New Dying Rules don't seem much better...


General Discussion


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Downloaded the updated rules document, and I'm not seeing an improvement for the dying rules that follows what the intent of the change is (which, to quote, is "to simplify the system and the tracking involved, remove the confusion people had when they were dying but conscious, and get people back into the fight more consistently by removing the recovery roll for unconscious characters").

I'm going to give my in-depth opinion on what I'm currently seeing with these new rules, as well as to how they interact with the original draft, and the PF1 rules as well. For how "wall-of-text"-y this is, I put my main arguments in spoilers to make it easier to read and digest.

Point the First, Simplify:
To start, the tracking involved isn't really simplified compared to PF1. Being knocked into negative HP is neither a difficult concept to grasp (unless you don't know how number lines work), nor was it really anything additional to what you're tracking to begin with (which is HP). Now, instead of tracking one thing, you are now selectively tracking two (or more) things. You track HP until it hits 0, and then you begin tracking Dying conditions. On top of that, with the Recovery DC being mutable based on what got you down (seriously, a giant Dragon could go to an NPC, knock him unconscious with a strong non-lethal hit, and he wouldn't ever wake up. Makes for an interesting storyline, but for game mechanics it falls flat IMO), combined with it fluctuating based on the tiers of Dying you have (which was already a thing in PF1), it just seems like a solution in search of a problem that, for our group, didn't exist. Players are much more likely to survive from fatal blows in PF1 than in PF2, because outside of Hero Points, these characters are going to die due to the ridiculously hard DC checks to make, and have almost zero time (or fidelity) to come back into a battle, whereas in PF1, characters had more chances to roll (and by relation, more opportunities to stabilize, as slim as they might be), or they had abilities to actually act even while "dying." That's practically gone in PF2, and while one aspect of intent is to make going down more significant, all the rules do so far is basically say "You go down = you die unless you have Hero Points to spend." This is actually basically reinforced with how NPC creatures are dealt with in terms of dying (which is basically 0 = dead unless specified otherwise), so the design aspect is effectively mirrored.

Point the Second, Confusion:
As for it being less confusing, I continue to disagree, since now I have to understand precisely what Dying does, which is a conglomeration of other conditions, which means I have to understand what those do, and so on. While this isn't much different from PF1, I still remember the conditions from PF1 being simplistic and less problematic to memorize compared to PF2, where I now need to re-learn what being Unconscious actually means with the new rules changes, which also has conglomerations of conditions, which means I have to learn those conditions, and repeat ad nauseum until we decide to not reference so many different conditions at once to determine what one "super condition" does. Again, not much different from PF1, but if given the choice, I'd simply go with PF1 because it's still fresh in my memory and still easier to categorize by comparison.

Point the Third, Recovery:
As for getting people back into the fight, the new rules fail to do that effectively without making being brought down significant, one of the other aspects of design intent behind this feature. Let's take them as they are previewed in the new update document: If I'm Dying 3, and I get healed at the brink, I'm brought back up without the dying condition, but now I can't take any actions. I'm on the ground like a duck with nothing to protect myself and no abilities or actions to take. Similarly, if I'm Dying 2, I can only stand up (which can provoke and drop me yet again against certain enemies!), or stay down and do an action, leaving me significantly vulnerable to other enemies (even minions, and especially stronger creatures). Dying 1 isn't as bad, but the odds of players getting to characters that are Dying 1 are slim, and if you are Dying 1 from some lucky goon hit, it's not really going to be difficult for you to stabilize and wake up, meaning it's more fringe-case than Dying 2 or 3 with this aspect in mind, but even then you don't have much going for you as you are still losing an action for getting up.

