Un-Ease of Play: Conditions, Buffs / Debuffs, Flanking / Cover / Screened, Meta-Currencies, etc


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

17 people marked this as a favorite.

As I have been DMing the playtest, I have noticed the large amount of things that must be tracked in a given combat.

There is screening, cover and raised shields (none of which stack). There are these poisons and effects that work in shifting stages. There are a wealth of conditions that all work at different levels (Enfeebled 1, Enfeebled 2, Enfeebled 3...) and all work in different but sometimes overlapping (and non-stacking) ways.

There is alot of looking up whats circumstance and whats conditional. Flanking is a circumstance penalty. So, it stacks with this but not with that, etc. What does Inspire Courage stack with? Oh, its conditional, so doesn't stack with Burn it or Dangerous Sorcery - but only for damage, the other stuff works. What does this do. What does that do. Tons of small random modifiers allover the place.

On top of all that, you gotta track Hero Points, Spell Points, Resonance Points... Guys, if its late, I have had a glass of wine or two, this can get to be a bit hard to juggle.

I do not think that increased system mastery will help much here. This game seems like it comes with the assumption of condition cards, tokens and page flipping. When the official Fantasy Grounds ruleset comes out I can play this online when all the effects come hard coded since it will, hopefully, keep track for me. Until then, this is gonna be rough to run.

Has there been any consideration on this? I am not sure what, if anything, can be done. I really like how Shadow of the Demon Lord handles this sort of thing but thats a much simpler game. I get that PF2 is meant to be crunchier but, man, this is as crunchy as gravel at times.

I am just curious if this is on the dev radar at the moment? Will any of the upcoming changes deal with ease of play?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:
This game seems like it comes with the assumption of condition cards and page flipping. When the official Fantasy Grounds ruleset comes out I can play this online when all the effects come hard coded since it will, hopefully, keep track for me.

It definitely feels designed for the internet age...which makes it hard to play with hardcopy or PDF. Actions have very specific outcomes attached which make it, in my opinion, a bit of a bear to run RAW. I don't think a GM Screen will really cover it - hopping on and searching the SRD (which isn't up yet) feels like the functional reference.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

While I hadn't expected 5e, I had hoped for something with *less* crunch than 1e, and yeah, it definitely feels like more. Magic items are particularly glaring with Rarity, Level, Slot, Investment, and Resonance Cost all coming, potentially, into play.

I also find the typed bonuses both extremely limiting and confusing. Yes, you can only have one active of each type at a time (note: a Barbarian gets a Conditional Bonus while raging, so that *obviously* doesn't stack with Bard Song or Heroism?), it's also confusing what's a penalty to AC vs a bonus to hit, because those, potentially, stack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I find the Condition cards in PF1 & Starfinder are very useful, easy to make your own if you want to save money.
I think it's worth printing out action cards for the most common actions & giving them to the players as well.
Add to that some post it notes/ print outs of other common things & it should help out a lot.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The only thing I think is unduly mentally taxing is Resonance, which forces you to do a cost benefit analysis against everything you wear or own whenever you do anything. It's a choice paralysis nightmare that I absolutely cannot wait to be rid of.

The rest of the rules system actually seems like it could stand more complexity.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Ya, I think condition cards certainly help. But a bunch of condition cards, tokens and the like (a) only help so much and (b) still act as an impediment to play. I do agree they help though.

I get the feeling most folks will just hand wave stacking issues and won't be playing the game as intended. At least, I would be tempted to ignore if two things are conditional or whatever. Certainly, the Bard can't be expected to know that the Barbarian's rage is conditional. They know their own stuff - not other peoples'. Is the DM supposed to keep all this in his head? Are players also supposed to be passing out condition cards to eachother? Dunno, seems off to me.

I dunno, those sorts of play aids still don't help the DM much either - especially when PCs, all with different abilities, unload a bunch of different persistent damage effects, debuffs, situational modifiers and the like. Things get real messy real fast. Are players gonna pass condition cards to the DM?

I just finished playing around with Fantasy Grounds and I set up a working Rage effect for the Barbarian, a working Inspire Courage for the Bard and will be making assorted other clickees for other abilities. The computer will then count down the rounds, figure out stacking issues and the like. I kinda think that without that or something like it (like maybe using something like Herolab Online as a play aid for all at the table) I am not sure how feasible higher level play (shoot, even mid level really) will be with all these fidgety bits.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I find the Ease of Use to be quite low as well. At least, my players have. This past weekend I "ran" a session for the playtest. I say "ran" because they spent the entire session trying to make characters.

4th level characters

A 4th level character should not take 4-6 hours to make.

Details are over in Doomsday Noon if you want a breakdown of where everything broke down. But the TL;DR version: the book layout is horrendous and apparently 2ed requires so much concentration that a single X-Wing tournament early in the day will destroy your player's ability to play.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I very much agree that the bonuses/penalties are set up in a very confusing way, and how much more complicated it makes running the game. I get that they are trying to simplify down from Pathfinder 1e's 20+ categories (or even Starfinder's 10 categories plus untyped), but... maybe this particular split isn't quite right.

Specifically, I think it stems from the fact that "conditional" and "circumstance" are practically synonyms of each other. It's almost impossible to tell if any particular effect is going to be considered one over the other. And it doesn't even seem like the design quite agrees with itself!

If I just skim through the rulebook...

1) Conditional seems to include morale effects (barbarian's Rage, bard's Inspire Courage), stances, trained resistances (alchemist's Poison Resistance, monk's Diamond Soul, paladin's Divine Health), luck and divine blessings (Bit of Luck, Bless), and effects caused by conditions (asleep, blinded, deafened, drained, enervated, etc.).

2) Circumstance seems to include... cover, screening, morale effects (cavalier's Cavalier's Banner), racism societal training (dwarf's Ancestral Hatred and Giant Bane), innate/trained resistance (dwarf's Ancient Blood, halfling's Illusion Sense), innate physical abilities (elf's Keen Eyes), training (alchemist's Alchemical Savant), special techniques (fighter's various unique actions), perceptiveness/experience (ranger's Hunt Target, Monster Hunter, etc), and effects caused by conditions (asleep, flat-footed, dispositions, prone, etc.).

