I think they wanted to clarify the original ruling.
The way some of you are reading it is nutso:
1. Knocked down dying 1.
2. Healed up to wounded 1. Dying condition gone.
3. Knocked down a second time, Dying 2 because regain Dying 1 condition plus wounded condition for Dying 2 when unconscious. Wounded 1.
4. Then you're all saying the designers intended for you to miss a recover check when Dying 2 and suddenly go from Dying 2 to Dying for because increase dying by 1 and add wounded a second time? I don't think they mean this myself.
I think it's the old method.
1. Knocked down Dying 1.
2. Wounded 1 when healed up.
3. Knocked down Dying 1 plus wounded 1 for Dying 2.
4. Miss recovery check dying condtion goes to dying 2 plus Wounded 1 for Dying 3.
You only add your current wounded condition one time. It is clarifying that you add it to your current dying condition. Not each time you increase your dying condition.
I'm not going to change it until I see a designer provide a clear example they intended the dying condition to rise that quickly.
I think some you of are reading more into than is there.
Maybe some designer will clarify and it will be that deadly. I don't know. I know I'm going to keep running it as I was and this seems like the same rule I was using.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I think the biggest thing for me (as a player) is our DM sometimes resorts to older styles of dungeonbuilding, with close rooms where foes can sometimes spill over depending on how combat goes. While there is explicit guidance to GMs in PF2 to treat multiple encounters without a 10+ minute rest as one encounter for the purpose of budgeting, he doesn't always do it - each room or maybe a couple rooms are designed as a balanced encounter. From chatting with others, he's not alone.
As the ability for the party to recover from things going sideways diminishes within an encounter, as others have already said in this thread, the importance of appropriately balancing those encounters grows. DMs really need to lean into the concept that a single encounter is basically all the fighting between 10+ minute rests, no matter how that fighting takes place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think they wanted to clarify the original ruling.
The way some of you are reading it is nutso:
1. Knocked down dying 1.
2. Healed up to wounded 1. Dying condition gone.
3. Knocked down a second time, Dying 2 because regain Dying 1 condition plus wounded condition for Dying 2 when unconscious. Wounded 1.
4. Then you're all saying the designers intended for you to miss a recover check when Dying 2 and suddenly go from Dying 2 to Dying for because increase dying by 1 and add wounded a second time? I don't think they mean this myself.
I think it's the old method.
1. Knocked down Dying 1.
2. Wounded 1 when healed up.
3. Knocked down Dying 1 plus wounded 1 for Dying 2.
4. Miss recovery check dying condtion goes to dying 2 plus Wounded 1 for Dying 3.
You only add your current wounded condition one time. It is clarifying that you add it to your current dying condition. Not each time you increase your dying condition.
I'm not going to change it until I see a designer provide a clear example they intended the dying condition to rise that quickly.
I think some you of are reading more into than is there.
Maybe some designer will clarify and it will be that deadly. I don't know. I know I'm going to keep running it as I was and this seems like the same rule I was using.
The designers have clarified it, the clarification is the remaster with the text that if you fail a recovery check you add dying equal to 1 (2 on a crit fail) plus your wounded, I do not like it and we can all run it however we want but it is pretty unambiguous on the wording of it with a link to an image from the remaster itself here: from the pathfinder memes reddit
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they wanted to clarify the original ruling.
I think it's the old method.
If this is devs going to "clarify the original ruling," they wouldn't be adding in additional rules text that creates a completely different interpretation of what happens if the idea is that it still functions as "the old method," because the new text doesn't match up to what "the old method" was.
So, saying you think it's still the old method makes no sense, and you can't even say it's "unintended" or an "oversight" because the example you give is literally contradictory to the RAW that was presented to us, which is that, on failed (or critically failed recovery checks), you increase your Dying value by 1 (or 2) plus your Wounded value, if any. And that's just recovery checks, which is the aspect we actually got text from.
At this point, you need to accept that you don't like the rule and declare your feelings as such (like I have), because this denial is hardly becoming of you as a poster on this forum.
If this is devs going to "clarify the original ruling," they wouldn't be adding in additional rules text that creates a completely different interpretation of what happens if the idea is that it still functions as "the old method," because the new text doesn't match up to what "the old method" was.I think they wanted to clarify the original ruling.
I think it's the old method.
Well, look at the Horse animal companion.
