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!!
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.
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).
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. ^_^
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.
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.
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.
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.
#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.
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Is it just me of is the Hidden condition a poor choice of word? If I play hide & seek, I don't know WHERE people are hidden. For me, to HIDE something is to make it's wherabouts unclear. If I know where someone is, but I can't see them, then they are *obscured* to me? Unseen? Occulted? Unperceived? Imperceptible? I don't know, Hidden is just confusing. Undetected is clear, thankfully.
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 was discussing casters getting a bit more defence, but that is from my experience as a sorcerer who’s VERY good in their saves and AC (for a caster at lvl 10 with AC 27 and all saves at +19) but i found it very sad that the only prof increase ill get in my defences from now on is expert in armor at 13th and mastery in will saves at 17th lvl as our rogue get’s legendary in reflex AND perception at 13th and the same as my final upgrade (master in will) two levels after me
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.
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.
@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
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
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
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
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.
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.
Would you think it would be intresting if instead of increasing Dying by 2 for a critical fail of recovery it would be 1 + Wounded? It does make not wounded recovery less scary and only gets where it originally is with Wounded 1 and only gets scarier from Wounded 2 and let's be honest if you have wounded 2 you'll probably die soon anyway (without Hero Points). Also maybe make 1 for usual hits and damage and 1 + Wounded for critical hits and fails? This way you cannot be just killed by persistent damage but makes wounded matter. hmmm. It's even less deadly than your version. I think that's not a bad thing. I have never played PF and it's just random idea.
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.
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?
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.
Second Comment: On the topic of Resentment. Do the other familiar effects require they stay within 15 feet? if not, I think that's a pretty clear benefit to compare, as a familiar within 15 feet of the target they're repeat debuff extending is a VERY big target.
For the most part, yes, they are requiring the familiar to be in the danger zone. The divine one is the least risky as it's an ally buff effect, and one of the nature ones has quite a bit of range (but is much more niche), but all the others want the familiar to be close to something hostile.
This is a really important aspect people are missing. resentment is not OP, it's the *only* patron that is recognizing the threat/cost analysis. it's a huge effect, something witches desperately need but it comes with a huge risk of making your fragile familiar have to remain super close by
That is assuming the danger zone is actually real - familiars can fly, and a hefty chunk on monsters cant do much about a raven flying above them. @@ev3867
the invisibility spell and disappearance spell need an update imo, but if i'm not wrong, the "invisible condition" screenshot you put up also has the rule regarding it happening during combat in 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.
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.
Another great video. Thanks for doing this. After watching this video I realized PF is not for me. I'll stick with Fantasy AGE 2e (which is non-OGL btw).
The Stunt system is the main feature for me: The system uses 3d6 vs TN. For combat, exploration and social actions you roll the 3d6. If you get a double on ANY of the 3d6 you get Stunt Points to spend. For example, after a successful hit, you can buy +2d6 damage, knock down someone, or push them just to name a few. It makes combat, social encounters and explorations less predictable. Adversaries can also get stunt points. Classes are more flexible. There are only 4 (relax!) Classes: Envoy, Mage, Rogue and Warrior but you customize them as you gain levels (1-20) with Skill Focuses, Talents, Specializations, Class Stunts and Features. My most recent character is a warrior who can cast Flame Blade on his sword. An arcane warrior. I plan to buy other spells at higher levels. Mages (arcane or divine) use Magic Points, which I prefer. You can cast spells in armor but you pay an extra resistance cost. Finally, there are nine abilities (relax again!) Dexterity is decoupled from Accuracy. Strength is decoupled from Fighting. The ability used for social interactions is Communication. The others are Willpower, Intelligence, Perception, and Constitution. It will feel familiar because you played D&D and Pathfinder but it will also be very different in several ways, that I like. You can download the QSR on Green Ronin’s website.
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.
Funny how you worry about being 100% compliant with RAW. I even take solid normal rules with a grain of salt if they can be improved upon a little bit. I love to homebrew and houserule! Any clearly unbalanced thing I don't even think about just change it while reading. Like the +10 move items, just nerf or remove the spell from the game. Any unclear wording I just switch to RAI immediately. If that's also unclear I'd pick what I'd like myself, like the silly adding wounded again when dying. You could even change the arbitrary number of 4 and/or give bonuses to checks. The goal is to not have people yo-yo and casually get to 0 and get back up. So the wounded evokes a sense of dread, a "failing forward" type of mechanic. The stun "you can't act" is contradicted by the rest as when you regain actions you clearly can act. So it could be just flavor. But RAW you can argue that UNTIL one regain actions one can't act including any reactions. So for that one turn, or possible for ANOTHER turn if one gets stun 3. As soon as you regain an action you also get back reactions.
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.
About Invisibility. You say that the text in the "Invisible" condition contradicts the text in the "Detecting Creatures" rules, but it doesn't. If you read the entire paragraph for the Invisible condition, you'll see that it says the same thing as "Detecting Creatures", i.e. that if you are observed when turning invisible, you start out hidden instead of undetected.
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
"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.
