Chrono's page

Pretending to be the Red Mantis is the sort of thing that earns a visit from the Red Mantis...

"Pages 411: The text for the wounded condition was changed for consistency, but became consistent with the wrong piece of text. This would lead to much deadlier encounters! The following changes should ensure that death and dying works the way we intended.

In the Recovery Checks degrees of success, remove all instances of "(plus your wounded condition, if any)"; that's both in the failure and critical failure entries.
Under Taking Damage, remove the final sentence that reads, "If you have the wounded condition, remember to add the value of your wounded condition to your dying value." This reminder should only apply to when you gain the dying condition after getting knocked out."

From Player Core Day 1 Errata, problem solved.

If that could somehow happen: they'd be swallowed, and now a smaller size. It would not otherwise alter their circumstances in any way. Shrinking is not blocked by there being 'not enough space' for reasons that are fairly obvious.

I mean, as a quick glance at the Aasimar feats, most of them are already in PC1. The only ones I don't see replicated are the niche liniage feats from the Ancestry guide (Emberkin, Ibyllkin) and the feats with them as a prerequisite.

The only other ones not reproduced or replaced is Celestial Resistance, Healer's Halo, Celestial Strikes and Radiate Glory.

Except for Celestial Resistance, all of these feats are from the Ancestry Guide. There is no reason they can't be used as printed, with very minor modifications (not proficient in Sylvan, but Fey, etc.).

Except for an Errata pass to change to new spell names, I wouldn't expect there to be significant reprints of contents of Lost Omens books like the Ancestry Guide.

It's actually super important to note - Player Core only covers the CRB and APG. The Ancestry Guide and Lost Omens are not covered by it, and all the missing feats are from Ancestry Guide or Lost Omens. I'd expect errata just changing the missing feats to Nephilim instead of Aasimar, and adding the celestial lineage requirement to them. If no errata, then that's what should be done.

Same for Tiefling.

Also: It is still mechanically and tactically bad to go after a downed character instead of going after active threats and potential healers, regardless of if the enemy also goes to dying or not. The only way a downed creature becomes a threat again is if they get healed, so going after and threatening the healer (or the rest of their group if there is no clear healer) with Reactive Strikes, Grabs, etc. is more efficient and more effective than going for a double tap. This is especially true for creatures who have high damage effects or death effects, as they know that if a creature gets healed they can eventually wear them down by downing them again easily enough. Figuring out ways to get around those problems is fun, repeatedly attacking downed characters is both non-interactive and immersion-breaking (because it's a bad idea for any creature except the most mindless or vicious).

RE: Afflictions timing, the rules are (still) under Duration, which is on page 426 of Player Core. It's a general rule that applies to all durations from all effects, so afflictions do not need to have theirs spelled out separately.

Or if the boss had a wounding weapon!! oh man that will be a nightmare.

Nope, you still have a full round. Persistent damage (still) only applies at the end of a creature's turn, and the PC's turn is moved to before the boss when they go down, which gives a full round for allies to heal them and/or help stop the bleed.

It'd be nice if we knew when poison triggered in the turn, so that we could better gauge the lethality of it in light of the new rules.

We do, it's in the rules for persistent damage and the rules for Afflictions (and the standard convention for Durations).

If persistent poison damage: You take it at the end of each of your own turns (along with making the DC 15 Flat Check).

If an affliction: If you fail your save, you suffer stage 1 at the end of Onset time (if there is no Onset, it happens immediately when you fail). From there, each stage has an Interval, and you save when that interval ends. The convention for effects with durations lasting a number of rounds is that they decrease by 1 at the start of the creature's turn that created the effect, so '1 round' means 'at the start of the creature who inflicted the effect's turn' (or on that spot in the initiative order if said creature is dead). Repeat until Stage 0, Max Duration is reached, or dead. If you are exposed to the same poison again and fail the save again, the stage immediately goes up by 1 (2 for crit fail), but it doesn't 'refresh' the max duration.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=351

Revised wording from Player Core specifies that the spell cast on Spellstrike Ammo must be a 1-2 action spell, to clarify this - you are using the Cast a Spell action, using 2 actions regardless of whether it's a 1 or 2 action spell, and activating the ammo with it.

There shouldn't be any issue with casting a 1 or 2 action heal into Spellstrike Ammo (don't forget they do the same damage to undead, the bonus on 2 action is only for healing). They'll need to fire it before the end of their turn, or the ammo will deactivate.

Essentially two scenarios:

Arrow: 2 action Cast A Spell to activate (Heal), Strike the undead (reload 0 means drawing the arrow is free), on hit they take damage as normal and save against Heal.

