Will eventually need to determine Critical Success, Success, Failure, and Critical Failure. Spells that allow a basic save will use that to determine damage. I'm sure ya'll already know that.
Will eventually need to determine Critical Success, Success, Failure, and Critical Failure. Spells that allow a basic save will use that to determine damage. I'm sure ya'll already know that.
Please don't remove short rest. It's the only way that I can advance the clock without having to do 20 rounds at a time. It would be great if it were 10 minutes, but I will be happy with 5 if you leave it in.
Please explain the use case for this. You don't actually "advance the clock" - the round counter is reset to 1 and nothing is changed on the campaign calendar time. Exactly what functionality are you looking for? Maybe there's other ways to do this. I don't like leaving something called "short rest" in the ruleset when PF2 doesn't have any mechanics behind it, it will just cause confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by rickyhunt
People use the short rest to remove the short duration spell effects from the tracker. Rather than advancing the tracker 60 times.
If you right click on the next round button you can advance the tracker in blocks of 20.
Or the menu button on the tracker has a clear expiring effects option.
One of these may work for you
The CT already has options: advance the tracker 20 rounds and also remove expiring effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by madman
Aren't these enough? Or do we need something like "Leave encounter mode" (or "Enter exploration mode") that resets the initiative (short rest currently does that) and expires effects (or reduces them) with a certain duration or less?
I want to provide something that matches PF2 functionality and makes sense in the PF2 RPG system.
This discussion started because there was already confusion about "a PF2 short rest" and that it should reset focus points, etc. - when there's no such thing as a short rest in PF2. So if I do anything (even just renaming the 3.5E "short rest" to something else) I want it to make sense for PF2, both in name and what it does.
There are a lot of things in 2e that depend on a 10 minute break, healing with Medicine, identifying items, recovering your Shield spell after Blocking. It is pretty clear that they expect short rests to come in multiples of 10 minutes. I would rather not have to advance the CT 20 5 times (along with the chat box spam) in order to tick off 10 minutes. After I did 2 5 minute short rests in the above example, the focus points came back. That seems like a reasonable use case.
I don't know how many spells have a duration of longer than 10 minutes, but shorter than all day, in 2e. That's the other main thing I used short rest for in PF1, was to track and advance those durations.
I just searched the Core PDF for "10 minute" and you can barely advance 5 pages without finding another reference to "rest for 10 minutes" or "refocus for 10 minutes". They may not call it a 10 minute rest, but that's what it effectively is.
OK, this is what I'm trying to clarify. Thanks for the feedback.Quote:
Originally Posted by rickyhunt
Can we start by getting terminology correct - "short rest" is not a term or process in PF2. There are many 10 minute exploration mode activities (some you mention, thanks for that), but each individual PC needs to decide what (if any) of those activities they will undertake - and they are doing activities, they are not "resting". Hence the reason why I originally decided to remove "short rest" specifically from the PF2 ruleset - because that terminology means nothing in PF2. I know this might sound like I'm being pedantic, but it's very important to have features and functionality that makes sense, both in wording and in operation, for PF2.
How about I add in an option that is "Exploration mode activity (10 mins)" or some other wording? This will: reset the initiative of everyone in the combat tracker and set the round count to 1 (because we're now in exploration mode - encounter mode, and therefore initiative, no longer applies) and reduce all currently active effect duration by 100 rounds?
That sounds awesome, thanks.
So I noticed when I was walking Liz through character creation tonight (we are preparing to start a campaign and she used the tracker to build her Dwarven Fighter), there were a couple of hiccups or areas of confusion.
1) The Fighter Feat 1 created a little confusion. It said Feature 'Fighter Feat 1' added to Ravahana, but it didn't show up in the Abilities section. Seeing the actual Class Feature explaining when she gets the class feats would have been helpful, she thought.
2) This one is a little more difficult to fix, and I think others mentioned it, but the Skills section caused some problems. Not knowing which ones came from class and background made it a bit harder for her and a total count of skills might have been nice so she knew how many she had trained. So if she had seen, when it was time to choose 4 new ones, that she already had 4, she could shoot for 8 knowing that was her target number.
