A TL;DW on the Death & Dying rules since players are very concerned about it right now: I think all the passages onscreen show that Paizo is not of one mind on this. I intend to run things the more lenient way. Meanwhile, because of the contradictions in the language and history I think it behooves Paizo to clarify what they intend here. ADDITIONS/ERRATA: I think I'm at peace with Invisibility making you Undetected. The Undetected condition says a creature can still try to target you by targeting a square: 2e.aonprd.com/Conditions.aspx?ID=39 . One commenter makes a good point in that vanishing doesn't necessarily indicate you became invisible; you could have teleported or been an illusion. -Another issue with Tailwind is that it invalidates a lot of effects that give you a momentary or temporary status bonus to Speed -Supporting my reading of Stunned is the fact that the Unconscious condition starts in the exact same way: "You’re sleeping, or you’ve been knocked out. You can’t act." Nothing else under Unconscious says you can't act. Surely, then, is that not mere "flavor text"! (Petrified does the same thing: one sentence of flavor/description then a 2nd sentence saying you "can't act.")
One thing that didn't seem fully clear in my rewatch was that the Taking Damage While Dying section did exist in the Playtest 1.6. It just didn't have the reminder text that was focused on. Additional context was that in 2019 there was allegedly no confusion among designers that it was the deadlier / GM Screen way according to one designer. But then another designer in 2023 admitted that he currently runs it the Ronald/Appendix Interpretation way, but said nothing about how it was in 2019. This seems to indicate that a 3rd designer updated the Recovery Checks rules in the remaster, since that first designer was not involved in the remaster. Anyway, great coverage! Welcome to Page 459 Trutherism.
Well my players are smart and experienced. They know what happens to people to get caught out or are unprepared for the exact situations that lead to player death and are mature enough to take it without grumbling. Every good game has a losing condition, just because PF was based off of babies first TTRPG (D&D) doesn't mean it shouldn't diverge from it in a somewhat meaningful way. Its not even that extreme of a change, we just went from never losing a player character to maybe losing one to two per campaign. Keep calm and Momento Mori.
Yeah the death and dying rules have been conflicting since the game’s release in 2019, with the only places referencing adding the wounded condition being the GM screen and condition cards. I personally much prefer the less lethal ruling like much of the community, and will continue to use it going forward, since as a GM I feel less like I’m walking on eggshells when a player goes down and I feel more free to play the monsters as tactically as possible.
The issue here is wounded 1 is practically a death sentence without diehard. An example of this is orc ferocity - get hit, gain wounded 1 and stay up. Now when you get hit again, you immediately go down to dying 2 and if you FAIL a save or are hit ONCE. You are dead. Beyond that, it means that you are literally better off being left on the floor unhealed vs healing. Both in gameplay loop and in ‘character health’. Does it really make sense that your character would be healthier laying on the floor dead for additional rounds vs receiving healing and getting knocked down again? I don’t see any simulationist rationale why a blade to your unconscious body would be ‘more deadly’ after you’ve been healed than not. But I can certainly understand that you are ‘more hurt’ immediately after getting knocked down the second time.
@@icholi88 Even if that is the intention. It is a very complicated way of doing it, it would be easier to track just by making you die the next time you fall or making you die at dying 3 or 2.
Monk: I try to break a leg by kicking the Bard in the kneecap. I use Flurry of Blows. DM: Alright, roll. Monk: I roll X and Y. Bard: ...They crit both times. DM: Alright. Monk: I have Stunning Fist. DM: Roll a Fort Save Bard. Bard: ...I roll a 1. DM: Alright, Bard, you have Stun 2. Monk: I have Crit Specialization for my Unarmed Attacks. DM: Alright, Bard, you're Slowed 1 as well. You can't act. Bard: Hope is dashed. DM: The Bard is carried away before they can perform for their one true love - Dragon.
Wait your slowed and stunned values don’t stack though, do they? I think they decrease simultaneously and the greater number would be the amount of actions you lose.
@@Kingneo0053 Btw, Stunned 1 and Slowed 1 do not stack. Instead of the target losing 2 actions from their next turn, losing 1 action to Stunned also counts as losing 1 action to Slowed. This means the target still retains 2 actions on their subsequent turn. Darn it!!
I think the verbiage of the Disarm Action (where the item is dropped) is made so that you don't automatically knock the weapon wherever. I've ran this as the moment it is dropped, that's an unattended object that can be picked up (Interact/Manipulate - therefore open of Reactive Strikes), mage handed away etc. This had the following effects on my table: - Martials always have a backup weapon, in case theirs get taken away (and they don't want to punch/grapple/disarm). - An absolute dread of Reactive Strikes. - A lot of encounters with humanoids solved by just disarming the hell out of them. - Some usages of Steal to take player's items back (via Mug Rogue feat).
Yeah I have always played that if a player Disarms, then they can take the action, take the risk of a reaction/AoO, and take the weapon away. If it's a creature that's Large or more, I random the square it drops in. I never like to reduce a player's actions or abilities if they want to do something.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPGPowerful is an exaggeration. I do have to preface that I tend to run enemies as actually smart beings that, well... like to be alive, so enemies surrendering when clearly overpowered happens kinda frequently (unless they know that the alternative is even worse). Also players tend to make heavy use of buff/debuffing, like Distracting Feint, Bon Mot (not that it helps in this case), Demoralize and specially Physical Boost, make it way more viable to critical hit the Reflex DC of disarm. Does it work against all enemies? Nope, but it can sometimes defuse encounters with mooks and lesser bosses (which we call middle managers xD).
For Disarm, I assume that it clarifies it falls in their space because they want to highlight that it doesn't end up in your own hand, not because you can't pick up something in the same space as an enemy. I've always assumed you can pick up any unattended items in your reach, even if an enemy is in the same space (you just risk provoking Reactive Strikes like usual).
Idk, for me the idea of you being able to pick up an enemy's weapon just like that isn't sitting well with me. There probably should be some kind of skill check to pick it up.
I think that specifying where the object lands also makes it clear that the enemy _can_ pick it up without moving. I do also agree that you should be able to pick things up within your natural (i.e. unarmed) reach, but that a penalty of some kind makes sense for trying to grab something from a hostile creature's space. Maybe an Acrobatics check on the Interact action against the creature's Reflex DC? Definitely also a Reactive Strike if applicable given the Manipulate trait on Interact.
@eamk887 ah but there already is a skillcheck to disarm. And it isn't easy to disarm someone so I'm OK with it. Any other way makes disarm useless. You can regrip your weapon with 1 action or pick up a weapon with 1 action. If my player crit succeeds to disarm someone I will absolutely allow them to pick up that weapon or even kick it away that is their reward for disarming an enemy for 1 additional action.
@@adimissabsolutely this. When did we become testy about the idea of taking an enemy’s weapon? It’s already hard enough to disarm them! If you’re worried about it happening to you, don’t equip your character like you’re playing in a white room and take backup weaponry! Yes the backup weaponry is worse, but why is this an unacceptable consequence of critically failing or having a successful manoeuvres executed against you 2 or more times? P.S. Regarding backup weaponry, it isn’t only this reason that you should take it. As a martial there is a good chance that one weapon isn’t good enough to overcome all of the resistances and to exploit all of the weaknesses you will encounter. In fact I’d go as far as to say this is a certainty. I think it’s worth a bit of gold to diversify your effective weaponry AND to avoid having all of your eggs in one basket.
On Dying and Wounded: I'm surprised you didn't also mention how Toughness and Diehard basically become autopick feats! Before, they seemed like genuine options you didn't really need but were nice to have, how it should be. But with this remaster version (and how it was allegedly intended) they are *must haves*. This also makes the Human ancestry even more of an optimized ancestry with more access to General feats and the versatile human heritage! These are autopicks that also actively harm your progression as a player, not just a freebie you can acquire at a higher level like with Tailwind.
Adding to this for fairness, there is room to say that yes: you could instead play a specific orc heritage that gives you 12 HP then also getting I think it's a feat that gives you diehard early, then get toughness at level 3. But regardless, whether it's human or orc, this isn't a healthy meta imo.
I... strongly disagree tbh. In all of my time playing the game, diehard has been something players heavily gravitated against. 1 extra turn in a process that would take 3-4 turns at worst anyway didn't quite hit the way it does with this clarification. I think a little more lethality is welcome, at least at my tables
Strongly disagree also. Most characters won't have room for that feat, and non-frontline characters may not consider it. The new meta should be only bringing up a character whose health or position you can protect, and the actual possibility of parties having to abandon an Unconscious ally if things go badly. I haven't had a party even consider that since 1e.
@@oneringtorulethemagicarp7199 I can see how this can apply to some tables... But I have to disagree for my groups at least. The lethality is plenty for the game I both run and play. Most of the APs are also pretty brutal, with Abomination Vaults being brutal even if you build to fight undead. I went back and looked at many of the fights my party had, and a good 80% of those fights would have had at least 1 PC death, and about half of them would have been a TPK. And my party aren't all new players either. Only two out of five of my players were new to the system, but they still had at least a few months of experience with it. And if it was a little mode lethal in the form of giving enemies more abilities and more options, I'd be way more ok with that. But this isn't a small increase in lethality, this is making the game easily twice as lethal, if not 3 times as lethal. This is a major increase in lethality. For experienced players, I can see how this might be appealing. But for the average player, and especially new players (the players the remaster is focused on) I think this is WAY too brutal.
@@sauce1101 most characters not having room for it is why it's bad for those options to be as good as they are for this change. Going down after you're wounded 1, if you take any damage from an AoE, or if you were suffering through persistent damage, you're basically just guaranteed to die. All it really takes is a bit of bad luck, or a mean GM, and you're kinda just screwed. Toughness reduces the DC for recovery checks and gives you more HP. Diehard gives you at least a turn or damage instance to breathe and not just auto die to something just for being wounded 1. Human gets access to more general feats, which is why I brought it up in my comment at all. And I believe orcs have easier access to diehard specifically, so there's that too. I do also believe there is a Rare background that gives it.
The lack of an NPC gallery is very sad to hear. That is probably the most well loved section of my GM guide. I would love to see a Bestiary filled with NPCs of various types and levels.
Stunned has always been clear to me: “You’ve become senseless. You can’t act.” You can’t perceive your surrounding and you can’t act. From the perception entry: “The ways a creature can use Perception depend on what senses it has.” Player Core pg 432 I never read it as flavor text but the rules.
Why would paralyzed be a condition then if “stunned 1” made you lose your entire turn on instead of just 1 action? Stunned already shuts off your reactions, it doesn’t make sense to me to include a numbered value with the condition from things like stunning fist if it just shuts down your entire turn anyways.
@@megavore97 The differences to Paralyzed are you're not flat-footed and if we read the first two sentences as actually having meaning you can't do anything at all while Paralyzed leaves you with your mental abilities and other senses. The way Stunned is worded it either means you lose all actions until the Condition is over as per the specified rules (reduce the value of the condition each time you would regain actions), or you get silly things like being stunned, strolling around, having a chat, drinking a coffee, doing a reactive strike and then when next turn rolls around only then you suddenly can't move despite having been stunned for the last 6 seconds already.
@megavore97 It doesn't shut down your entire turn anyway under the plain text reading - it does shut down the _rest_ of your turn if you are stunned mid turn however. The real question is if Stunned does not do this, what makes it different than the Slowed condition? Under the flavor text interpretation Stunned functions exactly the same as Slowed. But that doesn't make sense because they wrote an entire paragraph about how Stunned overrides Slowed, and the Slowed condition specifically states it has no effect on the current turn if you are Slowed mid-turn, and Stunned _does not_ have that same langauge. Implying that this langauge exists as a way to explain the difference.
I've always thought that Stunned, Paralyzed, and Slowed should all be given verbiage that is VERY distinct and mechanical, rather than "flavored", so that we know EXACTLY what one does vs the other. Right now, it's just confusingly worded and thus houseruled at our table to help. IMHO
Some previous dev discourse apparently was confused the increased deadliness text wasn't everywhere, but the fact it wasn't added to the Wounded condition in the Remaster in that case is odd. If your Wounded is added to every increase when taking damage while unconscious this makes the gaggle of people using Assurance Medicine on Battle Medicine into serial killers. You use that Assurance Medicine to get an ally up in the wrong situation you've locked yourself to a Success, which is often outpaced by single instances of enemy damage. So if the ally isn't clear of the foe that dropped them just once and you get them conscious with that they will very likely get put right back down on a reaction trying to get up or pick up their weapon, and then the enemy goes next and has motivation to bop them again. You've basically Assured death. Middle ground could be that regular damage doesn't apply it, though the text seems to imply that, but failed recovery checks do. That's still brutal, but you can heal allies without guaranteeing their death. Hopefully they errata this in response to dislike of it, re-orienting the deadlier rules as a variant.
I agree, it makes being healed and knocked down again worse than not being healed at all. 1. Hit down to 0 HP: Dying 1 2. Healed: Dying 0 Wounded 1 3. Hit down to 0 HP: Dying 2 Wounded 1 4. Hit again: Dead 1. Hit down to 0 HP: Dying 1 2. Hit again: Dying 2 3. Hit again: Dying 3 In both instances you were hit 3 times, but somehow being healed (assuming the healing was less than a damage instance, which as you said it likely is) means you're now dead instead of Dying 3. I don't like it.
Isn't the rationale behind the Undetected condition under Invisibility that most will not know the difference between something turning invisible and teleporting, for example? Visually, one might assume that the effects of Invisibility and Dimension Door would be similarly described ("It vanishes from view.") Also, there are illusions that fade from view. So, one may think that a target that suddenly disappears from view might be invisible, might have been teleported somehow, or might have been illusory in the first place. The difference will be dictated by other senses and actions (a Seek action to determine if "it" is still there or not, for example).
Good point - makes me want to be careful in how I describe what happens to players in such situations! Of course, someone with Recognize Spell will possibly know what was cast. However, I would still allow the player to target the square without having to Seek first. The way I read it is "the target is Undetected, but you can certainly try to target that square."
I mean you could also add in some "visual" or audio cues for certain types of magic, maybe blink makes the pop noise from instant transmission in dbza, maybe teleport creates a blue flash, while invisibility happens immediately with no cues (other than knowledge that a spell is being cast)
@@Ytinasniiable Yes, of course, and that comes with playstyle. Nothing wrong with that. :) I prefer not to give such obvious clues because, the way I see it, they diminish the role of spellcasters and make feats like Recognize Spell useless. I like magic to be more subtle, in a way that general knowledge or combat experience alone won't cover the difference in casting between different spells. A dedicated spellcaster will automatically know a spell that they Counterspell, but I wouldn't like a martial character, untrained in Arcana, being able to do the same just because he saw it once. ^_^
#10. Yes you can pick the item up after disarming it. I haven't seen anything in the rules stating that you can't pick up an item that's in another creature's space, so there's no reason you couldn't do this after disarming the target. The reason they specify that it falls in the target's space is because it has to fall somewhere, and this avoids potential ambiguity about where it falls (including situations like a player trying to use Disarm to fling an enemy's weapon to the other side of the room).
If you can pickpocket someone in another square you should 100% be able to pick up an unattended object. Just gotta watch out for potential unarmed AoOs.
