Remaster: Clarification on Dying rules

[Kaspyr2077]

breithauptclan wrote:

Kaspyr2077 wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

It would be more believable if it wasn't the playtest document that you are talking about.

Some earlier version of the full PF2 rules? Maybe. But still only a maybe.

Having someone accidentally pull up the playtest rules - which is a completely separate document - and use that instead of the current PF2 rules? The likelyhood of that is staggeringly low.

That's your feelings, but what it has to do with anything, I don't know. Someone opening a system document that says "0.4" instead of "1.4" would not be a new or surprising thing in this space.

I was in the playtest.

There wasn't a Pathfinder2 v0.4 document.

There was the Pathfinder2 playtest document. Which only ever had one printing. Which I am not sure was ever actually printed. It may have been .pdf only. There were also several change documents that would overwrite various things in it.

The full Pathfinder2 Core Rulebook and Pathfinder2 Gamemastery Guide were separate documents from those. Which have been reprinted over the years. None of which have Playtest wording sneaking in.

I would not be shocked to hear that the game developers don't keep a copy of the playtest rules on their computer or at their desk at all.

When I said "0.4" and "1.4" I was giving an illustrative example, not making a specific accusation. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise. Are you okay?

I am more familiar with software development than I am rulebooks, but these days, most such projects are handled on a shared development server. A server that usually, for a number of reasons, contains many, many iterations of the documents being edited.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

When we've gotten to the point that somebody is badmouthing soft sciences and humanities, we're probably past the point of continuing meaningful discussion. At least it's a weekday...

[siegfriedliner]

Calliope5431 wrote:

Please chill, people.

The fact that they may or may not have intended all along for Wounded to work the way it's is presented in the Remaster is entirely irrelevant. Unless you're super invested in doing an I-told-you-so dance.

What matters is that these are the Remastered rules. There is no ambiguity whatsoever as to the text of "increase your dying level by 1 (plus your wounded value)". That is just how recovery checks work now, officially. I'm confident the devs know about these discussions, and they'll issue an errata if there actually was a mistake.

You may choose to play them in a different fashion, and I wouldn't judge anyone for doing that given most people don't play in the way the Remaster assumes right now.

But please chill.

I agree though there is a little ambiguity still when it comes to taking damage.

But it's clear the intent was to make pathfinder 2e more lethal which hasn't gone down tremendously well with about half the players I play with.

It's a definite pain point one that makes me less inclined to move on to the remaster.

[Kaspyr2077]

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

When we've gotten to the point that somebody is badmouthing soft sciences and humanities, we're probably past the point of continuing meaningful discussion. At least it's a weekday...

It's just 3BP. I usually browse more than post, but from what I've seen, this is business as usual.

[Sy Kerraduess]

3-Body Problem wrote:

We don't live in a world where conditions stack in discrete numbered amounts. If we did it would be perfectly acceptable to say that somebody gained gout and now has stage 2 gout; gout 2 if you will.

I have to disagree, a person would never say that someone gained cancer to mean they went from stage 1 to stage 2.

But you are touching on the core of the issue: gain is only used to describe an increase to an existing amount when the thing being described is not a discrete numbered amount. That is why you can gain weight but you cannot gain apple, you have to gain "another" apple. Similarly, you would have to gain the dying condition another time, you could not simply gain it to mean you went from 1 to 2.

[breithauptclan]

Kaspyr2077 wrote:

When I said "0.4" and "1.4" I was giving an illustrative example, not making a specific accusation. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise. Are you okay?

I am more familiar with software development than I am rulebooks, but these days, most such projects are handled on a shared development server. A server that usually, for a number of reasons, contains many, many iterations of the documents being edited.

I'm also in software development, not rulebook writing.

Which is why I mention that the playtest documents are not the same documents as the rulebooks.

The playtest document is like it is a different repo. One that hasn't been looked at in about 5 years. Experienced writers wouldn't pull it up since it isn't what they look at daily. New writers may not even have it because why would they need it.

So this wasn't caused by someone checking out the wrong branch - or whatever the equivalent of that would be in book writer terms.

[Kaspyr2077]

siegfriedliner wrote:

I agree though there is a little ambiguity still when it comes to taking damage.

But it's clear the intent was to make pathfinder 2e more lethal which hasn't gone down tremendously well with about half the players I play with.

It's a definite pain point one that makes me less inclined to move on to the remaster.

This is the heart of the issue. It's a pain point. It is broadly unpopular, which is why we're here discussing it with so much passion.

Another issue is that both sides are calling it a "clarification." It wasn't a clarification. The rules from last week are clear as can be on AON right now, and they're not this. They're a change.