3) Also in skills, when it added "Lore - Legal" from Bounty Hunter, she only found "Lore" in skills.
4) Finally, having been spoiled by 5E, having the Adventurer's pack "explode" into the individual pieces would have made it easier for her to determine if there were things she wanted beyond what that contained.
The rest went well, with some aid and explanation, and she's excited to give PF2 a try. She had never played PF1 but is enthusiastic to try the new edition.
When the edit button up top is pressed, there are 2 options. Add skill, and Add Lore. The lore one creates a lore skill with an editable line to specify which lore skill it is. I think there are close to 2 dozen or more lore skills possible, with more added in Hellknight Hill and likely each future adventure, as well as any the GM wants to add for their campaign, so hard coding each lore skill would reduce functionality.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeRaven
Edit: re-reading I think you actually mean the background wasn't adding the proper Lore skill, my mistake.
Let me state what has been stated before. Fantasy Grounds is not a character creation application. It aids you in putting your character together, but it is not a replacement for knowing the rules and it most certainly is not a full blown character creation application. It never will be.
Having said that, the chargen tracker gives you guidance in what you should be doing - but you still need to do things manually. It helps you by indicating what to do manually in big red text with +++ at the beginning.
Sorry if this comes across as patronising, it's not meant to be but I *really* want to get across how the chargen tracker should be used and how it guides you in what you should be manually doing to create your character.
Guidance is given in the big red entries in the chargen tracker. Anything that is big, red and starts with +++ means it's something *you* have to do to your character. Having something appear in the abilities section, like "1 class feat" that you then have to remove is basically double-entry - so that won't appear in your abilities. Follow the instructions in the chargen tracker.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeRaven
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...chmentid=28389
And, very important, scroll back through the log in the lower window of the chargen tracker and look for all of the big red +++ entries - these are things you need to do.
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...chmentid=28390
Keep track of the big red text with +++ at the beginning - this will tell you how many skills you get to train - see the example screenshot above.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeRaven
I can't recreate this. Adding (drag/drop) bounty hunter does this for me:Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeRaven
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...chmentid=28391
If this didn't appear to work for you, please attach the character XML - click the blue down arrow button in the top right of the chargen tracker to export the XML to a file - please attach that file to this thread so I can look at it. Thanks.
This has yet to be implemented. But has already been logged as CR2.007.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeRaven
For starters... Don't get me wrong! I think the Tracker is a tremendous aid and it's inclusion is a great boon! You could quite literally say, "That's all I am doing on that, folks!", and it would already be an appreciated inclusion. There are other more critical things, for certain. That said, her comments to me and my reporting are intended only as an aid to understanding how our personal experiences with it are going for you to take or leave as you deem appropriate.
Yeah, I tried to work with her on making sure that the red text was done, but I think there's some spam of items that get added all at once and sometimes it's slips down through the cracks. Any chance the +++ Critical Interaction items could be added after the spam or maybe the automatic items are added in a separate box?
As far as the skills go, the main problem was that she wasn't sure what skills she was supposed to have, etc. Again, new player to PF having only started with D&D 5E. We backtracked to see what she got automatically so that when she was back at her skill screen, she knew how many she was supposed to add. I think she missed the initial add 4 (in her case), so when I told her she had some skills to add based on intelligence plus class base, she was a little lost.
I went back and reviewed post 3 (on this thread) and realized some of her concerns were covered there. Ooops. :D
210 uses of 10 mins in the CRB .pdf - most commonlyQuote:
Originally Posted by Trenloe
for (at least) (only)
spend(ing)
with
cast/duration/lasting
take(s)
every/per/upto
How about the simpler 'Take 10 mins' as a bit of play on words for the classic 'Take 10' skill check for routine easy tasks which is probably where it came from to begin with.
Sometimes you are resting in that 10 minutes, Second Wind ... 'you’re fatigued until you rest for 10 minutes'
I would not like the 'Take 10 mins'. Those familiar with PF1 will say "Hey, there is no take 10 (or 20) in PF2" (Assurance took the place of Take 10). We need to be careful and keep the terminology of the game in mind. Maybe "Explore 10 min"?
