Please don't change the death rules.


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Reading/hearing about the new death rules makes me want to kill myself...which with the new rules would be basically impossible.

I don't understand why this had to change, it seems more complicated and less fun.

Why would someone suddenly go unconscious? Just because you are dying doesn't mean you lose consciousness. How would someone know you need healing without yelling for the medic? Maybe you were just tripped, being prone doesn't mean you're dying.

Why wouldn't being fully healed via "heal" automatically grant you consciousness? You still need to "wake up" on your turn?

Honestly I really hope this change gets nixed during playtest because it doesn't feel like pathfinder.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Umm... a few things.

1) Please don't joke about killing yourself.
2) The new system is made to simplify math and is overall easier to figure out.
3) You go unconscious anyways at -1HP in Pathfinder 1.
4) There is a suspension of disbelief that needs to be upheld with characters. Also you know when the full HP Barbarian just got tripped or when he fell unconscious. You can tell if someone got tripped or they fell unconscious.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SorrySleeping wrote:
1) Please don't joke about killing yourself.

2nd this.

I don't particularly like "5e dying but more complicated" death system either, but I'm not too hung up about it.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Right, you're not allowed to joke about anything. Also, tighten your belt, button your shirt and get a job. What are you doing with your life?!


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Zolanoteph wrote:
Right, you're not allowed to joke about anything. Also, tighten your belt, button your shirt and get a job. What are you doing with your life?!

Fallacious argument. Take the point and move on.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

i like the new rules and that getting a heal does not immediately put you back int the fight

Scarab Sages

I'm not sure what you mean?

In PF1, dying (below 0 hit points) does mean you lose consciousness unless you have some special ability or feat that says otherwise (e.g. die hard, orc ferocity, etc.)

I like the fact that you can't just wake up immediately upon being brought above zero hit points. It really solves the issue of an up/down battle and the pain of GMs either tracking hit points of downed NPCs or harming game balance by just saying all NPCs die at 0 hit points.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Rot Grub wrote:
Zolanoteph wrote:
Right, you're not allowed to joke about anything. Also, tighten your belt, button your shirt and get a job. What are you doing with your life?!
Fallacious argument. Take the point and move on.

You thought I was making an argument?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MR. H wrote:
I don't particularly like "5e dying but more complicated" death system either, but I'm not too hung up about it.

I don't mind the idea, but it feels like it needs less clutter and some fine-tuning. I feel it's an improvement over the old system from PF1 anyway.

Scarab Sages

5 people marked this as a favorite.
SorrySleeping wrote:

Umm... a few things.

1) Please don't joke about killing yourself.

Absolutely this! Its not funny. Its not even cute. It doesn't show how impactful the game design choice is to whether you would want to play the game or not. Its hyperbolic and totally insensitive to anyone who may be having depression or mental health issues.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, because no one ever exaggerates on forums. Ever. Also, we all know it was an exaggeration, so let's not all be snowflakes and attack me.

Rather than just complain about my choice of exaggeration, why not add something useful to the conversation? Half the posts here add nothing to the topic.

I am very strongly against the change and thus used an extreme analogy.

The rule change doesn't improve anything, why wouldn't you be able to get up and back into the fight after ! MAGIC ! has completely restored you to 100%?

Why would you after taking 300 HP damage from 1-50 sword hits be 3 bad rolls away from death? Yes, that could happen before but was less likely.

In combat healing has always been a bad choice, maybe that is changing, but it's even worse now if that after you heal someone they are still out of the fight...

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Wow


3 people marked this as a favorite.

