Just to be clear, it doesn't matter what you're dying value is. When you come back from dying condition, you only gain 1 wounded value. For instance, if you have no conditions and get critically hit and go to zero, you are dying 2.
If you're then healed for 1 hit point, you lose the dying 2 condition and only have wounded 1 condition.
Edit: but if you are wounded 1 already, and then gain the dying condition, you then are dying 2, or 3 if a crit took you down.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Correct.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
just to make sure it's clear, when you go down with wounded 1, then come back up... you're wounded 2 now.
Yup.
You go down with wounded 1. Now you're Dying 2 before you even fail your saves .
Then you fail a save and go down to Dying 3.
You fail another save and go down to dying 4, but luckily you have the DIEHARD feat so you're still not dead.
Then you're revived by an ally, and you're Wounded 2 . Your previous Dying condition doesn't matter, only your Wounded condition.
Then you get knocked down again and you instantly go to Dying 3 . Once again your previous Dying condition doesn't matter, only your previous Wounded condition.
EDIT: Oh I read that as a question so I thought I'd make a more elaborate answer. I just realised it wasn't a question, but I'll leave my answer here and hopefully it'll help someone =P
A concrete example is quite useful.
Yup.You go down with wounded 1. Now you're Dying 2 before you even fail your saves .
Then you fail a save and go down to Dying 3.
You fail another save and go down to dying 4, but luckily you have the DIEHARD feat so you're still not dead.
Then you're revived by an ally, and you're Wounded 2 . Your previous Dying condition doesn't matter, only your Wounded condition.
Then you get knocked down again and you instantly go to Dying 3 . Once again your previous Dying condition doesn't matter, only your previous Wounded condition.
EDIT: Oh I read that as a question so I thought I'd make a more elaborate answer. I just realised it wasn't a question, but I'll leave my answer here and hopefully it'll help someone =P
To add to this, if you take damage while dying you also add your wounded condition to the dying condition when increasing.
RAI wise there is also a bit of debate as to whether or not dying should be increased by wounded whenever it is gained or increased from any source (e.g. failing a death save). As the beginners box, condition cards and GM screen say so; with additional creedance granted from Mark Seifter (ex-lead designer) saying that it does in a Q&A section on an official stream.
But RAW it is, increase dying by wounded when:
1. You gain dying
2. You would take damage while dying
But RAW it is, increase dying by wounded when:
...
2. You would take damage while dying:-\ The CRB does not say this, so this is not RAW by definition. At most it's a contested unclear bit of rules.
Yes, I remember 'Taking Damage while Dying' paragraph. No, it's not clear at all and all repetitions (2 at least) of Wounded and Dying conditions' definitions definitely don't say that.
"The crb does not say this"... cites a paragraph and sectio. Where it says exactly this.
Specific overides general... it is a specific situation, while sure I will agree it would be good to have it all in one place there are plenty of examples of paizo burying rules for a specific circumstance and interaction somewhere other than the root rule (traits are lousy with this).
What you can say is "I don't believe it is RAI", but it is objective fact that it is RAW as nothing contradicts it and it is written.
Again, failing a save does not add wounded RAW, but taking damage does.
The CRB says you add your wounded to your dying value when you gain the dying condition.
That's it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The wording feels weird to me on the Taking Damage while Dying because the last section of "If you have the wounded condition, remember to add the value of your wounded condition to your dying value" could either be just a reminder that it was supposed to have been added when you go down or it could be saying remember to add it to the dying condition increase when you get hit while down
It very clearly says add your wounded condition to dying once you gain dying meaning if you get knocked down to dying while wounded 1, you are dying 2. It's a very clear rule that is very easy to intuit the natural reading of the rule.
So if you get to wounded 3 and get brought to dying again, you're dead unless you have Diehard, which is the reason for that feat.
A major part of the reason I like PF2 is dying is a real thing again. It may not be easy, but it can and has happened more than a few times in campaigns I run now. It was almost nonexistent in 3E and PF1 across most levels.
And raising from the dead is no longer easy, so dying is a real hazard with a cost.
I'm glad it is. It's not quite the save or die of earlier editions of D&D, but it's at least "Death is a real possibility and not easy to fix."
You didn't actually cite the sources, you mentioned the book products that they are in.
RAI wise there is also a bit of debate as to whether or not dying should be increased by wounded whenever it is gained or increased from any source (e.g. failing a death save). As the beginners box, condition cards and GM screen say so; with additional creedance granted from Mark Seifter (ex-lead designer) saying that it does in a Q&A section on an official stream.
The Beginner's Box - which has slightly different rules from the CRB, and the condition cards and GM screen - which are reminders and lookup tools of the rules in the CRB rather than being a primary source for rules on their own.
