|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, it's not healing people back from Dying that kills them. It is if they get back to Dying after.
It is good to be able to stand up and Stride out of potential AoEs and attacks because you won't be in the middle of the fight anymore.
What could be done (rarely, but it happened) was come back once, be healed a bit and go back to combat because even with a crit you would not go straight to Dying 4 and were very likely to survive being downed a second time.
With the Remastered rule, this tactic becomes far far more risky.
And in any case, do not take persistent damage if possible and get rid of it as soon as you can.
My concept of a non-hostile buffer who specializes in helping others get rid of persistent damage just became much more valuable.
Ill just entirely ignore that if it proves to be the case
Huh, what happened? I always thought it worked like,
1) You die if your Dying + Wounded >= 4,
...did it become,
2) You die if your Dying * (1 + Wounded) >= 4,
...really? Am I interpreting this straight???
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really think playing the game this way will see more individual player death and less TPKs, most true TPKs I have seen resulted from the rest of the party over committing actions to save an unconscious PC. Having the cycle of “are they dead or not?” Shorter should lead to less full turns spent trying to get a character up, but still trying to fight it. It was never “everyone failed their death saves” that resulted in TPKs.
Huh, what happened? I always thought it worked like,
1) You die if your Dying + Wounded >= 4,
That was never a thing. You could be Dying 3 and Wounded 1 and still be alive. You die at dying 4. Wounded is irrelevant when determining the moment of death.
Where Wounded comes into play is when you get or increase the dying condition. The old most common interpretation was:
"When you get the dying condition, add your Wounded value to it." And that was it.
The other interpretation, which apparaently is the "correct" one used in the remaster, is:
"When you get or increase the dying condition, add your Wounded value to it."
So if you go down from a normal hit while you are Wounded 1, you go to dying 2. With the "old" interpretation, you could then take damage or fail your stabilize check and go to dying 3, but you would still be alive. With the "new" interpretation, you add your Wounded 1 condition to the Dying increase, taking you to from Dying 2 to Dying 4 (i.e. Death).
|
|
I agree that if they're Wounded 0 it's probably a better idea to just heal them. That hand really changed.
If they're Wounded 1 or 2 already, it might be better to just stop them from currently actively dying. They only, usually, will have to worry about AoE at that point and not being a target. Especially if the enemy is still right next to them and healing them is just going to get them put down again right away anyway.
Obviously there will be situations where it isn't ideal, but it's much more useful than before.
GMs will just need to have opponents not waste a Strike on a fleeing PC. Much like PCs did with fleeing opponents.
So, Wounded PC ? Let them stand up and Stride away.
Wounded PC who picks up their weapon, Stand up and Strike or Raise Shield or whatever and stays in melee range ? Hack the suicidal fool to pieces.
As a player, I will definitely put my Wounded PC out of melee range, and maybe out of combat range ASAP.
Reach spell and ranged weapons never looked so good.
Here's Combat in Pathfinder 2E | How does it work? | Jason Bulmahn, posted on his personal youtube channel in February. He talks about Death and Dying at 1:04:32 and the wounded condition at 1:08:18. Interestingly, in the dying section, he doesn't mention the fact that on a failure, dying increases by 1 plus your wounded value, and in the wounded section, he only ever says that wounded increases the value of the initial dying.That ... really does seem to completely contradict Mark Seifter's comment about designer consensus on how the rules are meant to work, and all the "it was always clear you fools" garbage here and on Reddit, hey.
Well, sure. Any development team is going to have differing opinions on what the individual developers prefer and intend.
In software development that is the sole cause of a particular type of bug called an integration error - where the individual components created by different people all work fine when the developer creates and tests them independently, but the components don't work together correctly in the unified system.
So yes. I see this being as contentious among the developers as it is among the players. I see no reason why tables shouldn't run their games using the pre-Remaster Wounded rules if they want to. I definitely call this a change or errata rather than just a clarification.
The only things I don't agree with is the claim that adding Wounded to your Dying value every time your Dying value increases is not RAW in the Remaster, and various people's hyperbole that this change is going to ruin the game as a whole.
Here's a quick edge case to soundboard off yall.
If someone who's down and dying "takes damage" that means dying goes up.
Let's say an Alchemist has fed someone a Numbing Tonic (+temp HP) and an Energy Mutagen (type dmg resistance).
The dying character takes damage from that fireball, but the buffs are enough that when they take damage, it only hurts the temp HP.
Basically, does "taking damage," but only to temp HP, progress dying, or does it not?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other edge to that case of Temp HP being if the Temp HP allow you to stand up and continue fighting or not. So I think there are at least three possible rulings. Probably four.