My problem with Tailwind isn’t the spell or the easy access to it. Because speed is such a major part of winning strategy in the game, players SHOULD have multiple pathways to increase it. Also, stripping players of one of the few long-term buff methods just doesn’t seem fun. I’m well aware that long term, pre-battle buffing is mainly just a holdover from previous editions. But a slightly increased speed boost fits rather nicely into that rarified space in this edition. My real problem is Paizo’s ridiculous complete lack of willingness to adjust those other options to more appropriate bonus types. Especially when it’s clear said other types make more sense. The Monk is an outstanding example. All those speed boosts via Incredible Movement should be untyped bonuses. Given that they are built right into the class and don’t come via class feats, spells, or the like, they should be stackable with other speed types. If they were untyped, speed would truly remain the Monk’s schtick and not be yet another feature other classes could so easily swipe, and/or replicate. It’s the exact same thing with Swashbucklers. They have to work a bit harder for their increased speed, but given that Vivacious Speed is built into their class features, making it untyped should have been the proper decision. But what about actual class feats? Many of them tend to provide speed boosts in limited, um, circumstances. The Barbarian is perhaps the perfect example. Why would any Barbarian pick up Fast Movement at level 4 or beyond when it lasts only for your Rage period. That seems rather, um, circumstantial to me. Class feats such as Fast Movement should provide a Circumstance bonus to speed. What about other spells? Well I think in most cases they are fine. Fleet Step, for example, is most often used as an escape/retreat-style spell. And yes, keeping it as a Status bonus is fine. My suggestions also hold up fine in archetypes. The Swashbuckler’s Speed feat becomes available to players at level 8. Is a 5- to 10-foot untyped speed bonus completely unruly and op for a player multiclassing into Swashbuckler archetype? No. Not even when combined with the Tailwind status bonus. A player picking up Barbarian archetype specifically for Rage now has more incentive to pick up Fast Movement at level 8, as the Circumstance bonus stacks with Tailwind. The Scout archetype gives Scout’s Speed as early as level 6. But making this an untyped bonus is fine. It’s no different than picking up Monk Moves, which would also be an untyped speed bonus. Only Scout’s Speed is available two levels earlier and doesn’t prohibit the player from wearing armor. So it’s better, but also tucked behind a thematic archetype that may or may not otherwise make sense for a player. For the record, I’ve been playing with my suggested changes at my own table pretty much since the game released and the relevant classes & archetypes became available. I’ve had zero balance issues. Once you move past a 40-foot movement speed, you start stumbling into diminishing returns territory anyway for nearly 70% of combat (with regards to creatures; other concepts like overcoming difficult terrain is a bit different).
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.
For me lethality increase at lower level in heroic fantasy system is idiotic. It's already too easy to lose character in levels 1-4 for new players who don't optimize tactics/builds/weapons/positioning or party composition. If people would play with this rule for last years I bet a lot of new players touching stuff like AoA/AV or AoEW would just drop out of the system period. It's way way too swingy in d20 system in early levels, especially with PF2e crit rules.
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.
1. The fact that Paizo failed to use this Remaster as an opportunity to officially separate all flavor text from mechanical text is a massive failure. Whatever one’s opinions are on any of the new changes to classes or mechanics, the company missed a golden opportunity to help fix one of the things that has plagued them since the initial release. Given that a large part of their stated goal was to help make the game more accessible and less confusing via an easier entry ramp, their inability to clearly separate all flavor text from mechanical text is bewildering, and, I’d argue, also rather embarrassing. They failed in this regard. 2. Good luck Paizo in getting new people to stick with your otherwise awesome game with these ridiculous new (but old?) Death & Dying rules. While it’s possible that most tables will be fine once they learn to navigate the (intended) rules, gaining said experience for that is going to be a chore and a half for most everyone. Nothing says “don’t play our game” to a broad audience faster than making the game absurdly hard at early levels. 3. My apologies to everyone over the past four years to whom I uttered the words, PF2e isn’t quite as deadly as it is made out to be.
On the topic of stunned, I think the wording is just *ok*, because the way I think of each action is a 2 second chunk of time. So if you are stunned 1, until it's your turn and you have to discard that first 2 second action period, you can't use a reaction as you are unable to act as per the text... It is however absolutely bonkers that it is not clarified though. That wording is incredibly ambiguous and requires a lot of RAI thought.
While Gnome Flickmace remains a solid choice in the game, and usually gets picked from time to time at my table, I’m not running into any issues like you must be. I’ve found the Sweep trait lackluster overall, but it obviously works better on reach weapons. Most characters still need to invest in feats just to use it. Many folks willing to sink significant feat resources into weapons are more likely building for a higher damage build anyways, and the change to a d6 takes much of the shiny luster off the flickmace. I don’t know. I wasn’t a huge fan of the nerf to begin with. I will fully admit it was quite strong and, somewhat arguably, broken. Then again, at its heart it made for a lot of fun Gnome builds that otherwise wouldn’t have happened. Perhaps most infuriating is whenever I’d come across someone complaining about it, only to find out said person was whining about it from the safety of their white room builds and not actual gameplay. Worst of all are the whiny GMs that would argue it was overpowered, only for me to find out through conversation with them that they’d just waive away the prerequisites. So yeah, they’d hand waive requirements that were meant to help balance it in game; then whine about it being too powerful in their game. To be fair, this was not every GM doing this; some did have legitimate experiences in game that they felt were a bit too much. But there were enough GMs I ran into that essentially were upset as a result of their own decision to hand wave things.