Are you going to say that it was initially intended that its damage bonus would affect spells... while the caster wasn't riding the horse?
Sure, it can be called errata. But saying that it wasn't the original intent is a bit much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is definitely one of those rules that I'm going to have to play through and experience before I decide how to use it. But I've done that with a bunch of rules that I couldn't quite game out in my head until I saw it on the virtual table, and it usually worked well.
About healing in-combat being a trap: I'd suggest that GMs play hostile encounters differently, too, with the enemies treating a wounded and healed PC limping away from the fight like that PC is not a threat, because they genuinely (probably) will not be. The PC will likely be trying to just get away. Unless the enemies are the recklessly vengeful or mindless types who would ignore a threat right in front of them to kick a wounded non-threat, that is. Even bullies have some sense.
Yeah unless they're sadistically evil, I think most enemies, particularly animals, would treat your opponents retreating as a victory
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this is devs going to "clarify the original ruling," they wouldn't be adding in additional rules text that creates a completely different interpretation of what happens if the idea is that it still functions as "the old method," because the new text doesn't match up to what "the old method" was.I think they wanted to clarify the original ruling.
I think it's the old method.
Well, look at the Horse animal companion.
Are you going to say that it was initially intended that its damage bonus would affect spells... while the caster wasn't riding the horse?
Sure, it can be called errata. But saying that it wasn't the original intent is a bit much.
Whoever interpreted it that way was more interested in cheesing a mechanic than actually attempting to play a rule as intended, which is nowhere near the same instance to compare with.
A better comparison would have been when players treated skill checks with the Attack trait as attack rolls.
I talked to one of my parties tonight and they are all for it. I think my other group, less experienced with PF2 isn’t going to like it, but I’ll ask them as well. The table I play with hasn’t brought it up yet, but I’ll vote for it, because I like it.
At the same time, with all these remastered rules, no one is going to get mad if you pick and choose what rules you use in your home games. There is no true right way to play PF2 except the way that is fun for you and your friends. There are more restrictions on PFS play, but if you are really worried about it, you can always see if some of the folks you’ve been playing with want to make the jump to playing someqq kind of informal campaign instead.
A better comparison would have been when players treated skill checks with the Attack trait as attack rolls.
That one works too. Or polymorph forms prevent using Escape. Or any number of other things that have been errata'd.
Still waiting on some things. Like Witch archetype familiars being revived. Or using scrolls and wands with only a spellcasting dedication feat.
Because what is 'clearly the intent' and what is 'clearly what is written' are not always clear. Or in agreement.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm seeing a lot of revisionist history today to pretend this new rule was always the case.
People quoting out a former writer's claim that "I meant to do that", yet it was a "meant to" that didn't actually make the cut of the 2.0 book.
Even the PF2E code for Foundry didn't use this "was always that way" method when applying dying values.
That's a LOT of eyes on something that occurs very often in games that somehow the entire community failed to notice until today?
This is like the 1984 novel quote "We have always been at war with Eastasia," when... moments before stated, the thing wasn't true.
It's a brutal change to the survivability of the game. It also radically shakes up an aspect of the meta - the most damaging thing you can do to a team-mate now is heal them if they're downed. It nearly ensures a dead character. Before - there might be value in getting them back up to sway the battle, at worse they'd go to one extra dying value if downed again (assuming no crit). Now they're more likely to be instant killed.
This will lead to a dramatic change in the way people play the game, as it's now a deadlier game than the old "Paranoia" tRPG (which, BTW, was semi based on a '1984' like world).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Wounded Any time you gain the dying condition or increase it for any reason, add your wounded value to the amount you gain or increase your dying value" is on the GM screen, but I can't find matching language in the core rules.
I don't think that the game benefits from such an alarming death spiral, so regardless of intent, rule 1 applies and I'm only going to add Wounded when Dying is removed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a LOT of eyes on something that occurs very often in games that somehow the entire community failed to notice until today?
There are many people who did not notice until today, but it was heard of and has been debated on these very forums. I would not blame anybody for not knowing, but it cannot be said that the entire community did not notice before today.
Besides, in my 3-year game, Dying rules only came up maybe a dozen times. Maybe I was lenient on my crew, but even if I weren't, this portion of the Dying mechanics doesn't come up at all unless somebody goes down a second time in the same fight. Even if that happens commonly at somebody's table, it's not likely that the rules are checked every single time. More likely whoever read the rules the first time gets it into their head how it works and it's not checked after that until it's needed to be referenced.