I’d like to point out that the invisible condition itself states that if you become invisible while observed, you are just hidden. The first part of the condition where it says you become undetected is not a contradiction because the condition itself says that this changes if you were already observed. The way you are running it, which is the rules on invisibility, is exactly what the invisible condition itself says
I think Ron was referring to the problem that Invisible and Invisibility and the Spell Invisibility as well as Disappearance kind of contradict each other. The condition says you only become Hidden if you use a spell such as Invisibility to turn invisible while observed. But then the spell just says you become Undetected to all creatures. It doesn't just say you turn invisible, it says you turn Invisible AND Undetected, which contradicts the "Detecting Creatures" section as well as the Invisibility Condition itself. They should just remove either the part of "by way of the invisibility spell, for example" from Detecting Creatures, or they should remove the second part of the Invisibility spell and let it just say "You become invisible for the duration. If you take a hostile action, the condition ends after the action". That would solve the contradiction.
I think it would be extremely helpful and relatively easy for Paizo to change the flavor text portion of rules text to italics. It would require some effort, but it shouldn’t alter the formatting of the book and would help prevent ambiguity in things like the stunned condition.
Paizo seems to be comfortable with the Gnome Flickmace as is, given that there are 7 other one handed reach weapons, most of which are merely martial. The Asp Coil and Breaching Pike even have the same d6 of damage. The other Advanced 1 handed weapon with reach, the chain sword, also has sweep and trades the gnome trait for finesse.
That whole Death and Dying bit, I don't like the addition of the parenthesis either. I would only use that portion if the dying condition was higher than 4. I've toyed around with the idea of using something like "You die when your dying value is equal to 4 or equal to 2 + con modifier, whichever is greater." Which would make the Die Hard feat simply increase the total by 1.
On Death and Dying clarifications, I told my groups that I'd rather avoid a meta in which parties accomplish less because they have to run away more often to rest up more frequently. Running is always an option, but it should not be the only option.
8:54 The Invisible Condition, at least, does not contain the ambiguity you're describing here. While the first line does say that "You're undetected to everyone," a few lines down it continues and says that "If you become invisible while someone can already see you, you start out hidden to them (instead of undetected) until you successfully Sneak." While it isn't front and center, it is in the condition text and failing to read the full text before adjudicating the situation is the fault of the player and not any ambiguity on the part of the rule itself. However, the spells could certainly stand to clarify better, either by simply saying "the target gains the 'Invisible' condition," which directs the player to check the condition's text which does contain the clarification about turning invisible while seen, or they could simply reprint the caveat in the spell as well.
Yeah I remember getting confused on that death and dying inconsistency on a CRB reread a couple weeks ago. Honestly feels like most of the problems with these books old and remastered is putting parts of a rule in too many different places and then in editing someone either forgets or doesn’t know part of the rule is in another section leading to things like this. Probably isn’t helped by the fact that you have multiple authors working on this causing things to get lost between the lines.
And that's what they wanted to improve with the remaster. Getting things that belong together to one place instead of distributed over the entire book (or multiple books).
Something to note is that Tossing an item is a ranged attack but doesn't list a proficiency. I assume Improvised Weapon rules would be in effect in this case, which are simple weapons you take a -2 with. Makes the action hard if you aren't decent with DEX in the early going, but with a few levels under the belt that's easy to land for most characters.
For reference I think there has to be some proficiency involved because I don't think Paizo intends it to be a 50/50 on DEX characters basically forever and basically unavailable to low DEX characters. Improvised Weapon rules makes the most sense really. The -2 makes it iffy for a couple levels on DEX chars but within reason and eventually everyone could hit a 15 even with a -2.
Using fascinate as a taunt of sorts, where targeting anyone else is concealed or a flat dc to redirect an action, is how I’m working on houseruling the condition as well. I believe there was an enemy in Book of the Dead that essentially did that & fascination both, and after using it in a game a year or so ago I felt that was more how fascination should generally work.
It's interesting how the writers seem to be aware that Fascinate is kinda crappy, since basically every monster I know that gives the Fascinated condition has extra effects intertwined with it, like being forced to move towards the source of fascination etc.
I always wondered why they took the “attract aggro” action out from the rules after including it in the playtest. Clearly, you understand it is needed but didn’t replace it with anything. Did you think we wouldn’t house rule it in after you set the precedent? Baffling 🤔🤨🤷🏽♂️
Isn't this actually a Feat that could be taken via the Celebrity archetype? Houseruling that would kinda diminish that archetype and RAI. Imo just making it so the hostile action has to be from an otherwise non-allied party is fine
7:09 I imagine they include “in the targets space” to indicate that the target does not have to waste another action to move to pickup the weapon. It would be kind of broken to make it burn 2 actions in one turn.
That's one reading, though I think it being within reach would have been assumed had it not included the language. On that note, I wouldn't mind clarity on what you can do to things/creature's in an enemy's space. I have allowed PCs to perform Battle Medicine on an ally that a monster is standing above, but I did wonder whether there should be some check involved
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG I agree that it did not need to be said for that to be assumed, but I do believe it was to prevent a player from attempting to disarm and fling the weapon in a single action. This way the player would have to disarm the target and then could proceed to remove the weapon from their space if they wanted to use an second action to do so. Essentially, they have to use 2 actions if they want the target to use 2 actions as well. To answer your other point, the only information that I am aware of that mentions anything of the sort is the pickpocket skill feat and its associated feats. I don't know how those feats translate to the remaster, but if they left it the same I wonder if they do not address it to concerns of creating a power creep. Edit: Now I am wondering if they are going to make a feat that allows you to remove the weapon as part of the disarm action.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG The Interact action does have the manipulate trait, so, using an action to pick up the enemies weapon, as well as said enemy possibly picking up their own weapon, would trigger most reactions which I think balances out the weapon stealing possibilities. For example, if there was a lever on the wall, that could feasibly be reached within 3 spaces of said wall, if a hostile was in the middle space of the three spaces that reach the spot it still wouldn't stop the other two spaces from interacting with the said lever. I cannot find any rule stating you cannot interact with unattended objects in another creatures space, hostile or otherwise, only that you can't end your movement in said space! So let the shenanigans commence and the reactions fly!
Sounds interesting - basically you beed to create few tables to compare progress of Skill and progress of Reflex and progress of DC. Then just look if you like it, or maybe it requires some extra math
I think an Acrobatics check by the jumper vs the creature's Reflex DC, and making them fall prone on a critical success would be good. (maybe on a success? I hesitate, and they had some thought in not including the prone effect currently) A similar situation I've seen: jumping onto a Large or bigger creature and hanging on to them. I'm thinking of allowing an Athletics check against the target's Fort DC, with the target being Grabbed if it's not too big for the jumper under the usual Grapple restrictions, and treating the creature like a moving wall (with the usual effects of Climbing)
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG Perhaps.. that does of course imply that the suggested skill check can also be increased with bonuses. Don't have the experience as a GM to decide whether that's a good or a bad thing. It would be great for a wrestler though. It also requires a defined skill action then, with 4 degrees of success... And it might not work with any existing or upcoming feats that add to this, if paizo writers assume it is the targeted creature who must save. Don't know enough about existing feats to discern that either.
I think the resentment familiar needs a "the target is immune to this effect" -line. I'd like to suggest till the end of your next turn, so you can target the same creature only every other turn, prolonging 1 turn effects by only 1 turn and longer effects by half their original duration at maximum.
I think it's fine as is: my group has overwhelmingly favored martials instead of casters, and this is a way for my debuff centric caster players to feel strong.
@@louisst-amand9207 You need to cast/substain a hex to get the effect. But the effect text does not say that it has any limitations on what typ of conditions (not only hexes) it increases the time on, a time limit itself, not even on how many conditons and at no extra cost. In theory you can prolong any AND all 1 turn condition for as long as you cast/substain a hex every round (1min at least per fokus point) and you can keep your familar alive and in that 15ft. range of the target. Thats absolutly insane and not even just by pf standart. There should be a time limit like only 1 extra round max. It would stop stacking "infinite" 1 turn durations and it would STILL be powerful by pf standarts. Thats how i would rule it.
I just have to say, being newer to Pathfinder, I really enjoy how you approach your analysis and critique. WRT to Death & Dying, I think I'll continue to play how I have been (in the 80% range) but I'm curious to see if Paizo clarifies it. I'm certainly all for some tables using the grittier version, but I think right now as my players are just starting to learn PF2E I'll take the more lenient path.
I think the addition of “all shields must be strapped to your arm” is a clarification, not an addition, since “detach a shield” was already in table 6-2 for changing equipment, it’s not new for the remaster.
Oh, Swap is great. I have a thaumaturge currently in a group that lacks magic (we're kind of pseudo-magic, I can use scrolls and make talismans, and also detect magic. The other characters have some abilities like magic, and one or two will get some actual casting later on, but for the most part we're not magical lol. It's a good challenge for us. We're all around level 5 now). Since thaumaturge needs their two hands filled, pulling out a scroll is an issue. I came up the idea of just dropping my sword and then pulling a scroll, but having a precious weapon on the ground for a round could be detrimental.
Except the thaumaturge already has the ability to just pull the scroll out with their hand that is holding esoterica. They don't need a second free hand for that
@@undrhil yup scroll thaumaturgy at base lets you hold a scroll along with your esoterica and your implements. you could actually juggle a scroll, a chalice implement a wand implement and your esoterica because that is how the thaumaturge do.
I think the idea behind the Disarm verbiage "It falls to the ground in the target's space is there to avoid players arguing for "movie scene" disarming where the weapon flies into the distance. Equally the weapon cannot be "thrown" or dislocated further away from the target. So I would say it actually makes sense from a rules perspective.
It also leaves things open to incorporate additional abilities that could achieve knocking it into a different square in the future. As an additional consideration, a perspective that is sometimes overlooked is that, as a base rule, Disarm can be done to players. It's one thing to say, "I want to be able to disarm their weapon so it goes out of their reach," but would you want that to happen to you as a player on a regular basis?
In case of #11 - Invisibility Excerpt from the PC 444 about the condition also states the same thing as on detecting creatures. "If you become invisible while someone can already see you, you start out as hidden to them (instead of undetected) until you succesfully Sneak." So there is no condratiction in those two sources (detecting creatures and Invisible Condition). Though to be fair - spells description could be stated a bit better.
6:35 if you're adjacent an obelisk with an orb, you can interact with that orb even if an enemy's space covers it, it's up to the DM to decide if they obstruct the item. I imagine it's ruled the same way for disarm and the enemy's weapon.
Hot take: Every other witch patron should be buffed to the resentments level, not the other way around. resentment is not overpowered, their familiar *can* be made into a fine paste to stop the effect.
Generally, I feel like all the witch patrons are pretty good. Occult debuffer (like many Witch players have begged for) - go Resentment. Occult buffer - go Spinner of Threads. Divine buffer - go Faith's Flamekeeper. Primal gish - go Wilding Steward. Primal caster/blaster - go Silence in Snow. Even Starless Shadow and Inscribed One aren't bad. The power boost wasn't solely in the patrons (hexes and familiar abilities): the feats and changes to skills and spells has made spellcasting overall stronger. I wanted a more gishy Witch and was using the Wild patron to accomplish that (since it had a non-existant hex). The Wilding Steward and the Rage of Elements changes gave me a lot of tools that I wanted. So, I'm super glad for Resentment being so power! But I'll be sticking with my Wilding Steward patron. XD
I can't help but feel like that version of the wounded and dying clock WOULD be fun, Just not unless players had a much much higher dying threshold before they're dead. That snowball effect is so intense that it almost seems like you're dying value should be able to go all the way up to eight
Interesting video. Some remarks: #12 Thinking about it, Disarm is mostly a weaker Trip. Both against Reflex, -2 to Attacks, Action that triggers Reactive Strike to Undo. But Trip adds Flat Footed. The bonus to future Disarm and other checks is rather lackluster in comparison. Unless your team fishes for Crit Disarm. #11 Yeah, that needs work. #10 It is basically a terrible Taunt. Concealed does sound like a better option #9 The Flickmace balance change was only about bringing it in line with the other 1H Reach weapons. #8 Yeah, we need a "Jump down" action. But I guess we do have Grab an Edge/Arrest Fall right now? #7 Maybe rename the "Attack" Trait to "Offense"? This is clearly a thing where a name change is needed to avoid ambiguity. Same as with Spell Levels and Spell Ranks #5 It is wierd that AoN can be easier to navigate _because_ it has Hyperlinks. #4 That first sentence is annoying. It is always that confusing mix of Summary, Flavor Text and actual rules. Definitley need to claraifiy the "Stunned on your turn" thing. #3 It is only really a issue for approaching a enemy. If the fighter tries to outrun the ogre, that ogre will just go for the caster backline. #2 The second I saw that, I knew this was busted. There are way to many things that are _only_ balanced by the 1 Round thing. Sword Crit. Every save success.
I think adding the wounded to dying increases from dmaage taken is okay as a variant rule, but I believe the standard should be Wounded only adds to Dying and, if any changes, homebrew to make it harder to remove Wounded.
The sticking point for me regarding Resentment is that some of the other options still require a dangerous positioning from the familiar for a lower-ceiling payoff. (These all require you to Cast or Sustain a hex). >The Inscribed One (Arcane): Familiar can provide flanking as if it could attack and had a 5ft range (visual effect) >Silence in Snow (Primal): 5 ft burst from corner of familiar's space of difficult terrain until the start of your next turn (yes, this means your familiar is now standing on difficult terrain it made). >Spinner of Threads (Occult): +1 AC (status) to ally or -1 AC to enemy, both within 15 feet. >Starless Shadow (Occult): Enemy adjacent to the familiar is frightened 1, but only if the familiar was concealed, hidden, or undetected to that enemy. The other two, Faith's Flamekeeper (Divine) and Wilding Steward (Primal) have purely support effects (Former gives temp HP to an ally within 15 feet and the latter gives your familiar imprecise scent, tremorsense, or wavesense out to 60 ft until the start of your next turn) and as such can stay out of danger. The Resentment's effect requires other maluses on the target to be useful, but considering the hex and spell you get from that patron, it'll nearly always be do so and has a MUCH higher ceiling. Honestly I think the ones that require such egregious danger from the familiar should be buffed up closer to Resentment's level and Resentment should be nudged down a tiny bit. My suggestions: >Resentment should only be able to prolong **one** status effect on the target, not any and all of them. >Inscribed should do more than just be a flanking dummy. Not sure what; maybe fascinate the target while the target can see them, and can't be "unfascinated" by the usual means? >Silence in Snow should at the very least be an emanation or aura so that they aren't standing in their own difficult terrain. >Spinner of Threads I think is actually fine, perhaps a tiny bit under Resentment but still quite good considering it's flexible >Starless Shadow should just... do something different. It's *really* hard to stay concealed (or better) to targets adjacent to you, and the hex only works on a failure, so frightened 1 (even automatic) is such a low payoff for doing something so dangerous.
For disarm I have a take: Some other systems have a different way to disarm where the weapon is tossed away. Pathfinder has never blocked any player to make interact actions on adjacent spaces so, yes, you can disarm and pick the weapon from the floor. Thats why this action only works on crits.
The stunned 1 condition is removed before your turn starts, as per "Step 1: Start Your Turn" So even violent unleash applies it's stunned 1 before your turn starts (as the trigger for unleash psyche is before your turn) You can't act until your turn, but your turn is normal outside of having 2 actions instead of 3
This is how it works, however, I do think it's confusing, since turn order rules state that you can only use one action before your turn begins, which is one with the "at the start of turn" trait, and nowhere does it specify you can use a free action on top of that before your turn begins.
