|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the thing with Pharasma. She's also the goddess of birth and the goddess of prophecy. So, a cleric of Pharasma is just as likely to be a midwife as she is a mortician.Maybe this is getting a little bit too far off into the weeds, but IRL there's also Death Doulas and I could definitely see a worshipper of Pharasma serving their community in that role.
The International End of Life Doula Association (INELDA)
Healthline: How ‘Death Doulas’ Can Help People at the End of Their Life
Wikipedia: Death Midwife.
Makes perfect sense. I've been planning a paladin of Anubis character for PF1. I might have to end up making a Champion of Pharasma for PF2.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rogue class feat: Twin Feint, two-attack activity (two actions) that treats the target as flat-footed against the second attack.
This is a much better solution to the problem of the two weapon rogue than giving them access to one of the feats from the fighter or ranger class list. It is a way to get flatfooted without any other characters involvement, but it is a secondary attack, so it is best done with a weapon with as little MAP as possible.
Very well done design team!
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rogue class feat: Twin Feint, two-attack activity (two actions) that treats the target as flat-footed against the second attack.This is a much better solution to the problem of the two weapon rogue than giving them access to one of the feats from the fighter or ranger class list. It is a way to get flatfooted without any other characters involvement, but it is a secondary attack, so it is best done with a weapon with as little MAP as possible.
Very well done design team!
Our goal is to make cool class feats to emphasize fighting styles that are synergistic and fun for your class, and this is a good example of that. You are right on the money that using an agile weapon is a good idea for the second attack; you'll see Zel did just that!
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe this is getting a little bit too far off into the weeds, but IRL there's also Death Doulas
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not gonna lie, Twin Feint feels kind of lackluster given how prevalent the flatfooted condition is. Rogues in the playtest games I ran never had a problem inflicting it or getting it from their party members. So committing a feat to make two attacks as two actions, one of which has full penalties but gets the flatfooted that you could've gotten on both attacks by moving into a flank or, like, amping up your Intimidate skill seems like it'd be mediocre.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not gonna lie, Twin Feint feels kind of lackluster given how prevalent the flatfooted condition is. Rogues in the playtest games I ran never had a problem inflicting it or getting it from their party members. So committing a feat to make two attacks as two actions, one of which has full penalties but gets the flatfooted that you could've gotten on both attacks by moving into a flank or, like, amping up your Intimidate skill seems like it'd be mediocre.
I also hope it does a bit more. If it combines both damages into one it would already make the attack quite a bit better, but for now we only know it make the opponent flatfooted for the second one xD
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not gonna lie, Twin Feint feels kind of lackluster given how prevalent the flatfooted condition is. Rogues in the playtest games I ran never had a problem inflicting it or getting it from their party members. So committing a feat to make two attacks as two actions, one of which has full penalties but gets the flatfooted that you could've gotten on both attacks by moving into a flank or, like, amping up your Intimidate skill seems like it'd be mediocre.
Well, it costs your Feat and nothing else. Yes, if you can you're likely better off using one action to inflict Flat Footed, and you don't even need to do it at all if flanking...but it's two actions for two attacks, so when you don't have those options it's effectively free Flat Footed on the second attack.
Whether that's worth purchasing depends on what other Feats there are at 1st level (it compares very favorably with those in the playtest, IMO, with only 'You're Next' being better and that only if going Intimidate) and what Feats build on it (a complete unknown), but it is without any cost to use.
I don't think we saw Qundle actively try to escape Grapple after Durgin was Enfeebled...
I think that would be vs Fort DC (?), which isn't overtly affected by -2 to STR based rolls,
although Enfeebled might also affects Fort? (or for that matter, STR based DCs as well as rolls)
Didn't seem like Grappled effected spellcasting effects outside of Flat Check for casting failure,
although maybe there was DC penalty accounted for?, or penalties to other mechanics not relevant to Enfeeble...?