So conditions are usually conditional effects, except if they relate to positioning, in which case they are circumstance effects. Being asleep, on the other hand, provides both circumstance and conditional penalties. Most morale-type effects are considered conditional, unless they relate to your disposition or a cavalier's banner (huh?). Experience, practice, or training via your class/ancestry could provide you with either a circumstance or a conditional effect, but there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to which one you'll get.

So... I dunno. I like that there are fewer bonus/penalty categories to worry about, but this just seems to be the wrong split. I imagine the way to fix this would be to split the bonuses into more logical categories, even if they have to add a few more to the list.

Ultimately if I, as a GM, don't know for sure what category a bonus is, I should be able to make an educated guess during play. It's not a perfect suggestion, but maybe something like this could work:

- mental/morale (effects caused by alterations to your mental state--disposition, inspiration, rage, fear, blessings, etc)
- physical (effects caused by alterations to your physical state--poison, enervation, sickness, mutagen and magical enhancements)
- talent (effects based on training, skill, or innate ability--things like Hunt Target, Keen Eyes, etc)
- item (same as now; effects based on the quality or properties of your equipment)
- positional/environmental (effects caused by your positioning or imposed on you by the environment--cover, screening, darkness, flanking, prone, etc)

Obviously, any change to how stacking works would need to take into account how that alters the math and balance of the game, but there has to be a better categorization than what we've currently got.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

On the one hand, the reduction of different types of bonuses makes it easier to keep track of.

On the other hand, the reduction of different types of bonuses makes it less worth while to bother keeping track of.

Illustration: in PF1, a party would work together to get as many circumstance, insight, luck, dodge, sacred, enhancement, and rhododendron bonuses as they could. Yes, that absolutely meant everyone needed to keep track of what their abilities did, and how. But on the up-side, a party trying hard could potentially increase an attack, or AC, or save, or trip attempt by a fairly large number. With PF1, the bonuses typically cap out at +2. Sure, that other ability might stack. You've got a 50% chance that it does, since there's basically two bonus types. Frankly, I don't feel much incentive to go deep-diving to check if something can stack to take a +1 bonus to +2, total. That's even with tight math meaning that +2 is very much better than +1. It's psychologically just unimpressive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here is a look of me trying to set up all these conditions in Fantasy Grounds (in progress):

Go to SCREENSHOT

Dunno, still think this seems like a bit much to track during play. This doesn't even factor in the different levels of each condition (Frightened 1, 2, etc).

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

16 people marked this as a favorite.

So.. of interest to me here...

PF1 had 34 conditions in the back of the Core Rulebook

The playtest has 42, of which 2 are helpful (accelerated and quick) and 5 are attitudes (which were in PF1 but not well codified). If we yank those out, we are down to 35.

So, I am not sure if the confusion is coming from the number of conditions (which seems to be about the same) or the fact that they can be different values.

Just trying to track this down. I see a lot of folks saying that various aspects of the playtest are more confusing or challenging that PF1, but in most cases we worked to make sure that the new system was at most, the same complexity, if not simpler.

So.. is it something I am not seeing or is it that its new, and that in and of itself is a challenge. So much of the old system is like second nature now that I take it complexity for granted.

Silver Crusade

17 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Radical thought: roll most of the impairing conditions into one condition called "IMPAIRED" that gives you -1 to all d20 rolls per tier. Enfeebled, Fatigued, Sick etc. are just way to similar too each other. Keep the specific conditions which you can't abstract by a general penalty (Blinded, Paralyzed, Stunned).


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Mr. Bulmahn:

I am not a PF1 pro. I played quite a bit of 3.5 back in the day, but I have been playing mostly 5E lately (with a dabbling of other systems like Shadow of the Demon Lord - Boons and Banes...so great). I get the multiple type of bonus thing but its been a while.

Most of my players are similarly 5E players. They are used to everything just stacking or granting adv/disadv (a flawed mechanic, to be sure, but easy to deal with in play).

Its a bit tricky for us to navigate not only the TYPES of conditions but the amount of NESTED conditions. Add to this the STAGES of afflictions which alter the LEVEL of the conditions and our eyes start to glaze over.

This is, quite frankly, a bit difficult to adjudicate in play. The bard does not know that the barbarians rage is conditional. The fighter does not always get that his circumstantial shield bonus does not stack with screened. Its alot of noodly little bits that are hard to track in the moment.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Another thing to consider is the whole SENSED, CONCEALED, UNSEEN, etc stuff. Something could be sensed to one player, but concealed to another, seen by one but unseen to another, etc.

How do I track this? Its not a modifier on the enemy, since its the player that sees it.

Very very tricky in the moment. The invis enemies have been tricky to deal with in part 1 and 3.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ok well this is a chance to say this then:

Conditions in PF1 were confusing, and hard to track. In fact it's why my entire group uses hero lab and laptops at the table. They start off small and easy - but as you level and have to keep track of multiple gear pieces, conditions, buffs, if they stack/don't stack types etc. - it was just easier to go into hero lab and click what was happening so we could keep playing without having to spend 10 mins checking character sheets.

PF2 is at least *as* complicated - but now everything applies conditions.

Yeah - I agree with the bag of devouring - lets simplify conditions.

First thing our group did after playtest session 1 - print off a condition sheet we all keep with us to try and keep track of everything.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

So.. of interest to me here...

PF1 had 34 conditions in the back of the Core Rulebook

The playtest has 42, of which 2 are helpful (accelerated and quick) and 5 are attitudes (which were in PF1 but not well codified). If we yank those out, we are down to 35.

So, I am not sure if the confusion is coming from the number of conditions (which seems to be about the same) or the fact that they can be different values.

Just trying to track this down. I see a lot of folks saying that various aspects of the playtest are more confusing or challenging that PF1, but in most cases we worked to make sure that the new system was at most, the same complexity, if not simpler.

So.. is it something I am not seeing or is it that its new, and that in and of itself is a challenge. So much of the old system is like second nature now that I take it complexity for granted.

Speaking purely for myself, while playing PF1, my players and I were very conscientious in our choice of spells, feats, monsters etc to ensure that we rarely, if ever, had to actually use any Conditions in play - it is very possible to do so up to about Level 5 (and possibly beyond, we've never really tried).