They got you going unconscious to stop chumbawumba.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

This change was meant to do a few things, as far as I can understand:
- Increase the urgency of the dying condition. In PF1, when someone gets down at -2, as long as nothing else is happening to them the rest of the group can ignore them, finish the fight, and then get down to healing. This is boring (especially for the player involved) and detrimental to the general excitement of a fight.
- Keep dying a game factor at high levels. In PF1, at high levels you take damage in chunks of tens of HP at a time. So you don't get to be dying, most of the time: You're more likely to get straight from low HP to plain dead.
- Remove this ridiculous case, at mid to high levels, where you're more at a risk of death when you have 5 HP left (because a single blow will kill you) than when you are down at -5 HP (because enemies have more urgent things to do than finish you off).
- Reduce the odds of suddenly dying from a fluke, such as a critical, or maybe an exceptionally high fireball damage roll and a failed save.
- Make boss fights more dramatic and risky than basic fights.


The rules as they have been conveyed via podcast to us are more awkward and complex than they need to be. But it's still a better foundation than PF1's dying rules, and we can give feedback to hopefully get it cleaned up into something smooth and intuitive during the playtest.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I expect dying will seem a lot more intuitive in the context of all the other status effects that will be defined similarly.


To me,there is nothing wrong with suddenly dying because you took a crit to the face with a scythe unexpectedly or a max roll fireball.

At high levels, you would still wait for them to die and hit them with breath of life because its 1 spell and will remove the dying condition completely, and it wakes you up!!

You can always go down at 5 hp, you're a bloody mess and if you go down and don't move most things will move on to the guy still attacking, so if you're low and stay up, that's a choice, it doesn't need to be a forced choice baked into the dying rules.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
*Thelith wrote:
At high levels, you would still wait for them to die and hit them with breath of life because its 1 spell and will remove the dying condition completely, and it wakes you up!!

If you cast cure deadly wounds before your friend drops to the ground, the don't have to waste the actions standing up and retrieving their weapon.

I like the system because it is just as easy to die from a dagger critting your throat as a greatsword. Both should be deadly dangerous.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Honestly, I didn't like the new rules when I heard about it, but after watching the vid from GAMA, they clicked and I really like it. Seems like a good balance between lower lethality at high levels, and stil keeping dying meaningful as a condition.


Yes, healing before they are down is better, that's not different in either scenario.


Given the mathematical size of the bell curve from what we've seen combat to begin looking like, such as Power Attack and +x weapons adding dice rather than flat damage, it seems the new death system is also in place to account for exceptionally high results on the dice to accommodate this design philosophy.

Crits put you at dying 2, which given the math seems to imply crits will happen often, gives most players 2 rounds to get fixed or die. It also means crits on the higher end of the curve don't kill you outright, which certainly is another mathematical problem that comes up with the ever expanding range of variable damage.

It would seem the intention is for PF2 to be a much more lethal game, especially when you consider a major complaint about PF1 was how hard it actually was to die.


*Thelith wrote:
To me,there is nothing wrong with suddenly dying because you took a crit to the face with a scythe unexpectedly or a max roll fireball.

Maybe it's no big deal the first time. But after this happens a few times to characters in your high-level group, it gets really old. As a GM I remember cheating with the die rolls more than once, just to not get the game stuck in that lame situation yet again.

You can also prepare breath of life for such a case, I guess. But I think it's better to design the game so this is a much more rare situation (it should remain possible, just rare) than to have a spell specifically to cover the issue.

*Thelith wrote:

You can always go down at 5 hp, you're a bloody mess and if you go down and don't move most things will move on to the guy still attacking, so if you're low and stay up, that's a choice, it doesn't need to be a forced choice baked into the dying rules.

Similarly to the above, it's better to get rid of the situation by design, than to expect players to find a workaround. Plus, this particular workaround runs contrary to the RP of most characters who try to be heroic.

master_marshmallow wrote:

Given the mathematical size of the bell curve from what we've seen combat to begin looking like, such as Power Attack and +x weapons adding dice rather than flat damage, it seems the new death system is also in place to account for exceptionally high results on the dice to accommodate this design philosophy.

