| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if anyone thought the devs weren't serious about major playtest-driven changes, that concern is put to rest.
Overall these changes seem excellent, especially the non-magical healing addition. Looking forward to testing it in a group without a cleric!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Not* for Monday’s update (1.3), but for future: Working on the update to Resonance. They’ve been meeting every week to talk about it, waiting on data. They’ve been seeing problems in the data. They rethought from “what did we want this to do?” They arrived at a different strategy. It was trying to do too much in one system.
Uh, huh. Is there more to this, or better, are they going to address straightforwardly in a blog rather than a twitch video or whatever?
One of resonance's big problems for me was it did to little, and what little it did do was smack players on the nose for playing 'wrong'
Resonance shifting to just a system to manage permanent magic items, replace slot system. “The moment we tried to tie it to consumable usage and things like that, that’s when we started to have problems. Because those two things were competing with one another in a way that was unsatisfactory.” So resonance will just fix the slot system, which was a big problem. Worn items resonate with each other and don’t work together if you wear too many.
Because this? Managing slot items never struck me as a relevant part of resonance. At low levels, you've got few or none, so it don't matter. A higher levels, you've always got enough for slotted stuff, you're just getting arbitrarily smacked for trying to use consumables like a sane person.
So while it's definitely good that a rethink is going on, I'm not convinced the rethink is starting at a relevant point. To put another way: if what the devs want is a lower magic game, have fewer items in the game and give them out less. Retconning in the idea that magic items...argue or compete with each other is just a little weird.
-------------------
Untrained being -4. Uh. Ok? I mean sure, this can come up from time to time with climb checks and the like (though I was making sure all my playtest characters had athletics ticked off, regardless of class) or throwing someone under the bus by making the non-Face characters make diplomacy checks. But generally? Characters with untrained in a skill _didn't use that skill_. They stepped back and let the relevant group member do it. So -2, -4 or -30 is... whatever. Irrelevant.
The DC changes matter more, but neither change makes TEML a useful distinction.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adding a wounded condition is an interesting choice, but it's also one which continues the trend of completely separating damage from consequences. It's just an arbitrary counter for how many times you can cross an arbitrary threshold. If it at least applies a penalty to all your d20 rolls or something, then it might at least seem like you are actually injured in some way. But even then, you are getting the same injury from being pricked with a needle for 1 point of damage as you do for being crushed by a 16 ton weight, as long as it takes your last hit point.
I think this would be better handled by just having a small amount of nonscaling health (possibly equaling your constitution score) and having what is now HP become stamina. Stamina heals easily, health does not. Hit 0 health and you fall unconscious. If we must do away with the "negative constitution score = death rule" and have saves, then have the DC be based on your negative health points, probably half rounding down. No more meaningless DCs or condition stacks that are completely divorced from the events that caused you to be dying in the first place, and no more popping back up because you are only ever 1 hp away from fighting condition.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ranger: double slice is dropped for 2 feats: one makes you better with two weapon fighting, one makes you better with ranged (fire twice, if both hit add together)Okay. Ignoring for the moment that I just within the last couple days finally made up my mind on how I would prefer things relating to combat styles be handled. At least these work better with Hunt Target, I guess? I'm assuming that they'll be 2-actions each, which means that the Ranger is still has incentives to get as many attacks in a round as possible instead of skirmish and keep moving.
Actually, as far as I could tell (actually went and listened this time) the ranged option works like Flurry of Blows. Unclear on the melee option as nothing really seemed to be said.
Proficiency: untrained is now (lvl - 4). Also, skill DCs are adjusted, and lowered overall. Net result: as you get better and better you get more and more certain of success. Every skill DC in Doomsday Dawn updated to reflectI don't really have much to say here. I don't think this would be necessary if the skill feats made more of a difference? I find the whole skill feats section a little narrow and underwhelming. You already need to be at least trained to do a lot of what skills let you do, so I'm not sure that making untrained worse is a better direction than making trained+ better.
Numbers wise it sounds like it will pan out overall closer to a buff for trained and higher characters with untrained maybe playing about the same. Bulmahn (apologies to you Mr Dev if I've spelt your name wrong and you happen to be trawling through this) explicitly stated the DCs on the DCs table getting knocked down "a peg or 2", which I'd guess translates to 2 in a lot of cases, courtesy of that being the peg size for the closely spaced difficulties.