As such, my complaint would be that Conditions and persistent damage seem to come up a lot more frequently in PF2 and indeed seem almost unavoidable based on the current roster of spells and feats as well as the bestiary we've been provided.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Data Lore wrote:

Mr. Bulmahn:

I am not a PF1 pro. I played quite a bit of 3.5 back in the day, but I have been playing mostly 5E lately (with a dabbling of other systems like Shadow of the Demon Lord - Boons and Banes...so great). I get the multiple type of bonus thing but its been a while.

Most of my players are similarly 5E players. They are used to everything just stacking or granting adv/disadv (a flawed mechanic, to be sure, but easy to deal with in play).

Its a bit tricky for us to navigate not only the TYPES of conditions but the amount of NESTED conditions. Add to this the STAGES of afflictions which alter the LEVEL of the conditions and our eyes start to glaze over.

This is, quite frankly, a bit difficult to adjudicate in play. The bard does not know that the barbarians rage is conditional. The fighter does not always get that his circumstantial shield bonus does not stack with screened. Its alot of noodly little bits that are hard to track in the moment.

This. All of this fits our groups feeling 100 percent.

Edit: I made my own condition cards after the first session. Without them I think we’d have stopped playing long ago. Even with them we are having to look at multiple cards to get all the affects of the condition. One of the card even fills two full cards. It’s insane. And this is coming from someone who quie enjoys PF2.


Ok, I finished by first pass on the PF2 conditions for Fantasy Grounds.

Here is what I had to do for Inspire Courage. Here is the Barbarian's Spirit Rage.

We will see if some automation improves things a bit. Not sure if it would be possible for me to run all this and still enjoy sitting in the DM's chair unless I set up all this auto stuff.


Strachan Fireblade wrote:
Data Lore wrote:

Mr. Bulmahn:

I am not a PF1 pro. I played quite a bit of 3.5 back in the day, but I have been playing mostly 5E lately (with a dabbling of other systems like Shadow of the Demon Lord - Boons and Banes...so great). I get the multiple type of bonus thing but its been a while.

Most of my players are similarly 5E players. They are used to everything just stacking or granting adv/disadv (a flawed mechanic, to be sure, but easy to deal with in play).

Its a bit tricky for us to navigate not only the TYPES of conditions but the amount of NESTED conditions. Add to this the STAGES of afflictions which alter the LEVEL of the conditions and our eyes start to glaze over.

This is, quite frankly, a bit difficult to adjudicate in play. The bard does not know that the barbarians rage is conditional. The fighter does not always get that his circumstantial shield bonus does not stack with screened. Its alot of noodly little bits that are hard to track in the moment.

This. All of this fits our groups feeling 100 percent.

Edit: I made my own condition cards after the first session. Without them I think we’d have stopped playing long ago. Even with them we are having to look at multiple cards to get all the affects of the condition. One of the card even fills two full cards. It’s insane. And this is coming from someone who quie enjoys PF2.

That's a good idea. I'll draft up some condition cards for my group before the next session.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I don't have a huge problem with the complexity of the all of this, but then again I had a decent handle on PF1 as well. I think some of the rules are marked improvements, like the new rules on sensed, seen, unseen, etc.

I do agree conditional and circumstance are too close to the same word, both in appearance and meaning. That could use a change. I also think there might be something to making the penalties into one "impaired" condition if their effects will be so similar, except I like how frightened, sick, and persistent damage all have very evocative methods to be dealt with.

I'm not entirely fond of relative conditions, like flanking only providing flat-footed against the flankers. I don't find that rule especially intuitive because if you are distracted on two sides and a third person comes at you you should really be distracted against all three.

I know not everyone likes how "gamey" the term "item bonus" is, but I think that might be the right track to make it less confusing, and is something they could lean further into. Items give you item bonuses. I suggested in another thread that feats give you feat bonuses. Spells could give you spell bonuses. It seems a lot easier to track-- you'll always know that these two spells don't stack, because they both provide spell bonuses. Feats like Favored Aim will provide a feat bonus, so they will always stack with spells. There's a few corner cases that might not to be worked out-- shields are items but you don't want them to provide item bonuses most likely, for example. But that seems pretty solvable.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Something that seems like it would inflate the difficulty of tracking boni is how they stack. In PF1, the answer was "they probably do" for any given set of buffs you would expect to have up. Changing that to "they might or might not, so you should check" sure seems to increase the load.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can understand that some people could have trouble with conditions, and I do have to flip to that page every now and again but as the GM I have the most common ones memorized.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:
Something that seems like it would inflate the difficulty of tracking boni is how they stack. In PF1, the answer was "they probably do" for any given set of buffs you would expect to have up. Changing that to "they might or might not, so you should check" sure seems to increase the load.

A lot of it is this, combined with the fact that "conditional" and "circumstance" both sound similar and are synonyms. They were *really* poor choices for the two primary types of bonuses.

PF1e the bonus had to do with the type of thing it was helping with, generally speaking, in PF2e, the type of bonus feels rather arbitrary. I would have assumed raging would be a circumstance bonus (the circumstance being you're angry), but it's conditional? I don't have any good way of distinguishing these outside of looking them up every time.

This isn't to say PF1e was perfect. For example, Bless *probably* should have been a sacred bonus, but it was morale...

Beyond all this, it's just really discouraging to have extremely limited strategy when it comes to buffing/debuffing, as none of these abilities, particularly for spellcasters, stack.


18 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

So.. of interest to me here...

PF1 had 34 conditions in the back of the Core Rulebook

The playtest has 42, of which 2 are helpful (accelerated and quick) and 5 are attitudes (which were in PF1 but not well codified). If we yank those out, we are down to 35.

So, I am not sure if the confusion is coming from the number of conditions (which seems to be about the same) or the fact that they can be different values.

Just trying to track this down. I see a lot of folks saying that various aspects of the playtest are more confusing or challenging that PF1, but in most cases we worked to make sure that the new system was at most, the same complexity, if not simpler.

So.. is it something I am not seeing or is it that its new, and that in and of itself is a challenge. So much of the old system is like second nature now that I take it complexity for granted.

In PF1, the stacking rule didn't hit the players until level ~5.

