| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What are the oddest rules in PF-2E you have come across? I am curious about such a thing, I think mine is the fact Undead were originally immune to everything with the Healing Trait.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The name of the Attack trait. And the Errata that explicitly says that actions with the Attack trait are attacks.
Which causes the strange interaction of Escape having the Attack trait and therefore being an attack ... but probably not a Hostile Action (hard to determine for certain because Hostile Action is not well defined). But many spells don't have the Attack trait and therefore are not an attack...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The name of the Attack trait. And the Errata that explicitly says that actions with the Attack trait are attacks.
Which causes the strange interaction of Escape having the Attack trait and therefore being an attack ... but probably not a Hostile Action (hard to determine for certain because Hostile Action is not well defined). But many spells don't have the Attack trait and therefore are not an attack...
I once got my GM to accept that the invisible bad guy trying to escape my grapple lost his invisibility thanks to this Attack tag. Because Attack = Hostile.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hostile actions in general, imo. I don't think it's that bad in practice but there were a lot of interesting and weird discussions about how many degrees of separation an action needed to count as or not count as 'hostile' a few years ago.
The fact that the rule both applies to indirect actions but is also concerned with your character's understanding of their actions makes adjudicating low level invisibility kind of interesting.
The name of the Attack trait. And the Errata that explicitly says that actions with the Attack trait are attacks.
As an addendum here. That errata specifying that "attack roll" and "roll to make an attack" are distinct concepts. Lots of weird linguistic baggage just to make finesse characters worse at tripping.
|
|
The name of the Attack trait. And the Errata that explicitly says that actions with the Attack trait are attacks.As an addendum here. That errata specifying that "attack roll" and "roll to make an attack" are distinct concepts. Lots of weird linguistic baggage just to make finesse characters worse at tripping.
It was actually just clarifying that a skill check and an attack roll are not the same.
But yes, the Attack trait should be renamed.
What should it be renamed too then?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flip it?
Tripping a snake. I can understand tripping a flying creature, you somehow hit its wings/make it lose its balance. But how tf you trip a snake?!
Flip it over? I don't know. I don't know how you trip an ooze, but according to the rules you can. You can trip nearly anything except incorporeal or maybe some rare corner creature.
That's why I wish they would spend a bit more time thinking trip out or adjust it. It looks really odd in play in the mind's eye.
Maybe someone will point out an odd rule I missed where you can't trip an ooze? Anyone?
Maybe someone will point out an odd rule I missed where you can't trip an ooze? Anyone?Nope. Go ahead and have all oozes tripped as you like.
I think for myself that they still do have a sense of orientation (and disorientation).
Heh. A sense of orientation for an amorphous ooze. Ok. I just go with these things since I don't feel like writing house rules for verisimilitude.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What should it be renamed too then?
The attack trait could be renamed vigorous or strenuous. That would explain the multiple attack penalty as being from taking too many strenuous actions rather than from having trouble coordinating many attacks.
Of course, if we called the trait "strenuous," then the multiple attack penalty would be multiple strain penalty, and its acronym msp would be hard to pronounce. We could go with intense or arduous to keep a vowel in the middle of the acronym.
That Poppets can bleed.
Incorporeal.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I should probably preface this by saying that I love PF2 and think it by far the best form of D&D yet created.
Almost too many to list. Amongst their number
1) My horse is slower in combat than most PCs (2 x 40 is less than 3x30)
2) If my level 10 druid turns into a pussy cat I lose a fight (eventually) to a normal mouse. And probably can't run away from it (certainly can't run away from a giant rat)
3) My unconscious rogue can still dodge a fireball so effectively that they take no damage
4) If I'm significantly faster than an enemy (say, 35 ft vs 25 ft) I can NEVER actually hit them in a chase unless I have reactive strike.
5) The whole hit point thing. Oh, it works very well from a gaming perspective but it is REALLY strange that my level 1 character is in NO danger of dying from a goblin with a glaive hitting me in the throat (critting me)
I mean the Horse & Chase things are real...I have thought of this before.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I once got my GM to accept that the invisible bad guy trying to escape my grapple lost his invisibility thanks to this Attack tag. Because Attack = Hostile.The name of the Attack trait. And the Errata that explicitly says that actions with the Attack trait are attacks.
Which causes the strange interaction of Escape having the Attack trait and therefore being an attack ... but probably not a Hostile Action (hard to determine for certain because Hostile Action is not well defined). But many spells don't have the Attack trait and therefore are not an attack...