Mundane Healing: Medicine gets a new function: Treat Wounds. This removes Wounded and also heals damage. Cures (healer’s lvl) * (your con mod) hp. Makes out-of-combat mundane healing very possible, making magical healing more for in-combat, mundane healing for out-of-combat.Oh god, I really, really, really hope that they made mundane healing useful. All this will depend on one word: bolstered. If the "B" word shows up too quickly, then this will all be an exercise in futility. Please be good. Please be good. PLEASE.
As best I could tell, bolstering was implied on a crit fail only. I wouldn't be too surprised if the DC scaled with the target though. Depending on how this all works out, Assurance(Medicine) might be a very good pick.
In my own opinions, I really like how the dying tweaks sound. They sound terrifying. I had a pretty fun combat in 5e where a storm giant kept stomping on this poor sorcerer with the other players healed him to keep him from dying, in a similar situation with these the poor sorc would probably panic as he got a little closer to death's door each time he got downed. For me at least it's less about the actual lethality, and more about the looming consequences.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sooo happy with the changes. Addressed a lot of my concerns. Good job Paizo!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love pretty much all these changes.
Hopefully the mundane healing will do away with the 15 minute adventuring day (which has been one of my biggest gripes with 2e thus far).
I would say that these changes are step in the right direction, but, at this point, it feels much more like we're moving in leaps and bounds.
Now, if only we could get more single action cantrips, and about 3/4ths of the spells off of the rare/uncommon list.
And you don't need any Feats. He explicitly said that the (medic's Level x target's Con Mod) HP version (plus fixing Wounded) was just a new use of the Medicine Skill. So any Feats would presumably either reduce the time or add more healing, but only the base version is essential.
I'm sure there are going to be supplemental feats for this skill use and even if it's technically usable without them it could turn out that you functionally need them to make it work competitively: It's why I said "what feats you'll need to keep it up", as in what you'll need to keep it working WELL and we just aren't going to know that until we see the actual wording of the skill and feats.
PS: And I did note your 'hopefully'. IMO, there are enough moving parts that changed [skill change, feats, DC, ect] that I'M withholding judgment until I see all the changes.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
And you don't need any Feats. He explicitly said that the (medic's Level x target's Con Mod) HP version (plus fixing Wounded) was just a new use of the Medicine Skill. So any Feats would presumably either reduce the time or add more healing, but only the base version is essential.I'm sure there are going to be supplemental feats for this skill use and even if it's technically usable without them it could turn out that you functionally need them to make it work competitively: It's why I said "what feats you'll need to keep it up", as in what you'll need to keep it working WELL and we just aren't going to know that until we see the actual wording of the skill and feats.
PS: And I did note your 'hopefully'. IMO, there are enough moving parts that changed [skill change, feats, DC, ect] that I'M withholding judgment until I see all the changes.
Well, it's not like anybody needs a crystal ball to predict your judgment :)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I'm the only one, but I'm kinda sad to see Resonance being completely stripped from consumables. It needed tweaking, not the axe.
I feel like a separate limit for consumables would work, it just doesn't work when people had to weigh "equip an extra magic item" against "drink another potion". Since this disincentivized minor magic items because they put your character more at risk.
Untrained being -4. Uh. Ok? I mean sure, this can come up from time to time with climb checks and the like [...] But generally? Characters with untrained in a skill _didn't use that skill_. They stepped back and let the relevant group member do it. So -2, -4 or -30 is... whatever. Irrelevant.
The DC changes matter more, but neither change makes TEML a useful distinction.
To be fair, I think this has to be understood in context of DC changes. The -4 will largely be negating the DC change. Personally, I see this as similar to P1 Class Skill Bonus you get as soon as you took 1 rank (although in this case it hinges solely on training, not Class Skill lists). I also imagine specific Feats which negate this penalty for "non-Trained jack of all trades" schtick.
Adding a wounded condition is an interesting choice, but it's also one which continues the trend of completely separating damage from consequences. [...] If it at least applies a penalty to all your d20 rolls or something, then it might at least seem like you are actually injured in some way.