That's all on top of the Unconscious rules, which state the following:

Unconscious wrote:

When you’re reduced to 0 Hit Points, you fall unconscious. You lose any remaining actions and reactions, and while

unconscious, you don’t regain your actions and reaction each turn. If you return to consciousness, you’ll need to wait until the start of your turn to get your actions and reaction again. If you return to 1 Hit Point or more, you become conscious. As noted before, if you had the dying condition, you are slowed on your first turn after regaining consciousness. If you did not have the dying condition when you regain consciousness, you aren’t slowed. When you’re unconscious and at 0 HP but no longer dying, you naturally return to 1 HP and awaken after sufficient time passes. The GM determines how long you remain unconscious, from at least 10 minutes to several hours.

Bolded for emphasis and evaluation.

Reading all of it, it says if you become unconscious, you lose all actions and reaction, and while unconscious, you do not regain actions or reactions, and do not do so until the start of your turn to get them. Meaning if you make a check (or use a Hero Point at your turn from triggering an Attack of Opportunity Reaction from an enemy), your turn is immediately finished, and even if you do succeed, you do not do anything for that turn, followed by the slowed aspects. Meaning for over two rounds of doing almost nothing, you're not in the fight, at the very least. This doesn't account for increased time of being at Dying from varied rolls and save DCs, and so on. Compared to mid-level PF1, where a single spell with an action or two can bring you back in the fight, no questions asked.

Even if you naturally come to (which is a fat chance fringe case, much more fringe than any of the Dying condition Slow effects), the time you come back to being conscious is GM FIAT, with a BARE MINIMUM OF 10 MINUTES, or 100 ROUND OF COMBAT. Does that sound quick to you? In combat terms, no way. A lot can change and happen in the above two rounds, meaning something like this taking what can be done in simple seconds is just plain bad design and really only serves as a GM FIAT tool for if they want the PCs to be prisoners or something.

It might be quicker than if you stabilized at negative HP from PF1 and recovered through natural rest, but even with some enhanced recovery abilities or items, estimable from low to mid PF1 characters, and basically guaranteed in high levels, you can come back from a fraction of that bare minimum time. And that's at the low end. If a GM required 8 hours of rest as one example (similar to getting standardized rest to properly recover), your ability to recover HP from simple resting could potentially be equivalent, which means making it quicker than PF1 is a hyperbole fringe case at best.

Bonus Round, Impact:
The last "undocumented" intent of these rules from back when it was first previewed is how they are meant to be more impactful and dramatic for when players go down, and this is authentically true. Way, way too true. In PF1, players had a chance relative to the direness of their situation to naturally survive a fatal encounter (assuming the other party members dispatch the threats, of course). It made for very interesting stories for if players in PF1 decided to leave an enemy lie there, with him making a surprise comeback wanting revenge for his defeat, as just one of numerous examples (though even an inverse is equally plausible). In here, it goes back to what I said above, which is "If you don't have a Hero Point or other form of 'self-resurrection', you're probably going to die anyway." And this seems largely true, and with some playtesting, it backs up this case. Against boss enemies, if you are dropped, due to their stronger nature, it is inherently more difficult for you to survive from their fatal attacks, due to the increased Save DC, as well as the increased likelihood of being critically hit by said boss enemy (which brings you twice as close to the Dying condition as before, and also increases the Save DC). Even if you make it, you're still way weak and vulnerable as I've demonstrated above, which means an enemy has little to no adversity in simply going for yet another finishing blow (and hoping it to be the last), with minimal impact to the rest of his turn (he could just make a third attack at -10 and be very likely to hit you with all of the penalties to AC you have).

In short (AKA the TL;DR version, as well as the sum-up), the Dying rules still seem too restrictive (more than before perhaps), they still seem way too impactful, almost borderline "GM decides when you wake up, which can be never," and they are also not very interesting or intuitive. In fact, if Hero Points were not Core for this game (something that needs to be brought up in another thread, since I can just effectively bribe my GM for "free" Hero Points if I really wanted, not sure if this is intended or not), I'd say these new dying rules borderline make the game unplayable to me, especially since rocket tag still practically exists for 1st level.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Amen. I'm not sure what the PF2 Dying rules are meant to achieve: it's evidently not realism, fun, drama or balance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I REALLY liked the new Dying Rules! Now they're really useful and serves its purpose greatly!