I assume that neither of you followed that ruling to its conclusion. That since Electric Arc doesn't have the Attack trait it is therefore not an attack and therefore not a Hostile Action and so casting it doesn't break low level Invisibility.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I assume that neither of you followed that ruling to its conclusion. That since Electric Arc doesn't have the Attack trait it is therefore not an attack and therefore not a Hostile Action and so casting it doesn't break low level Invisibility.I once got my GM to accept that the invisible bad guy trying to escape my grapple lost his invisibility thanks to this Attack tag. Because Attack = Hostile.The name of the Attack trait. And the Errata that explicitly says that actions with the Attack trait are attacks.
Which causes the strange interaction of Escape having the Attack trait and therefore being an attack ... but probably not a Hostile Action (hard to determine for certain because Hostile Action is not well defined). But many spells don't have the Attack trait and therefore are not an attack...
I'm not sure how you really argue that electric arc is not an action that harms or damages a creature.
I think they are reading Traits a little too much. I mean by that logic many spells would not break invisibility and make low-level invisibility OP and would you really want invisible PCs running around casting savign spells just to cheese the word hostile action?
That Poppets can bleed.
Incorporeal.
This puppet disagrees from you.
2) If my level 10 druid turns into a pussy cat I lose a fight (eventually) to a normal mouse. And probably can't run away from it (certainly can't run away from a giant rat)
Depending from cat and mouse this isn't so uncommon.
I think they are reading Traits a little too much. I mean by that logic many spells would not break invisibility and make low-level invisibility OP and would you really want invisible PCs running around casting savign spells just to cheese the word hostile action?
Agree but the hostile rules makes other spells like Sanctuary a bit odd to use. For example healing an ally that's fighting isn't a indirect hostile action? You are indirectly keeping your ally fighting so you are indirectly collaborating to keep the hostile action running. It's different from stabilize some dying ally that's is dying and will stay unconscious so won't be able to collaborate in battle so you are no more doing a indirect hostile action.
Also its very dependent from intention and knowledge. If you don't know that who you are healing will be hostile or not you aren't making an hostile action when healing it at same time use produce flame with in sanctuary/invisible isn't hostile if you are using it to put an object on fire to illuminate the area.
The indirect hostile action leads to many debates about what is and what is not hostile in different situations and perspectives.
--
About OP. The shield rules are pretty odd to me too.
Able to choose if you will use your reaction to block or not after know the damage always was odd to me.
The relationship between resistance and hardness also are pretty strange. You basically share your own resistance to shields once that resistance applies to damage before you choose to block.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That an 18 Strength powerlifter can lose at arm wrestling with me and my 8 (ok, 6) Strength.
How is that one strange? You're just better trained in how to use his own strength against him?!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is that one strange? You're just better trained in how to use his own strength against him?!
I haven't spoken of any form of training. If we roll a Strength check, he just has +5 to the check compared to me and as such has a significant chance to fail. While in real life this would never happen.
Similarly, I can beat an expert in a domain I'm not even trained in. And so on.| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I case of arm wrestling, a situation where is not predicted by the game the correct is you to make a Victory Points System with many checks instead of just do a single roll.
It's up to GM to compensate these things mechanically to make they more fair instead of just do a single roll.
I haven't spoken of any form of training. If you roll a Strength check, he just has +5 to the check compared to me and as such has a significant chance to fail. While in real life this would never happen.
If you are talking about luck, then yes, that does happen in real life. Many skill based and athletics type sporting events have been decided by luck.
And if you are talking about no training, then we are looking at only level 1 characters.
Because practical experience from adventuring is still training. Even if it isn't represented by proficiency.
Similarly, I can beat an expert in a domain I'm not even trained in. And so on.
And if we are looking at both proficiency and practical experience, there is no way for a level 1 Athletics untrained character with an 18 strength to win an arm wrestling competition with a level 16 Athletics master character with a 10 strength.
But I would hardly call a level 1 character with no training in Athletics a powerlifter either. Even if they do have 18 strength.
TL;DR: There is more to being a sports competitor than your strength score.
I case of arm wrestling, a situation where is not predicted by the game the correct is you to make a Victory Points System with many checks instead of just do a single roll.
It's up to GM to compensate these things mechanically to make they more fair instead of just do a single roll.
With the victory point system, you will reduce my chances to win, but you won't elimitate them. While, in real life, if I'm arm wrestling with someone with 18 Strength, I don't see how I could win (without some form of cheating).
I'm not sure how you really argue that electric arc is not an action that harms or damages a creature.I assume that neither of you followed that ruling to its conclusion. That since Electric Arc doesn't have the Attack trait it is therefore not an attack and therefore not a Hostile Action and so casting it doesn't break low level Invisibility.I once got my GM to accept that the invisible bad guy trying to escape my grapple lost his invisibility thanks to this Attack tag. Because Attack = Hostile.The name of the Attack trait. And the Errata that explicitly says that actions with the Attack trait are attacks.