Bolt/Bullet/Other Things with Reload 1+: Make sure ammo is loaded before start of turn, or use Risky Reload later on. Cast a Spell to activate, Strike to fire on the undead, on hit they take damage as normal and save against Heal.

Revised wording in Player Core: "Most animals panic in battle unless specifically trained otherwise."

I would presume that the combat spell Summon Animals summons combat trained animals.

As for everything else - 'if you can communicate with it' is kind of ambiguous phrasing. Notably, it doesn't use the phrasing 'if it can understand the language you are speaking', and the minion trait notes "if not otherwise specified, you issue a verbal command as a single action with the auditory and concentrate traits". Notably, this action does not have the Linguistic trait - meaning it does not require language to be understood to have an effect. I think it should be taken to mean 'if it is deafened/otherwise unable to hear you', given nothing else in rules supports the idea of intelligible communication being necessary.

Dark_Schneider wrote:

Probably all parties want to have Stabilize cantrip. Beyond that there is no much discussion, as in all other cases is the same than currently

I still don't see the value there. I don't want to be lying on the ground at -6 to my AC. Are you sure the downed PC is not going to be targetted?

In most cases it's a bad idea to waste actions on double-tapping a target that is not an active threat, from a mechanical perspective. On a crit, the stabilized creature would be dropped to Dying 2, and they'd have to spend at least another action to finish them. Even if the target was Wounded 1, they'd still go to Dying 3, and require another hit to finish off. Keep in mind that there is the actual healer nearby actively healing the entire party, and it'd be much more efficient and effective to take them down to 0 HP than to double tap one creature.

Arguments can be made in the case of things like mindless creatures, starving beasts, or creatures who benefit from double tapping (via spell or getting a new ally), but those are exceptional circumstances that should be treated accordingly - Stabilizing a creature who's adjacent to a Wight is one case where it may be better to let the creature die naturally as opposed to stabilizing them, but that should only be even considered if you're totally out of healing options.

On the other hand, add the extra event that a bard friend cast Soothe on the injured character just after they dropped. The injured character is now conscious and Wounded 1. Alas, before they start their turn, that other enemy casts casts Burning Hands on the area, so the injured character drops to Dying 2 because of the Wounded 1. At the beginning of their next turn, they make a Recovery check, have a regular failure, and go to Dying 4. They are dead.

The Soothe spell did not buy the character any more time; instead, it led to a hasty death due to nasty targetting by the enemy.

That gives the unflavorful impression that magically healing a character makes them more injured, because it makes them more Wounded. The magic forces them awake at a potentially deadly cost.

This is an area where the totality of the Dying rules are important: whenever you drop to 0 HP, your initiative is moved to directly before the turn you go down. This ‘delays your turn’ so you never have to make a recovery check right after falling, and your allies have a full round to heal you. [In the circumstance you go down to a Reactive Strike or Persistent Damage or the like on your own turn, they still have a full round]

Here's an example:

Initiative Order

Baddie
Fighter
Cleric
Wizard
Bad Mage
Barbarian

The fight has been going on a bit. The Baddie lands a critical hit on the Wizard, dropping him to 0 HP. The Wizard goes to Dying 2 (downed by a crit), and the initiative order becomes:

Wizard
Baddie (current turn)
Fighter
Cleric
Bad Mage
Barbarian

The cleric heals the Wizard, bringing him to Wounded 1. Initiatives do not change. The Bad Mage hits the area with a Fireball, and the Wizard is unlucky enough to critically fail the reflex save. The Wizard drops to Dying 3 (Dying 2+Wounded 1), and initiative becomes:

Baddie
Fighter
Cleric
Wizard
Bad Mage (current turn)
Barbarian

The barbarian takes down the Bad Mage, and back to top of round.

If the cleric did not heal the wizard, the wizard would be Dead. Now, the Cleric has another chance to heal the Wizard (assuming the Baddie does not ignore the threat of the fighter or barbarian slaying them to make a spiteful double tap) his turn moving to after the Cleric's.

By rules it doesn’t stack unless it is explicitly said to, or increase terrain difficulty unless explicitly said to - like how getting darkvision from both ancestry and heritage doesn’t give greater darkvision (but getting low-lighf and a feat that gives low-light usually does stack to dv due to feat wording). You could possibly rule it as also being uneven ground for that character, since they can’t see to navigate around what is causing the terrain to be difficult - but tbh being blinded is punishing already.