Crits put you at dying 2, which given the math seems to imply crits will happen often, gives most players 2 rounds to get fixed or die. It also means crits on the higher end of the curve don't kill you outright, which certainly is another mathematical problem that comes up with the ever expanding range of variable damage.

It would seem the intention is for PF2 to be a much more lethal game, especially when you consider a major complaint about PF1 was how hard it actually was to die.

Funny enough, I have the exact opposite impression: The intention is to make the game less lethal. Or, to be more precise, less prone to stupidly lethal fringe cases. In my experience, such fringe cases happen often enough, especially with 20/x3 weapons. In PF2, the new critical system means the damage probability curve is much less loaded towards the high end of the scale - a great improvement in my opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not against dying being easier.

But a guy with 8 con should die faster than one with 18. Given the same maximum HP, the guy with more con should be better off.

And why an "important" guy can kill you deader than an unimportant one???

What about a crit from an important one? Will that auto kill?

It feels like an unnecessary change, I have not seen the major complaints about dying?


The guy with 8 con will die faster. It is represented in his HP rather than his HP and his Negative HP.

I have no idea what you mean by an "important" guy, since every enemy works the same way.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
*Thelith wrote:

I'm not against dying being easier.

But a guy with 8 con should die faster than one with 18. Given the same maximum HP, the guy with more con should be better off.

I could get behind adding Con Mod to the checks in question. That'd preserve most of the new system while still making Con useful in the 'dying' step.

EDIT: And is apparently already official. Cool.

*Thelith wrote:

And why an "important" guy can kill you deader than an unimportant one???

What about a crit from an important one? Will that auto kill?

They've stated it's not 'being more important', it's just a math thing based on more important (ie: higher CR) people doing more damage and critting more often.

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
SorrySleeping wrote:

The guy with 8 con will die faster. It is represented in his HP rather than his HP and his Negative HP.

I have no idea what you mean by an "important" guy, since every enemy works the same way.

Not to mention that 8 Con is going to die faster from critically failing that Fortitude save.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see how *almost* immunity to death makes any sense though: 3 hp left, hit for 150, now dying 1. Healed for 1 hp, now you're not dying, hit for 150, dying 1, healed for 1 hp... Etc.

There is a reason high levels are rare...it's dangerous!

Paizo Employee Designer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
*Thelith wrote:

I don't see how *almost* immunity to death makes any sense though: 3 hp left, hit for 150, now dying 1. Healed for 1 hp, now you're not dying, hit for 150, dying 1, healed for 1 hp... Etc.

Actually, that would be 3 hp left, hit for 150, now dying 1 (or maybe dead). Healed for 1 hp awake, but still dying 1, hit for 150, KOed and dying 2, and so on until you die.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

Given the mathematical size of the bell curve from what we've seen combat to begin looking like, such as Power Attack and +x weapons adding dice rather than flat damage, it seems the new death system is also in place to account for exceptionally high results on the dice to accommodate this design philosophy.

Crits put you at dying 2, which given the math seems to imply crits will happen often, gives most players 2 rounds to get fixed or die. It also means crits on the higher end of the curve don't kill you outright, which certainly is another mathematical problem that comes up with the ever expanding range of variable damage.

It would seem the intention is for PF2 to be a much more lethal game, especially when you consider a major complaint about PF1 was how hard it actually was to die.

Agreed on your first two points. However, the whole thing about how hard it is to die in PF1? I have honestly never heard this. I’ve heard it from D&D 5e, but never from Pathfinder. The last major campaign I played in (Hell’s Rebels) I died twice, every other single person at the table died at least once, and one of our player’s PCs died SEVEN TIMES over the course of two years! And this is a table of somewhat hardcore optimizers! And don’t get me started on arise of the Runelords...Some of those books were worse than a Rob Zombie Flick...


Mark Seifter wrote:
SorrySleeping wrote:

The guy with 8 con will die faster. It is represented in his HP rather than his HP and his Negative HP.

I have no idea what you mean by an "important" guy, since every enemy works the same way.

