|
Lol It seems like when your Pharasma collecting souls the too good to be true rule doesn't apply to you.IMO, it's telling that prior to the remaster, the "intended" Dying/Wounded rules could only be found on optional secondary content, that is neither required to play nor expected to grace every table, while the "unintended" rules were front and centre in all core material.Not quite. We had this in the CRB according to AoN :
"Taking Damage while Dying
Source Core Rulebook pg. 459 4.0If 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."
When it was debated on the Rules forum prior to Remaster, the boards' consensus was that it did not apply : either a typo or a reminder of what happens when you first go to Dying.
Looks like we were wrong.
TBT it already did not apply to the vast majority of NPCs. And the rest are in the same boat as PCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t see a benefit to the dev team commenting. All it will do is fuel further arguments, not solve anything.
I can easily see the benefit of errata on the Wounded condition to actually say that you add the value of Wounded to any increase of Dying.
I can see the benefit of someone on the dev team writing a blog post that explains that they are indeed trying to further disincentivize trying to win a battle that the party is losing - that when the characters start dropping the battle is being lost and it is time to start thinking about how to leave the battle rather than continuing to fight while Wounded. Or whatever other reasoning that they have for clarifying the rules in this direction instead of in the direction of only adding Wounded when you first regain Dying again.
My issue with the new dying rules is less the lethality they have in of themselves and more the disasterous way they interact with persistent damage. If you have wounded 1, and a source of persistent damage and get knocked to zero, the party has exactly 1 turn to bring you into the positive before your dead.
Drowning is also even nastier. The only PFS Death I've seen in my 20-ish sessions was due to those damn brine sharks in the season 5 intro dragging somebody 60 feet under. The new dying rules would have changed his odds of survival from "Low, but it's possible the other guy who got dragged down with most of his hit points left and the dragon turtle scale affixed might be able to drag his dying body in range of the cleric on the surface," to "Dead as soon as the shark dropped him to 0 down there."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t see a benefit to the dev team commenting. All it will do is fuel further arguments, not solve anything.
Oh, absolutely, language is pretty clear RN from what I've seen, there is no much to say on their part.
Thing is, saying that we don't like this change/clarification and discussing why is important so we might influence Paizo to change it in the future with another errata.
In the same way that it is important that those that like or don't mind this change speak up as well.
As long as people do it with composure, of course (which probably won't end up being the case).
Do you all feel the new dying rules make stuff like toughness, orc ferocity, die hard, or bounce back strong options?
Actually looking at Orc heritage feats you think they made the dying rule changes to give the racial traits of the Orc a buff?
I mean looking at the ancestry feats everything talked about so far about dying in this thread is made easier to deal with if your an orc.
Orc ferocity line of feats(4feats total), defy death, scarthick skin for persistent bleeds.
Its like the new rules were made to make these matter a lot more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you all feel the new dying rules make stuff like toughness, orc ferocity, die hard, or bounce back strong options?
Toughness and Diehard: The standard ones that every character took because they completely overshadowed all other general feats... Let's see...
Toughness increases your HP. Which helps prevent you from dropping in the first place. That alone still makes it a strong option. Lowering the recovery check DC is a minor perk and always was.
Diehard lessens the time pressure for the rest of the party. It lets them ignore your Dying condition and simply win the fight without you after you went down in a risky attempt that didn't pan out. It isn't going to do much if you get healed up a bit and decide to jump back into the fight that is still in the balance while having the Wounded condition. It is still useful, but I haven't ever thought it was as strong as Toughness.
Orc Ferocity is about on par with Diehard. It helps you to mitigate problems caused by a risky gamble that didn't pan out. If you use it, you don't drop your stuff or fall prone. Which makes it that much easier for you to disengage from battle before something more serious happens. Still not recommended to continue fighting while at 1 HP and Wounded. Never was, even with the lesser ruling on Wounded.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you all feel the new dying rules make stuff like toughness, orc ferocity, die hard, or bounce back strong options?
Numb to Death looks quite a bit more powerful with the Remastered Wounded rules...
It does let you yoyo once per day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, you admit that there is still room for argument that could use some improved clarity. I agree. Thank you.
I see no reason to not concede the ambiguity of the current Wounded trait rules.
