- There are no negative hit points - if you take damage equal or greater than your HP, you go down to 0 HP and get the Dying 1 condition.
- If a crit knocks you to 0, you gain Dying 2 instead of Dying 1.
- Each round, you must make a save to stabilize. The save DC is based off the enemy - a boss may have a higher death DC than a mook, so you are more likely to be killed by bosses.
- If you reach Dying 4, then you are dead.
- If you make the stabilize check, you gain a hit point, but are still Dying. If you make another save at 1 HP, you are no longer Dying, and you regain consciousness.
- If an ally heals you while you are Dying, you still have the Dying condition, even though you have positive HP. You still need to make a stabilize check to regain consciousness. But, once your HP is positive, you are no longer at danger of death from failing your checks - failing a stabilize check just means you stay unconscious.
- The Stabilize cantrip puts you at 1 HP.
So, the dying rules are the first bit of PF2E that I am pretty dissatisfied with. I get what they were trying to go for, I even agree with the principles, but they overcomplicated it and made some weird decisions. It also seems to make you die turbo quickly like 5E, even if you have a high Constitution.
It's important before saying anything else to note we are probably not going to get the PF1E system no matter what we say. And honestly, I won't miss it, since PF1E's system is wonky too in its own way. So, it's almost certainly going to be a version of this. But let's see if we can work within what has been revealed and shape it into something better.
First off, being in Dying status even when merely unconscious or actually stable at positive HP is... bad. This is going to cause a lot of confusion. A solution is to separate Unconscious more from the definition of the Dying status. I have to assume / hope Unconscious is still its own separate status, but treating it the way it is here is weird. How about a core rule saying: When you are reduced to 0 HP, you become Unconscious and also Dying 1. If this was on a critical hit, you become Dying 2 instead.
This separates the two. It specifically allows for spells and effects to make you Dying or Unconscious independently and without reducing you to 0 HP, because what I wrote above would be a core rule rather than having 0 HP or Unconscious baked into the definition of the Dying status itself. This also makes it easier for feats like Diehard or an animal's Frenzy to operate more naturally.
While we're on terminology, how about:
Stable: You are considered Stable whenever you are not Dying, whether or not you are conscious.
Okay, simple enough. That just lets us refer to it in other definitions. It also makes Stable mutually exclusive with Dying. Moving on.
Dying (Progressive): When you are dying, roll a Stabilization Check at the end of your turn. This is a Constitution check against DC 10, or DC 15 if you are Unconscious, plus your Dying tier; so at Dying 1 these DCs are 11 and 16 respectively.
- If you are Dying, you can spend an action point to skip the check and regain 1 HP; you become Stable and are no longer Dying.
- If you receive healing while Dying, you add the hit points recovered as a bonus to your next Stabilization check.
- If you succeed, you are still Dying but you get a +1d10 bonus on your next Stabilization check.
- If you critically succeed, you regain 1 HP, become Stable and are no longer Dying. If you are Unconscious, you can immediately make a check to become conscious; see the Unconscious status.
- If you fail, your Dying tier increases by 1, or by 2 if you critically fail.
- If you take damage while Dying, your Dying tier increases by 1, or by 2 if it was a critical hit.
- If your Dying tier ever equals or exceeds half your Constitution score, you die.
Unconscious: You are helpless, you are not awake, and you can't take actions of any kind. You do not receive the benefits of rest and do not receive natural healing, no matter how long you remain unconscious. If you are unconscious at the start of your turn, you can spend an Action Point to wake up. Otherwise, external healing lets you make a Constitution check with a bonus equal to the amount of HP restored against DC 20 to wake up. If you do not receive external healing, you may still attempt this check once per day.