Because they're a change - an unpopular change - we start taking a broader look at it. It isn't something the player base was talking about. It wasn't something the devs were talking about. It doesn't appear to fit neatly into the rules as they are in other sections.

What this change is is an unheralded reversion to an early playtest/misprinted GM screen version of the rules, that doesn't appear to serve anyone's interest.

End of the day, it won't affect me. I don't play PFS, and no sane group that knows better will run the rules this way. But this needs errata, one way or ther other.

[Kaspyr2077]

breithauptclan wrote:

Kaspyr2077 wrote:

When I said "0.4" and "1.4" I was giving an illustrative example, not making a specific accusation. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise. Are you okay?

I am more familiar with software development than I am rulebooks, but these days, most such projects are handled on a shared development server. A server that usually, for a number of reasons, contains many, many iterations of the documents being edited.

I'm also in software development, not rulebook writing.

Which is why I mention that the playtest documents are not the same documents as the rulebooks.

The playtest document is like it is a different repo. One that hasn't been looked at in about 5 years. Experienced writers wouldn't pull it up since it isn't what they look at daily. New writers may not even have it because why would they need it.

So this wasn't caused by someone checking out the wrong branch - or whatever the equivalent of that would be in book writer terms.

I brought it up because I have seen this precise thing happen MANY TIMES in the TTRPG space, so telling me that it wouldn't happen is... something.

However, as I said many times, it's not even my working hypothesis.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Fun fact: The deity that is dying to make way for the War of Immortals book is actually dead because of the changed Wounded rules.

[MadamReshi]

A different rule preference does not confer whether a group is 'sane' or not. Can we stop using loaded language? I don't even like what the rule is supposed to be. But insults do not lead to a constructive conversation.

The thing is, the Core Rulebook and the GM Screen have always disagreed; and they were released on the same day. The GM Screen states:

"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. The wounded condition ends if you receive HP from Treat Wounds, or if you’re restored to full HP and rest for 10 minutes."

This verbage is apparently what playtest documents stated before.

So. Is this a mistake in the GM Screen, or the Core Rulebook?

It seems the Remaster assumes that the Core Rulebook was wrong.

[breithauptclan]

Kaspyr2077 wrote:

However, as I said many times, it's not even my working hypothesis.

But you keep bringing up the playtest in your reasoning. Why?

------

I'm somewhat baffled by the response to this in general. Not liking a change is one thing. The strange reasonings that people are giving are something else entirely.

It is definitely errata - a change. Whether this version is what was originally intended by some non-zero number of the game developers is debatable - and quite honestly moot.

Yes, the change was intended. Despite the Wounded condition not also being changed to "If you gain or increase the dying condition while wounded...", that is clearly the intent based on the changes that were made.

I believe that the intent of this version of the Wounded and Dying condition mechanics is to further disincentivize 'yoyo' tactics. Which, yes - some people prefer. You are allowed to prefer those tactics and gameplay styles.

No, there is nothing wrong with running your games your way. The rules already say to do that rather explicitly. You don't need to get my permission for anything. Or even consensus among users of these forums. Or even a majority vote of the people on these forums. Or Reddit.

So I don't understand why people are grasping at such thin straws to try and prove their way of interpreting the new rules. Why are we debating the meaning of the word 'gain', or whether developers have copies of the playtest document from 5 years ago still on their computer or not?

Edit: Or devolving into name-calling...

[Errenor]

Calliope5431 wrote:

What matters is that these are the Remastered rules. There is no ambiguity whatsoever as to the text of "increase your dying level by 1 (plus your wounded value)". That is just how recovery checks work now, officially. I'm confident the devs know about these discussions, and they'll issue an errata if there actually was a mistake.

The problem is, Recovery Check rules and 'Taking Damage while Dying' still contradict full definitions of Wounded and Dying. Which remained the same. Wounded still doesn't say that it always adds itself to Dying. And no, 'gain' condition still doesn't mean 'increase' in context of the whole book. At least clearly. Dying still doesn't say that Wounded adds to it when getting damaged. 'Taking Damage while Dying' still 'reminds' of nonexistent something.

There are still mistakes somewhere. Still not really clear where. They do need to make rules consistent.

[MadamReshi]

I am personally quibbling whether this is pure errata or clarification because of the fact that this discrepancy has existed between two sources - the Core Rulebook and the GM Screen - since the start, but the Core Rulebook has won out, because it is the main game source over an accessory product and it is what is available on online sources. However, neither have been errata'd to match the other until now.