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not gonna lie, Twin Feint feels kind of lackluster given how prevalent the flatfooted condition is. Rogues in the playtest games I ran never had a problem inflicting it or getting it from their party members. So committing a feat to make two attacks as two actions, one of which has full penalties but gets the flatfooted that you could've gotten on both attacks by moving into a flank or, like, amping up your Intimidate skill seems like it'd be mediocre.Well, it costs your Feat and nothing else. Yes, if you can you're likely better off using one action to inflict Flat Footed, and you don't even need to do it at all if flanking...but it's two actions for two attacks, so when you don't have those options it's effectively free Flat Footed on the second attack.
Whether that's worth purchasing depends on what other Feats there are at 1st level (it compares very favorably with those in the playtest, IMO, with only 'You're Next' being better and that only if going Intimidate) and what Feats build on it (a complete unknown), but it is without any cost to use.
It's good for situations like in Oblivion Oath where you can't flank (and with two very backline spellcasters out of four, that's likely to be more common in Oblivion Oath, plus there's tended to be split threats and the PCs have not wanted to leave the backliners alone on one of them, so thus far Zel and Carina have rarely been in the same place). Also pretty good if the enemy is going to Deny Advantage, since they can't deny this. And just like you said, if you were already going to attack twice, this is a freebie! What works best for the rogue is pretty different than what other classes want, since the rogue was never going to be fighting with a greatsword anyway so the opportunity cost of fighting with two weapons in the first place is quite low (in fact, it's a good idea without any feats supporting it); they're looking for something to help them land sneak attack more reliably, whereas a fighter is looking for a reason for a fighter to use TWF, since unlike rogues they can't do two-hander damage with their rapier.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
A great wyrm red dragon with 39 AC fighting a hoard of 300 lvl 1 town guards.
A town guard will likely have some strength. Let's give them +4 str bonus. +1 to hit for level. +2 for being sufficiently proficient with their weapon. That's a total of +7 to hit.
They roll a natural 20 and with a +7 that's a critical miss. Except a natural 20 increases it one level, so it's just a miss. None of the lvl 1 guards would even make a dent on it.
All of that makes sense because a CR 22 dragon should roflstomp an army of lvl 1s every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
The dragon would crit every one of them unless it rolled a natural 1. At that point it just hits them normally. Again, makes sense. This is an ender of worlds dragon.
They are the thing of nightmares. Now imagine how people would view the heroes who could take one down? High level players are virtually gods from the viewpoint of an average commoner.
This.
An army of low-level soldiers can still take down significant threats (while probably suffering many casualties); but you can't just amass more archers and kill anything: some creatures are beyond that.I like this rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note, though, that 300 archers with +7 to hit fighting an ancient dragon with 37AC would land 15 hits per round. (Exactly the same as if it had 28AC.) There are going to be certain weird tipping points between 'invincible' and 'has to fight extremely cautiously to survive'.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Note, though, that 300 archers with +7 to hit fighting an ancient dragon with 37AC would land 15 hits per round. (Exactly the same as if it had 28AC.) There are going to be certain weird tipping points between 'invincible' and 'has to fight extremely cautiously to survive'.While there is an inflection point I would't think it would be that sharp, Many high power creature have some area affect capability, see breath weapon and fear aura for Dragons, have some degree of resistance to damage reducing anything done by most of those hits or can regenerate damage done.
DR is less common in PF2 though. Demons, for example, went from from having DR to lots of hit points and weaknesses.
Now, a creature could use other abilities to decimate armies while mitigating risks. Fear auras for dragons. A purple worm could pop out from the ground, strike, and pop back under all day. But there will still be these tipping points.
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also think tipping points like that can make for cool stories. "The mighty dragon decimated an army 10,000 strong, but when he attacked Archington 500 of their famed archers managed, with great losses, to drive him away."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really like the idea of the TWF feat for Rogues. I’ve been looking at how little investment I can make in getting reliable sneak attack in order to free up multiclassing feats, and a reliable first-level option is a real boon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t mean to derail and it might just be me but I have no issue with the idea (and any mechanics that enable it) of thousands of level 1 characters (an army) being able to take out a dragon or other high level nasty. It makes sense to me and is another reason that said big bads don’t blatantly rule the world (other than PCs and other high level NPCs stopping it.) Meh, different strokes I suppose.