One possible ruling: Temp HP acts like Healing. If Temp HP are considered close enough to regular HP that it allows you to get up and fight, then it should also cause you to lose Dying and gain Wounded. And if you then lose some of those Temp HP, but not enough to cause you to lose them all, then you don't regain the Dying condition. You still have a positive number of effective HP even if they are all Temp HP. Once you do lose all the Temp HP, then you gain the Dying condition again, modified by Wounded.
A second possible ruling: Temp HP acts like Healing but doesn't let you regain consciousness. You lose the Dying condition and gain the Wounded condition. Damage that doesn't exhaust the Temp HP won't cause you to regain Dying.
A third possible ruling: Temp HP acts like Stabilize. You lose the Dying condition and gain the Wounded condition and don't regain consciousness. If you take damage it causes you to increase your Dying condition again, modified by Wounded.
A fourth possible ruling: Temp HP doesn't help much at all. You don't lose the Dying condition or gain the Wounded condition. If you take damage, you still increase your Dying condition as normal for taking damage while Dying. The Temp HP tracking is somewhat moot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always played it that temp HP follows the logic of resistance, so it can't cure dying but it can prevent dying from progressing if it stops all damage.
Up to five possible rulings now. Awesome.
| 2 people 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.
Notably, it didn't change, as a lot of people have pointed out on reddit, a lot of groups already did interpret the rules in line with the original intent.
The thing about a "meta" is that it can't help but change, so bemoaning "changes to the meta" is pointless.
It's very easy for individual tables to change the death and dying rules to be exactly what they want them to be (this intersects very little of the rest of the game).
The one thing I could see happening is for PFS to issue a clarification for a gentler set of death rules since you're not really playing with optimized parties there. That would seem appropriate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I find annoying is that for failing a death save in the player core they have it clearly and neatly spelled out that you add your wounded to your dying when failing a death save but for the taking damage rule they didn't just repeat the same clear formating again. It would have been so simple to just say when you take damage and 1+wounded or 2+wounded. But instead they say add a second paragraph with a reminder to add wounded without tying it directly to take damage section.
Oh, is that a separate paragraph now? Previously it was just a second sentence that had the reminder.
And that reminder existing in the Damage while Dying rules is one of the biggest indicators that 'this is how it was always supposed to be'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the number 1 takeaway from this whole debacle is that PF2's dying system is not explained in enough detail to make up for its complexity, which leads to vastly different implementations from table to table that can completely change the feel of the game.
This is true both before and after the remaster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is true both before and after the remaster.
Curious on this. Are the rules in the Remaster actually ambiguous?
Certainly there are people who don't like the change. There will still be plenty of tables running it with the pre-Remaster rules for Wounded condition. But that is because they prefer those rules.
But does the Remaster rules - if read on their own with no preconceived notions - actually indicate that anything is still ambiguous?
|
|
I've always played it that temp HP follows the logic of resistance, so it can't cure dying but it can prevent dying from progressing if it stops all damage.
This seems to be in line with the pre-Remaster RAW :
"Some spells or abilities give you temporary Hit Points. Track these separately from your current and maximum Hit Points; when you take damage, reduce your temporary Hit Points first. "
Your current HPs are not going above 0. But new damage will go to the temporary HPs first.
Not calling them HPs (even with "temporary" added) would have made this clearer. Something like Buffer Points for example.
Not sure I agree that THP prevents you from incrementing dying. Nothing in the RAW suggests you aren't taking damage, merely that when you do take damage, THP is reduced first.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, they are ambiguous. The "change" is only stated in a "reminder," is not hinted at elsewhere, and is notably absent from the explanation of the Wounded condition.This is true both before and after the remaster.Curious on this. Are the rules in the Remaster actually ambiguous?
Certainly there are people who don't like the change. There will still be plenty of tables running it with the pre-Remaster rules for Wounded condition. But that is because they prefer those rules.
But does the Remaster rules - if read on their own with no preconceived notions - actually indicate that anything is still ambiguous?
I haven't seen anyone post the full Wounded condition text yet. So I can't argue against that part.
But I have seen where adding Wounded to failing a Recovery check was added.
So adding Wounded when you drop to 0 HP and gain the Dying condition is already there pre-Remaster.
Adding Wounded when you fail a Recovery check is explicit.
Adding Wounded when you take damage while Dying has the reminder to add Wounded (which it had pre-Remaster too).
While the wording might be a bit cludgy, is there any scenario where it doesn't explicitly mention adding Wounded when you gain or increase Dying?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... because positive hp eliminates both conditions?
Nope. The wounded condition is only removed in one of two ways:
You have been seriously injured during a fight. Anytime you lose the dying condition, you become wounded 1 if you didn’t already have the wounded condition. If you already have the wounded condition, your wounded condition value instead increases by 1. If you gain the dying condition while wounded, increase the dying condition’s value by your wounded value. The wounded condition ends if someone successfully restores Hit Points to you with Treat Wounds, or if you are restored to full Hit Points and rest for 10 minutes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like if I enjoyed healing I might of been fine with this change but playing a healer in PF2e is kind of a chore compared to most of the tactical ttrpgs I play and this just kind of makes it more of one.