Which causes the strange interaction of Escape having the Attack trait and therefore being an attack ... but probably not a Hostile Action (hard to determine for certain because Hostile Action is not well defined). But many spells don't have the Attack trait and therefore are not an attack...
From the simple argument that Attack = Hostile. If having the Attack trait defines an action as a Hostile Action, then Electric Arc is not hostile.
If you want a more complex ruling of Attack =/= Hostile, where some actions that are Hostile don't have the Attack trait and Hostile Actions have to be adjudicated, then we have to also consider the case that not every action with the Attack trait is Hostile and those actions have to be adjudicated too.
And when I look at Escape to adjudicate if it is a Hostile Action or not - without using the simple argument that Attack = Hostile - I find that it doesn't look very harmful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Page 303 player core for hostile actions defined.
Electric arc is hostile not because of traits but because it does damage.
Page 303 player core for hostile actions defined.
Electric arc is hostile not because of traits but because it does damage.
And wouldn't that same definition and reasoning also define Escape as not Hostile?
Not sure it applies to skills because 303 is given in the context of explaining how spells work.
While i do believe it applies to determining if Electric Arc is a hostile action I don't know if it also would apply to the escape action.
While i do believe it applies to determining if Electric Arc is a hostile action I don't know if it also would apply to the escape action.
So... Scare to Death as the example instead of Electric Arc.
Or how about monster non-spell damage-dealing actions that don't have the Attack trait?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you at least see why the Attack trait makes the #1 spot on my list of odd/strange rules?
Similarly, the Sanctuary spell only protects from 'attacks', not other damage dealing actions.
The spell ends if you use a Hostile Action (however that is defined and ruled on), but an enemy can cast Electric Arc and Spout on you with no check needed.
Edit: Puff of Poison would be a better example since it targets one creature and one creature only.
I would run a hostile affect as anything with the attack trait and anything qualifying on 303.
Scare to death causes a harmful effect, i would rule it hostile even though its a skill and not a spell.
That is my interpretation but because the hostile action definition on 303 is in the spell section and not given as its own section I am not sure if it was meant to be used to assess all actions in the game.
With the victory point system, you will reduce my chances to win, but you won't elimitate them. While, in real life, if I'm arm wrestling with someone with 18 Strength, I don't see how I could win (without some form of cheating).I case of arm wrestling, a situation where is not predicted by the game the correct is you to make a Victory Points System with many checks instead of just do a single roll.
It's up to GM to compensate these things mechanically to make they more fair instead of just do a single roll.
So you need more points in victory system to prevent a high chance of victory from a big difference like a -1 winning against a +4. Yet you still can consider some lucky factor like a cramp or any other physical or mental condition that may affect your chances. I know that usually this is represented by conditions yet the lucky factor may represent any unexpected factors.
If you use many points (the first one to get 10 points to win for example) in a Victory System you probably will make these lucky things pretty rare yet fun! (the GM may set an that you need to get a number of victory points equal to your adversary constitution stats (now in remaster is 10 + 2x bonus) to win. So it will be really pretty unlikely that you with a very low Str and Con to win against an opponent with way more Con and Str).
Another way to do this arm wrestling more fun and fair is to use unarmed Strikes (1d4+str or 1d6+str if you are a Monk/Martial Artist/Wrestler) vs the opponent HP. But without do a real damage just to making a competition fun and fair and you may choose between Athletics or Unarmed Strikes (like a Escape without acrobatics).
There's a lot of ways to make this fun and fair. So as GM just be creative or just adapt some gameplay mechanics that you find fun and fair.
I would run a hostile affect as anything with the attack trait and anything qualifying on 303.
Scare to death causes a harmful effect, i would rule it hostile even though its a skill and not a spell.
That is my interpretation but because the hostile action definition on 303 is in the spell section and not given as its own section I am not sure if it was meant to be used to assess all actions in the game.
Don't stay locked only to these small definition of the CRB. Many conditions are not predicted by the books and need to be judged by GM. There are many situations that its up to GM to decide the books only gives some bases and guidances. Including if for some situation as GM you think that the CRB defined guidance is not the best you may alter it as you need, just try to avoid to go too far way from it and try be open and to talk with your players to prevent them to become too confused about your positions as GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would run a hostile affect as anything with the attack trait and anything qualifying on 303.
Scare to death causes a harmful effect, i would rule it hostile even though its a skill and not a spell.
That is my interpretation but because the hostile action definition on 303 is in the spell section and not given as its own section I am not sure if it was meant to be used to assess all actions in the game.
Scare to Death only causes status conditions unless you crit the skill check. So it is no more hostile than Trip. Is Feint also Hostile, or does an action have to cause HP loss or death in order for its effects to be considered harm?
And you are already applying the Hostile Actions rule to skill actions. Why shouldn't it go both ways? If a skill action is a Hostile Action because it might cause damage even if it doesn't have the Attack trait, then why is a skill action that has no possibility of causing harm a Hostile Action just because it does have the Attack trait?