Well, if there's always say a 5% chance that a given arrow fired by a level one character will actually hit a dragon, then if there are 100,000 archers firing, roughly 5,000 arrows will hit. That's a significant amount of damage. How many hit points does this dragon have? :-)
If there's *no* chance that an arrow fired by a level 1 character will hit, then it doesn't matter how many are firing, the dragon will just ignore it all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t mean to derail and it might just be me but I have no issue with the idea (and any mechanics that enable it) of thousands of level 1 characters (an army) being able to take out a dragon or other high level nasty. It makes sense to me and is another reason that said big bads don’t blatantly rule the world (other than PCs and other high level NPCs stopping it.) Meh, different strokes I suppose.Well, if there's always say a 5% chance that a given arrow fired by a level one character will actually hit a dragon, then if there are 100,000 archers firing, roughly 5,000 arrows will hit. That's a significant amount of damage. How many hit points does this dragon have? :-)
If there's *no* chance that an arrow fired by a level 1 character will hit, then it doesn't matter how many are firing, the dragon will just ignore it all.
Exactly. This gets down to world building but I think that that possibility would be a good reason for why the big bads have to be a little cautious and rule from the shadows most times otherwise every country would be blatantly ruled by a big bad. Armies would effectively be utterly useless against anything higher than about 12th level. Countries would be far better served by training a half dozen high level hit squads.
This isn’t the case and it’s complicated. I know that in actuality most armies aren’t made up of 1st level characters. I’d say only completely green recruits are. Most soldiers are probably in the 3rd to 4th level range. Then veterans or specialists will be even higher. Plus there’s the squad rules that probably won’t be out for 2nd edition for awhile which will also help.I’ve said in the past and I’m not backpedaling on it that PF is pretty solidly a supers game by early mid levels. But the thing is that every single living being has that potential to become that 20th level character. Now significantly less than a percent of a percent get there but there is still that spark. Which in part is why I think that thousands of people, even if they’re level 1, should at least have a chance even if it’s a really small one.
Yes, the plot requires the PCs to come in, throw everything out of whack and save the day. But it shouldn’t be the only way that things can be resolved.
But as I said in my 1st post this is just my opinion and I get it if the system and everyone else disagrees with me. It’s not a deal breaker. I will play regardless.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t mean to derail and it might just be me but I have no issue with the idea (and any mechanics that enable it) of thousands of level 1 characters (an army) being able to take out a dragon or other high level nasty. It makes sense to me and is another reason that said big bads don’t blatantly rule the world (other than PCs and other high level NPCs stopping it.) Meh, different strokes I suppose.Well, if there's always say a 5% chance that a given arrow fired by a level one character will actually hit a dragon, then if there are 100,000 archers firing, roughly 5,000 arrows will hit. That's a significant amount of damage. How many hit points does this dragon have? :-)
If there's *no* chance that an arrow fired by a level 1 character will hit, then it doesn't matter how many are firing, the dragon will just ignore it all.
So, slight matter of design philosophy here and the role that the rules play in a given narrative. Should the rules exist to represent the world or should they exist to represent the world from the player perspective.
Neither are wrong but, similarly, neither are absolute.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t mean to derail and it might just be me but I have no issue with the idea (and any mechanics that enable it) of thousands of level 1 characters (an army) being able to take out a dragon or other high level nasty. It makes sense to me and is another reason that said big bads don’t blatantly rule the world (other than PCs and other high level NPCs stopping it.) Meh, different strokes I suppose.Well, if there's always say a 5% chance that a given arrow fired by a level one character will actually hit a dragon, then if there are 100,000 archers firing, roughly 5,000 arrows will hit. That's a significant amount of damage. How many hit points does this dragon have? :-)
If there's *no* chance that an arrow fired by a level 1 character will hit, then it doesn't matter how many are firing, the dragon will just ignore it all.