This might not lead to any change in the way some people play the game (whether because they were already playing the remastered version or because they don't plan on changing their ways, as my table likely will) and for the rest it only matters if a character can't even get a basic Treat Wounds activity before they're felled a second time. Once that happen.
Addendum: There are a lot of 'obvious' errata spot that simply never got corrected either because it wasn't important enough, was forgotten, it wasn't seen as an issue, or as likely as any, a decision what and how to change something hadn't been reached by the next printing of the book.
I'm seeing a lot of revisionist history today to pretend this new rule was always the case.
People quoting out a former writer's claim that "I meant to do that", yet it was a "meant to" that didn't actually make the cut of the 2.0 book.
Even the PF2E code for Foundry didn't use this "was always that way" method when applying dying values.
That's a LOT of eyes on something that occurs very often in games that somehow the entire community failed to notice until today?
This is like the 1984 novel quote "We have always been at war with Eastasia," when... moments before stated, the thing wasn't true.
It's a brutal change to the survivability of the game. It also radically shakes up an aspect of the meta - the most damaging thing you can do to a team-mate now is heal them if they're downed. It nearly ensures a dead character. Before - there might be value in getting them back up to sway the battle, at worse they'd go to one extra dying value if downed again (assuming no crit). Now they're more likely to be instant killed.
This will lead to a dramatic change in the way people play the game, as it's now a deadlier game than the old "Paranoia" tRPG (which, BTW, was semi based on a '1984' like world).
My take is more "The rule has been changed to this because the devs intended for this ruling instead of what people thought/perceived before," and less "The rule was always this way, the devs just made it more obvious for everyone," but there are also people who are double-taking, or saying that the change doesn't actually do anything compared to what the written text was before, and that is just factually incorrect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a LOT of eyes on something that occurs very often in games that somehow the entire community failed to notice until today?There are many people who did not notice until today, but it was heard of and has been debated on these very forums. I would not blame anybody for not knowing, but it cannot be said that the entire community did not notice before today.
Yeah. It has always been ambiguous and debated. See my Ancient Thread link earlier (it's on page 2).
The general consensus on the forums here is that Wounded only applied when you drop to 0 HP again.
But our consensus on what the rules probably mean based on what is printed doesn't mean that the developers didn't initially intend for it to be run differently. It means that they didn't write it clearly enough in the first place. Fixing that now is errata - not necessarily a change in intent on their part.
Now the need for Clerics has gone up even more.And that is not a good thing. No class should be required.
By 'Cleric' I think that people are meaning 'plenty of in-combat healing'. Which has always been a good idea to have.
Cleric gets that for free with Divine Font, but the one class is certainly not the only option. Oracle and Primal/Divine Sorcerer can both cast rank-Max and rank-Max-1 Heal a lot of times by having Heal as their rank 1 signature spell. But unlike Cleric, if the party ever learns to engage in battle without getting wrecked in the process, Oracle/Sorcerer has a bunch of other high rank spells in repertoire available to cast instead.
Battle Medicine is now worse IMO.
Worse for doing what, specifically?
Battle Medicine is now worse IMO.
I would say it is worse in that it is not good to use on a downed character, but so is a 2-action Heal (especially if it is not a max spell slot). As far as in-combat healing it is still far more preferable to a potion or elixir, and heals for much more, and is also still the strongest (and probably only) non-magical healing in the game.
Now the need for Clerics has gone up even more.And that is not a good thing. No class should be required.By 'Cleric' I think that people are meaning 'plenty of in-combat healing'. Which has always been a good idea to have.
Cleric gets that for free with Divine Font, but the one class is certainly not the only option. Oracle and Primal/Divine Sorcerer can both cast rank-Max and rank-Max-1 Heal a lot of times by having Heal as their rank 1 signature spell. But unlike Cleric, if the party ever learns to engage in battle without getting wrecked in the process, Oracle/Sorcerer has a bunch of other high rank spells in repertoire available to cast instead.
In this case, I do genuinely mean the Cleric class itself. Clerics have the strongest in-combat healing in the game, and the game is balanced around this. Other classes with healing, or other forms of healing, do not, and cannot, compare.
