| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll not bury the lede. The rules for round-based durations should be changed to:
For an effect that lasts a number of rounds, the remaining duration decreases by 1 at the start of each of the current participant's turns.
I may quibble on the proposed wording, but the need for the change is there.
Probably the best way of measuring a duration in rounds is to use initiative count. Basically the effect has a spot in the initiative order like the other participants in the combat. When the effect's initiative comes up, then the duration gets decreased.
That ensures that a duration of 1 round actually lasts an entire round, and it prevents things like Delay or the creature gaining the Dying condition (and therefore changing its initiative position) from causing problems because the effect's duration isn't tied to any particular creature's spot in initiative.
The only problem with defining a duration of rounds in that way is that it is clunky to write, and it causes more bookkeeping since there is now an effect that has to be tracked in initiative order along with all of the combatants.
Probably the best way of measuring a duration in rounds is to use initiative count. Basically the effect has a spot in the initiative order like the other participants in the combat. When the effect's initiative comes up, then the duration gets decreased.
That ensures that a duration of 1 round actually lasts an entire round, and it prevents things like Delay or the creature gaining the Dying condition (and therefore changing its initiative position) from causing problems because the effect's duration isn't tied to any particular creature's spot in initiative.
The only problem with defining a duration of rounds in that way is that it is clunky to write, and it causes more bookkeeping since there is now an effect that has to be tracked in initiative order along with all of the combatants.
Definitely the best way to handle it. It's effectively going to be "it happens on the turn of the creature whose turn it was when it was put up".
The only case that isn't true is if something Delays, and in that case it's supposed to tick down a round immediately upon delaying anyway. So I don't think its that much harder to track, especially with the weirdness of what can happen right now.
Yeah, I think the bookkeeping aspect plays a major factor in this choice. At higher levels in 3.X/PF1 I would often have a player assigned the role of duration tracker because there could be dozens of active effects running. PF2 seems to emphasize simplicity, i.e. shorter duration on pre-buffs & enemies relying (A LOT) less on having active spells to maintain CR-competitive stats.
If analyzed rigorously on a purely in-world mechanical basis, sure, in PF2 one should track initiative count for each spell effect, esp. w/ Reactions, Delay, & Dying. But the two overarching questions IMO are whether that rigor pays off in a better play experience and is the difference enough to overturn RAW/rewrite the rules (which as noted could lead to a cumbersome explanation to even communicate).
I think at many tables, they're going to prefer RAW (at least for this) because play > precision. I also think this makes the better default setting for PF2. Then, if a table wants to take on the extra effort they can, perhaps as an optional rule in a sidebar. Paizo cares only that you enjoy yourself, not stick to their rules as if intended to be strict (which internally they disagree about anyway).
If I had a table where such off-rhythm 1-round effects were common, I'd gauge the effect on a practical level before implementing this (and a major factor in that would be how severe the combats were that PCs need to eke out every advantage).
The only case that isn't true is if something Delays,
Or if someone Dies and follows the Dying rules. Part of that involves changing initiative order without it even becoming the dying character's turn.
Example: Bard casts Courageous Anthem, which lasts 1 round. Right before the Bard's next turn, an enemy drops the Bard. Bard's initiative moves to be right before that enemy's initiative. The entire rest of the party then gets another turn before the Bard's turn comes up and that '1 round' Courageous Anthem effect ends.
For the most part, I agree that tying round counted effects to the character that cast them works fine for all of the effects that are cast during the caster's turn and tied to the turn of the caster of the effect. Delay will decrement the round count as part of the Delay action. Dying is a rare edge case that probably isn't worth worrying about, especially since it ends up being a bit favorable to the players - and moving initiative as part of dying is intended to favor the players a bit.
But for effects created as a reaction when it isn't the caster's turn, it feels bad. My least favorite is Delay Consequence. The intent of that spell is that the Cleric can then heal the injured ally of their current injuries before they die to the crit that they just took. Cast Delay Consequence on them in reaction to the crit and then cast Heal on them when your turn comes up.
But it doesn't work. The Cleric that cast Delay Consequence never gets to act before Delay Consequence ends. A different ally has to do the healing. And the options of allies are limited to the ones who get to act before the Cleric's next turn comes up. So if the enemy that dropped the ally with a crit has their turn right before the Cleric, then zero allies have any opportunity to do healing before Delay Consequence ends.
Delay Consequence is completely useless about 80% of the time because of how duration measured in rounds is defined.
I would definitely prefer the proposed change. Perhaps:
"For an effect that lasts a number of rounds, the remaining duration decreases by 1 at the start of each turn of the creature whose turn it was when the effect was created."
I ran into the same problem when trying out the spell Cloak of Colors. If the enemy hits, they need to save against being blinded or stunned... for 1 round. This counterattack is almost useless if you go next.
I think these effects can still be used with a bit of turn manipulation, though. You know how a caster might Delay before casting fear on an enemy so that the frightened condition lasts longer?
So imagine you're in a solo PL+3 fight. You Delay until just before the boss's turn, then you take your turn. The boss goes and crits the Barbarian, who would certainly go down. You respond with Delay Consequence. The Barbarian will not suffer the crit until your next turn, so they will get to attack before they get crit.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not seeing what the problem is.
Unexpected Shift: Dazzled ends at the same time as the benefits.
Flash of Grandeur: Protects your ally from some damage and allows you, as well as any allies that happen go go between the reaction and you, easier attacks on the enemy.
Delay Consequence: Lets you (hopefully) keep an ally up until your turn starts and you can immediately deal with the negatives instead of being savaged by enemies until your turn come around.