And some unofficial errata. I don't think I need to remind anyone of how I feel about that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Taking damage while Dying, page 459 of the CRB, is where that rule is, but it is misunderstood. It is only reminding you to add your wounded value to your dying value when you start Dying, not when you take damage, as that whole section is about Dying. Please provide sources when you make such claims, so it can be pointed out that your interpretation is incorrect.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules forum. Where people take an easy, intuitive rule and start to dance.
Taking damage while Dying, page 459 of the CRB, is where that rule is, but it is misunderstood. It is only reminding you to add your wounded value to your dying value when you start Dying, not when you take damage, as that whole section is about Dying. Please provide sources when you make such claims, so it can be pointed out that your interpretation is incorrect.
You are saying the part about taking damage while dying, isn't talking about taking damage... while you are dying, but is instead reminding you to add wounded before you are dying, while specifically talking about taking damage while dying in the section and not mentioning anything about gaining dying initially.
Taking Damage while Dying If you take damage while you already have the dying condition, increase your dying condition value by 1, or by 2 if the damage came from an attacker’s critical hit or your own critical failure. If you have the wounded condition, remember to add the value of your wounded condition to your dying value.
I get you might disagree with it, or think it is a leftover reminder from when the rule was something different. But unless paizo says otherwise it is an exception to the normal dying and wounded rules, where if you are damaged while already wounded it is worse than failing a save.
You say it is a reminder to add it when dying starts, where is the language that even suggests that, and why would it be in this section and more importantly at the end of the section when talking about increasing dying values when damaged if already dying?
When I started this morning, there were a few edge cases I was worried about.
But now, after a full day of research, I'm confused about all the regular cases, too"
Thanks for the link, but this is just one confused person. There isn't a problem here
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You say it is a reminder to add it when dying starts, where is the language that even suggests that?
It is right there in the rule you quoted about taking damage while dying.
Taking Damage while Dying If you take damage while you already have the dying condition, increase your dying condition value by 1, or by 2 if the damage came from an attacker’s critical hit or your own critical failure. If you have the wounded condition, remember to add the value of your wounded condition to your dying value.
That last sentence is a reminder text for a rule that doesn't exist in the CRB.
The Wounded condition does not mention adding to your dying value when you take damage while dying. Only if you gain the dying condition.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. If it were a rule to add your wounded value when you take damage, it would say so, not have a reminder.
Also, lets think about this for a minute. Say you are fighting a bunch of Brimoraks, you are Wounded 1 at 5 HP, and no hero points left. You just succeeded against another Fireball, but still fall unconscious again. That would put you at Dying 2. Then, another Brimorak, with no regard for your life, also drops a fireball hitting the entire party. If you go with adding your wounded value when you take damage, you would instantly die to the second fireball, even on a success.
You would have done everything right, succeeded on all your rolls, but still you die. Do you think that's what the developers intended? Do you think that's good game design?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that we have in the past also gotten dev comment that bonuses to attack rolls would apply to combat maneuver rolls with the attack trait, I think I'll wait for official errata.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe it is a language difference.
My understanding of a citation is that it is a specific reference that others can use to find the exact text being presented and discussed. So something like a book and page number, or a url.
Not just, 'it's in the rules'. Or 'the condition cards say...'. Or worst of all, 'it was in a tweet from a game dev about a year ago'.
That last sentence is a reminder text for a rule that doesn't exist in the CRB.
Paizo frequently uses casual/natural language in rules, a low hanging fruit would be talking about their use of the word action in pf2e.
If I call my fiance up and say "remember to get some milk on the way home", colloquial usage does not mean this has to be literally a referenced reminder to prior knowledge my partner has on our need for milk.
It could be used for emphasis or because the author thought it was referenced in both sections and it was later removed.
What you are doing is using the loose language to ascribe the possibility of mistake, which is fine. But that is discussing intent of rules, otherwise known as RAI.
RAW, even if the developers indended something is is what is on the page.
It is ambiguous in RAI, and ideally would be written differently either removing the section if it isn't meant to be there or adding clarity to wounded and dying to remove hidden rules as expecting people to crossreference different sections for one effect is a barrier for many people.
However, as I said before. Paizo uses a lot of casual/natural language in their rules text and also has a history of nesting hidden mechanics into other rules text. This is something they have specifically stated they are trying to address with parts of the remaster.
You are stating their intent of using "remember" is to mean "reference another rule", it may be, but that is speculation.
What isn't speculation is that the is that in the book the rules specifically say to take certain mechanical steps in response to a specific circumstance and nothing else in the book contradicts this.
Not saying you are wrong in your belief of developer intent, just that "remember" isn't a smoking gun in this case.
I would totally capitulate if it said "remember to always add your wounded modifier as stated in the wounded condition" or something similar.
What isn't speculation is that the is that in the book the rules specifically say to take certain mechanical steps in response to a specific circumstance and nothing else in the book contradicts this.
Well, the thing is it doesn't actually. If it unambiguously said that, people wouldn't be going around in this argument.