@@eamk887 its a restriction on actions with "at the start of turn" triggers, free actions are free actions and violent unleash is triggered by unleash psyche so it doesn't count to the limit of 1
Agreed on attack rolls. I always thought the issue with attack rolls was trying to finesse athletics checks with a trip weapon, for example. However, that would have been simply solved by changing finesse to say "strike" rather than "attack". This is just confusing. Things with the attack trait that involve a roll should be an attack roll, and I don't see a real issue with true strike or bard song applying to trip or grapple, though *maybe* they thought that was the underlying issue?
The key differentiator is Attack Roll vs Skill Check. In general there are more buffs that affects Skill Checks, so it is actually "better" that athletic attacks are skill checks. There are also plenty of feats and mechanics that specifically target one and not the other, which is why it is significant.
Well, the line "you can't act" in the Stunned condition isn't the only contentious one. It reads "you've become senseless" one sentence earlier. Using precise and imprecise senses is paramount to many abilities and mechanics in the game. Who knows if "you've become senseless" is just a fluff text or should be interpreted literally.
I guess you could read the rules on the dying condition to be read as "You have a dying value, and dying total. When you lose your HPs, you get a dying value (1), which can increase if you get hit while dying. If you are also Wounded, you add that value to your dying value to give you a dying total. When the total gets to 4, you die". The line which says "Remember to add your wounded value..." is reminding players who are wounded that it is added to the dying value to see when they die, not that it gets added each time dying goes up. It feels fairly deadly either way, and people who are wounded should be avoiding combat.
For disarm I believe they state "in their space" to remove ambiguity so they dm doesn't have to guess where it would go. For all intents and purposes it's becomes an unattended object in your reach you should be able to interact with it.
I've always run stun as the "can't act" starts at the end of your turn if you get stunned during your turn. I feel like this is the fair way to do it, though I'd agree that there's not a reading of the rules that lends itself to this without jumping through linguistics hoops.
Player Core "Conditions" for "Invisible" p. 444 says later the same thing you said. It's a little further in the paragraph and therefore need to take another look at it instead of thinking you must rule from p. 434. "If you become invisible while someone can see you, you start out hidden to them (instead of undetected) until you successfully Sneak." That's what it says word for word verbatim on p. 444 and I think the same thing would also apply and remain true from the definition given if something kind of like teleportation were to take place for extra-dimensional travel while being invisible. In other words, the Invisible condition is first assuming that you would be gaining the condition while not first being observed, then after clarifying on the rule if you gained the condition while being observed. I think the default would be to rule it from either p. 434 because it would serve as an example or p. 444 to clear up any misconceptions because it's the definition given. I think the intention of what you explained about how to deal with contradictions means to rule it from where, as per our example, the condition Invisible itself is being described in the Conditions section rather than to assume anything something like a spell would suggest. Which it's common practice to rule something from the definition given as like in a Constitution Article instead of assuming anything something else would say, which also helps to cut down word count and page count because you have already gone through the hassle of explaining everything the subject matter pertains to in a separate section, and doesn't need to be clarified over and over time and again because the definition was given in the definitions of conditions section. Kind of like how a Constitution has an Article that sets out names and titles, and then gives definitions on those things in a separate Article and after that everything follows in separate Articles where you finally start getting down to business, and doesn't need to be explained tirelessly over and over every time the subject matter is being brought up or touched upon in separate areas. So now you have an actual real world legal document to help you grasp what's going on. And therefore when all else fails for Pathfinder 2E disputes you can now know to default reliably to the Conditions section for the definition given on p. 444. If an argument were to arise about how it should be ruled, go to p. 444, which is no different than how legal disputes work in the court of law. It doesn't matter what the Invisibility spells says, nor what Disappearance says and nor what p. 434 says because p. 434 can serve little more than an example to help solidify what's being said on p. 444, the p. 444 definition trumps all other things mentioning Invisibility from cover to cover because that's where the definition for Invisible is given.
23:00 Absolutely agree with you here. I've been quite frustrated, where traits are hidden behind other traits. Especially in say, Fantasy Grounds or Foundry, I want to be able to click click click, to expand the relevant notes. Most specifically, Imunities, should not be hidden away behind layers of traits. Similarly, Reaction Triggers like Movement, Manipulate, Concentrate, Should not be hidden behind VS component.
I feel like number 2. with the familiar is not as big of a deal as it sounds on paper, because the familiar needs to be within 15 feet of the enemy, and especially in a boss fight that means the enemy just needs to look at the little thing wrong for it to die.
Just started this video (at the dicussion on Invisibility/Undetected discussion) and I wonder how much of this could have been avoided if the devs used keyword tagging in the text. So any use of a key word would be linked back to a glossary. Thus linked uses of the key word could be presumed as purely descriptive, which could reduce confusion over minor word choices. Ideally you have both, but prempting this would at least make the archivists over at Archive of Nethys much happier.
Great video, that was a lot of thought going into the ambiguity of some rules that I agree should have been clarified. Here are some of my thoughts completely unsolicited :D 10. Disarm: Characters can interact with unattended objects within their reach. If you can throw a punch to anything in that square, you can grab anything within that square as well. I do not think there is anything that prevents that and doesn't need to be specified in the Disarm action. (Another example is: You can also feed potions to unconscious members adjacent to you and do not need to be on the same square as them to do so.) 9. I think the difference is mostly narrative but also about the default mystery of what the spell is being cast. If you see a creature and then they disappear within that spot after casting a spell, you actually don't know what spell they cast if you couldn't or didn't identify it. So it could be teleport, it could be planar transportation, it could also be invisibility. Now you can still take your chance, make a guess and target that square. While as with Hidden, you do know for a fact that they are there. (If the spell is identified as invisibility then I think it makes sense to rule them as Hidden against the one who identified the spell and undetected against everyone else) 8. I love your homebrew of Fascination and will probably start using it. I think the breaking clause should also be: If the creature you are fascinated by uses a hostile action against you or an ally... 7. Comparing Flickmace to other reach weapons like scorpion whip, asp coil and chain sword , 1d6 seems fine. 1h-Reach is huge already. 6. Acrobatics Basic Action against falls? Definitely YES 5. Attack rolls and Attack trait is reaaaaaally confusing. I differentiate them as Attack Rolls are against the AC (always) and the rest of the rolls with attack trait are checks. BUT YEAH FIX THE WORDING PAIZO skipping to 2: I believe the intention with Resentment is that the prolong doesn't stack, it extends the duration by 1 round and that is it. You cannot use it again to make the original duration extend 2 rounds. It can only be extended to original duration + 1 round as the upper limit. Or at least that's how I would run it, still so powerful but remains to be seen if game breaking. 1. This is such a crisis ! I cannot believe they went into Remastered with that, especially when people had absolutely no issue about how wounded/dying was working as most people did. You are absolutely in the right with your ruling.
42:08 In a perfect world. Inagree with you in. Be redundant in your clarifications. And triple check and cross check, your explanations for consistency. However. We understand that sacrifices are made in the name of book page space. Unfortunately, this has resulted in reduction, or full, deep, elaborate, Clear and Concise language.we get summaries. I would settle, for at least the consolation of a reference line (perfect for a hyperlink too) Ie. Reading Dying condition. Reading Wounded condition. "See also Dying." "See also Wounded." "See also Damage while Dying"
On the dying condition change: I think this is a typo that got in there from too many hands in the kitchen and someone pulling from the playtest docs. It seems to both discourage new players and work to be anti-teamwork. In a game where every other rules teaches that working together and helping allies improves success; here we have a change that results in increasing player deaths if you "dare" to help downed allies. Healing your team-mates actually now works to increase their odds of getting killed, which seems opposite of what should logically follow.
I think it’s to incentivize you to work together early to prevent the K.O., as well as prevent the yo-yoing of DnD. I like the clarified rules, going down or hanging out at low health should be dangerous/punishing. Personally I’d rather have the difficulty slider be going against harder or weaker encounters instead of making getting downed more or less impactful
For my money, the best death/dying system is Darkest Dungeon's 'Death's Door' mechanic. It is perfect. It is genius. It provides all of the tension you would want in a moment like that without giving downtime to the player, requiring extra fiddly mechanics, etc. You go to zero, you're on Death's Door. Any hit after that point is a Death's Door check and if you fail it, boom, dead. But you're otherwise unimpacted. You can do whatever you want, push your luck or even play around your Death's Door save if you want to. It's amazing how much extra play happens with this one change. I've put Death's Door into all of my TTRPG campaigns regardless of system and until I see anything somehow more brilliant I have no plans to switch.
First of all: Thanks for your work. I run the "dying" the same way as you do. IMO it not only gives better chances but even more, gives a kind of stress, teamwork, choices etc. that most other systems fail to have.
I already added a house rule to allow Acrobatics to reduce a fall by 10 feet. This is my group's first time playing 2E after playing 1E since the beta test, and everyone felt like it was a huge gap in the rules to not have any way to safely jump down from 10 feet without burning a skill feat. I just made it DC20 to reduce a fall by 10 feet, 20 feet on a critical success, and allow the benefits to stack with the Cat Fall feat (my player who took the feat was all for this change, as now he can jump off of even higher ledges)
For the whole attack roll debacle I would have changed the property from "attack" to "attacking". Everything with the "attacking" property increments the multiple attack penalty. Then the only things that get to have the plain word "attack" would be the "strike attack" or the "spell attack", both of which would have the "attacking" property, of course. That way when you talk about "attack rolls" it can be intuitive from naming what it is that it is being talked about. Granted, English is not even my first language, so what sounds ok to me might not sound even remotely fine to other people. Maybe the property could be name to something else other than "attacking". I don't know, but I agree that this was an opportunity to make this clearer. It was definitely a heroic effort to make as many improvements and changes as they did in the timeframe that they did it in. Maybe for the next oportunity.
I believe the Invisibility descriptions are in agreement here. In all the sections, it describes the invisible target as being undetected as a default. The only difference lies in the description of detecting that target. In the Detecting Creatures segment it discusses if you observe someone going invisible vs the spell/condition describing when someone is seeking an invisible target. In essence, these are the same things as Seek lets you locate the space they are in, and observing someone going invisible effectively grants a successful Seek result.
16:25 so this whole time I read the rule wrong and it was best so I ALWAYS made my players do an acrobatic check to reduce or nullify fall damage. If they willingly jumped over, naturally, the acrobatic check only determines how well they land. I still houseruled it my way: So simple DC for "controlled falls" (i jump into a hole willingly) on a failure: only take half damage success: reduce the damage by half of the damage supposed to be eaten So a 5ft fall, on the 3 damage (we always rounded UP), you take only 2 damage if you fail your save critical: you can stride to half your speed, draw an item, observe/skill check at the same time but if their fall was due to a being imbalanced or pushed over ==> normal rule comes in, because there is an actual risk of falling on your face. falling on a creature: you choose between acrobatic or athletic acrobatic: against perception dc of the creature (take into account you are hidden to them or undetected) athletic: against vigor success: the creature takes the full damage you were supposed to take, you only take half of it failure: both of you take damage critical failure: you miss your target, too bad! critical success: you can do an attack roll, using half of the fall damage into your damage die, you take half fall damage and get a +2 circum bonus to attack
6:20 For Disarm. A dropped item, is not controlled by a creature. It becomes an uncontrolled item, or rather, An item that is not being worn, or held. The clarity where the item drops, specifies that, where it drops. It isn't 'falling behind my space, or into my allies space. It lands in the enemy' s space. So, if I'm allowed to use an action to pick up an item in an adjacent space, then, no difference with the enemy there. However, if I normally need to be in a space to pick up an item that is unattended, uncontrolled, abandoned, lost, etc ... Clearly that rule would clarify for you. The presence of the enemy, would be preventing me from. Entering the space, to grab the item. Final point? Absolutely, it should affect the party.
5:06 - I won't mention negativ stuff from the previous videos, as I struggle to keep 10 things in a "10 things that are..." video 5sec later: so let us start with number 13 ah perfect, never change with that xD
... Follow up. Indeed, Im fairly certain that previous FAQ would include, When I Disarm an enemy, can I keep the weapon in my empty hand (as in other editions?) Can I drop the item in my space? Or launch it across the room? Along with the examples demonstrating a disarm that collects the weapon. Aka, Solid Snake CQC... Thus, between previous editions, and FAQ, the statement that a disarm drops the item, in the creatures square, Is a clarification.
Considering shields being strapped or not, I'd have liked to have the option to have types of shield that are both strapped and held. Given that both exist in real life: Viking and Roman shields were held, while knights' shields were commonly strapped. A strapped shield would have the advantage that it can't be disarmed and won't drop when you're dropped, but the disadvantage that you need to take an action to strap or unstrap it, in addition to the action you need to draw it or put it away. More reliability, less flexibility. A held shield would have the advantage of only needing to be drawn to be used and that it can be stowed away using only one action (or dropped using none), but the disadvantage that it can be disarmed and that it drops when you drop. Less reliability, more flexibility.
I was so upset that they didn't get rid of "sometimes scaling proficiency". Because the Armor Weapon Proficiency General feat is **only** are useful on Casters! Because it's not about when your class gets it! The sometimes scaling sometimes not proficiency has always been the one of the worst "features" in PF2. Because martials can't use it to get Advanced Weapons or increase thier armor.
In regards to the lack of hyperlinks; it isn't a difficult task, it's just tedious if it's added after the document has been published in pdf format. It's likely something that was considered to be low priority relative to the actual content and layout of the document. And is something that I think we can totally expect from Paizo if pressure is maintained on the topic. Their writers should now have a little more breathing room for such a task, and if not, it's something an untrained intern or temporary contractor could do for relatively little cost. Finger's crossed for an updated pdf in the near future, but keep the pressure on them so they know it's something we want.
#12. I think that they specified it falls into their space because other editions had the disarmer taking the weapon automatically if they had a free hand. It also prevents somebody on a cliff edge disarming the weapon over the edge. I don't think that there's a problem taking something from an occupied space. Though it would provoke a Reactive Strike. #11. They could have put the exception into the invisible condition, but I suspect that they didn't want to bloat the conditions with every edge case. Since most people who go invisible are using the spell (for example, many item powers are simply innate spells), this covers enough cases that I think it's okay. #8. If you are deliberately trying to fall on somebody, you should get an acrobatics attack vs the better of their acrobatics or reflex DC. It should definitely have the attack trait. The standard rule can be used for falls where people aren't trying to hit somebody. Continued errors and inconsistencies (like #1). I suspect that in trying to remove all of the OGL text, they missed a few chances to clarify. I don't think we'll get clarification on this until they finish all of the remaster stuff.
26:14 OK. At least regarding something like. Ready action : Flurry of Blows The Stunned condition you read abive, only reduces actions, when you next regain actions. So, if the Monk readied to strike an enemy when it approaches them. The enemy starts turn 15 ft away. Strides forward. Triggers the flurry. Becomes stunned 1. And loses one action next turn. I believe Slow spell might be fairly clear on that as well, in its language... IIRC. So at least that is clear. The enemy doesn't 'ened its turn' if the Monk interrupts with a stun.
Yeah I'm also not a fan of this change to Wounded and Dying. The game is deadly enough in the Ronald method, and personally I think it's much more elegant to simply have your dying value increase or decrease by 1 or 2 depending on the roll of the dice. Adding your Wounded to failure and critical failure checks lopsides that in a way that feels overly punishing and unfun.
