| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or they stop selling the old APs which would also work.Paizo still sells those APs as written to new players who won't have read every forum discussion and developer blog. If they actually cared they would have remastered those APs by now. Or, at the very least, appended them with a warning about their unexpectedly high difficulty.... Instead of writing Dark Archive or Rage of Elements? Or creating PF2 Kingmaker?
Or are you just expecting them to magically have time to do anything and everything?
OK. Just making sure that everyone understands you correctly when you are calling out the game devs for 'mistakes' like not tanking the company's profitability.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK. Just making sure that everyone understands you correctly when you are calling out the game devs for 'mistakes' like not tanking the company's profitability.Or they stop selling the old APs which would also work.Paizo still sells those APs as written to new players who won't have read every forum discussion and developer blog. If they actually cared they would have remastered those APs by now. Or, at the very least, appended them with a warning about their unexpectedly high difficulty.... Instead of writing Dark Archive or Rage of Elements? Or creating PF2 Kingmaker?
Or are you just expecting them to magically have time to do anything and everything?
While some of his comments about direction are questionable. It is fair to say that releasing a messed up product, admitting it was messed up, but refusing to do anything to fix it (or even make sure all customers are aware of the problems with the product) is kind of sketchy.
The TTRPG industry is one of the only ones where people regularly defend that kind of practice too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the old way was "you get to go down 3 times if you aren't crit, twice if you're crit" the new way is "you get to go down once as a guarantee, but after that you very well could die" and this feels more correct. I like how this feels thematically even if it might be too harsh. It really would put the fear of "God" into the players, prioritizing proactive action and preventative measures even moreThe problem is, imo, how those preventative measures manifest.
There aren't a lot of materially obvious ways to increase your defenses outside build choices.
So we get "preventative measures" like 'don't bother playing that frontline spellcaster you were interested in' or 'centralize your build around dex/wis/con even more'
Which basically means marginal and 'for fun' playstyles take a further back seat to optimization.
In game it also translates to undesirable play patterns like... being disincentivized from getting characters back up in the middle of combat (because it dramatically increases the chance they die outright) so more time spent with players not participating in the game.
I was more thinking about stuff like healing when people are low instead of when they're down, that sort of thing. Healing to prevent someone from going down seems much more imperative now. The same action denial and CC measures also seem even more necessary. I do think maybe everyone should get a general feat at level 1 and if these dying rules present themselves as a problem at my tables I'm going to try giving an extra general feat to everyone at level 1 and see how it affects the situation
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or they stop selling the old APs which would also work.Paizo still sells those APs as written to new players who won't have read every forum discussion and developer blog. If they actually cared they would have remastered those APs by now. Or, at the very least, appended them with a warning about their unexpectedly high difficulty.... Instead of writing Dark Archive or Rage of Elements? Or creating PF2 Kingmaker?
Or are you just expecting them to magically have time to do anything and everything?
The purpose of a corporation, as I understand it, is to make money.
It's not like the PDFs of Age of Ashes contain radioactive isotopes or something hazardous to the general public, and thus they should stop selling them in the name of public health. Especially since there is a market for "the dragon AP" or "the circus AP". If you do not want to play them, you don't have to. Just play something newer.
What is the cost of new players picking up the remaster, a few cheap old APs, and then never playing again because the game isn't balanced and their characters keep dying?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While some of his comments about direction are questionable. It is fair to say that releasing a messed up product, admitting it was messed up, but refusing to do anything to fix it (or even make sure all customers are aware of the problems with the product) is kind of sketchy.
The TTRPG industry is one of the only ones where people regularly defend that kind of practice too.
Also, realistically, how much work would it be to remaster a handful of poorly made old APs? You already have the art, the story, the encounters, etc., and just need to adjust some of the flow, find places for players to rest, and add warnings before some of the nastier surprise encounters. It isn't free but you could probably remaster 3 APs in the time it takes to make one new AP.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The TTRPG industry is one of the only ones where people regularly defend that kind of practice too.
I work in software development.
Paizo is a shining beacon of morality in this regard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Persistent damage becomes even more terrifying.
**EDIT** Yup, PCs going down is now a bad thing, and persistent damage while down is basically a Death Knell.
Now the need for Clerics has gone up even more.
Jason Bulmahn is notorious for liking a lethal tone in his games. I am not surprised to learn this was always the intent. I predict this will be a common house rule change and a trivially easy one to do. I will definitely be talking it over with my players rather than forcing it into any of my games I run , any time soon.
I don’t really think it is that big a deal personally though.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jason Bulmahn is notorious for liking a lethal tone in his games. I am not surprised to learn this was always the intent. I predict this will be a common house rule change and a trivially easy one to do. I will definitely be talking it over with my players rather than forcing it into any of my games I run , any time soon.
