to 0 HP gain dying 1, your initiative order moves to right before the thing that reduced you to 0 HP. On your turn make a fortitude save with a DC based in the monster that took you down. On a failure move down to dying 2... At dying 4 your dead... Those rules.

By those new rules environmental damage needs to have a set DC for making those fortitude saves if you are reduced to 0 HP. I'm saying that will probably be static but it could be higher and that would be a fun effect to play around with.


graystone wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
All of this is wrong - not how the "Pathfinder"/Golarian world operates (or any other D&D/fantasy world that I know of), and is indicative of a very strange approach that birthed with 3rd Ed.

This is a game designed to allow high level fighters survive several direct hits from a 10 ton hammer wielded by a 64 feet titan that said fighter cannot hit above the ankles, and the direct fire of a wyrm's fire breath, which can melt walls of stone.

Surviving long falls and contact with lava is a feature, not a bug.
Weather Report's stance also makes the environment sentient, as it senses intent and treats the same action differently depending on if it's voluntary or involuntary. For instance lava ACTIVELY kills people intending on entering it while only damaging those that accidently do so. And the ground might do less damage to someone that falls vs someone that jumps. I'd rather not game in a world where every inanimate object can read my mind and figure out my intent...

Again, the above is wrong (also some lies thrown in about some sentient environment garbage); if your 15th-level human fighter strips off all of his/her gear to their bare ass, and then proceeds to swan dive into a pool of lava, and do a few laps, well, that won't work out (many designers have spoken about situations like this).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is definitely a limit to how many rounds you can survive 20d6 damage. Its not a terribly long time. Also I don't think you can actually swim in lava. I suppose its hard to test that however.

Really the higher level a character gets the more suspension of disbelief is needed. and I'm OK with that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:

There is definitely a limit to how many rounds you can survive 20d6 damage. Its not a terribly long time. Also I don't think you can actually swim in lava. I suppose its hard to test that however.

Really the higher level a character gets the more suspension of disbelief is needed. and I'm OK with that.

To be scientific, lava has the approximate density of rock, so "swimming" in lava would be pretty much impossible, even assuming you could survive the heat.

That scene at the end of LOTR where Gollum falls into the lava should have been much more gruesome. He would have been a burnt pancake.


Bardarok wrote:
Not massive damage. The new death and dying rules.

You're going to have to point me in the right direction. I don't have any idea what this new rule is.

Weather Report wrote:
Again, the above is wrong (also some lies thrown in about some sentient environment garbage); if your 15th-level human fighter strips off all of his/her gear to their bare ass, and then proceeds to swan dive into a pool of lava, and do a few laps, well, that won't work out (many designers have spoken about situations like this).
No lies, just taking YOU at your word.
Weather Report wrote:
I mean, if a 15th-level human character, sans magic, did a cannonball into a pool of lava, I would adjudicate/rule them instantly dead.

Right there. The INTENT alters the damage you take: the only way you have variable damage like that, based on intent, is a "sentient environment" [or divine intervention which it pretty much the same]. The lava is the same as is the character: the only variable is intent... Ergo, somehow the intent is detected and a harsh punishment is enacted by some intelligence. It's pretty much like you're saying lava REALLY hates it when someone intentionally jumps in it and snuffs them out but takes it easy if it's an accident... :P

Again, I can't see how you can look at the rules and say they are wrong. You are more than welcome to house rule differently and say 'I don't think it should work that way' but you go one step further and say it's "wrong" to have the game world follow the printed rules.


graystone wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
Not massive damage. The new death and dying rules.
You're going to have to point me in the right direction. I don't have any idea what this new rule is.

Death and dying thread


thflame wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

There is definitely a limit to how many rounds you can survive 20d6 damage. Its not a terribly long time. Also I don't think you can actually swim in lava. I suppose its hard to test that however.

Really the higher level a character gets the more suspension of disbelief is needed. and I'm OK with that.

To be scientific, lava has the approximate density of rock, so "swimming" in lava would be pretty much impossible, even assuming you could survive the heat.

That scene at the end of LOTR where Gollum falls into the lava should have been much more gruesome. He would have been a burnt pancake.

This is incorrect as there are different types of magma. The least viscous type, basaltic, is about as viscous as a thick salsa, ketchup or lard. Magma ranges from 100 pa [basaltic] to 100000000000 pa [silicic]. This means if your 'lucky' you could move through it.