Let's consider a level 1 PF1 party of 1 barbarian, 1 bard, 1 cleric. Rage, bless and inspire courage stack; rage and bless stack because they don't affect the same thing, while inspire courage has a different type (it didn't stack with bless in 3.5, changing it in PF1 was a very good decision). All of this stack with flanking, cover, and every common condition.

Then they find a +1 sword. It stacks with everything they have. And a +1 armor. It stacks. And a +1 AC ring. It stacks. And then the cleric gets access to bull's strength. It stacks.

In other word, for a beginner's group discovering the game, everything stacks. They sum up every bonus and they're done. They know there's a stacking rule and it prevent stupidity like wearing two armors, but in practice it's not a rule they have to apply.

Then, when they are higher level, they discover some effect don't stack: Bless and Heroism don't stack, bull's strength and +Str belt don't stack, etc. But at that point, they know perfectly what flanking does, what the bonus from inspire courage are, what is the effect of the barbarian's fatigue, etc: they have new thing to learn, but they had time to learn the basis beforehand. Sometime they discover one effect shouldn't have been stacked with one another, but it's only one effect for one single number: they correct the number, and they don't feel they were playing the whole game wrong.

In PF2, the stacking rule strikes the player right from the beginning; players don't remember how the rage works and what bonus it gives and what is the duration and the action cost, but they have to take into account it doesn't stack with the inspire courage although they don't even know how inspire courage works, and they must remember also how sluggish and fatigued interact although they don't know what each of those conditions do.

At level 20, maybe PF2 is simpler than PF2. Who cares? No one play at level 20. But at level 1, the amount of strange rules and interactions is overwhelming - and that's a big issue since there isn't any lower level where things are more simple.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Rage and Inspire Courage not stacking is an issue, I agree. Both for ease of play and satisfaction. Two 1st level class features shouldn't be mutually exclusive in the same party.

I think a few more bonuses being untyped would go a long way towards fixing this problem, though. It isn't as easy to hand out +1s like candy this edition, so it shouldn't get too out of hand.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I would suggest that some (but not all) of this can be alleviated by cutting down on the number of conditions.

A few suggestions:
- Remove Screened: just let the DM use their discretion to award a Cover bonus should characters of sufficient size or number be in the way of the target
- Combine Enfeebled and Sluggish: these are mechanically and thematically similar already
- Combine Unconscious and Asleep: just put a sentence or two that states that if a target is Unconscious due to being Asleep, they can be awoken or whatever
- Combine Paralyzed and Stunned: almost the same already. Why isn't a stunned guy flat-footed anyways?

There are more but those seem like the easy ones to me. If they can do these and maybe cut down another handful, that would help.

Still, this sort of thing only helps a little. Stacking issues, staged afflictions, nested conditions and all that still persist even when you reduce the number of conditions. The stacking issue is particularly problematic I think.

Hopefully this is at least slightly on the dev radar. A significant Ease of Use pass is vital for the game, I think.


Captain Morgan wrote:

Rage and Inspire Courage not stacking is an issue, I agree. Both for ease of play and satisfaction. Two 1st level class features shouldn't be mutually exclusive in the same party.

I think a few more bonuses being untyped would go a long way towards fixing this problem, though. It isn't as easy to hand out +1s like candy this edition, so it shouldn't get too out of hand.

Other things that don't stack with Inspire Courage (or with each other) are Dangerous Sorcery and Burn It.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

So.. of interest to me here...

PF1 had 34 conditions in the back of the Core Rulebook

The playtest has 42, of which 2 are helpful (accelerated and quick) and 5 are attitudes (which were in PF1 but not well codified). If we yank those out, we are down to 35.

So, I am not sure if the confusion is coming from the number of conditions (which seems to be about the same) or the fact that they can be different values.

Just trying to track this down. I see a lot of folks saying that various aspects of the playtest are more confusing or challenging that PF1, but in most cases we worked to make sure that the new system was at most, the same complexity, if not simpler.

So.. is it something I am not seeing or is it that its new, and that in and of itself is a challenge. So much of the old system is like second nature now that I take it complexity for granted.

For me it is knowing what stacks and what dosn't(on the fly). Bonuses are worse than penalties in this regard for me(bard + barbarian that keeps being brought up is a good example). But it still feels strange to know that the flat footed guy who is sluggish 1 isn't at -3 AC but at -2 AC, I messed this up at my last session. That said, after I did some looking, it dosn't look like quite as many overlap as I had initially thought on the condition side.

The overall number of conditions aren't bad for me, nor are the numbers beside them, at a glance it makes it fairly easy to adjucate.

I can probably adjust over time, like you said some things are just second nature in the old system and 'new' just means I have to learn it as a GM.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It does feel a bit busy, byzantine, needs a cleanup.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
So.. of interest to me here...

Jason, here' my take on the whole condition thing:

Conditions:
There are a lot to keep track of. Fortunately not all of them will come up in a given battle, which is great. But I do find myself getting a bit overwhelmed looking at them all. Individually? Not a problem. I've read through the conditions many times thinking "well, which would you drop to make it easier to manage?" And I find that individually I like them. But I do circle back to "as a collective, it's quite a lot."

I am in the camp that I think a good GM screen (horizontal layout as an option would be great!) will help when managing conditions. I think a GM screen is OK to assume. Condition cards are helpful, but I don't want the game to need them.

Bonuses:
I was thrilled to read that there were only the three.
A bit more clarity on which is which is nice, mentally. Part of that is experience, though. When you get used to simply saying "you get a +1" it is more confusing than if you always say "+1 circumstance."

I'm not sure I'm a big fan of core class features providing bonuses that don't stack. The above example about Barbarian Rage and Bard Inspire - why wouldn't that stack? I feel as though core features ought to play nice with each other :)


PF2 has simplified types and bonus interactions.

It is, however, new. The new PF2 player has a lot to read and learn to understand how it works. I don't think it's fair to say PF1 (which we are all familiar with) was simpler by comparison, but we did have years of experience with it.

I do find understanding the new parts of PF2 to be a learning curve, and that is frustrating when I already had PF1's stuff down. Pathfinder is a more complex game than 5E, and I think that's a positive. The downside to that is that it does take more time to learn and be comfortable with it. The upside is that complexity is more fun in the long term (to me).

