Pathfinder 2E Potions, Medicine, Special Materials & more...

CapnZapp

Legend
One concern I can see is

"but won't players become too powerful if you make healing potions more powerful?"

To this there are a number of things to say.

First off, healing potions today are useless. Making them useful isn't really breaking the game. It's fixing the game.

The secret about item availability is that the magic item pricing is so steep (so exponential) that players will never be able to afford items near their own level in any quantity. Each time a player buys more than the occasional item of his own level that's going to cost him (in being unable to purchase other items at or near that point in time).

You could phrase it like this: Imagine if items didn't have a price in gold. Instead the price is expressed in the item's level itself.

Now, imagine if you could, say, buy an item of your own level, but only every other or every third level. You could never afford an item of higher level than yourself. Any item several levels lower than you is basically free, as long as you don't take more than an reasonable number. Low-level items are truly free, in that you're welcome to have as many you want (and can carry - which, given, bags of holding etc, is practically without limit). Now you'd come pretty close to how things actually work out in the real game, where items do cost gold.

What this means that the potions you want to drink in combat are the ones close to your own level - the ones you can never afford an unbalancing number of! The fact you can have a truckload of low-level potions doesn't change much, since all that does is ensure you can heal up between fights (any time when the cost of your actions is of no concern). And bringing a hundred such potions doesn't wreck game balance one bit, even if didn't cost you any money, since all it does is allow you to heal up slightly faster.

Whether it takes three minutes or thirty is rarely an important distinction. Pathfinder 2 already assumes you heal up fully between fights. Whether yo do it because
a) you spend an insane amount of brain cells to calculate Treat Wounds checks, choose your Medicine DCs and roll all them dice...
b) ...or much simpler just say "I drink twenty five level 1 potions and heal 250 hp"
c) ...or even simpler just handwave it "between last fight and this one, you all heal up fully - roll initiative!"
doesn't ultimately change anything at all.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

CapnZapp

Legend
Back to the improved healing potions.

The intention is for healing potions to become good enough to actually use, without making them practically mandatory.

A level 10 warrior might have one level 12 greater Healing Potion and two level 9 moderate Elixirs of Life, but that's it. And likely only because the party found them.

Now, healing 120 points of damage by using 2 actions is hopefully attractive enough (to a level 10 warrior player, or if he goes down, to his adjacent friend) for that to happen. Which then takes a lot of weight off of the party Cleric, enabling that player to do more non-Heal-releated things in combat. :)

A party will still not be expected to buy these potions more than on occasion.

A level 10 character can certainly afford to spend 400 gold on two hundred minor Healing Potions. But, as stated, all this means that the party gets to heal thousands of damage over several minutes. That's functionally identical to handwaving it "after the fight, you heal up before proceeding" or using my streamlined Medicine rules (where everybody heals up in half an hour if everybody takes training in the skill), or even if you insist on using the cluttery rules as written (where it might take maybe an hour).

Shortening a rest period from hours to minutes is not nothing. But the player did just spend 400 gold, which isn't a trivial sum at this level, so why not simply let him? After all, the party can't afford to do this more than on special occasions except just maybe at the very highest levels...

---

But what if nobody in the group wants to "play the healer"...? That's the second scenario these changes to equipment is designed to enable. :)

In this case the GM should probably be more generous with loot to compensate for the fact nobody is playing a character which provides healing at no gold cost. If most of this extra loot drops in the form of... healing potions(!) the problem obviously solves itself.

But even if the loot comes in the form of other items or as cash the lack of built-in (in combat) healing should not be a major concern, if
a) the players get so much loot that they feel they can afford to spend some on healing potions
and/or
b) the game isn't more difficult than the characters can handle (without constantly missing in-combat heals)

At least it becomes possible to run the game like 5E - which specifically does not require a combat medic. Of course, the reason 5E doesn't is because of a combination of b) and c) - which lets me post the third key to the puzzle:

c) healing spells aren't that great (Imagine if you remove the +8 per level from Heal)

Of course 5E only gets away with this because it also implements b). 5E combats are MUCH less difficult than PF2 ones (as exemplified by official Adventure Paths).

In Pathfinder 2, I expect the practical way to get a group to understand they don't have to bring a combat medic is to not only show them these improved potions, but also to make it clear you the GM are going to be generous with letting them find healing potions as loot drops.
 
Last edited:

Rhianni32

Adventurer
Good stuff.

Healing Potions: My group has felt that healing potions in combat have always been useless in any d20 game. The amount of in combat damage received vs what a healing potion gives isn't worth it. They've always been after combat healing and thats not really an issue in PF2.