I don’t really think it is that big a deal personally though.
For PFS it definitely is.
Fun builds and tired players will both have to give way to OP PCs on their best game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jason Bulmahn is notorious for liking a lethal tone in his games. I am not surprised to learn this was always the intent. I predict this will be a common house rule change and a trivially easy one to do. I will definitely be talking it over with my players rather than forcing it into any of my games I run , any time soon.
I don’t really think it is that big a deal personally though.
Depends on if you have PCs going down regularly. If so, this will cut quite a few campaigns short.
Having a deadlier tone is fine, but I don't know if Pathfinder would be the game for that. Would prefer a game like Call of Cthulhu where the outcome is usually "Players lose/die" for that kind of thing, not "Players adventure for riches and glory, but get slaughtered because of the rules."
I would also be fine with one-shots being this way, but an extended playthrough will easily result in more PC deaths when played this way, and sadly, an extended playthrough means you want characters to succeed to the end.
I suspect now that GMs will be more inclined to either give Players a level or make enemies Weak(er) to give Players more agency in combat, since throwing stronger enemies now is much more likely to result in PC deaths.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm ambivalent about the change in a vacuum, but I really do not like how many options become traps. They really ought to have included illustrative examples of how dying works, as well as examples of why you might not want to do more than stabalize someone.
Two handed fighters take heart, bucklers are apparently good now for the empty handed bastard sword builds.They already were?
Not for actually blocking damage without exploding.
@Guntermench yup, but I was using my "What most people would assume" hat. haha.
I do fall into the "didnt add wounded when increasing" camp. It means several other feats/abilities/choices/actions now have a bit more meaning. level 1-4 is even deadlier now.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't aware people didn't interpret it this way from the very start... good on the remaster team for making it more clear this time around, maybe this explains why some people never thought the first four levels were as deadly serious as they really are and got into the habit of using (wasting) Hero Points on stuff like rerolls as opposed to holding onto them in order to save your PCs life in the event of a single mid-high damage roll crit against your character in round 1 or 2 which destroys any momentum a party could hope to have in an at or above level threat encounter.
...I see. They over-clarified. I don'tWhat were you all doing prior to this clarification? I don't get it. It was always pretty clear the wounded condition stacked with dying. What was I missing?Well, the wording was, to put it mildly, "vague" when it came to increasing dying levels.
What I was doing prior to this was:
PC drops for the first time, starts out at dying 1
PC gets up, is wounded 1
PC drops for the second time, starts out at dying 2 (dying 1 + wounded 1)
PC fails a recovery check, is now dying 3This instead has the sequence:
PC drops for the first time, starts out at dying 1
PC gets up, is wounded 1
PC drops for the second time, starts out at dying 2 (dying 1 + wounded 1)
PC fails a recovery check, is now dying 4 (2 + 2 = 4) aka deadHow are you interpreting it this way?
You don't add wounded every time their dying value increases.
The first way is the right way. I don't get how you're seeing this?
It says add wounded to dying. Each time you recover from dying, increase the wounded condition.
You sound like you're overcomplicating this.
Do we have an example that really says this? You don't add the wounded condition each time you increase the dying condition such as with a recovery check.
This is, according to the fine people of the Internet, what the new dying rules are:
...
While you're dying, attempt a recovery check at the start of each of your turns. this is a flat check with a dc equal to 10 + your current dying value to see if you get better or worseCritical Success : your dying value is reduced by 2
Success your dying value is reduced by 1
Failure your dying value increases by 1 (plus your wounded value if any)
Critical Failure: your dying value increases by 2 (plus your wounded value if any)
I doubt they intended for every increase in dying to add the wounded condition each time it increases.
I would bet money that wasn't intended.
I will run this the original way which I believe was intended, rather than jumping from dying 2 to dying 4 because you have wounded 1 and are already unconscious and dying. I will add the wounded condition one time once the target it dying and increasing dying by 1 for a failed recovery check per the original rule. I will not add the wounded condition and increase dying 1 each time dying increases. I do not believe that was intended at all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't aware people didn't interpret it this way from the very start... good on the remaster team for making it more clear this time around, maybe this explains why some people never thought the first four levels were as deadly serious as they really are and got into the habit of using (wasting) Hero Points on stuff like rerolls as opposed to holding onto them in order to save your PCs life in the event of a single mid-high damage roll crit against your character in round 1 or 2 which destroys any momentum a party could hope to have in an at or above level threat encounter.The hero point doesn't really do much here though - you still end up unconscious and with no hero points. Generally, it's saved for use only when you'd go to dying 4 anyways, since it clears it no matter how far down you are and you need help to get back up whether you use it or not. It's just a free Stabilize (without increasing Wounded).