So, this keeps the gist of what they wanted to do, with some changes. Yeah, it's still more complex than PF1E, but dying is important and can stand to be a little complex, and it's still simpler than their tentative PF2E model. It strips out the weird thing about having to keep track of whether a "boss" made you dying (and what even would be defined as a "boss" under the rules anyway?), it lets you last a lot longer because most people will have a Constitution higher than 8, and it models how someone who is dying but awake is able to hold on much better than someone who is unconscious. It reduces the number of rules branch points because it doesn't care if you have 0 or positive HP. It keeps critical hits being worse for you, which I'm totally game for, while keeping their intent of ignoring negative HP, which I'm also game for, because some people in real life have taken positively ludicrous amounts of harm (falling out of an airplane, living through Hiroshima) and still been alive. It keeps you from waking up immediately on stabilizing, which almost never happens in real life, except when you get healing, because direct HP injection should definitely help you wake up faster; meanwhile, stronger healing is still prioritized over Cure Light Wounds.
It also accounts for the reveal that Action Points are baked into PF2E from the beginning. Individuals with heroic resolve can just spend some of their AP to either immediately stabilize, immediately wake up or both.
I'm sure I'm missing something, and there's probably details unrevealed about the system that might also interact with my suppositions, but this at least seems better to me than how it was presented in the playtest. I'm sure some people would prefer that even a single point of magical healing is enough to instantly wake you up no matter what, too. That feels cheap to me but if most people like that sort of thing, I can live with it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's important before saying anything else to note we are probably not going to get the PF1E system no matter what we say. And honestly, I won't miss it, since PF1E's system is wonky too in its own way. So, it's almost certainly going to be a version of this. But let's see if we can work within what has been revealed and shape it into something better.
If they're not willing to back off unwanted changes then it feels like playtest is kind of dead on arrival. It's harsh, but it's how I feel. I figure the reason for the playtest is to see how things work and how people like them. The answer "This is worse or at least not better than how it is now, keep it the same, or just tweak the existing rule instead." is a valid response. For any change the question has to be asked, "Is this better than the old way?" If not then it's a bad change and should be jettisoned. I applaud them for looking at creative solutions, but some solutions will turn out to be worse than the problem.
In this case, I see no problem with the current dying rules. They work and they make sense. It might do with a few tweaks to tighten it up, but a complete replacement would have to be a dramatic improvement to be worth it. But this new dying condition system is a step backwards. It makes less sense than negative hit-points because there is a disconnect between how much damage is done and how badly you are dying. Which seems like it should be the biggest factor, not whether it's a crit or a 'boss' did it. More damage, more dying and more healing needed to get you back up. Simple and intuitive. What problem is this new system even trying to solve?
Oh I totally agree that the old negative HP system was easier. I was just trying to find a way to improve on what we have been told they are currently rolling with, while still trying to respect the intent of how they built it.
Maybe if there's a big enough outcry they'll return to negative HP, just with quality of life Tweaks like hero point incorporation, staying alive to negative HP equal to your max HP, staying conscious but disabled / staggered to the negative of your level + half your Constitution score, and so on. I don't think it's likely, hence the thought experiment above, but there is that outside chance. It just depends on how much they can clean things up and how vocal playtesters are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree that the new "dying" system seems overly complicated, difficult to understand and counter-intuitive. Death 1, Death 2, Death 3, and Death 4? WTF? Four new conditions each with their own parameters, consequences, and multiple branches on a logic tree to determine what happens next. Trying to decipher this tangle will be giving everyone anxiety attacks.
This is not a simplification. This is not elegant. It also seems to be aimed at making it incredibly difficult to recover from something that is bound to happen often, especially in a game where everyone and everything can now make 3 attacks per round regardless of level.
I'm going to stop here before this devolves into a rant about devaluing healers, the inadequacy of the old Cure spells in PF2e, the increased randomness introduced by the >10< rules (which sounds neat, but adds a ton of additional complexity to the rules and the gameplay). But enough on that.
It's not 4 conditions, it's one condition with a sliding scale. There's no indication so far of different branching decisions at each level, so I don't think that's something we need to worry about.
From what we've seen so far, it seems a good replacement to me. The old negative HP system makes it way too easy to die for my taste, while this new system still doesn't take it too easy on us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fuzzypaws, I really like most of your design work, but this one really misses the mark for me.
Firstly, a clarification - every enemy has a DC (not sure the actual term but I think of it as a "Death DC") that assumedly is right there in the stat block. There's not actually a "boss vs mook" distinction, it's just that the goblin might have a Death DC of 11 while the adult dragon might have a Death DC of 23.