I don't view it as a problem that you can't take Bastion at level 2 unless you are a class that already has shield block. It's similar to how you can't take Medic at level 2 unless you either spend a feat on Battle Medicine or have it in your background, you can't take Marshal without both martial weapons and diplomacy or intimidation, etc. Some dedications should be too much of a leap to take straight away - this is also the reason for multiclass dedications having stat requirements.

Other spells explicitly do confer the properties of flung metals nowadays, see Needle Darts: https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=1375

Given that they explicitly do impart any special properties, and TK Proj has its wording indicating that 'no properties' are inherited, it's clear that if you want to use precious metal magic attacks, use Metal Darts.

(Thread's old and necroed, but I figure that this is a good cap.)

There is still ambiguity. Before the "new" rule only appeared in one place, but not the others, and so the intent was ambiguous.

Now, it still only appears in one place, and not in others, and so the intent remains ambiguous.

By way of example, the rules for the Dying condition:

Nothing in those rules says you should add wounded when you gain dying, because those rules are elsewhere in the book. The sidebar has a reminder, but that is not part of the condition’s rules text.

The argument you are using here is equivalent to ‘the rules for dying as a whole and the rules for the dying condition differ, so we cannot say for certain which is correct.’ The answer is that they don’t differ and both are correct, because the rule is printed in a different location. This is almost certainly an issue of organization, not one of interpretation.

If I were to speculate: during the editing process, somebody saw 'gain or increase', and thought it was confusing language to have two different words that mean the same thing, so they cut it to 'gain'. That is purely a guess.

(To make things clear as well, I am not arguing out of anger, or saying that this is absolutely a better rule - I am saying it is reasonable to view this as having been the rule all along, and I struggle to find a reason why 'specific beats general, but not if the specific only appears in one spot because then it might be an error' is the interpretation we want to go with.)

Courageous Anthem (Pg.370) The Spell Description states

You inspire yourself and your allies with words or tunes
of encouragement. You and all allies in the area gain a +1
status bonus to attack rolls, damage rolls, and saves against
fear effects.

It is lacking the Auditory trait from from the how it is worded, unless it is suppose to effect deaf creatures.

Unusual Composition (Pg.105) Level 10 Bard feat. - Most compositions do not have a trait which confirms rather or not they are visual or auditory outside their description. making this feat all subjected to your DM.

(This is already the case, it’s covered by the rules of the Composition trait itself: https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=31 )

So the big issue is that it's a status bonus.

Even if it applied to some impulses, it would not apply to their 2 action blast, which also uses a status bonus to add their con to damage. It WOULD apply to persistent burn from a later Junction, though.

I was doing a bunch of math comparing it to other burn it options, and it's not really straightforwardly comparable. Average damages won't tell the whole story.

I don't think it's 'broken' per se if you want to allow it, but there's definitely reasons why you may not want to establish precedent that impulses 'count as spells'.

Also the playtest language ive heard about that clearly would mean to increase by the wounded value did not make it to the final version. So it may as well also not have been the intention.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=374

"If you take damage while you already have the dying condition, increase your dying condition value by 1, or by 2 if the damage came from an attacker’s critical hit or your own critical failure. If you have the wounded condition, remember to add the value of your wounded condition to your dying value."

CRB, the original. Pg 459. Never errata'd in 4 releases. Keep in mind that the dying rules not being errata'd has been used in this thread as evidence that the rules were clearly always intended to be that way.

Another quote:

"Wounded Any time you gain the dying condition or increase it for any reason, add your wounded value to the amount you gain or increase your dying value. The wounded condition ends if you receive HP from Treat Wounds, or if you're restored to full HP and rest for 10 minutes."

GM Screen, released alongside the CRB. Remains on the Archive of Nethys GM Screen under Death and Dying, and in printed GM screens. Both the original and Advanced GM screens contain this reminder, as far as I am aware.
https://2e.aonprd.com/GMScreen.aspx

Yes, this rule has always existed. There was ambiguity before because there was no reminder text. Reminder text was added, and people are calling that a change.

Easl wrote:

After all, there's really only a few situations where it makes a huge difference - the clearest one being where you have Wounded 1 going into a combat, you go down (Dying 2), then you get hit again while down or you fail your recovery check... = Dying 4? Or Dying 3?

I have avoided commenting on the Remastered Wounded rules because I won't own the Remastered PDFs until November 15. But I do have experience in PF2 combat.

When I read the Wounded rules in my original Pathfinder 2nd Edition rulebook, I made a mental note to talk to my players about houseruling them, because taking damage while dying and wounded seemed too harsh:

PF2 Core Rulebook, Playing the Game chapter, page 459 wrote:

Taking Damage while Dying

If you take damage while you already have the dying condition, increase your dying condition value by 1, or by 2 if the damage came from an attacker’s critical hit or your own critical failure. If you have the wounded condition, remember to add the value of your wounded condition to your dying value.

