| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To those suggesting new players house rule away the new dying/wounded rules, the absolute #1 piece of advice given to those new to 2e, sometimes delivered politely but othertimes with more than a little aggression, is to play the game RAW for many months before even thinking about house rules.
House Rules are for veterans, not newbies.
Intertesting, as I don't think I have ever played in a game that didn't have house rules.
|
Won't work. PFS rules are created to prevent exactly this (partially, of course). You must have PFS number of your character before the game for this particular session. All consequences for a pregen are transferred to your character (or almost all). Death - certainly.
Of course, not exactly true for your first game, but still means that your XXX-2001 character is dead.
Yes, it's possible that GMs don't ask for the number before the game and the owner of a dead pregen refuses to give a number of a char sentenced to death. That's outside the rules though.
"If you choose a pregenerated character, you must also choose an existing character of a lower level, a first level character, or a brand new character to assign credit to. The GM will provide you with a sign-in sheet to record your character’s name, Organized Play ID, Character Number, level, faction, and advancement speed, as well as any contact information the GM needs to be able to get Chronicles to you. If you are playing a pregen, then the character number is the...
People keep saying how important tactics are, the first rule of having good tactics is having a balanced party.
Yes I understand the rules for using a pregen and follow them. And yes I know if the pregen dies my character tied to it dies too. It was very common for the more experienced players at our table to play whatever was best for the party to help make the game more enjoyable/survivable for new players and the party as a whole. To be clear what my motives are, if a new player showed up to a game and we did not have room for them I'd give up my seat and go home so they could play.
One of the reasons I keep saying how important helping new players is or making sure they have a good game is we no longer have a local organized playgroup because there were not enough players left to even play the game. I live in a small town with only 4,950,000 people so maybe I shouldn't be so surprised we couldn't find enough players.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Removed a string of baiting posts and their quotes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the beginning of PF2, I have appreciated how dangerous persistent damage is. Playing the game with the clarifies remastered dying rules will make that even clearer. Now GMs just need to treat intelligent NPCs of being aware how lethal it is in those characters decision making trees. Like if you expect players to realize it, let NPCs be also abundantly aware that having persistent damage active means you are probably going to die by the end of the fight without healing or care.
Those arguing against the changed death rules have made me understand Hiroo Onoda better.
What did he mean by this?
***Edit***Did I somehow respond to a removed post, or did I accidentally reply to a post earlier in the thread I can't find?
I don’t see a benefit to the dev team commenting. All it will do is fuel further arguments, not solve anything.
I disagree. A clear example illustrated by a dev would clear everything up one way or the other. It would allow groups to decide on a quality house rule if they don't want to run that lethal.
All the devs not commenting will do is lead to more threads and more threads and more threads on this issue crowding the forum and creating headaches for Morgantini to close and clean up.
But one video or blog by the devs with a clear example of how to run this will decide the matter allowing players and GMs to make firm decisions going forward.
The devs looked at Morgantini and said, "You know all those wizard threads you were closing and cleaning up? Well, we threw some new meat to the forum posters. Have fun with the death and dying threads."
Certainly makes you really value that caster with breath of life prepared.
It being a reaction now auto stops dying and heals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My physical copy just arrived. The entry on Pg 443 for Dying if followed would only provide wounded when losing the dying condition. Following this entry the only thing you do when taking damage while you are dying is increase the dying conditions value.
On page 411 the taking damage entry it says to increase the dying value but to remember to add your wounded value to your dying value. Its pretty clear to me wounded does not increase in value and you dont add in your wounded value every time you take damage. It just means you you need to keep in mind your dying value is higher because you already have wounds. Adding the wounded value to your dying value is something you do when first dying and not something you add in again each time you take damage.
On page 411 the taking damage entry it says to increase the dying value but to remember to add your wounded value to your dying value. Its pretty clear to me wounded does not increase in value and you dont add in your wounded value every time you take damage.
It is and always has been ambiguous having that reminder there. Making the decision that your table is going to run it with Wounded not being added to Dying when being increased by taking damage is somewhat reasonable - but it is hardly 'clear'.