I think this would be better handled by just having a small amount of nonscaling health (possibly equaling your constitution score) and having what is now HP become stamina. Stamina heals easily, health does not. Hit 0 health and you fall unconscious. If we must do away with the "negative constitution score = death rule" and have saves, then have the DC be based on your negative health points, probably half rounding down.
I don't think they want to return to negative HPs which equate 1:1 with damage, but I think relating CON bonus to Wound capacity (e.g. baseline 3 Wound capacity, increases if CON bonus is 4+), and Wound level + Dying state dictating DC (rather than tracking DC from killing blow) is interesting way to go that makes CON more relevant...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want a game where my PCs can't stock up on half a dozen wands of cure X wounds and trivialize any encounter that isn't potentially lethal. I'm tired of having to throw CR = APL +2-4 JUST to have an exciting fight, then feeling bad when there is a TPK.
If your players are dead set on going into an encounter with full hp, they'll probably find a way to do so (see 15-minute adventuring day). It seems to me as if it would be much easier to just balance CR around the assumption that PCs are going into most fights with close to full hit points.
Also, combats that aren't potentially lethal are probably going to be perceived as trivial anyway.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do hope they find a way to limit consumables a bit. I like how 5E made wands recharge but also made then take up atunement and have a possibility of falling apart if you expend all charges. So, that kinda limited how many you had at the ready once you hit the mid levels.
Not sure how you would deal with potions and scrolls. In 5E its done through rarity and cost but that doesnt work that well if you make them things PCs can purchase easily.
Paizo's carrot approach may be the best answer. So, consumables are kinda meh but still usable unless you expend some magic juju to make their use more worth while. The magic juju spent is the same for high and low level consumables so it behooves you to use it on the high level stuff to get more bang for your magic juju buck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, I think this has to be understood in context of DC changes. The -4 will largely be negating the DC change.Untrained being -4. Uh. Ok? I mean sure, this can come up from time to time with climb checks and the like [...] But generally? Characters with untrained in a skill _didn't use that skill_. They stepped back and let the relevant group member do it. So -2, -4 or -30 is... whatever. Irrelevant.
The DC changes matter more, but neither change makes TEML a useful distinction.
Even with that context, it still doesn't matter. The solution is still don't let untrained characters make that skill check.
It is a group-based game. I guess at random PFS tables it can be an issue, but I think designing around PFS would be a terrible idea. (as it's a warped little meta bubble, that has to ban core book rules to function at all)
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did he specify if it had limited uses per day per target? Does it leave them bolstered? I hope not.
I intend to listen to it but might not be able to before tomorrow.
As others note, it sounded like a Critical Failure leaves them bolstered, but otherwise you're fine to have Treat Wounds work any number of times (indeed, he specifically notes you can normally do it multiple times).
These changes are a welcome step in the right direction. I still think that certain skills should be tied to certain classes (thievery, stealth to thieves) which auto increase by level and each PC gets a pool of skill points per level to increase their other skills.
That seems a great compromise for the skills issue.
I strongly disagree. IMO, the current version, with certain skills automatically Trained but you choosing which to advance, is superior to this suggestion in just about every way and a much better balance of various factors.
I'm assuming that they'll be 2-actions each, which means that the Ranger is still has incentives to get as many attacks in a round as possible instead of skirmish and keep moving.
The ranged one seemed to work like Flurry of Blows, giving two attacks as one action, actually. Which is a strong boost to skirmishing. No idea on the TWF one.
I'm sure there are going to be supplemental feats for this skill use and even if it's technically usable without them it could turn out that you functionally need them to make it work competitively: It's why I said "what feats you'll need to keep it up", as in what you'll need to keep it working WELL and we just aren't going to know that until we see the actual wording of the skill and feats.
This isn't quite true. We know how much the baseline version heals, and it's a hefty amount, or at least it can be. If the DC is reasonable, a Feat is sorta definitionally not necessary if the baseline version is good enough.
Now, the Feat might be so good everyone takes it, that's possible, but we know it's not necessary to keep up because the baseline use seems to already do that (again, assuming a reasonable DC).
PS: And I did note your 'hopefully'. IMO, there are enough moving parts that changed [skill change, feats, DC, ect] that I'M withholding judgment until I see all the changes.
