Yes, you remain unconscious, as Shisumo said. I think it was Carina who healed up Zel and brought him back to consciousness?Hero points have changed: 1 point allows a reroll of a d20, while all your hero points (minimum 1) allows you to recover from dying - putting you at zero and unconscious - without gaining the wounded condition.While that was what I thought Jason said at first, when it actually happened didn't the character remain unconscious?
So, burn all your hero points for: stable @ 0hp, unconscious, no wounded condition.
I may not have tracked the stream correctly there.
I swear that post was edited between when I read it and when I clicked "reply", lol
Anyway, glad we're getting a picture of how these rules work
I posted, realized I was wrong and deleted my post so maybe you ment to reply to that. Sorry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If folks like, I can rename this thread to "Rules reveals from the Oblivion Oath Twitch game"
Thumbs up. Also, great game Jason, kudos!!
|
I think this thread will need renaming...
Another one - Diplomacy apparently doesn't affect a single person anymore (this is great news for me). Unless Qundle has a related skill feat, but I doubt that.
I believe Jason just "rolled with it", aka, GM fiat. People were desperate and willing to hear the charismatic goblin, maybe?
I believe Jason just "rolled with it", aka, GM fiat. People were desperate and willing to hear the charismatic goblin, maybe?
Could certainly be the case... but I really hope it's not ;P
Director of Game Design
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe Jason just "rolled with it", aka, GM fiat. People were desperate and willing to hear the charismatic goblin, maybe?I think this thread will need renaming...
Another one - Diplomacy apparently doesn't affect a single person anymore (this is great news for me). Unless Qundle has a related skill feat, but I doubt that.
More of a situational thing and less of a rules as written thing. Making a call to a bunch of panicked folks might get some of them to do what you ask. In a tighter narrative scene, doing that to any effect would require a feat or not have any sort of binding effect.
Narratively it made sense for that moment.. which is a flexibility given to the GM.
More of a situational thing and less of a rules as written thing. Making a call to a bunch of panicked folks might get some of them to do what you ask. In a tighter narrative scene, doing that to any effect would require a feat or not have any sort of binding effect.
Narratively it made sense for that moment.. which is a flexibility given to the GM.
Mmmh, interesting. I like it. Thanks Jason!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also do remember, the feat in the playtest is for getting a whole bunch of people to become your friend at once (Make an Impression), it doesn't involve making a Request, or in this case a bespoke action to corral panicked folks as Jason described.
Also do remember, the feat in the playtest is for getting a whole bunch of people to become your friend at once (Make an Impression), it doesn't involve making a Request, or in this case a bespoke action to corral panicked folks as Jason described.
Yep, I wasn't remembering the feat correctly, I was under the impression you essentially needed it for anything involving more than 1 person... sorry guys!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe Jason just "rolled with it", aka, GM fiat. People were desperate and willing to hear the charismatic goblin, maybe?I think this thread will need renaming...
Another one - Diplomacy apparently doesn't affect a single person anymore (this is great news for me). Unless Qundle has a related skill feat, but I doubt that.More of a situational thing and less of a rules as written thing. Making a call to a bunch of panicked folks might get some of them to do what you ask. In a tighter narrative scene, doing that to any effect would require a feat or not have any sort of binding effect.
Narratively it made sense for that moment.. which is a flexibility given to the GM.
Which is something I'm looking for and I believe it's an improvement of 1e. Unless the GM is trying to ruin the fun, the same set of rules to both players and GM doesn't make sense nowadays and leads to a broken set of rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe Jason just "rolled with it", aka, GM fiat. People were desperate and willing to hear the charismatic goblin, maybe?I think this thread will need renaming...
Another one - Diplomacy apparently doesn't affect a single person anymore (this is great news for me). Unless Qundle has a related skill feat, but I doubt that.More of a situational thing and less of a rules as written thing. Making a call to a bunch of panicked folks might get some of them to do what you ask. In a tighter narrative scene, doing that to any effect would require a feat or not have any sort of binding effect.