This literally reinforces the "start combat at full HP, heal after every combat" and "save Hero Points only for death" mentality even more than what it already is, and even that isn't a guarantee sometimes; players who get downed are instantly out for the entirety of the fight (because reviving them means they will likely be downed again, and this time for keeps), and guess what? Hero Points don't remove Wounded condition, just prevent it from going up when used to prevent death.
As it stands, it's starting to feel more like the Wounded condition is far more deadly than, you know, the Dying the condition, and I don't think I particularly like that as a design choice from the developers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt they intended for every increase in dying to add the wounded condition each time it increases.
I would bet money that wasn't intended.
I will run this the original way which I believe was intended, rather than jumping from dying 2 to dying 4 because you have wounded 1 and are already unconscious and dying. I will add the wounded condition one time once the target it dying and increasing dying by 1 for a failed recovery check per the original rule. I will not add the wounded condition and increase dying 1 each time dying increases. I do not believe that was intended at all.
I'm pretty sure they did, because they would have had to go in there and add in the relevant text to change the intent, and they did exactly that; the Recovery checks expressly denote that change. The worst part is that they had several errata logs where they could have put this in, and for some reason it never was.
I'll take your bet, however; it feels like an easy win. Keep your money, though.
This literally reinforces the "start combat at full HP, heal after every combat" and "save Hero Points only for death" mentality even more than what it already is,
Alternatively, the 'don't fight things above your weight limit' mentality. A severe encounter is severe, and an extreme encounter is extreme.
I have seen hundreds of hero points used for retrying crit-failed d20 rolls. I have seen a small handful used for heroic recovery. I don't expect running the dying rules differently to change that very much, because I have never had someone stay in the fight while having the Wounded condition. It just already isn't something that is a good idea.
This seems overkill to me. It's usually a terrible idea to get someone up in combat already.
They will have low HP, go after the thing that downed them so will almost always get attacked again, and a vast number of builds need a whole turn just to get up and pick up their things, meaning they will get attacked yet again.
It's a rather specific build type, hands free, that can even maybe have a chance of getting up after the thing that downed them moved on. At that point will someone else need the healing more then trying to get someone up who might not be useful for a few rounds.
Its such a niche thing to try and focus on.
Except, you know, encounters don't have labels and even RK doesn't say level.This literally reinforces the "start combat at full HP, heal after every combat" and "save Hero Points only for death" mentality even more than what it already is,Alternatively, the 'don't fight things above your weight limit' mentality. A severe encounter is severe, and an extreme encounter is extreme.
Except, you know, they are Literally Labeled things like 'Severe' and 'Extreme'.
I don't expect running the dying rules differently to change that very much, because I have never had someone stay in the fight while having the Wounded condition. It just already isn't something that is a good idea.Huuuh?! Really? It happens every session anyone gets dying in our games. Which means in about 80% sessions. Ok, maybe actually less. But it happens all the time.
And do you really expect people to basically just stop playing every time their chars get wounded? Is this fun?
And that is what I mean by different playstyles and encounter difficulty expectations.
The combats that I am in rarely have any of the characters drop. And when one or two do drop, if they get brought back up before the fight is over, they don't try to pick up their stuff and jump back into battle.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except, you know, they are Literally Labeled things like 'Severe' and 'Extreme'.Except, you know, encounters don't have labels and even RK doesn't say level.This literally reinforces the "start combat at full HP, heal after every combat" and "save Hero Points only for death" mentality even more than what it already is,Alternatively, the 'don't fight things above your weight limit' mentality. A severe encounter is severe, and an extreme encounter is extreme.
I am almost certain Errenor was speaking from the player's perspectives. While sometimes Players can identify a dangerous encounter from context clues, I'm sure we all have stories of completely misreading the difficulty of an encounter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Totally agree this is largely about expectations and the associated ideas of what acceptable tactics are.
Is this significantly more deadly for those not already playing this way? Yes.
Can it largely be resolved by a mix of shifting tactics within the combat and battle preparation prior? Yes.
Will it be as or more fun for players? Mixed bag.
Our table is nervously excited to adopt this rule - it's already prompted talk about putting more of our resources into in-combat healing and the like, and our most aggressive martial player (finally, FINALLY) acknowledged he needs to stop just running in and trusting it will work out.
our most aggressive martial player (finally, FINALLY) acknowledged he needs to stop just running in and trusting it will work out.