But that is what you would say anyways though - 'You take a short rest' becomes 'You take 10 mins' and you then describe what is being done in that 10 minutes: exploring, resting, casting, fixing, concentrating, fidgeting while you wait for other party members....
I highly doubt anyone will confuse it for a Take 10 skill mechanic as long as it is spelled out as "Take 10 mins" which is already conventional language outside TTRPG to mean take a break doing something else. Your DM/GM probably says that when it is time for a bio break IRL. Google the phrase and you get several billion hits.
Actually nowhere is the phrase 'exploration activity' used with '10 mins' in the book. Rather exploration activities are instead longer than a round and shorter riskier than downtime they can be seconds, mins, hours, or days. There are some things that you can be doing that are described as taking 10 minutes, there are other things that are not.
It's not a rest and it's not taking 10. The request was to not remove the "short rest" functionality from the PF1 ruleset - which triggered a discussion as to what was needed instead, with PF2 functionality and terminology in mind. Hence it was decided that reducing the effect duration timer 10 minutes, as well as resetting the combat tracker initiative values and round counter, was the most useful.
I'm going to implement this as showing "+10 mins Exploration activity" for the tooltip on the radial menu, and the chat window will say "Party carries out Encounter mode activities for 10 minutes."
The party sheet XP encounter award is splitting XP, when each PC is supposed to get all the XP. Not knowing this is a legacy change will leave your party way under level.
pg507 "Encounters with adversaries and hazards grant a set amount of XP. When the group overcomes an encounter with creatures or hazards, each character gains XP equal to the total XP of the creatures and hazards in the encounter (this excludes XP adjustments for different party sizes; see Party Size on page 508 for details)."
Implementing it fully would require the encounter table to track the adjusted total used to balance for the party vs. the original total used to award the party without splitting/adjusting. But until then it could at least award the total XP from the encounter table rather than splitting, as adjusted parties can then adjust the XP needed to level amount.
There are several workarounds
Tedious manual way is on the PC Class&Level page do XP math as you would on a paper sheet.
Semi-automated way on the encounter table is multiply the XP by party size so that when the XP award gets split it is proper
Set it and forget it way - on the PC Class&Level page manually divide the XP needed by the party size. XP needed is a static amount per level so only need to adjust if the party size changes or if this award issue is later fixed.
For all three methods if you adjust the encounter do not refresh the XP.
For what it's worth, Fall of Plaguestone and Age of Ashes should be divvying out xp correctly (at least for a party of 4) as I entered experience awards as value * 4 so when it did split, it would come out correct.
Assuming there are four PCs....
It's a pretty good assumption since the adventures say they are meant for 4 players. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bidmaron
This is just a temporary fix anyway until the xp is in its final stage. Trenloe has lots of things to do and features to improve. He has done a great job so far and I was just trying to relieve a little bit of concern for those who are planning on using the adventures to run their games.
And we thank you!
I think you are doing the same as I suggested as one of the workarounds?Quote:
Originally Posted by sciencephile
"Semi-automated way on the encounter table is multiply the XP by party size so that when the XP award gets split it is proper"
The party XP page does divides XP by party size, just pointing out it is supposed to not divide XP per the CRB. So it needs logged as a ruleset bug, and people need to make themselves aware of the workarounds until it is fixed.
So I am getting ready to put out the first of a little series of modules for PF2 on FG and the whole XP thing does come to mind.
My initial thought is to simply put in an Adjusting XP or Challenge for Larger or Smaller Parties section within each encounter. For the most part, Hazards I don't think need the party size adjustments and the Accomplishment Awards (mainly story/plot rewards) definitely don't need it. Beneath that section, I think some advice on how to change the encounter size to fit a non-standard party or how to divvy current XPs to a non-standard group is how I plan on going right now.