Fair enough. I just think that, in terms of Treat Wounds specifically, the only thing really in doubt is the DC, not its need for Feats.
“I want to stress ... that we’re still in the design phase” on this.It's not exactly encouraging. It's concerning that they are still in the "design phase". If this is the case, what are we testing?
What he said was that they're still in the design phase on the new Resonance system, not on the game as a whole. Which is why we aren't gonna get to playtest the new Resonance system for another three or four weeks (we don't get to test it until it's out of the design phase).
Context is important.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It all looks pretty good to me and shows a good direction in general. I'm looking forward to sharing this with my table tomorrow.
To be fair, I think this [Untrained -4 change] has to be understood in context of DC changes. The -4 will largely be negating the DC change.Even with that context, it still doesn't matter. The solution is still don't let untrained characters make that skill check.
It's about fixed DC checks like really basic rope climbing or knowing that Devils exist when you are 10th-15th level.
Even Untrained PCs can eventually do that stuff at high levels, they just don't want to get near Level Appropriate stuff.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Potentially removing consumables from Resonance entirely seems fairly substantial, given that would also imply a major shift in how the Alchemist class works in addition to the obvious wand and potion changes.Sorry to say this is not an example of them still being willing to make substantial changes. They always knew there was slim to no chance of resonance making it through to the final game in its original format. They took the most extreme position possible with it. I've said from very early on it would never survive and even when they previewed it they very much made it sound like "guys, just test it and then we'll change it."
That isn't to say they're not willing to make substantial changes. Update 1.3 simply isn't an example of this. Changing resonance is an example of them changing something they always knew wouldn't fly.
A substantive change is, by definition, a change that is "important, meaningful, or considerable".
Here's a list of what turning Resonance into a replacement for slots does:
* Alchemist class would need a rewrite on at the very least their two primary class features, since they currently cost RP to use.
* Alchemists could focus on Elixirs without requiring allies to spend their Resonance to get buffs.
* Wands would need a rework since, without Resonance, they could be spammable again.
* All Potions, Elixirs, and other consumables that used Resonance would need to be re-examined and potentially rebalanced since the limiting factor of RP cost would be gone.Whether you or the devs expected this or not has nothing to do with the fact that a considerable portion of the game would be affected - it is, by definition, a substantive change.
So if I deliberately take the most extreme position possible and then after negotiations take a slightly less extreme position does that mean I'm still open to compromise?
I'll be celebrating if we see Paizo change something they weren't planning to change from day 1. Otherwise it's everything continuing exactly as planned from when they first released the rules.
Here's another "substantive change" you can eagerly await: All ancestries will have more than their single feat to define them at level 1. It will require a complete rewriting of every ancestry. And yet it will be a change they had planned to make from day 1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is looking good. I am cautiously optimistic, much more so than since the release of the playtest.
|
|
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yet it will be a change they had planned to make from day 1.
Excuse me, but do you have any way of proving that? I mean, I'd be as interested to read the minutes of Paizo's design team meetings or notes from Jasnon's computer, so I was kind of curious if you have any insider access you can share.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yet it will be a change they had planned to make from day 1.Excuse me, but do you have any way of proving that? I mean, I'd be as interested to read the minutes of Paizo's design team meetings or notes from Jasnon's computer, so I was kind of curious if you have any insider access you can share.
I've got a color photograph of a 5inch Floppy that Jason encoded all of the PF2 PT Spoilers and hidden Wayne Reynolds FanFic Commissions I could share with you, but then it wouldn't be special anymore.
And yet it will be a change they had planned to make from day 1.Excuse me, but do you have any way of proving that? I mean, I'd be as interested to read the minutes of Paizo's design team meetings or notes from Jasnon's computer, so I was kind of curious if you have any insider access you can share.
Clearly I hacked their servers. I'd tell you more but it wouldn't be sporting.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly I hacked their servers. I'd tell you more but it wouldn't be sporting.And yet it will be a change they had planned to make from day 1.Excuse me, but do you have any way of proving that? I mean, I'd be as interested to read the minutes of Paizo's design team meetings or notes from Jasnon's computer, so I was kind of curious if you have any insider access you can share.