Narratively it made sense for that moment.. which is a flexibility given to the GM.
Wait, so, those feats still exist? Oh... for me this is probably the first bad news we got post-playtest after a sea of good things. I don't know, having those feats just felt really bad and their existance felt restrictive to the other characters (the ones that didn't have them).
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, so, those feats still exist? Oh... for me this is probably the first bad news we got post-playtest after a sea of good things. I don't know, having those feats just felt really bad and their existance felt restrictive to the other characters (the ones that didn't have them).I believe Jason just "rolled with it", aka, GM fiat. People were desperate and willing to hear the charismatic goblin, maybe?I think this thread will need renaming...
Another one - Diplomacy apparently doesn't affect a single person anymore (this is great news for me). Unless Qundle has a related skill feat, but I doubt that.More of a situational thing and less of a rules as written thing. Making a call to a bunch of panicked folks might get some of them to do what you ask. In a tighter narrative scene, doing that to any effect would require a feat or not have any sort of binding effect.
Narratively it made sense for that moment.. which is a flexibility given to the GM.
Even in the playtest, and even assuming Make an Impression (Request, as above, is not part of the Group Impression feat), it's the difference between these scenarios:
1) Alice is trained in Diplomacy and is high level with a good bonus. She circulates through a room full of 20 diplomats over the course of about a half hour to an hour, and by the end, every person in the room went from not knowing Alice to being her friend.
2) Bob is legendary with Group Impression. In just a minute or two, the entire room is Bob's friend, as Bob can simultaneously schmooze with every single one of them.
What Bob has done feels more like something special that wouldn't be available to a basic trained character in most situations, though Alice's route is still available and in most cases gets the job done just as easily.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
AHA! I knew Jason wouldn’t leave me without dying rules for long!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even in the playtest, and even assuming Make an Impression (Request, as above, is not part of the Group Impression feat), it's the difference between these scenarios:
1) Alice is trained in Diplomacy and is high level with a good bonus. She circulates through a room full of 20 diplomats over the course of about a half hour to an hour, and by the end, every person in the room went from not knowing Alice to being her friend.
2) Bob is legendary with Group Impression. In just a minute or two, the entire room is Bob's friend, as Bob can simultaneously schmooze with every single one of them.
What Bob has done feels more like something special that wouldn't be available to a basic trained character in most situations, though Alice's route is still available and in most cases gets the job done just as easily.
Well, in this case I do not necessarily agree with the design choice, I don't think this is the kind of thing that should require a feat, but thanks for the explanation Mark :). Although, Group Impression isn't the one that bothered me the most, Quick Intimidation was. I hope at least this one is either gone or changed, because having a set minimal time for Coercing someone and needing a feat to reduce that was... pretty weird, RP-wise.
Well, in this case I do not necessarily agree with the design choice, I don't think this is the kind of thing that should require a feat, but thanks for the explanation Mark :). Although, Group Impression isn't the one that bothered me the most, Quick Intimidation was. I hope at least this one is either gone or changed, because having a set minimal time for Coercing someone and needing a feat to reduce that was... pretty weird, RP-wise.Even in the playtest, and even assuming Make an Impression (Request, as above, is not part of the Group Impression feat), it's the difference between these scenarios:
1) Alice is trained in Diplomacy and is high level with a good bonus. She circulates through a room full of 20 diplomats over the course of about a half hour to an hour, and by the end, every person in the room went from not knowing Alice to being her friend.
2) Bob is legendary with Group Impression. In just a minute or two, the entire room is Bob's friend, as Bob can simultaneously schmooze with every single one of them.
What Bob has done feels more like something special that wouldn't be available to a basic trained character in most situations, though Alice's route is still available and in most cases gets the job done just as easily.