Similarly, the Sanctuary spell only protects from 'attacks', not other damage dealing actions.
The spell ends if you use a Hostile Action (however that is defined and ruled on), but an enemy can cast Electric Arc and Spout on you with no check needed.
Edit: Puff of Poison would be a better example since it targets one creature and one creature only.
Are you saying puff poison is hostile? I would say so. Its a spell that does damage directly or indirectly.
Also in rereading the section on hostile actions on 303 it does seem to apply to all actions in the game. Its just given in the spell section because of spells like sanctuary that need a definition of the games hostile actions. The attack trait doesn't seem to matter at all. It just happens that anything with the attack trait is also harmful.
I would run a hostile affect as anything with the attack trait and anything qualifying on 303.
Scare to death causes a harmful effect, i would rule it hostile even though its a skill and not a spell.
That is my interpretation but because the hostile action definition on 303 is in the spell section and not given as its own section I am not sure if it was meant to be used to assess all actions in the game.
Scare to Death only causes status conditions unless you crit the skill check. So it is no more hostile than Trip. Is Feint also Hostile?
And you are already applying the Hostile Actions rule to skill actions. Why shouldn't it go both ways? If a skill action is a Hostile Action because it might cause damage even if it doesn't have the Attack trait, then why is a skill action that has no possibility of causing harm a Hostile Action just because it does have the Attack trait?
Trip and Feign are hostile actions they are attempts to cause harm.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But Escape isn't inherently attempting to cause harm.
You could be trying to Escape and run away.
But Escape isn't inherently attempting to cause harm.
You could be trying to Escape and run away.
Your right. Not all escape attempts should be considered hostile, some are vs ropes lol.
I think that's why the attack trait is not in the description on 303.And that lol shows why your right that it is odd.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if harm is defined anywhere but it has enough of a general language meaning to probably not need an in game definition.
I would also point out that the definition of Hostile Action uses only the general language term 'harm' and not the game term "attack" in its definition.
What 'harm' does Escape cause?
Escape may be the only example of a non-hostile Attack trait action, but it is still the harm that makes an action hostile - not being an attack by having the Attack trait.
I don't know if harm is defined anywhere but it has enough of a general language meaning to probably not need an in game definition.
And it looks like the chronomancy bug from a couple of years ago is back.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the victory point system, you will reduce my chances to win, but you won't elimitate them. While, in real life, if I'm arm wrestling with someone with 18 Strength, I don't see how I could win (without some form of cheating).I case of arm wrestling, a situation where is not predicted by the game the correct is you to make a Victory Points System with many checks instead of just do a single roll.
It's up to GM to compensate these things mechanically to make they more fair instead of just do a single roll.
For outcomes that have no chance of success or no chance of failure, why are you even rolling? Just narrate that you lost the arm wrestling competition and move on.
Your right. Not all escape attempts should be considered hostile, some are vs ropes lol.But Escape isn't inherently attempting to cause harm.
You could be trying to Escape and run away.
I'm also remembering some examples that others have suggested of actions that have the Attack trait that may not always be hostile.
If an ally is confused or failed a check against an illusion and is about to Stride off of a cliff, then Grappling them in order to apply the Immobilized condition and stop them is probably not hostile since the intent is to prevent harm, not cause it.
So you need more
You didn't get what I'm saying. I point out that the game doesn't handle well activities with extremely low variability. Arm wrestling is simple in real life: the stronger guy wins. No need for a check. It's similar for long jumping, swimming, etc.. There are many abilities where you either can or can't and no check will allow me to suddenly jump more than a few inches above what I usually jump or suddenly swim twice better.
The game being handled by a d20 generates weird variability in abilities that shouldn't have such variability, like the weaker guy winning in arm wrestling or someone jumping 8 feet long, then 5, then 12.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want that the stronger guy simply win so just don't roll at all just say "the strongest win" and roll only in case of both have same Str. But if you do so this probably would just be boring.
IMO you are forcing a problem/oddity in a situation where there's no reason to have a problem/oddity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For outcomes that have no chance of success or no chance of failure, why are you even rolling? Just narrate that you lost the arm wrestling competition and move on.With the victory point system, you will reduce my chances to win, but you won't elimitate them. While, in real life, if I'm arm wrestling with someone with 18 Strength, I don't see how I could win (without some form of cheating).I case of arm wrestling, a situation where is not predicted by the game the correct is you to make a Victory Points System with many checks instead of just do a single roll.
It's up to GM to compensate these things mechanically to make they more fair instead of just do a single roll.
Theres a meme out there for that with Andre the Giant from the Princess Bride.
Uses his quote saying he wanted him to feel like hes doing good.