These are reactions that last until the start (or end) of your turn. That's what they are designed to do. Provide a benefit until you have a chance to take your normal actions. What you are asking for would make these abilities stronger. That's a power increase, not fixing something that is broken.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flash of Grandeur: Protects your ally from some damage and allowsyou, as well asany allies that happen go go between the reaction and you, easier attacks on the enemy.
It doesn't work for you. It is a Reaction triggered by the enemy dealing damage. It isn't happening on your turn, so you can't make easier attacks on the enemy at that point. And when your turn comes up, the effect ends before you get to take your actions.
It works for Unexpected Shift since that one targets you instead of someone else. Yes, the benefits and the drawbacks both end at the same time - whenever that happens to be.
It is strange that the wording is different (benefits last until the start of your turn, drawbacks last for 1 round) as though they are going to be two different durations. It is also strange that the Gnome will never experience those drawbacks except for the occasional Reaction that they have and that happens to get triggered.
Delay Consequence: Lets you (hopefully) keep an ally up until your turn starts and you can immediately deal with the negatives instead of being savaged by enemies until your turn come around.
But Delay Consequence doesn't do what you list here.
If you are the caster, then you most definitely can't immediately deal with the negatives. Someone else has to deal with those negatives and has to coincidentally already be going in initiative order before you.
If the enemy drops your ally, you can cast Delay Consequence to keep them up. But then if your turn comes up before anyone else's, then the effect immediately ends. No one had any chance to do anything, and the ally drops to Dying immediately.
Even if there are a couple of other allies who get their turn before your caster's turn comes up, if they don't have any healing abilities, then it still doesn't do any good. The ally still drops at the start of your turn.
But, on the off chance that you have another ally that both happens to have their turn before your caster's turn comes up and has healing abilities of their own that they can use, then they can heal up some of the damage that the victim ally already has before they get dropped by the new damage that you deferred takes effect.
And it is that discrepancy in these scenarios that we are pointing out as a problem. If all the stars align properly, Delay Consequence can prevent an ally from even going to Dying and is really powerful. But if the circumstances aren't set up in just the right way, then the spell will do effectively nothing.
If Delay Consequences is too powerful in its useful scenario, then it needs nerfed.
If Delay Consequences is balanced fine in its useful scenario, then it feels bad that it is so inconsistent. Why is it taking so much work mucking around with the initiative order manually by using Delay in order to get it to be effective?
Having it be inconsistent and either really powerful or completely ineffective depending on how initiative happens to fall out is bad game design.
It is also strange that the Gnome will never experience those drawbacks except for the occasional Reaction that they have and that happens to get triggered.
Even more rare than I was initially thinking. The Gnome has already spent their Reaction.
In order to experience any actual meaningful effect of the downsides of Dazzled for 1 round due to Unexpected Shift, the Gnome has to have one of the feats that gives them an additional reaction. So Fighter's additional Reactive Strike feat or Swashbuckler's additional Opportune Riposte feat or possibly Champion's additional Champion Reaction feat. Champion's additional Shield Block feat doesn't care if the Champion is Dazzled or not.
|
|
Flash of Grandeur: Protects your ally from some damage and allowsIt doesn't work for you. It is a Reaction triggered by the enemy dealing damage. It isn't happening on your turn, so you can't make easier attacks on the enemy at that point. And when your turn comes up, the effect ends before you get to take your actions.you, as well asany allies that happen go go between the reaction and you, easier attacks on the enemy.
Errata changed it to end at the end of your turn.
Delay Consequence: Lets you (hopefully) keep an ally up until your turn starts and you can immediately deal with the negatives instead of being savaged by enemies until your turn come around.But Delay Consequence doesn't do what you list here.
If you are the caster, then you most definitely can't immediately deal with the negatives. Someone else has to deal with those negatives and has to coincidentally already be going in initiative order before you.
Which is better? Being at Dying 1 right before the cleric goes, or being at Dying 1 with multiple enemy actions still to come?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is better? Being at Dying 1 right before the cleric goes, or being at Dying 1 with multiple enemy actions still to come?
Being Dying 1 with multiple enemy actions still to come. Easily. Unless another player with the ability to restore HP is going before those enemies.
Relatively few enemies know what Delay Consequence is. They know "this target is almost down but is still standing". Anything intelligent will target that person. The Cleric can't Delay Consequence again, so this person is going down next time.
Now when Delay Consequence ends, they're dying 2. If either of those hits were crits, they're dying 3. If *both* were crits they're dead, and if they already had wounded they have a decent chance of being dead in a scenario that otherwise would not have killed them.
In a typical combat, a typical GM will not continue attacking a downed PC. It does happen regularly at some tables, and at other tables in circumstances where doing anything else wouldn't make sense, but the "standard" play is to move on. That doesn't apply if the target is still standing.
And as someone who plays a lot of healers, what is supposed to be a healing ability that runs the risk of getting the person I'm trying to save killed instead if I risk using it on a crit feels really bad, especially when it's due to the fact that "Duration 1 Round" does not mean what it says it does to anyone who just reads it as natural language.
No one who isn't immersed in the game is going to read "1 round" and think "oh this is a variable duration that actually ends when I start my turn so could be any length from 1 round to literally the next action in the combat." And that's the fundamental problem with how round durations work: they don't actually do what they say on the tin. It's a relatively straightforward change to make them work so that they do what they say, and that makes the whole thing far more intuitive in terms of what is actually going on even if it does mean in certain circumstances you may have to track when a buff ends.
Probably the best way of measuring a duration in rounds is to use initiative count. Basically the effect has a spot in the initiative order like the other participants in the combat. When the effect's initiative comes up, then the duration gets decreased.
It just occurred to me that this would be a pain for casters with sustained spells. Normally, if the caster goes down, a healer can still get them back on their feet so they can Sustain the spell.
But if the caster goes down and changes initiative while leaving the duration decrementation at their original initiative, they cannot Sustain the spell at all.