Now, your system is massively more complicated than the PF2 system - two DCs, modified by Dying level, and then you have to keep track of how much healing you received on the previous round, and keep track of whether you succeeded or failed your previous check, and the Dying level you die at is different for everyone. Then there's a separate check to regain consciousness. Honestly it's kind of a mess. PF2 dying is quite simple - you roll a Fortitude save, and if you pass, you are OK. If you fail, your Dying level increases. If you hit 4, you're dead.
In your system, your friends can go to extreme lengths to heal you (run across the battlefield into mortal danger to pour a potion down your throat) and still watch helplessly while you die. That's gonna feel bad for everyone involved.
It also loses some of the urgency and drama. For a Con 16 character that won't die until they hit Dying 8, you know you have a bunch of rounds even if they manage to crit fail multiple saves. And then once you get to the level that you can reliably deliver 15 points of healing, you can basically say "see you in 3 rounds buddy while we finish killing this thing." The PF2 system has more urgency that you better do something quick.
I also don't like the Action Points thing. I know that Hero Points let you do this in PF1, and we don't know yet whether they will in the playtest, but it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Without going into any spoilers, I was listening to a podcast recently where a character used Hero Points to not die, and I almost stopped listening to the podcast because it just ruined the drama and tension so quickly and so completely. Thankfully they redeemed themselves soon afterward, so I think they realized what a terrible choice it was to allow that usage of the Hero Points.
Let's do an example: Billy goes down - his Con score is 10.
- First round: Billy is at Dying 1. The cleric healed him for 4 points, but to regain consciousness he rolled a nat 13 for a total of 17 vs DC 20 so he doesn't regain consciousness. To stabilize, he is rolling for DC 16 with a +4 bonus. He rolls a natural 11 - oof, just shy. Down to Dying 2.
- Second round: Billy is at Dying 2. The cleric heals him again for 4 points, but again he fails to regain consciousness with a nat 14. So he is rolling for DC 17 with a +4 bonus. He rolls a natural 19 - succeeds at the check, so he's still at Dying 2 but will get a +1d10 bonus next round.
- Third round: Billy is at Dying 2. He rolls 1d20+1d10 against DC 17. He rolls a nat 15 on the d20 and a nat 10 on the d10 - that's a success, but not a critical success. Still at Dying 2.
- Fourth round: Billy is at Dying 2. He rolls 1d20+1d20 against DC 17. He rolls a nat 11 on the d20 and a nat 5 on the d10, failing the check. Down to Dying 3.
- Fifth round: Billy is at Dying 3. He rolls 1d20 vs DC 18. Not looking good for Billy. He rolls a nat 15, and fails his check. Down to Dying 4.
- Sixth round: Billy is at Dying 4. He rolls 1d20 vs DC19. Nat 17, he fails the check. Billy is dead.
Even though Billy never rolled below an 11, and got healed twice, he still dies. And the process to get there is so mind-bendingly rule intensive, people would probably start audio-recording the whole process just to go back and see if they made any mistakes.
I do agree that if you are not at risk of death you should not have the Dying condition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Billy actually should have died at the end of the 5th round, as nobody mentioned changing Dying 4 = Dead.
Billy actually should have died at the end of the 5th round, as nobody mentioned changing Dying 4 = Dead.
In Fuzzypaws' proposal:
If your Dying tier ever equals or exceeds half your Constitution score, you die.
and in case there's any ambiguity as to whether he meant "4 or half your Con score, whichever is less" he also stated about the original rules:
It also seems to make you die turbo quickly like 5E, even if you have a high Constitution.
So in his proposal, a character with 16 Con would die at Dying 8, a character with 12 Con would die at Dying 6, etc.
I like "bloodied" for the condition where you are stable, but still have a greater risk of death if you take damage.
I think that is a perfect solution. You are only Dying when you have to make the death saves. You are Bloodied (or pick some other similar word) when you have 1 or more hit points and are making saves to remove the Bloodied condition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Under the new standard rules, I think my big issue is that it seems like players will be hopping up and falling back down until they die for good. At least if I'm understanding the way dying works.
I don't think I'm going to like that much in PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Under the new standard rules, I think my big issue is that it seems like players will be hopping up and falling back down until they die for good. At least if I'm understanding the way dying works.
I don't think I'm going to like that much in PF2.
I do agree with this - it seems like you regain consciousness startingly fast, even without being healed. I prefer PF1 where unless you were healed, you would be KOed for a minimum of one day. Under the current playtest rules as I understand them, you could get KOed, come back up two rounds later, get KOed again, come back up two round later, get KOed again, and come back up two rounds later (all without any healing.) Then retreat for a few rounds and do it again.
I do agree with this - it seems like you regain consciousness startingly fast, even without being healed. I prefer PF1 where unless you were healed, you would be KOed for a minimum of one day. Under the current playtest rules as I understand them, you could get KOed, come back up two rounds later, get KOed again, come back up two round later, get KOed again, and come back up two rounds later (all without any healing.) Then retreat for a few rounds and do it again.Under the new standard rules, I think my big issue is that it seems like players will be hopping up and falling back down until they die for good. At least if I'm understanding the way dying works.
I don't think I'm going to like that much in PF2.
Or get dropped that third time, fail saves and die.
In PF 1, you get dropped, go stable and survive most likely. Here, it's gonna be a circle of diminishing returns until you win or give up the ghost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What problem is this new system even trying to solve?
Well, the current rules for dying are pretty tame for levels 1-5 then become pretty dangerous for players. Dying slowly over the course of like 10 rounds (assuming you never manage to stabilize) is hardly a concern, unless it's a total party wipe. At my table, people frequently forget to even roll. Then damage starts coming so fast that the 10-18 HP dying buffer likely isn't going to matter much. You'll go from single digit HP to dead in a single attack so often, I give my players the choice of taking a dive so that enemies will ignore them.
The proposed system makes dying at any level (from any source) equally dangerous; three failed saves and you are dead. It's written up in a kind of goofy way, but I think it solves two problems (while creating a third). Dying by massive damage should probably also take you to dying 2 (or 3). But generally, I think three+ rounds to stabilize your dying buddy seems fair to me.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do agree with this - it seems like you regain consciousness startingly fast, even without being healed. I prefer PF1 where unless you were healed, you would be KOed for a minimum of one day. Under the current playtest rules as I understand them, you could get KOed, come back up two rounds later, get KOed again, come back up two round later, get KOed again, and come back up two rounds later (all without any healing.) Then retreat for a few rounds and do it again.Under the new standard rules, I think my big issue is that it seems like players will be hopping up and falling back down until they die for good. At least if I'm understanding the way dying works.
I don't think I'm going to like that much in PF2.
In 1e you could regain consciousness an hour after you stabilized.
In 1e you could regain consciousness an hour after you stabilized.I do agree with this - it seems like you regain consciousness startingly fast, even without being healed. I prefer PF1 where unless you were healed, you would be KOed for a minimum of one day. Under the current playtest rules as I understand them, you could get KOed, come back up two rounds later, get KOed again, come back up two round later, get KOed again, and come back up two rounds later (all without any healing.) Then retreat for a few rounds and do it again.Under the new standard rules, I think my big issue is that it seems like players will be hopping up and falling back down until they die for good. At least if I'm understanding the way dying works.
I don't think I'm going to like that much in PF2.
By then the battle was over and the party had won, or were captured or dead.
I think that in PF2 it's going to be a lot harder on GM's to not kill players when they can't knock them out of play for more than a few rounds at a time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the current system is definitely an improvement, but I would make a few tweaks. Change the wording from "Dying" to "Trauma" or similar. I think you should lose a number of actions based on your trauma rating. So, even if you get knocked down and recover, you are still partially disabled.
You could be at trauma 3, but after making 2 saves (or 1 with helaing) you are conscious, but you are lying on the ground and can take only free actions.
Then something like diehard could allow you to lose 1 fewer actions from trauma.
So, then you have dying and unconscious (0 HP), stablised and unconscious (1 HP) or normal (>0 HP), each at various trauma ratings and action penalties.
Perhaps powerful magic can remove trauma in combat, but generally it should be an out of combat recovery process.