It just means you you need to keep in mind your dying value is higher because you already have wounds. Adding the wounded value to your dying value is something you do when first dying and not something you add in again each time you take damage.
And when you fail a recovery check - each round that you are still taking a dirt nap.
Losing the dying condition multiple times in combat is dangerous and will make death much more likely.
Dying value is going up or down while still dying but not wounded value. Its when you are no longer dying that wounded goes up unless mitigated by something. If your wounded its time to move away from the front and play a more supportive role. If your party cant function with your character in the back its time to run.
I don't see a problem with these rules as written. They make sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On page 411 the taking damage entry it says to increase the dying value but to remember to add your wounded value to your dying value. Its pretty clear to me wounded does not increase in value and you dont add in your wounded value every time you take damage.It is and always has been ambiguous having that reminder there. Making the decision that your table is going to run it with Wounded not being added to Dying when being increased by taking damage is somewhat reasonable - but it is hardly 'clear'.
I did say its clear to me. But I agree its not the right place to put a reminder about adding the wounded value.
I wouldn't have taken that reminder as a rule telling me to increase the wounded value when taking damage under the dying condition. It doesn't read that way to me.
I wouldn't have taken that reminder as a rule telling me to increase the wounded value when taking damage under the dying condition. It doesn't read that way to me.
I'm a bit curious why.
As I pointed out earlier, all you have to do is remove the 'remember to' words and it literally says exactly that.
So what part of that is indicative of 'this entire sentence should be ignored entirely'?
Also if it was possible to gain wounded when taking damage while dying it would have most definitely been included in the Wounded description as a botmal way you can gain or increase your wounded value.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't have taken that reminder as a rule telling me to increase the wounded value when taking damage under the dying condition. It doesn't read that way to me.I'm a bit curious why.
As I pointed out earlier, all you have to do is remove the 'remember to' words and it literally says exactly that.
So what part of that is indicative of 'this entire sentence should be ignored entirely'?
I appreciate the chance to clarify how it reads to me.
taking the statement as it is exactly for a moment. Nothing more or less, not considering its under the taking damage header and not considering the sentences before it.I saw this as a reminder to do the following. If you have the wounded condition add it to your dying value. Thats it. Its not saying to do at any interval or upon any trigger. Its just if you have wounded add it, the only way you gain wounded is when losing dying. So i read it as if I am wounded and dying consider my dying higher based on the wounded value. I dont see it as every time i gain dying add my wounded again. If its already added thats it. Its added, i wouldnt add it again and again.
Also if it was possible to gain wounded when taking damage while dying it would have most definitely been included in the Wounded description as a botmal way you can gain or increase your wounded value.
This, I am confused about entirely.
I haven't heard anyone claiming that you increased your Wounded value when you take damage while dying.
The rule that people are arguing against is that you increase your Dying value by 1 + Wounded value when you fail a recovery check or when you take damage while dying.
Previously the generally accepted ruling was that when you fail a recovery check or take damage while dying you would only increase your Dying value by 1. Wounded didn't apply. Wounded only applied when you first went to 0 HP again when you had the Wounded condition. At that point you would add your Wounded value to the Dying value that you gain from dropping.
It was always a bit ambiguous because that reminder in the Taking Damage while Dying rule has always been there. And some other rules reminder places included wording that Wounded added to Dying when Dying increases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait why would you increase wounded anytime other than when losing the dying condition?
I dont see that anywhere
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also it looks to me like wounded being added is static. You dont stack it every time you gain more dying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
taking the statement as it is exactly for a moment. Nothing more or less, not considering its under the taking damage header and not considering the sentences before it.
OK. So... Why would you read rules like that?
The context of what the rules sentences are in is rather important.
When making attack rolls, two main types of untyped penalties are likely to apply.
Doesn't make much sense on its own.
Also if it was possible to gain wounded when taking damage while dying it would have most definitely been included in the Wounded description as a botmal way you can gain or increase your wounded value.
