| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I apologize if this has been brought up before. I’ve done searches but not found anything mentioning these issues.
While I honestly like many aspects of the new rule system, the current way conditions are dealt with I do find problematic. The sheer number of conditions seem overwhelming, with a substantial number of them also applying other conditions that require still more page-flipping to reference. Quite a few of these were previously not conditions but the effects of spells, and the (lower case) conditions they imposed were listed in the spell description. If something else might impose these conditions, it was merely listed as “You are Slowed, as per the spell,” which I always felt was easy to find. Other effects in PF1 might tell me that I’m at a -2 to something or other, whereas now I’m told I’m Restrained, which means I’m Immobile and Flat-footed, leading me off onto 2 more frantic searches. If a spell or a trap or a creature has Restrained me, I’d rather just be told I can’t move and take a -2 hit to my AC under the text for that spell. While I understand and appreciate the thinking behind codifying effects as Conditions, and then grouping them together, I feel the constant cross-referencing, with conditions nested within other conditions actually makes things far more confusing than the original format of simply listing the effect in the description of the effect’s causation.
A number of Conditions also seem to overlap quite a bit. Quick, Accelerated, Hampered, Slowed, Sluggish, Confused, Stupefied, Immobile, Restrained, Paralyzed, etc. seem to share a lot of commonalities - could they maybe be condensed down to a smaller number of conditions, with the lesser ones results of fail/crit fail/success of the saving throws? This would not only cut down on the sheer number of conditions, but remove non-immersive terms like “Hampered 5” from game play.
Once again, I apologize if I'm merely rehashing things that have been previously stated.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are not alone in this observation.
If conditions are going to be nested inside one another like this, the final format will have to be something like this, to avoid everyone going mad:
CONDITION
• bullet points incorporating every mechanical change for that condition, already INCLUDING modifiers for nested conditions
• this way you never need to flip anywhere else
(Parenthetical at the end noting that this condition includes modifiers for following nested conditions i.e. the modifiers for Restrained include the modifiers for Immobile & Flat-footed)
Bullet points are important so the information is accessible at a glance.
All of the mechanical effects of nested conditions need to be already figured in so no flipping elsewhere, ever.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Print off the condition pages and keep them nearby if you don't like the page flipping. They are definitely the most referenced pages. I like having specific conditions because then you can make characters that mechanics interact with these conditions. Rogues for example can treat Frightened creatures as flat footed with a feat.
Conditions Is by far my most visited page on d20PFSRD, the PF2 edition of that would be an isntant bookmark since it needs to be referenced a lot more often. Maybe they should release a GM screen or print-friendly reference sheet for them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would also like fewer conditions.
Also the reason that some conditions include others is likely so that they don't stack. So if restrained just said you were at -2 AC and someone also made you flat-footed if one didn't include the other then you would be at -4 AC instead of -2.
I do agree that formatting might be nice. Then again, I don't mind if something just listed multiple conditions and we removed some of the meta conditions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are some conditions where I'm a little uncertain what they do exactly. This is mostly due to the word "checks" and conditions with redundant effects. Even running without roll20, I'd still probably leave it open so that I could write condition macros and make sure that I'm applying their impact correctly.
Regardless, I'd expect to reference conditions regularly. I would like to see the non-Condition conditional modifiers removed in favor of conditions though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A number of Conditions also seem to overlap quite a bit. Quick, Accelerated, Hampered, Slowed, Sluggish, Confused, Stupefied, Immobile, Restrained, Paralyzed, etc. seem to share a lot of commonalities - could they maybe be condensed down to a smaller number of conditions, with the lesser ones results of fail/crit fail/success of the saving throws? This would not only cut down on the sheer number of conditions, but remove non-immersive terms like “Hampered 5” from game play.
I was about to post my own thread on this when I found this one. Now I'll just quote you for truth.
* Too many conditions
* Too many similar but not identical conditions
At the start of the conditions section, there are some sweeping types of conditions mentioned.