So, slight matter of design philosophy here and the role that the rules play in a given narrative. Should the rules exist to represent the world or should they exist to represent the world from the player perspective.
Neither are wrong but, similarly, neither are absolute.
Yeah, I would never put dice anywhere near this scenario anyways, unless the PCs somehow rule a kingdom that can field 100,000 (lol) archers and even then I'd wonder why they aren't just fighting the thing themselves. It's a fun thought experiment but the designers aren't losing their sleeps over getting this wrong.
To make it a bit more thematic, how did it go for Golarion when the Spawns of Rovagug were running around? This wasn't the strat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if there's always say a 5% chance that a given arrow fired by a level one character will actually hit a dragon, then if there are 100,000 archers firing, roughly 5,000 arrows will hit. That's a significant amount of damage. How many hit points does this dragon have? :-)
If there's *no* chance that an arrow fired by a level 1 character will hit, then it doesn't matter how many are firing, the dragon will just ignore it all.
Umm... That's not how percentages work according to your phrasing (in italics & bold above), is it?
What "...a 5% chance that a given arrow fired by a level one character will actually hit..." means is that each arrow will only have a 5% chance to hit (& would, thus, be of almost neglible concern to the dragon).
For your numbers to work (5,000 of 100,000), it would have to be "5% of total arrows fired" (in a given situation).
Right??
Either way the dragon likely has some sort of resistance, so those archers may hit, but likely will do little damage. Thus adventurers
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
What "...a 5% chance that a given arrow fired by a level one character will actually hit..." means is that each arrow will only have a 5% chance to hit (& would, thus, be of almost neglible concern to the dragon).
For your numbers to work (5,000 of 100,000), it would have to be "5% of total arrows fired" (in a given situation).
Right??
Those two things sound the same to me. If each arrow has 5% chance to hit, then on average 5% of total arrows fired will hit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the biggest effect of the new nat 1/nat 20 rule will come in combination with the lack of a proficiency bonus for untrained skills.
I highly doubt that I'll run games where a PC's attack roll will still miss even on a nat 20. However, I could see a high-level Athletics check or Diplomacy roll being beyond the capacity of somebody who didn't invest in the skill.
That is admittedly not different from 1st edition, but it is different from the playtest rules.
Yeah, um, seems like removing ANY chance for minimal efficacy for characters/monsters "below this height", explicitly in the name of "world building" will either put a hard ceiling on what "troop" mechanics can do if consistency is a goal.
But I'm not quite sure on the mechanics, I understand Nat20 increasing result by 1 would mean if Nat20 is CritFail then it is only a normal Fail? Which would impose SOME absolute cut-off threshold. Or what?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if there's always say a 5% chance that a given arrow fired by a level one character will actually hit a dragon, then if there are 100,000 archers firing, roughly 5,000 arrows will hit. That's a significant amount of damage. How many hit points does this dragon have? :-)
If there's *no* chance that an arrow fired by a level 1 character will hit, then it doesn't matter how many are firing, the dragon will just ignore it all.
Umm... That's not how percentages work according to your phrasing (in italics & bold above), is it?
What "...a 5% chance that a given arrow fired by a level one character will actually hit..." means is that each arrow will only have a 5% chance to hit (& would, thus, be of almost neglible concern to the dragon).
For your numbers to work (5,000 of 100,000), it would have to be "5% of total arrows fired" (in a given situation).
Right??
Well, I didn't intend to, as the person to who I was replying said he also didn't intend to, derail the thread. But a 5% chance to hit means that the arrow will hit 5% of the time. If you fire 100,000 times, then on average 5000 arrows will hit. OTOH, my study of statistics was more than 50 years ago, so maybe I'm wrong. <shrug>
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, Ed, you are correct. I... actually can't really make heads or tails of what Seventh Seal is saying at all?