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.
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
The wounded thing is so absurd. The game is already deadly enough without adding your wounded value to your dying value EVERY time it increases. Yikes!
Hey, I've been down on some of your content, especially because of the some of the anti-5th ed stuff that got fed into my feed which I thought in general were bad takes. But I 110% agree with #3. And am glad at least someone else talks about it. People rarely spend enough time talking about options that are too strong in this game.
Stunned is ultra clear, you're definitely getting caught up on a simple flavor text (which probably shouldn't be there). Stunned simply removes an amount of actions at the beginning of the suffering creatures turn, same as slowed. Difference is that Stunned is usually a numerical value that equals the amount of actions lost during the next round where as Slowed is a numerical value for the actions lost each round over a set duration.
@@datonkallandor8687 very cute, but the rules are clear on this, there's literally a rules section called "Act" that has these sentences: "Some effects might prevent you from acting. If you can’t act, you can’t use any actions, including reactions and free actions."
18:06 Does it bother you, that Escape, Disarm, Trip, Shove, Grapple, etc etc etc, Are Skill Actions, which have a Roll, often a Skill Check against the opposing DC, Ie, An Athletics skill check roll, against the Reflex Save DC of the opponent, to Trip... Similarly to, making a Demoralize attempt, with the Intimidation Skill. Check roll, The difference between the two being that escape or trip etc have the ATTACK TRAIT. which, triggers MAP, and counts towards MAP. Thus, Strike, Strike, Shive away, would suffer heavy MAP. WHEREAS, Strike, Strike, Demoralize, would not. Would you prefer, if the MAP actions, had a MAP trait? Instead? That way, ATTACK ROLLS, could be separate from the Escape action, which would not be an 'attack', but and thus less confusing, but would be a MAP trait action,
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.
14:37 Though, the largest difference between the Flickmace, and any other Whip like, 1 hand, reach weapon, Would be that it was a 1d8, one hand wpn. It did lose things like Disarm or Trip traits,and only gains 'Trip on Crit' if you have Crit Spec. Flail Group, Etc. It also lacks say, Fatal or Deadly, Which, especially mid level and higher, are gross. Even with 2 reactions, that Fighter could still only actually Flickmace AoO, twice right... So, while 3 reactions, In this action economy? Sounds amazing... Still. Its not exactly Combat Reflexes, with a +8 Dex mod. Innit?
My ruling on #1 is to ignore the last sentence of the "Taking Damage" section. In my head canon, it was left there accidentally, and doesn't fit with any other references in-book. Even if it's there on purpose, it's not there if you strike a like through it lol
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.
31:00 Support. I agree with you that the resentment, seems quite strong. That might be necessary, in some regards, if the class is too weak in other regards... Ie. The Divine Font is pretty fracking amazing. Our Cleric has had 5 BONUS HEAL bombs, in our Abom Vaults campaign, and now has a Staff of Healing for bonus Heal Spells. That's been huge. Combined with pro elite use of battle medicine and treat wounds. Our party has been pretty devastating. Thaumaturge, has been a mack truck, from 1st or 2nd level. And never looked back. Absolutely devastating. So, it's strong but is it TOO STRONG? Good question. Clearly you might want to leave it off your table, but I like that at least there is one powerful witch option now.. Some parties have very powerful allies amongst them, and the witch just might not 'keep up'. But definitely, extend all. Negative Durations one round, automatically? That's pretty crazy.
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.
19:31 See, the Athletics skill check for Reposition, is a skill check roll. Not an attack roll. A strike, is an attack roll, and it adds your weapon proficiency, not your Athletics proficiency. You don't normally get to add your, Weapon Proficiency, to a Reposition or Trip or Shove attempt. Right? Because it's a Skill check, not a Weapon Attack roll. I see your desire to avoid using 'similar language', for different labels. But essentially, You have ATTACK ROLLS, like Weapon or Spell Strikes, Make a Ranged Weapon Attack Roll. Make a Melee Weapon Attack Roll. Make a Ranged Spell Attack Roll. Etc. Etc. All those various attack rolls, are different from, say A Skill Check Roll. The thing that some Skill checks share in common with Strikes, is that some Skill Checks also have the ATTACK TRAIT. Similarly though, some actions have the MOVEMENT trait, even if you don't actually Move anywhere. Right?