I know that errata says that only Strikes and spell attacks count as attack rolls, but there's so many different places with confusion. As for me and my table, I'm gonna continue ruling it as anything with the Attack trait is going to be considered. I don't play PFS, so I'm ok with houseruling it that way.
@10:34 BROOOOO this royally fucked up my yellow musk creeper encounter i made that had an assassin vine as a minor accomplice. Yellow musk creeper shoots a pollen that makes enemies fascinated and disallows them from doing anything that isnt walking closer to the plant so it can bore your brain out and turn you into a husk. The assassin vine hit someone else, and it made my player snap out of fascinated :l
I agree with you on the Stunned and Death rules. Do not really see much in what else you list but I will review this before we start a remastered PF2 game.
I appreciate that this is the "Rules Lawyer" and is all about interpreting the RAW. Having said that, I feel that Pathfinder 2e does not break when homebrewing certain rules. I think everyone would agree in principle. Disarm: I feel this is still weak. At my table I have added a Martial Feat Advanced Disarm that allows the PC to roll a 1d20 and a 1d12 to determine how far away the enemy's weapon landed (1d20) and what direction (1d12). Many a good laugh and cheer has been had with this mechanic. Death & Dying: I came from AD&D in the early 1980's (ya I've been playing for a while). I simply don't like these death rules and We don't use them. We use the old AD&D rules which I know would give the average player today a nervous breakdown. Basically; unconscious at 0 hp and bleeding out losing hp every round until permanent death at -10. I do not imply that my house rules are better than the RAW or anyone else's, only that even the Remaster will never satisfy everyone.
My reading of Stunned: Stunned removes the ability to act (reactions, mental/physical free actions such as communication) from a creature from the moment it’s gained until it has an opportunity to regain actions, which are consumed automatically 1-to-1 to reduce the stunned condition. The creature remains stunned this way until the number of actions regained reduces stunned to 0, at which point it is free to act with any remaining actions.
Pf2e is very precise about what conditions do and do not allow. I'm pretty sure they would've said that you can't speak/see/hear/etc, and if it prevented reactions it would say so. That's why I think it's flowery text - you never have to interpret a word-that-is-not-a-condition to assume it means certain conditions.
I feel like falling more than 5ft makes sense because if you fall from 5ft or more it can hurt which is why tuck and roll when falling from that range of height is advised by people who do parkour. What I would do is if you fall/jump from 5ft or more you can roll an Acrobatics or Athletics check to see if you recover quick enough to not be Prone. Now falling on a creature is a bit weird because you could say you fall on your mount to then beline after a target or to get away from attackers. In that situation it’s weird and situational.
On stunned: pg 415 of Player core Says "The most restrictive form of reducing actions is when an effect states you can't act. This means you can't use any actions, or even speak. When you can’t act, you still regain your actions unless another effect (like the stunned condition) prevents it." which proves that stunned is not flavor text. This reads to me that stunned 1 prevents reactions and then removes one action at the start of the creatures turn.
but the attack roll on page 10 by 19:04 give examples that grapple, shove or other strikes with your fist count as attacks and about 28:20 what about warp step? occult cantrip who gives +5 speed until the end of your turn, included in the 2 action casting are 2 strides, who can be on foot, burrow, climbing, flying or even swimming
25:42 Reactions while Stunned? That is a valid question at least. The FAQ for the future Errata should probably be something like ... "Does the Stunned condition allow Reactions, or not." IIRC, there are other conditions which are more explicit regarding a condition which prevents the use of Reactions. Stunned, does not SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY deny reactions, so. RAW, it's not there. If we treat the fluffy lines as flavour fluff.
"The main problem is that Pathfinder is already damn deadly. Particularly at lower Levels" - Oh yes, I experienced that with my group during the beginner box. In two runs. First one was a tpk and the second run was saved only because the goblin ranger rolled a crit fail on intimidation so that the endboss was busy laughing his ass off.
I'm not sure if i am alone here, but i really like the "new" way to treat the "wounded" condition. I´m one of these guys, that go to some sort of excel table and does the math behind Rules. In this example i took the old habit for "Wounded" and the new one. My results where the following: On both ends, the wounded condition stays the same for when you drop down. You just increase the dying value by your wounded value (E.: W1->normal hit Dying 2,Crit Dying 3, etc) And because you only get wounded after you recover from one "Drop", means your first "Dropdown" statistically stays the same. What changes is the average Dice result on your second drop and more. in the old way, your die result are fix and with the dc on 10 as a flat check it's not even a 50/50 (5%+2, 40%+1, 50%-1, 5%-2) the average result is by -0,1 Dying per dice roll, so you slowly recover regardless of your wounded condition the new way makes dying little bit more realistic or deeper now the negative part of the dying check gets more lethal, means the average dice result changes with each "Wounded" you get Wounded 1 changes to +0,35 Dying per roll (it feels like your body could handle the first wounds, but the second are to much, so it slowly dies) Wounded 2 changes to +0,8 Dying per roll (now your body sprints toward death, without external help you will die, most likely) And the best part of Wounded 2 is how the dice rolling works. You only get 3 rolls, each roll with a 45% chance of death, and the only way to stabilize is to crit the 2nd or at least don´t fail any of the three rolls (It feels like standing in front of a death God that gives you 3 Coin flips and if you win all of them you stay alive)
i just realized i totaly forgot to add the increaced dc from your dying value to my math, so it seems to be even more deadly for example wounded 2 has on its first roll an dc of 13 (5%-2, 35%-1, 55%+3, 5%+4) so on avarege: +1,4 dying first roll :d
I know most d20 systems aren't supposed to be realistic when it comes to medieval warfare, so I'm just spilling some history buff facts. Shields would almost always be strapped to a soldier's arm, unless it had a grip in it's middle (behind the shield's "boss", for viking shields for instance). If a soldier would fight with a shield it meant he was part of a shield wall and that was decided for him for the whole combat because warriors carrying 2-handed weapon was a different kind of "unit" who would be behind them (using the 2-h weapon to break the enemies' spears). But no, strapping a shield to your arm is like strapping a belt on your waist but tighter and you only have one free arm to unstrap it. You wouldn't be able to do it as fast as picking an item up or swap a weapon. If one would want to apply this to rules (again, not advocating for it), then strapped shields would have the advantage of not being "disarmable" while the fighter also wouldn't drop it from suffering from panic, becoming unconscious or getting affected by a "command" spell that tells them to drop their stuff. Unstrapped shields, on the other hand, would give the advantage of being easily dropped and equipped.
I'd say the flickmace change was an upgrade. Lower dice but better at what it was used for. (works with swipe so more likely to crit...multiple creatures) Also it getting knocked to a d6 means rogues can use it in the remaster Also assume stunned stops reactions to give it a different effect than slow
Player Core page 415 Gaining And Losing Actions defines what "you can't act" means pretty clearly: You cannot take any actions, not even speak, until you regain actions. Reactions are a type of actions (consistently defined as such), so no reactions.
21:00 I definitely think, it could be resolved by changing the ATTACK trait... To a simple M.A.P. Trait. It would mean that Leap. Leap Leap, would be 3 Athletics skill checks, with no Map. But Grab, Disarm, Trip, (3 Athletics skill check rolls) would trigger M. A. P. Escape escape escape, would trigger MAP, but not use the word 'attack' And thus not be distracting or confusing.
'Can't act' isn't a flavour text. There's a sidebar which explains what does that mean: "Some conditions prevent you from taking a certain subset of actions, typically reactions. Other conditions simply say you can’t act. When you can’t act, you’re unable to take any actions at all. Unlike slowed or stunned, these don’t change the number of actions you regain; they just prevent you from using them. That means if you are somehow cured of paralysis on your turn, you can act immediately." p446 in the remaster. But it's not the remaster's introduction, it was always in the game: CRB, p 622. Of course, this did cause a discussion what happens when you get 'Stunned' on your turn :) Though if you can act immediately when you remove a 'can't act' condition on your turn, this probably means that you can't act immediately if you gain such condition on your turn.
The Wounded condition increasing the dying value when you get hit as well means that if you have Wounded 1 and go down, then getting hit a single time is instant death. You start at dying 1, which goes up to 2 because of wounded, then a hit would increase that by 1 to 3, then the wounded condition would finish you off. I don't know if the person who wrote this rule is good at basic math, but that's a bad mechanic
Swap for shields. Instead, of stowing a weapon and drawing another weapon. When you swap a shield. You detach the shield, stow the shield, and your hand is freed in 1 action. A versatile weapon could be used by a shield bearer that has other appropriate feats.
24:31 In previous editions, the flavour text, fluff, nonsense, Was in italics. Followed by a line space. Followed by the actual mechanics. In this case. "You are senseless, you can't act (normally)." Is the flavour fluff nonsense. It's a suggested narrative, The mechanics follow. The mechq ICs you read are very clear. Read them alone. And how you process stunned 1, or stunned 4, or stunned 17, is clear. Its like, playing any game, and receiving a. Lose an action effect. Or lose 2 actions effect. Or lose 17 actions effect. Etc. Stunned 4 = lose 4 actions. And gives a clear example as well. One might question how stunned 4 works with something like, Quickened (the coveted 4th action) But, YMMV And DM as you see fit. Its clear that stunned 2 costs you 2 actions total. Stunned 1 costs you only 1 action. Stunned 4 costs you, 4 actions. I hand out action tokens at start of turn. Along with reaction tokens. You spend them to do things. Stunned,... Reduces the actions I give you at start of your turn. Simple?
People who say, "It shouldn't be hard to..." are almost always people who've never done anything like it in their lives. Find a HEMA group. Find out how hard it is to do stuff in combat. None around? There are still ways to try it yourself. Do you know what is aaakshuwally involved in "simply" putting a bow away? You can sling it across your chest. First slip one arm through. Pull the string a bit to get it wider to go over your head. You have a 140 lb draw warbow, and not the little kids' back yard bow with maybe 25 lb draw, right? Well, the RPG character is way stronger than you, so let that slide. Maybe you don't have a bow at all. This will be an exercise of pure intellect. Okay, what are you wearing? The person thinking this is so simple has likely never worn armor. What plates, straps, and other things might be present to interfere with that process? Mail would present the cleanest surface in that respect. The character is undoubtedly wearing some kind of pack. A day pack at the least. A full sized backpack is more likely. A large frame pack is most likely, given how much crap players load on characters. No, slinging the bow across your chest is not even an option unless you've dropped whatever pack you wore. Sometimes, a bow was carried in a quiver-like thingy. That takes one hand to hold the thingy and the other to feed the bow in until it fits snugly (so it won't fall out). Before you can do that, you must reach back and find the thingy, and shift it forward to the position where you can put the bow into it. None of this is happening in less than a second. More like several seconds. So much for the bow. Sheath a sword? Takes two hands. Sheath a dagger? Two hands. Remember, you want to do this without looking away from your opponent. If you look down to find your sheath, that's a free opportunity for the opponent to give you a whack. He gets that attack while your guard is down (a significant bonus should attach here) because you are putting away the weapon you had been using to fend him off, and he attacks while you can't react because you are looking down at your sheath (cue another bonus here). It's looking like you aren't going to put any item away in its proper sheath, pocket, or whatever as a free action. So, no way is the character putting one thing away AND drawing another weapon as a free action. The idea that interacting with an object takes a chunk of your six second round is very sound.
I don't see the contradiction with invisibility? Both under "Detecting Creatures" and "Conditions", it says that an observed creature becoming invisible only becomes hidden until they successfully Sneak. Sure, the spell doesn't say that, but it's fairly common for spells not to include every aspect of the conditions they impose. Regarding hyperlinks, I reckon it's just a budget issue. They didn't want to pay someone to hyperlink the document each time it gets updated. As for Stunned, I always figured the reaction denial was the main difference between "Stunned 1" and "Slowed 1 for one round" - and that's a relevant thing for monks, who have level 2 feats giving them access to either.
I know this is a very late to the table comment, but here are my thoughts on the Stunned action/reaction controversy, and how I would rule on it... It states that you are become "senseless" and lose a certain number of actions based on the "Level" of the Stun condition ... Stunned 1, Stunned 2, etc.... So I rule that as if you are stunned 1 then you lose one action/reaction... if you are in a situation where you would want to use a reaction that you have then you cannot use it, but that counts toward the value decreasing. So, using your example where you stun the enemy fighter so that your threatened all can try to move away. You roll and the results leave the fighter with the "Stunned 2" condition. He loses that attempt for a reactive strike, if he was going to attempt to use it, and then on the fighters next turn they lose the first of their actions that turn, thus if they'd normally have 3 available actions they would now have only 2. Seems simple and straight forward to me, and an easy, logical solution. If a character does not have a reaction that they would use then they would lose their first 2 actions to being Stunned as per the way the rule text reads. I will note that a similar condition, Slowed, specifically states that the slowed conditions starts on the slowed characters next turn. Something they did not specify in the Stunned condition.
RE: Hyperlinks In-text hyperlinks would have been useful for sure, but there are bookmarks that pretty closely mirror the sidebar. Not as good, but better than nothing. It'll have to do until it's up on Nethys.
A TL;DW on the Death & Dying rules since players are very concerned about it right now: I think all the passages onscreen show that Paizo is not of one mind on this. I intend to run things the more lenient way. Meanwhile, because of the contradictions in the language and history I think it behooves Paizo to clarify what they intend here.
ADDITIONS/ERRATA: I think I'm at peace with Invisibility making you Undetected. The Undetected condition says a creature can still try to target you by targeting a square: 2e.aonprd.com/Conditions.aspx?ID=39 . One commenter makes a good point in that vanishing doesn't necessarily indicate you became invisible; you could have teleported or been an illusion.
-Another issue with Tailwind is that it invalidates a lot of effects that give you a momentary or temporary status bonus to Speed
-Supporting my reading of Stunned is the fact that the Unconscious condition starts in the exact same way: "You’re sleeping, or you’ve been knocked out. You can’t act." Nothing else under Unconscious says you can't act. Surely, then, is that not mere "flavor text"! (Petrified does the same thing: one sentence of flavor/description then a 2nd sentence saying you "can't act.")
One thing that didn't seem fully clear in my rewatch was that the Taking Damage While Dying section did exist in the Playtest 1.6. It just didn't have the reminder text that was focused on.
Additional context was that in 2019 there was allegedly no confusion among designers that it was the deadlier / GM Screen way according to one designer. But then another designer in 2023 admitted that he currently runs it the Ronald/Appendix Interpretation way, but said nothing about how it was in 2019. This seems to indicate that a 3rd designer updated the Recovery Checks rules in the remaster, since that first designer was not involved in the remaster.
Anyway, great coverage! Welcome to Page 459 Trutherism.
Well my players are smart and experienced. They know what happens to people to get caught out or are unprepared for the exact situations that lead to player death and are mature enough to take it without grumbling.
Every good game has a losing condition, just because PF was based off of babies first TTRPG (D&D) doesn't mean it shouldn't diverge from it in a somewhat meaningful way. Its not even that extreme of a change, we just went from never losing a player character to maybe losing one to two per campaign. Keep calm and Momento Mori.
Yeah the death and dying rules have been conflicting since the game’s release in 2019, with the only places referencing adding the wounded condition being the GM screen and condition cards.