Not to mention that 8 Con is going to die faster from critically failing that Fortitude save.

He has a CHANCE to die faster, the 18 con could fail too.

And I said given the same maximum HP.

Someone mentioned that the bbeg would take you to dying 2 rather than 1? If that's a misunderstanding then I take back that specific issue.


Mark Seifter wrote:
*Thelith wrote:

I don't see how *almost* immunity to death makes any sense though: 3 hp left, hit for 150, now dying 1. Healed for 1 hp, now you're not dying, hit for 150, dying 1, healed for 1 hp... Etc.

Actually, that would be 3 hp left, hit for 150, now dying 1 (or maybe dead). Healed for 1 hp awake, but still dying 1, hit for 150, KOed and dying 2, and so on until you die.

When does the dying go away then? And you said awake? Healing awakens you? Or do you have to roll to wake up?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ENHenry wrote:
The last major campaign I played in (Hell’s Rebels) I died twice, every other single person at the table died at least once, and one of our player’s PCs died SEVEN TIMES over the course of two years! And this is a table of somewhat hardcore optimizes! And don’t get me started on arise of the Runelords...Some of those books were worse than a Rob Zombie Flick...

That's strange though, having DMed 5 APs, I would assess Hell's Rebels to be among the least deadly, so maybe your GM has beefed up some encounters?


Hoo wow. Yeah the new system is really not that complicated. And it is way more involved and interesting than the 1st edition system, while also being a great showcase for the new condition system in a way that everybody will likely interact with it at some point. Pretty worthwhile change.


It was also mentioned that it IS possible to just outright die immediately without going through the stages, so there's probably an interaction with Massive Damage that we haven't seen yet.


Gratz wrote:
ENHenry wrote:
The last major campaign I played in (Hell’s Rebels) I died twice, every other single person at the table died at least once, and one of our player’s PCs died SEVEN TIMES over the course of two years! And this is a table of somewhat hardcore optimizes! And don’t get me started on arise of the Runelords...Some of those books were worse than a Rob Zombie Flick...
That's strange though, having DMed 5 APs, I would assess Hell's Rebels to be among the least deadly, so maybe your GM has beefed up some encounters?

In a table of hardcore optimizers, pretty sure the GM beefed up things (otherwise the group would breeze through the AP).

Problem here seems to be that the GM went too far in beefing up stuff (or maybe not, if that's the playstyle the group wants)

About the topic itself, I don't have a problem with the new system. It's ok for me to shield the PC death from some unlucky random hit that put you from few hp to -18 in one attack. Death is a removable condition in the game anyway.


gwynfrid wrote:
*Thelith wrote:
To me,there is nothing wrong with suddenly dying because you took a crit to the face with a scythe unexpectedly or a max roll fireball.

Maybe it's no big deal the first time. But after this happens a few times to characters in your high-level group, it gets really old. As a GM I remember cheating with the die rolls more than once, just to not get the game stuck in that lame situation yet again.

You can also prepare breath of life for such a case, I guess. But I think it's better to design the game so this is a much more rare situation (it should remain possible, just rare) than to have a spell specifically to cover the issue.

*Thelith wrote:

You can always go down at 5 hp, you're a bloody mess and if you go down and don't move most things will move on to the guy still attacking, so if you're low and stay up, that's a choice, it doesn't need to be a forced choice baked into the dying rules.

Similarly to the above, it's better to get rid of the situation by design, than to expect players to find a workaround. Plus, this particular workaround runs contrary to the RP of most characters who try to be heroic.

master_marshmallow wrote:

Given the mathematical size of the bell curve from what we've seen combat to begin looking like, such as Power Attack and +x weapons adding dice rather than flat damage, it seems the new death system is also in place to account for exceptionally high results on the dice to accommodate this design philosophy.