38:25 Wow. Mirrored contradictions? That's soooo strange. I did not expect that. What a sneaky thing. So, how does Paizo expect even Rules Lawyers, (none here certainly, Tee hee hee) ... To parse and determine, There actual RAW and RAI, When the playtest, lacked the Damage while dying + wounded, lethal subclause... But had it in Dying, and in Wounded... But the Core Rules for 4 printings? Removed that subclause from the Dying and the Wounded sections, But seemingly moved it, to the Damage while dying section... They flipped it?
im sorry just no... "theyre heroes" doesnt fly...the PC's are normal people trying to BECOME heroes/legends...its stupid giving them the magic ability to just bullshit or anime out of fall damage...in fact im probably nerfing tf out of cat fall just no, they can die just like anyone else bruh...your thinking with PF 1st/DnD logic on that one, 2E is about challenging content/combat always has been. Nothing "fun" about falling on creatures either...again PF 2E is supposed to be difficult and challenging GROUP CONTENT...god damn do people just want their hands held/easy wins? not happening. You've always added Wounded condition to dying values, nothings changed. Again PF 2E is supposed to be difficult, if PC's die they die, you shouldnt "bank" your hero point to survive instead play smarter and more tactically... The things I hate in the remaster are all the buffs and other BS the PC's dont need except maybe the Witch and War Cleric those are fine...again if people want a gg ez "im special" bs game they can go play DnD.
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?
Regarding #6, I think there should be much more things with a fixed DC. I don't like the system's core assumption that any obstacle can be scaled indefinitely.
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.
37:00 Was that ogb459 present in all the printings of the core rules? Oh. Interesting. Sneaky. Like we mentioned with other... 'hidden traits'. UGG. That would data is actually significantly impactful to the discussion. Nasty.
37:59 No. The problem there isn't that the pg 459 clause 'don't forget to include your wounded value also... " That's clear. Not murky. Not vague. Not ambiguous. Specifically. If you suffer damage, while you are already dying. Your value increases. By 1, from damage alone. By 2, if that is a Critical hit, or Yiu suffered a Critical Fail on the save. (samenas when you are knocked down to 0 hp right). It adds a supplemental. To remember to also include your Wounded value. The only mistake errate there then, would be that they changed the text on og 460 and 623, as you quoted, but missed the reference to those Previously consistent explanations. By removing the redundant explanations there on the sections we might consult more often, Dying. Wounded. It makes it very easy to miss this one line on 459. The only confusion left would be. Did they intentionally rewrite Dying and Wounded to remove that lethal clause, but accidentally miss it in the Damage suffered while dying section?
27:24 So long stride in 5e is, pretty useless. Overall. Are you proposing that, it's too strong in PF2. Being a simple spell that makes your Stride actions more effective? Is it not, fair, when Barbarians, Monks, and others, already gain either Speed increases, that are always active,and this has a spell slot 'tax' And Fleet, has a Feat cost, for fleet feet... The fleet feet feat... Neat. Whereas some classes just bake it in? Further, some monsters, have very fast speeds? Wolf. Tiger. Horse. Mounted enemies. Question. How powerful, is a 10nft bonus to speed. Compared to, a Heal spell, or, a focus spell, that can be used repeatedly during the day. Is it actually, OP?
I don't know if this is the INTENDED interpretation of Deatha nd Dying, and it's certainly not how I first interpreted it when you showed the text but, on examintation I've come to this conlusion that MIGHT be the intented way to read it. When marking Dying on your character sheet, you mark Dying 1 when you are reduced to 0 Hit Points. The rules state that you die at Dying 4, and that you add your Wounded Value to your Dying value. So, here's what I think could be intended by this wording. If you are Wounded 2 and then reduced to 0 HP you don't makr Dying 3 on your character sheet. You mark Dying 1. However, you bear in mind that 1+2 = 3 and thus you will die at Dying 2 because that then sums to 4.They MIGHT be talking about 'adding your Wounded value' in that context. It is INCREDIBLY shaky logic and not how any sensible person reading that text would interpret it but who knows?
8:57 Look at your two quotes, for invisible. They repeat the same language for the exception, if you are already observed when you become invisible. So, not actually a contradiction there. The invisible spell didn't repeat it again, however, I haven't had that problem in say, Foundry, where we play, because when I use INVISIBLE SPELL, I drag the Invisible condition onto the Player or Monster, I can see the first two descriptions you quoted, which make it clear that I apply Hidden instead of Undetected, if it was observed when it became invisible. But. TL DR, Just read the first two examples, ignoring the simpler text for the Spell. They are actually, nearly identical, and not actually contradictory. One might even think, that they copy/pasted those two sections, to ensure the language would be virtually identical, And prevent confusion.
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!!
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.
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
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. ^_^
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
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.
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.
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.
#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.
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
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.
Psychics Ampd Mage Hand allows you to disarm, and states that if you have an open hand, you get the item
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Sounds like the whole death and wounded was more a remnant of multiple people and things didn't get clarified.
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.
You know you're allowed to press number keys other than 1 and 0 for titles, right? Please, just press the 3
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!
"The Ronald Interpretation" sounds like an experimental-prog-rock band.
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
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
"I had a player... named SAM"
I spat my drink laughing at that
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.
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.
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.
Can paizo chill the hell out? I already saw a player get 1 shot form 100% HP to insta dead massive damage at level 1 in kingmaker. Chill out for real
Is it just me of is the Hidden condition a poor choice of word? If I play hide & seek, I don't know WHERE people are hidden. For me, to HIDE something is to make it's wherabouts unclear. If I know where someone is, but I can't see them, then they are *obscured* to me? Unseen? Occulted? Unperceived? Imperceptible? I don't know, Hidden is just confusing.