This, I am confused about entirely.
I haven't heard anyone claiming that you increased your Wounded value when you take damage while dying.
The rule that people are arguing against is that you increase your Dying value by 1 + Wounded value when you fail a recovery check or when you take damage while dying.
Previously the generally accepted ruling was that when you fail a recovery check or take damage while dying you would only increase your Dying value by 1. Wounded didn't apply. Wounded only applied when you first went to 0 HP again when you had the Wounded condition. At that point you would add your Wounded value to the Dying value that you gain from dropping.
It was always a bit ambiguous because that reminder in the Taking Damage while Dying rule has always been there. And some other rules reminder places included wording that Wounded added to Dying when Dying increases.
I wasnt arguing against a thing, just stating what i see in the book.
taking the statement as it is exactly for a moment. Nothing more or less, not considering its under the taking damage header and not considering the sentences before it.OK. So... Why would you read rules like that?
The context of what the rules sentences are in is rather important.
When making attack rolls, two main types of untyped penalties are likely to apply.Doesn't make much sense on its own.
The statement read like a sidebar.
I didnt assume that this was automatically a thing to do everytime you take damage just because it was under that banner. The rule of what to do was given above it. This read as a reminder to not forget to include your wounded value in the result, to my mind mine the reminder was there because you could actually already be at dying 4 and need to remember that wounded was getting you there.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
taking the statement as it is exactly for a moment. Nothing more or less, not considering its under the taking damage header and not considering the sentences before it.OK. So... Why would you read rules like that?
Again I want to say that i appreciate the way you are approaching the discussion. It is not demeaning and gives me every chance to explain my thinking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again I want to say that i appreciate the way you are approaching the discussion. It is not demeaning and gives me every chance to explain my thinking.
Thanks. I appreciate hearing that. I do try to be reasonable and allow others to differ in thoughts from me.
The statement read like a sidebar.
I didnt assume that this was automatically a thing to do everytime you take damage just because it was under that banner. The rule of what to do was given above it. This read as a reminder to not forget to include your wounded value in the result, to my mind mine the reminder was there because you could actually already be at dying 4 and need to remember that wounded was getting you there.
My thinking on it is that when you are following the rules for Taking Damage while Dying, you already have the Dying condition. That rules text block isn't part of the process of being dropped. You are already dropped and some jerk of an enemy is stabbing you while you are down. Or a marginally less jerk of an enemy is throwing around AoE effects.
So the Dying value is already set - including adding Wounded - when you dropped.
The Taking Damage While Dying calculation is what value you add to your current Dying value because of taking the damage.
You are adding 1 if you take a regular hit, and 2 if you take a critical hit. And you add your Wounded value to that amount being added.
So can you at least understand why a likely large number of people are going to read the rules that way too?
Also if it was possible to gain wounded when taking damage while dying it would have most definitely been included in the Wounded description as a botmal way you can gain or increase your wounded value.
Seems like you're not following what the actual debate has been.
It's not about gaining Wounded while you are currently Dying, and never has been.
Previously, the rule was understood that any Wounded condition was added to your Dying when you fall over.
Now, the rule has been "clarified" that your current Wounded condition is added to your Dying again when Dying goes up from taking damage while Dying, or from failing a Recovery Check.
So, if you go down a second time, you are now Dying 2, which is the same as you would expect before the Remaster... but now, a single point of damage or a single failed roll later, you're at 4, which means you're dead.
Basically, it gives you one step less allowance to try to get back in the fight and turn things around after things have gone bad. Apparently, what you're supposed to do is go hide in the back with the gear and hope you weren't a valuable part of your party's combat power.
Here is what I would do based on the entry in the recovery section.
Current dying value 1 plus 1 for wounded. I failed a recovery check now dying value goes to 2+1 for wounded. Thats how this reads to me.
Wounded is a static increase to dying that is always applied as long as you are wounded.
Again I want to say that i appreciate the way you are approaching the discussion. It is not demeaning and gives me every chance to explain my thinking.Thanks. I appreciate hearing that. I do try to be reasonable and allow others to differ in thoughts from me.
