|
I can definitely see spells dwindling and maybe some potions/wands etc.. What resources would be dwindling for martial characters? They seem like they could go all day. I do not like requiring healers to burn up their healing spells that could be used for combat or in combat healing.
Why does nonmagical healing remove the wounded condition and magical doesn’t? I like the concept of the wounded condition, but it seems like it is extremely easy to remove and would only matter if you were really battering your players with something extremely large and a ton of rounds. Should be interesting to see how it plays out.
-edit of a not that was in the wrong place that made it the opposite of what I meant
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why does nonmagical healing remove the wounded condition and magical doesn’t?Magical healing can fix Wounded. You just need to hit full HP and rest for 10 minutes. Mundane healing does it more easily, but it isn't the only method.
Speaking as someone who likes Treat Wounds, the requirement to hit full HP to get rid of Wounded without it is super stupid. I only have experience at level 1 so far, but going off that, it wasn't unusual for us to do one or two good fights, burn literally all of our healing magic, recover overnight, and still be a few points shy of full. The only time I think we ever managed to actually hit full HP was when we spent an entire day (and all of that day's resources) resting to recover after a particularly nasty fight.
Speaking as someone who likes Treat Wounds, the requirement to hit full HP to get rid of Wounded without it is super stupid. I only have experience at level 1 so far, but going off that, it wasn't unusual for us to do one or two good fights, burn literally all of our healing magic, recover overnight, and still be a few points shy of full. The only time I think we ever managed to actually hit full HP was when we spent an entire day (and all of that day's resources) resting to recover after a particularly nasty fight.Why does nonmagical healing remove the wounded condition and magical doesn’t?Magical healing can fix Wounded. You just need to hit full HP and rest for 10 minutes. Mundane healing does it more easily, but it isn't the only method.
I think I get why they put the full HP qualifier in there, so as to avoid wounded being easy to remove in combat, and thus removing the cautiousness that a player that just went down should have, but it's something I find odd given the following:
a) Treat wounds can affect yourself.
b) At least as I read RAW, you only need to attend to someone with treat wounds to get rid of the wounded condition. No qualifier of success or anything.
c) The combination of a and b means that you can get rid of the wounded condition in 10 minutes, even if you're all by yourself and untrained in medicine. At worst all it means is that you're bolstered, if you critically fail, but if you're alone, you're probably not seeking out many fights. And if you're not alone, even if you don't have a dedicated medicine person, a party of 4 will probably run out of healing beforee they run out of people to treat wounds, and critically fail.
So I guess the question is, what is the point of even having the "at full hp, wait 10 minutes and get rid of the wounded condition"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I would have just had any healing and a 10 minute rest remove it, rather than the "full HP" qualifier. Still makes it un-removable in combat, still lets Treat Wounds remove it, but now doesn't require burning the entire party's healing options to remove it without applying a specific action. I will admit though that, partially because of the line about "This new rule means that a character trained in Medicine can help their allies recover with a significant time expenditure." (Emphasis mine) I had thought that Treat Wounds was a Trained+ Only activity, though on reviewing that is the only reference to being Trained.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really see the big problem with the treat wound system. I does have a cost, it's just character development rather than gold. The target for level 1 is DC 13. The parties cleric with medicine +5 can get that more than half the time. Even a martial with only 12 wisdom and an expert kit could get that half the time. At level 20 the DC is 36. With +20 (level), +2 (wisdom), +2 (skill increases), and +2 (master work healing kit), you'd still have that same 50% chance from first level. This seems like a reasonable cost for the party to pay for not needing a devoted healer.
I personally would make the target DC based on the level of the patient, and make HP healed = (doctor's level) x (patient's Con).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ive said it before in other threads, it should not be some scaling DC. Instead, a player should just roll medicine. He should then consult the 10-2 table and call out the "level" that coincides with their result (for medium, or hard if thats too generous - maybe the DM can call out the difficulty column based on situation).
No critical effect but keep a 1 as an auto fail/bolstered.
The patients then heal the called out number times thier con mod.
This way healing always gets better.
Maybe limit healing hp from Treat Wounds to once an hour.
Its an easy fix.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scaling the DC of these checks should be a result of the healer attempting more difficult tasks, not purely a result of the healer gaining levels. Tying the DC to the level or CR of the creature(s) being healed would address that issue.