The good thing is that with actions and activities clearly defined, it's much easier for your group to just (to keep using the playtest Group Impression as an example) go into Make an Impression and change one creature to 25 creatures (or more than 25 if you like), removing the feat from the list of options (or if you go with 25 for basic, increasing the feat to be more than 25).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't catch this episode, but I might just stop trying since I am mostly looking forward to mechanical spoilers to try to excite people locally for PF2.
Great work on this thread everyone ^^ it is very much appreciated.
I joined in for the same reason, but to be honest, after the end of today's episode I'm hooked to the story as well. I would strongly recommend watching if you have the time.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, in this case I do not necessarily agree with the design choice, I don't think this is the kind of thing that should require a feat, but thanks for the explanation Mark :). Although, Group Impression isn't the one that bothered me the most, Quick Intimidation was. I hope at least this one is either gone or changed, because having a set minimal time for Coercing someone and needing a feat to reduce that was... pretty weird, RP-wise.Even in the playtest, and even assuming Make an Impression (Request, as above, is not part of the Group Impression feat), it's the difference between these scenarios:
1) Alice is trained in Diplomacy and is high level with a good bonus. She circulates through a room full of 20 diplomats over the course of about a half hour to an hour, and by the end, every person in the room went from not knowing Alice to being her friend.
2) Bob is legendary with Group Impression. In just a minute or two, the entire room is Bob's friend, as Bob can simultaneously schmooze with every single one of them.
What Bob has done feels more like something special that wouldn't be available to a basic trained character in most situations, though Alice's route is still available and in most cases gets the job done just as easily.
Yeah, it seems like a feat tax to be capable of public speaking. Addressing a crowd and making an impression is a pretty standard thing, and shouldn't be feat locked. I could see it as a bonus, but as a requirement? That feels bad. I'm in favor of lifting feat-gates for common activities in general.
Ghouls appear to have a reaction they can use when they drop someone to 0 that allows them to rend the flesh (and eat it) of a nearby down creature.
Hero points have changed: 1 point allows a reroll of a d20, while all your hero points (minimum 1) allows you to recover from dying - putting you at zero and unconscious - without gaining the wounded condition.
That's a pretty big deal. In the playtest, the only use of hero points I saw was as a Get out of Death Free card. It was the cheapest use, and by far the most powerful. All of the hero point costs in the playtest felt backwards. Also, I like how it apparently doesn't get you up out of unconsciousness. Before there was too much of a Chumbawumba effect ("I get knocked down, I get up again...") It made the death and dying rules kind of pointless, because a hero point would be spent to ignore it and just get right back up.
Although the use all you have, minimum 1, seems to add some weird incentives. The more you've been holding on to the points, the less useful they are. I'm not sure I like that.
Wait, so, those feats still exist? Oh... for me this is probably the first bad news we got post-playtest after a sea of good things. I don't know, having those feats just felt really bad and their existance felt restrictive to the other characters (the ones that didn't have them).I believe Jason just "rolled with it", aka, GM fiat. People were desperate and willing to hear the charismatic goblin, maybe?I think this thread will need renaming...
Another one - Diplomacy apparently doesn't affect a single person anymore (this is great news for me). Unless Qundle has a related skill feat, but I doubt that.More of a situational thing and less of a rules as written thing. Making a call to a bunch of panicked folks might get some of them to do what you ask. In a tighter narrative scene, doing that to any effect would require a feat or not have any sort of binding effect.
Narratively it made sense for that moment.. which is a flexibility given to the GM.
Even in the playtest, and even assuming Make an Impression (Request, as above, is not part of the Group Impression feat), it's the difference between these scenarios:
1) Alice is trained in Diplomacy and is high level with a good bonus. She circulates through a room full of 20 diplomats over the course of about a half hour to an hour, and by the end, every person in the room went from not knowing Alice to being her friend.
2) Bob is legendary with Group Impression. In just a minute or two, the entire room is Bob's friend, as Bob can simultaneously schmooze with every single one of them.