However, I'd make two little changes to make it less complex and even more meaningful:

1) A single hero point just throws that cool, useful rule in the garbage.

I'd change the Hero Point cost of Heroic Recovery to 2 or 3, to keep the rule nice and meaningful!

2) Also, I'd not change the character initiative. This seems unnecessary complex and may give a character "a bonus round" if he has acted before the effect that knocked him out and receive any healing to regain conciousness in the same round.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bruno Mares wrote:
I REALLY liked the new Dying Rules! Now they're really useful and serves its purpose greatly!

Could you elaborate on this? Because the most positive reviews I've seen of the dying rules have been tepid at best. So, seeing what someone who actually likes the system has to say would be very illuminating.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I have no idea what you're talking about. In PF1 there was no way to get back into a fight without some form of outside healing. It took a minimum of an hour to get back to consciousness after stabilizing. And then you had to make a check after 8 hours of rest to start healing naturally again (which was only 1 hp per level).

You don't want a quick way to get up on your own or else there's no easy way to capture bad guys because they've got the chance of doing it too. If you go down and don't get any healing you should stay down for a while.

The new rules make it much much harder to die. In PF1 if you got a tiny bit of healing at later levels that was usually a death sentence (because you'd get hit for 40 or something and die) unless you played dead and waited until you got some really substantial healing. Now that it's actually harder to be killed they need some sort of penalty for yo-yoing between unconsciousness and consciousness. And I personally think being slowed for an amount relative to how close you were to dying is pretty reasonable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bruno Mares wrote:

I REALLY liked the new Dying Rules! Now they're really useful and serves its purpose greatly!

However, I'd make two little changes to make it less complex and even more meaningful:

1) A single hero point just throws that cool, useful rule in the garbage.

I'd change the Hero Point cost of Heroic Recovery to 2 or 3, to keep the rule nice and meaningful!

2) Also, I'd not change the character initiative. This seems unnecessary complex and may give a character "a bonus round" if he has acted before the effect that knocked him out and receive any healing to regain conciousness in the same round.

I agree with Alchemaic's statement of trying to understand what the "people who think the dying rules are fun" find attractive about the new rules. As it stands from my perspective, unless you and your players want PCs to be able to die at 0 HP more easily (which promotes cutting-edge tactics and optimization combined with a pen-chance for throw-away characters), I'm not really seeing how this rule (both versions I might add) is more cool or useful to the overall feel of the game. I'm also not entirely a fan of the non-lethal rules too, or making Hero Points mandatory just for staying alive, which they no longer really do here since they still follow the standard stabilizing rules, but that's a bit tangential.

To be fair, I'm not entirely certain of the initiative change either. Even if the intent is to let players have a fighting chance before a big bad finishes them off, my analysis of the current dying rules outright disproves that to be a valuable concept due to magical resuscitation taking a minimum of two rounds to actually take effect, whereas non-magical or natural resuscitation takes anywhere from a dozen minutes to a dozen hours or days (or even eternity if your GM is a big enough jerk). It's more-or-less a false, or worse yet, strawman dichotomy (where the issue is being perceived and solved as if it's because of the player not going first, when it's really just a matter of the dying rules being extremely punishing with little to no way of actual recovery).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zorae wrote:

I have no idea what you're talking about. In PF1 there was no way to get back into a fight without some form of outside healing. It took a minimum of an hour to get back to consciousness after stabilizing. And then you had to make a check after 8 hours of rest to start healing naturally again (which was only 1 hp per level).

You don't want a quick way to get up on your own or else there's no easy way to capture bad guys because they've got the chance of doing it too. If you go down and don't get any healing you should stay down for a while.