Special Material usage: I like it and agree. Most of the special materials are uninspiring. I like your list.

Spell caster help: I also agree casters need help. Our group is level 6 and what we have found at every level is that while casters needed a nerfing compared to other d20 rulesets, they went too far. Spells that hinder, stun, or anything apart from damage need to (1) critical hit/critical fail the save to get anything worth it and then it only lasts (2) 1 round vs 1 minute for other games similar spells. We also are finding the (3) spell attack bonus is falling behind the attack bonus for martials. it takes (4) 2 actions for spells vs 1 action for a strike. (5) spells are vancian so you have to prepare ahead of time and hopefully guess correctly in what you need and are limited by spell slots (though this is the same in other games). These 5 factors make it so our casters are just not having fun.

Allowing mages to cast spells through a special material item is a good idea and gives them the same option as martials. I went one further and am allowing potency weapon runes to be added to wands to help the attack bonus issue.

Talismans. Here is where I disagree. Talismans are not scrolls for EDIT: fighters mages. They are items are activated on reactions and free actions. They are freebies that enhance or react to other actions. They fill a hole in the action economy aspect of how magic items are used. Your fix for talismans doesnt solve their problem you have with them. You created a new type of item, that gives martials a bigger attack bonus, which is the last thing they need.
 
Last edited:

CapnZapp

Legend
Good stuff.

Healing Potions: My group has felt that healing potions in combat have always been useless in any d20 game. The amount of in combat damage received vs what a healing potion gives isn't worth it. They've always been after combat healing and thats not really an issue in PF2.
I do see why they would want to move away from Cure Light Wands. As in, Medicine feels like a better more organic solution (conceptually, not mechanically). Making Medicine work "realistically" doesn't work if there's cheap magical healing anyway, so why not move the focus over to a skill, which then anyone can take.

I mean, I understand it if you want the old school feeling where natural healing gives, what, your level in hit points healed per whole day of rest? But that just doesn't work in PF2.

  • PF2 assumes you're close to fully healed when an encounter starts. Each encounter is enough by itself to kill you.
  • AD&D assumes heroes routinely travel around wounded and weary. The vast majority of encounters are only capable of further shaving away a couple of more hit points. (Hey, that's the theory. I know full well lots of groups wanted more spice than that) The Cleric's healing needs to last all day.

But making in-combat healing entirely reliant on magical healing (and specifically, the +8 bonus of two-action Heals)? Nope, that goes too far. It makes it impossible to make do with anything less than a primary healer, one that devotes her actions to healing, one that picks a class that provides top-of-the-line healing tools.

If you'd love to play a "secondary healer" you'll love my potions, since it means warriors can now help themselves when your limited healing gets overwhelmed. Not to mention when you'd rather kick some butt yourself!

And you're right. I've never understood why designers keep making magic potions so damn feeble. At least not in any game with anything near the exponential power progression of D&D in general (and PF2 specifically). Low level potions become useless in combat so damn quickly they can't break any balance.

And out of combat, all they do is duplicate what Medicine already gives you. So I'm not worried better potions will make the Medicine skill useless. Why drink potions that cost gold (even just a couple of gold pieces) when Medicine heals you up for no cost in gold at all?

That potions can now be used in an emergency (to heal up in minutes instead of multiple 10-minute chunks) is to me a good thing. It allows a middle stage between "holy crap - Cleric, cast your best Heal on me STAT" and "one hour after taking your break, everybody is back up on their feet".

Heal spells <-> Potions (likely cheap low-level ones imbibed in bulk) <-> "natural" healing.

Talismans. Here is where I disagree. Talismans are not scrolls for EDIT: fighters mages. They are items are activated on reactions and free actions. They are freebies that enhance or react to other actions. They fill a hole in the action economy aspect of how magic items are used. Your fix for talismans doesnt solve their problem you have with them. You created a new type of item, that gives martials a bigger attack bonus, which is the last thing they need.
Well, in my not so humble opinion that "hole in the action economy" should never have been filled, let alone been considered a hole that needed fillin' in the first place.

Pathfinder 2 is already an exceptionally complex and fiddly game. Adding a whole extra layer to that, that subtly changes the way each little rule works for just that action, is... is... just the worst idea ever.

Adding 1d4 damage to a single attack? That also gives 1d4 persistent bleed damage but only if the attack dealt sneak damage?
Turn a single Medicine check from a critical failure to a regular failure? That only applies to one specific action (Administer First Aid)?
Get awesome jumping skills? For a single jump only, and only if you succeed at the check. And only if you're really good at Athletics in the first place, so it is useless for those that really need it...