And it's causing a lot of confusion because it seems to make the game harder and lead to major debates over the 'right' course of action to take when someone is unconscious, that didn't exist before. And it affects anyone playing PFS who are going to use the clarified / errata'd rules.

Is there any variant in the new GM Core that has less deadly rules around Dying, Wounded and Recovery Checks?

[breithauptclan]

Errenor wrote:

Calliope5431 wrote:

What matters is that these are the Remastered rules. There is no ambiguity whatsoever as to the text of "increase your dying level by 1 (plus your wounded value)". That is just how recovery checks work now, officially. I'm confident the devs know about these discussions, and they'll issue an errata if there actually was a mistake.

The problem is, Recovery Check rules and 'Taking Damage while Dying' still contradict full definitions of Wounded and Dying. Which remained the same. Wounded still doesn't say that it always adds itself to Dying. And no, 'gain' condition still doesn't mean 'increase' in context of the whole book. At least clearly. Dying still doesn't say that Wounded adds to it when getting damaged. 'Taking Damage while Dying' still 'reminds' of nonexistent something.

There are still mistakes somewhere. Still not really clear where. They do need to make rules consistent.

The most generous ruling in favor of not adding Wounded value at all times is to not add it when you take damage while Dying.

Because the 'reminder' still doesn't point to an actual stated rule, then it is still technically ambiguous if stabbing someone while they are down will add 1 + Wounded to their Dying condition or just add 1 to their Dying condition.

There is no ambiguity for failing a Recovery check though.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

breithauptclan wrote:

I believe that the intent of this version of the Wounded and Dying condition mechanics is to further disincentivize 'yoyo' tactics.

In my opinion, "yo-yo tactics" are likely not something people "build around," but are something people regularly encounter due to how powerful monsters are in this edition. Higher level monsters critting (and consequently easily dropping) PCs on the regular means they are far more likely to be dropping multiple times in a given combat, because in one round, a big monster is doing maybe 30 points of damage from a bad round (hitting once on their primary attack, missing on their consecutive attacks), or 150 from a good round (2 crits and a hit on one player, or doing some "AoE" attack with a special monster ability that lands surprisingly well). Or, you have a bunch of enemies rolling insanely well and overwhelming the PCs with their action economy. No matter which way you slice it, the enemies are built tougher by the assumption of "The PCs are going to use optimal tactics to defeat these enemies." Which, honestly, gives a lot more of a gritty game feeling, a la Cthulhu, than it does a heroic fantasy feeling, where you just go in and beat the crap out of some monsters, devil may care.

Yes, we can sit and complain about playstyles, saying "Well, those are bad tactics, monsters shouldn't be hitting PCs that much because you can't sit there and go toe-to-toe with the enemy," but when you throw AoOs (or other reactions) into the mix, combined with larger enemies that have reach, or the monsters are significantly faster than you, it kind of disincentivizes things like disengaging an enemy to have them waste 2 actions chasing you (when it is maybe 1 of their actions for 2 of yours), and certain classes lose out a lot by having to disengage enemies all the time, when their biggest contributions can in fact be to sit there and throw everything they got at the baddie, since the set-up won't come up enough to be able to reliably disengage them. To this day, the two TPKs between the two gaming groups I've been a part of (one for each group, by the way,) has been from Larger enemies with AoOs, because they effectively nullify our ability to heal ourselves/allies, and turn them into nothing but wasted actions. When an enemy "forces" you to stand and fight (because doing anything else is far more punishing), it's no wonder people are resorting to "yo-yo tactics," or doing things like "attack at -10," because the game literally doesn't provide any other general means of confronting such enemies. Fight or die.

It's one reason why spells like Slow are so strong; because it does exactly the "disengaging" tactic you want without any of the action economy drawbacks done to your party.

[PossibleCabbage]

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

When we've gotten to the point that somebody is badmouthing soft sciences and humanities, we're probably past the point of continuing meaningful discussion. At least it's a weekday...

Whenever there's a "hard sciences are better than soft sciences" I always have to chuckle, because the main difference is that the "hard sciences" involve a lot more math, where as math itself, as an esoteric kind of fine art, belongs in the humanities.

[Deriven Firelion]

I hope someone from Paizo puts out an example, perhaps a blog, clearly explaining how this is supposed to work in play. 8 pages and another ruling sparking controversy and disagreement with the player base. Why do they do this to us?

[TriOmegaZero]

I don't think it fair to say Paizo does this to us. There's a shared responsibility.

