Rules Reveals from the Oblivion Oath Twitch game! (was sleepy sea cat)


Second Edition

151 to 200 of 650 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Captain Morgan wrote:
Any speculation on what the scaling might be?

I tried to make one, and linear increases become ridiculous really fast (up to 30d6 for Legendary medics, if you wanted to keep the proportion). However, considering a "double healing on crit" rule, with DC and healing value being tied to proficiency, each level increases the average healing received because of more frequent crits, so that gives us a bottom range for proficiency increases.

That can be used to plot a graph and create a progression... I am still working on it because I want to tune it right, but in general, expect level 1 healing (and the first level of each new rank) to be an anomaly.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Meraki wrote:


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.

Neat change, I am having a hard time finding something about it I dislike, except worrying about the way those points are handed out but that is another issue.

Of course, you are right to save your megalixiers, they are usually limited or expensive and you might need them for the next boss ^^

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Saedar wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Rysky wrote:
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.
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.

Considering how often he had to step on broken glass, I am curious about the final rules for something like caltrops ^^

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Rysky wrote:
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.

I like it very much. I feel it follows the design philosophy of making simple systems available but also easy to remove without unbalancing the rest of the game.

I am very happy that healer might not require caster anymore. And anyone who does not like this flavour just removes the feat, or increases its rarity.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Jason, another great session! I lost interest in the 2nd edition during the playtest process, but watching Oblivion Oath (and that shorter, one-shot desert temple session) has rekindled my excitement for the game. You're truly an inspirational GM! :)

Now, I want this campaign in published form; it that won't happen I will send my imp squad to steal it and deliver it to my grubby dwarven hands in Westcrown!

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Any speculation on what the scaling might be?

Well, we were told it involved higher Proficiency levels and higher DCs...beyond that speculation gets very speculative indeed.

Personally, I suspect it will be some number of D8s at all levels and may well have both DC-based and Proficiency based scaling to some degree (if only in the form of Critical Successes healing extra).


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I gotta say, I'm all about this non magic healing thing. I want to play an Alchemist with potions and what not, and being able to supplement that with the battle medic and tend wounds...

Di Molto

Regardless, the more I hear from this stream, the more it seems all my qualms about the playtest have been smoothed over. Except alignment, which I hold to being a dumb mechanic that should be excised from the game, at least rules wise. I mean, tenants and anathema already exist, why limit class by alignment? Anyway, I'll hop off my soapbox


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Now I want caltrops and broken glass to deal bleed damage that only stops when you use treat wounds or healing, and have it drop your speed until fully healed

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
RoastCabose wrote:
Except alignment, which I hold to being a dumb mechanic that should be excised from the game, at least rules wise. I mean, tenants and anathema already exist, why limit class by alignment? Anyway, I'll hop off my soapbox

In fairness, 10/12 Classes don't ever care about Alignment at all. And Cleric only cares about it inasmuch as it effects what God you can have. Only Champion cares about Alignment for its own sake.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

Hit points have always been an abstraction anyway, so I don't think non-magic healing is a big deal.

It's not actually like you're suddenly healing broken bones or even stopping bleeding, since those aren't hit point things anyway.

I confess I've always been partial to the Harnmaster system. No hit points. A strike does "impact points" which are reduced by armor and result in graphic wounds ("serious cut to the upper left arm") with an associated number of injury points. Successful healing rolls (generally one roll per day) reduce injury points by one or two. Physician skill improves the chance of success. There is a chance of infection, which might well kill the patient. Or result in amputation of a limb. Stopping bleeding is the first imperative. Only after that's done can you start healing. Given one healing roll per day, full healing from serious wounds can take a while. Player characters in Harnmaster tend to avoid combat when possible. Probably too gritty for Pathfinder. :-)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
I confess I've always been partial to the Harnmaster system. No hit points. A strike does "impact points" which are reduced by armor and result in graphic wounds ("serious cut to the upper left arm") with an associated number of injury points. Successful healing rolls (generally one roll per day) reduce injury points by one or two. Physician skill improves the chance of success. There is a chance of infection, which might well kill the patient. Or result in amputation of a limb. Stopping bleeding is the first imperative. Only after that's done can you start healing. Given one healing roll per day, full healing from serious wounds can take a while. Player characters in Harnmaster tend to avoid combat when possible. Probably too gritty for Pathfinder. :-)

Gee, you think? XD

J/K ;)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

It was just confirmed on the Twitch rerun: Sneak Attack damage is doubled on a critical hit. Suddenly that drop to a max of 4d6 makes more sense...