The new rules make it much much harder to die. In PF1 if you got a tiny bit of healing at later levels that was usually a death sentence (because you'd get hit for 40 or something and die) unless you played dead and waited until you got some really substantial healing. Now that it's actually harder to be killed they need some sort of penalty for yo-yoing between unconsciousness and consciousness. And I personally think being slowed for an amount relative to how close you were to dying is pretty reasonable.

Do you honestly think that sort of thing has changed in PF2? Hell no. Unless classes come built in with passive healing on certain conditions (such as falling unconscious), this will not have changed in the slightest. Even then, outside healing in PF2 is not instant-gratification under the original rules, which was a matter of being healed still made you unconscious and you still retained the dying condition. On top of that, being 1st level, you only got 2 or 3 ways to heal per day per class that has such an option (sans cleric, but let's be realistic here, that's gonna get nerfed soon). Compared to being -6 and being healed with a Cure Light Wounds to bring you back to positive, so you can take actions to stand up and swing on your turn, is much more gratifying than having to wait two rounds (one to make a check at the start of your turn, not getting actions or reactions whatsoever, then to have reduced or non-existent actions for your next turn, to only actually have actions afterward) in order to properly fight back against an enemy.

Bad guys having a fair/good chance of getting up means them being dead for good makes for a higher priority than normal, and it's not like simply being down for the count meant a BBEG or some other recurring villain wouldn't possibly show up later in an adventure. It's actually a common fantasy/story trope. (Almost too common in fairly recent media, but that's beside the point.) I'm fine with there being more effort required to slay an enemy, because it makes players have to make more meaningful decisions. Do I put a stop to this Ogre that's beating on me, or do I spend actions to burn/melt the Troll before it comes back and I'm in a whole other world of hurt? Those are meaningful decisions. Compared to rolling a dice, or worse yet, having Hero Points being a stand-in for stabilization rules, for a pseudo-binary "Yes/No" result, it's quadratically more meaningful.

Disagree. If people are going down when there are serious threats present, going to rescue that person (which takes over 2 rounds for it to just pay off) means you're dealing with that threat for 2 rounds, which could have ended up killing you for going to save someone that is probably going to die or spend a Hero Point on it anyway (because you're going to be too busy fending off threats that are going after you). Call it selfish if you want, but what's better for the group, risking your own character and hero points to bring someone back in to the fight that can very easily be dropped again (and be even more dying), or letting them spend their Hero Point for stabilization while you still have your full action economy at your disposal to help get rid of said threat? I know what option I'd take, every day of the week.

And you keep saying that it's a yo-yo, with just a slowed condition upon stabilization. It's not. If you're knocked unconscious, you have to stabilize at the start of your turn, the same exact time you gain your action and reactions. Regardless of whether you do or do not stabilize (which is a result that happens after your turn starts, which the condition already states while you are unconscious you do not have, nor can you gain, actions of any kind, and after any sort of actions or reactions you normally get for the turn), you do not have any actions until you are conscious, and remain conscious, for the following round. When that turn comes (which everyone else will have acted for their full allotment of actions as normal), THEN you apply the Slow factor (because that also applies at the start of your turn, which the stabilization check bypasses when you make it and apply its results), and THEN you can act normal. I've already went over in detailed analysis the implications how the current rules absolutely screw these players over and, compared to PF1, doesn't bring them back in the fight any faster or smoother.