Not only does it heal more, but it is also usable more frequently, and can be done from a safe(r) distance. Battle Medicine cannot be done as frequently, heals for less, and requires risking being stabbed in the face. Other effects have an immunity or likewise don't heal as much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Administer First Aid for stabilize is going to be quite good.
As is the Stabilize cantrip.
Sure, but that is a waste of actions, and those actions are better spent on killing an enemy instead.
Really, the best case scenario is for them to use their Hero Point to stabilize from death and for the rest of the party to fend for themselves, or to use these activities basically when combat ends.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will say that Fast Healing is now also a trap, because the former is forced healing that does nothing about the Wounded condition, and still functions while Unconscious.
Cleric gets that for free with Divine Font, but the one class is certainly not the only option. Oracle and Primal/Divine Sorcerer can both cast rank-Max and rank-Max-1 Heal a lot of times by having Heal as their rank 1 signature spell.At which point, the only thing they do is heal.
That's all that is being done with Cleric in this comparison too...
Divine Font Heals and fill all high rank spell slots with Heal as well. That is the only way that Cleric can cast Heal more often than the Primal Sorcerer.
The expected level of in-combat healing should not be balanced around the best healer. A bard, water/wood kineticist, or paladin should suffice.
I would agree with that. But having a campaign where a Bard, Kineticist, or Paladin be sufficient in-combat healing is something that is already possible.
It just requires a different mentality regarding encounter difficulty and party battle engagement tactics. That isn't something that is done with rules though. Encounter design is done by the GM (or AP writers if the GM doesn't change things) and party tactics are done by the other players.
To be clear, I am not trying to say that in-combat healing hasn't become more valuable. I'm pointing out that Cleric specifically still isn't required.
Even if you do want to continue doing the 'heal through incoming damage' tactic there are other classes that do compare with Cleric.
In this case, I do genuinely mean the Cleric class itself. Clerics have the strongest in-combat healing in the game, and the game is balanced around this. Other classes with healing, or other forms of healing, do not, and cannot, compare.
Not only does it heal more, but it is also usable more frequently, and can be done from a safe(r) distance. Battle Medicine cannot be done as frequently, heals for less, and requires risking being stabbed in the face. Other effects have an immunity or likewise don't heal as much.
I'm talking about other classes that are casting Heal. Primal Sorcerer can cast max-rank Heal 4 times and max-1 rank 4 more times. Life Oracle is only casting 3 each of max-rank and max-1 rank, but can cast them with d12 healing instead of d8.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Battle Medicine is now worse IMO.Worse for doing what, specifically?
For being used optimally.
I used to put my Battle Medicine on down PCs or those with low HPs to keep them in the fight. It was pretty obvious when to use it.
With the Remastered rule, it seems healing to keep your key PCs as far from down as possible is best.
But the immunity for one day makes it much more of a guessing game. If my Fighter is close to down but the enemy is not in much better shape, should I use it now or hope for the best and keep it for a later encounter ?
Battle Medicine is now worse IMO.Worse for doing what, specifically?For being used optimally.
I used to put my Battle Medicine on down PCs or those with low HPs to keep them in the fight. It was pretty obvious when to use it.
With the Remastered rule, it seems healing to keep your key PCs as far from down as possible is best.
But the immunity for one day makes it much more of a guessing game. If my Fighter is close to down but the enemy is not in much better shape, should I use it now or hope for the best and keep it for a later encounter ?
Thanks.
Now, that I can agree with at a mechanical level.
But I also don't see it as a detriment to the game. I like these types of hard decisions in resource management. It makes the game more interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There was a lot of talk pre-remaster that the game would more or less remain played the same as before. No big shakeups to the meta or anything like that.
This one single change though - is dramatic in impact. It absolutely needed to go through playtest and feedback before being put in there.
It is a radical alteration for the meta and for how the game will be played in order for PCs to make it to end of an adventure. Lethality goes up by leaps and bounds with this, and many tactics are no longer viable as it is just too risky to bring a downed ally back up in a much wider array of situations than ever before.
Build choices will need to be rethought out as many prior builds are just no longer viable.
On the extremes it's a near certainty that many concepts previously thought of as frontliners can no longer risk melee, and carrying around portable forms of cover might have to become a thing.
Even if that extreme doesn't come to pass, some notable changes will.
