Bug Thread - Pathfinder Playtest ruleset - Release 1 (August 8th)

[Trenloe]

BTW: If you hold SHIFT for an Attack of Opportunity, the [Opportunity] pops up nicely, but I think for almost all cases (granted, not sure about feats down the line), it should be at -2. (Edit: Turns out this is also true for the Modifier Tab selection of Opportunity).

The code is basically there from the PF 1 ruleset - all it does is indicate in the chat attack description that it's an opportunity attack.

There's at least one feat (Fighter - Disruptive) that ignores the -2 penalty when making an attack of opportunity. So I'm tempted to actually remove the whole functionality, rather than code a fixed -2 penalty that may (or may not) be valid.

Thoughts?

[Bidmaron]

It is kind of a hidden feature or at least not obvious, so I don't see much reason in leaving it. If you know about it, you can use it with the standard -2. AOO are much less common in PF2, and the number of times a Fighter (currently the only character that can do an OOC?) would burn his feat on that would be an increasingly small fraction. Since the code is there, I'd advocate leaving it.

[Trenloe]

I'm leaning towards removing it. Modifier buttons should really be used for things that are common across all/most PCs/NPCs. It made sense in PF 1 as anyone could carry out an attack of opportunity. It doesn't make sense in Pathfinder 2.0 to have it in the generic modifiers window as only Fighters, possibly Paladins (if the feat is selected), and a very small number of NPCs get it. It will make more sense to deal with those cases as reactions within the character/NPC sheet itself.

[ShadeRaven]

Yeah, I have Effects on Creatures and Characters to handle it, so I didn't use it myself but in toying around with some functions and chatting about the Modifier box, I noticed it. I wouldn't miss it, but can't speak for others.

[Trenloe]

Yeah, I have Effects on Creatures and Characters to handle it, so I didn't use it myself but in toying around with some functions and chatting about the Modifier box, I noticed it. I wouldn't miss it, but can't speak for others.

Yeah, I think that based off your original post there is an expectation, rightly so, that the "Opportunity" button will apply the -2 modifier for opportunity attacks - the button is in the modifiers window after all! I could code it to do that, but there are possible exceptions - and I'm sure there'll be more down the line. As it's not commonly used in PF2, I've removed the button and the SHIFT+attack functionality from the ruleset.

Thanks for the discussion - it clarified the lack of need for (and the potential confusion with) the functionality as it is now.

[ShadeRaven]

So there are a few creatures with Bleed/Persistent Fire, etc., in the Bestiary that include it as part of their Core Attack text. For example:

Fire Mephit
- Melee tendril +7, Damage 1d4+1 fire and 1d4 persistent fire

As of now, it just rolls that 1d4 into the 1d4+1 damage for 2d8+1 fire without any persistent added. Unfortunately, the Bestiary isn't very consistent with how it's displayed: sometimes it's "and ...", sometimes it's "plus ...", sometimes it's just "1d4 bleed" instead of "1d4 persistent bleed". The vast majority, though, do say "1dx dam-type plus X persistent pers-type".

Not sure how hard it would be to update it, but if the "1d6 piercing damage plus 1d4 persistent fire" format could be applied as 1d6 piercing damage plus a PERS: 1d4 fire in effects, that would be awesome. At worst, though, probably should have the Persistent Damage removed from the damage output so it doesn't get added too soon (then it's just hand adding PERS effects in the normal way).

[ShadeRaven]

WEAK: n by itself is not working as a catch all. WEAK: n all does not work either.

[Trenloe]

WEAK: n by itself is not working as a catch all. WEAK: n all does not work either.

I've changed the effect Wiki page to reflect that Weakness to all damage is not supported.

Is there a use case for this? I'm trying to understand if "all" is a relevant damage type for weakness.

[Trenloe]

So there are a few creatures with Bleed/Persistent Fire, etc., in the Bestiary that include it as part of their Core Attack text. For example:

Fire Mephit
- Melee tendril +7, Damage 1d4+1 fire and 1d4 persistent fire

As of now, it just rolls that 1d4 into the 1d4+1 damage for 2d8+1 fire without any persistent added. Unfortunately, the Bestiary isn't very consistent with how it's displayed: sometimes it's "and ...", sometimes it's "plus ...", sometimes it's just "1d4 bleed" instead of "1d4 persistent bleed". The vast majority, though, do say "1dx dam-type plus X persistent pers-type".

Not sure how hard it would be to update it, but if the "1d6 piercing damage plus 1d4 persistent fire" format could be applied as 1d6 piercing damage plus a PERS: 1d4 fire in effects, that would be awesome. At worst, though, probably should have the Persistent Damage removed from the damage output so it doesn't get added too soon (then it's just hand adding PERS effects in the normal way).

Effects need to be applied as a separate action - not as part of the damage action. I highly doubt I'm going to change that. I *may* look at something similar to the 5E code that identifies certain types of additional effects in an attack string.

Re bleed - "bleed" is currently a damage type - allowing immunity to bleed, etc. within the ruleset. Is it possible for someone to do "1d4 bleed" damage that isn't persistent? For example - those creatures you mention that do "1d4 bleed" is that just a one off spurt of exsanguination, or is it actually persistent? This is open to interpretation- and perhaps needs final clarification from Paizo.

[ShadeRaven]

I am pretty sure bleeding is only persistent, yeah.. but that, along with quite a few other things, need clarification no doubt.

I set up spell-tab effects for all that, so that's not the problem.. .the real problem is that persistent damage in the text string comes out as regular damage.. Sahuagin Warrior someone gave a flaming trident to would be 1d8+4 piercing plus 1d4 persistent fire would roll as 1d8+1d4+4 damage. Even if persistent isn't added (which can easily be handled separately), the persistent damage being rolled as regular damage would be a problem