Undetected is clear, thankfully.
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 was discussing casters getting a bit more defence, but that is from my experience as a sorcerer who’s VERY good in their saves and AC (for a caster at lvl 10 with AC 27 and all saves at +19) but i found it very sad that the only prof increase ill get in my defences from now on is expert in armor at 13th and mastery in will saves at 17th lvl as our rogue get’s legendary in reflex AND perception at 13th and the same as my final upgrade (master in will) two levels after me
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.
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.
@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
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
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
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
i'd homebrew that invisibility includes a 5ft step. make your players do a tf2 spycheck.
Preemptive positive comment.
🙏 algorithm be good 🙏
"Top 10 things i dislike about this:"
"Number 13!"
I love it lmao 😂
Yeah, I'm ignoring those added bits to Recovery Checks, that's way too lethal.
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.
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.
Would you think it would be intresting if instead of increasing Dying by 2 for a critical fail of recovery it would be 1 + Wounded? It does make not wounded recovery less scary and only gets where it originally is with Wounded 1 and only gets scarier from Wounded 2 and let's be honest if you have wounded 2 you'll probably die soon anyway (without Hero Points). Also maybe make 1 for usual hits and damage and 1 + Wounded for critical hits and fails? This way you cannot be just killed by persistent damage but makes wounded matter. hmmm. It's even less deadly than your version. I think that's not a bad thing.
I have never played PF and it's just random idea.
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.
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?
For the falling damage point, doesn't Cat Fall help mitigate that?
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.
Second Comment: On the topic of Resentment. Do the other familiar effects require they stay within 15 feet? if not, I think that's a pretty clear benefit to compare, as a familiar within 15 feet of the target they're repeat debuff extending is a VERY big target.
For the most part, yes, they are requiring the familiar to be in the danger zone. The divine one is the least risky as it's an ally buff effect, and one of the nature ones has quite a bit of range (but is much more niche), but all the others want the familiar to be close to something hostile.
resentment only works for hexes, not for spells, which Ronald didn't realize.
This is a really important aspect people are missing. resentment is not OP, it's the *only* patron that is recognizing the threat/cost analysis. it's a huge effect, something witches desperately need but it comes with a huge risk of making your fragile familiar have to remain super close by
That is assuming the danger zone is actually real - familiars can fly, and a hefty chunk on monsters cant do much about a raven flying above them. @@ev3867
the invisibility spell and disappearance spell need an update imo, but if i'm not wrong, the "invisible condition" screenshot you put up also has the rule regarding it happening during combat in it?
Does the GM Remaster do a better job of sorting consumables than the Core? It's often a chore to remember what category various drinkables fall under.
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.
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.
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
Another great video. Thanks for doing this. After watching this video I realized PF is not for me. I'll stick with Fantasy AGE 2e (which is non-OGL btw).
What is the elevator pitch for that system and why do you enjoy it over other ones? (I'm developing a shortlist of RPGs I want to check out soon)
The Stunt system is the main feature for me: The system uses 3d6 vs TN. For combat, exploration and social actions you roll the 3d6. If you get a double on ANY of the 3d6 you get Stunt Points to spend. For example, after a successful hit, you can buy +2d6 damage, knock down someone, or push them just to name a few. It makes combat, social encounters and explorations less predictable. Adversaries can also get stunt points.
Classes are more flexible. There are only 4 (relax!) Classes: Envoy, Mage, Rogue and Warrior but you customize them as you gain levels (1-20) with Skill Focuses, Talents, Specializations, Class Stunts and Features. My most recent character is a warrior who can cast Flame Blade on his sword. An arcane warrior. I plan to buy other spells at higher levels.
Mages (arcane or divine) use Magic Points, which I prefer. You can cast spells in armor but you pay an extra resistance cost.
Finally, there are nine abilities (relax again!) Dexterity is decoupled from Accuracy. Strength is decoupled from Fighting. The ability used for social interactions is Communication. The others are Willpower, Intelligence, Perception, and Constitution.
It will feel familiar because you played D&D and Pathfinder but it will also be very different in several ways, that I like.
You can download the QSR on Green Ronin’s website.
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.
Funny how you worry about being 100% compliant with RAW.
I even take solid normal rules with a grain of salt if they can be improved upon a little bit. I love to homebrew and houserule! Any clearly unbalanced thing I don't even think about just change it while reading. Like the +10 move items, just nerf or remove the spell from the game. Any unclear wording I just switch to RAI immediately.
If that's also unclear I'd pick what I'd like myself, like the silly adding wounded again when dying. You could even change the arbitrary number of 4 and/or give bonuses to checks. The goal is to not have people yo-yo and casually get to 0 and get back up. So the wounded evokes a sense of dread, a "failing forward" type of mechanic.
The stun "you can't act" is contradicted by the rest as when you regain actions you clearly can act. So it could be just flavor. But RAW you can argue that UNTIL one regain actions one can't act including any reactions. So for that one turn, or possible for ANOTHER turn if one gets stun 3. As soon as you regain an action you also get back reactions.
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.