You seem to be more invested in proving your statements right than anything else John.
I’m not sure anything can make you happy short of Paizo significantly changing the game to match your play style. Time will tell if Paizo moves enough to satisfy your group but I think you will find continued frustrations if you continue your current trend of posts.
One thing I can say, is that the book reads a lot different than how the game plays and feels. If I recall, your group hasn’t given it a shot yet. You guys really should put a few sessions under your belt. Alternatively, if you are more willing to try this than your group, try a one shot with different players or DM. You shouldn’t hide behind your groups unwillingness to play as many of your previous posts convey this message.
This post is made with all due respect to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for the info
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think they want to return to negative HPs which equate 1:1 with damage...Adding a wounded condition is an interesting choice, but it's also one which continues the trend of completely separating damage from consequences. [...] If it at least applies a penalty to all your d20 rolls or something, then it might at least seem like you are actually injured in some way.
I think this would be better handled by just having a small amount of nonscaling health (possibly equaling your constitution score) and having what is now HP become stamina. Stamina heals easily, health does not. Hit 0 health and you fall unconscious. If we must do away with the "negative constitution score = death rule" and have saves, then have the DC be based on your negative health points, probably half rounding down.
It seems pretty apparent that they don't, but I'm going to keep arguing that they should. The dying rules are needlessly complicated and completely rob the game of any sense of reality. They aren't more fun, they aren't easier to run and understand, they are just more random and convoluted.
Is counting below zero really that hard? Was the possibility of being killed instantly upon being hit for ridiculous amounts of damage so bad that it was worth the chance of dying from a tiny flesh wound because "lol, rolled a 1" and eliminating the possibility of predictably leaving downed characters alive?
As a player, I like knowing that if I die, it was because it was the logical result of the choices made and actions taken in combat. As a GM, I like being able to know that I can make my PCs feel like they are in danger of dying while still having the ability hold back when appropriate and not turn my campaign into a random and senseless slaughterhouse. As an amateur game designer, I like having a continuous progression from healthy to dead with many layers of gradation, rather than an abrupt switch to a completely different system that makes things binary.
It's odd that they can recognize that getting hit by a fireball is a lot more fun than getting hit with a save or die spell, but not see how turning everything into that save or die effect could be seen as a mistake.
I'm not sure to what extent I'm in the minority on this, and I do doubt that Paizo is likely to consider going back to negative hit points without a huge push from the players. But for me, outside the playtest, I wouldn't touch these rules with a ten foot pole. Either it gets homebrewed out or I play something else. It's a deal-breaker.
...but I think relating CON bonus to Wound capacity (e.g. baseline 3 Wound capacity, increases if CON bonus is 4+), and Wound level + Dying state dictating DC (rather than tracking DC from killing blow) is interesting way to go that makes CON more relevant
If nothing else, basing the DC on your condition rather than on the enemy that put you there is an obvious improvement.
And part of the reason I like constitution score for health and HD x level for stamina is because it leaves constitution relevant, but also makes the HP difference between wizards and barbarians make a lot more sense. Of course a physical powerhouse that juggles boulders every morning is going to a lot more stamina than a guy who spends his days sitting in a chair reading books. But the difference in their ability to survive a knife to the gut is going to be a lot smaller.
|
|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be celebrating if we see Paizo change something they weren't planning to change
You're being rather silly and unfair.
Do you REALLY think Paizo has the time and inclination to come up with several versions of the rules so that they can back off to a known position? And have the desire to actively fool their customers?
They doubtless knew that things like resonance MIGHT cause a lot of negative feedback but they weren't sure and didn't know what form the feedback would take.
If I have to choose between the options that Paizo is honestly and openly trying to see which of their changes are liked by their customer base or embrace, without any evidence whatsoever, a theory that this whole thing is a farce I know which option I'm taking. All the evidence makes it clear that they're listening and changing things
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Um, Paizo planned a whole year ahead to have the time to make changes....
And they specifically told us that they went with the most drastic changes for the first draft meaning they did have plans to tweak things....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think they want to return to negative HPs which equate 1:1 with damage...It seems pretty apparent that they don't, but I'm going to keep arguing that they should. The dying rules are needlessly complicated and completely rob the game of any sense of reality. They aren't more fun, they aren't easier to run and understand, they are just more random and convoluted.