[pH unbalanced]

Errenor wrote:

Calliope5431 wrote:

What matters is that these are the Remastered rules. There is no ambiguity whatsoever as to the text of "increase your dying level by 1 (plus your wounded value)". That is just how recovery checks work now, officially. I'm confident the devs know about these discussions, and they'll issue an errata if there actually was a mistake.

The problem is, Recovery Check rules and 'Taking Damage while Dying' still contradict full definitions of Wounded and Dying.

The Conditions section says that the Wounded condition description and the Dying condition description are incomplete, and the full rules are the ones on pages 410-411. So it doesn't matter if they are contradictory, because we know which ones are supposed to apply if they conflict.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I don't think it fair to say Paizo does this to us. There's a shared responsibility.

Shared at-best, self inflicted at-worst.

[TriOmegaZero]

Yeah, there have been plenty of threads on here that I would call self-inflicted by the community.

[Kaspyr2077]

pH unbalanced wrote:

The Conditions section says that the Wounded condition description and the Dying condition description are incomplete, and the full rules are the ones on pages 410-411. So it doesn't matter if they are contradictory, because we know which ones are supposed to apply if they conflict.

If you're fed a few pieces of candy orange slices, with a note on where to find the whole bag, and when you go looking, you find a moldy apple... perhaps questions should be asked.

[Kaspyr2077]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I don't think it fair to say Paizo does this to us. There's a shared responsibility.

Shared at-best, self inflicted at-worst.

No. This is a huge and unwelcome change that Paizo surprised us with. Of course there's going to be discussion about it. Of course some are going to analyze it to death. Of course some are going to leap to Paizo's defense. It's entirely predictable from the release of the book. Thus, it starts with Paizo.

[breithauptclan]

Kaspyr2077 wrote:

pH unbalanced wrote:

The Conditions section says that the Wounded condition description and the Dying condition description are incomplete, and the full rules are the ones on pages 410-411. So it doesn't matter if they are contradictory, because we know which ones are supposed to apply if they conflict.

If you're fed a few pieces of candy orange slices, with a note on where to find the whole bag, and when you go looking, you find a moldy apple... perhaps questions should be asked.

I think your analogy is a bit off.

If the website for a hotel says that cats and dogs have an additional charge, and the room rental agreement lists a $10 charge for the cat, but the flyer that was sent in the mail doesn't say anything about it... I don't think you can dispute the charge successfully.

[Guntermench]

Kaspyr2077 wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

Kaspyr2077 wrote:

However, as I said many times, it's not even my working hypothesis.

But you keep bringing up the playtest in your reasoning. Why?

Because that is the last known source of this rule. How is that difficult? If it was entirely original, that would be one thing, but it is a version of the rule that has existed, was officially cut in 2018, and that some people still run, not knowing better.

breithauptclan wrote:

I'm somewhat baffled by the response to this in general. Not liking a change is one thing. The strange reasonings that people are giving are something else entirely.

It is definitely errata - a change. Whether this version is what was originally intended by some non-zero number of the game developers is debatable - and quite honestly moot.

Yes, the change was intended. Despite the Wounded condition not also being changed to "If you gain or increase the dying condition while wounded...", that is clearly the intent based on the changes that were made.

I believe that the intent of this version of the Wounded and Dying condition mechanics is to further disincentivize 'yoyo' tactics. Which, yes - some people prefer. You are allowed to prefer those tactics and gameplay styles.

No, there is nothing wrong with running your games your way. The rules already say to do that rather explicitly. You don't need to get my permission for anything. Or even consensus among users of these forums. Or even a majority vote of the people on these forums. Or Reddit.

So I don't understand why people are grasping at such thin straws to try and prove their way of interpreting the new rules. Why are we debating the meaning of the word 'gain', or whether developers have copies of the playtest document from 5 years ago still on their computer or not?

Edit: Or devolving into name-calling...

Why would the change be made, though?

Is it because the game isn't lethal enough? No, most people agree that the game is...

It's actually not the last known source of the rule. It's in the Beginner's box too. It's also on the GM Screen and I believe the Condition Cards.

So it didn't exactly disappear entirely. Might not be in the CRB for page layout reasons, been a while since I've opened the PDF.

As an aside, the Beginner's Box also says you just immediately die if you have Wounded and roll a critical failure. That I haven't seen anywhere else, but clearly someone at Paizo likes a lethal game.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Kaspyr2077 wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I don't think it fair to say Paizo does this to us. There's a shared responsibility.

Shared at-best, self inflicted at-worst.

No. This is a huge and unwelcome change that Paizo surprised us with. Of course there's going to be discussion about it. Of course some are going to analyze it to death. Of course some are going to leap to Paizo's defense. It's entirely predictable from the release of the book. Thus, it starts with Paizo.