About Invisibility. You say that the text in the "Invisible" condition contradicts the text in the "Detecting Creatures" rules, but it doesn't. If you read the entire paragraph for the Invisible condition, you'll see that it says the same thing as "Detecting Creatures", i.e. that if you are observed when turning invisible, you start out hidden instead of undetected.
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
"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.
My problem with Tailwind isn’t the spell or the easy access to it. Because speed is such a major part of winning strategy in the game, players SHOULD have multiple pathways to increase it. Also, stripping players of one of the few long-term buff methods just doesn’t seem fun. I’m well aware that long term, pre-battle buffing is mainly just a holdover from previous editions. But a slightly increased speed boost fits rather nicely into that rarified space in this edition.
My real problem is Paizo’s ridiculous complete lack of willingness to adjust those other options to more appropriate bonus types. Especially when it’s clear said other types make more sense.
The Monk is an outstanding example. All those speed boosts via Incredible Movement should be untyped bonuses. Given that they are built right into the class and don’t come via class feats, spells, or the like, they should be stackable with other speed types. If they were untyped, speed would truly remain the Monk’s schtick and not be yet another feature other classes could so easily swipe, and/or replicate.
It’s the exact same thing with Swashbucklers. They have to work a bit harder for their increased speed, but given that Vivacious Speed is built into their class features, making it untyped should have been the proper decision.
But what about actual class feats? Many of them tend to provide speed boosts in limited, um, circumstances. The Barbarian is perhaps the perfect example. Why would any Barbarian pick up Fast Movement at level 4 or beyond when it lasts only for your Rage period. That seems rather, um, circumstantial to me. Class feats such as Fast Movement should provide a Circumstance bonus to speed.
What about other spells? Well I think in most cases they are fine. Fleet Step, for example, is most often used as an escape/retreat-style spell. And yes, keeping it as a Status bonus is fine.
My suggestions also hold up fine in archetypes. The Swashbuckler’s Speed feat becomes available to players at level 8. Is a 5- to 10-foot untyped speed bonus completely unruly and op for a player multiclassing into Swashbuckler archetype? No. Not even when combined with the Tailwind status bonus. A player picking up Barbarian archetype specifically for Rage now has more incentive to pick up Fast Movement at level 8, as the Circumstance bonus stacks with Tailwind.
The Scout archetype gives Scout’s Speed as early as level 6. But making this an untyped bonus is fine. It’s no different than picking up Monk Moves, which would also be an untyped speed bonus. Only Scout’s Speed is available two levels earlier and doesn’t prohibit the player from wearing armor. So it’s better, but also tucked behind a thematic archetype that may or may not otherwise make sense for a player.
For the record, I’ve been playing with my suggested changes at my own table pretty much since the game released and the relevant classes & archetypes became available. I’ve had zero balance issues. Once you move past a 40-foot movement speed, you start stumbling into diminishing returns territory anyway for nearly 70% of combat (with regards to creatures; other concepts like overcoming difficult terrain is a bit different).
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.
For me lethality increase at lower level in heroic fantasy system is idiotic. It's already too easy to lose character in levels 1-4 for new players who don't optimize tactics/builds/weapons/positioning or party composition. If people would play with this rule for last years I bet a lot of new players touching stuff like AoA/AV or AoEW would just drop out of the system period. It's way way too swingy in d20 system in early levels, especially with PF2e crit rules.
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.
1. The fact that Paizo failed to use this Remaster as an opportunity to officially separate all flavor text from mechanical text is a massive failure. Whatever one’s opinions are on any of the new changes to classes or mechanics, the company missed a golden opportunity to help fix one of the things that has plagued them since the initial release. Given that a large part of their stated goal was to help make the game more accessible and less confusing via an easier entry ramp, their inability to clearly separate all flavor text from mechanical text is bewildering, and, I’d argue, also rather embarrassing. They failed in this regard.
2. Good luck Paizo in getting new people to stick with your otherwise awesome game with these ridiculous new (but old?) Death & Dying rules. While it’s possible that most tables will be fine once they learn to navigate the (intended) rules, gaining said experience for that is going to be a chore and a half for most everyone. Nothing says “don’t play our game” to a broad audience faster than making the game absurdly hard at early levels.
3. My apologies to everyone over the past four years to whom I uttered the words, PF2e isn’t quite as deadly as it is made out to be.
On the topic of stunned, I think the wording is just *ok*, because the way I think of each action is a 2 second chunk of time. So if you are stunned 1, until it's your turn and you have to discard that first 2 second action period, you can't use a reaction as you are unable to act as per the text...
It is however absolutely bonkers that it is not clarified though. That wording is incredibly ambiguous and requires a lot of RAI thought.
While Gnome Flickmace remains a solid choice in the game, and usually gets picked from time to time at my table, I’m not running into any issues like you must be. I’ve found the Sweep trait lackluster overall, but it obviously works better on reach weapons.
Most characters still need to invest in feats just to use it. Many folks willing to sink significant feat resources into weapons are more likely building for a higher damage build anyways, and the change to a d6 takes much of the shiny luster off the flickmace.
I don’t know. I wasn’t a huge fan of the nerf to begin with. I will fully admit it was quite strong and, somewhat arguably, broken. Then again, at its heart it made for a lot of fun Gnome builds that otherwise wouldn’t have happened.