Agreed, which highlights a fundamental problem with the DC by level table. It's the laziest option to simply say "the DC is medium at your level" and we've been told by Paizo not to do this and yet this is exactly what they've done. That table is going to continue to cause problems by being misused not just by GMs, but by the designers.
It should not exist in its current publicly published format because designers and GMs will continue to misuse it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You only ever get three skills much above Trained (unless you're a Rogue). If Trained isn't the equivalent of a rank per level, or at least a fair percentage of that, then characters in PF2 all suck at skills.
Exactly. Being above trained needs to be seen as the equivalent of investing skill focus into the skill.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really feels like the healer should be allowed to set a lower DC in exchange for healing less. Like a level 15 character with legendary medicine and assurance in medicine can autoheal 15*ConMod which seems like a reasonable use of a skill feat, but once they level up their assurance becomes worthless.
So if my level 20 character can heal 20*ConMod by hitting a DC of 36, but can ramp things down and choose to heal only 15*ConMod versus a DC of 30, that would make Assurance in medicine pretty decent.
With Assurance, expert in Medicine, and level 20, you can take an automatic 35. For only 200 SP you could get an expert healers kit and never have to roll again.
Actually seems too easy, now that I think about it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the +level and big stat boosts assurance is an awful feat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People keep misinterpreting Assurance. I think it is a problem with the feat, rather than the readers.That's not how assurance work. The result would simply be 15 no modifiers.With Assurance, expert in Medicine, and level 20, you can take an automatic 35. For only 200 SP you could get an expert healers kit and never have to roll again.
Actually seems too easy, now that I think about it.
I think it has to do with how take 10/20 works in pathfinder now and the fact that assurance looks REALLY, REALLY bad if it works as written so your brain wants to think it works like it does now. As written, it's a feat that should almost never be taken unless the DM is putting in a LOT of below level DC's.
Assurance is great. Just not on a skill you're actually good at. Take assurance on athletics or acrobatics or something when you have a large ACP.
|
|
Seriously, just let the healer decide what level they aim for before they roll. If it's below their level, no crit success (They are literally playing it safe, no miracles to be had here).
Alternatively, they just roll. Natural 1? Crit fail. Anything else, add modifiers and see what level you just rolled, that's how much healing you did, no crit success. Didn't manage level 1? You wasted time, feel bad.
The parties cleric with medicine +5 can get that more than half the time.
As a solution to the "all parties must have a cleric" problem, this seems less than satisfactory. you still need a cleric, just with a different mechanic.
In a real game (not the playtest campaign) you roll a random encounter if they sit down to often...
For a team that has just taken lots of damage and are considering if they should take a medicine break or return to home base, reminders like this seem like an good way to make them return to base. Enforcing the 15 minute adventuring day even more.
Even with "unlimited" (until you roll a 1, which you will do) healing by Medicine, PF2 characters still have fewer resources than PF1 characters and are likely to want shorter adventuring days.
The length of the adventuring day is very much something mandated by the rules. In PF1, my players would often carry on long after the expected end of the adventuring day, as assumed in the scenario. As long as their buffs lasted, actually. Which will be less of an issue in PF2 (no lasting buffs), instead they will run out of spell slots.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using your third attack in a round to do a combat maneuver using assurance can be great. Assurance takes NO modifiers - so what if its your third attack in the round!
Reading the thread more carefully now that I have more time. That means I'll be commenting on some old posts.
I do agree that characters need more skill increases, though.
"I don't think that rule means what you think it means" :D
Are you people commenting on the rules as you wish they were, or as they actually are? :o
About the DC of medicine rolls being based on the level of the medic, I think that's just something they jotted down to get this fix out quickly. We dhouldn't put too much into that. In a final version, the DC will likely be based either on the level of the patient, or the level of the critter that created the wounds.
And now I am doing exactly what I complained about MaxAstro doing. :o MaxAstro even anticipated me.
I do feel that the Medicine DC should be based on the target, not the healer.
Part of the problem with Wands of CLW was also thematic, inasmuch as it was unintuitive and didn't fit the fiction very well, an issue which bandaging people and performing first aid does not have (it's intuitive and common in the fiction).
This makes me feel I should subscribe to the favorites button on Deadmanwalking's posts. Well-worded and to the point in almost every case.
|
|
I do feel that the Medicine DC should be based on the target, not the healer.