But 100,000 people all firing with a 5% chance of hitting definitely results in an average of 5,000 hits.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, um, seems like removing ANY chance for minimal efficacy for characters/monsters "below this height", explicitly in the name of "world building" will either put a hard ceiling on what "troop" mechanics can do if consistency is a goal.
Sure, but a pretty high cap if they're good at their job. Aiding others can provide a +4 (that's on a crit success, but with enough people trying...). That caps 1st level enemies at around +10 (since they have +6 or so for the most part), meaning you need ACs of 40 to be invulnerable to 1st level characters. That lets 1st level characters have a chance against a Marilith's AC 39 (a level 17 foe).
That's all with playtest rules, but the 'cutoff point' is so ridiculously high that it makes little difference in practice the vast majority of the time, and I doubt that'll substantially change in the final version of the game.
But I'm not quite sure on the mechanics, I understand Nat20 increasing result by 1 would mean if Nat20 is CritFail then it is only a normal Fail? Which would impose SOME absolute cut-off threshold. Or what?
This is substantially correct. What's confusing you?
It looks like SeventhSeal has confused combinations and permutations.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gonna have to disagree with you on some points, Raylyheh. Or at the very least offer up a different perspective.
Exactly. This gets down to world building but I think that that possibility would be a good reason for why the big bads have to be a little cautious and rule from the shadows most times instead of every country being blatantly ruled by a big bad.
Well, first off, Golarion seems to have gone through periods where quite a lot of it was ruled by big bads. Thassilon splits at least all of Varisia up between 7 20th level wizards, and they were not the only super power of their age. The main reason this isn't the status quo still is because Earthfall wiped out those empires.
Thassilon is also a telling example, IMO, because the main thing keeping the Runelords in check was the other Runelords. That serves as a pretty plausible explanation in any era; top tier beings may not need to worry about the low level beings teaming up against them, but they DO need to worry about high level beings teaming up against them.
Armies would effectively be utterly useless against anything higher than about 12th level. Countries would be far better served by training a half dozen high level hit squads.
You are correct... as far as murdering lone high level beings goes. But a standing army is much more effective for most other tasks a nation may need. You can't hold territory or enforce rule of law with a half dozen characters across an entire country. Armies are certainly well served to have elite units to deal with the toughest creatures or tasks, and most credible forces have them. This dovetails nicely with adventure design and leveling up your PCs. Your party is going to start by fighting the dregs of the evil army, then move onto its disciplined rank and file, then specialized units, and finally go after the leaders and their elite bodyguards and such.
Also, there's an assumption here that you CAN just train up a few soldiers to high level. More on that below...
But the thing is that every single living being has that potential to become that 20th level character. Now significantly less than a percent of a percent get there but there is still that spark.
I'm not actually sure this is true. PCs all have the potential to reach 20th level, but they are meant to be exceptional members of their world, not he rule. It raises questions about how XP works, for example. There's not really a consistent rhyme or reason between how completing certain tasks will not only make you better at those tasks but also completely unrelated tasks. I don't think you can just take a random soldier or commoner and have them do 100 push ups, 100 situps, and 100 squats EVERY SINGLE DAY and expect them to hit 20th level. Finding the people who have that potential to unlock strikes me as harder than you seem to think.
Which in part is why it think that thousands of people, even if they’re level 1, should at least have a chance even if it’s a really small one.
Yes, the plot requires the PCs to come in, throw everything out of whack and save the day. But it shouldn’t be the only way that things can be resolved.
I feel like there's lots of ways to resolve it that neither involves PCs or breaks the level barriers. Which is not to say you can't break the level barriers and add one more way to resolve this stuff... But you can also just have enough high level creatures to keep each other in check.
I get it. I’m wrong. Nough said...
I get it. I’m wrong. Nough said...
If it makes you feel better, I also would have preferred it the other way around. These experiments are pretty silly! RPG systems like these aren't designed for realism in such edge cases and although what Morgan says is completely true, I feel it's a coincidence more than anything. The lv1 vs lv20 debacle having huge world-building implications is pretty overblown but have seen the example used for years.