Crits put you at dying 2, which given the math seems to imply crits will happen often, gives most players 2 rounds to get fixed or die. It also means crits on the higher end of the curve don't kill you outright, which certainly is another mathematical problem that comes up with the ever expanding range of variable damage.

It would seem the intention is for PF2 to be a much more lethal game, especially when you consider a major complaint about PF1 was how hard it actually was to die.

Funny enough, I have...

I rarely see x3 or x4 weapons used by my players, and when I design NPCs with them I scale their flat damage down to account for the possibility of crits or just ignore them outright if I want a more balanced feeling encounter. Unless I hit Sean, I'm fine with killing Sean........'s characters.

My experience both irl and on the forums is the focus on 15-20x2 weapons. We're going on our 3rd campaign in a row where the nodachi has become the "One True Weapon" of the game, Shield Brace made it worse.


I'll take expanded threat range over extra crit dice every time, too. Less swingy. And once you add extra effects to crits, it's straight up better to crit more often.


Why do you even care my friend.
Just ignore those changes in your games.

PF1 dying rules are quite easy, and they should be quite easy to implement in PF2.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Pleas DO change the dying rules. Negative hit points make no sense and are an unnecessary complexity.


Khudzlin wrote:
I'll take expanded threat range over extra crit dice every time, too. Less swingy. And once you add extra effects to crits, it's straight up better to crit more often.

PF1 gave no intensive to use a 20/x(X) weapon. The closest thing was the Elemental Burst enchantments that did extra d10s for higher critical multipliers. Plus Keen just gave a super advantage to any crit fishing build.


KingOfAnything wrote:
*Thelith wrote:
At high levels, you would still wait for them to die and hit them with breath of life because its 1 spell and will remove the dying condition completely, and it wakes you up!!
If you cast cure deadly wounds before your friend drops to the ground, the don't have to waste the actions standing up and retrieving their weapon.

Or you could just save the actions and the money and leave them to their fate and pick up a new companion tomorrow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Pleas DO change the dying rules. Negative hit points make no sense and are an unnecessary complexity.

just count it as Constitution damage


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wicked Woodpecker of the West wrote:
Quote:
Pleas DO change the dying rules. Negative hit points make no sense and are an unnecessary complexity.
just count it as Constitution damage

Y'know, something to do with Constitution Damage for dying seems really interesting. Going to have to give that one some thought.


master_marshmallow wrote:

I rarely see x3 or x4 weapons used by my players, and when I design NPCs with them I scale their flat damage down to account for the possibility of crits or just ignore them outright if I want a more balanced feeling encounter. Unless I hit Sean, I'm fine with killing Sean........'s characters.

My experience both irl and on the forums is the focus on 15-20x2 weapons. We're going on our 3rd campaign in a row where the nodachi has become the "One True Weapon" of the game, Shield Brace made it worse.

Ha. Now I finally understand why you're so concerned about adding more damage dice in PF2.

You're reducing the variability of PF1 damage in 2 ways: For NPCs, by removing x3/x4 weapons or ignoring crits outright; and for PCs, when your players expand the crit threat range so that a crit is no longer the exception. If that's the case, then indeed PF2 will be more swingy than PF1. But, when assessing PF2 rules, shouldn't we be comparing them to PF1 as written, rather than PF1 as modified by house rules?

In my games there's nothing unusual if orcs have bows and a barbarian swings a greataxe. That's a quite a lot more swingy than anything the PF2 preview has shown so far, if you measure "swingy" by the ratio max damage / average damage.

Irrespective of how swingy combat ends up being, I welcome the new death rules as a cushion against sudden death by bad dice.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

I like the sound of the dying rules. I do appreciate the old system for its relative simplicity, but I like that this system reduces the chance for instant death while at the same time making death's door more dramatic.


Quote:

Y'know, something to do with Constitution Damage for dying seems really interesting. Going to have to give that one some thought.