Sovereign Court

Would it make it more intuitive to notice that shields and the Screened effect don't stack, if we called it Shielded instead?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

PF1 conditions were too many, and confusing. PF2's conditions consolidate some things that were in other places in the rules, like concealment and attitude. This is all fine. However, I still think PF2's condition are a little too many, and some of them are easily confused. I would suggest looking at a couple of groups of conditions that are similar in descriptive intent, such as immobile/paralyzed/stunned, or asleep/unconscious, or entangled/grabbed, or hampered/encumbered, and see it those might be merged.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
gwynfrid wrote:
PF1 conditions were too many, and confusing. PF2's conditions consolidate some things that were in other places in the rules, like concealment and attitude. This is all fine. However, I still think PF2's condition are a little too many, and some of them are easily confused. I would suggest looking at a couple of groups of conditions that are similar in descriptive intent, such as immobile/paralyzed/stunned, or asleep/unconscious, or entangled/grabbed, or hampered/encumbered, and see it those might be merged.

Yes, I would like to see more streamlining in this area.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
Would it make it more intuitive to notice that shields and the Screened effect don't stack, if we called it Shielded instead?

So instead of shields giving you a +2 circumstance bonus to AC when raised, they now provide the "Shielded" condition when raised, and that, in turn, provides a +2 circumstance bonus to AC...

Umm, no. That's yet another leap of logic to get to the same end result.

EDIT: It also just really logically doesn't make any sense... If you have a shield raised *and* there's someone in the way, it *should* be harder to hit you. No amount of renaming is going to fix that.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:
PF2 has simplified types and bonus interactions.

No.

The rule is excatly the same as before: "two bonus or penalty with the same type don't stack". It's not more simple or more complex, it's the same.

Decreasing the number of type increases the number of collisions - the number of times the rule comes into play and one bonus should be forgotten in favor of another one. Having more collisions to handle isn't a simplification.

It would be simpler if the different types were intuitive - everyone knows intuitively if a bonus is an "item" bonus or not, the type "item" doesn't confuse anyone. But the two other types have a byzantine definition and are the cause of many collisions.

Spoiler:
The real complexity of 3.0/3.5/PF1 is the typed bonus to a bonus. Like the alteration bonus to the armor bonus, the alteration bonus to the shield bonus and the alteration bonus to the natural armor bonus. Those three stack, because they have the same type (alteration) but they are applied to different things (armor bonus, shield bonus and natural armor bonus) even though those three bonus are applied to the same thing afterward (AC).

... Yes, this part of 3.0 is very poorly designed. It works as intended, but it require a lot of convolution to properly understand. The same result could be obtained with a simpler rule. And the designers themselves didn't seems to understand how it worked, since some polymorh effects give a natural armor bonus while other give a bonus to the natural armor bonus.

... Anyway, bonus altering bonus is already a thing in PF2. The encumbered condition give an untyped bonus to the ACP which is an untyped penalty for some checks...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:

...

Illustration: in PF1, a party would work together to get as many circumstance, insight, luck, dodge, sacred, enhancement, and rhododendron bonuses as they could. ...

Note to self - must add rhododendron bonuses to homebrew immediately. Stand back, bad guys - the party has a verdant bloodline sorcerer!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Requielle wrote:
Anguish wrote:

...

Illustration: in PF1, a party would work together to get as many circumstance, insight, luck, dodge, sacred, enhancement, and rhododendron bonuses as they could. ...
Note to self - must add rhododendron bonuses to homebrew immediately. Stand back, bad guys - the party has a verdant bloodline sorcerer!

I don't think rhododendron bonus will exist someday.

In the other hand, I think the barbarian's rage should stack with everything. For many players, rage is the reason why they choose to play a barbarian in the first place; each time you say "this doesn't stack with rage", it's like saying "you main class ability is now de-activated". And this class ability isn't very versatile in the first place: if you don't want the barbarian to use his rage, you can just create a plot that can't be solved by dealing damages. Hence, for me, rage should stack with everything...

... Except there's also a spell giving rage. Obviously rage shouldn't stack with rage - it's a cornercase I can accept, especially if the barbarian's rage is more powerful than the spell. And maybe, in the future, I'll create another rage-based class - and again, for a multiclass character, rage shouldn't stack with rage.

... This is how you obtain a new type of bonus: instead of saying the rage bonus are untyped (and stack with everything), I'll say rage bonus have the type "rage". It's the same as saying "it doesn't stack with other rage effects".

This is how you can get, at some point, a rhododendron bonus; it actually means "it stack with everything, but maybe, one day, I'll create another effect which won't stack; I don't think you should bother". Or maybe you create a new splatbook called the verdant guide and you want the effect in your new book to stack with everything that existed before, but some of the effect in this book shouldn't stack together (eg, the verdant sorcerer and the verdant wizard have a bonus intended to stack with school focus, but which shouldn't stack together).


Fuzzypaws wrote:
Strachan Fireblade wrote:
Data Lore wrote:

Mr. Bulmahn:

I am not a PF1 pro. I played quite a bit of 3.5 back in the day, but I have been playing mostly 5E lately (with a dabbling of other systems like Shadow of the Demon Lord - Boons and Banes...so great). I get the multiple type of bonus thing but its been a while.

Most of my players are similarly 5E players. They are used to everything just stacking or granting adv/disadv (a flawed mechanic, to be sure, but easy to deal with in play).

Its a bit tricky for us to navigate not only the TYPES of conditions but the amount of NESTED conditions. Add to this the STAGES of afflictions which alter the LEVEL of the conditions and our eyes start to glaze over.

This is, quite frankly, a bit difficult to adjudicate in play. The bard does not know that the barbarians rage is conditional. The fighter does not always get that his circumstantial shield bonus does not stack with screened. Its alot of noodly little bits that are hard to track in the moment.

This. All of this fits our groups feeling 100 percent.

Edit: I made my own condition cards after the first session. Without them I think we’d have stopped playing long ago. Even with them we are having to look at multiple cards to get all the affects of the condition. One of the card even fills two full cards. It’s insane. And this is coming from someone who quie enjoys PF2.

That's a good idea. I'll draft up some condition cards for my group before the next session.