The list goes on and on. You're expected to remember exactly how every rule works, and exactly how that rule is tweaked. Often for a single application, even a single attempt.

In contrast, there exists Talismans that actually have an impact. Getting a Swim speed? Yes, that can actually solve an adventuring challenge. But wait - you only get it for a single minute, and your Swim speed is half your regular speed... so any time the body of water isn't trivially small, you're still frakked.

Get Invisibility per the spell? Noice. Except you need to be no less than Master in Stealth (making you pretty much the hero that needs it the least). You only get it when an incoming attack misses you (so you must already be in combat and the enemies must already know where you are). And you only get it at level 12, where a level 2 invisibility no longer is impressive.

And to gain these minuscule and fiddly bonuses, what do you need to do? You need to administer exactly which Talisman you put where. You need to do it well in advance (affixing a Talisman takes 10 minutes). You then need to remember that you affixed it. Every time you take an applicable action you need to decide whether to expend your Talisman now, or save it for later.

This is a mind-blowing level of complexity (and I don't mean in a good way). No sane player will ever want to waste his brain power on administering such incredibly miserly and petty bonuses like that. If the game was a computer rpg you'd need scripting to help you remember when to use what Talisman, for crissakes!

The design space "explored" by Talismans is by far the game's worst aspect. No wonder people prefer 5th Edition...

So. You're right. My proposed Talismans don't try to do anything even close to what Paizo intended them to do. That's supposed to be a good thing.

Even then, I concede the Wolf/Bear/Tiger Talismans are lazy.

I would love to rewrite the entire section on Talismans to make them actually do something worth the time and effort needed.

A Talisman that helps with First Aid Checks checks should... not just apply to that specific action, that's way too specific. It should make you avoid critical failures for all Medicine checks, and to do that for at least 10 minutes. Then we'd have something.

A Talisman that gives you Jump should not apply to a single jump only, and there should be zero hoops (to jump through ;) ). And even then 10 feet horizontally is just pathetic. Make it so that a successful jump takes you 50 feet in any direction, and make it last a full minute, and we'll talk.

The list goes on and on... There does exist a very small selection of mainly high level Talismans that are actually worth a damn, but by that time a player will be well and truly allergic to the whole notion. In the end, it's just better to treat every Talisman you find as vendor trash. You'll save a lot of head ache, you weren't likely to ever remember to use a Talisman when it would have made a difference, and the money you save will likely be put to much better uses no matter how you choose to spend it!

Since I don't have the time to rewrite existing Talismans, I'm afraid "lazy" Wolf/Bear/Tiger Talismans is all you get... so let's discuss that thing you said:

"You created a new type of item, that gives martials a bigger attack bonus, which is the last thing they need."

Not the first part - I've already conceded my Talismans doesn't do what Paizo created them to do. The other part.

First off - heroes in PF2 hit so poorly I see a definite space for temporary bonuses like this. I mean, a D&D 5E hero is calibrated to hit maybe on a 7. In contrast, a PF2 hero will only hit on a 11. Even if you hunt down bonuses you often end up short (and that's even before the D&D heroes starts looking for bonuses of their own). And that's only the first attack.

Secondly - I make these bonuses available not only to martial heroes. Any attack can get them, as long as you make an attack (i.e. not when you force a foe to save).

I hope this makes you see Talismans in a new light. :)

Special Material usage: I like it and agree. Most of the special materials are uninspiring. I like your list.
Thank you :)

Yes, there were too many special materials that simply doesn't do anything even close to what they cost. My only explanation is the dev team ran out of time. Anyway, as I'm sure you agree, I don't actually attempt to fix those special materials. I merely add ones that help you take your mind off 'em...

I should probably say something regarding applying new weaknesses to existing monsters. I'll do that in a separate post.

Spell caster help: I also agree casters need help. Our group is level 6 and what we have found at every level is that while casters needed a nerfing compared to other d20 rulesets, they went too far. Spells that hinder, stun, or anything apart from damage need to (1) critical hit/critical fail the save to get anything worth it and then it only lasts (2) 1 round vs 1 minute for other games similar spells. We also are finding the (3) spell attack bonus is falling behind the attack bonus for martials. it takes (4) 2 actions for spells vs 1 action for a strike. (5) spells are vancian so you have to prepare ahead of time and hopefully guess correctly in what you need and are limited by spell slots (though this is the same in other games). These 5 factors make it so our casters are just not having fun.