That doesn't mean that I concede on the point that the developers did intend to change the way that Wounded and Dying work. I think the current Remastered rules - ambiguous as they still are - are clearly showing the intent to run it with Wounded added when Dying increases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hero points. Just choose not to die?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you all feel the new dying rules make stuff like toughness, orc ferocity, die hard, or bounce back strong options?
Toughness was already a given. Diehard being more worthwhile is nice too, as so few general feats have value to begin with, and bounce back being better now can be nice too.
Orc ferocity can be useful, but it can also just be useless if you'll just go down to the next attack or the next enemy in the initiative order. Same as it is now honestly.
Don't quite understand the blowback on the dying rules though. The system was already fully willing to kill you if you got unlucky, did something particularly ill-advised, or built your character and/or party very poorly. You can just as easily be killed or made irrelevant by any number of save-or-sucks or save-or-lose spells as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a minor note regarding errata. I think it would also be argument-ending errata to remove the words 'remember to' from the Taking Damage While Dying rules.
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, add the value of your wounded condition to your dying value.
At that point it is no longer reminder text to a rule that doesn't exist - it is the rule on its own.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bounce Back and Orc Ferocity are fine and all, but the true winner of the Remaster is the Living Monolith Archetype!
Look at the basic Archetype Dedication benefit!
If you fail a recovery check while dying, your dying condition does not increase; if you critically fail, your dying condition increases by only 1.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But in your archetypal fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard party, the fighter is likely the one who's more likely to be able to survive and take damage.
You do realize that this "archetypal" party is extremely fragile? The Fighter being incapacitated is likely followed by a TPK.
The fact that Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard was archetypal in D&D first edition is hardly a valid argument to explain why the new dying rules will lead to tons of TPKs.I personally play a lot of healers and I was already not healing downed characters. It was mostly a weak move (even if a friendly one, I agree).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But in your archetypal fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard party, the fighter is likely the one who's more likely to be able to survive and take damage.You do realize that this "archetypal" party is extremely fragile? The Fighter being incapacitated is likely followed by a TPK.
The fact that Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard was archetypal in D&D first edition is hardly a valid argument to explain why the new dying rules will lead to tons of TPKs.I personally play a lot of healers and I was already not healing downed characters. It was mostly a weak move (even if a friendly one, I agree).
I'm not sure there is a single archetypal party composition. I have heard Fighter/Rogue/Champion/Bard being highly regarded though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other question here in terms of how much this changes how the game plays is beyond the encounter when someone goes down. I'd assume it's now beyond the question to push on if you can't clear the Wounded condition.
So you've got to Treat Wounds to clear that. Which also means you probably shouldn't rely on Treat Wounds just to heal up, since then you won't be able to clear Wounded. Unless you're in a place where you can safely hole up for an hour of course.Seems to me this could dramatically shorten the adventuring day.
Wounded goes away on successful healing with treat wounds as well as going to max hp
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure there is a single archetypal party composition. I have heard Fighter/Rogue/Champion/Bard being highly regarded though.
What does "archetypal party composition" means in the context of a game with 12 base classes?
If it means "strong party" then if the new dying rules invalid the "strong party" of yesterday it's likely a good thing not a bad one.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other question here in terms of how much this changes how the game plays is beyond the encounter when someone goes down. I'd assume it's now beyond the question to push on if you can't clear the Wounded condition.
So you've got to Treat Wounds to clear that. Which also means you probably shouldn't rely on Treat Wounds just to heal up, since then you won't be able to clear Wounded. Unless you're in a place where you can safely hole up for an hour of course.Seems to me this could dramatically shorten the adventuring day.
Did something change that I am not yet aware of?
Treat Wounds will clear the Wounded condition any time you succeed at the action. So it happens at the same time as healing up with Treat Wounds. Even if you don't fully heal up with the action.
If anything, you need to rely on Treat Wounds more, since the only other way to remove Wounded is by being at full HP and resting for 10 minutes.
But if you are healing up using focus point spells and no one has Treat Wounds, that heal to full and rest 10 minutes process is still available and shouldn't be too inconvenient.
If you go way back its fighter rogue wizard cleric elf and dwarf and halfling
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
or there's a serious problem with the game.
1 party composition out of 20736 (counting only core classes) being "too fragile" is hardly a serious problem with the game.