A simple chart that lists bonuses and penalties and shows which are conditional and which are circumstance would be very useful if those are the only two types that will occur.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

21 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for this, OP. I felt like I had forgotten how to GM trying to run a few sessions of the playtest. There are several factors just not clicking.

I think a core issue is that while the devs have stated they want to streamline the system and make it easier to learn.

But they have not streamlined the system at all. They have just codified more of the mechanics. Most conditions are a +2 or -2 or whatever, things follow a certain more particular pattern, everything is named with a consistent theme (Fear 1, 2, 3 instead of shaken, frightened, panicked). Actions are set into clear and simple categories, even exploring becomes a specific series of actions rather than people just talking about what they're doing.

Codification can be fine. Codification may make some things easier. Especially when it comes to making results more consistent.

The problem is you can codify a really complex system, and it may make that complex system a little easier to learn (depending on other factors), but it will not necessarily make the system less complicated.

Codification still is not streamlining. It is not simplification.

Streamlining wouldn't be changing "shaken, frightened, panicked" into "fear 1, 2, 3." It would be getting rid or simplifying the number or types of conditions. Here are some, not necessarily great, examples of how a condition could be streamlined or simplified, rather than codified:
- Just having 1 fear condition, period.
- Going further than that and cutting down all negative conditions to maybe two or three total (instead of 34 or 42 per below). For example, Gorbacz's "impaired" is a -2 to all rolls and can be inflicted by any number of things. Add "slowed" for halved speed" and "vulnerable" for -2 penalty to defenses. Depending on how simple you want to make it you could say the 2-3 conditions don't worsen. Or maybe if they do, the effects simply doubled (Impaired x2, to make it clear it's that penalty doubled without your having to look that up). Or just increase in duration.
- Eliminating conditions entirely and just describe a given effect of a given attack. ("If you succeed, your target is at a -2 to all rolls.")

The core system of PF2 is still really complicated. And rather than simplifying things, they have just codified everything into new terms and mechanics that everyone has to memorize from scratch. How magic items work in PF2 are a great example of how codification makes things MORE complicated. They operate more consistently now, yes, but you have to go through far more steps and learn far more rules to just operate one at a basic level (e.g., drinking a potion is easier in PF1. You just effing drink it).

There's also added rules, that add more to learn, no matter how codified it is. Resonance is a brand new thing to have to track. Never mind the fact that we kept forgetting about using it in our playthroughs and I don't think it affected game balance or the course of the game in the slightest.

So it doesn't matter that it all follows a codified pattern, it's still a lot of STUFF to learn from the get go (not to mention that STUFF is all over the book in a very poorly organized way...).

And that leads me to...

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

So.. of interest to me here...

PF1 had 34 conditions in the back of the Core Rulebook

The playtest has 42, of which 2 are helpful (accelerated and quick) and 5 are attitudes (which were in PF1 but not well codified). If we yank those out, we are down to 35.

So, I am not sure if the confusion is coming from the number of conditions (which seems to be about the same) or the fact that they can be different values.

Just trying to track this down. I see a lot of folks saying that various aspects of the playtest are more confusing or challenging that PF1, but in most cases we worked to make sure that the new system was at most, the same complexity, if not simpler.

So.. is it something I am not seeing or is it that its new, and that in and of itself is a challenge. So much of the old system is like second nature now that I take it complexity for granted.

Take this with the grain of salt that this is comparison very much is a "your mileage may vary" sort of thing -- but

1. In 3.x and thus Pathfinder, one encountered fewer conditions at a time at 1st level less frequently than I feel like we were encountering, and particularly encountering at one time, at 1st level in the playtest. (Others seem to have said similar in this thread.) So the issue isn't the number of conditions IN THE RULES, it's the amount we are encountering in actual gameplay at low (beginner) levels that we are having to master while playing. EVERYTHING at level 1 seems to inflict a condition (some of which involve complex "stage" tracking).

2. 3.x and thus Pathfinder, while a complicated system, usually was good about erring on the side of re-explaining a mechanic in the text, rather than forcing a cross reference, when it made sense to do so. In other words, in 3.x and PF1, you were more likely to see a passage like: "this spell makes you shaken (-2 penalty to all rolls)." In PF2, you're more likely to see "this spell makes you shaken." And then you have to go look shaken up, and it is likely nowhere near the spell descriptions.

I TOTALLY GET why one would want to avoid text redundancy--you want to save space, you want to save words, you don't want to have to repeat yourself. I am an editor, I have edited indeed as an independent contractor for Paizo, I've worked for publishers, I know how precious space is.

However, when learning a system from scratch it makes that system that much harder to learn. I think 3.x and PF books repeat rules less in splats, which is good (if you're buying splats, you should have the basics mastered), but some redundancy may be necessary in the core rulebook--the thing people are reading to learn how the game is actually played.

I know how huge the new CRB is even without much rules repetition--but that speaks to the fact, I think, that there are just too many rules and too many subsystems (resonance, I am looking at you) to begin with. Eliminate unnecessary rules (conditions that all do the same thing, resonance points), and create space for better rules explanations instead.

I don't know about others, but I do not usually learn a system by picking up the core rulebook and memorizing it. I read key parts, sure, and learn how to make my character, but a good deal of stuff I learn as I go along and play. I felt like 3.x was designed in such a way that imperfect as it was, it was relatively easy to learn the basics first and then pick up the more complicated bits as we went. In PF2, all of us--all experienced gamers--are cross checking and rechecking rules far more often from the get go and we feel like we have to have a much higher level of system mastery just to get started. I suppose someone who DOES fully read the book and memorize it may be fine, but someone who learns somewhat experientially will struggle, and I don't think I'm the only one here.

Condition cards and digital tools and the like should be helpful but they should not feel required just to learn. Additional "required" props create a barrier to entry-level play. No one just learning a system should feel like they should have to possess more than a pencil, paper, and set of dice to play.

I've been playing games my whole life. I am an experienced GM. I feel like I pick up and learn most systems quickly. I do game editing as a side-hustle. But this system feels so bloated and complex, I don't even want to learn this system to earn money working with it.