In my rambling above that is why I was saying for each level of wounded or dying it should increase the DC of the check. Maybe a +2 to the DC. If you have wounded 3 you should not be easy to heal. I realize people want to get back to the action, but it feels silly like there are no consequences to be able to fully heal. Has anyone had there characters get to wounded 3. I personally really liked the slow and would actually like both effects to exist. If they don’t put it in the game I absolutely will as a house rule. It makes no sense to jump straight back into combat. That is a complaint in 5e that I have seen people state frequently(although slightly different but similar with no loss of actions).
CLW was stated as a problem, and now they implement this.....
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you'd need to rework the critical effect (maybe having it reduce the time rather than boost the healing), but just letting the player pick the level they want to use the ability at would be a pretty solid change. Make it suggested that they use their level, but otherwise let them pick. If you have all the time in the world, it might make sense to take the very low DCs where you can't critically fail. If you are in a rush, it might might sense to attempt to "overcast" the healing (though the obvious risks there should balance it out).
---
In general, though, I'd still like there should be multiple options along the lines of "fast, easy, and good, pick two" lines. You can have strong, fast healing, but it's hard. You can have easy, strong healing, but it's slow. You can have fast, easy healing, but it doesn't heal a lot. I really feel like giving healers more meaningful options is a ton better than giving them a chance to roll the same check a dozen times in a row and pray they don't get a 1.
|
|
Most characters are going to be similar levels so having the dc be from the caster isn’t a huge deal in my mind. I don’t personally like the recovery save where it is based off of whatever took the person down. It would make sense if the dc aligned with this, but I already dislike it as it can be one of a handful of things that i would have to look up.
I still don't understand why you don't just heal a larger amount based on the check, similar to how you can jump farther with a higher Athletics check.
If you use a static DC, then your level already has a good influence on the amount healed, since higher level characters will get higher check results.
DC 10 - You heal the target an amount equal to your level. For every 3 by which your check exceeds 10, the target also heals an amount equal to their Con modifier (min 1).
You can still Crit Succeed on a 20 for x3 healing and Crit Fail on a 1 for Bolstered.
This method can heal for more at low-mid levels as well as healing modestly less at high levels.
You don't actually jump further on a high athletics check though. You can set the DC higher but getting a higher result does not increase the distance that you originally set. Which COULD be a good way to handle treat wounds but eh I'm fine with it just being way simpler and using party level as DC, which also scales with party HP. Getting into minute details like setting how much you want to heal before the check just starts becoming too confusing and unneeded IMO.
Well assurance has it's purpose as written, mainly getting decent results in a skill that you don't have the best stats for and perhaps ACP.
That's the thing... You actually CAN'T get "decent results" in any roll close to level appropriate. So if you need to bypass level 2 obstacles as a level 10, it's great. Not sure when that would ever come up though.
Assurance is great. Just not on a skill you're actually good at. Take assurance on athletics or acrobatics or something when you have a large ACP.
I haven't seen the "great". What rolls does the Assurance numbers make? How often are you rolling static numbers far under your level appropriate ones? I know ignoring ACP sounds great but only if the number you use can actually make any DC's.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
CLW was stated as a problem, and now they implement this.....
CLW was not a problem because it allowed healing after combat.
CLW was a problem because it was weird and unthematic, it meant that parties that knew about it were effectively playing a different game than parties that didn't, and most of all because it made every other healing item mostly pointless and certainly not worth it's gold cost.
I have never argued for getting rid of relatively easy post-combat healing. All that getting rid of that does is force someone to play a cleric healbot, which no one wants, or force people to full rest after every fight, which no one wants.
i just wanted post-combat healing to be built in as a core conceit of the system, since people are obviously going to do it anyway. Which Treat Wounds solves nicely.
I haven't seen the "great". What rolls does the Assurance numbers make?
Well, with the new DC chart:
Trained (Baseline, possible from 1 with some skills or Rogues, more generally level 2) - Easy up to level 3, nothing higher
Expert (Possible from level 2 with some skills or Rogues, level 3 generally) - Easy up to level 8, Medium up to level 3, Hard for levels 0 and 1, nothing higher
Master (Level 7) - Easy up to level 13, Medium up to level 6, Hard up to level 5, Incredible up to level 4, and Ultimate up to level 3
Legendary (Level 15) - Easy up to level 23 (the cap of the chart), Medium up to level 15, Hard up to level 13, Incredible and Ultimate up to level 9
So there are a few levels (3, 15, 2 sometimes) where Assurance on a maximized skill can actually manage an actually useful DC (AKA Medium) but generally it's for Easy checks, and even there will quickly fall off if you don't bump the skill every time you can.