The statement read like a sidebar.
I didnt assume that this was automatically a thing to do everytime you take damage just because it was under that banner. The rule of what to do was given above it. This read as a reminder to not forget to include your wounded value in the result, to my mind mine the reminder was there because you could actually already be at dying 4 and need to remember that wounded was getting you there.My thinking on it is that when you are following the rules for Taking Damage while Dying, you already have the Dying condition. That rules text block isn't part of the process of being dropped. You are already dropped and some jerk of an enemy is stabbing you while you are down. Or a marginally less jerk of an enemy is throwing around AoE effects.
So the Dying value is already set - including adding Wounded - when you dropped.
The Taking Damage While Dying calculation is what value you add to your current Dying value because of taking the damage.
You are adding 1 if you take a regular hit, and 2 if you take a critical hit. And you add your Wounded value to that amount being added.
So can you at least understand why a likely large number of people are going to read the rules that way too?
I think because its the way they may be interpreting wounded i general. I see it as a static condition modifying the dying value. They may be reading it as a thing that gets added to dying on a trigger. So many things in this game work like static modifiers and so many of them don't stack. I saw wounded the same way.
Kind of like frightened 1. No matter what you do that is a static modifier to your checks. The only way you would modify anything more than 1 from the frightened condition is if it increased to frightened 2 for some reason. Don't all conditions work as static modifiers?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also if it was possible to gain wounded when taking damage while dying it would have most definitely been included in the Wounded description as a botmal way you can gain or increase your wounded value.
This, I am confused about entirely.
I haven't heard anyone claiming that you increased your Wounded value when you take damage while dying.
The rule that people are arguing against is that you increase your Dying value by 1 + Wounded value when you fail a recovery check or when you take damage while dying.
Previously the generally accepted ruling was that when you fail a recovery check or take damage while dying you would only increase your Dying value by 1. Wounded didn't apply. Wounded only applied when you first went to 0 HP again when you had the Wounded condition. At that point you would add your Wounded value to the Dying value that you gain from dropping.
It was always a bit ambiguous because that reminder in the Taking Damage while Dying rule has always been there. And some other rules reminder places included wording that Wounded added to Dying when Dying increases.
Basically, it goes back to the whole "gain or increase" thing. The game considers gaining Dying and increasing Dying to be different things, which leads to two options.
• If you add Wounded when gaining Dying, then Wounded is applied when a character hits 0 HP, but not when that character's Dying value would go up after that. Wounded acts as a floor; if a character hits 0 HP, they gain "1 + Wounded" Dying. (They do not apply Wounded again when failing a recovery check or taking damage, because that is considered an "increase".)
• If you add Wounded when gaining or increasing Dying, then Wounded is applied when a character hits 0 HP, and also whenever that character's Dying value would be increased in any way. Any source of Dying explicitly adds "X + Wounded" Dying, regardless of whether the character does or doesn't already have a Dying value. (They apply Wounded again when failing a recovery check or taking damage, because both increase Dying.)
Basically, most people used to use the first version, but now Paizo is trying to clarify/change (it's unclear which, since different parts of the rules text assumed different versions) the rules to the second version. Most of the focus is on recovery checks, but "gain or increase" terminology also applies Wounded when you take damage while already Dying.
Notably, this is also why people have made a big deal of persistent damage being more potent now, because a character with any Wounded value would die instantly if they take persistent damage while Dying. (More specifically, if a character has Wounded and then gains Dying, they are at Dying 2, minimum. When persistent damage ticks, the character takes damage and increases their Dying value by 1... but also applies Wounded to that increase, which places them at Dying 4 and kills them instantly.)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Battleform spells still require your unarmed attack bonus to be greater than that offered by the form to substitute yours in and untamed form (wild shape) still only grants you the +2 when you do so. Stay sad wild shapers, martials with multiclass druid are still better at it than you are from levels 4-10.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also if it was possible to gain wounded when taking damage while dying it would have most definitely been included in the Wounded description as a botmal way you can gain or increase your wounded value.