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Feros wrote:
It was just confirmed on the Twitch rerun: Sneak Attack damage is doubled on a critical hit. Suddenly that drop to a max of 4d6 makes more sense...

This has always been the case throughout the playtest. Everything doubles (except Deadly, since that's just a bonus on top of the crit).


13 people marked this as a favorite.

Why not the Paranoia system?
If you're hit, you're likely dead. You have a batch of clones. Your party members might shoot you. The Computer is your friend. A good time is mandatory.

:)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

Never played Paranoia. My friends were all too paranoid. :-)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Feros wrote:
It was just confirmed on the Twitch rerun: Sneak Attack damage is doubled on a critical hit. Suddenly that drop to a max of 4d6 makes more sense...
This has always been the case throughout the playtest. Everything doubles (except Deadly, since that's just a bonus on top of the crit).

True, it was in the Playtest. But a lot of people were asking for clarification on that during the initial stream and someone asked about it during the rerun. It needed to be answered so everyone gets it.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fair enough, I suppose. Just clarifying that the particular rule in question was not a change from the playtest like many of the things discussed here.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

What is a change is that damage is rolled once then multiplied by 2, with critical effects (like Deadly) then adding on after that.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
RoastCabose wrote:
Except alignment, which I hold to being a dumb mechanic that should be excised from the game, at least rules wise. I mean, tenants and anathema already exist, why limit class by alignment? Anyway, I'll hop off my soapbox
In fairness, 10/12 Classes don't ever care about Alignment at all. And Cleric only cares about it inasmuch as it effects what God you can have. Only Champion cares about Alignment for its own sake.

I feel that works more against alignment than for it. After all, if it was more deeply and consistently integrated then I could see it as this weird quirk of the system, where different actions and abilities are labeled with alignment, and your alignment would change based on your actions

As is stands, it affects only 2 classes, where they already have far more flavorful restrictions. Alignment pidgeon holes champions as it stands, since there can be only 9 subclasses. I'm sure arguments against alignment have been parroted over and over at this point, so I wont waste to much breath and of topic conversation on it, but alignment is one of my only big pet peeves about dnd & ilk.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
RoastCabose wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
RoastCabose wrote:
Except alignment, which I hold to being a dumb mechanic that should be excised from the game, at least rules wise. I mean, tenants and anathema already exist, why limit class by alignment? Anyway, I'll hop off my soapbox
In fairness, 10/12 Classes don't ever care about Alignment at all. And Cleric only cares about it inasmuch as it effects what God you can have. Only Champion cares about Alignment for its own sake.

I feel that works more against alignment than for it. After all, if it was more deeply and consistently integrated then I could see it as this weird quirk of the system, where different actions and abilities are labeled with alignment, and your alignment would change based on your actions

As is stands, it affects only 2 classes, where they already have far more flavorful restrictions. Alignment pidgeon holes champions as it stands, since there can be only 9 subclasses. I'm sure arguments against alignment have been parroted over and over at this point, so I wont waste to much breath and of topic conversation on it, but alignment is one of my only big pet peeves about dnd & ilk.

PF2 is designed around the idea that many systems are modules that can be kept or set aside depending on individual preferences.

Alignment is definitely one of these modules so that people who dislike it can easily play without it.

So, Alignment not being too integrated in the system is not a bug. It is a feature.

Dark Archive

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
RoastCabose wrote:
Alignment pidgeon holes champions as it stands, since there can be only 9 subclasses.

I disagree. I see no reason why Paizo couldn't double up on alignments if they found new Champion concepts, or making Champions that match multiple alignments (e.g. Hellknights in any Lawful)

Dark Archive

6 people marked this as a favorite.

People, I think discussion on this thread should be focused on Oblivion Oath and rules reveals. IMHO generic arguments about particular rule components belong to other threads, not here.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah. Let's not make this thread about alignment, please -- of all things. There are plenty of them already.

Thanks.

--C.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Just finishing up Oath session 2... Carina uses lay on hands [55:16] and it appears Zel gets +2 AC instead of the +1 AC from the playtest... its also a Focus spell (whatever that means).

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darkwynters wrote:
its also a Focus spell (whatever that means).

Focus Spells are what Powers are called in the final version of the rules

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
3Doubloons wrote:
Darkwynters wrote:
its also a Focus spell (whatever that means).
Focus Spells are what Powers are called in the final version of the rules

Yup. Spell Points are now called Focus. A Focus Spell is one you spend Focus (rather than using spell slots) in order to cast.