I personally much prefer the less lethal ruling like much of the community, and will continue to use it going forward, since as a GM I feel less like I’m walking on eggshells when a player goes down and I feel more free to play the monsters as tactically as possible.
The issue here is wounded 1 is practically a death sentence without diehard. An example of this is orc ferocity - get hit, gain wounded 1 and stay up. Now when you get hit again, you immediately go down to dying 2 and if you FAIL a save or are hit ONCE. You are dead.
Beyond that, it means that you are literally better off being left on the floor unhealed vs healing. Both in gameplay loop and in ‘character health’. Does it really make sense that your character would be healthier laying on the floor dead for additional rounds vs receiving healing and getting knocked down again?
I don’t see any simulationist rationale why a blade to your unconscious body would be ‘more deadly’ after you’ve been healed than not. But I can certainly understand that you are ‘more hurt’ immediately after getting knocked down the second time.
@@icholi88 Even if that is the intention. It is a very complicated way of doing it, it would be easier to track just by making you die the next time you fall or making you die at dying 3 or 2.
Stun the bard.
"You can't act."
The bard takes 20 emotional damage.
I LoL'd at this probably much harder than I should have....
Monk: I try to break a leg by kicking the Bard in the kneecap. I use Flurry of Blows.
DM: Alright, roll.
Monk: I roll X and Y.
Bard: ...They crit both times.
DM: Alright.
Monk: I have Stunning Fist.
DM: Roll a Fort Save Bard.
Bard: ...I roll a 1.
DM: Alright, Bard, you have Stun 2.
Monk: I have Crit Specialization for my Unarmed Attacks.
DM: Alright, Bard, you're Slowed 1 as well. You can't act.
Bard: Hope is dashed.
DM: The Bard is carried away before they can perform for their one true love - Dragon.
Wait your slowed and stunned values don’t stack though, do they? I think they decrease simultaneously and the greater number would be the amount of actions you lose.
@@hannahtoennis8860 You are correct. I had to reread the rules for Stun.
@@Kingneo0053 Btw, Stunned 1 and Slowed 1 do not stack. Instead of the target losing 2 actions from their next turn, losing 1 action to Stunned also counts as losing 1 action to Slowed. This means the target still retains 2 actions on their subsequent turn. Darn it!!
I think the verbiage of the Disarm Action (where the item is dropped) is made so that you don't automatically knock the weapon wherever. I've ran this as the moment it is dropped, that's an unattended object that can be picked up (Interact/Manipulate - therefore open of Reactive Strikes), mage handed away etc.
This had the following effects on my table:
- Martials always have a backup weapon, in case theirs get taken away (and they don't want to punch/grapple/disarm).
- An absolute dread of Reactive Strikes.
- A lot of encounters with humanoids solved by just disarming the hell out of them.
- Some usages of Steal to take player's items back (via Mug Rogue feat).
Wait, you ran Disarm RAW and it became a powerful/feared action at your table? Can you say more?
Yeah I have always played that if a player Disarms, then they can take the action, take the risk of a reaction/AoO, and take the weapon away. If it's a creature that's Large or more, I random the square it drops in. I never like to reduce a player's actions or abilities if they want to do something.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG Be higher level, once you become legendary in athletics your chance to crit with athletics become really high
@@TheRulesLawyerRPGPowerful is an exaggeration. I do have to preface that I tend to run enemies as actually smart beings that, well... like to be alive, so enemies surrendering when clearly overpowered happens kinda frequently (unless they know that the alternative is even worse).
Also players tend to make heavy use of buff/debuffing, like Distracting Feint, Bon Mot (not that it helps in this case), Demoralize and specially Physical Boost, make it way more viable to critical hit the Reflex DC of disarm. Does it work against all enemies? Nope, but it can sometimes defuse encounters with mooks and lesser bosses (which we call middle managers xD).
@@RydenDanielEspecially with feats like Derring-Do or Furious Bully
For Disarm, I assume that it clarifies it falls in their space because they want to highlight that it doesn't end up in your own hand, not because you can't pick up something in the same space as an enemy. I've always assumed you can pick up any unattended items in your reach, even if an enemy is in the same space (you just risk provoking Reactive Strikes like usual).
Idk, for me the idea of you being able to pick up an enemy's weapon just like that isn't sitting well with me. There probably should be some kind of skill check to pick it up.
I think that specifying where the object lands also makes it clear that the enemy _can_ pick it up without moving. I do also agree that you should be able to pick things up within your natural (i.e. unarmed) reach, but that a penalty of some kind makes sense for trying to grab something from a hostile creature's space. Maybe an Acrobatics check on the Interact action against the creature's Reflex DC? Definitely also a Reactive Strike if applicable given the Manipulate trait on Interact.
This and it also clarifies that the weapon isn't sent flying away like commonly shown in movies
@eamk887 ah but there already is a skillcheck to disarm. And it isn't easy to disarm someone so I'm OK with it. Any other way makes disarm useless.
You can regrip your weapon with 1 action or pick up a weapon with 1 action. If my player crit succeeds to disarm someone I will absolutely allow them to pick up that weapon or even kick it away that is their reward for disarming an enemy for 1 additional action.
@@adimissabsolutely this. When did we become testy about the idea of taking an enemy’s weapon? It’s already hard enough to disarm them! If you’re worried about it happening to you, don’t equip your character like you’re playing in a white room and take backup weaponry! Yes the backup weaponry is worse, but why is this an unacceptable consequence of critically failing or having a successful manoeuvres executed against you 2 or more times?
P.S. Regarding backup weaponry, it isn’t only this reason that you should take it. As a martial there is a good chance that one weapon isn’t good enough to overcome all of the resistances and to exploit all of the weaknesses you will encounter. In fact I’d go as far as to say this is a certainty. I think it’s worth a bit of gold to diversify your effective weaponry AND to avoid having all of your eggs in one basket.
On Dying and Wounded:
I'm surprised you didn't also mention how Toughness and Diehard basically become autopick feats! Before, they seemed like genuine options you didn't really need but were nice to have, how it should be. But with this remaster version (and how it was allegedly intended) they are *must haves*. This also makes the Human ancestry even more of an optimized ancestry with more access to General feats and the versatile human heritage!
These are autopicks that also actively harm your progression as a player, not just a freebie you can acquire at a higher level like with Tailwind.
Adding to this for fairness, there is room to say that yes: you could instead play a specific orc heritage that gives you 12 HP then also getting I think it's a feat that gives you diehard early, then get toughness at level 3. But regardless, whether it's human or orc, this isn't a healthy meta imo.
I... strongly disagree tbh. In all of my time playing the game, diehard has been something players heavily gravitated against. 1 extra turn in a process that would take 3-4 turns at worst anyway didn't quite hit the way it does with this clarification. I think a little more lethality is welcome, at least at my tables
Strongly disagree also. Most characters won't have room for that feat, and non-frontline characters may not consider it.
The new meta should be only bringing up a character whose health or position you can protect, and the actual possibility of parties having to abandon an Unconscious ally if things go badly. I haven't had a party even consider that since 1e.
@@oneringtorulethemagicarp7199 I can see how this can apply to some tables... But I have to disagree for my groups at least. The lethality is plenty for the game I both run and play. Most of the APs are also pretty brutal, with Abomination Vaults being brutal even if you build to fight undead. I went back and looked at many of the fights my party had, and a good 80% of those fights would have had at least 1 PC death, and about half of them would have been a TPK. And my party aren't all new players either. Only two out of five of my players were new to the system, but they still had at least a few months of experience with it.
And if it was a little mode lethal in the form of giving enemies more abilities and more options, I'd be way more ok with that. But this isn't a small increase in lethality, this is making the game easily twice as lethal, if not 3 times as lethal. This is a major increase in lethality.
For experienced players, I can see how this might be appealing. But for the average player, and especially new players (the players the remaster is focused on) I think this is WAY too brutal.
@@sauce1101 most characters not having room for it is why it's bad for those options to be as good as they are for this change. Going down after you're wounded 1, if you take any damage from an AoE, or if you were suffering through persistent damage, you're basically just guaranteed to die. All it really takes is a bit of bad luck, or a mean GM, and you're kinda just screwed. Toughness reduces the DC for recovery checks and gives you more HP. Diehard gives you at least a turn or damage instance to breathe and not just auto die to something just for being wounded 1.
Human gets access to more general feats, which is why I brought it up in my comment at all. And I believe orcs have easier access to diehard specifically, so there's that too. I do also believe there is a Rare background that gives it.
The lack of an NPC gallery is very sad to hear. That is probably the most well loved section of my GM guide.
I would love to see a Bestiary filled with NPCs of various types and levels.
They might be planning on adding an NPC Kodak to the monster core
1e specifically had an NPC codex so we're probably getting something like that down the line.
Don't forget your NPC gallery from the GMG is still valid.
Really? My favorite part is the Archetypes. As a GM, the most useful part is the NPC gallery, but it isn’t my favorite 🤷🏽♂️ #hairsplitter
@@undrhil I hope the new ones aren't reprints and we get new cool NPC's
"my criteria this time is how much anger I feel" is such a quick line but is so incredibly hilarious
Stunned has always been clear to me:
“You’ve become senseless. You can’t act.”
You can’t perceive your surrounding and you can’t act.
From the perception entry:
“The ways a creature can use Perception depend on what senses it has.” Player Core pg 432
I never read it as flavor text but the rules.
Same. You can't do anything as long as the condition lasts.
Why would paralyzed be a condition then if “stunned 1” made you lose your entire turn on instead of just 1 action?
Stunned already shuts off your reactions, it doesn’t make sense to me to include a numbered value with the condition from things like stunning fist if it just shuts down your entire turn anyways.
@@megavore97 The differences to Paralyzed are you're not flat-footed and if we read the first two sentences as actually having meaning you can't do anything at all while Paralyzed leaves you with your mental abilities and other senses.
The way Stunned is worded it either means you lose all actions until the Condition is over as per the specified rules (reduce the value of the condition each time you would regain actions),
or you get silly things like being stunned, strolling around, having a chat, drinking a coffee, doing a reactive strike and then when next turn rolls around only then you suddenly can't move despite having been stunned for the last 6 seconds already.
@megavore97 It doesn't shut down your entire turn anyway under the plain text reading - it does shut down the _rest_ of your turn if you are stunned mid turn however.
The real question is if Stunned does not do this, what makes it different than the Slowed condition? Under the flavor text interpretation Stunned functions exactly the same as Slowed. But that doesn't make sense because they wrote an entire paragraph about how Stunned overrides Slowed, and the Slowed condition specifically states it has no effect on the current turn if you are Slowed mid-turn, and Stunned _does not_ have that same langauge. Implying that this langauge exists as a way to explain the difference.
I've always thought that Stunned, Paralyzed, and Slowed should all be given verbiage that is VERY distinct and mechanical, rather than "flavored", so that we know EXACTLY what one does vs the other. Right now, it's just confusingly worded and thus houseruled at our table to help. IMHO
Some previous dev discourse apparently was confused the increased deadliness text wasn't everywhere, but the fact it wasn't added to the Wounded condition in the Remaster in that case is odd. If your Wounded is added to every increase when taking damage while unconscious this makes the gaggle of people using Assurance Medicine on Battle Medicine into serial killers.
You use that Assurance Medicine to get an ally up in the wrong situation you've locked yourself to a Success, which is often outpaced by single instances of enemy damage. So if the ally isn't clear of the foe that dropped them just once and you get them conscious with that they will very likely get put right back down on a reaction trying to get up or pick up their weapon, and then the enemy goes next and has motivation to bop them again. You've basically Assured death.
Middle ground could be that regular damage doesn't apply it, though the text seems to imply that, but failed recovery checks do. That's still brutal, but you can heal allies without guaranteeing their death.
Hopefully they errata this in response to dislike of it, re-orienting the deadlier rules as a variant.
Doesn't treat wounds remove a level of wounded
@@undrhil Treat Wounds removes the Wounded condition entirely, but Battle Medicine doesn't affect it.
I agree, it makes being healed and knocked down again worse than not being healed at all.
1. Hit down to 0 HP: Dying 1
2. Healed: Dying 0 Wounded 1
3. Hit down to 0 HP: Dying 2 Wounded 1
4. Hit again: Dead
1. Hit down to 0 HP: Dying 1
2. Hit again: Dying 2
3. Hit again: Dying 3
In both instances you were hit 3 times, but somehow being healed (assuming the healing was less than a damage instance, which as you said it likely is) means you're now dead instead of Dying 3. I don't like it.
Isn't the rationale behind the Undetected condition under Invisibility that most will not know the difference between something turning invisible and teleporting, for example? Visually, one might assume that the effects of Invisibility and Dimension Door would be similarly described ("It vanishes from view.") Also, there are illusions that fade from view. So, one may think that a target that suddenly disappears from view might be invisible, might have been teleported somehow, or might have been illusory in the first place. The difference will be dictated by other senses and actions (a Seek action to determine if "it" is still there or not, for example).
Good point - makes me want to be careful in how I describe what happens to players in such situations! Of course, someone with Recognize Spell will possibly know what was cast.
However, I would still allow the player to target the square without having to Seek first. The way I read it is "the target is Undetected, but you can certainly try to target that square."
exactly!
Attacking an unnoticed creature is a secret check iirc?
I mean you could also add in some "visual" or audio cues for certain types of magic, maybe blink makes the pop noise from instant transmission in dbza, maybe teleport creates a blue flash, while invisibility happens immediately with no cues (other than knowledge that a spell is being cast)
@@Ytinasniiable Yes, of course, and that comes with playstyle. Nothing wrong with that. :)
I prefer not to give such obvious clues because, the way I see it, they diminish the role of spellcasters and make feats like Recognize Spell useless. I like magic to be more subtle, in a way that general knowledge or combat experience alone won't cover the difference in casting between different spells. A dedicated spellcaster will automatically know a spell that they Counterspell, but I wouldn't like a martial character, untrained in Arcana, being able to do the same just because he saw it once. ^_^
#10. Yes you can pick the item up after disarming it. I haven't seen anything in the rules stating that you can't pick up an item that's in another creature's space, so there's no reason you couldn't do this after disarming the target. The reason they specify that it falls in the target's space is because it has to fall somewhere, and this avoids potential ambiguity about where it falls (including situations like a player trying to use Disarm to fling an enemy's weapon to the other side of the room).
If you can pickpocket someone in another square you should 100% be able to pick up an unattended object. Just gotta watch out for potential unarmed AoOs.
I’d like to point out that the invisible condition itself states that if you become invisible while observed, you are just hidden. The first part of the condition where it says you become undetected is not a contradiction because the condition itself says that this changes if you were already observed.
The way you are running it, which is the rules on invisibility, is exactly what the invisible condition itself says
I think Ron was referring to the problem that Invisible and Invisibility and the Spell Invisibility as well as Disappearance kind of contradict each other. The condition says you only become Hidden if you use a spell such as Invisibility to turn invisible while observed. But then the spell just says you become Undetected to all creatures. It doesn't just say you turn invisible, it says you turn Invisible AND Undetected, which contradicts the "Detecting Creatures" section as well as the Invisibility Condition itself. They should just remove either the part of "by way of the invisibility spell, for example" from Detecting Creatures, or they should remove the second part of the Invisibility spell and let it just say "You become invisible for the duration. If you take a hostile action, the condition ends after the action". That would solve the contradiction.