PF2 is design seems very laser focused on proving the best experience only when facing roughly level appropriate challenges, going out of bounds breaks a lot of things.I wonder if this argument is what caused that rule change from the playtest. I was on board with it just because the +1 tier is more elegant design, not because of this implication.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was in favor of changing it to "one extra step of success/failure" entirely because that's easier to state and a GM shouldn't be running scenarios where a 20 doesn't succeed or a 1 doesn't fail anyway- if things are that lopsided, there's no need for dice.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love the Twin Feint. Yes, IDEALLY you shouldn’t need it, but in play, it can be real hard to have your sneak always apply. There’s a reason lot of things grant Flatfoot... because lot of these are situational, or foes have ways to ignore it. More options is often better then.
That « Qundle have heal spells and ALSO have a halo of light » revelation was pretty epic. I like how these battles are very dynamic and players have lot of different choices of actions, even only at lvl 1. :3
And in a scenario of army vs big bad, there could be scaled up troop rules for an army... and it should (if the players are involved though... as a DM, I’d just hand wave the result to an appropriate one). Yeah, I’m not rolling for 1000 NPCs that may or may not even have levels.
Even if it’s better to have universal rules, it’s not really doable in every situations. For extreme cases, it’s very acceptable to have different/special rules.
TBH, I think that last discussion should be moved to its own thread though. There, it could become more constructive I think, and it could be fun trying to find rules that could work for that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you can just take a random soldier or commoner and have them do 100 push ups, 100 situps, and 100 squats EVERY SINGLE DAY and expect them to hit 20th level.
You forgot the 10km run and not using AC the whole time to train your mind :-P
That's actually a perfect example for a PC. Saitama (aka One Punch Man) did a workout that is, for the most part, totally normal. And yet, after doing that workout for 3 years he is the most powerful hero on the planet, stronger even than hero's that have been doing it for years, decades even.
So no, not everyone in Golarion (or any other world you play in) can become a 20th level whatever. Heck, most probably won't break second level. The people running the towns that have a 5th level write up are pretty exceptional themselves...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't this supposed to be about rules reveals??
Not trying to be disrespectful but everytime I check back in on these threads they are way too derailed to even make sense of what is going on.
22 CR Dragon?? 10,000 arrows ?? Huh???
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So no, not everyone in Golarion (or any other world you play in) can become a 20th level whatever. Heck, most probably won't break second level. The people running the towns that have a 5th level write up are pretty exceptional themselves...
This is a vast exaggeration for Golarion (it's much more true for some other settings).
The general point that most people will never reach 20th level and NPCs do not gain XP like PCs is true and well taken, but it's been well established that 2nd level is perhaps the default level of an adult professional in Golarion (the default farmer is 2nd level), with up to 5th or 6th level not at all uncommon or exceptional beyond the 'best blacksmith in the village' or 'he's the sheriff' level, especially in NPC Classes.
I did a whole thread on level demographics a long time ago, and I've kept an eye on published town populations and the like, and most hew fairly close to the numbers I present therein.
I really just want to leave this be but Saitama, really? The entire point of his character is the inherent comedy and ennui of his situation. Most of what’s interesting going on in that manga and the anime involves the supporting caste. I see little if any relevance he has here.
I admit that I haven’t GMed PF and I’ve only played in 2 APs but very few NPCs I ever dealt with even at low levels were level 1. Admittedly many of them only had NPC class levels but I seriously got the impression that almost no one stayed at 1st level their entire life.
But if you guys are absolutely sure that the world of Golarion runs entirely on the PC’s power tripped whims whatever. I’m over it.
Edit: partially ninja’d.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that most people are level 1, just suggesting that not all of them have the potential to hit 20. Some NPCs do. Many rulers of nations are high level.
But yeah, we are drifting pretty far off topic.
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Selections from today's replay chat (I think I caught all of the rules content):
.
.
.
JasonBulmahn: Restrained is the more extreme version of grappled.. its what happens when you get a critical success on your check.