Condition Values
Bolstered
Speed Reduction [modification, my edit]
This could instead be actual conditions, replacing all the conditions they now apply to.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF 2 conditions would work excellently, as written for a video game or for a system that was going to be used primarily through a database. They definitely need to make sure that they make it more user friendly in a book format, though, as it is a daunting part of the game right now.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Too many conditions.
Too many nested conditions. When you read a condition, you are referred to other conditions.
Condition definitions needs to be more concise. I don't want a wall of text when I am trying to figure out penalties/bonuses.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keep conditions confusing.
Then create and sell Condition cards which, in previous editions, were nice to have and probably sold moderately well. But in this edition, they're going to be a smash hit since every GM and every player needs them. Probably sell 4-5 decks for every one copy of the CRB...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I fully agree. In particular I found the frantic page flipping ground the game to a halt. This happened when an enemy failed its will save vs Color Spray.
This was the process: What does Color Spray do? Blinded. What is Blinded? Creatures are Unseen and can be sensed with a seek action. What is Unseen? What is Sensed? What is a Seek action?
Maybe it’ll be easier once we have all these things memorized, but as of right now I really wish all that information was in the same place.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not a fan of the amount of conditions, the staged afflictions, the leveled conditions, the weird stacking issues, the amount of meta-currencies, or other forms of excessive book keeping.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe it’ll be easier once we have all these things memorized
That's the key: Memorize the rules.
I've always tried to live by this. I'm always somewhat the rules lawyer at my gaming table. Usually not in a bad way (I don't argue about them at the table). I simply quote rules so we don't need to look them up.
I wish everyone came to the game knowing the rules THEY commonly use.
If you're a wizard with Color Spray in your daily prepared spells, then you should know what Blinded and Unseen do. You should also be prepared to tell your GM about sensing and seeking.
If you're a GM preparing an encounter with a monster that can Grab and Swallow Whole, make sure you know how that works before you begin the game session.
The same players who can thoroughly consume a school textbook and ace a class could, with a fraction of the effort, consume a few rules from a game textbook to ace a game session.
But players rarely do.
That's no excuse for unintuitive game design or complex rulebook formatting. Regardless of how easy the rules are to look up and read, players and GMs should still be fully conversant with everything their characters or encounters can do - which includes being fully conversant with conditions they can cause.
That way, with a little bit of preparation, no game session will EVER grind to a halt to look up rules no matter how well or poorly written they are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The conditions issue could be helped considerably by having it in an easy to reference place. It's much easier to find in the 1e CRB than it is in the playtest book just due to placement, and the PDF is even worse. That alone makes finding it longer.
It's not the only problem, but it's a frequent one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The conditions issue could be helped considerably by having it in an easy to reference place. It's much easier to find in the 1e CRB than it is in the playtest book just due to placement, and the PDF is even worse. That alone makes finding it longer.
It's not the only problem, but it's a frequent one.
Page markers.
Write "Conditions" upside down on the bottom of a Post-It note, then stick it to page 320 (cover up that useless chart - you don't need it because the math is easy: just divide by two and round up). Place it so the part of the Post-It with the writing on it sticks out and is visible when the book is closed.
With that, I can get to the page in about 1 second. Maybe two if my DEX check is bad.
As for the PDF, here's a quick trick: Keep the bookmarks panel open. When you need Conditions, click to expand "Playing the Game" then click to expand Encounter Mode" then click on "Conditions" and it takes you right there.
But here's a quicker trick. One click instead of three. Don't bother expanding "Playing the Game or "Encounter Mode". Luckily, Conditions are on the last page of the "Playing the Game" section. Which means you can just click directly on the "Game Mastering" chapter then scroll up one page.
Voila!
Oh, yeah that'll definitely help navigate the PDF. Thanks!
Maybe it’ll be easier once we have all these things memorizedThat's the key: Memorize the rules.
I think that will be easier to do once I'm only running one version of Pathfinder and it's not a playtest with rules that change every two weeks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I like the conditions overall, but the organisation is awful.
I'd see it changed from alphabetical to clusters of related or mechanically similar conditions. And I'm going to write such a change up to give to my players.