It's strictly a terminology change, but a good one.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Now I just need rules for warjacks. ^_^

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
3Doubloons wrote:
Darkwynters wrote:
its also a Focus spell (whatever that means).
Focus Spells are what Powers are called in the final version of the rules

Yup. Spell Points are now called Focus. A Focus Spell is one you spend Focus (rather than using spell slots) in order to cast.

It's strictly a terminology change, but a good one.

What are the non-Focus ones called? Spell spells?

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
What are the non-Focus ones called? Spell spells?

I believe, as the default form of spells, they are simply called 'Spells', with no further specification needed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
3Doubloons wrote:
Darkwynters wrote:
its also a Focus spell (whatever that means).
Focus Spells are what Powers are called in the final version of the rules

Yup. Spell Points are now called Focus. A Focus Spell is one you spend Focus (rather than using spell slots) in order to cast.

It's strictly a terminology change, but a good one.

What are the non-Focus ones called? Spell spells?

Ritual Spells, Slot Spells and Cantrip Spells.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

... as long as they abilities formerly known as Rage Powers aren't called spells I think I can manage.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
... as long as they abilities formerly known as Rage Powers aren't called spells I think I can manage.

Way I understand the PF2 paradigm, spells and magic effects are the same. So if Rage Powers are not magic, then they are not spells

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
Rysky wrote:
... as long as they abilities formerly known as Rage Powers aren't called spells I think I can manage.
Way I understand the PF2 paradigm, spells and magic effects are the same. So if Rage Powers are not magic, then they are not spells

*cautiously looks at Spirit Totem*

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

That's not quite accurate. Things that are both magical and require some sort of action to do are spells.

Always on effects, even conditional ones like 'while raging' are not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Rysky wrote:
... as long as they abilities formerly known as Rage Powers aren't called spells I think I can manage.
Way I understand the PF2 paradigm, spells and magic effects are the same. So if Rage Powers are not magic, then they are not spells
*cautiously looks at Spirit Totem*

Spirit Totem Barbarians (in the playtest) have no Focus Spells. They do however have a few semi-magical abilities they can use at will.

Note that things like Ki Strike, which are supernatural in the old version, are still considered spells. As a general rule, anything that’s not permanent or at will is going to be a focus spell.

Silver Crusade

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:

That's not quite accurate. Things that are both magical and require some sort of action to do are spells.

Always on effects, even conditional ones like 'while raging' are not.

*phew*
Ediwir wrote:
Note that things like Ki Strike, which are supernatural in the old version, are still considered spells. As a general rule, anything that’s not permanent or at will is going to be a focus spell.

*solemnly leaves flowers on the grave of the (Su) moniker*


14 people marked this as a favorite.

The good news is that Ki strike takes a single action and is cast with a Verbal component.
So it’s a Kiai.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not really fond of effective mundane healing in mid-combat, it does breaks immersion to me. At the same time, it makes parties without a dedicated healer viable, specially when said healer can be of any class, which is a nice change. Bittersweet.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Hit points have always been an abstraction anyway, so I don't think non-magic healing is a big deal.

It's not actually like you're suddenly healing broken bones or even stopping bleeding, since those aren't hit point things anyway.

I confess I've always been partial to the Harnmaster system. No hit points. A strike does "impact points" which are reduced by armor and result in graphic wounds ("serious cut to the upper left arm") with an associated number of injury points. Successful healing rolls (generally one roll per day) reduce injury points by one or two. Physician skill improves the chance of success. There is a chance of infection, which might well kill the patient. Or result in amputation of a limb. Stopping bleeding is the first imperative. Only after that's done can you start healing. Given one healing roll per day, full healing from serious wounds can take a while. Player characters in Harnmaster tend to avoid combat when possible. Probably too gritty for Pathfinder. :-)

Grab your D100s, Rolemaster or bust.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Do we know how Focus is calculated? Is it literally JUST a name change or did the math get reworked? Also, I'm real excited to get to leveling up, see if anything in that department got moved around.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
3Doubloons wrote:
Darkwynters wrote:
its also a Focus spell (whatever that means).
Focus Spells are what Powers are called in the final version of the rules

Yup. Spell Points are now called Focus. A Focus Spell is one you spend Focus (rather than using spell slots) in order to cast.

It's strictly a terminology change, but a good one.

I'm curious what the exact wording in the rulebook will be. One of my hopes is that the concept of Focus powers can be broadened to include non-magical but similarly limited daily powers for classes like fighters, rogues, and barbs. Since spells are (and should be) reserved for things you do with magic, I hope they word it so that powers can be spells, when they are based on magic, but don't necessarily have to be spells.