Also, the new Dying rules don't change that this party has one big weakness: a lack of frontline tankyness outside the Fighter. It was the case preremaster as much as it's the case post remaster.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is it that's uniquely fragile about that one that wouldn't be the case for hundreds of others, then? Would replacing the Fighter with a Barbarian, a more fragile class, be less fragile? Would replacing the Wizard with the Witch make a profound difference?
You're saying that a certain party is too fragile, but that's fine, because it's just one party composition, but you haven't justified why that composition is uniquely fragile in a way that hundreds of others are not, and why it's okay that anyone who ignorantly falls into this trap deserves to fail.
I was reacting to your hyperbole of considering there's a serious problem with the game because of the Dying rules change. As if suddenly casual players will experience tons of TPKs.
Healing downed characters was already a weak move. The prone and weaponless Fighter has hard time saving the day before and after remaster.
or there's a serious problem with the game.1 party composition out of 20736 (counting only core classes) being "too fragile" is definitely a serious problem with the game.What is it that's uniquely fragile about that one that wouldn't be the case for hundreds of others, then? Would replacing the Fighter with a Barbarian, a more fragile class, be less fragile? Would replacing the Wizard with the Witch make a profound difference?
You're saying that a certain party is too fragile, but that's fine, because it's just one party composition, but you haven't justified why that composition is uniquely fragile in a way that hundreds of others are not, and why it's okay that anyone who ignorantly falls into this trap deserves to fail.
While I understand the technicalities of pointing out that 1/20736 is not a valid measurement, I think you both are engaging in a lot of hyperbole.
Yes, there are a lot of party compositions that are going to be very fragile. Ones loaded up with spellcasters and other 8 HP martial classes.
It isn't that such compositions won't work, but it does require adjustments to either the party's tactics (Mathmuse can give pointers on that) or to encounter design.
But we are also talking about a game that has a bunch of very interesting 10+ HP martial classes that you can use if you want to mix it up in melee.
Currently my Swashbuckler is our group's main frontliner. But I don't do it alone. That would not be a wise decision. I also have a Rogue, a Thaumaturge, and a Magus who will step up. But it is something that I have noticed - that our party is a bit weak on the front line. It is something that we - as a group of players - may have to adjust to in some way.
But that is something that we as players will decide to take care of. Not something that needs to be codified into the rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding the archetypal Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue, they're archetypal because they're the party people think of when they think of tabletop gaming as a whole. They're not particularly squishy, if built right; a bit squishier than they'd be in the rest of the D&D/PF family, thanks to PF2 Cleric not being as durable as the norm, but otherwise on par with most 4-person parties that don't just throw a pile of Champions at everything.
They're a good balancing point because of outside expectations, more than anything else, and because they're the simplest party that cover the big four roles (frontliner, white mage, black mage, skillmonkey); they're not as bulky as an ideal PF2 party, but they're also a lineup that the game can't ignore. Something being overly problematic for them can be a good indicator of it potentially needing to be retuned, as a result.
IMO, it's telling that prior to the remaster, the "intended" Dying/Wounded rules could only be found on optional secondary content, that is neither required to play nor expected to grace every table, while the "unintended" rules were front and centre in all core material.Not quite. We had this in the CRB according to AoN :
"Taking Damage while Dying
Source Core Rulebook pg. 459 4.0If 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."
When it was debated on the Rules forum prior to Remaster, the boards' consensus was that it did not apply : either a typo or a reminder of what happens when you first go to Dying.
Looks like we were wrong.
Oh, good call, I completely forgot about that. I think I filed it away as a misplaced (original, as played) Wounded rule reminder; just another editing error, in the same vein as convincing fakes & dodge trap(1) from PF1.
----
----------
Actually looking at Orc heritage feats you think they made the dying rule changes to give the racial traits of the Orc a buff?
If so, then it would effectively be a case of nerfing every other race to make Orcs stronger by comparison, which is basically the opposite of what you want to do. So I certainly hope that's not the case! xD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many tank-type characters do you think are appropriate to have in a four-person party? How many characters with strong AOE abilities? How many characters being able to deal good sustained damage? How many characters who can deal with hazards, particularly traps and haunts? How many healers, both of regular ol' hp and of conditions? How many characters with battlefield control?
You're the one considering that a Fighter going down means the fight is lost. I'm just stating it doesn't have to be a thing, lots of parties handle a single downed character fine. The change in the dying rules are not suddenly invalidating lots of very valid parties, it's just showing more strongly how some parties are too dependent on a single character.