"Huge and unwelcome" isn't as objective as you make it out to be, and while we can white-room it to death, how it works in actual play is a whole other animal.

I am not going to say I am not one bit surprised by this change, and feel that characters aren't far more fragile than before. But I would at least give it a fair shake (that is, use it in actual gameplay) before I go out and say Paizo did wrong here. Maybe this change is a good thing and will both help players not do stupid things as well as help GMs with balance considerations. Maybe Paizo did indeed overstep a change. (It wouldn't be the first time, in my opinion.)

But going out and saying "this rule is bad" without actually playing with it just seems like a hot take with a refusal to even try it out and see if it genuinely is an issue in actual play.

[Kaspyr2077]

Guntermench wrote:

stuff

This has already been mentioned in the thread repeatedly. I have specifically used them to illustrate a potential failure point several times. Those products were made using the playtest ruleset. Therefore, the playtest ruleset is the last known source of the rule. So I'll say it again. People who learned to play during the playtest, OR USING MISPRINTED PRODUCTS USING PLAYTEST RULES, continue to not be aware that the rules they have been using for five years were wrong. Until a few days ago, when, for some reason, they weren't.

To me, it is more plausible that one of those people worked on pages 410-411 than to think that the writers took a fresh look at the Recovery Check and Dying rules and decided that what they needed was the re-introduction of those misprinted rules, because darn it, those rules just aren't complicated or punishing enough.

[Kaspyr2077]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Kaspyr2077 wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I don't think it fair to say Paizo does this to us. There's a shared responsibility.

Shared at-best, self inflicted at-worst.

No. This is a huge and unwelcome change that Paizo surprised us with. Of course there's going to be discussion about it. Of course some are going to analyze it to death. Of course some are going to leap to Paizo's defense. It's entirely predictable from the release of the book. Thus, it starts with Paizo.

"Huge and unwelcome" isn't as objective as you make it out to be, and while we can white-room it to death, how it works in actual play is a whole other animal.

I am not going to say I am not one bit surprised by this change, and feel that characters aren't far more fragile than before. But I would at least give it a fair shake (that is, use it in actual gameplay) before I go out and say Paizo did wrong here. Maybe this change is a good thing and will both help players not do stupid things as well as help GMs with balance considerations. Maybe Paizo did indeed overstep a change. (It wouldn't be the first time, in my opinion.)

But going out and saying "this rule is bad" without actually playing with it just seems like a hot take with a refusal to even try it out and see if it genuinely is an issue in actual play.

... Do you actually believe it's such a huge and complicated change that it requires an in-depth play experience review? It changes the math of how Wounded and Dying interact. For most purposes, switching to the new system is the reverse of taking the Diehard feat. You lose distance between your character and death. It's not complicated. I know what it's like to play both with and without Diehard. Now I am assigned Die-Easy automatically. Only it gets exponentially worse if the fight goes poorly for a while.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Kaspyr2077 wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Kaspyr2077 wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I don't think it fair to say Paizo does this to us. There's a shared responsibility.

Shared at-best, self inflicted at-worst.

No. This is a huge and unwelcome change that Paizo surprised us with. Of course there's going to be discussion about it. Of course some are going to analyze it to death. Of course some are going to leap to Paizo's defense. It's entirely predictable from the release of the book. Thus, it starts with Paizo.

"Huge and unwelcome" isn't as objective as you make it out to be, and while we can white-room it to death, how it works in actual play is a whole other animal.

I am not going to say I am not one bit surprised by this change, and feel that characters aren't far more fragile than before. But I would at least give it a fair shake (that is, use it in actual gameplay) before I go out and say Paizo did wrong here. Maybe this change is a good thing and will both help players not do stupid things as well as help GMs with balance considerations. Maybe Paizo did indeed overstep a change. (It wouldn't be the first time, in my opinion.)

But going out and saying "this rule is bad" without actually playing with it just seems like a hot take with a refusal to even try it out and see if it genuinely is an issue in actual play.

... Do you actually believe it's such a huge and complicated change that it requires an in-depth play experience review? It changes the math of how Wounded and Dying interact. For most purposes, switching to the new system is the reverse of taking the Diehard feat. You lose distance between your character and death. It's not complicated. I know what it's like to play both with and without Diehard. Now I am assigned Die-Easy automatically. Only it gets exponentially worse if the fight goes poorly for a while.

That is an oversimplification that is also not precisely accurate, since you are proposing that everyone has essentially become Doomed 1 automatically, and the rules don't even effectively say that.

[Jonathan Morgantini]

locked for flags