What Bob has done feels more like something special that wouldn't be available to a basic trained character in most situations, though Alice's route is still available and in most cases gets the job done just as easily.
Is this an actual example from your War of the Crown game? I'm curious because needing to simultaneously Make an Impression on entire group doesn't seem relevant in most adventures. Your example is a valid one, but I can't think of many more like it, and the ability only provides a major boon to Bob over Alice if they actually have a time crunch to prevent a more gradual schmoozing. And often when those sorts of time crunches are present, narrative solutions like Jason used in the stream seem like they would work better at factoring the context of whatever is causing the time pressure in the first place.
I am beginning to see the appeal of having such a feat. Kad from Red Flags probably would have had it, with his magnetic personality attracting entire crowds and keeping them hooked on his every word. That's fun and flavorful, certainly. I'm less clear on how it is generally useful beyond a very small subset of campaigns.
Edit: Your point about how easy it is to house rule is well made though. I've already done some of what you described and it isn't hard.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it seems like a feat tax to be capable of public speaking. Addressing a crowd and making an impression is a pretty standard thing, and shouldn't be feat locked. I could see it as a bonus, but as a requirement? That feels bad. I'm in favor of lifting feat-gates for common activities in general.
I don't really see it as fundamentally different from "no matter how good you are at thievery, picking pockets requires a skill feat". Sure, most masters of thievery will be able to pick pockets, but if I want to play someone who is just good at locks and mechanical devices who will not and cannot pick pockets I can just skip that feat.
Like "public speaking" and "person-to-person persuasion" seem just as different (though related) as "picking locks" and "picking pockets."
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it seems like a feat tax to be capable of public speaking. Addressing a crowd and making an impression is a pretty standard thing, and shouldn't be feat locked. I could see it as a bonus, but as a requirement? That feels bad. I'm in favor of lifting feat-gates for common activities in general.
In fairness, most public speaking takes significantly more than one minute to effect everyone you speak to.
Frankly, I don't think using the Create An Impression rules for public speaking is usually correct. Giving speeches to win a crowd's adoration should be a different action under Diplomacy, with similar effects but a much longer time scale to do (like, at least 20 minutes, probably longer) and no cap on number of people effected. While giving orders in a high stress situation (like convincing a crowd to do X while they are panicking) should likewise be a completely different action from the listed one-on-one Diplomacy uses, or the aforementioned speeches.
Adding such actions is well within the scope of the things they can do in PF2, though very unlikely to be in the corebook. In the meantime, a GM can easily wing such things if they wish to, though codified rules would, of course, be nice.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it seems like a feat tax to be capable of public speaking. Addressing a crowd and making an impression is a pretty standard thing, and shouldn't be feat locked. I could see it as a bonus, but as a requirement? That feels bad. I'm in favor of lifting feat-gates for common activities in general.I don't really see it as fundamentally different from "no matter how good you are at thievery, picking pockets requires a skill feat". Sure, most masters of thievery will be able to pick pockets, but if I want to play someone who is just good at locks and mechanical devices who will not and cannot pick pockets I can just skip that feat.
Like "public speaking" and "person-to-person persuasion" seem just as different (though related) as "picking locks" and "picking pockets."
I agree, it isn't any different. The pick-pocket feat was also a pretty non-sensical feat tax. That's the kind of thing that should be handled by the skill, not requiring a feat to even attempt. I'm in favor of dropping those kind of things in general, unless there is a specific case. Like Battle Medic made sense, because that's something beyond what you'd expect simply from being trained in medicine. But locking someone with great thievery from picking pockets or someone with great diplomacy from talking to crowds doesn't make any sense.
Of course I'm not really happy with the Thievery skill in general. It was the least justifiable skill consolidation in the playtest. They're only included together because they're both things that require a lot of manual dexterity, rouges do a lot of both and thematically can be used to steal stuff. But it's really two very different skills being shoehorned into one. Picking pockets is just a specialized use of slight of hand, but picking locks is an entirely different skill. So if anything it would make more sense to feat-gate the lock-picking applicatins. Or split it out into two skills again.