Bardarok wrote:
graystone wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
Not massive damage. The new death and dying rules.
You're going to have to point me in the right direction. I don't have any idea what this new rule is.
Death and dying thread

Ok, I see what you're talking about now.

Bardarok wrote:

Though that brings up the death save rules. Id assume environmental damage is a set low DC but it could be higher on unholy ground or in hell or similar.

EDIT: If an enemy throws a PC into say a giant pit is the death save DC the enemies DC or the fall damage DC?

I think it'll be set at a 'challenge' rating that's on a sliding scale. Much like tougher traps up the DC or more difficult cliffs have harder DC's. So I think it'll most likely stay around the same chance of making it as you level.

On the edit, I'd say as it wasn't damage from the enemy, it'd be the fall DC.


graystone wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
Not massive damage. The new death and dying rules.

You're going to have to point me in the right direction. I don't have any idea what this new rule is.

Weather Report wrote:
Again, the above is wrong (also some lies thrown in about some sentient environment garbage); if your 15th-level human fighter strips off all of his/her gear to their bare ass, and then proceeds to swan dive into a pool of lava, and do a few laps, well, that won't work out (many designers have spoken about situations like this).
No lies, just taking YOU at your word.
Weather Report wrote:
I mean, if a 15th-level human character, sans magic, did a cannonball into a pool of lava, I would adjudicate/rule them instantly dead.

Right there. The INTENT alters the damage you take: the only way you have variable damage like that, based on intent, is a "sentient environment" [or divine intervention which it pretty much the same]. The lava is the same as is the character: the only variable is intent... Ergo, somehow the intent is detected and a harsh punishment is enacted by some intelligence. It's pretty much like you're saying lava REALLY hates it when someone intentionally jumps in it and snuffs them out but takes it easy if it's an accident... :P

Again, I can't see how you can look at the rules and say they are wrong. You are more than welcome to house rule differently and say 'I don't think it should work that way' but you go one step further and say it's "wrong" to have the game world follow the printed rules.

Again, wrong, more lies, and now yelling, great!

Anyway, Rule 0 still exists, unless PF1 got rid of; some things are auto-failures or auto-successes, like not being able to jump to the moon, that is an official part of the game, you should only really roll when the outcome is uncertain and there is a chance of failure, otherwise there is no point. The ruling is 100% by the rules, as per the designers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
thflame wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

There is definitely a limit to how many rounds you can survive 20d6 damage. Its not a terribly long time. Also I don't think you can actually swim in lava. I suppose its hard to test that however.

Really the higher level a character gets the more suspension of disbelief is needed. and I'm OK with that.

To be scientific, lava has the approximate density of rock, so "swimming" in lava would be pretty much impossible, even assuming you could survive the heat.

That scene at the end of LOTR where Gollum falls into the lava should have been much more gruesome. He would have been a burnt pancake.

This is incorrect as there are different types of magma. The least viscous type, basaltic, is about as viscous as a thick salsa, ketchup or lard. Magma ranges from 100 pa [basaltic] to 100000000000 pa [silicic]. This means if your 'lucky' you could move through it.

I learned something today.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:

Again, wrong, more lies, and now yelling, great!

Anyway, Rule 0 still exists, unless PF1 got rid of; some things are auto-failures or auto-successes, like not being able to jump to the moon, that is an official part of the game, you should only really roll when the outcome is uncertain and there is a chance of failure, otherwise there is no point. The ruling is 100% by the rules, as per the designers.

#1 Again, you haven't said how I'm wrong. Or lying. The physics of your world changes based on intent: it's a FACT.

#2 I use caps for emphasis not yelling. It's MUCH easier than formating bolding.
#3 Rule 0 isn't part of the setting: it's houseruling your game and it doesn't retroactivly alter the basic setting everyone plays. You can say how it works in your game, NOT how it works for others games.
#4 auto-failures or auto-successes do exist. Lava isn't one of them. It CAN be houseruled in if you wish but it's not a pathfinder rule.


graystone wrote:
Weather Report wrote:

Again, wrong, more lies, and now yelling, great!