Having played a couple of support/Heal casters, I'm sure the rest of your party will greatly rejoice over that.
That alone would be worth the ink to print those extra words on the result outcomes of Recovery checks even if every table decides to houserule it away.
I am almost certain Errenor was speaking from the player's perspectives. While sometimes Players can identify a dangerous encounter from context clues, I'm sure we all have stories of completely misreading the difficulty of an encounter.
The GM is one of the players too. And yes, the party may not be given a sign listing the xp values of the enemies that they are facing. But the idea is that this is what session zero conversations are about. Is everyone at the table wanting to play a campaign where character death is frequent? Or a campaign where characters even reaching 0 HP is uncommon? Or somewhere in between?
My overall thought is that the GM's setting of encounter difficulty is going to be a much bigger influence on that than the tinkering with how Wounded works.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wish I were surprised about the number of people boldly claiming the way they've always done things is "The only correct and plausible way of reading those rules" despite ample evidence to the contrary. It costs nothing to say "Huh, I didn't read it like that but I like the way we've been doing things regardless."
Speaking of, I was aware that the remastered clarification was probably the correct reading based on Seifter's comments from before, but for my money I don't really like how it makes healing your downed allies into a trap. The way Wounded works even going from + to 0 and back already makes immediately healing downed allies unintuitively bad--Wounded 0, Dying 1 can take up to 2 more direct hits before things are desperate if the enemy is the type to finish off downed foes, but healing that person after each drop makes them a bigger target and can leave them with few enough hit points that they might just stand up into in instant Dying 2 plus now they'll have a second Wound if they stand up--but when you add in that creating Wounds by healing felled allies also makes their floor time more lethal means its better to hold off on that instant heal unless you know you can put enough healing on them that they can stand back up safely.
(Admittedly, Dying 1 is just two of a dedicated enemy's attacks that are likely to hit to guarantee the character doesn't get back up, but that is only even more true if you heal them and they can't run in time.)
I'll likely ask my players if they're interested in adding some more tension to floortime with this clarification, but none of us relish the beefed up risk of major character death on top of losing actions/turns because a heavy hit.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Persistent damage becomes even more terrifying.
There is a level 1-4 PFS scenario where the boss's attack inflicts persistent bleed damage *and* magical healing requires a caster level check to stop the persistent bleed.
I've seen it run multiple times, and every time had a character death and was a round away from a TPK under the old rules. I can't imagine the carnage under this rule.
Flat checks already make persistent damage hard to stop -- if there's any additional incrementing for wounded levels I don't see how you have the action economy to deal with it without AoE heals.
I've read and reread the these rules and I KNOW it didnt resonate with me regarding the "Taking damage while dying is 1+wounded". And I am fine with that clarification and that feels good (it was there and I missed it). But the Recovery check fail also adding in wounded feels, umm, errr, egh.
For me, the Recovery Check one doesnt feel quite right since nothing, other than time, had affected your dying body. But thems da rules ... now, either by clarification or by change.
I don't know how things will shake out but I'm playing with these rules before commenting on whether I will homebrew it the way everyone used to do it, or keep things as written, or do something like give everyone a general feat at level one so they can get heavier armor, diehard, toughness, fleet or incredible initiative/canny acumen. All of which would help player survivability
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What were you all doing prior to this clarification? I don't get it. It was always pretty clear the wounded condition stacked with dying. What was I missing?
This is how I explained it to my play group:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way Wounded works even going from + to 0 and back already makes immediately healing downed allies unintuitively bad--Wounded 0, Dying 1 can take up to 2 more direct hits before things are desperate if the enemy is the type to finish off downed foes, but healing that person after each drop makes them a bigger target and can leave them with few enough hit points that they might just stand up into in instant Dying 2 plus now they'll have a second Wound if they stand up--but when you add in that creating Wounds by healing felled allies also makes their floor time more lethal means its better to hold off on that instant heal unless you know you can put enough healing on them that they can stand back up safely.
One thing that might change the logic here is the -4 to AC you have while unconscious, significantly increasing the likelihood of a critical hit and corresponding +2 Dying. If the enemy isn't interested in continued strikes on the unconscious PC, I think the logic of keeping them down until the situation gets safer makes typical sense. If the enemy is food/spite-motivated or mindless, or you don't know for certain what it will do next, it might make more sense to get them back conscious however you can.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man, facing multiple enemies with area effect attacks is going to be even more brutal now.
Being unconscious during a fight is just SUPER deadly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Important Reminder: Unless Remaster changes it, the Wounded condition ends if someone successfully restores Hit Points to you with Treat Wounds, or if you are restored to full Hit Points (such as with magic) and rest for 10 minutes.