Yeah, it seems like a feat tax to be capable of public speaking. Addressing a crowd and making an impression is a pretty standard thing, and shouldn't be feat locked. I could see it as a bonus, but as a requirement? That feels bad. I'm in favor of lifting feat-gates for common activities in general.In fairness, most public speaking takes significantly more than one minute to effect everyone you speak to.
Frankly, I don't think using the Create An Impression rules for public speaking is usually correct. Giving speeches to win a crowd's adoration should be a different action under Diplomacy, with similar effects but a much longer time scale to do (like, at least 20 minutes, probably longer) and no cap on number of people effected. While giving orders in a high stress situation (like convincing a crowd to do X while they are panicking) should likewise be a completely different action from the listed one-on-one Diplomacy uses, or the aforementioned speeches.
Adding such actions is well within the scope of the things they can do in PF2, though very unlikely to be in the corebook. In the meantime, a GM can easily wing such things if they wish to, though codified rules would, of course, be nice.
Yeah. That does make sense. It's just the phrase "Make an impression" being applied to a group, instantly brings to mind public speaking, because that's exactly what it is. So I might have jumped the gun a bit. But in game terms I can see it being a separate action, which shouldn't require a feat unless you're doing so in dramatically shorter time-frames. Likewise the crowd-control action as another type of thing to handle directing a crowd, but probably also including trying to calm or incite a mob as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I joined in for the same reason, but to be honest, after the end of today's episode I'm hooked to the story as well. I would strongly recommend watching if you have the time.I didn't catch this episode, but I might just stop trying since I am mostly looking forward to mechanical spoilers to try to excite people locally for PF2.
Great work on this thread everyone ^^ it is very much appreciated.
If the Saturday 3pm replay becomes a thing it might be worth checking out too - last week there were cast members in the chat which made it kind of cool. :)
|
If the Saturday 3pm replay becomes a thing it might be worth checking out too - last week there were cast members in the chat which made it kind of cool. :)I joined in for the same reason, but to be honest, after the end of today's episode I'm hooked to the story as well. I would strongly recommend watching if you have the time.I didn't catch this episode, but I might just stop trying since I am mostly looking forward to mechanical spoilers to try to excite people locally for PF2.
Great work on this thread everyone ^^ it is very much appreciated.
Jason has confirmed on Twitter that the 3pm Saturday replays are a scheduled thing, but he can't make any promises as to whether the cast shows up
By the way, will the villain points get into the core? Or it's stream-only thing?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ghouls appear to have a reaction they can use when they drop someone to 0 that allows them to rend the flesh (and eat it) of a nearby down creature.
Hero points have changed: 1 point allows a reroll of a d20, while all your hero points (minimum 1) allows you to recover from dying - putting you at zero and unconscious - without gaining the wounded condition.
That's a pretty big deal. In the playtest, the only use of hero points I saw was as a Get out of Death Free card. It was the cheapest use, and by far the most powerful. All of the hero point costs in the playtest felt backwards. Also, I like how it apparently doesn't get you up out of unconsciousness. Before there was too much of a Chumbawumba effect ("I get knocked down, I get up again...") It made the death and dying rules kind of pointless, because a hero point would be spent to ignore it and just get right back up.
Although the use all you have, minimum 1, seems to add some weird incentives. The more you've been holding on to the points, the less useful they are. I'm not sure I like that.
Means there's no point in hoarding them. Use them, save one for get out of death free.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ghouls appear to have a reaction they can use when they drop someone to 0 that allows them to rend the flesh (and eat it) of a nearby down creature.
Hero points have changed: 1 point allows a reroll of a d20, while all your hero points (minimum 1) allows you to recover from dying - putting you at zero and unconscious - without gaining the wounded condition.