As someone who enjoys healing I am very against this change because it punishes my teammates if I heal them.
If someone ever goes down and I heal them back up - I am essentially killing their character now.
To me that is extremely "toxic" to healers.
.
|
I haven't seen anyone post the full Wounded condition text yet. So I can't argue against that part.
Here you go, from page 447 of the Player Core:
WOUNDED
You have been seriously injured. If you lose the dying condition and do not already have the wounded condition, you become wounded 1. If you already have the wounded condition when you lose the dying condition, your wounded condition value increases by 1. If you gain the dying condition while wounded, increase your dying condition value by your wounded value.
The wounded condition ends if someone successfully restores Hit Points to you using Treat Wounds, or if you are restored to full Hit Points by any means and rest for 10 minutes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like if I enjoyed healing I might of been fine with this change but playing a healer in PF2e is kind of a chore compared to most of the tactical ttrpgs I play and this just kind of makes it more of one.As someone who enjoys healing I am very against this change because it punishes my teammates if I heal them.
If someone ever goes down and I heal them back up - I am essentially killing their character now.
To me that is extremely "toxic" to healers.
.
As counterpoint - not to invalidate your position and thoughts on the matter:
I also enjoy playing healer characters. I have two - one in Age of Ashes and one in PFS.
I generally heal allies before they drop. I don't see this change as a nerf.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I generally heal allies before they drop. I don't see this change as a nerf.
That doesn't always work. You can't guarantee they will never go down.
What really bothers me about this change (if it's not a typo as I currently suspect based on Rules Lawyer's Analysis) is that it makes playing a healer a toxic choice.
Healing or even just stabilizing any ally that has gone down is essentially a PvP move now
- you're nearly ensuring their character will die.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure I agree that THP prevents you from incrementing dying. Nothing in the RAW suggests you aren't taking damage, merely that when you do take damage, THP is reduced first.
As I see it, the stacks of dying absorb any damage that would take you below 0 HP. So long as damage would not take you below zero HP, then there is no reason for a stack of dying to interpose itself and take the hit for you.
As a more in-character justification, it seems wrong for a dying character to die when you notch (but do not breach) the magical force field protecting them.
That's just my take of RAI though, I could be wrong.
If you do go with THP acting like HP instead of resistance, then to stay consistent you should also have THP cure the dying condition. If nothing in RAW says that losing THP isn't taking damage, then also nothing in RAW says that gaining THP isn't being healed above 0.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't seen anyone post the full Wounded condition text yet. So I can't argue against that part.Here you go, from page 447 of the Player Core:
WOUNDED
You have been seriously injured. If you lose the dying condition and do not already have the wounded condition, you become wounded 1. If you already have the wounded condition when you lose the dying condition, your wounded condition value increases by 1. If you gain the dying condition while wounded, increase your dying condition value by your wounded value.
The wounded condition ends if someone successfully restores Hit Points to you using Treat Wounds, or if you are restored to full Hit Points by any means and rest for 10 minutes.
OK. I'm not seeing any change to that at all.
Which is a bit unfortunate. It does mean that the reminder in Taking Damage while Dying doesn't point to much. One of the two should be reworded at some point.
But it does still mention that adding Wounded when taking damage and increasing Dying condition is intended. It is really hard to argue that it isn't intended since every other time that you gain or increase Dying it adds Wounded value also.
I generally heal allies before they drop. I don't see this change as a nerf.That doesn't always work. You can't guarantee they will never go down.
What really bothers me about this change (if it's not a typo as I currently suspect based on Rules Lawyer's Analysis) is that it makes playing a healer a toxic choice.
Healing or even just stabilizing any ally that has gone down is essentially a PvP move now
- you're nearly ensuring their character will die.
As has been stated repeatedly in this thread and in other spaces already:
1. Being unconscious is still more deadly unless your DM is using targeting logic that ignore Dying characters but don’t ignore fleeing characters. All things equal, Dying is scarier than Stabilized, Stabilized is scarier than near-death, and near-death is scarier than healthy. Getting Wounded and choosing to return to the fight (the default behavior) is now a very risky proposition.
2. Tables have been playing with this interpretation for years, and if you read comments from those that identify as such, the general summary is that while it is deadlier, it’s remedied by a shift in tactics to put greater priority on avoiding Dying and protecting those who fall. It doesn’t require hyper min-maxing or treating everything like Dark Souls or giving up on the idea of a heroic fantasy narrative.
It may not be your table’s cup of tea, and that’s totally fine.
That doesn't always work. You can't guarantee they will never go down.
I generally heal allies before they drop. I don't see this change as a nerf.