Perhaps most infuriating is whenever I’d come across someone complaining about it, only to find out said person was whining about it from the safety of their white room builds and not actual gameplay. Worst of all are the whiny GMs that would argue it was overpowered, only for me to find out through conversation with them that they’d just waive away the prerequisites. So yeah, they’d hand waive requirements that were meant to help balance it in game; then whine about it being too powerful in their game. To be fair, this was not every GM doing this; some did have legitimate experiences in game that they felt were a bit too much. But there were enough GMs I ran into that essentially were upset as a result of their own decision to hand wave things.
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.
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
The wounded thing is so absurd. The game is already deadly enough without adding your wounded value to your dying value EVERY time it increases. Yikes!
Hey, I've been down on some of your content, especially because of the some of the anti-5th ed stuff that got fed into my feed which I thought in general were bad takes.
But I 110% agree with #3. And am glad at least someone else talks about it. People rarely spend enough time talking about options that are too strong in this game.
FWIW - the Stunned action feels perfectly clear but the English major in my past vehemently hates how it was worded .
It would be great to get someone from Paizo into a stream to clarify those things.
Stunned is ultra clear, you're definitely getting caught up on a simple flavor text (which probably shouldn't be there). Stunned simply removes an amount of actions at the beginning of the suffering creatures turn, same as slowed. Difference is that Stunned is usually a numerical value that equals the amount of actions lost during the next round where as Slowed is a numerical value for the actions lost each round over a set duration.
Stunned is ultra clear - it says "you can't act." Act is a very important word
Stunned also I'm almost certain takes effect immediately, which can cause a stunned creature to be 'unable to act'
@@harktischris My character has been in a play and wasn't able to act. Was he stunned?
@@datonkallandor8687 very cute, but the rules are clear on this, there's literally a rules section called "Act" that has these sentences: "Some effects might prevent you from acting. If you can’t act, you can’t use any actions, including reactions and free actions."
18:06
Does it bother you, that Escape, Disarm, Trip, Shove, Grapple, etc etc etc,
Are Skill Actions, which have a Roll, often a Skill Check against the opposing DC,
Ie, An Athletics skill check roll, against the Reflex Save DC of the opponent, to Trip...
Similarly to, making a Demoralize attempt, with the Intimidation Skill. Check roll,
The difference between the two being that escape or trip etc have the ATTACK TRAIT. which, triggers MAP, and counts towards MAP.
Thus, Strike, Strike, Shive away, would suffer heavy MAP.
WHEREAS, Strike, Strike, Demoralize, would not.
Would you prefer, if the MAP actions, had a MAP trait? Instead?
That way, ATTACK ROLLS, could be separate from the Escape action, which would not be an 'attack', but and thus less confusing, but would be a MAP trait action,
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.
14:37
Though, the largest difference between the Flickmace, and any other Whip like, 1 hand, reach weapon,
Would be that it was a 1d8, one hand wpn.
It did lose things like Disarm or Trip traits,and only gains 'Trip on Crit' if you have Crit Spec. Flail Group,
Etc. It also lacks say, Fatal or Deadly,
Which, especially mid level and higher, are gross.
Even with 2 reactions, that Fighter could still only actually Flickmace AoO, twice right...
So, while 3 reactions,
In this action economy? Sounds amazing...
Still.
Its not exactly Combat Reflexes, with a +8 Dex mod. Innit?
My ruling on #1 is to ignore the last sentence of the "Taking Damage" section. In my head canon, it was left there accidentally, and doesn't fit with any other references in-book. Even if it's there on purpose, it's not there if you strike a like through it lol
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.
31:00
Support.
I agree with you that the resentment, seems quite strong.
That might be necessary, in some regards, if the class is too weak in other regards...
Ie.
The Divine Font is pretty fracking amazing.
Our Cleric has had 5 BONUS HEAL bombs, in our Abom Vaults campaign, and now has a Staff of Healing for bonus Heal Spells.
That's been huge. Combined with pro elite use of battle medicine and treat wounds.
Our party has been pretty devastating.
Thaumaturge, has been a mack truck, from 1st or 2nd level. And never looked back.
Absolutely devastating.
So, it's strong but is it TOO STRONG?
Good question.
Clearly you might want to leave it off your table, but I like that at least there is one powerful witch option now.. Some parties have very powerful allies amongst them, and the witch just might not 'keep up'.
But definitely, extend all. Negative Durations one round, automatically?
That's pretty crazy.
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.
19:31
See, the Athletics skill check for Reposition, is a skill check roll. Not an attack roll.
A strike, is an attack roll, and it adds your weapon proficiency, not your Athletics proficiency.
You don't normally get to add your, Weapon Proficiency, to a Reposition or Trip or Shove attempt.
Right?
Because it's a Skill check, not a Weapon Attack roll.
I see your desire to avoid using 'similar language', for different labels.
But essentially,
You have ATTACK ROLLS, like Weapon or Spell Strikes,
Make a Ranged Weapon Attack Roll.
Make a Melee Weapon Attack Roll.
Make a Ranged Spell Attack Roll.