I was really hoping PF2 would be sort of like the simplified mechanics of the Beginner's Box meets some of the better innovations in Starfinder (e.g., bulk, the health system). Instead it's more like the mechanics of a complicated video game all written out on paper. Fine for many, but I'm increasingly becoming sure it's not for me and not worth the time it would take to learn to play, let alone run. I'll see how the playtest evolves, though, as I'm still very interested in seeing how the end product pans out.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So here's my two cents on the categories of bonuses and how they should stack:

1) Items
I think item bonuses are working perfectly well right now. "Items don't stack with each other, but do stack with everything else" is a simple and intuitive general rule.

2) Class
These would be bonuses from your own class features and class feats. You can never give class bonuses to another character; you can only ever gain class bonuses from your own abilities. This would help prevent "class clash" such as what barbarian and bard have going. Barbarian rage would be a class bonus, while bardic inspire would not be (since it's buffing other characters). Class bonuses are always bonuses and never penalties, to limit the number of stackable debuff categories. This bonus type is very intuitive: "the bonus is from my class feature, therefor it is a class bonus"

3) Magic
Typically from spellcasting, but could also come from more magical class features like a bard's inspire. This is again very intuitive: "the bonus came from a spell, therefor it is a magic bonus"

4) Circumstance
Circumstance bonuses and penalties apply to situations like flanking, screening, prone, etc. They are the circumstances you're in. Because there are a defined list of conditions (no matter how many spells are published that knock you prone, there is only ever going to be one prone condition) these can be allowed to stack within a +4 to -4 range.

5) Afflictions
Poisons, diseases, or conditions such as drained or enfeebled, are afflictions. Afflictions are always penalties. Afflictions never grant bonuses.

Along with this change, you'd split the circumstances (flanking, prone, etc) from the afflictions (enfeebled, drained, etc), and other miscellaneous (friendly, hostile, seen, unseen, etc) into three separate lists. This would mean that you'd know based on which list you're looking at which type of bonus or penalty you're looking it.

I think this is a fair balance for stacking, as well as making each category very intuitive.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:

So here's my two cents on the categories of bonuses and how they should stack:

1) Items

2) Class

3) Magic

4) Circumstance

5) Afflictions

I could think of some other meaningful modifier names such as size bonus/penalty or emotion bonus/penalty.

Bascially, "handy for use" bonus types are those that are narration-realted and easy to imagine (size! item! environment around you!) and "unhandy" are those that are too abstract and tend to break immersion (so what exactly counts as conditional?).

A human can easily guess that if a creature gets magically larger and equips a belt of might, it becomes stronger two times. But a human cannot use any kind of intuition for things like "conditional", stumbling every time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:

So here's my two cents on the categories of bonuses and how they should stack:

1) Items
I think item bonuses are working perfectly well right now. "Items don't stack with each other, but do stack with everything else" is a simple and intuitive general rule.

2) Class
These would be bonuses from your own class features and class feats. You can never give class bonuses to another character; you can only ever gain class bonuses from your own abilities. This would help prevent "class clash" such as what barbarian and bard have going. Barbarian rage would be a class bonus, while bardic inspire would not be (since it's buffing other characters). Class bonuses are always bonuses and never penalties, to limit the number of stackable debuff categories. This bonus type is very intuitive: "the bonus is from my class feature, therefor it is a class bonus"

3) Magic
Typically from spellcasting, but could also come from more magical class features like a bard's inspire. This is again very intuitive: "the bonus came from a spell, therefor it is a magic bonus"

4) Circumstance
Circumstance bonuses and penalties apply to situations like flanking, screening, prone, etc. They are the circumstances you're in. Because there are a defined list of conditions (no matter how many spells are published that knock you prone, there is only ever going to be one prone condition) these can be allowed to stack within a +4 to -4 range.

5) Afflictions
Poisons, diseases, or conditions such as drained or enfeebled, are afflictions. Afflictions are always penalties. Afflictions never grant bonuses.

Along with this change, you'd split the circumstances (flanking, prone, etc) from the afflictions (enfeebled, drained, etc), and other miscellaneous (friendly, hostile, seen, unseen, etc) into three separate lists. This would mean that you'd know based on which list you're looking at which type of bonus or penalty you're looking it.

I think this is a fair balance for stacking, as well as making...

I like this organization structure a whole heck of a lot.

The only thing I would add is that for those conditions which do many different things at once, perhaps listing everything affected by the condition in a bullet point format would be more effective at getting the information across clearly, and with less possibility of something critical being overlooked.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Another thing to consider is Ancestries.

Look at Goblins. First, lets focus on Burn It. Conditional bonus to fire damage (how is Ancestry a "condition" anyways?). Now lets take a look at Flame Heart. Untyped bonus to fire resistance.

Now lets consider Weapon Properties.

Most seem to be circumstance. So, Forceful, hitting a dude repeatedly in the face is a "circumstance." But, now lets look at Volley. That -2 penalty you take is untyped and not a "circumstance" at all.

I dunno, its weird and doesn't make sense. I am not sure if doing anything with the categories will make sense or be balanced. Maybe making more categories will throw all the math out of wack. Who knows.

I just hope they make this easier to deal with somehow.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:

So here's my two cents on the categories of bonuses and how they should stack:

1) Items
I think item bonuses are working perfectly well right now. "Items don't stack with each other, but do stack with everything else" is a simple and intuitive general rule.

2) Class
These would be bonuses from your own class features and class feats. You can never give class bonuses to another character; you can only ever gain class bonuses from your own abilities. This would help prevent "class clash" such as what barbarian and bard have going. Barbarian rage would be a class bonus, while bardic inspire would not be (since it's buffing other characters). Class bonuses are always bonuses and never penalties, to limit the number of stackable debuff categories. This bonus type is very intuitive: "the bonus is from my class feature, therefor it is a class bonus"

3) Magic
Typically from spellcasting, but could also come from more magical class features like a bard's inspire. This is again very intuitive: "the bonus came from a spell, therefor it is a magic bonus"

4) Circumstance
Circumstance bonuses and penalties apply to situations like flanking, screening, prone, etc. They are the circumstances you're in. Because there are a defined list of conditions (no matter how many spells are published that knock you prone, there is only ever going to be one prone condition) these can be allowed to stack within a +4 to -4 range.

5) Afflictions
Poisons, diseases, or conditions such as drained or enfeebled, are afflictions. Afflictions are always penalties. Afflictions never grant bonuses.