(Apologies if I make even less sense than is normal for me; I'm in an airport for a layover and jet-lagged as anything).


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
3Doubloons wrote:
Darkwynters wrote:
its also a Focus spell (whatever that means).
Focus Spells are what Powers are called in the final version of the rules

Yup. Spell Points are now called Focus. A Focus Spell is one you spend Focus (rather than using spell slots) in order to cast.

It's strictly a terminology change, but a good one.

I'm curious what the exact wording in the rulebook will be. One of my hopes is that the concept of Focus powers can be broadened to include non-magical but similarly limited daily powers for classes like fighters, rogues, and barbs. Since spells are (and should be) reserved for things you do with magic, I hope they word it so that powers can be spells, when they are based on magic, but don't necessarily have to be spells.

(Apologies if I make even less sense than is normal for me; I'm in an airport for a layover and jet-lagged as anything).

You mean, like the fighters/rogues/barbs could have something like a "Focus Strike/Deed/Stunt" that would cost a Focus Point, but not be a spell? ... That could actually replace the Panache/Deed/Luck mechanics of PF1...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That's exactly what I'm thinking, yes. It works well enough as Resolve in Starfinder (except it competes with your Not Dying, which is not a factor in PF2).

Heck, one of the other threads gave me an idea for one: 1 Focus point to negate Multi-attack penalties for 1 round. For when you REALLY need to curb stomp that Orc.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

That was actually something playtesters ended up brainstorming, a single archetype that granted Focus powers to martials with powers similar to the old gunslinger deeds. It'd get pretty much all panache classes at once.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
nick1wasd wrote:
Do we know how Focus is calculated? Is it literally JUST a name change or did the math get reworked? Also, I'm real excited to get to leveling up, see if anything in that department got moved around.

We don't for sure. Evidence suggests it's mostly just a name change, but they could've adjusted how it's calculated as well.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

I'm curious what the exact wording in the rulebook will be. One of my hopes is that the concept of Focus powers can be broadened to include non-magical but similarly limited daily powers for classes like fighters, rogues, and barbs. Since spells are (and should be) reserved for things you do with magic, I hope they word it so that powers can be spells, when they are based on magic, but don't necessarily have to be spells.

(Apologies if I make even less sense than is normal for me; I'm in an airport for a layover and jet-lagged as anything).

My personal suspicion is that 'non-magical Focus uses' are a very real design space that will eventually get explored, but probably not in the core rulebook.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Clerics, Druids, Monks, Paladins, Sorcerers and Wizards use Focus Spells in playtest rules, and for Monks it's an opt-in choice. For Wizards, it's a minor thing tied to Schools.
The general thought is that it'll be Charisma based, but we don't have details or confirmations.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:
The general thought is that it'll be Charisma based, but we don't have details or confirmations.

I wouldn't say this is the general thought. It's certainly a possibility but one with basically zero supporting evidence at the moment.


Alright, cards on the table - spell powers in the playtest were fueled by a pool of spell points determined by the class's key ability score, so wisdom, intelligence or charisma.
Focus in the Resonance remake was uniquely based off Charisma and fueled spell powers.
Devs have often mentioned wanting Charisma dumping to be a choice with consequences, hence the Resonance system. That got scrapped.
The options would be to have Focus either determined by charisma, fulfilling that design goal, or the main stat, allowing equal ease of use. Several testers I know believe the devs will take the first option, but there is no evidence as of yet so it could be either. I lean towards the one that solves two requirements at once.
Hope it's clearer and also explains why I believe that :)


Would "Focus points = ChaMod+OtherStatMod" be too many focus points?

For the already Cha-based classes, we could have the Sorcerer's other focus stat be determined by their bloodline, the Bard's other focus stat be determined by their muse, and just let the Paladin do Str+Cha.

More focus points seems more fun, particularly since some powers cost 2 or 3 focus to use.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Would "Focus points = ChaMod+OtherStatMod" be too many focus points?

For the already Cha-based classes, we could have the Sorcerer's other focus stat be determined by their bloodline, the Bard's other focus stat be determined by their muse, and just let the Paladin do Str+Cha.

More focus points seems more fun, particularly since some powers cost 2 or 3 focus to use.

I like that idea and I suggested that during the playtest with Wis+Cha for religion and nature casters, Int+Cha for arcane and occult casters, (maybe Cha+Con for sorcorrers because they are special). That said I'd be surprised if it happens since sum of two ability modifiers doesn't exsist anywhere else in the system.

151 to 200 of 650 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Reveals from the Oblivion Oath Twitch game! (was sleepy sea cat) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.