Seems like you're not following what the actual debate has been.
It's not about gaining Wounded while you are currently Dying, and never has been.
Previously, the rule was understood that any Wounded condition was added to your Dying when you fall over.
Now, the rule has been "clarified" that your current Wounded condition is added to your Dying again when Dying goes up from taking damage while Dying, or from failing a Recovery Check.
So, if you go down a second time, you are now Dying 2, which is the same as you would expect before the Remaster... but now, a single point of damage or a single failed roll later, you're at 4, which means you're dead.
Basically, it gives you one step less allowance to try to get back in the fight and turn things around after things have gone bad. Apparently, what you're supposed to do is go hide in the back with the gear and hope you weren't a valuable part of your party's combat power.
Here is what I would do based on the entry in the recovery section.
Current dying value 1 plus 1 for wounded. I failed a recovery check now dying value goes to 2+1 for wounded. Thats how this reads to me.
Wounded is a static increase to dying that is always applied as long as you are wounded.
That's how I plan to run it and believe they intended. Some are arguing it means a failed recovery check means if you are doing dying 1 and wounded 1 leading to dying 2, you increase the check by dying 1 to dying 3 plus wounded 1 again leading to dying 4.
I think the text reads to me as a reminder to always have the dying value added to your dying value, not add it each time you increase dying from a failed recovery check making it a multiplicative and not an additive effect.
I doubt some will give up that viewpoint unless a dev makes it clear one way or the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, thats what I saw. Wounded is a condition with a value. Conditions with values work by applying a static modifier to what they say they affect. No matter how many times you apply a conditions modifier it never increases it. Wounded 1 applied 20 times will only ever increase dying by 1 because it is a condition with a value of 1.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's how I plan to run it and believe they intended. Some are arguing it means a failed recovery check means if you are doing dying 1 and wounded 1 leading to dying 2, you increase the check by dying 1 to dying 3 plus wounded 1 again leading to dying 4.I think the text reads to me as a reminder to always have the dying value added to your dying value, not add it each time you increase dying from a failed recovery check making it a multiplicative and not an additive effect.
The problem with that interpretation is that they *also* changed the text to Recovery Checks. Here is the new verbage there:
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).
So it is crystal clear that the rule is that Wounded value is added to Dying value on a failed recovery check.
You can believe that the rule is wrong, and you can choose not to use it, but there really isn't any question what the rule means.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. The only debatable and ambiguous part is if you add Wounded to your increase in Dying value when that jerk of an enemy is stabbing you while you are down.
That's how I plan to run it and believe they intended. Some are arguing it means a failed recovery check means if you are doing dying 1 and wounded 1 leading to dying 2, you increase the check by dying 1 to dying 3 plus wounded 1 again leading to dying 4.I think the text reads to me as a reminder to always have the dying value added to your dying value, not add it each time you increase dying from a failed recovery check making it a multiplicative and not an additive effect.
The problem with that interpretation is that they *also* changed the text to Recovery Checks. Here is the new verbage there:
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).So it is crystal clear that the rule is that Wounded value is added to Dying value on a failed recovery check.
You can believe that the rule is wrong, and you can choose not to use it, but there really isn't any question what the rule means.
You are taking a singular rule, ignoring all other rules describing how to use wounded and dying, then applying the most lethal interpretation.
So if you're wounded 1, you are saying they mean the following 1:
1. You drop gaining dying 1 plus wounded 1 starting at dying 2.
2. You fail a 12 flat check recovery increasing dying 2 to dying 3 plus wounded 1, dying 4. You're dead.
So wounded is added twice. Once when dropping and once when your dying increases from a failed recovery check.
Even though most of the other rules explaining this indicate wounded is added once.
The addition of the text seems like a reminder to make sure to add the wounded value to the dying value
So how does this work in real play?
1. So you are dropped once to dying, then healed up above zero gaining wounded 1.
So one drop.