Anyway, Rule 0 still exists, unless PF1 got rid of; some things are auto-failures or auto-successes, like not being able to jump to the moon, that is an official part of the game, you should only really roll when the outcome is uncertain and there is a chance of failure, otherwise there is no point. The ruling is 100% by the rules, as per the designers.

#1 Again, you haven't said how I'm wrong. Or lying. The physics of your world changes based on intent: it's a FACT.

#2 I use caps for emphasis not yelling. It's MUCH easier than formating bolding.
#3 Rule 0 isn't part of the setting: it's houseruling your game and it doesn't retroactivly alter the basic setting everyone plays. You can say how it works in your game, NOT how it works for others games.
#4 auto-failures or auto-successes do exist. Lava isn't one of them. It CAN be houseruled in if you wish but it's not a pathfinder rule.

It would seem you are not using the system as intended (SAI), the Looney Toons approach is not the intended playstyle. I would need to be made aware of playing at such a table in advance, at least try and get an Acme rocket kit.

Oh, and instead of screaming at people, just bookcase the word with forward slashes, like /this/, not THIS.

Exo-Guardians

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
Snip becasue long argument

I'm pretty sure the intended playstyle of Pathfinder is whatever we darn well please. It is a Game after all and not a simulation, also the very existence of Goblins within the Galorian setting, which is the native setting for Pathfinder heartily disproves that, as does their specific feat Roll With It, which I might add is one of the most humorous things in the game. Pathfinder has plenty of Looney Toons style content, right down to things like the Portable Hole, or heck Feather Token Anchor, which I've so far never seen used to actually anchor anything. Even a Bag of Holding is Looney Toons to some extent given the downright hilarious proportions of stuff it can hold.

Also Peasant Railgun, Gnomes in general, Clerics and Paladins existing, Monks and their powers, ninja and that can of worms, Wizards past level five and any time a player gets a Nat 20.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

How can you be so certain that lava being just as dangerous to a level 20 adventurer as it is to a level 1 adventurer is intended? Paizo is doubling down on the idea that a high level character is far beyond the challenges of a mere mortal, the developers seem to quite like the idea of a level 20 barbarian having unnatural durability.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
graystone wrote:
Weather Report wrote:

Again, wrong, more lies, and now yelling, great!

Anyway, Rule 0 still exists, unless PF1 got rid of; some things are auto-failures or auto-successes, like not being able to jump to the moon, that is an official part of the game, you should only really roll when the outcome is uncertain and there is a chance of failure, otherwise there is no point. The ruling is 100% by the rules, as per the designers.

#1 Again, you haven't said how I'm wrong. Or lying. The physics of your world changes based on intent: it's a FACT.

#2 I use caps for emphasis not yelling. It's MUCH easier than formating bolding.
#3 Rule 0 isn't part of the setting: it's houseruling your game and it doesn't retroactivly alter the basic setting everyone plays. You can say how it works in your game, NOT how it works for others games.
#4 auto-failures or auto-successes do exist. Lava isn't one of them. It CAN be houseruled in if you wish but it's not a pathfinder rule.

It would seem you are not using the system as intended (SAI), the Looney Toons approach is not the intended playstyle. I would need to be made aware of playing at such a table in advance, at least try and get an Acme rocket kit.

Oh, and instead of screaming at people, just bookcase the word with forward slashes, like /this/, not THIS.

Weird, I can't hear any screaming. Using caps for emphasis is very common. I'd be far more confused by someone using /this/. Just because you perceived it as screaming doesn't mean that's how it was intended; no point in continuing to harp on it when they've clarified their usage.

And someone not playing the game the same way you do doesn't mean they're not playing as intended. This is very close if not dead on "badwrongfun" territory.

To close out, a small sidenote. Calling people you're having a conversation/debate with liars is extremely poor etiquette.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

From PF1's Environmental rules:

Quote:

Lava or magma deals 2d6 points of damage per round of exposure, except in the case of total immersion (such as when a character falls into the crater of an active volcano), which deals 20d6 points of damage per round.

Damage from lava continues for 1d3 rounds after exposure ceases, but this additional damage is only half of that dealt during actual contact (that is, 1d6 or 10d6 points per round). Immunity or resistance to fire serves as an immunity to lava or magma. A creature immune to fire might still drown if completely immersed in lava (see Drowning).