JasonBulmahn: @kafaldsbylur [Twin Feint] is a feat choice iirc
JasonBulmahn: It was one of our design drives for the final version, to give different feels for classic fighting styles, based on class. Rangers, fighters, and rogues all fight a bit differently
Chemlak: One question, Jason, important for me personally, can a fighter effectively two-weapon fight?
JasonBulmahn: @Chemlak I think so
JasonBulmahn: And this was the point where I realized we wouldn't have the opportunity to show off the rules for breaking a grapple. They are not too complicated
danielmerceless: Wait, so you don't need to have a PhD in quantum physics to break a grapple? What kind of game is that?
JasonBulmahn: @danielmercelessNope, it is just a Athletics check, Acrobotics check, or an unarmed attack vs the grappler's Fort DC.
JasonBulmahn: A critical success lets you break free and step, a success lets you break free, failure does nothing, and crit failure means you can't try again that round.
danielmerceless: Can you also use an unarmed attack to Grapple? Or only to break a grapple?
JasonBulmahn: @danielmercelessYou can use an unarmed attack to fight your way out.
danielmerceless: I'm still wondering if there is any disadvantage to using Battle Medic out of combat instead of the 10-minute normal Treat Wounds
JasonBulmahn: @danielmercelessYou can only use Battle Medic on a creature 1/day
dranzior_: is there a limit on how much she can pray to regain focus?
JasonBulmahn: @dranzior_ Nope.. just time
JasonBulmahn: Although there are a few restrictions on how that can be done, we just have not run into them yet
Interesting... I'm still curious if Enfeebled penalty would also apply to Fort DC to escape, given it uses CON not STR and is a flat DC not a check. From what we know Enfeebled applies to STR-derived checks, but it doesn't seem strange to imagine it also applies to flat DCs (derived from STR-check), even if including CON-derived Fort Save-as-DC would be a further step. Given Fort seems to be used for alot more stuff, it seems reasonable it would be conditionally boosted/penalized by alot more stuff as well, even if not always tracking STR 1:1.
That was my verisimilitude button speaking, FYI. ;-)
Maybe it's just me thinking P1E Grapple process wasn't that complicated, but I don't understand what they fundamentally changed from that description. Using Athletics instead of CMB and Fort instead of CMD doesn't change process. Allowing Unarmed Strike in addition to Acrobatics as alternate Escape option doesn't change process. The Crit Success/Failure effects doesn't change process, albeit 3x action economy change does affect dynamic somewhat. Grappled/Restrained doesn't sound appreciably different from Grappled/Pinned. Not complaining about any of the changes, and using better wording/presentation is certainly great, but it doesn't feel like "no more phD in quantum physics" level of drastic change. /shrug
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting... I'm still curious if Enfeebled penalty would also apply to Fort DC to escape, given it uses CON not STR and is a flat DC not a check. From what we know Enfeebled applies to STR-derived checks, but it doesn't seem strange to imagine it also applies to flat DCs (derived from STR-check), even if including CON-derived Fort Save-as-DC would be a further step. Given Fort seems to be used for alot more stuff, it seems reasonable it would be conditionally boosted/penalized by alot more stuff as well, even if not always tracking STR 1:1.