2. You are dropped a second time at wounded 1, going to dying 2.
3. You fail one DC 12 recovery check and you're dead if you don't have Diehard.
So under this new interpretation you can only drop twice during a fight with one failed recovery check before you are dead without Diehard.
With diehard you can drop a 3rd time and before dying.
Maybe they intend it to be that lethal. I'd sure like to hear if that is the case. Boy, this game isn't quite save or die, but this new method is pretty brutal. Definitely don't want to play PF2 if you want your characters to live a long time without resurrection.
6 hit point casters will be even weaker. And Con is going to be even more valuable, might have gone above Dex now though you'll still want Dex give how hard AoE spells hit with crit fails with this new dying rule.
Persistent or damage auras or hitting a fallen opponent just got more brutal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that this is correct. And intended.
So how does this work in real play?
1. So you are dropped once to dying, then healed up above zero gaining wounded 1.
So one drop.
2. You are dropped a second time at wounded 1, going to dying 2.
3. You fail one DC 12 recovery check and you're dead if you don't have Diehard.
So under this new interpretation you can only drop twice during a fight with one failed recovery check before you are dead without Diehard.
With diehard you can drop a 3rd time and before dying.
Maybe they intend it to be that lethal. I'd sure like to hear if that is the case. Boy, this game isn't quite save or die, but this new method is pretty brutal. Definitely don't want to play PF2 if you want your characters to live a long time without resurrection.
I believe that this is intended to disincentivize players from using the Dying rules to continue fighting after they have been dropped once.
Not intending to be disparaging to anyone's playstyle, but using the Dying rules and the lack of negative Hit Points as a way to negate a bunch of damage just seems metagamey. And having it be standard procedure of dropping, standing back up, and continuing fighting... doesn't feel like the story that I would want to play a character in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, thats what I saw. Wounded is a condition with a value. Conditions with values work by applying a static modifier to what they say they affect. No matter how many times you apply a conditions modifier it never increases it. Wounded 1 applied 20 times will only ever increase dying by 1 because it is a condition with a value of 1.This changes substantially less than you might think. Let me go over how things change with the different versions.
If you go down for the first time, you are Dying 1. Take damage or fail a check, and you are Dying 2.
If you go down for a second time, you are Dying 2. If you take damage or fail a check, you are Dying 4, or "Dead."
If you go down for a third time, you are Dying 3. If you take damage or fail a check, you are Dying 6, or "Dead."
If you go down for a fourth time, you are Dying 4, or "Dead." Though, if you go down a fourth time, you never had a chance anyway.
The above is the "clarified" version. Because there is no practical difference between Dying 4 and Dying 6, the only effective difference between the new version and the old are at Wounded 1, when you take damage or fail a check. Before, you would have had one more turn than you do now. This whole discussion really is a VERY specific issue.
Your variation transforms the third and fourth down into the second. Nice, perhaps a good house rule, but the actual rule does say "your Wounded value," not "if you are Wounded, add 1."
I maintain my stance that the rule as it was previously understood is superior. It's simpler, cleaner, and ever so slightly more forgiving. I also think that introducing it in the Taking Damage While Dying and Recovery Check sections, without reference to the conditions, is... odd and inelegant.
However, it's an incredibly specific scenario in which any of this is even relevant, so now that I've actually typed out what the functional impact is, I can't help but feel like we've all wasted a lot of time and energy on nothing.
It's not nothing. It is a more brutal game this way by a good bit. I've seen tons of failed recovery checks with wounded 1. Now all those characters would be dead.
Previous rule was less deadly. Gave more time to heal up an ally. Now you've got to get that ally up immediately because even one failed recovery check with wounded 1 is dead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, it's an incredibly specific scenario in which any of this is even relevant, so now that I've actually typed out what the functional impact is, I can't help but feel like we've all wasted a lot of time and energy on nothing.
Yes. It does seem to be quite a bit of jumping at shadows.
Which is a much better explanation of why this change wasn't previously announced in a blog post or something before the full Remaster rules became available. It just isn't that big of a change for a large number of players. Only players that engage in Dying shenanigans are affected by it.