Should Paralyzed be alot more nastier

[Davido1000]

I just GM'd a fight where a monster was paralyzed and expected alot more than just flat-footed and a loss of all actions in a round.

I wasnt expecting a coup de grace mechanic but something that isnt moving shouldnt just be flat-footed.

I was thinking of adding onto the condition that any attack or reflex saving throws result is knocked up one step of success/failure

For example an attack that misses will be knocked up to a hit and a hit will be knocked up to a crit.

A successful reflex save from the creature will be knocked down to a failure.

What do people think?

[Lightning Raven]

I think an extra -2 AC is enough. If you think it's not, slowly increase this value. But keep in mind that having a overall -4 to AC is a huge damage increase and unlike in PF1e, having very low AC will certainly get you killed much, much faster.

[Davido1000]

Lightning Raven wrote:

I think an extra -2 AC is enough. If you think it's not, slowly increase this value. But keep in mind that having a overall -4 to AC is a huge damage increase and unlike in PF1e, having very low AC will certainly get you killed much, much faster.

Being unable to move and defend yourself usually does lead to you getting big damage so i dont really see the problem. The Incapacitation tag on all spells and abilities that inflict paralysis means it cant be used to just melt bosses.

[Megistone]

AC is more than just evading blows, but I agree that -2 seems to be not enough for a creature that truly cannot move.
But please consider that moving the results of attacks/saves one step worse is equivalent a -10 penalty, for a total of -12. That's a lot.

[thenobledrake]

I think that paralysis typically happens more frequently, and for longer periods, to player characters than to monsters (especially with the incapacitation trait applying to most sources of paralysis).

As a result of that thought I find that setting the effects where they are now feels very punishing - basically losing your turn, and also being more likely to be hit, critically hit, or subject to additional damage for being flat-footed - for a player.

Setting the effects as more pronounced would, despite how much it might "make sense," turn any combat encounters with paralysis-inflicting monsters into PC-killers.

[Franz Lunzer]

Yep. The main effect of paralysis is and should be the loss of actions.

If you really think that's not enough, the most direct idea I had was to increase the flat-footed penalty to match the DEX bonus.

[Aratorin]

It is very odd that you don't automatically fail Reflex Saves though.

[Kendaan]

If you want to add something, maybe add Clumsy 1 or 2?

Like that you reduce AC & Ref a bit more,though you also limit to big of a numerical bonus as this wouldn't stack with other status malus.

[Lightning Raven]

Aratorin wrote:

It is very odd that you don't automatically fail Reflex Saves though.

I think that's because pose the question: Is this a failure or critical failure?

If its an automatic failure, then a petrified creature never critically fails. But if it's a critical failure, then it goes against one of the base principles of conditions on PF2e: They can be applied more easily, but they're not as terrible as before.

[Megistone]

The discussion about conditions and saves is at least a decade long. In PF1 being unconcious wasn't an auto-fail on reflex saves, for example.

About using Clumsy, that's a pretty idea.

[KrispyXIV]

While it may not match 'realistic' expectations, I think that the actual gameplay effect of Paralyzed is definitely sufficient. Its nearly complete lockdown of the target - it doesn't need to be extra insta-death.

[Gorignak227]

I have this funny mental image of the classic trope where you save the Damsel in distress who turns out to be sinister.

She gives the poisoned tea to the hero who is paralyzed but she can't quite slit his throat (even with the AC penalty) because he's too high a level for her.

[Megistone]

I guess we should picture a paralyzed creature as not completely still: it can still make some movements, but not enough to act.

[Lightning Raven]

KrispyXIV wrote:

While it may not match 'realistic' expectations, I think that the actual gameplay effect of Paralyzed is definitely sufficient. Its nearly complete lockdown of the target - it doesn't need to be extra insta-death.

I've had two characters die because of paralysis already, so I'm not exactly against the new rules. It's really rough to be helpless in PF1e and the enemy just straight up kills you with a Coup-De-Grace.

[Gorignak227]

Lightning Raven wrote:

I've had two characters die because of paralysis already, so I'm not exactly against the new rules. It's really rough to be helpless in PF1e and the enemy just straight up kills you with a Coup-De-Grace.

Ya, i always thought Coup-De-Grace was a little too easy to do in PF1.

As a GM i wouldn't do it, even if i had the chance. And if i did want to do a coup de grace like moment i would change it from a Full Round action to it taking a full actual round and have it occur at the end of the villains next turn and be disruptable.

Still feels a bit weird for paralysis in PF2 though.
It doesn't feel like "oh no Gorignak the barbarian is helpless, save him!", more like "Gorignak the (giant instinct) barbarian isn't raging anymore and actually has about the same AC as before. Don't worry about him we've got time to focus on our guys".

[Captain Morgan]

Being fully unconscious is only a net -6 to AC, so paralyzed definitely shouldn't give a worse penalty than that. It helps if you consider that part of AC is just becoming more durable as you level up.

[thenobledrake]

Gorignak227 wrote:

I have this funny mental image of the classic trope where you save the Damsel in distress who turns out to be sinister.

She gives the poisoned tea to the hero who is paralyzed but she can't quite slit his throat (even with the AC penalty) because he's too high a level for her.

That has always been, and will likely continue to always be, an issue of using combat rules outside of the intended scope of combat - not a reason to believe that combat rules need to be made exponentially more lethal.

[siegfriedliner]

Gorignak227 wrote:

I have this funny mental image of the classic trope where you save the Damsel in distress who turns out to be sinister.

She gives the poisoned tea to the hero who is paralyzed but she can't quite slit his throat (even with the AC penalty) because he's too high a level for her.

I kind of like that meta of adventurers being something semi-monstrous scaling to levels that aren't human anymore.

[CorvusMask]

I mean even in 1e you don't get reflex save penalties for being immobilized, unconscious, entangled, prone, etc...

...Yeah, lot of gm would probably rule unconsciousness as auto fail for reflex saves, but nothing in rules say you fail at it automatically. Same about how rules don't actually say you fall prone or lose your items when you die ;P Whether its intended or part of "Well duh, of course that happens" I have no clue when it comes to reflex saves

[Temperans]

When it comes to reflex saves I think its one of those, "depend on the effect" cases.

I would rule a reflex save to avoid falling of a cliff while paralyzed is an auto fail. But the same character would get a save vs fireball, to determine how badly was your body shaken by the explosion.