That was my verisimilitude button speaking, FYI. ;-)
Maybe it's just me thinking P1E Grapple process wasn't that complicated, but I don't understand what they fundamentally changed from that description. Using Athletics instead of CMB and Fort instead of CMD doesn't change process. Allowing Unarmed Strike in addition to Acrobatics as alternate Escape option doesn't change process. The Crit Success/Failure effects doesn't change process, albeit 3x action economy change does affect dynamic somewhat. Grappled/Restrained doesn't sound appreciably different from Grappled/Pinned. Not complaining about any of the changes, and using better wording/presentation is certainly great, but it doesn't feel like "no more phD in quantum physics" level of drastic change. /shrug
Trust me, PF1 grapple may seem simple when you pull back, but it is full of corner cases. In my Ask Mark stream, we managed to go like 40 minutes on grapple corner cases I knew about ahead of time, plus like a dozen question from community members in the chat, plus someone had four or so more online afterwards that I had to answer today. And there were reasonable questions like "What about rake?" not contrived corner cases.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little disappointed to hear Battle Medic still bolsters your target for the day. I liked the idea of Battle Medic just letting you Treat Wounds faster. Now I'll have to continue with my idea that Battle Medic is hitting someone with a shot of adrenaline that would make their heart explode if they took it more than once a day.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little disappointed to hear Battle Medic still bolsters your target for the day. I liked the idea of Battle Medic just letting you Treat Wounds faster. Now I'll have to continue with my idea that Battle Medic is hitting someone with a shot of adrenaline that would make their heart explode if they took it more than once a day.
I like to think of it like that: Battle Medic is you trying to bandage up some wounds very quickly in the middle of a clutch situation. It definitely helps, but there's only so much you can do this way. If you want to further help that person recover, you actually need to take the time to examine wounds and treat them more carefully. It makes sense to me.
(Also from a balance perspective Battle Medic just letting you treat wounds 100 times faster with no drawbacks or extra restrictions would probably be too much for a level 1 Skill Feat.)
I'm a little disappointed to hear Battle Medic still bolsters your target for the day. I liked the idea of Battle Medic just letting you Treat Wounds faster. Now I'll have to continue with my idea that Battle Medic is hitting someone with a shot of adrenaline that would make their heart explode if they took it more than once a day.I like to think of it like that: Battle Medic is you trying to bandage up some wounds very quickly in the middle of a clutch situation. It definitely helps, but there's only so much you can do this way. If you want to further help that person recover, you actually need to take the time to examine wounds and treat them more carefully. It makes sense to me.
(Also from a balance perspective Battle Medic just letting you treat wounds 100 times faster with no drawbacks or extra restrictions would probably be too much for a level 1 Skill Feat.)
OTOH, it doesn't really make sense that once you've bandaged up the wound they took to their left arm in the first fight, you won't be able to do anything about the wound to the leg they got in the second fight.
But hey, it's an abstraction for balance reasons. I'm happy with it.
Agreed but what i am wondering is how will battle medic scale up, will it scale normally or there will be feats to also make it more reliable?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little disappointed to hear Battle Medic still bolsters your target for the day. I liked the idea of Battle Medic just letting you Treat Wounds faster. Now I'll have to continue with my idea that Battle Medic is hitting someone with a shot of adrenaline that would make their heart explode if they took it more than once a day.I like to think of it like that: Battle Medic is you trying to bandage up some wounds very quickly in the middle of a clutch situation. It definitely helps, but there's only so much you can do this way. If you want to further help that person recover, you actually need to take the time to examine wounds and treat them more carefully. It makes sense to me.
(Also from a balance perspective Battle Medic just letting you treat wounds 100 times faster with no drawbacks or extra restrictions would probably be too much for a level 1 Skill Feat.)
OTOH, it doesn't really make sense that once you've bandaged up the wound they took to their left arm in the first fight, you won't be able to do anything about the wound to the leg they got in the second fight.
But hey, it's an abstraction for balance reasons. I'm happy with it.
These are valid points. I just liked the idea of Battle Medic working in a way that was easier to understand in fiction and out-- having it just be "Treat Wounds but faster" is very easy to explain. Hopefully it either scales up with proficiency or a later feat allows for it?
|
|
I'm a little disappointed to hear Battle Medic still bolsters your target for the day. I liked the idea of Battle Medic just letting you Treat Wounds faster. Now I'll have to continue with my idea that Battle Medic is hitting someone with a shot of adrenaline that would make their heart explode if they took it more than once a day.
Totally stealing that adrenaline description ^^
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be portraying it as a hasty fix that trades immediate problems for ones that need some time to recover from. Try it again before they've had a chance to recover from the first time, and you're just doing as much damage as you're fixing.