If a PC wants to go for a swim in lava, their probably not long for this world, unless they have ANY fire resistance, in which case, they get to do whatever they want, RAW.

RAI seems pretty obvious to me as well.

I might rule that their gear gets "well done", depending on their source of fire resistance/immunity.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Bardarok wrote:
graystone wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
...

Massive Damage is an Optional Rule, so not part of the setting at large. It also requires a minimum of 50 points of damage so a lava dive might not hit that level.

As to DC, it's fixed 15. That's it. So by the time you can take 50 hp it's just don't roll a 1.

Not massive damage. The new death and dying rules.

When reduced to 0 HP gain dying 1, your initiative order moves to right before the thing that reduced you to 0 HP. On your turn make a fortitude save with a DC based in the monster that took you down. On a failure move down to dying 2... At dying 4 your dead... Those rules.

By those new rules environmental damage needs to have a set DC for making those fortitude saves if you are reduced to 0 HP. I'm saying that will probably be static but it could be higher and that would be a fun effect to play around with.

Oooooo I actually like this idea, with places that have been, say, Unhallowed ratchet up the DCS to save vs dying and the Plane of Abaddon having an obscene DC.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well I think we've had enough lava talk for the PF2 Playtest Panel thread [just noticed which thread it was]. If someone wishes to continue, they should start a new thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know why I am responding to this... but you can't become fully immersed in something that is substantially more dense than you. Viscosity is not the relevant factor.

The human body has a approximate density of 985 kg/m3. Sea water has an approximate density of 1020 kg/m3. That's why we float in sea water, with our body being close to fully immersed.

Lava has an approximate density of 3100 kg/m3. So, we could submerge about 1/3 of our body in lava. We would "float" very very well in lava.

Now, a level 20 Paladin with Bracers of the Merciful Knight can heal themselves for 72 HP per round using only their swift action for Lay on Hands. So, they can hang out in lava for a good minute. You are 20th level, "realism" has well and truly left the building.


graystone wrote:
thflame wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

There is definitely a limit to how many rounds you can survive 20d6 damage. Its not a terribly long time. Also I don't think you can actually swim in lava. I suppose its hard to test that however.

Really the higher level a character gets the more suspension of disbelief is needed. and I'm OK with that.

To be scientific, lava has the approximate density of rock, so "swimming" in lava would be pretty much impossible, even assuming you could survive the heat.

That scene at the end of LOTR where Gollum falls into the lava should have been much more gruesome. He would have been a burnt pancake.

This is incorrect as there are different types of magma. The least viscous type, basaltic, is about as viscous as a thick salsa, ketchup or lard. Magma ranges from 100 pa [basaltic] to 100000000000 pa [silicic]. This means if your 'lucky' you could move through it.

The viscosity isn't as much an issue as the density. Even if it can move around you, you would still float.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe in the pathfinder universe, "lava" is just a word for a magical substance which happens to be a liquid form of elemental fire mixed with element earth? Since neither of those are elements on planet Earth, we will just have to take the developers word for how this substance interacts with the world?


I made a new thread for the tangent


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lava was just an example, let's say being submerged in liquid nitrogen, or trapped underwater for a day, float in space/vacuum for an hour, in a room where the ceiling lowers until it is flush with the floor, these are things many characters cannot survive, regardless of level/HP.


Well, the crushing ceiling isn't an HP debate. It's a STR debate. Just hold the ceiling up until you're out of the room.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
Lava was just an example, let's say being submerged in liquid nitrogen, or trapped underwater for a day, float in space/vacuum for an hour, in a room where the ceiling lowers until it is flush with the floor, these are things many characters cannot survive, regardless of level/HP.

Most of these aren't actually level/HP concerns. Besides the ceiling thing that Sideromancer already mentioned, the "underwater for a day" and "floating in a vacuum" both use the suffocation rules. Rules that (in PF1e at least) cared only about your Con Score if you were able to hold your breath, and once your breath ran out or if you weren't able to hold it you were dead in IIRC 3 rounds, regardless of HP.


The Sideromancer wrote:
Well, the crushing ceiling isn't an HP debate. It's a STR debate. Just hold the ceiling up until you're out of the room.

Exactly, saving throws and checks are great, but if you at fail stopping it, you will be very slim.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:


Exactly, saving throws and checks are great, but if you at fail stopping it, you will be very slim.