Table 10-1 (page 489) in the CRB gives a good idea of what to shoot for. So for a 1st level Moderate encounter, there a 20 XP character adjustment. This means adding or subtracting 20 XP per character above or below 4 for the party size. So if I have that encounter with an Orc Warrior (C1), Orc Brute (C0), and Giant Rat (C-1) to get a moderate 90 XP encounter, I can advise doing things like dropping the rat for a party of 3 or adding another rat for a party of 5. Neither one will really be exactly on target, but close enough to be in the spirit of a moderate 90 XP encounter.
Or I could suggest leaving the encounter as is, but dividing the XPs as appropriate for party size. So a group of 3 would get 120 XPs each for that battle while a group of 5 gets 72 or 6 gets 60.
In general, I think just moderate adjustments to encounters is best... or, especially as this is early on in the rules, just go with milestone leveling for things like the AP where there are expected points where characters should make level 2, 3, etc., and not worry about individual XP tracking.
The next release of the ruleset already has direct encounter/quest assignment of XP from the Party Sheet - what you see in the party sheet won't be divided amount the PCs, it will be allocated direct. The XP values in encounters and quests for Hellknight Hill and Fall of Plaguestone are correct for this per-PC assignment - no need to make any changes once release 3 rolls out (Tuesday).
The issue with additional/less PCs is a bit fiddly to implement. The main thing to keep in mind is that the XP adjustment is just in terms of creature balance in the encounter - the rules state that you don't give out more or less XP if you adjust the encounter budget based off the number of PCs, you should still award the 4 PC XP level for more or less PCs. The rules are also very vague for XP calculations when the PCs aren't all the same level. With this in mind, I'm going to keep the level of auto XP calculation very light in the ruleset - allowing the GM to change encounters as they wish and adjust the per PC XP allocation appropriately.
I didn't see it in the google docs stuff, so I don't know if it has been said already. I noticed that when characters take damage beyond their max hp in wounds, it continues adding to the number instead of stopping at the same value as their max hp.
So like say someone has 20 max hp, they could have something like 26 wounds. Then when they are healed to get them out of dying state the heal spell won't give them the correct amount back since it subtracts from the wounds value. Since PF2 uses the dying system, wounds shouldn't be exceeding the max hp like that.
So, apparently I am living part of my life in the upside-down and I thought I had made the workaround (when in truth I didn't) - must have been done for the demigorgon's version of the game. In reality, I was doing it for another module and thought I had done it for the previous PF 2 adventures.Quote:
Originally Posted by sciencephile
In any case, Trenloe will have the xp working correctly in the very, very near future so no harm done (except for me making a fool of myself on the forum). This is why I don't do a lot of posting and just work behind the scenes :)
This is covered in the "Semi-automation of dying/wounded conditions and death." future features in post #3 of this thread. Added as RS2.031 in the issue tracker.Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilDraco
Okay, cool. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Trenloe
SPOILER DO NOT READ IF YOU INTEND TO BE A PLAYER IN HELLKNIGHT HILL AP!!!
Trying to figure out where to report this but in the Age of Ashes: Hellknight Hill adventure the treasure parcels labeled Citadel Altaerein, Holding Cells (Locker 1), Citadel Altaerein, Holding Cells (Locker 2), Citadel Altaerein, Holding Cells (Locker 3), and Citadel Altaerein, Holding Cells (Locker 4) are all missing there lesser darkvision elixir.
Edited to include the AP text showing issue:
The storage lockers on the southern side
of this room are locked (DC 20 Thievery to pick the
locks). There are a total of four lockers. The lockers
each contain one low-grade silver bludgeoning
weapon (flail, light hammer, mace, and morningstar)
and a lesser darkvision elixir.
I think the reason for the rule is that module 'milestones' assume level appropriate encounters, but if you are over party size then everyone will be under leveled when they get to the next 'milestone'. This would require you to make up random encounters so that the next chapter starts at the right level. So it is probably easier to bump encounter difficulty but use module XP. Of course milestone leveling avoids any XP tracking and is another solution, but I see this is the CRB way of keeping tracked XP in sync with expected milestone levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeRaven
Of course sandbox campaigns then there is no base difficulty no level required per chapter as you make it up as you go. But then you are presumably designing the encounters with your party size in mind so no adjustment needed.