I haven't seen the "great". What rolls does the Assurance numbers make?Well, with the new DC chart:
Trained (Baseline, possible from 1 with some skills or Rogues, more generally level 2) - Easy up to level 3, nothing higher
Expert (Possible from level 2 with some skills or Rogues, level 3 generally) - Easy up to level 8, Medium up to level 3, Hard for levels 0 and 1, nothing higher
Master (Level 7) - Easy up to level 13, Medium up to level 6, Hard up to level 5, Incredible up to level 4, and Ultimate up to level 3
Legendary (Level 15) - Easy up to level 23 (the cap of the chart), Medium up to level 15, Hard up to level 13, Incredible and Ultimate up to level 9So there are a few levels (3, 15, 2 sometimes) where Assurance on a maximized skill can actually manage an actually useful DC (AKA Medium) but generally it's for Easy checks, and even there will quickly fall off if you don't bump the skill every time you can.
*nods* Yeah, but Dire Ursus's point was "Assurance is great. Just not on a skill you're actually good at." At best it's slightly useful at certain levels and ONLY if you're NOT bad at them. It's really only useful in easy/under level DC's on skills you focus on.
PS: Thanks for checking the new chart. I did a rough mental estimate but didn't pull out the actual chart [don't have it at hand] so it's nice to see the actual numbers listed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Assurance is terrible, regardless of whether it's useful or not, because it violates one of the core design concepts of Pathfinder - it's a feat that gets worse the higher level you are.
It's especially egregious because it peaks at level 15, and then only goes downhill from there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Assurance is terrible, regardless of whether it's useful or not, because it violates one of the core design concepts of Pathfinder - it's a feat that gets worse the higher level you are.
It's especially egregious because it peaks at level 15, and then only goes downhill from there.
LOL And that peak is in your legendary skill, the one you're LEAST likely to need it for...
IMO, there really isn't a debate if it's terrible but HOW terrible it is. :P
I would prefer a version of Assurance that was mechanically weaker but consistent with the core design.
For example, if it gave you 5+level at trained, and then went to 7+level, 9+level, 11+level. That's pretty weak until Legendary, and worse than the current version at most levels. But it doesn't feel like you are getting worse at your Assurance skill as you level up, at least.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not how assurance work. The result would simply be 15 no modifiers.With Assurance, expert in Medicine, and level 20, you can take an automatic 35. For only 200 SP you could get an expert healers kit and never have to roll again.
Actually seems too easy, now that I think about it.
Is that seriously how that feat works? You don't get a 10 and add modifiers, it's just plain 10? That is so awful that I never would have assumed that it was supposed to work that way.
Is that seriously how that feat works? You don't get a 10 and add modifiers, it's just plain 10? That is so awful that I never would have assumed that it was supposed to work that way.That's not how assurance work. The result would simply be 15 no modifiers.With Assurance, expert in Medicine, and level 20, you can take an automatic 35. For only 200 SP you could get an expert healers kit and never have to roll again.
Actually seems too easy, now that I think about it.
The 'plus' that's been sold to us is that you don't take the penalties to the rolls... But I agree with you that it's SO awful that you don't want to think that's how it works because why would anyone every take it? I guess you can take it and not crit fail when you're untrained and taking ACP from plate... [like with farmhand background]. Not sure what that gets you through.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why people care if the DC is based on the target or the healer since at most tables that will be the same or very close.
That sounds like a messaging thing or a way to sell something. Definately not substantive.
I don't understand why people care if the DC is based on the target or the healer since at most tables that will be the same or very close.
That sounds like a messaging thing or a way to sell something. Definately not substantive.
I tend to like looking at the math of things in common use cases, when analyzing them, because that tells me how things will behave in play, but I also can't ignore the aesthetics of a thing (It was my number 1 problem with Wands of CLW in 1e, even behind the more mechanically substantive issue, that it was too unlimited for my taste). And to me, there are two problems at play with Treat Wounds, one for each of those aspects: The first, being that, as it currently stands, the DC chart still assumes a higher level of investment than most characters are capable of, outside of a few key skills, making Treat wounds less and less effective for most characters over time, and the second being the one of aesthetics, where because the DC gets worse and worse over time, healing a lower level NPC gets harder with time, as opposed to remaining static, or getting easier.