I think it would be extremely helpful and relatively easy for Paizo to change the flavor text portion of rules text to italics. It would require some effort, but it shouldn’t alter the formatting of the book and would help prevent ambiguity in things like the stunned condition.
Or, you know, just remove the flavor text altogether if they want to make the books more compact and user friendly.
Paizo seems to be comfortable with the Gnome Flickmace as is, given that there are 7 other one handed reach weapons, most of which are merely martial. The Asp Coil and Breaching Pike even have the same d6 of damage. The other Advanced 1 handed weapon with reach, the chain sword, also has sweep and trades the gnome trait for finesse.
Yup, flickmace is a little weak at this point, but not so much it's a problem.
Darn fighters got my poor innocent Gnome Champion (who rarely crits) nerfed.
That whole Death and Dying bit, I don't like the addition of the parenthesis either. I would only use that portion if the dying condition was higher than 4. I've toyed around with the idea of using something like "You die when your dying value is equal to 4 or equal to 2 + con modifier, whichever is greater." Which would make the Die Hard feat simply increase the total by 1.
Psychics Ampd Mage Hand allows you to disarm, and states that if you have an open hand, you get the item
On Death and Dying clarifications, I told my groups that I'd rather avoid a meta in which parties accomplish less because they have to run away more often to rest up more frequently. Running is always an option, but it should not be the only option.
8:54 The Invisible Condition, at least, does not contain the ambiguity you're describing here. While the first line does say that "You're undetected to everyone," a few lines down it continues and says that "If you become invisible while someone can already see you, you start out hidden to them (instead of undetected) until you successfully Sneak." While it isn't front and center, it is in the condition text and failing to read the full text before adjudicating the situation is the fault of the player and not any ambiguity on the part of the rule itself. However, the spells could certainly stand to clarify better, either by simply saying "the target gains the 'Invisible' condition," which directs the player to check the condition's text which does contain the clarification about turning invisible while seen, or they could simply reprint the caveat in the spell as well.
Yeah I remember getting confused on that death and dying inconsistency on a CRB reread a couple weeks ago. Honestly feels like most of the problems with these books old and remastered is putting parts of a rule in too many different places and then in editing someone either forgets or doesn’t know part of the rule is in another section leading to things like this. Probably isn’t helped by the fact that you have multiple authors working on this causing things to get lost between the lines.
And that's what they wanted to improve with the remaster. Getting things that belong together to one place instead of distributed over the entire book (or multiple books).
Something to note is that Tossing an item is a ranged attack but doesn't list a proficiency. I assume Improvised Weapon rules would be in effect in this case, which are simple weapons you take a -2 with. Makes the action hard if you aren't decent with DEX in the early going, but with a few levels under the belt that's easy to land for most characters.
For reference I think there has to be some proficiency involved because I don't think Paizo intends it to be a 50/50 on DEX characters basically forever and basically unavailable to low DEX characters. Improvised Weapon rules makes the most sense really. The -2 makes it iffy for a couple levels on DEX chars but within reason and eventually everyone could hit a 15 even with a -2.
Using fascinate as a taunt of sorts, where targeting anyone else is concealed or a flat dc to redirect an action, is how I’m working on houseruling the condition as well. I believe there was an enemy in Book of the Dead that essentially did that & fascination both, and after using it in a game a year or so ago I felt that was more how fascination should generally work.
It's interesting how the writers seem to be aware that Fascinate is kinda crappy, since basically every monster I know that gives the Fascinated condition has extra effects intertwined with it, like being forced to move towards the source of fascination etc.
I always wondered why they took the “attract aggro” action out from the rules after including it in the playtest. Clearly, you understand it is needed but didn’t replace it with anything. Did you think we wouldn’t house rule it in after you set the precedent? Baffling 🤔🤨🤷🏽♂️
Isn't this actually a Feat that could be taken via the Celebrity archetype? Houseruling that would kinda diminish that archetype and RAI. Imo just making it so the hostile action has to be from an otherwise non-allied party is fine
7:09 I imagine they include “in the targets space” to indicate that the target does not have to waste another action to move to pickup the weapon. It would be kind of broken to make it burn 2 actions in one turn.
That's one reading, though I think it being within reach would have been assumed had it not included the language.
On that note, I wouldn't mind clarity on what you can do to things/creature's in an enemy's space. I have allowed PCs to perform Battle Medicine on an ally that a monster is standing above, but I did wonder whether there should be some check involved
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG I agree that it did not need to be said for that to be assumed, but I do believe it was to prevent a player from attempting to disarm and fling the weapon in a single action.
This way the player would have to disarm the target and then could proceed to remove the weapon from their space if they wanted to use an second action to do so.
Essentially, they have to use 2 actions if they want the target to use 2 actions as well.
To answer your other point, the only information that I am aware of that mentions anything of the sort is the pickpocket skill feat and its associated feats. I don't know how those feats translate to the remaster, but if they left it the same I wonder if they do not address it to concerns of creating a power creep.
Edit: Now I am wondering if they are going to make a feat that allows you to remove the weapon as part of the disarm action.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG The Interact action does have the manipulate trait, so, using an action to pick up the enemies weapon, as well as said enemy possibly picking up their own weapon, would trigger most reactions which I think balances out the weapon stealing possibilities.
For example, if there was a lever on the wall, that could feasibly be reached within 3 spaces of said wall, if a hostile was in the middle space of the three spaces that reach the spot it still wouldn't stop the other two spaces from interacting with the said lever.
I cannot find any rule stating you cannot interact with unattended objects in another creatures space, hostile or otherwise, only that you can't end your movement in said space! So let the shenanigans commence and the reactions fly!
Does anyone believe having the reflex DC for avoiding a creature jumping on you can be houseruled as the Acrobatics DC of the jumping creature?
Sounds interesting - basically you beed to create few tables to compare progress of Skill and progress of Reflex and progress of DC.
Then just look if you like it, or maybe it requires some extra math
I think an Acrobatics check by the jumper vs the creature's Reflex DC, and making them fall prone on a critical success would be good. (maybe on a success? I hesitate, and they had some thought in not including the prone effect currently)
A similar situation I've seen: jumping onto a Large or bigger creature and hanging on to them. I'm thinking of allowing an Athletics check against the target's Fort DC, with the target being Grabbed if it's not too big for the jumper under the usual Grapple restrictions, and treating the creature like a moving wall (with the usual effects of Climbing)
That might make it easier to avoid larger creatures which seems counter intuitive to me.
ngl, sounds great
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG Perhaps.. that does of course imply that the suggested skill check can also be increased with bonuses. Don't have the experience as a GM to decide whether that's a good or a bad thing. It would be great for a wrestler though.
It also requires a defined skill action then, with 4 degrees of success...
And it might not work with any existing or upcoming feats that add to this, if paizo writers assume it is the targeted creature who must save. Don't know enough about existing feats to discern that either.
I think the resentment familiar needs a "the target is immune to this effect" -line. I'd like to suggest till the end of your next turn, so you can target the same creature only every other turn, prolonging 1 turn effects by only 1 turn and longer effects by half their original duration at maximum.
I think it's fine as is: my group has overwhelmingly favored martials instead of casters, and this is a way for my debuff centric caster players to feel strong.
Resentment only works for hexes, not for all spells like Ronald said.
@@louisst-amand9207 yeah, still that infinite loop seems OP - the spells it can be combined with were never meant to last a minute, sustained.
@@louisst-amand9207 He just said if others cast those spells, the witch can prolong them for them by casting a hex and doing evil eye. Which is true.
@@louisst-amand9207 You need to cast/substain a hex to get the effect. But the effect text does not say that it has any limitations on what typ of conditions (not only hexes) it increases the time on, a time limit itself, not even on how many conditons and at no extra cost.
In theory you can prolong any AND all 1 turn condition for as long as you cast/substain a hex every round (1min at least per fokus point) and you can keep your familar alive and in that 15ft. range of the target.
Thats absolutly insane and not even just by pf standart.
There should be a time limit like only 1 extra round max. It would stop stacking "infinite" 1 turn durations and it would STILL be powerful by pf standarts.
Thats how i would rule it.
I just have to say, being newer to Pathfinder, I really enjoy how you approach your analysis and critique. WRT to Death & Dying, I think I'll continue to play how I have been (in the 80% range) but I'm curious to see if Paizo clarifies it. I'm certainly all for some tables using the grittier version, but I think right now as my players are just starting to learn PF2E I'll take the more lenient path.
I think the addition of “all shields must be strapped to your arm” is a clarification, not an addition, since “detach a shield” was already in table 6-2 for changing equipment, it’s not new for the remaster.
Oh, Swap is great. I have a thaumaturge currently in a group that lacks magic (we're kind of pseudo-magic, I can use scrolls and make talismans, and also detect magic. The other characters have some abilities like magic, and one or two will get some actual casting later on, but for the most part we're not magical lol. It's a good challenge for us. We're all around level 5 now). Since thaumaturge needs their two hands filled, pulling out a scroll is an issue. I came up the idea of just dropping my sword and then pulling a scroll, but having a precious weapon on the ground for a round could be detrimental.
Except the thaumaturge already has the ability to just pull the scroll out with their hand that is holding esoterica. They don't need a second free hand for that
@@undrhil yup scroll thaumaturgy at base lets you hold a scroll along with your esoterica and your implements. you could actually juggle a scroll, a chalice implement a wand implement and your esoterica because that is how the thaumaturge do.
@@undrhil Damn, I guess I need to read better. Thaumaturge is quickly becoming my favourite class
I think the idea behind the Disarm verbiage "It falls to the ground in the target's space is there to avoid players arguing for "movie scene" disarming where the weapon flies into the distance. Equally the weapon cannot be "thrown" or dislocated further away from the target. So I would say it actually makes sense from a rules perspective.
It also leaves things open to incorporate additional abilities that could achieve knocking it into a different square in the future.
As an additional consideration, a perspective that is sometimes overlooked is that, as a base rule, Disarm can be done to players. It's one thing to say, "I want to be able to disarm their weapon so it goes out of their reach," but would you want that to happen to you as a player on a regular basis?
Sounds like the whole death and wounded was more a remnant of multiple people and things didn't get clarified.
In case of #11 - Invisibility
Excerpt from the PC 444 about the condition also states the same thing as on detecting creatures.
"If you become invisible while someone can already see you, you start out as hidden to them (instead of undetected) until you succesfully Sneak."
So there is no condratiction in those two sources (detecting creatures and Invisible Condition).
Though to be fair - spells description could be stated a bit better.
"The Ronald Interpretation" sounds like an experimental-prog-rock band.
"I had a player... named SAM"
I spat my drink laughing at that
6:35 if you're adjacent an obelisk with an orb, you can interact with that orb even if an enemy's space covers it, it's up to the DM to decide if they obstruct the item. I imagine it's ruled the same way for disarm and the enemy's weapon.
Hot take: Every other witch patron should be buffed to the resentments level, not the other way around. resentment is not overpowered, their familiar *can* be made into a fine paste to stop the effect.
Generally, I feel like all the witch patrons are pretty good. Occult debuffer (like many Witch players have begged for) - go Resentment. Occult buffer - go Spinner of Threads. Divine buffer - go Faith's Flamekeeper. Primal gish - go Wilding Steward. Primal caster/blaster - go Silence in Snow. Even Starless Shadow and Inscribed One aren't bad.
The power boost wasn't solely in the patrons (hexes and familiar abilities): the feats and changes to skills and spells has made spellcasting overall stronger.
I wanted a more gishy Witch and was using the Wild patron to accomplish that (since it had a non-existant hex). The Wilding Steward and the Rage of Elements changes gave me a lot of tools that I wanted. So, I'm super glad for Resentment being so power! But I'll be sticking with my Wilding Steward patron. XD
I can't help but feel like that version of the wounded and dying clock WOULD be fun, Just not unless players had a much much higher dying threshold before they're dead. That snowball effect is so intense that it almost seems like you're dying value should be able to go all the way up to eight
Interesting video. Some remarks:
#12 Thinking about it, Disarm is mostly a weaker Trip.
Both against Reflex, -2 to Attacks, Action that triggers Reactive Strike to Undo.
But Trip adds Flat Footed. The bonus to future Disarm and other checks is rather lackluster in comparison. Unless your team fishes for Crit Disarm.
#11 Yeah, that needs work.
#10 It is basically a terrible Taunt. Concealed does sound like a better option
#9 The Flickmace balance change was only about bringing it in line with the other 1H Reach weapons.
#8 Yeah, we need a "Jump down" action. But I guess we do have Grab an Edge/Arrest Fall right now?
#7 Maybe rename the "Attack" Trait to "Offense"? This is clearly a thing where a name change is needed to avoid ambiguity. Same as with Spell Levels and Spell Ranks
#5 It is wierd that AoN can be easier to navigate _because_ it has Hyperlinks.
#4 That first sentence is annoying. It is always that confusing mix of Summary, Flavor Text and actual rules.
Definitley need to claraifiy the "Stunned on your turn" thing.
#3 It is only really a issue for approaching a enemy. If the fighter tries to outrun the ogre, that ogre will just go for the caster backline.
#2 The second I saw that, I knew this was busted. There are way to many things that are _only_ balanced by the 1 Round thing. Sword Crit. Every save success.
#2: resentment only works on hexes.
@@louisst-amand9207 Not the versions shared thus far.
It works on any condition or effect. When you Cast or Sustain any Hex.
I think adding the wounded to dying increases from dmaage taken is okay as a variant rule, but I believe the standard should be Wounded only adds to Dying and, if any changes, homebrew to make it harder to remove Wounded.
The sticking point for me regarding Resentment is that some of the other options still require a dangerous positioning from the familiar for a lower-ceiling payoff. (These all require you to Cast or Sustain a hex).
>The Inscribed One (Arcane): Familiar can provide flanking as if it could attack and had a 5ft range (visual effect)
>Silence in Snow (Primal): 5 ft burst from corner of familiar's space of difficult terrain until the start of your next turn (yes, this means your familiar is now standing on difficult terrain it made).
>Spinner of Threads (Occult): +1 AC (status) to ally or -1 AC to enemy, both within 15 feet.
>Starless Shadow (Occult): Enemy adjacent to the familiar is frightened 1, but only if the familiar was concealed, hidden, or undetected to that enemy.
The other two, Faith's Flamekeeper (Divine) and Wilding Steward (Primal) have purely support effects (Former gives temp HP to an ally within 15 feet and the latter gives your familiar imprecise scent, tremorsense, or wavesense out to 60 ft until the start of your next turn) and as such can stay out of danger.
The Resentment's effect requires other maluses on the target to be useful, but considering the hex and spell you get from that patron, it'll nearly always be do so and has a MUCH higher ceiling. Honestly I think the ones that require such egregious danger from the familiar should be buffed up closer to Resentment's level and Resentment should be nudged down a tiny bit.
My suggestions:
>Resentment should only be able to prolong **one** status effect on the target, not any and all of them.
>Inscribed should do more than just be a flanking dummy. Not sure what; maybe fascinate the target while the target can see them, and can't be "unfascinated" by the usual means?
>Silence in Snow should at the very least be an emanation or aura so that they aren't standing in their own difficult terrain.
>Spinner of Threads I think is actually fine, perhaps a tiny bit under Resentment but still quite good considering it's flexible
>Starless Shadow should just... do something different. It's *really* hard to stay concealed (or better) to targets adjacent to you, and the hex only works on a failure, so frightened 1 (even automatic) is such a low payoff for doing something so dangerous.