Also, playing dead is actually a solid tactic in the right circumstance. In fact, I've fully recommended it to fellow players on death's door to get an edge in defeating an enemy, and because of this we've actually defeated encounters that would have otherwise caused casualties. I'm totally fine with thresholds encouraging tactics such as feigning death, because it creates diverse playstyles through the gameplay experience. These rules don't necessarily do that, since all they've done is made an optional PF1 rule now become mandatory and part of the Core rules, and made a binary result pseudo-binary with some minor mathematical fixes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Do you honestly think that sort of thing has changed in PF2? Hell no. Unless classes come built in with passive healing on certain conditions (such as falling unconscious), this will not have changed in the slightest. Even then, outside healing in PF2 is not instant-gratification under the original rules, which was a matter of being healed still made you unconscious and you still retained the dying condition. On top of that, being 1st level, you only got 2 or 3 ways to heal per day per class that has such an option (sans cleric, but let's be realistic here, that's gonna get nerfed soon). Compared to being -6 and being healed with a Cure Light Wounds to bring you back to positive, so you can take actions to stand up and swing on your turn, is much more gratifying than having to wait two rounds (one to make a check at the start of your turn, not getting actions or reactions whatsoever, then to have reduced or non-existent actions for your...

No, the 'natural healing' behavior shouldn't change, it's similar to PF1 and that's a good thing.

Not everyone wants to murder-hobo and some people actually like leaving bad guys alive to question/turn in to the authorities. If the only way to keep something down is to kill it, then that's a bad thing.

I have no idea where you're getting this thought that you have to make 2 checks to get up. It says,

Quote:
If you return to consciousness, you'll need to wait until the start of your next turn to get your actions and reaction again

So as soon as your turn starts after waking up, you have your actions! It goes: you get healed, you become conscious, your turn comes up and you are slowed that turn. That's all the penalty there is. And now you don't die immediately upon taking 20 damage.


Here is a simple way to handle getting knocked and dying.

1) Keep negative hit points like PF1, but Death occur at negative your max hit points.

2) If you get knocked below zero you suffer a bleed effect equal to the number below zero that you got knocked (bigger hits below zero kill you faster).

3) If you take additional damage from sources other than the above bleeding while knocked it adds to the bleed effect.

4) If you are healed or magically stabilized you stop bleeding.

5) On your turn you have a chance to stabilize and stop bleeding.

When you are healed to 1 hit point you become conscious (with a penalty effect: slowed or whatever)

This avoids:

1) the whole dying condition complication.

2) the weirdness of someone taking 100 hp of damage and then being healed for 1 hit point and is back to conscious.

3) having to track the DC of the creature that knocked a PC down and revealing the monster level to the PCs.

4) shifting the initiative order.

It means that characters with large hit point totals can still die quickly.

Regaining hit points naturally while unconscious could be the same as regular recovery ( Level + con per day: more realistic).

or it could be at a rate which allows natural recovery more quickly (up to (level + con)/ round) until zero or one to keep:

1) the players of unconscious characters engaged on their turn.

2) the party from exhausting healing resources (if that is a play-style concern), and return unconscious characters to the game more quickly.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Paizos new dying rules are solid. Saying they are more restrictive than the previous iteration sounds way off to me. Way way off. If anything, they sound a little too permissive but they are easier, so I like em.

To say they are not intuitive is incorrect. Look at your dying level when you get healed, its now your slow level for your next turn. So easy. Makes sense since your groggy and a little punch drunk.

Its like 5e dying but does a little something to discourage the yo-yo (in 5e, clerics often let characters drop since its more efficient). The initiative shifts sound wonky but they are needed to disincentivize that level of cheese.


Snickersnax wrote:

Here is a simple way to handle getting knocked and dying.

1) Keep negative hit points like PF1, but Death occur at negative your max hit points.

2) If you get knocked below zero you suffer a bleed effect equal to the number below zero that you got knocked (bigger hits below zero kill you faster).

3) If you take additional damage from sources other than the above bleeding while knocked it adds to the bleed effect.

4) If you are healed or magically stabilized you stop bleeding.

5) On your turn you have a chance to stabilize and stop bleeding.

When you are healed to 1 hit point you become conscious (with a penalty effect: slowed or whatever)

This avoids:

1) the whole dying condition complication.

2) the weirdness of someone taking 100 hp of damage and then being healed for 1 hit point and is back to conscious.

3) having to track the DC of the creature that knocked a PC down and revealing the monster level to the PCs.