Allowing mages to cast spells through a special material item is a good idea and gives them the same option as martials. I went one further and am allowing potency weapon runes to be added to wands to help the attack bonus issue.
I already suggested allowing fundamental runes for wands (in a separate thread). In this context, I didn't want to blur the lines of existing runes. So I limit myself to the new talismans.

I should also probably reiterate that my discussions with @Celtavian means I'm really only vouching for the first half of the game. Sure I provide complete coverage even for high levels, but I do so mainly to not be incomplete. I haven't yet play tested those levels.

I did consider the more restricted idea that only the specific spell (or spells in case of a staff) could benefit. That is, a Wizard casting a Cone of Cold (using her own spell slots) while wielding a Cone of Cold wand made out of Elysian Bronze, and that giant's weakness applies. But cast a Fireball while wielding the same wand, and the weakness does not apply, since the wand doesn't do that spell.

In this case, there would be no need to limit casters to just one special material. That is, a wizard could use a wand made out of obsidian just fine. (Against aberrations, of course, not giants)

What do you think? Which is more fun for the spellcaster?

On one hand, allowing you to cast anything while wielding your wand means the wand's spell doesn't ultimately matter.

On the other hand, having to have a specific combination of spell + special material means this makes special materials a big deal for casters - something that requires real administration. Perhaps even creates a golf-bag-of-wands syndrome.

On the third hand, it lends specificity to the loot part of playing a caster. It makes staffs even more awesome since one staff contains many spells.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
I should probably say something regarding applying new weaknesses to existing monsters. I'll do that in a separate post.
This isn't exactly hard.

A reader might worry "but won't monsters become easy if you just slap a special materials weakness onto them?"

Maybe a little. But remember, heroes won't be able to afford to have top of the line weapons for every monster. If a hero chooses to use a striking cold iron sword instead of a greater striking regular sword, the difference isn't big enough to worry about. The likelyhood of all heroes getting to make attacks exploiting the weakness is slim to none, except in cases where the party really prepares (and then they've earned it!)

At most I'd slap a couple of extra hit points onto the monster.

Perhaps something as simple as "twice the weakness" - so a monster with Weakness Darkwood 5 gets +10 hp. That way, two hits with the special material and everything else is a bonus.

Or, you might use the hp addition from the existing Elite adjustment:

eladj.jpg

Adjusting Creatures - Rules - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database

Either way, don't worry about it. Even if you forget to modify the monster, the players will hardly notice (from a mechanical "how many turns does it take to win" perspective. Players are much more likely remind you "isn't this an animal? shouldn't it be weak against my darkwood arrows?")
 
Last edited:

Rhianni32

Adventurer
What do you think? Which is more fun for the spellcaster?

On one hand, allowing you to cast anything while wielding your wand means the wand's spell doesn't ultimately matter.

On the other hand, having to have a specific combination of spell + special material means this makes special materials a big deal for casters - something that requires real administration. Perhaps even creates a golf-bag-of-wands syndrome.

On the third hand, it lends specificity to the loot part of playing a caster. It makes staffs even more awesome since one staff contains many spells.

I think I will allow the caster to use any spell through the special material wand and not limit it to a specific spell. The rarity have getting utility and fun out of your special material item is already limited to running into a monster of a specific type. Add to this the aspect that in probably 3-4 levels the caster will be discarding their special material item for a better higher level item and this further gets diminished in how often it gets used.
 

Rhianni32

Adventurer
This isn't exactly hard.

A reader might worry "but won't monsters become easy if you just slap a special materials weakness onto them?"

Perhaps something as simple as "twice the weakness" - so a monster with Weakness Darkwood 5 gets +10 hp. That way, two hits with the special material and everything else is a bonus.

Either way, don't worry about it. Even if you forget to modify the monster, the players will hardly notice (from a mechanical "how many turns does it take to win" perspective. Players are much more likely remind you "isn't this an animal? shouldn't it be weak against my darkwood arrows?")

The GMG monster building rules has some guidance.

"If a creature has a weakness, especially to something fairly common, give it additional HP. The amount of extra HP might depend on how tough the creature should feel if you don’t exploit its weakness. A tough creature might have additional HP equal to quadruple the weakness value, whereas a weakness that is hard to exploit probably gives the creature extra HP equal to its weakness value, or less."
 

CapnZapp

Legend
It has come to my attention that the following house rule is advisable*.

Ranged weapons made out of special materials confer their benefits onto ammunition fired.
Just like how ranged weapon runes confer their benefits onto ammunition, except when magic ammunition suppresses any property runes.