That's a pretty big deal. In the playtest, the only use of hero points I saw was as a Get out of Death Free card. It was the cheapest use, and by far the most powerful. All of the hero point costs in the playtest felt backwards. Also, I like how it apparently doesn't get you up out of unconsciousness. Before there was too much of a Chumbawumba effect ("I get knocked down, I get up again...") It made the death and dying rules kind of pointless, because a hero point would be spent to ignore it and just get right back up.
Although the use all you have, minimum 1, seems to add some weird incentives. The more you've been holding on to the points, the less useful they are. I'm not sure I like that.
Actually I think its really great. When we used Hero Points in previous games they ONLY got used for get out death free cards. This way fixes some of my biggest annoyances with the concept. having to blow all you have left fixes the to many chances to cheat death problem and fixes my players refusing to use them for anything else. This way you can afford to use one every now and then for something other than not dying.
While I never gave out many they were always nice little rewards for doing something especially heroic.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ghouls appear to have a reaction they can use when they drop someone to 0 that allows them to rend the flesh (and eat it) of a nearby down creature.
Hero points have changed: 1 point allows a reroll of a d20, while all your hero points (minimum 1) allows you to recover from dying - putting you at zero and unconscious - without gaining the wounded condition.
That's a pretty big deal. In the playtest, the only use of hero points I saw was as a Get out of Death Free card. It was the cheapest use, and by far the most powerful. All of the hero point costs in the playtest felt backwards. Also, I like how it apparently doesn't get you up out of unconsciousness. Before there was too much of a Chumbawumba effect ("I get knocked down, I get up again...") It made the death and dying rules kind of pointless, because a hero point would be spent to ignore it and just get right back up.
Although the use all you have, minimum 1, seems to add some weird incentives. The more you've been holding on to the points, the less useful they are. I'm not sure I like that.
Actually I think its really great. When we used Hero Points in previous games they ONLY got used for get out death free cards. This way fixes some of my biggest annoyances with the concept. having to blow all you have left fixes the to many chances to cheat death problem and fixes my players refusing to use them for anything else. This way you can afford to use one every now and then for something other than not dying.
While I never gave out many they were always nice little rewards for doing something especially heroic.
Yeah, I feel like it incentivizes players to spend them on other things while keeping one in reserve in case they need it, which I like. In the PF1 game I played where we used Hero Points, everybody just saved them for Not Dying...but the party as a whole was generally pretty good about Not Dying, which meant that the situation almost never came up and they got almost entirely forgotten as the game went on. This way, people will probably use them a lot more frequently.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I feel like it incentivizes players to spend them on other things while keeping one in reserve in case they need it, which I like. In the PF1 game I played where we used Hero Points, everybody just saved them for Not Dying...but the party as a whole was generally pretty good about Not Dying, which meant that the situation almost never came up and they got almost entirely forgotten as the game went on. This way, people will probably use them a lot more frequently.
Combine that with use it or lose it for the session, and it adds more incentive for people to engage with Hero Points, even a megalixir hoarder like me. The Design Team actually had a long meeting where we iterated over numerous schemes that were slightly different from each other in subtle but strongly impactful ways, and this scheme seemed like the one most likely to incentivize fun heroics and player agency.
|
|
Quick question, although I'm not sure if it can be answered at the moment: one aspect of the playtest I really liked was different feats types having different power levels. This way, a Class feat had more impact combat-wise than a general feat and a general feat was slightly better than a skill feat.
I like that system to avoid trap choices and helps new players to know which feats are more impactful at all times.
Does 2e still keep that?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Means there's no point in hoarding them. Use them, save one for get out of death free.Ghouls appear to have a reaction they can use when they drop someone to 0 that allows them to rend the flesh (and eat it) of a nearby down creature.
Hero points have changed: 1 point allows a reroll of a d20, while all your hero points (minimum 1) allows you to recover from dying - putting you at zero and unconscious - without gaining the wounded condition.