4) shifting the initiative order.

It means that characters with large hit point totals can still die quickly.

Regaining hit points naturally while unconscious could be the same as regular recovery ( Level + con per day: more realistic).

or it could be at a rate which allows natural recovery more quickly (up to (level + con)/ round) until zero or one to keep:

1) the players of unconscious characters engaged on their turn.

2) the party from exhausting healing resources (if that is a play-style concern), and return unconscious characters to the game more quickly.

I have to say, I really like this way of treating dying characters as it basically eliminates all the problems we had with PF 1e's dying rules while still being simple and intuitive.

Dying at negative your max HP prevents the all too common scenario in higher level play of attacks blasting clear through the player's CON worth of negative hp and killing them instantly while still making death a potential during higher level play.

I think I'll probably replace the stabilize fort roll with a flat DC 15 check and add this to my PF 1e games as a house rule.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I always thought the PF1 dying rules were easy to use and made sense. I don't really get why we need all this shenanigantry.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
sherlock1701 wrote:
I always thought the PF1 dying rules were easy to use and made sense. I don't really get why we need all this shenanigantry.

Because in PF1 after a few levels the dying rules usually didn't matter. You just got chunked for enough to kill you outright without having to worry about going unconscious.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


And you keep saying that it's a yo-yo, with just a slowed condition upon stabilization. It's not. If you're knocked unconscious, you have to stabilize at the start of your turn, the same exact time you gain your action and reactions. Regardless of whether you do or do not stabilize (which is a result that happens after your turn starts, which the condition already states while you are unconscious you do not have, nor can you gain, actions of any kind, and after any sort of actions or reactions you normally get for the turn), you do not have any actions until you are conscious, and remain conscious, for the following round. When that turn comes (which everyone else will have acted for their full allotment of actions as normal), THEN you apply the Slow factor (because that also applies at the start of your turn, which the stabilization check bypasses when you make it and apply its results), and THEN you can act normal. I've already went over in detailed analysis the implications how the current rules absolutely screw these players over and, compared to PF1, doesn't bring them back in the fight any faster or smoother.

False. There is a clear order and priority to how to the "Beginning of the Turn" portion of a turn takes effect. Regaining actions comes last, after the roll to stabilize. It actually does become a yo-yo effect with a slowed condition. For reference, this is located on pages 304 and 305.

I won't argue that it does not penalize those who become unconscious, but I personally prefer that to "heal" "full-attack" "knock back down" "heal" "full-attack" ... I simply feel there should be some real consequence to being knocked out (I don't consider becoming prone and dropping weapons to be enough), the idea of a character probably not effectively contributing to the rest of the fight is perfectly fine with me (this is of course assuming a regular, 2-3 round, fight, said character would still be able to contribute effectively to a longer fight).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I will chip in that I really like that it's almost impossible to kill a PC in one shot. The reduction of "rocket tag" that PF1 would get into where getting knocked down to 15-ish HP was a death sentence at higher levels needed to go away, and this definitely addresses that by at least giving you a round or two to try to do something about the dying character.


I think you're going to lose the negative hp fight.

Also, some of your arguments are not using today's errata.

For example: "On top of that, with the Recovery DC being mutable based on what got you down (seriously, a giant Dragon could go to an NPC, knock him unconscious with a strong non-lethal hit"

No, it says

Errata says wrote:
When you’re unconscious and at 0 HP but no longer dying, you naturally return to 1 HP and awaken after sufficient time passes. The GM determines how long you remain unconscious, from at least 10 minutes to several hours.

>>combined with it fluctuating based on the tiers of Dying you have

That's not true either.