It sounds like your question is really one of world building/adventure design.

The reason rules for nearly impossible scenarios exist is because a lot of players enjoy surviving near death experiences. Being able to play closely to that line of certain death is what can make an adventure wonderful, but it is very tricky to land.
If "near certain death" adventures have a 50% survival rate for the heroes, is that really a "near certain death" scenario? But do players really want to invest time and energy into characters that are going to risk a 50% chance of death every encounter? Of course not, so good game design is presenting "certain danger, but not quite deathly" adventures and that doesn't play very well with a reality that tends to kill us when we take risks instead of pursue incredibly non-heroic strategies and tactics for solving our problems, many of which would translate into a very boring game.

Weather Report, it sounds like you are asking for permission to limit some player choice by evoking specific narrative certainties, because you understand that the rule set will always be written to otherwise allow more player choice than the reality of the situation would allow.

Some players, like Graystone, are going to react negatively to the idea that the rules exist to tell a specific story and they want the freedom to create their own story, assuming the rules to be a static thing and the narrative to be open-ended and completely at the whims of player choice given a set boundary of the rule set.

Personally I think either extreme tends to get less fun and the real fun of role playing is in successfully negotiating these issues over time until all the players and the GM are at the same table, figuratively as well as literally. Having set demands for either perfect narrative consistency, according to the GM, to tell their story the way they want it told, or for perfect rule consistency, to allow players ultimate freedom to do anything they want, both seem like recipes for hurt feelings and disappointed expectations.

Dark Archive

16 people marked this as a favorite.

You know, of all the things that could've derailed my thread I never expected lava. Guess it's just a really hot topic these days.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
Well, the crushing ceiling isn't an HP debate. It's a STR debate. Just hold the ceiling up until you're out of the room.
Exactly, saving throws and checks are great, but if you at fail stopping it, you will be very slim.

The ceiling and the floor also have hit-points. If your barbarian is tougher then the combination of the cieling's hardness + hit-points then really what will happen is that you will have a barbarian-shaped hole carved into the roof.

Better hope that trap has an automatic reset.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
Lava was just an example, let's say being submerged in liquid nitrogen, or trapped underwater for a day, float in space/vacuum for an hour, in a room where the ceiling lowers until it is flush with the floor, these are things many characters cannot survive, regardless of level/HP.

Except in PF2 it sounds like you probably could survive in those environments with a legendary feat. They already gave surviving in a vacuum as an example.

Are You Proficient? blog post wrote:
For instance, a character who is legendary in Survival could learn to survive without food, water, or air in a featureless void

These over the top shenanigans seem to be built into high-level play in PF2. Legendary athletics might allow holding up the roof, while the others may be a function of legendary survival or perhaps energy resistance for the liquid nitrogen.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
Anyway, Rule 0 still exists, unless PF1 got rid of; some things are auto-failures or auto-successes, like not being able to jump to the moon, that is an official part of the game, you should only really roll when the outcome is uncertain and there is a chance of failure, otherwise there is no point. The ruling is 100% by the rules, as per the designers.

Rule 0 does not allow you to claim that a 20d6 fall insta-kill a 200hp fighter anymore (or any less) than it allows you to claim that a 20d6 fireball insta-kill a 200hp fighter, or that the 6d8 from a Titan's hammer insta-kill a 200hp fighter because a human being cannnot survive being crushed by a 6 ton hammer. You can do it, but I will not expect a happy player after that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Anyway, Rule 0 still exists, unless PF1 got rid of; some things are auto-failures or auto-successes, like not being able to jump to the moon, that is an official part of the game, you should only really roll when the outcome is uncertain and there is a chance of failure, otherwise there is no point. The ruling is 100% by the rules, as per the designers.
Rule 0 does not allow you to claim that a 20d6 fall insta-kill a 200hp fighter anymore than it allows you to claim that a 20d6 fireball insta-kill a 200hp fighter, or that the 6d8 from a Titan's hammer insta-kill a 200hp fighter because a human being cannnot survive being crushed by a 6 ton hammer.

I mean technically it might but you would probably not have a group long enough to get any sort of empirical data so hard to say.

251 to 300 of 321 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / PF2 Playtest Panel All Messageboards