The Wounded condition seemed like to say that the character resumed dying at the value where they had left off, unless they had medical treatment that restored their deep vitality.

So this isn't quite correct.

No matter how high your Dying value gets, if Dying is removed by any means other than spending hero points, your wounded increases by 1. It doesn't go to the value Dying was at, or anything like that - it is explicitly designed to counteract 'yo-yo' healing that plagues games like 5e, where there is no reason to heal until somebody goes down - Wounded encourages more proactive healing, to prevent going down to start.

Essentially, if a character goes down to a crit, they go to dying 2. They take damage when they are inside the splash radius of a bomb, dying 3. The cleric casts heal on them, all dying cleared, Wounded 1.

Remember, wounded can be cured entirely in two ways:

1) Treat Wounds
2) Reach full HP, and rest for 10 minutes.

The latter, notably, can be done without anyone in the group having any medical skill, using only healing magic and consumables.

aobst128 wrote:

Yeah the parentheses are bugging me too

Grammatically, removing a parenthetical doesn't materially change the meaning of a sentence. IF adding the wounded value to a failed recovery check is intended, then grammatically, the structure is completely wrong since removing the parenthetical would materially alter the instruction.

It doesn't, because it is purely referencing the general rule for wounded. IE, something you should do anyway, this is just a reminder text.

To think of this another way, let's think about the spell Stabilize. 'The target loses the dying condition, though it remains unconscious at 0 Hit Points.' We already know when you lose dying, you increase wounded value - but maybe the designers want to make sure that's communicated in the spell. In that case, 'The target loses the dying condition, though it remains unconscious at 0 Hit Points (increase their Wounded condition by 1).'

Fumarole wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

Oh, I hadn't actually read the new rules. Yeah, adding 2 or more to your dying value on a failed recovery check while you're wounded doesn't sound right. Probably not the right interpretation.

Recovery Checks:

Critical Success Your dying value is reduced by 2.
Success Your dying value is reduced by 1.
Failure Your dying value increases by 1 (plus your wounded value, if any).
Critical Failure Your dying value increases by 2 (plus your wounded value, if any).

I fail to see how the above can be interpreted any way other than adding your wounded value when failing a recovery check...

Remove the parenthesis (e.g. "Your dying value increases by 1 plus your wounded value.") and you are absolutely correct.

Adding the parenthesis, however, confuses things. They turn the "plus your wounded value if any" statement into an afterthought tacked onto a passage that is grammatically complete without the additional statement.

You are arguing that reminder text for a general rule is not rules text. Reminder text is quite frequently put in parens.

Unless you mean to suggest that the hidden condition doesn't allow you to sneak away here, because it's in a paren: https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=45

Wow, steal has double parenthesis! How confusing it is: https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=68

Ugh, too many parenthesis! None of these are rules!: https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=28

We can ignore the income table, only parenthesis points to it: https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=23

How am I supposed to interpret all this? I should give a means of activating a magic effect? If only parenthetical reminders mattered!: https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=24

https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1951

A feat already exists to cover throwing two weapons.

Like, this isn't hard unless people have had some collective misunderstanding on a catastrophic level.

Here is how it was generally understood to work before:

When a character is dropped to 0 HP by lethal damage, they go to Dying 1 (dying 2 if they were downed by a critical hit or critical failure), then add their Wounded value if it exists. For a character who has no wounded, they are at dying 1 or 2. For a character with Wounded 2, they are at dying 3 or 4 (dead without diehard).

When a creature succeeds a recovery roll, decrease dying by 1. On a critical success, decrease dying by 2. When a creature fails a recovery roll, they increase dying by 1. When they critically fail, they increase dying by 2.

When a creature has the dying condition removed by any means other than spending all their hero points (including succeeding at recovery checks), their wounded value is increased by 1.

Do we all agree that is how the majority of people have been playing, and what the rule was commonly understood to be? Like, if your wounded somehow increased while you were still dying, (which I don't believe is possible, but for the sake of argument) you would not increase your dying value, because it has already been added. It's a one-and-done. Your wounded value is not 'constantly being added to your dying value', and it isn't added together with your 'base dying value' to create a new variable, that requires expressly adding additional rules and complications not present in the text.

This is the single alteration:

When a creature who is already dying increases their dying value, for any reason, they add wounded again.