Etc. Etc.
All those various attack rolls, are different from, say
A Skill Check Roll.
The thing that some Skill checks share in common with Strikes, is that some Skill Checks also have the ATTACK TRAIT.
Similarly though, some actions have the MOVEMENT trait, even if you don't actually Move anywhere. Right?
38:25
Wow.
Mirrored contradictions?
That's soooo strange.
I did not expect that.
What a sneaky thing.
So, how does Paizo expect even Rules Lawyers, (none here certainly, Tee hee hee)
...
To parse and determine,
There actual RAW and RAI,
When the playtest, lacked the Damage while dying + wounded, lethal subclause...
But had it in Dying, and in Wounded...
But the Core Rules for 4 printings? Removed that subclause from the Dying and the Wounded sections,
But seemingly moved it, to the Damage while dying section...
They flipped it?
im sorry just no... "theyre heroes" doesnt fly...the PC's are normal people trying to BECOME heroes/legends...its stupid giving them the magic ability to just bullshit or anime out of fall damage...in fact im probably nerfing tf out of cat fall just no, they can die just like anyone else bruh...your thinking with PF 1st/DnD logic on that one, 2E is about challenging content/combat always has been. Nothing "fun" about falling on creatures either...again PF 2E is supposed to be difficult and challenging GROUP CONTENT...god damn do people just want their hands held/easy wins? not happening. You've always added Wounded condition to dying values, nothings changed. Again PF 2E is supposed to be difficult, if PC's die they die, you shouldnt "bank" your hero point to survive instead play smarter and more tactically... The things I hate in the remaster are all the buffs and other BS the PC's dont need except maybe the Witch and War Cleric those are fine...again if people want a gg ez "im special" bs game they can go play DnD.
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?
Regarding #6, I think there should be much more things with a fixed DC. I don't like the system's core assumption that any obstacle can be scaled indefinitely.
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.
37:00
Was that ogb459 present in all the printings of the core rules?
Oh. Interesting.
Sneaky.
Like we mentioned with other... 'hidden traits'.
UGG. That would data is actually significantly impactful to the discussion.
Nasty.
37:59
No. The problem there isn't that the pg 459 clause 'don't forget to include your wounded value also... "
That's clear. Not murky. Not vague. Not ambiguous.
Specifically.
If you suffer damage, while you are already dying.
Your value increases.
By 1, from damage alone. By 2, if that is a Critical hit, or Yiu suffered a Critical Fail on the save.
(samenas when you are knocked down to 0 hp right).
It adds a supplemental. To remember to also include your Wounded value.
The only mistake errate there then, would be that they changed the text on og 460 and 623, as you quoted, but missed the reference to those
Previously consistent explanations.
By removing the redundant explanations there on the sections we might consult more often,
Dying. Wounded.
It makes it very easy to miss this one line on 459.
The only confusion left would be.
Did they intentionally rewrite Dying and Wounded to remove that lethal clause, but accidentally miss it in the Damage suffered while dying section?
27:24
So long stride in 5e is, pretty useless.
Overall.
Are you proposing that, it's too strong in PF2.
Being a simple spell that makes your Stride actions more effective?
Is it not, fair, when Barbarians, Monks, and others, already gain either Speed increases, that are always active,and this has a spell slot 'tax'
And Fleet, has a Feat cost, for fleet feet...
The fleet feet feat...
Neat.
Whereas some classes just bake it in?
Further, some monsters, have very fast speeds?
Wolf. Tiger. Horse.
Mounted enemies.
Question.
How powerful, is a 10nft bonus to speed.
Compared to, a Heal spell, or, a focus spell, that can be used repeatedly during the day.
Is it actually, OP?
I don't know if this is the INTENDED interpretation of Deatha nd Dying, and it's certainly not how I first interpreted it when you showed the text but, on examintation I've come to this conlusion that MIGHT be the intented way to read it.
When marking Dying on your character sheet, you mark Dying 1 when you are reduced to 0 Hit Points. The rules state that you die at Dying 4, and that you add your Wounded Value to your Dying value. So, here's what I think could be intended by this wording.
If you are Wounded 2 and then reduced to 0 HP you don't makr Dying 3 on your character sheet. You mark Dying 1. However, you bear in mind that 1+2 = 3 and thus you will die at Dying 2 because that then sums to 4.They MIGHT be talking about 'adding your Wounded value' in that context.
It is INCREDIBLY shaky logic and not how any sensible person reading that text would interpret it but who knows?
8:57
Look at your two quotes, for invisible.
They repeat the same language for the exception, if you are already observed when you become invisible.
So, not actually a contradiction there.
The invisible spell didn't repeat it again, however,
I haven't had that problem in say, Foundry, where we play, because when I use INVISIBLE SPELL, I drag the Invisible condition onto the Player or Monster, I can see the first two descriptions you quoted, which make it clear that I apply Hidden instead of Undetected, if it was observed when it became invisible.
But.
TL DR,
Just read the first two examples, ignoring the simpler text for the Spell.
They are actually, nearly identical, and not actually contradictory.
One might even think, that they copy/pasted those two sections, to ensure the language would be virtually identical,
And prevent confusion.