The issue has been corrected and will roll out as an update in the near future. Thanks for reporting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateGM
Lots of updates to the base PFRPG2 ruleset have gone out today - see the City Hall announcement: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...gust-13th-2019
Current issues and future changes can be tracked in the spreadsheet linked in post #2 of this thread.
Minor sheet formatting
Regular spells section shows spells as 'Prepared/Max' and 'Cast/Max'
Focus spells section shows focus points as 'Max/Used', it should be consistent ordering with the other section as 'Used/Max'
Minor workaround, hover over the field to figure out the ordering is backwards from rest of sheet and usual language conventions
Hidden, Undetected, and Invisible not working. All need a DC 11 flat check similar to Concealed (CONC) with it's DC 5 flat check.
Probably be nice to have all three added to the Modifiers section so that if a player is taking a blind shot at a square hoping to hit a hidden creature, it roll the flat check without having a target (along with the generic attack roll). As for having it rolled hidden.... I don't know if you can just check to see if the Dice Tower is enabled to know if player rolls hidden is enabled.
Also, Greater Cover needs to be added as well (+4 instead of +2).
Greater cover seems to be the Taken Cover modifier and the dc 11 flat check seems to be the sensed modifier. Though it looks like it won't roll the dc 11 check for sensed if you aren't targeting something.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeRaven
As has been mentioned a few times - effects and conditions have not been fully implemented/converted from the playtest. That will come soon...
Cover: When you’re behind a physical obstacle, you get a +2 circumstance bonus to AC, Reflex saves vs. area effects, and Stealth checks. This increases to +4 for greater cover. Creatures can provide lesser cover: a +1 circumstance bonus to AC.Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilDraco
Hidden
While you’re hidden from a creature, that creature knows the space you’re in but can’t tell precisely where you are. You typically become hidden by using Stealth to Hide. When Seeking a creature using only imprecise senses, it remains hidden, rather than observed. A creature you’re hidden from is flat-footed to you, and it must succeed at a DC 11 flat check when targeting you with an attack, spell, or other effect or it fails affect you. Area effects aren’t subject to this flat check. A creature might be able to use the Seek action to try to observe you, as described on page 471.
Undetected
When you are undetected by a creature, that creature cannot see you at all, has no idea what space you occupy, and can’t target you, though you still can be affected by abilities that target an area. When you’re undetected by a creature, that creature is flat-footed to you.
A creature you’re undetected by can guess which square you’re in to try targeting you. It must pick a square and attempt an attack. This works like targeting a hidden creature (requiring a DC 11 flat check, as described on page 466), but the flat check and attack roll are rolled in secret by the GM, who doesn’t reveal whether the attack missed due to failing the flat check, failing the attack roll, or choosing the wrong square.
A creature can use the Seek action to try to find you, as described on page 471.
Yeah, I know what they are. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by ShadeRaven
If you open the modifiers window, Taken Cover = Greater Cover and gives a +4, though it doesn't yet work for reflex saves which I imagine Trenloe will eventually add. Also Sensed makes an attack roll and rolls the dc11 flat check for hidden, though it only rolls it if the attack would have hit in the first place (and I suppose it requires actually targeting the creature.)
Maybe what you meant by modifiers are effects you can add outside the modifier window? You just mentioned adding them to the modifiers section so I was pointing out that they are actually already there.
oh , yeah.. lol.. I thought you meant they were replaced in the CRB... lol
But, yeah, you have to have a target for the DC 11 flat check to work :( No chance to "take a shot in the dark".
REQUEST: If it's not already on the list.. and I know the list is enormous... so try to take this only as a wish-list item... I'd love to have an EFFECT/TAG that works with the more generic boosts to CHECKs. There are a number of powers, etc., that simply say "+1 status bonus to all checks" (or something similar). Aesthetically and even for ease of use since remembering all the checks isn't always easy or straight forward, it would be nice to have.... but certainly not critical.