Errata says wrote:
For monsters, the GM will use a high difficulty skill DC of the monster’s level

I think you need to read the errata again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Jason S wrote:

That's not true either. It's just based on the monster's highest skill

Errata says wrote:
For monsters, the GM will use a high difficulty skill DC of the monster’s level

THAT's not correct either. XD

It has nothing to do with the monster's skills. "a high difficulty skill DC of the monster's level" is referring to the "skill DCs by level" table and telling you to take the "high" difficulty DC for that level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vition wrote:


False. There is a clear order and priority to how to the "Beginning of the Turn" portion of a turn takes effect. Regaining actions comes last, after the roll to stabilize. It actually does become a yo-yo effect with a slowed condition. For reference, this is located on pages 304 and 305.

I won't argue that it does not penalize those who become unconscious, but I personally prefer that to "heal" "full-attack" "knock back down" "heal" "full-attack" ... I simply feel there should be some real consequence to being knocked out (I don't consider becoming prone and dropping weapons to be enough), the idea of a character probably not effectively contributing to the rest of the fight is perfectly fine with me (this is of course assuming a regular, 2-3 round, fight, said character would still be able to contribute effectively to a longer fight).

You do realize dropping your weapon and being prone is effectively -2 actions? Even without any sort of slow or stagger penalty, it is literally impossible to full attack after getting healed from unconsciousness. Heck, you can't even attack the same turn you get healed unless you are using a ranged weapon or are already adjacent to your opponent.

There's wanting to make getting knocked out meaningful, and there is just straight up cruelty to your players.


MaxAstro wrote:
It has nothing to do with the monster's skills. "a high difficulty skill DC of the monster's level" is referring to the "skill DCs by level" table and telling you to take the "high" difficulty DC for that level.

Ugh. Table 10-2 still. Thanks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason S wrote:

I think you're going to lose the negative hp fight.

Also, some of your arguments are not using today's errata.

For example: "On top of that, with the Recovery DC being mutable based on what got you down (seriously, a giant Dragon could go to an NPC, knock him unconscious with a strong non-lethal hit"

No, it says

Errata says wrote:
When you’re unconscious and at 0 HP but no longer dying, you naturally return to 1 HP and awaken after sufficient time passes. The GM determines how long you remain unconscious, from at least 10 minutes to several hours.

>>combined with it fluctuating based on the tiers of Dying you have

That's not true either.

Errata says wrote:
For monsters, the GM will use a high difficulty skill DC of the monster’s level

I think you need to read the errata again.

Didn't say the negative HP fight was going to be victorious or make a comeback. I don't really care if it does or doesn't. It's merely a comparison to what PF1 was, and IMO it was better than what we have now amongst all the things that Paizo says the new dying rules are supposed to be better at.

You're still never naturally waking up once you're down until waaaay after combat ends (again, similar to PF1) without outside help, and a GM can be a real dick and say "You're never waking up." When a monster can perpetually keep you permanently unconscious through easy-to-land non-lethal hits, you're never truly awake. Smart monsters can keep permanent docile hostages who never ever wake up with periodic non-lethal knockout hits. While technically true in real life, unless the monster wants something from the PC, there's no reason for any smart creature not to do this and forever prevent any chance of escape. Heck, guards could totally get away with these tactics in an evil city for prisoners of their own!

You're strawmanning my argument. The Recovery DC is the check you make at the start of your turn when you're in the Dying stages and nobody has given any sort of healing to you. The Recovery DC, as stated in the new rules, is still equal to the enemy's Class DC (usually 10 + Level + Strength) plus the tier of dying you're currently at. So if a Creature has a class DC of, say, 17, and I'm at Dying 2, I make a check at DC 19. If I fail it, next turn I now have to make that same check at DC 20 (assuming nothing else changes this, such as other creatures striking me), due to the Dying condition now raising to Dying 3. Saying it isn't mutable or doesn't change, regardless of whatever it is that knocked you out, is a misnomer under this paradigm. It has nothing to do with natural recovery time after making successful checks (which, by the way, is as fringe-case as it gets considering how optimized and powerful the monsters are in PF2).


thewastedwalrus wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
I always thought the PF1 dying rules were easy to use and made sense. I don't really get why we need all this shenanigantry.
Because in PF1 after a few levels the dying rules usually didn't matter. You just got chunked for enough to kill you outright without having to worry about going unconscious.