In other words: A creature who is wounded 1 drops to a normal hit. They go to dying 1, then add wounded, putting them at dying 2. Their initiative is moved to before the creature that knocked them to 0, to give every ally a turn to help them before they have to make a recovery check. They are not healed. They make a recovery check on their turn, it is a failure. They add 1 to their dying value for Dying 3, then add their wounded value again for Dying 4. If they don't have Diehard (or that one orc feat), they are dead. They could alternatively spend all their hero points on failing that recovery check to go to 0 HP and stable, wounded 1 still.

Reading it any other way requires absolutely torturing words, contradicting both the old CRB and Gm Screen, contradicting the way the rules generally function, and contradicting Player Core.

Midgefly wrote:

I could see it being interpreted as essentially this equation:

Dying Total = Dying Increase from damage or failed save + (Current Dying Value + Wounded Value)

Whereas the primarily understood interpretation of the new wording is:

Dying Total = (Dying Increase from damage or failed save + Wounded Value) + Current Dying Value

That's a very succinct way of putting it. I'm in the first camp.

And yes, I also believe that the current wording is in error, or perhaps even placed by a rogue agent.

As I mentioned, the current wording is in the original CRB, and has never been errata'd. It is on page 459. You may check.

Attempting to argue in increasingly tortured ways about how this really isn't the rule makes no sense when a) you can always not run it that way, and b) there is almost no effect on actual real world gameplay as compared to before.

I see it as [increase dying by 1] plus wounded value to get total.

Not [increase dying value by 1 and your wounded value] to get your total.

Then you are not reading correctly.

When it says 'add wounded to your dying value' when you go down, it has always been accepted to work like this:

Go to dying 1 (or 2 if crit), then add wounded value to that to arrive at Dying 2/3/4/whatever.

The wording has not changed.

Nothing about how this is written contradicts the rules as originally written, and it clarifies some places where wording was weird before - the original CRB does, in fact, note to add your wounded value to your dying value when you fail a recovery check or take damage, it just does so in a different place. The official GM screen for PF2e also includes the same reminder as is in Player Core, and that was out years ago.

Here is the wording on the GM screen (released alongside the original CRB):

"Any time you gain the dying condition or increase it for any reason, add your wounded value to the amount you gain or increase your dying value. The wounded condition ends if you receive HP from Treat Wounds, or if you're restored to full HP and rest for 10 minutes."

Here is from CRB page 459 (is the original CRB that people argue has had its rules changed in Player Core):

"If you take damage while you already have the dying condition, increase your dying condition value by 1, or by 2 if the damage came from an attacker's critical hit or your own critical failure. If you have the wounded condition, remember to add the value of your wounded condition to your dying value."

It is not a change or a contradiction, it is a clarification of rules that already existed, but almost nobody was running.

Functionally speaking, this doesn't actually change much.

1) The value of the Diehard general feat is greatly increased. Being wounded 2 and dropping to a crit has always been lethal, but now being wounded 1 puts you in range of a single failed recovery check to death. Diehard expands this to 2 checks, except if you went down to a crit or crit fail your recovery.

2) The value of in-combat healing is increased, getting allies up before they need to make a recovery check even once becomes more paramount (and this is always possible due to how initiative is moved for a creature who goes to 0 HP).

3) Strategies that ignore an ally on the ground become less valuable, as it is more likely for them to die with one blown recovery check.

4) Holding hero points becomes more valuable - as does the tactic of spending them immediately on going down to prevent being Wounded!

5) GMs who play with a lot of targeting downed creatures remain exactly as lethal as before in most cases. There is maybe one edge case where this makes a creature die faster, if they drop to dying 2 with wounded 1, and succeed on a recovery check, then get attacked and crit - that will kill if you add wounded, not if you don't. It's identical otherwise.

From the perspective of Paizo devs, I can only imagine that has been mostly the equivalent of updating a readme, and getting a bafflingly furious userbase reaction that they have changed critical parts of the program.

Player Core Pg 333., Gouging Claw is missing the Cantrip trait.

GM Core Pg 225, the rules for transferring runes include the line 'It takes 1 day (instead of the 4 days usually needed to Craft)', it no longer takes 4 days to Craft.

Broke the news to my friends. They canceled their subscriptions and pending orders the same day.

Now I don't know if I'm going to get to play Pathfinder anymore.

a) Your friends sure have some interesting opinions! It might pay for you to learn more about what they believe on a variety of topics about the welfare of other human beings, to make sure they are people who are actually going to be good friends. Sometimes you think you know people, and can count on them for anything, then they start posting about how your class of people is inherently worse than theirs (except you, of course! You're "one of the good ones"!)

b) Online works pretty well.