That's not the kind of alteration to a game system that you do in something you're refusing to call an edition change, and done without playtest or feedback.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is a radical alteration for the meta and for how the game will be played in order for PCs to make it to end of an adventure. Lethality goes up by leaps and bounds with this, and many tactics are no longer viable as it is just too risky to bring a downed ally back up in a much wider array of situations than ever before.
Are you assuming that all players and groups were previously playing their tactics that close to the edge of death?
Yes, the change does make that playstyle a riskier way to play.
But that change is only as big as the number of people who were playing that way in the first place.
The sky is not falling. There are players like myself and my groups that start healing/falling back from the thick of combat when they are at half health. There are other players who state that they have been running with this 'wounded applies any time dying increases' already.
What would be the difference in survivability between "pre-remaster without diehard" and "post-remaster with diehard"?
Maybe diehard can stabilize the change, at which point instead of being a meta-shattering change it just becomes a new mandatory feat, which while unfun is not world-shaking and only kills builds that cannot possibly spare 1 general feat.
The number-crunching part of my brain isn't working today. Anyone feel like working out the math with the high-lethality rule but pushing death off a couple notches to dying 6? Normal recovery rules---I'm thinking of a change to the baseline, not of characters with relevant feats.
Whether or not this is a change or a clarification is getting too far into the weeds, I think. From polling and my own experiences, it seems like the (vast?) majority of players were at tables where dying only added wounded when the condition was first gained -- including players at PFS events where this ruling matters the most.
Personally, I don't like the newly clarified rule and won't be running it that way at my tables, and I hope that I will be able to convince GMs where I am a player to do the same. High lethality, in my opinion, doesn't align super well with the heroic fantasy vision of PF2E as a whole, and I don't like the fact that healing someone who is down often decreases the amount of hits it takes to kill them.
I also think that the lethality of the low levels of the game was already too high, and so anything that makes that experience even rougher is a real feels bad.
The number-crunching part of my brain isn't working today. Anyone feel like working out the math with the high-lethality rule but pushing death off a couple notches to dying 6? Normal recovery rules---I'm thinking of a change to the baseline, not of characters with relevant feats.
This makes characters harder to kill when they don't have the wounded condition, and also means that they can survive going down at up to wounded 4, in theory. They can take the same number of hits as a pre-clarification character at wounded values of 1 and 2 (3 and 2 hits before dying, respectively).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The number-crunching part of my brain isn't working today. Anyone feel like working out the math with the high-lethality rule but pushing death off a couple notches to dying 6? Normal recovery rules---I'm thinking of a change to the baseline, not of characters with relevant feats.
Gladly! If we set player death at dying 6 as a baseline, here's what the likelihood of death would be with RAW wounded rules:
So unfortunately, while the starting death chance would be lower, it would still spike the moment you'd get to wounded 1. Adding more dying states unfortunately doesn't change things all that much, because the moment you hit wounded 2 and beyond, you can still die with one failed recovery check, and even if you do reach a dying state where a failure doesn't immediately kill you, it sets you back so far that you're unlikely to succeed on every check thereafter.
Really, I think this highlights the problem with the implementation of the wounded condition as-is, in that it turns what's currently a double whammy of death likelihood into an excessive triple whammy:
Just the first two I think would already be enough to make wounded a punishing condition. As it stands, the current implementation means that if you go down once, you immediately become extremely likely to die, with persistent damage in particular being a near-guaranteed death sentence.
The number-crunching part of my brain isn't working today. Anyone feel like working out the math with the high-lethality rule but pushing death off a couple notches to dying 6? Normal recovery rules---I'm thinking of a change to the baseline, not of characters with relevant feats.Gladly! If we set player death at dying 6 as a baseline, here's what the likelihood of death would be with RAW wounded rules:
0: 26%
1: 69% (!)
2: 88%
3: 95%
4: 98%
5: 100% So unfortunately, while the starting death chance would be lower, it would still spike the moment you'd get to wounded 1. Adding more dying states unfortunately doesn't change things all that much, because the moment you hit wounded 2 and beyond, you can still die with one failed recovery check, and even if you do reach a dying state where a failure doesn't immediately kill you, it sets you back so far that you're unlikely to succeed on every check thereafter.