Along with this change, you'd split the circumstances (flanking, prone, etc) from the afflictions (enfeebled, drained, etc), and other miscellaneous (friendly, hostile, seen, unseen, etc) into three separate lists. This would mean that you'd know based on which list you're looking at which type of bonus or penalty you're looking it.

I think this is a fair balance for stacking, as well as making...

I actually proposed something similar, where the names were:

Spell: Literally from a spell.
Competence: From a class or race ability, granting competence in something.
Item: From a magical items (where poisons and elixirs fall into this category unless you decide to add an additional one for that).
Situational: From a situation, such as screening, cover, or flanking.

I also think that some bonuses should simply be untyped. For example:
* Enlarge should straight-up increase damage dice.
* Inspire courage should *probably* stack with other spells.
* Shields should be a flat bonus, not a situational one.

It would also be nice if most conditions were flat bonuses/penalties, so you could apply multiple and actually have them stack properly. The game feels *extremely* limited right now with how things are set up. Debuffing as a main strategy really only works for a round, as after that, none of your debuffs do anything.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Personally, I don't have a huge problem with the complexity of the all of this, but then again I had a decent handle on PF1 as well. I think some of the rules are marked improvements, like the new rules on sensed, seen, unseen, etc.

I just want to chip in that I think I quite like the visibility rules. Especially the basic assumption that I'm supposed to ask for an attack roll, even if somebody is attacking the wrong location.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know this won't work for this game, but I have mentioned it before and want to expand on it. Shadow of the Demon Lord does the best job I have every seen with this stuff. Most debuffs give "Banes". Most buffs give "Boons". Banes and Boons cancel eachother out. Whether you are rolling Banes or Boons, you roll up to 3 d6s but you don't add them - you just keep the highest roll as a penalty or bonus.

Generally, 1 postive bonus to a thing and 2 negative bonuses to that same thing (perception or whatever) = 1 Bane to rolls with that thing. Bam, super easy (though some things may confer more banes or boons). It even works combat maneuvers into the system. So, if you want to do a called shot, you take 2 Banes to attack but can do either do more damage or hamper a target if you hit.

The key, I think, is that there i just one category and the bonus/penalty is capped since you only keep the highest die roll from the bane or boon die pool. This bounds stuff and makes it manageable in play.

I know PF2 can't be that straight forward. Its a crunchier game. You have to have "design space" for items and this and that and so on. Still, something that can at least approach that ease of play would be amazing.

EDIT:
Hmm, seems the author of SotDL, Rob Schwalb, worked with Paizo on PF Unchained and some other stuff in 2015 or so. Bring him on as a consultant!


13 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, in PF1 actually running the penalties was simple: you're Sickened/Shaken for x rounds means that for x rounds you apply that penalty.

In PF2, the penalty changes round on round: Sick 3, Sick 2 etc.

That's actually harder to run in-game because it's yet another variable your long suffering GM has to track.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

So.. of interest to me here...

PF1 had 34 conditions in the back of the Core Rulebook

The playtest has 42, of which 2 are helpful (accelerated and quick) and 5 are attitudes (which were in PF1 but not well codified). If we yank those out, we are down to 35.

So, I am not sure if the confusion is coming from the number of conditions (which seems to be about the same) or the fact that they can be different values.

Just trying to track this down. I see a lot of folks saying that various aspects of the playtest are more confusing or challenging that PF1, but in most cases we worked to make sure that the new system was at most, the same complexity, if not simpler.

So.. is it something I am not seeing or is it that its new, and that in and of itself is a challenge. So much of the old system is like second nature now that I take it complexity for granted.

I'm finding it hard because it is a new system, not because of any added complexity.

I had many struggles with the PF1 system and have struggled for years to come up with a good way to track those conditions. As a GM I've starting giving conditions with durations their own initiative tracker that I add a mark to every round. As a player I've made table tents so that everyone can see the inspire courage is morale bonus to saves but a circumstance bonus to attack and damage.

I feel the PF2 conditions will be simpler once I have had more time playing with them. As a GM I create a thorough prep sheet for encounters that have all the important info, just as I do for PF1, and it is working. I'm preparing to play a character and have been going through double checking what does and doesn't stack while making a prep sheet.

My complaint is the the condition names feel contrived and aren't as conversational as the PF1 conditions; sickened or nauseated versus sick 2. This may be just shock cause it is new, anything can become normal if you play with it long enough (eg; what does 'standard action' mean?).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
DeathQuaker wrote:

Thanks for this, OP. I felt like I had forgotten how to GM trying to run a few sessions of the playtest. There are several factors just not clicking.

I think a core issue is that while the devs have stated they want to streamline the system and make it easier to learn.

But they have not streamlined the system at all. They have just codified more of the mechanics. Most conditions are a +2 or -2 or whatever, things follow a certain more particular pattern, everything is named with a consistent theme (Fear 1, 2, 3 instead of shaken, frightened, panicked). Actions are set into clear and simple categories, even exploring becomes a specific series of actions rather than people just talking about what they're doing.

Codification can be fine. Codification may make some things easier. Especially when it comes to making results more consistent.

The problem is you can codify a really complex system, and it may make that complex system a little easier to learn (depending on other factors), but it will not necessarily make the system less complicated.

Codification still is not streamlining. It is not simplification.

Streamlining wouldn't be changing "shaken, frightened, panicked" into "fear 1, 2, 3." It would be getting rid or simplifying the number or types of conditions. Here are some, not necessarily great, examples of how a condition could be streamlined or simplified, rather than codified:
- Just having 1 fear condition, period.
- Going further than that and cutting down all negative conditions to maybe two or three total (instead of 34 or 42 per below). For example, Gorbacz's "impaired" is a -2 to all rolls and can be inflicted by any number of things. Add "slowed" for halved speed" and "vulnerable" for -2 penalty to defenses. Depending on how simple you want to make it you could say the 2-3 conditions don't worsen. Or maybe if they do, the effects simply doubled (Impaired x2, to make it clear it's that penalty doubled without your having to look that up). Or just...

That post has winning ways.

1 to 50 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Un-Ease of Play: Conditions, Buffs / Debuffs, Flanking / Cover / Screened, Meta-Currencies, etc All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.