For disarm I have a take: Some other systems have a different way to disarm where the weapon is tossed away. Pathfinder has never blocked any player to make interact actions on adjacent spaces so, yes, you can disarm and pick the weapon from the floor. Thats why this action only works on crits.
The stunned 1 condition is removed before your turn starts, as per "Step 1: Start Your Turn"
So even violent unleash applies it's stunned 1 before your turn starts (as the trigger for unleash psyche is before your turn)
You can't act until your turn, but your turn is normal outside of having 2 actions instead of 3
This is how it works, however, I do think it's confusing, since turn order rules state that you can only use one action before your turn begins, which is one with the "at the start of turn" trait, and nowhere does it specify you can use a free action on top of that before your turn begins.
@@eamk887 its a restriction on actions with "at the start of turn" triggers, free actions are free actions and violent unleash is triggered by unleash psyche so it doesn't count to the limit of 1
Agreed on attack rolls. I always thought the issue with attack rolls was trying to finesse athletics checks with a trip weapon, for example. However, that would have been simply solved by changing finesse to say "strike" rather than "attack". This is just confusing. Things with the attack trait that involve a roll should be an attack roll, and I don't see a real issue with true strike or bard song applying to trip or grapple, though *maybe* they thought that was the underlying issue?
The key differentiator is Attack Roll vs Skill Check.
In general there are more buffs that affects Skill Checks, so it is actually "better" that athletic attacks are skill checks.
There are also plenty of feats and mechanics that specifically target one and not the other, which is why it is significant.
Well, the line "you can't act" in the Stunned condition isn't the only contentious one. It reads "you've become senseless" one sentence earlier. Using precise and imprecise senses is paramount to many abilities and mechanics in the game. Who knows if "you've become senseless" is just a fluff text or should be interpreted literally.
That's why it's so confusing; the rule includes two sentences that could as well be either flavor text or literal rules.
I guess you could read the rules on the dying condition to be read as "You have a dying value, and dying total. When you lose your HPs, you get a dying value (1), which can increase if you get hit while dying. If you are also Wounded, you add that value to your dying value to give you a dying total. When the total gets to 4, you die". The line which says "Remember to add your wounded value..." is reminding players who are wounded that it is added to the dying value to see when they die, not that it gets added each time dying goes up.
It feels fairly deadly either way, and people who are wounded should be avoiding combat.
For disarm I believe they state "in their space" to remove ambiguity so they dm doesn't have to guess where it would go. For all intents and purposes it's becomes an unattended object in your reach you should be able to interact with it.
I've always run stun as the "can't act" starts at the end of your turn if you get stunned during your turn. I feel like this is the fair way to do it, though I'd agree that there's not a reading of the rules that lends itself to this without jumping through linguistics hoops.
Player Core "Conditions" for "Invisible" p. 444 says later the same thing you said. It's a little further in the paragraph and therefore need to take another look at it instead of thinking you must rule from p. 434. "If you become invisible while someone can see you, you start out hidden to them (instead of undetected) until you successfully Sneak." That's what it says word for word verbatim on p. 444 and I think the same thing would also apply and remain true from the definition given if something kind of like teleportation were to take place for extra-dimensional travel while being invisible.
In other words, the Invisible condition is first assuming that you would be gaining the condition while not first being observed, then after clarifying on the rule if you gained the condition while being observed. I think the default would be to rule it from either p. 434 because it would serve as an example or p. 444 to clear up any misconceptions because it's the definition given. I think the intention of what you explained about how to deal with contradictions means to rule it from where, as per our example, the condition Invisible itself is being described in the Conditions section rather than to assume anything something like a spell would suggest. Which it's common practice to rule something from the definition given as like in a Constitution Article instead of assuming anything something else would say, which also helps to cut down word count and page count because you have already gone through the hassle of explaining everything the subject matter pertains to in a separate section, and doesn't need to be clarified over and over time and again because the definition was given in the definitions of conditions section. Kind of like how a Constitution has an Article that sets out names and titles, and then gives definitions on those things in a separate Article and after that everything follows in separate Articles where you finally start getting down to business, and doesn't need to be explained tirelessly over and over every time the subject matter is being brought up or touched upon in separate areas.
So now you have an actual real world legal document to help you grasp what's going on. And therefore when all else fails for Pathfinder 2E disputes you can now know to default reliably to the Conditions section for the definition given on p. 444. If an argument were to arise about how it should be ruled, go to p. 444, which is no different than how legal disputes work in the court of law. It doesn't matter what the Invisibility spells says, nor what Disappearance says and nor what p. 434 says because p. 434 can serve little more than an example to help solidify what's being said on p. 444, the p. 444 definition trumps all other things mentioning Invisibility from cover to cover because that's where the definition for Invisible is given.
23:00
Absolutely agree with you here.
I've been quite frustrated, where traits are hidden behind other traits.
Especially in say, Fantasy Grounds or Foundry, I want to be able to click click click, to expand the relevant notes.
Most specifically,
Imunities, should not be hidden away behind layers of traits.
Similarly, Reaction Triggers like Movement, Manipulate, Concentrate,
Should not be hidden behind VS component.
I feel like number 2. with the familiar is not as big of a deal as it sounds on paper, because the familiar needs to be within 15 feet of the enemy, and especially in a boss fight that means the enemy just needs to look at the little thing wrong for it to die.
Just started this video (at the dicussion on Invisibility/Undetected discussion) and I wonder how much of this could have been avoided if the devs used keyword tagging in the text. So any use of a key word would be linked back to a glossary. Thus linked uses of the key word could be presumed as purely descriptive, which could reduce confusion over minor word choices.
Ideally you have both, but prempting this would at least make the archivists over at Archive of Nethys much happier.
Great video, that was a lot of thought going into the ambiguity of some rules that I agree should have been clarified. Here are some of my thoughts completely unsolicited :D
10. Disarm: Characters can interact with unattended objects within their reach. If you can throw a punch to anything in that square, you can grab anything within that square as well. I do not think there is anything that prevents that and doesn't need to be specified in the Disarm action. (Another example is: You can also feed potions to unconscious members adjacent to you and do not need to be on the same square as them to do so.)
9. I think the difference is mostly narrative but also about the default mystery of what the spell is being cast. If you see a creature and then they disappear within that spot after casting a spell, you actually don't know what spell they cast if you couldn't or didn't identify it. So it could be teleport, it could be planar transportation, it could also be invisibility. Now you can still take your chance, make a guess and target that square. While as with Hidden, you do know for a fact that they are there. (If the spell is identified as invisibility then I think it makes sense to rule them as Hidden against the one who identified the spell and undetected against everyone else)
8. I love your homebrew of Fascination and will probably start using it. I think the breaking clause should also be: If the creature you are fascinated by uses a hostile action against you or an ally...
7. Comparing Flickmace to other reach weapons like scorpion whip, asp coil and chain sword , 1d6 seems fine. 1h-Reach is huge already.
6. Acrobatics Basic Action against falls? Definitely YES
5. Attack rolls and Attack trait is reaaaaaally confusing. I differentiate them as Attack Rolls are against the AC (always) and the rest of the rolls with attack trait are checks. BUT YEAH FIX THE WORDING PAIZO
skipping to 2: I believe the intention with Resentment is that the prolong doesn't stack, it extends the duration by 1 round and that is it. You cannot use it again to make the original duration extend 2 rounds. It can only be extended to original duration + 1 round as the upper limit. Or at least that's how I would run it, still so powerful but remains to be seen if game breaking.
1. This is such a crisis ! I cannot believe they went into Remastered with that, especially when people had absolutely no issue about how wounded/dying was working as most people did. You are absolutely in the right with your ruling.
resentment also only works on hexes.
42:08
In a perfect world.
Inagree with you in. Be redundant in your clarifications. And triple check and cross check, your explanations for consistency.
However.
We understand that sacrifices are made in the name of book page space.
Unfortunately, this has resulted in reduction, or full, deep, elaborate, Clear and Concise language.we get summaries.
I would settle, for at least the consolation of a reference line (perfect for a hyperlink too)
Ie.
Reading Dying condition.
Reading Wounded condition.
"See also Dying."
"See also Wounded."
"See also Damage while Dying"
On the dying condition change: I think this is a typo that got in there from too many hands in the kitchen and someone pulling from the playtest docs. It seems to both discourage new players and work to be anti-teamwork. In a game where every other rules teaches that working together and helping allies improves success; here we have a change that results in increasing player deaths if you "dare" to help downed allies. Healing your team-mates actually now works to increase their odds of getting killed, which seems opposite of what should logically follow.
I think it’s to incentivize you to work together early to prevent the K.O., as well as prevent the yo-yoing of DnD. I like the clarified rules, going down or hanging out at low health should be dangerous/punishing. Personally I’d rather have the difficulty slider be going against harder or weaker encounters instead of making getting downed more or less impactful
For my money, the best death/dying system is Darkest Dungeon's 'Death's Door' mechanic. It is perfect. It is genius. It provides all of the tension you would want in a moment like that without giving downtime to the player, requiring extra fiddly mechanics, etc. You go to zero, you're on Death's Door. Any hit after that point is a Death's Door check and if you fail it, boom, dead.
But you're otherwise unimpacted. You can do whatever you want, push your luck or even play around your Death's Door save if you want to.
It's amazing how much extra play happens with this one change.
I've put Death's Door into all of my TTRPG campaigns regardless of system and until I see anything somehow more brilliant I have no plans to switch.
First of all: Thanks for your work. I run the "dying" the same way as you do. IMO it not only gives better chances but even more, gives a kind of stress, teamwork, choices etc. that most other systems fail to have.
I already added a house rule to allow Acrobatics to reduce a fall by 10 feet. This is my group's first time playing 2E after playing 1E since the beta test, and everyone felt like it was a huge gap in the rules to not have any way to safely jump down from 10 feet without burning a skill feat. I just made it DC20 to reduce a fall by 10 feet, 20 feet on a critical success, and allow the benefits to stack with the Cat Fall feat (my player who took the feat was all for this change, as now he can jump off of even higher ledges)
For the whole attack roll debacle I would have changed the property from "attack" to "attacking". Everything with the "attacking" property increments the multiple attack penalty. Then the only things that get to have the plain word "attack" would be the "strike attack" or the "spell attack", both of which would have the "attacking" property, of course. That way when you talk about "attack rolls" it can be intuitive from naming what it is that it is being talked about.
Granted, English is not even my first language, so what sounds ok to me might not sound even remotely fine to other people. Maybe the property could be name to something else other than "attacking". I don't know, but I agree that this was an opportunity to make this clearer.
It was definitely a heroic effort to make as many improvements and changes as they did in the timeframe that they did it in. Maybe for the next oportunity.
I believe the Invisibility descriptions are in agreement here. In all the sections, it describes the invisible target as being undetected as a default. The only difference lies in the description of detecting that target. In the Detecting Creatures segment it discusses if you observe someone going invisible vs the spell/condition describing when someone is seeking an invisible target. In essence, these are the same things as Seek lets you locate the space they are in, and observing someone going invisible effectively grants a successful Seek result.
16:25
so this whole time I read the rule wrong and it was best so
I ALWAYS made my players do an acrobatic check to reduce or nullify fall damage.
If they willingly jumped over, naturally, the acrobatic check only determines how well they land.
I still houseruled it my way:
So simple DC for "controlled falls" (i jump into a hole willingly)
on a failure: only take half damage
success: reduce the damage by half of the damage supposed to be eaten
So a 5ft fall, on the 3 damage (we always rounded UP), you take only 2 damage if you fail your save
critical: you can stride to half your speed, draw an item, observe/skill check at the same time
but if their fall was due to a being imbalanced or pushed over ==> normal rule comes in, because there is an actual risk of falling on your face.
falling on a creature:
you choose between acrobatic or athletic
acrobatic: against perception dc of the creature (take into account you are hidden to them or undetected)
athletic: against vigor
success: the creature takes the full damage you were supposed to take, you only take half of it
failure: both of you take damage
critical failure: you miss your target, too bad!
critical success: you can do an attack roll, using half of the fall damage into your damage die, you take half fall damage and get a +2 circum bonus to attack
6:20
For Disarm.
A dropped item, is not controlled by a creature.
It becomes an uncontrolled item, or rather,
An item that is not being worn, or held.
The clarity where the item drops, specifies that, where it drops.
It isn't 'falling behind my space, or into my allies space. It lands in the enemy' s space.
So, if I'm allowed to use an action to pick up an item in an adjacent space, then, no difference with the enemy there.
However, if I normally need to be in a space to pick up an item that is unattended, uncontrolled, abandoned, lost, etc ...
Clearly that rule would clarify for you.
The presence of the enemy, would be preventing me from. Entering the space, to grab the item.
Final point?
Absolutely, it should affect the party.
5:06 - I won't mention negativ stuff from the previous videos, as I struggle to keep 10 things in a "10 things that are..." video
5sec later: so let us start with number 13
ah perfect, never change with that xD
... Follow up.
Indeed, Im fairly certain that previous FAQ would include,
When I Disarm an enemy, can I keep the weapon in my empty hand (as in other editions?)
Can I drop the item in my space? Or launch it across the room?
Along with the examples demonstrating a disarm that collects the weapon.
Aka, Solid Snake CQC...
Thus, between previous editions, and FAQ, the statement that a disarm drops the item, in the creatures square,
Is a clarification.
Considering shields being strapped or not, I'd have liked to have the option to have types of shield that are both strapped and held. Given that both exist in real life: Viking and Roman shields were held, while knights' shields were commonly strapped.
A strapped shield would have the advantage that it can't be disarmed and won't drop when you're dropped, but the disadvantage that you need to take an action to strap or unstrap it, in addition to the action you need to draw it or put it away. More reliability, less flexibility.
A held shield would have the advantage of only needing to be drawn to be used and that it can be stowed away using only one action (or dropped using none), but the disadvantage that it can be disarmed and that it drops when you drop. Less reliability, more flexibility.
I was so upset that they didn't get rid of "sometimes scaling proficiency".
Because the Armor Weapon Proficiency General feat is **only** are useful on Casters! Because it's not about when your class gets it!
The sometimes scaling sometimes not proficiency has always been the one of the worst "features" in PF2. Because martials can't use it to get Advanced Weapons or increase thier armor.
In regards to the lack of hyperlinks; it isn't a difficult task, it's just tedious if it's added after the document has been published in pdf format. It's likely something that was considered to be low priority relative to the actual content and layout of the document. And is something that I think we can totally expect from Paizo if pressure is maintained on the topic. Their writers should now have a little more breathing room for such a task, and if not, it's something an untrained intern or temporary contractor could do for relatively little cost. Finger's crossed for an updated pdf in the near future, but keep the pressure on them so they know it's something we want.
#12. I think that they specified it falls into their space because other editions had the disarmer taking the weapon automatically if they had a free hand. It also prevents somebody on a cliff edge disarming the weapon over the edge. I don't think that there's a problem taking something from an occupied space. Though it would provoke a Reactive Strike.
#11. They could have put the exception into the invisible condition, but I suspect that they didn't want to bloat the conditions with every edge case. Since most people who go invisible are using the spell (for example, many item powers are simply innate spells), this covers enough cases that I think it's okay.
#8. If you are deliberately trying to fall on somebody, you should get an acrobatics attack vs the better of their acrobatics or reflex DC. It should definitely have the attack trait. The standard rule can be used for falls where people aren't trying to hit somebody.
