
![]() |

Saw this in my newsfeed:
http://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/03/15/pathfinder-rpg-second-edition-death/
From that article
"other changes to move away from "optimizing" character builds to make them viable in gameplay."Making the game significantly more deadly does NOT result in reducing optimizing. It makes people optimize all the harder.
I very much do NOT like the suggested new rules for dying. I find the risk of character death about right in Pathfinder right now

![]() |

James Hines wrote:Saw this in my newsfeed:
http://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/03/15/pathfinder-rpg-second-edition-death/
From that article
"other changes to move away from "optimizing" character builds to make them viable in gameplay."Making the game significantly more deadly does NOT result in reducing optimizing. It makes people optimize all the harder.
I very much do NOT like the suggested new rules for dying. I find the risk of character death about right in Pathfinder right now
In my experience, I'd have to say this is making the game significantly less deadly; it seems like you do not die from hit-point damage without going through these saving throws. That means no more 'Minotaur in a certain evergreen crits for enough damage to kill you outright' moments, and in high level stops the issue of almost any hit when you're on low hitpoints - when monsters are averaging 30+ damage a hit, the chance of landing on that -1 to -14 range is relatively small.
As to whether it's good or bad I'll wait to see how it fits into the rest of the rules - but it seems significantly less deadly to me.

![]() |

Considering we’ve only seen some of the new differences in the rules through the play test pod casts, we cannot really do comparative math at this point. We really do not know what average damage or DPR looks like yet. We know PCs will have slightly more HP in 2E and magic weapons seem to do more base damage, but not much other than that