I am aware. I do actually play these characters.
What really bothers me about this change (if it's not a typo as I currently suspect based on Rules Lawyer's Analysis) is that it makes playing a healer a toxic choice.
Healing or even just stabilizing any ally that has gone down is essentially a PvP move now
- you're nearly ensuring their character will die.
That depends more on GM style and player expectations than anything in the rules. If the players that take a dirt nap and get healed don't retreat from battle, then yes - they are kind of sealing their own fate. If the GM is actively attacking wounded characters despite the fact that they are retreating from battle, then it is the GM that is sealing the fate of these characters.
Neither of those should be seen as the healer character's fault.
-----
I'm also curious how it could possibly be thought that changing from this to this could be seen as a typo.
Adding "(plus your wounded value, if any)" twice seems rather deliberate.
|
|
So, just to be clear about how this guidance appears in the Player Core:
In the Conditions Section under both the Dying and Wounded conditions, it is stated that you should increase your Dying Value by your Wounded Value when you first fall to 0 hp, but doesn't mention doing so in any other cases.
In a sidebar on the page with the Dying condition (p443),
The doomed, dying, unconscious, and wounded conditions all relate to the process of coming closer to death. The full rules are on pages 410–411. The most significant information not contained in the conditions themselves is this: When you’re reduced to 0 Hit Points, you’re knocked out with the following effects:
• You immediately move your initiative position to directly before the creature or effect that reduced you to 0 Hit Points.
• You gain the dying 1 condition. If the effect that knocked you out was a critical success from the attacker or the result of your critical failure, you gain the dying 2 condition instead. If you have the wounded condition, increase these values by your wounded value. If the damage came from a nonlethal attack or effect, you don’t gain the dying condition—you are instead unconscious with 0 Hit Points.
On page 411, the rules for Recovery Check are listed as follows:
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 worse.
Critical 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).
And the rule for Taking Damage is listed as follows
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 don't like this rule, but because it is explicitly called out twice, it seems clear that it is intended. The sidebar on p443 should probably have called it out as significant, but the sections that *don't* reference it are specifically called out as not the full rules. To me that kills any whiff of ambiguity.
EDIT: Added full text for the Sidebar
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't seen anyone post the full Wounded condition text yet. So I can't argue against that part.Here you go, from page 447 of the Player Core:
WOUNDED
You have been seriously injured. If you lose the dying condition and do not already have the wounded condition, you become wounded 1. If you already have the wounded condition when you lose the dying condition, your wounded condition value increases by 1. If you gain the dying condition while wounded, increase your dying condition value by your wounded value.
The wounded condition ends if someone successfully restores Hit Points to you using Treat Wounds, or if you are restored to full Hit Points by any means and rest for 10 minutes.OK. I'm not seeing any change to that at all.
Which is a bit unfortunate. It does mean that the reminder in Taking Damage while Dying doesn't point to much. One of the two should be reworded at some point.
But it does still mention that adding Wounded when taking damage and increasing Dying condition is intended. It is really hard to argue that it isn't intended since every other time that you gain or increase Dying it adds Wounded value also.
Actually the Wounded Rules there contradict the "new" rule in recovery checks.
In the quote there for Wounded it says to add wounded value when you GAIN the dying condition. Not to re-add it to every time you increment your dying value.
So if we go by that text in Wounded remaster has NOT changed how dying and wounded works. If we go by the parenthetical included to the side of the recovery checks - then remaster has changed it.
.
I'm also curious how it could possibly be thought that changing from this to this could be seen as a typo.
Adding "(plus your wounded value, if any)" twice seems rather deliberate.
1. Not updated under the Wounded Condition.
2. The "new" added text isn't actually new. If we believe "Rules Laywer" It's from the 2018 playtest copy before PF2E came out. It was removed before the game went "live", though it did show up on a GM screen. With an "all hands on deck" task in the remaster, someone has pulled in text from the playtest that had previously been removed and then NOT fixed in 4 rounds of errata. Nor noticed by the teams putting PF2E into VTTs (the Foundry one is at least closely aligned with Paizo).a: That was done on purpose without approval <--- Highly unlikely.
b: That was done on purpose with approval.
c: Someone not normally on the rules team copied text from the wrong document. They could have copied from the 2018 playtest or from the GM screen.
B or C are the likely scenarios.
Given that even the remaster has self-contradictory text between the Recovery Check section and the Wounded Condition description... Paizo needs to clarify this one - and one of those two sections needs errata to match the other one.
We'd all be shocked if A was the case, I only listed it as it's possible but extremely unlikely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is so unnecessarily hostile.
They were referencing the varying descriptions found across the CRB and GM materials, a full discussion of which is summarized here (https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/176z4ya/how_does_your_table _run_wounded_and_dying_a_poll/) and predates Remaster tweaks.