And I can absolutely see the aesthetics of this being something that bugs people more readily than the mechanics. To me, I'm more bugged by the fact that the DC assumes more investment than most characters are really capable of, and means investment doesn't really make you better as you level (which is a microcosm of skills in general, outside the upper tiered difficulties, where I can see the logic a bit more), but, ultimately, all that analysis matters for is the experience of using the ability, which is pretty much the same as the aesthetics side. It's just one aspect can be looked at more analytically to determine where the faults in that experiential feel, while the other is more intangible, but no less impactful.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why people care if the DC is based on the target or the healer since at most tables that will be the same or very close.
Neither are good rules, but "the more skilled you are, the harder it is for you to do it" is worse. It's a blatant treadmill.
Imagine a level 20 demigod doctor working in a hospital who for some reason still fails to treat injuries just as often as he did at level 1...
Or imagine if the rules said, "Add your level to your attack bonus and to your opponent's AC," instead of "Add your level to your attack bonus and your opponent's level to your opponent's AC." In most cases those would be the same or very close, but the former is a rule that makes no sense and destroys the benefits of levelling up.
If he fails, could he not have a minimum threshold of healing?
For each of the 6 targets (also the healer himself if he wishes), recovers in HP ...
The constitution modifier of the injured person * x (the level of the healer - 5) **
* Here, unlike a successful test, the result must not be at least 1. In case of a negative modifier, the result will be zero. So, no cure. It is to make the constitution more important in the end.
** The result inside this parenthesis is 1 at least.
The advantage is that it will dramatically reduce testing to infinity to save time for the game. And it will lessen the failure due to a harder difficulty at a higher level.
My apologies for my poor English.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why people care if the DC is based on the target or the healer since at most tables that will be the same or very close.
That sounds like a messaging thing or a way to sell something. Definately not substantive.
Its based on the philosophy of the game. This rule is something many people have been complaining about (as early as 2008 if you consider non-PF games that had the same rule philosophy) and we were assured would not happen. And yet it's happened. And will likely continue to happen throughout the lifespan of PF2e with Paizo's rule supplements and pre published adventures.
But feel free to dismiss the concern and write it off as not substantial. If Paizo follows your example they'll lose the customers for which this is a deal breaker.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using your third attack in a round to do a combat maneuver using assurance can be great. Assurance takes NO modifiers - so what if its your third attack in the round!
Except that you fail against all level appropriate opponents after 3rd level or so.
In the book it talks about climbing a tree at level would be the same as level 20. Healing a peasant getting hit by an orc at level 1 or 20 is the same. Now if that said peasant got hit by let’s say a +2 acidic great axe instead of a normal one i can see that the DC should be harder to heal than woundI do feel that the Medicine DC should be based on the target, not the healer.
Which still makes no sense for tougher and more resilient people being harder to heal wounds.
I guess you can take it and not crit fail when you're untrained and taking ACP from plate... [like with farmhand background]. Not sure what that gets you through.
I took the farmhand background on a fighter in part because I kind of wanted the feat. I was going to be maxing athletics anyway (to get my break grapple DC way up there) and was going to be wearing heavy armor, so I figured "being able to climb the thing without worrying about ACP" might come in handy and being able to auto-trip/grapple/disarm enemies below my level at certain points might be handy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess. I would much rather they actually remove the treadmill from Treat Wounds than they just change the language to obfuscate it.
I wouldnt worry about the level of the target. There are 6 targets. That would slow crap down.
How about this:
1. If you are at least level 6, you may Expend Minimal Effort when Treating Wounds. When doing so, you automatically succeed as if you were 5 levels lower. Why 5 levels lower? This seems to be when a previously Medium check becomes Trivial. No chance of failure but also no chance of crit when you do this.
2. Otherwise works the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly would advocate for removing the roll entirely, and having the result scake with your Proficiency in Medicine.
My original suggestion was similar. Just roll Medicine and look up the result on the 10-2 chart (keeping 1 as crit fail but ditching crit success).
Hmm should it start at one person at a time and be a skill feat to do 6 at once?