Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

[billd91]

I'm not saying keyword hell is real, but 41 seems excessive...

Now, how many editions of D&D had most of the same conditions, just not as precisely defined?

 

[Remathilis]

Now, how many editions of D&D had most of the same conditions, just not as precisely defined?

Well, the devil is in the details. I mean, there are plenty of spells and effects that cause a condition, but most either assign a single condition or spell out the effect in the write up. This seems geared toward a "save or suffer keyboard" syndrome that forces you to memorize them (a feat at 41) or constantly reference them.

And really, I know stealth is usually a mess, but do we need concealed, hidden, invisible, observed, undetected and unnoticed as separate conditions?

 

[billd91]

Well, the devil is in the details. I mean, there are plenty of spells and effects that cause a condition, but most either assign a single condition or spell out the effect in the write up. This seems geared toward a "save or suffer keyboard" syndrome that forces you to memorize them (a feat at 41) or constantly reference them.

And really, I know stealth is usually a mess, but do we need concealed, hidden, invisible, observed, undetected and unnoticed as separate conditions?

Honestly, if people (or gamers, at least) weren't such pedantic asshats about stealth and other rules, those wouldn't be necessary.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Honestly, if people (or gamers, at least) weren't such pedantic asshats about stealth and other rules, those wouldn't be necessary.

It seems Wizards agrees with you, as they didn't really bother baking a coherent set of stealth rules into 5e. Makes sense that Paizo would go the other way here.

 

[Imaro]

Honestly, if people (or gamers, at least) weren't such pedantic asshats about stealth and other rules, those wouldn't be necessary.

Are they "necessary"??

 

[Tony Vargas]

Now, how many editions of D&D had most of the same conditions, just not as precisely defined?

Like 'observed' wasn't ever a condition in D&D, but you could only "become Hidden" if you weren't under direct observation? (A rule which goes all the way back to the Thief's /Hide in Shadows/ special ability in 0D&D's Greyhawk supplement I).

That would be 6. Unless you count half-eds, two-pronged approaches, and Holms vs Mentzer vs Moldvay Basic and eXpert being totally different from Expert...

...call it 13, for luck.

 

[Parmandur]

It seems Wizards agrees with you, as they didn't really bother baking a coherent set of stealth rules into 5e. Makes sense that Paizo would go the other way here.

And yet people are sneaking around in 5E without issue. There are rules, and they have proven very useable in practice, even if not abstractly ironclad.

 

[CapnZapp]

It seems Wizards agrees with you, as they didn't really bother baking a coherent set of stealth rules into 5e. Makes sense that Paizo would go the other way here.

I haven't seen Paizo's rules, but I already know they're better than Wizard's, since they were indecipherable and had to be ignored.

Of course making a decent Stealth rule shouldn't be freaking impossible, so I'm not ready to give Paizo a pass...

 

[MerricB]

Well, the devil is in the details. I mean, there are plenty of spells and effects that cause a condition, but most either assign a single condition or spell out the effect in the write up. This seems geared toward a "save or suffer keyboard" syndrome that forces you to memorize them (a feat at 41) or constantly reference them.

And really, I know stealth is usually a mess, but do we need concealed, hidden, invisible, observed, undetected and unnoticed as separate conditions?

Strangely enough, it makes sense how Pathfinder define the stealth concepts. This one is just codifying what (basically) existed in 3E before it.

Unnoticed - you don't even know the monster is there. You're flat-footed against it, and some abilities it has work against you (assassination, I guess).
Undetected - you know the monster is there, but not which square it's in. You have to choose the right square to attack, and there's a 50% miss chance, and you're flat-footed against it.
Hidden - you know the monster is there and where it's standing, but you can't see it. There's a 50% miss chance, and you're flat-footed against it.
Observed - you can see the monster. Normal rules!

Meanwhile there's
Invisible - You're undetected until someone notices you (with Seek), then you become Hidden.
Concealed - You can't see the monster clearly. 20% miss chance.

Because Pathfinder like pinning down stuff, you also have Hostile, Unfriendly, Indifferent, Friendly and Helpful for NPC attitudes.

Cheers!

 

[kenada]

Pathfinder also defines levels of precision for senses. By default, vision is a precise sense; hearing is an imprecise sense; and everything else is a vague sense. These levels of precision correspond to how well you can sense a creature (precise = observed, imprecise = hidden, vague = undetected). Of course, this can change from creature to creature. For example, scent could be an imprecise sense for dogs or hearing a precise sense for bats.