That is, if you have a +3 major striking long bow made out of high-grade cold iron you would trigger the cold iron weakness of Demons and Fey on every mundane arrow you shoot (and hit with). You could get the same weakness benefit if you used a low-grade bow, but then you'd be limited to +1 striking runes, just as usual.

*) This solves soo many problems with the PF2 rules as written it isn't even funny. I've updated the original post if you're interested in learning more.
 
Last edited:

CapnZapp

Legend
You are ally underestimating AOE spells. I hope you get to see some of these critical fail AoE spells soon. Double damage on a multi-dice spells against multiple targets adds up quick.
In our experience, monsters are just as likely, if not even more likely, to crit fail against a weapons attack. (Meaning the attack scoring a crit success, of course).

Double damage is nice, yes, but the spell damage isn't all that great to begin with.

So yes, dealing 100 damage to a group of foes is impressive. But so is dealing 100 damage on a critical weapon hit.

And as I've been saying repeatedly, the fundamental balancing assumption of Pathfinder 2, that doing 100 hp to four creatures is just as valuable as doing 100 hp to one creature, is just not correct.

In fact, dealing a 90 hp or 80 hp or even 75 hp critical to just the right creature is probably better on average than dealing a total of 100 damage to four creatures.

Every other edition of D&D values single-target damage higher than area damage. By that I mean that area spells deal lots of damage compared to the damage of a martial. Yes, even in 5th Edition. No, this doesn't mean casters are brokenly powerful in that game, or that they would be in PF2 - since both these games address LFQW in many other ways.
  • you have no real control over who takes what damage when casting an area spell. Which monster that takes double (or no) damage is largely up to chance.
  • dealing 25 hp to four monsters, each with 80 hp, does not directly contribute to the main goal of every combat - reducing the incoming damage (to zero)
  • dealing 100 hp to one out of four monsters, each with 80 hp, makes a whopping 25% contribution to that main goal.

Sure, after the area spell, the martials can target those enemies that looked like they fared the worst. Reducing a monster from 80 to 55 hp is always of value.

But the point remains - if Pathfinder 2 had valued multi-target damage lower than single-target damage, and if Paizo had come up with a more elegant and surgical alternative to Incapacitation, we would likely not be having this "spellcasters feel woefully underpowered" discussion.

For the purposes of this thread, I remain unconvinced the addition of 40 damage to a group of four monsters with Weakness Whatever 10 each at level 5 to 10 is unbalancing. And remember, the number of encounters in official APs where this makes a difference is vanishingly small. After all, it's only when an encounter is harder than Moderate we really care about Wizards stealing the thunder. But the number of Severe encounters where the heroes face more than two creatures that share the same significant special materials weakness just is vanishingly small.

Because that's your objection, right? The unbalancing, I mean. That you don't want casters to reign supreme like in D&D of the year 2000. I strongly agree with this goal. I just don't see how this comes anywhere near that situation... and instead, it appears to me I'm more solving a problem (mitigating weak caster damage) than creating one!

Cheers,
Zapp
 
Last edited:

CapnZapp

Legend
So if we imagine thes above changes to have come into effect, what can we expect? (Talking healing here)

At level 7 for instance, you can purchase a pair of Moderate Healing Potions for 50 gold. Each heals 60 hp which is a significant number even for a Fighter or Barbarian. Assuming everybody has a Potion Bandoleer drinking one takes two actions, so you can still make an attack or move.

Obviously 25 gold is not a trivial amount at this level, so players will likely still prefer their healing to come from a Cleric's Heal spell (which heals 4d8+32 or ~50 hp as a 4th level spell)

Purchasing Lesser Healing Potions for 12 gold a pair is likely a better option. Half the healing is still not useless, and the cost is slashed by more than three fourths.

If you have a Cleric, you might never actually purchase potions. But you are much more likely to actually use the ones that drop as loot. Finding a Moderate Elixir of Life, for instance, wouldn't be unreasonable at this level. It too heals 60 hp, and grants you a bonus against poison and disease to boot.

The biggest benefit is for parties where for any reason no player wants the combat medic role. Previously, not having access to ~50 hp heals would have seriously impacted the group's pace of adventuring. Now, everyone can agree that the price of spending gold on healing is worth it if it enables everybody to play the class they want. The group likely still has a secondary healer, not to speak of Medicine and out of combat healing, but a fighter can now drink a potion instead of expecting a big heal to drop.
 

Remove ads

Top