Continued errors and inconsistencies (like #1). I suspect that in trying to remove all of the OGL text, they missed a few chances to clarify. I don't think we'll get clarification on this until they finish all of the remaster stuff.
26:14
OK. At least regarding something like.
Ready action : Flurry of Blows
The Stunned condition you read abive, only reduces actions, when you next regain actions.
So, if the Monk readied to strike an enemy when it approaches them.
The enemy starts turn 15 ft away. Strides forward. Triggers the flurry. Becomes stunned 1.
And loses one action next turn.
I believe Slow spell might be fairly clear on that as well, in its language... IIRC.
So at least that is clear.
The enemy doesn't 'ened its turn' if the Monk interrupts with a stun.
Yeah I'm also not a fan of this change to Wounded and Dying. The game is deadly enough in the Ronald method, and personally I think it's much more elegant to simply have your dying value increase or decrease by 1 or 2 depending on the roll of the dice. Adding your Wounded to failure and critical failure checks lopsides that in a way that feels overly punishing and unfun.
I know that errata says that only Strikes and spell attacks count as attack rolls, but there's so many different places with confusion. As for me and my table, I'm gonna continue ruling it as anything with the Attack trait is going to be considered. I don't play PFS, so I'm ok with houseruling it that way.
It sounds to me like if your dying and you get hit it goes up by one. But if you fail a recovery check it increases by 1+wounded
@10:34 BROOOOO this royally fucked up my yellow musk creeper encounter i made that had an assassin vine as a minor accomplice. Yellow musk creeper shoots a pollen that makes enemies fascinated and disallows them from doing anything that isnt walking closer to the plant so it can bore your brain out and turn you into a husk. The assassin vine hit someone else, and it made my player snap out of fascinated :l
I agree with you on the Stunned and Death rules. Do not really see much in what else you list but I will review this before we start a remastered PF2 game.
I appreciate that this is the "Rules Lawyer" and is all about interpreting the RAW. Having said that, I feel that Pathfinder 2e does not break when homebrewing certain rules. I think everyone would agree in principle.
Disarm: I feel this is still weak. At my table I have added a Martial Feat Advanced Disarm that allows the PC to roll a 1d20 and a 1d12 to determine how far away the enemy's weapon landed (1d20) and what direction (1d12). Many a good laugh and cheer has been had with this mechanic.
Death & Dying: I came from AD&D in the early 1980's (ya I've been playing for a while). I simply don't like these death rules and We don't use them. We use the old AD&D rules which I know would give the average player today a nervous breakdown. Basically; unconscious at 0 hp and bleeding out losing hp every round until permanent death at -10.
I do not imply that my house rules are better than the RAW or anyone else's, only that even the Remaster will never satisfy everyone.
My reading of Stunned:
Stunned removes the ability to act (reactions, mental/physical free actions such as communication) from a creature from the moment it’s gained until it has an opportunity to regain actions, which are consumed automatically 1-to-1 to reduce the stunned condition. The creature remains stunned this way until the number of actions regained reduces stunned to 0, at which point it is free to act with any remaining actions.
Pf2e is very precise about what conditions do and do not allow. I'm pretty sure they would've said that you can't speak/see/hear/etc, and if it prevented reactions it would say so.
That's why I think it's flowery text - you never have to interpret a word-that-is-not-a-condition to assume it means certain conditions.
I feel like falling more than 5ft makes sense because if you fall from 5ft or more it can hurt which is why tuck and roll when falling from that range of height is advised by people who do parkour. What I would do is if you fall/jump from 5ft or more you can roll an Acrobatics or Athletics check to see if you recover quick enough to not be Prone.
Now falling on a creature is a bit weird because you could say you fall on your mount to then beline after a target or to get away from attackers. In that situation it’s weird and situational.
On stunned: pg 415 of Player core Says "The most restrictive form of reducing actions is when an effect states you can't act. This means you can't use any actions, or even speak. When you can’t act, you still regain your actions unless another effect (like the stunned condition) prevents it." which proves that stunned is not flavor text. This reads to me that stunned 1 prevents reactions and then removes one action at the start of the creatures turn.
but the attack roll on page 10 by 19:04 give examples that grapple, shove or other strikes with your fist count as attacks
and about 28:20
what about warp step?
occult cantrip who gives +5 speed until the end of your turn, included in the 2 action casting are 2 strides, who can be on foot, burrow, climbing, flying or even swimming
It would be great to get someone from Paizo into a stream to clarify those things.
25:42
Reactions while Stunned?
That is a valid question at least.
The FAQ for the future Errata should probably be something like
...
"Does the Stunned condition allow Reactions, or not."
IIRC, there are other conditions which are more explicit regarding a condition which prevents the use of Reactions. Stunned, does not SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY deny reactions, so. RAW, it's not there.
If we treat the fluffy lines as flavour fluff.
"The main problem is that Pathfinder is already damn deadly. Particularly at lower Levels" - Oh yes, I experienced that with my group during the beginner box. In two runs. First one was a tpk and the second run was saved only because the goblin ranger rolled a crit fail on intimidation so that the endboss was busy laughing his ass off.
PF2E is too hard at low level imo.
22:05 - The popover sidebar, the table of contents, the index, and that green list should all be hyperlinked for accessibility, if nothing else.
I'm not sure if i am alone here, but i really like the "new" way to treat the "wounded" condition.
I´m one of these guys, that go to some sort of excel table and does the math behind Rules.
In this example i took the old habit for "Wounded" and the new one.
My results where the following:
On both ends, the wounded condition stays the same for when you drop down.
You just increase the dying value by your wounded value (E.: W1->normal hit Dying 2,Crit Dying 3, etc)
And because you only get wounded after you recover from one "Drop", means your first "Dropdown" statistically stays the same.
What changes is the average Dice result on your second drop and more.
in the old way, your die result are fix and with the dc on 10 as a flat check it's not even a 50/50
(5%+2, 40%+1, 50%-1, 5%-2)
the average result is by -0,1 Dying per dice roll, so you slowly recover regardless of your wounded condition
the new way makes dying little bit more realistic or deeper
now the negative part of the dying check gets more lethal, means the average dice result changes with each "Wounded" you get
Wounded 1 changes to +0,35 Dying per roll (it feels like your body could handle the first wounds, but the second are to much, so it slowly dies)
Wounded 2 changes to +0,8 Dying per roll (now your body sprints toward death, without external help you will die, most likely)
And the best part of Wounded 2 is how the dice rolling works.
You only get 3 rolls, each roll with a 45% chance of death, and the only way to stabilize is to crit the 2nd or at least don´t fail any of the three rolls
(It feels like standing in front of a death God that gives you 3 Coin flips and if you win all of them you stay alive)
i just realized i totaly forgot to add the increaced dc from your dying value to my math, so it seems to be even more deadly
for example wounded 2 has on its first roll an dc of 13 (5%-2, 35%-1, 55%+3, 5%+4) so on avarege: +1,4 dying first roll :d
i'd homebrew that invisibility includes a 5ft step. make your players do a tf2 spycheck.
I know most d20 systems aren't supposed to be realistic when it comes to medieval warfare, so I'm just spilling some history buff facts.
Shields would almost always be strapped to a soldier's arm, unless it had a grip in it's middle (behind the shield's "boss", for viking shields for instance). If a soldier would fight with a shield it meant he was part of a shield wall and that was decided for him for the whole combat because warriors carrying 2-handed weapon was a different kind of "unit" who would be behind them (using the 2-h weapon to break the enemies' spears).
But no, strapping a shield to your arm is like strapping a belt on your waist but tighter and you only have one free arm to unstrap it. You wouldn't be able to do it as fast as picking an item up or swap a weapon.
If one would want to apply this to rules (again, not advocating for it), then strapped shields would have the advantage of not being "disarmable" while the fighter also wouldn't drop it from suffering from panic, becoming unconscious or getting affected by a "command" spell that tells them to drop their stuff. Unstrapped shields, on the other hand, would give the advantage of being easily dropped and equipped.
I'd say the flickmace change was an upgrade. Lower dice but better at what it was used for. (works with swipe so more likely to crit...multiple creatures)
Also it getting knocked to a d6 means rogues can use it in the remaster
Also assume stunned stops reactions to give it a different effect than slow
Player Core page 415 Gaining And Losing Actions defines what "you can't act" means pretty clearly: You cannot take any actions, not even speak, until you regain actions. Reactions are a type of actions (consistently defined as such), so no reactions.
21:00
I definitely think, it could be resolved by changing the ATTACK trait... To a simple M.A.P. Trait.
It would mean that Leap. Leap Leap, would be 3 Athletics skill checks, with no Map.
But Grab, Disarm, Trip, (3 Athletics skill check rolls) would trigger M. A. P.
Escape escape escape, would trigger MAP, but not use the word 'attack'
And thus not be distracting or confusing.
'Can't act' isn't a flavour text. There's a sidebar which explains what does that mean: "Some conditions prevent you from taking a certain subset of actions, typically reactions. Other conditions simply say you can’t act. When you can’t act, you’re unable to take any actions at all. Unlike slowed or stunned, these don’t change the number of actions you regain; they just prevent you from using them. That means if you are somehow cured of paralysis on your turn, you can act immediately." p446 in the remaster. But it's not the remaster's introduction, it was always in the game: CRB, p 622.
Of course, this did cause a discussion what happens when you get 'Stunned' on your turn :) Though if you can act immediately when you remove a 'can't act' condition on your turn, this probably means that you can't act immediately if you gain such condition on your turn.
The Wounded condition increasing the dying value when you get hit as well means that if you have Wounded 1 and go down, then getting hit a single time is instant death. You start at dying 1, which goes up to 2 because of wounded, then a hit would increase that by 1 to 3, then the wounded condition would finish you off. I don't know if the person who wrote this rule is good at basic math, but that's a bad mechanic
My brain’s immediate response to Ronald at 41:06 🎶*you’re never gonna keep me down*🎵 😅🧐💀
Swap for shields. Instead, of stowing a weapon and drawing another weapon. When you swap a shield. You detach the shield, stow the shield, and your hand is freed in 1 action. A versatile weapon could be used by a shield bearer that has other appropriate feats.
24:31
In previous editions, the flavour text, fluff, nonsense,
Was in italics.
Followed by a line space.
Followed by the actual mechanics.
In this case.
"You are senseless, you can't act (normally)."
Is the flavour fluff nonsense. It's a suggested narrative,
The mechanics follow.
The mechq ICs you read are very clear.
Read them alone. And how you process stunned 1, or stunned 4, or stunned 17, is clear.
Its like, playing any game, and receiving a. Lose an action effect.
Or lose 2 actions effect.
Or lose 17 actions effect.
Etc.
Stunned 4 = lose 4 actions.
And gives a clear example as well.
One might question how stunned 4 works with something like, Quickened (the coveted 4th action)
But,
YMMV
And DM as you see fit.
Its clear that stunned 2 costs you 2 actions total.
Stunned 1 costs you only 1 action.
Stunned 4 costs you, 4 actions.
I hand out action tokens at start of turn. Along with reaction tokens.
You spend them to do things.
Stunned,... Reduces the actions I give you at start of your turn.
Simple?
People who say, "It shouldn't be hard to..." are almost always people who've never done anything like it in their lives.
Find a HEMA group. Find out how hard it is to do stuff in combat. None around? There are still ways to try it yourself.
Do you know what is aaakshuwally involved in "simply" putting a bow away? You can sling it across your chest. First slip one arm through. Pull the string a bit to get it wider to go over your head. You have a 140 lb draw warbow, and not the little kids' back yard bow with maybe 25 lb draw, right? Well, the RPG character is way stronger than you, so let that slide.
Maybe you don't have a bow at all. This will be an exercise of pure intellect. Okay, what are you wearing? The person thinking this is so simple has likely never worn armor. What plates, straps, and other things might be present to interfere with that process? Mail would present the cleanest surface in that respect.
The character is undoubtedly wearing some kind of pack. A day pack at the least. A full sized backpack is more likely. A large frame pack is most likely, given how much crap players load on characters. No, slinging the bow across your chest is not even an option unless you've dropped whatever pack you wore.
Sometimes, a bow was carried in a quiver-like thingy. That takes one hand to hold the thingy and the other to feed the bow in until it fits snugly (so it won't fall out). Before you can do that, you must reach back and find the thingy, and shift it forward to the position where you can put the bow into it.
None of this is happening in less than a second. More like several seconds.
So much for the bow. Sheath a sword? Takes two hands. Sheath a dagger? Two hands. Remember, you want to do this without looking away from your opponent. If you look down to find your sheath, that's a free opportunity for the opponent to give you a whack. He gets that attack while your guard is down (a significant bonus should attach here) because you are putting away the weapon you had been using to fend him off, and he attacks while you can't react because you are looking down at your sheath (cue another bonus here).
It's looking like you aren't going to put any item away in its proper sheath, pocket, or whatever as a free action. So, no way is the character putting one thing away AND drawing another weapon as a free action.
The idea that interacting with an object takes a chunk of your six second round is very sound.
I don't see the contradiction with invisibility? Both under "Detecting Creatures" and "Conditions", it says that an observed creature becoming invisible only becomes hidden until they successfully Sneak. Sure, the spell doesn't say that, but it's fairly common for spells not to include every aspect of the conditions they impose.
Regarding hyperlinks, I reckon it's just a budget issue. They didn't want to pay someone to hyperlink the document each time it gets updated.
As for Stunned, I always figured the reaction denial was the main difference between "Stunned 1" and "Slowed 1 for one round" - and that's a relevant thing for monks, who have level 2 feats giving them access to either.
9:05
Maybe the section where it describes how if a creature is observing you, you only become hidden is supposed to override the Invisible condition
For more clarification. Is disarm, grapple, attack actions impose the multiple attack penalty
Yeah, I'm ignoring those added bits to Recovery Checks, that's way too lethal.
I know this is a very late to the table comment, but here are my thoughts on the Stunned action/reaction controversy, and how I would rule on it... It states that you are become "senseless" and lose a certain number of actions based on the "Level" of the Stun condition ... Stunned 1, Stunned 2, etc.... So I rule that as if you are stunned 1 then you lose one action/reaction... if you are in a situation where you would want to use a reaction that you have then you cannot use it, but that counts toward the value decreasing. So, using your example where you stun the enemy fighter so that your threatened all can try to move away. You roll and the results leave the fighter with the "Stunned 2" condition. He loses that attempt for a reactive strike, if he was going to attempt to use it, and then on the fighters next turn they lose the first of their actions that turn, thus if they'd normally have 3 available actions they would now have only 2. Seems simple and straight forward to me, and an easy, logical solution. If a character does not have a reaction that they would use then they would lose their first 2 actions to being Stunned as per the way the rule text reads.
I will note that a similar condition, Slowed, specifically states that the slowed conditions starts on the slowed characters next turn. Something they did not specify in the Stunned condition.
6:50 - Mage Hand* got you covered. It’s the best cantrip for creative play.
*Or Tiny Telekinesis, or whatever they rename it.
RE: Hyperlinks
In-text hyperlinks would have been useful for sure, but there are bookmarks that pretty closely mirror the sidebar. Not as good, but better than nothing. It'll have to do until it's up on Nethys.
On the flick mace, I would house rule it based on players choice: either no reach OR two handed weapon.