That's a pretty big deal. In the playtest, the only use of hero points I saw was as a Get out of Death Free card. It was the cheapest use, and by far the most powerful. All of the hero point costs in the playtest felt backwards. Also, I like how it apparently doesn't get you up out of unconsciousness. Before there was too much of a Chumbawumba effect ("I get knocked down, I get up again...") It made the death and dying rules kind of pointless, because a hero point would be spent to ignore it and just get right back up.
Although the use all you have, minimum 1, seems to add some weird incentives. The more you've been holding on to the points, the less useful they are. I'm not sure I like that.
Oh I get that, and it's probably a good design choice. It just feels weird to me, like we're being punished for being frugal. "Oh, you were being cautious and holding onto your points? Well, then it costs all three points! But Steve who blows through points like a drunken sailor only needs to spend one. Lesson: be more like Drunken Salior Steve."
But I've got a serious issue with hording resources. I go through video games with a metric ton of potions or other one-shot items I never use, because I might need it more later. So yeah, this is probably more about my neuroses than what's best for game design.
Idk, the idea of removing the conditions entirely just gives me a bad feel. Like all the tension just melts away. I hope I’m wrong...
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having actually watched through the whole thing, I noticed a rules reveal nobody has commented on:
Battle Medic now lets you perform Treat Wounds in combat/on a combat time scale. This was an obvious way to go based on the playtest but not official within it, and is potentially earth-shatteringly good in terms of doing without magical healing (it makes in-combat healing available to non-spellcasters...which is great).
It's also a really hefty chunk of healing at 1st level (2d8 is very solid), and assuming it scales well, will likely remain a valid in-combat activity. Especially if it's only one action (which seemed to be what Owen was saying, but it took place outside combat rounds and there were a few generalized confusions regarding similar things).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having actually watched through the whole thing, I noticed a rules reveal nobody has commented on:
Battle Medic now lets you perform Treat Wounds in combat/on a combat time scale. This was an obvious way to go based on the playtest but not official within it, and is potentially earth-shatteringly good in terms of doing without magical healing (it makes in-combat healing available to non-spellcasters...which is great).
It's also a really hefty chunk of healing at 1st level (2d8 is very solid), and assuming it scales well, will likely remain a valid in-combat activity. Especially if it's only one action (which seemed to be what Owen was saying, but it took place outside combat rounds and there were a few generalized confusions regarding similar things).
So you can non-magically heal people in combat quickly now? *scratches head*
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you can non-magically heal people in combat quickly now? *scratches head*
Yep, assuming you have the Feat for it (in-universe you presumably slap a bandage on 'em and maybe use smelling salts if they were unconscious). Though only once per person, since they then become Bolstered against Treat Wounds for an hour.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you can non-magically heal people in combat quickly now? *scratches head*Yep, assuming you have the Feat for it (in-universe you presumably slap a bandage on 'em and maybe use smelling salts if they were unconscious). Though only once per person, since they then become Bolstered against Treat Wounds for an hour.
Not sure how I feel about that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having actually watched through the whole thing, I noticed a rules reveal nobody has commented on:
Battle Medic now lets you perform Treat Wounds in combat/on a combat time scale. This was an obvious way to go based on the playtest but not official within it, and is potentially earth-shatteringly good in terms of doing without magical healing (it makes in-combat healing available to non-spellcasters...which is great).
It's also a really hefty chunk of healing at 1st level (2d8 is very solid), and assuming it scales well, will likely remain a valid in-combat activity. Especially if it's only one action (which seemed to be what Owen was saying, but it took place outside combat rounds and there were a few generalized confusions regarding similar things).
Battle Medic basically already does that in the playtest...?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having actually watched through the whole thing, I noticed a rules reveal nobody has commented on:
Battle Medic now lets you perform Treat Wounds in combat/on a combat time scale. This was an obvious way to go based on the playtest but not official within it, and is potentially earth-shatteringly good in terms of doing without magical healing (it makes in-combat healing available to non-spellcasters...which is great).