Really, I think this highlights the problem with the implementation of the wounded condition as-is, in that it turns what's currently a double whammy of death likelihood into an excessive triple whammy:
Being wounded means you start at a higher dying state, and thus have to succeed on more checks to recover (and also die on fewer failures).
Starting at a higher dying value already means you're more likely to fail your recovery checks.
With the rule clarification, being wounded means each failure sets you back significantly more, multiplying the first two effects. Just the first two I think would already be enough to make wounded a punishing condition. As it stands, the current implementation means that if you go down once, you immediately become extremely likely to die, with persistent damage in particular being a near-guaranteed death sentence.
Ah, I'd forgotten that you only lose one dying on a success, while gaining 1 + wounded on a failure.
The number-crunching part of my brain isn't working today. Anyone feel like working out the math with the high-lethality rule but pushing death off a couple notches to dying 6? Normal recovery rules---I'm thinking of a change to the baseline, not of characters with relevant feats.
Two thoughts:
1) The math is way too complicated for me. The probability is: what is the probability of rolling n more failures than successes (with n being either 4 or 6) when the probability of success of an individual roll is approximately 50%, but varies slightly depending on how many more failures have been rolled at the time. And that is not counting things like taking damage while Dying or while both Dying and Wounded.
2) What scenarios are you looking at?
The scenario where a character drops to 0 HP and dying and then stays there trying to stabilize for the remainder of the battle, and the scenario where a character drops to 0 HP and benefits from some method of stabilization (heroic recovery, stabilize cantrip, first aid, ...) - these scenarios aren't affected by the change to Wounded. But they will be minorly affected by the proposed change to maximum Dying value.
The scenario where a character drops to 0 HP, then is healed and rejoins the fight with Wounded 1 condition, and then drops to 0 HP again - that scenario in the Remastered rules will mean that they start at Dying 2 and will go to Dying 4 if they take any additional damage or fail their first recovery check. Increasing that to Dying 6 maximum will mean that after their first failed recovery check they will be at Dying 4 and will have additional chances to recover. However, the Dying condition will only reduce by 1 if they succeed, but will increase by 2 if they fail.
In the scenario where a character is healed up again and rejoins the fight with Wounded 2, then dropping to 0 HP again will put them at Dying 3 and will increase their Dying value by 3 if they fail their next recovery check or take any damage. Which will still cause them to drop to Dying 6 and die even with the proposed changes. So this is the same result as the previous scenario with the standard rules and only a maximum of Dying 4.
-----
Considering that the games I have been in only ever used that first scenario - where when someone drops to 0 HP they are effectively out of the battle for the remainder of that fight - I am not sure that I can really make a judgement on this.
But my gut instinct is that increasing the maximum Dying value to 6 is going to make the game feel slightly less lethal in the general case - that first scenario. It will remove some of the time pressure to get your allies back up during the fight. Which reduces the dramatic tension that having a character drop causes.
However, it isn't going to dramatically change the lethality of being healed up and rejoining the fight while having the Wounded condition. If that is a standard tactic that you are using, then you are going to want to houserule away the change to Wounded rather than increase the maximum Dying value.
If what changed is the lethality of being hit while down and of failing checks to stabilize, then doesn't that add a greater urgency to heal the target, rather than encourage leaving them down for the rest of the battle?
In a loop of PC goes down -> PC is immediately healed -> wounded PC goes down -> wounded PC is immediately healed -> etc, nothing has changed with the remaster. It's only if you ignore their dying state long enough for them to get hit or to fail stabilize checks that things go horribly wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If what changed is the lethality of being hit while down and of failing checks to stabilize, then doesn't that add a greater urgency to heal the target, rather than encourage leaving them down for the rest of the battle?
It doesn't change the lethality of being hit while down or taking persistent damage either as long as it is only the first time the character has been dropped.
The change only has any effect if the character has the Wounded condition.
So remove the persistent damage before stabilizing Dying unless it is post-combat and you are doing something that is going to heal them enough that they won't drop to the persistent damage for a few rounds even if the persistent damage flat checks don't go your way.
I will say that Fast Healing is now also a trap, because the former is forced healing that does nothing about the Wounded condition, and still functions while Unconscious.I don't know about a trap.
But it is livin' dangerously!
It is, because it basically auto-stacks you with Wounded conditions, which is exacerbated with persistent damage, and now, having Wounded condition in combat is a death sentence.