Characters still go unconscious frequently in my experience (maybe 40-50% of the time), which is plenty often. In my opinion, it should absolutely be possible to go from "conscious and fighting" to "dead". It's way too safe otherwise (also, we need to get Coupe de Grace back).


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
sherlock1701 wrote:
thewastedwalrus wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
I always thought the PF1 dying rules were easy to use and made sense. I don't really get why we need all this shenanigantry.
Because in PF1 after a few levels the dying rules usually didn't matter. You just got chunked for enough to kill you outright without having to worry about going unconscious.
Characters still go unconscious frequently in my experience (maybe 40-50% of the time), which is plenty often. In my opinion, it should absolutely be possible to go from "conscious and fighting" to "dead". It's way too safe otherwise (also, we need to get Coupe de Grace back).

Instead of coup de grâce, can't you just strike the person 3 times? Seems like that would usually finish the job.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thewastedwalrus wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
thewastedwalrus wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
I always thought the PF1 dying rules were easy to use and made sense. I don't really get why we need all this shenanigantry.
Because in PF1 after a few levels the dying rules usually didn't matter. You just got chunked for enough to kill you outright without having to worry about going unconscious.
Characters still go unconscious frequently in my experience (maybe 40-50% of the time), which is plenty often. In my opinion, it should absolutely be possible to go from "conscious and fighting" to "dead". It's way too safe otherwise (also, we need to get Coupe de Grace back).
Instead of coup de grâce, can't you just strike the person 3 times? Seems like that would usually finish the job.

You probably don't need to do it that often, the huge AC nerf from being unconscious makes crits much more likely.


Quote:
The Recovery DC, as stated in the new rules, is still equal to the enemy's Class DC (usually 10 + Level + Strength) plus the tier of dying you're currently at.

I believe that's intended to be the DC the enemy will use to recover from the PC's attacks, if they're one of the special cases where the GM has reason to bother tracking this information. Otherwise:

Quote:
For monsters, the GM will use a high difficulty skill DC of the monster’s level (see page 336).

So you'd be looking at this:

Spoiler:

Level---DC
0---12
1---14
2---15
3---17
4---19
5---21
6---22
7---23
8---24
9---26
10---27
11---28
12---30
13---32
14---33
15---35
16---36
17---38
18---39
19---40
20---41
21---45
22---47
23---49

Granted, this still seems kind of high to me. At level 10 with 14 CON and Trained proficiency, you're looking at trying to roll 16 (at Dying 1) or better to get a success. Magical healing is a must, and between resonance, limited spells per day, feat gates to using wands and scrolls and so forth, it feels like magical healing is at a premium.

I might be less annoyed about this if there were more mundane options for healing. Right now it feels like everything is skewed against the PCs unless they have virtually unlimited downtime, which the playtest scenario certainly does not.


Okay, I re-read the turn cycle rules, and it appears I was wrong with the whole "two rounds minimum" thing.

Starting your Turn wrote:

Take the following steps, plus do anything else that is specified to happen at the start of your turn, in any order you choose.

...

The last step of starting your turn is always the same: Regain your 3 actions and 1 reaction.

I initially was under the impression that effects or options triggering at the start of your turn all happened simultaneously, meaning multiple things interacting with themselves on their turn counteracted each other (in this case, being unconscious meant you never got any actions until you became conscious, in which case your opportunity to gain actions was simultaneously blocked by being unconscious prior to the start of your turn, requiring your next turn in order to regain those actions and reaction, which was then reduced through recovering from Dying).

While this does help the case of it being easier to recover, it is still by no means a measure of superiority over the PF1 rules in regards to recovery and overall survivability.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / New Dying Rules don't seem much better... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion