| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The changed it from a Fort save based on what knocked you out to a flat death saving throw. Personally I don't like this change at all. It's exactly the same as 5e now, and I do not like 5e dying rules. It's just as easy to die from a dragon's breath weapon as it is to die from a level 0 goblin scratching your toe. I much preferred the 1.3 rules.
Suggestion: If people are having trouble calculating a monster's DC, why not just put it in the monster's stat line? Then you wouldn't have to write it under each individual monster ability either. It'd make it much simpler while still being unique and interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like the dying check to be its own thing, not a pure flat check and not a fortitude save either. Basically: a flat check to which you get to add your con mod and the bonus from being Expert, Master or Legend in Fortitude.
That way, the Con 20 character isn't as likely to bleed out as the Con 8 character. And it preserves the advantages of a flat check, namely verisimilitude: the boss doesn't get a harder save DC just because of their level even if they do less damage than their mooks, and it doesn't get harder to stabilize from being knocked out by falling damage just because you're higher level.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the new rules. It's easy to understand. Plus, you are already punished from a 8 Con by having way less HPs than a character with 20 Con (a delta of 6 HPs per level, accumulating to 120 HPs at level 20), and thus dying more quickly. Having to do a Fort save feels a bit like a double punition : you get to Dying quicker AND you can't stabilise yourself.
Dying as easily from a goblin scratching you than a dragon breath doesn't seem weird to me. If the goblin put you down to 0 HPs, this means you were already really low on HP (which would translate to bleeding everywhere, with slices and bruises all over your body, only your will to live keeps you standing up, and just a push would be enough to make you fall at this point), or low level (in which case a dragon breath would obliterate you anyway under the Massive Damages rules).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I'm not a fan of this at all. Fort save made sense for this. Monster DCs were too hard to figure out, but that was fixable (either print it somewhere, or use a consistent value).
If this system makes it to release it will be getting houseruled immediately at my table. In the worst case scenario in these rules it's possible to yo-yo between dying states due to making and then failing rolls for multiple turns, where you're not waking up but also not dying outright. That is not a fun way to spend a turn at all.
Just make it a Fort save to recover, with the DC going up based on your dying condition. If you make it, you immediately recover rather than reducing the condition one step.
I honestly feel like this is one of the cases where trying to have four levels of success detracts from the fun. Going from dying 3 to dying 2 is not fun, it feels like a wasted turn, it doesn't add tension (the way failing and going from dying 2 to dying 3 does), it doesn't get you back into the fight, and it's no an engaging turn for the player. It's "roll one die than go back on my phone for 10 minutes" time.
This roll should only have two outcomes: either you recover out of dying and can participate again, or you get 1 step worse. That's it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Realization I had today while updating my GM/Character Sheets. The new Recovery roll still has an entry for critical success, but you cannot get a +10 on a flat check which starts at DC 11, meaning it is only possible on a natural 20. On the other side, it is still possible to critically fail on dying 2+ with a -10 on the result, in addition to rolling a natural 1. I can't say that I like this imbalance, and don't think 4 degrees of success mixes well with flat checks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sort of torn.
I don't particularly lean strongly one way or another for the DC being based off the culprit. I like the idea, but in practice it bogs the game down, and annoys the players who are less than keen on complexity but like knowing what to expect. Given that I want to win players over to this system, and pretty much everybody I know plays 5e, I could stand to gain from less unnecessary complexity.
On the other hand, I do very much like durability playing in somehow.
I think my favourite suggestion was allowing various levels of fort training to modify the DC, but I am a little concerned that this would skew the importance of fort.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m definitely a fan of the simplified death DC. I’d also be fine with many of the variants suggested here, such as having the DC take Con and/or Fort proficiency into account. But IMO, not having to slow down the game to work out/look up the DC whenever someone goes down is a big quality of life improvement.
10 + Monster CR + Monster's highest stat bonus. Doesn't seem difficult to me, and like I said already, it could easily just be added to the stat blocks of every monster.
That being said, having Con / Fort Prof affect the flat check is a decent enough compromise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the flat check because I means I wouldn't have reason to attack a super low health party member so that he gets knocked to dying from my PC simply because my pc is lower level than the boss of the encounter (would have happened if the enemy wasn't finally defeated one action before my turn started).
The part that bothers me is the Ultimate Mercy feat.
You can't Ultimate Mercy a Mountain Stout Dwarf with Toughness.
I’m definitely a fan of the simplified death DC. I’d also be fine with many of the variants suggested here, such as having the DC take Con and/or Fort proficiency into account. But IMO, not having to slow down the game to work out/look up the DC whenever someone goes down is a big quality of life improvement.
I figure if they do keep flat DC but allow Con and such to lower your personal DC, they would just have an entry for that on the character sheet and in the monster listings. :) That way the player and GM could see at a glance what a creature needs to roll to recover from dying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m definitely a fan of the simplified death DC. I’d also be fine with many of the variants suggested here, such as having the DC take Con and/or Fort proficiency into account. But IMO, not having to slow down the game to work out/look up the DC whenever someone goes down is a big quality of life improvement.I figure if they do keep flat DC but allow Con and such to lower your personal DC, they would just have an entry for that on the character sheet and in the monster listings. :) That way the player and GM could see at a glance what a creature needs to roll to recover from dying.
Wait, monsters are affected by dying rules ? e_e I thought monsters die/get knocked out instantly once they reach 0 HP, unless the DM says otherwise. Having an ennemy priest constantly wake up their buddies or having to roll for each goblin's stabilization check seems like a hassle =S
Anyway, I don't really mind if Con lowers your personal DC. I like the simplicity of a simple flat DC + dying. Adding Con/Fort to the mix makes it a bit more complicated (not as complicated as building an airship, but it adds another parameter to the mix) and, as I said, it makes not maxxing Con a double punition, but I guess that if Paizo makes this change, I wouldn't particularly mind.
Still, I agree that we'd need somewhere on the character sheet where to write down at what stage of dying and/or the DC (if we add the Con/Fort option). If I remember correctly, D&D5 has something like that on their character sheet. But the current character sheet already seem pretty complicated for me. Making conditions cards/tokens could be an alternative solution.