Considering now you are dead if your HP = -Con I'd say it's already it basically.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
*Thelith wrote:
At high levels, you would still wait for them to die and hit them with breath of life because its 1 spell and will remove the dying condition completely, and it wakes you up!!
If you cast cure deadly wounds before your friend drops to the ground, the don't have to waste the actions standing up and retrieving their weapon.
Or you could just save the actions and the money and leave them to their fate and pick up a new companion tomorrow.

I have to point out, some completely crazy people actually enjoying playing their current characters, even if the better option tactically is to jump off a bridge.

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

Did I miss a blog? Where are the new dying rules stated?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gwynfrid wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

I rarely see x3 or x4 weapons used by my players, and when I design NPCs with them I scale their flat damage down to account for the possibility of crits or just ignore them outright if I want a more balanced feeling encounter. Unless I hit Sean, I'm fine with killing Sean........'s characters.

My experience both irl and on the forums is the focus on 15-20x2 weapons. We're going on our 3rd campaign in a row where the nodachi has become the "One True Weapon" of the game, Shield Brace made it worse.

Ha. Now I finally understand why you're so concerned about adding more damage dice in PF2.

You're reducing the variability of PF1 damage in 2 ways: For NPCs, by removing x3/x4 weapons or ignoring crits outright; and for PCs, when your players expand the crit threat range so that a crit is no longer the exception. If that's the case, then indeed PF2 will be more swingy than PF1. But, when assessing PF2 rules, shouldn't we be comparing them to PF1 as written, rather than PF1 as modified by house rules?

In my games there's nothing unusual if orcs have bows and a barbarian swings a greataxe. That's a quite a lot more swingy than anything the PF2 preview has shown so far, if you measure "swingy" by the ratio max damage / average damage.

Irrespective of how swingy combat ends up being, I welcome the new death rules as a cushion against sudden death by bad dice.

Multipliers are inherently balanced in 3.P by the threat range.

The change to how critical hits work is less problematic than the size of the bell curve, unless HP on enemies is somehow adjusted to accommodate this. Otherwise we will see encounters drag or end instantly not because of smart tactics or player agency, but by the dice.

It's simple, but inelegant.

That is not to say that the previous edition did it better, unless we start talking about RAE which inherently balanced and made more combat styles more viable numerically.

In the Power Attack math thread, we found that the feat itself is only useful when you can make full attacks. The added action cost doesn't balance it unless the last attack at -10 is useless. 5% of the time, Power Attack is useless, mathematically guaranteed. It's not about having more dice per se, but the math doesn't lie.

Given the comparable propensity for critical hits in either edition, it's not often that those x3 crit weapons can count on landing those crits as often. It never actually came up in my games, but I still planned around it. Really though, it's the guys (NPCs) who crit more often that need their damage dialed back.

It gives me more control over the flow of the game, which my players appreciate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
*Thelith wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
SorrySleeping wrote:

The guy with 8 con will die faster. It is represented in his HP rather than his HP and his Negative HP.

I have no idea what you mean by an "important" guy, since every enemy works the same way.

Not to mention that 8 Con is going to die faster from critically failing that Fortitude save.

He has a CHANCE to die faster, the 18 con could fail too.

And I said given the same maximum HP.

Someone mentioned that the bbeg would take you to dying 2 rather than 1? If that's a misunderstanding then I take back that specific issue.

In a vacuum the guy with 8 Con and the guy with 18 Con have a numerical difference of about +5, which is the same as the numerical difference between an Untrained and a Legendary proficiency. The math has been done comparing the differences between Untrained and Legendary for crit fail, fail, success, and crit success, and it very much favors the +5.

Also, I have to ask: given that the 8 Con gets 5 fewer hp per level, how exactly do they have as much hp as the 18 Con guy? Unless this is a bizarro party with an 8 Con fighter and 18 Con wizard that's not happening through class alone, so clearly there must have been a decision made somewhere in 8 Con person's build. And that decision is rewarded with being harder to kill.

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Please don't change the death rules. All Messageboards