It's also a really hefty chunk of healing at 1st level (2d8 is very solid), and assuming it scales well, will likely remain a valid in-combat activity. Especially if it's only one action (which seemed to be what Owen was saying, but it took place outside combat rounds and there were a few generalized confusions regarding similar things).
Oh damn... Might have to play a mundane doctor as my first character just to prove if it's a viable route or not. Not sure who'd be the best class for that, probably a Rogue? Alchemist is a bit of a wishy washy in between that I'm not sure would "count" for the purpose of this experiment.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure how I feel about that.So you can non-magically heal people in combat quickly now? *scratches head*Yep, assuming you have the Feat for it (in-universe you presumably slap a bandage on 'em and maybe use smelling salts if they were unconscious). Though only once per person, since they then become Bolstered against Treat Wounds for an hour.
Feels like the John McClane approach to self-care: rub some dirt on and punch terrorists. I'm pretty solidly down with this, since I like to run a more pulpy style of game.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh damn... Might have to play a mundane doctor as my first character just to prove if it's a viable route or not. Not sure who'd be the best class for that, probably a Rogue? Alchemist is a bit of a wishy washy in between that I'm not sure would "count" for the purpose of this experiment.Having actually watched through the whole thing, I noticed a rules reveal nobody has commented on:
Battle Medic now lets you perform Treat Wounds in combat/on a combat time scale. This was an obvious way to go based on the playtest but not official within it, and is potentially earth-shatteringly good in terms of doing without magical healing (it makes in-combat healing available to non-spellcasters...which is great).
It's also a really hefty chunk of healing at 1st level (2d8 is very solid), and assuming it scales well, will likely remain a valid in-combat activity. Especially if it's only one action (which seemed to be what Owen was saying, but it took place outside combat rounds and there were a few generalized confusions regarding similar things).
Yeah, Rogue makes sense to me. Very skilled class, sneak attack flavored as the doctor's detailed understanding of anatomy.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Battle Medic basically already does that in the playtest...?
Battle Medic didn't usefully scale. Treat Wounds probably does, so this change makes things significantly better on mundane healers.
Oh damn... Might have to play a mundane doctor as my first character just to prove if it's a viable route or not. Not sure who'd be the best class for that, probably a Rogue? Alchemist is a bit of a wishy washy in between that I'm not sure would "count" for the purpose of this experiment.
Rogue's probably the right Class for that, yeah. If the scaling works out it sounds very viable.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's honestly kind of crazy to me that I have a concept I'm excited about and the first thought of what chassis to use to make it effective is a Rogue. With all the things I hated about the playtest I gotta give Paizo credit for doing a great job at making that long-maligned class very appealing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having actually watched through the whole thing, I noticed a rules reveal nobody has commented on:
Battle Medic now lets you perform Treat Wounds in combat/on a combat time scale. This was an obvious way to go based on the playtest but not official within it, and is potentially earth-shatteringly good in terms of doing without magical healing (it makes in-combat healing available to non-spellcasters...which is great).
It's also a really hefty chunk of healing at 1st level (2d8 is very solid), and assuming it scales well, will likely remain a valid in-combat activity. Especially if it's only one action (which seemed to be what Owen was saying, but it took place outside combat rounds and there were a few generalized confusions regarding similar things).
Yeah, I just finished the video just now. I'd speculated that they might be doing this, since the new Treat Wounds mechanics sounded very similar to how Battle Medic worked in the playtest from the game trade media demo.
I find myself a little concerned about scaling though, especially if it is gated behind increasing your proficiency in medicine. I do think having treat wounds bolster you for an hour is a good change-- short enough to make Battle Medic useful in multiple fights, but long enough to not make the Treat Wounds spam feel quite as ridiculous.
Any speculation on what the scaling might be?