Is counting below zero really that hard? Was the possibility of being killed instantly upon being hit for ridiculous amounts of damage so bad that it was worth the chance of dying from a tiny flesh wound because "lol, rolled a 1" and eliminating the possibility of predictably leaving downed characters alive?
OK, just to clarify this (feel free to have different preference), the REASON I see for not tying CON score or modifier to damage/HPs directly (ala negative HPs) is the numeric relationship doesn't stand. Damage expectation and CON score or modifier don't scale identically from 1st level to 20th level, so even if apply perfect ratio at 1st it won't track damage expectations. It's fine to want some relationship or involvement of CON, but that's why a DIRECT relationship like negative HPs is problematic.
Saying that, a system that can increase Wound capacity and modify DC based on that, DOES have relationship with CON, it just isn't direct. High CON gives you more Wound Tiers AND your higher Fort means you are less likely to descend to deeper ones, not to mention Fort Saves which reduce damage in first place and/or negate a Crit which would otherwise inflict 2 Wounds. I don't see the value in fixating on "dying from a needle prick", that small amount of damage on top of mountain of earlier Wounds can kill doesn't seem unfathomable, so if it is the needle that breaks camel's back, so be it... You still got your worth from high CON.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also prefer negative HP to the death save system. Yes, PF1 didn't give you enough buffer, so at higher levels a single hit while at low HP would probably kill you. That is easily fixed. Just make it so you die at negative half max (negative full max with Diehard), and probably also get bleed while negative. That would work fine and would be way simpler than the current PF2 system.
If they stick with death saves, please stop basing them on the level of the foe or hazard that dropped you. It makes no sense to have a harder death save from the 10 damage hit from a boss than the 20 damage hit from a Mook. Just base the save DC on the damage of the hit that dropped you or the strongest hit since you dropped. Say, DC equal to half the damage of the attack or DC 15, whichever is worse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also prefer negative HP to the death save system. Yes, PF1 didn't give you enough buffer, so at higher levels a single hit while at low HP would probably kill you. That is easily fixed. Just make it so you die at negative half max (negative full max with Diehard), and probably also get bleed while negative. That would work fine and would be way simpler than the current PF2 system.
If they stick with death saves, please stop basing them on the level of the foe or hazard that dropped you. It makes no sense to have a harder death save from the 10 damage hit from a boss than the 20 damage hit from a Mook. Just base the save DC on the damage of the hit that dropped you or the strongest hit since you dropped. Say, DC equal to half the damage of the attack or DC 15, whichever is worse.
Hard pass on negative HP. I like this way better.
I don't think I like the DC based on monsters either.
I think instead of basing it on the DC of the monsters; they should just calculate the DC based off of the attack. So, if the guy has a +7 to hit and that hit downs you, the DC should be 17. If a spell or effect downs you, it should be the DC of that. Easy for the DM to call out since its written right on the stat block.
I don't like the idea of the DC based on damage since that means crits = no way Jose. Its also harder to remember variant damage numbers when you are chasing your shots of Jameson with swigs of Heinekin.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You like yo-yoing back and forth, instantly recovering into consciousness and positive HP from an attack that put you 50 past 0 just because you passed one save? Well, no accounting for taste I guess XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also prefer negative HP to the death save system. Yes, PF1 didn't give you enough buffer, so at higher levels a single hit while at low HP would probably kill you. That is easily fixed. Just make it so you die at negative half max (negative full max with Diehard), and probably also get bleed while negative. That would work fine and would be way simpler than the current PF2 system.
So this would keep relationship to CON, although more strongly keyed to HD... But I think the result would be more vulnerability to dying, especially at low levels, but also at later levels with Crits. Scaling to Full HPs probably trails scaling to expected damage because high level generally assumes more healing/regen/tempHPs/etc. Compared to Wounds system that has MINIMUM 3 rounds/Saves (2 if Crit), and reasonable CON investment increases Wound tiers to 4 or more. Scaling Bleed-out loss would be complicated and unpopular, but keeping it 1/round would drastically lengthen common Dying process & # of rolls, and I don't see desirable goal in that vs just addressing Death rate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m not sure anything can make you happy short of Paizo significantly changing the game to match your play style. Time will tell if Paizo moves enough to satisfy your group but I think you will find continued frustrations if you continue your current trend of posts.
Eh. With each update I'm getting less invested in PF2e. At this rate I'm going to let someone else in my group champion PF2e and push for it to be adopted. If they don't, I'll start working on custom adventures for PF1e.
Unlike others here, I've seen nothing in the communication from Paizo or the changes in the Updates that indicates there is any reasonable chance of the game matching something my group will enjoy. At this point Paizo's best chance of getting us to play is make the game more palatable than D&D 5e, and without class feats changing dramatically I don't see them achieving even that low bar.
Why continue posting here? Well if you look at my post history you'll see my posting has decreased dramatically and will likely continue to decrease.
You like yo-yoing back and forth, instantly recovering into consciousness and positive HP from an attack that put you 50 past 0 just because you passed one save? Well, no accounting for taste I guess XD
I guess not.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I like the DC based on monsters either.
I think instead of basing it on the DC of the monsters; they should just calculate the DC based off of the attack.
I believe system currently works like that re: PC/ClassedNPC attacks, but "monsters" are different,
so Lich who happens to kick you to 0hp would use "monster DC" i.e. caster DC if they are caster. I prefer not to use attack DC at all.I mean, if the bridge you are on catches fire and collapses, killing you, I don't want to calculate it's DC.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I like the DC based on monsters either.
I think instead of basing it on the DC of the monsters; they should just calculate the DC based off of the attack.I believe system currently works like that re: PC/ClassedNPC attacks, but "monsters" are different,
so Lich who happens to kick you to 0hp would use "monster DC" i.e. caster DC if they are caster. I prefer not to use attack DC at all.
I mean, if the bridge you are on catches fire and collapses, killing you, I don't want to calculate it's DC.
THIS. This is my biggest problem with the save DC system. If the PCs go down due to environmental circumstances, the save system means I have to assign a level and save DC to the planet. It's one thing if it's a hazard with a defined level, but what if it's a bridge collapse like above? What if it's a forest fire? What if someone goes down because they're wandering Antarctica wounded with insufficient cold protection, and the environment procs to bring them down?
Basing the save DC on damage works for everything, and is more intuitive.
|
|
Well, if anyone thought the devs weren't serious about major playtest-driven changes, that concern is put to rest.
I admire your optimism.
Given how potent Dual Slice has proven to be in our playtest for rangers, I am very curious to see how the replacement looks. I also feel like I want to take a look over the dying rules more thoroughly to get a strong sense of how they really work. Otherwise, these changes look really good to me, especially the Skill DC changes.
This isn't quite true. We know how much the baseline version heals, and it's a hefty amount, or at least it can be.
This is what I want to see: it could be a hefty amount to a front liner but much less to a heavily wounded backline elf [a 5th level healer healing a wizard with a 12 con is only healed 5hp, so 6 checks with 30 damage]. I need to see DC's, intervals between rerolls and what kind of boosts there are. It could take quite a bit of time if the whole parry if wounded and makes me wonder if a party without a magic healer might need multiple people with the mundane healing skill to heal up in a reasonable time.
I'm honestly curious to see it in action and it might work just fine out of the box: I'm just not willing to call it a 'win' before I see the details and kick the tires. ;)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Potentially removing consumables from Resonance entirely seems fairly substantial, given that would also imply a major shift in how the Alchemist class works in addition to the obvious wand and potion changes.Sorry to say this is not an example of them still being willing to make substantial changes. They always knew there was slim to no chance of resonance making it through to the final game in its original format. They took the most extreme position possible with it. I've said from very early on it would never survive and even when they previewed it they very much made it sound like "guys, just test it and then we'll change it."
That isn't to say they're not willing to make substantial changes. Update 1.3 simply isn't an example of this. Changing resonance is an example of them changing something they always knew wouldn't fly.
A substantive change is, by definition, a change that is "important, meaningful, or considerable".
Here's a list of what turning Resonance into a replacement for slots does:
* Alchemist class would need a rewrite on at the very least their two primary class features, since they currently cost RP to use.
* Alchemists could focus on Elixirs without requiring allies to spend their Resonance to get buffs.
* Wands would need a rework since, without Resonance, they could be spammable again.
* All Potions, Elixirs, and other consumables that used Resonance would need to be re-examined and potentially rebalanced since the limiting factor of RP cost would be gone.Whether you or the devs expected this or not has nothing to do with the fact that a considerable portion of the game would be affected - it is, by definition, a substantive change.
So if I deliberately take the most extreme position possible and then after negotiations take a slightly less extreme position does that mean I'm still open to compromise?
I'll be celebrating if we see Paizo change something they weren't planning to change from day 1. Otherwise it's everything continuing exactly as planned from when they first released the rules.
You're moving the goalposts - the original post and reply had no qualifiers on whether the change was planned or unplanned, just that it had to be substantive, which I've already proven. If you insist on unplanned changes only, then I submit the ongoing adjustments to the Death and Dying rules and the complete removal of Signature Skills as examples. Death and Dying involves changing an entire subsystem, healing spells, skills, and status effects and was only updated once playtest data showed that people found it confusing, and the second time it was updated due to data showing the number of deaths wasn't meeting expectations. Signature Skills were initially presented as a mechanic to safeguard class roles, and the system was completely removed following general dislike of the system - that resulted in an entire set of class feats being completely removed and opened up countless character concepts for players. Both examples again, by definition, substantive.
Also, while you compare the presentation of Resonance in its original form to a negotiating tactic, that strategy only works if you don't tell the other party what you're doing, which Paizo did literally as soon as the Resonance blog was first posted. Not to mention that, at 7 weeks into the playtest and with at least another 2 before the replacement system is ready for testing, the time lost would be far more valuable than any potential advantage gained by presenting a system that was never intended to be seriously considered.
Here's another "substantive change" you can eagerly await: All ancestries will have more than their single feat to define them at level 1. It will require a complete rewriting of every ancestry. And yet it will be a change they had planned to make from day 1.
Changing the number of ancestry feats gained at Level 1 is as simple as changing the charts that say what levels you gain an ancestry feat at. Rebalancing isn't required, and none of the Ancestries would have to be rewritten at all. You simply gain two feats instead of one. That's not even close to a substantive change.
Here are my thoughts on the subject
I expect We'll see some changes (signature skills, resonance, 1 ancestry feat at level 1) that will be emphasized as them listening to feedback (the truly cynical may wonder how much Paizo truly expected these to survive to the final product) while the big stuff (+level to everything, class feats, nerfed spell's and reduced spell slots) will by and large make it in with the current format and only minor tweaks.
As I said before, I expect we'll see some changes made while the bulk of the changes make it through the playtest unchanged. If you are happy with that outcome that's great. But it's not something I'm going to eagerly await or change my game for.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I like the DC based on monsters either.
I think instead of basing it on the DC of the monsters; they should just calculate the DC based off of the attack.I believe system currently works like that re: PC/ClassedNPC attacks, but "monsters" are different,
so Lich who happens to kick you to 0hp would use "monster DC" i.e. caster DC if they are caster. I prefer not to use attack DC at all.
I mean, if the bridge you are on catches fire and collapses, killing you, I don't want to calculate it's DC.THIS. This is my biggest problem with the save DC system. If the PCs go down due to environmental circumstances, the save system means I have to assign a level and save DC to the planet. It's one thing if it's a hazard with a defined level, but what if it's a bridge collapse like above? What if it's a forest fire? What if someone goes down because they're wandering Antarctica wounded with insufficient cold protection, and the environment procs to bring them down?
Basing the save DC on damage works for everything, and is more intuitive.
So no recovering from a crit then.
Seem like all good changes and address many concerns we had, looking forward to it.
I'd be even happier if they changed Administer First Aid back to DC 15, so it's not so deadly and I don't have to houserule it in my healer-less game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Main rule-change I want is not needing magic armour and weapons to keep up on Saving Throws, To Hit, and Damage (the weapon damage dice one really sticks in my craw).
I feel like we could pretty easily reimplement Automatic Bonus Progression by just having "potency" being an inherent property of characters which increments at appropriate levels. Now there's only two things to worry about, so it's simpler than ABP was.