| 2 people 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
they would only be dead if they had no hero points though.
There are at least four roles that need to be filled in a party, and a party's expected size is around that. Makes it hard to build in too much redundancy.
It's your point of view, hardly a truth. PF2 is no MMO, there are no roles to be filled at all. Outside of an emergency healer, I could play without all of your roles and still perform fine.
The loss of one of a small number of combatants on one side is certainly a big part of that momentum starting to pick up.
On that I definitely agree. But that's the premise of the discussion so we can't really change it.
If it's foolish to try to recover that party member and get them back in the fight
It is already the case pre remaster. It's not foolish, it's just a weak move. The Fighter is prone and weaponless, so you're losing an entire round to get back a PC who will need 2 rounds to be efficient and has hardly enough hit points to survive a single round. It doesn't look like a winning move to me (even if I agree it sometimes is).
But I realize this discussion already spilled too much electronic ink, it looks like a bad idea to just engage in it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Im still not convinced of that read. Wounded is a condition and has to follow the rules for conditions. Conditions never stack their effect. I dont think we can ignore that part.
So when they say
Failure Your dying value increases by 1 (plus your wounded value, if any)
I see this as doing the effect of increasing dying then applying your wounded effect at the value you have. If wounded is already applied your good because its the same redundant effect. If anything this is encouraging you to think of wounded as separate from your dying condition and always remembering to apply the wounded condition value to your dying condition value.
I also see this interpretation as being reinforced on page 447. For one we would follow the rules for redundant conditions. Second the wounded entry here is clear on when you apply your wounded value to dying.
Wounded tells you here when you will actually add your wounded value to your dying value. It happens when you gain the dying condition.
It doesn't happen any other time. So when you increase your already existing dying condition you are not gaining it.
So going back to page 11 with this in mind.
When reading the recover checks you already have gained the dying value if your rolling a check here. The results modify the existing dying value, but you don't gain dying from this roll no matter the result.
Now taking damage sounds a lot like it does in the recovery checks. Plus your wounded value vs remember to add the value of your wounded condition to your dying. To satisfy this statement you only need to have ever added your wounded value once ever. Thats why its a reminder and not a simple statement to do it. So if you did already when you are supposed to which is when you gain the dying condition you don't need to be reminded and shouldnt apply it a second time or more.
I feel this is pretty compelling all together, but If the intention is to stop treating wounded like a condition and allow its effect to stack then it probably shouldn't be a condition.
Im still not convinced of that read. Wounded is a condition and has to follow the rules for conditions. Conditions never stack their effect. I dont think we can ignore that part.
That's not a rule. It's an observation on how some conditions work, extrapolated to others for no reason.
I don't like the rule, but "Wounded value" is quite explicit.
How do you interpret the sidebar on page 447?
If you fail a recovery check roll and are told plus your wounded value and a wounded value has already been applied to your dying condition with the same number then it is redundant according to this.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing in the sidebar is really relevant.
You're not 'stacking' wounded, you're suffering from a single wounded condition that applies a penalty in a certain situation. The penalty is what's coming up multiple times, not the condition. That's fine, you can suffer the penalty an arbitrary number of times in a row.
What the sidebar tells us is that you couldn't have two instances of Wounded 2 independent of each other.
I have to agree with the above posters. I just don't see any way to seriously parse "increase your dying value by 1 + your wounded value" to mean "increase your dying value by only 1 your wounded value doesn't matter."
If you were only supposed to apply wounded once, it wouldn't need to mention it in the recovery checks (which is how it functioned before the remaster so we have a comparison point too).
When do you apply the effect of a this condition?
I read the wounded entry on 447 and come to the conclusion it is applied when you have wounded and gain dying.
Increasing a dying condition you already have isn't the same as gaining it so why would i read plus your wounded value if any as anything other then a reminder that it needs to be included?
I bring up redundancy because we are talking about the interaction of conditions that cannot apply their effects multiple times. You couldn't do it with frighten check penalty, or clumsy, or anything other condition with a value. Why would we interpret that wounded is any different?
| 3 people 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
Players love using their hero points to avoid death rather than make a save or land an attack. They all sit on those hero points waiting to die to save themselves from final death because that's the most fun way to use their hero points.
I forgot about that.
Then I would say if it is too good to be true rule applies here.
Pharasma would love to see more character sheets ripped up but its just too good to be true for her.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a DM and player, this rule means the following in real game play: You can only drop twice with one failed recovery check with wounded 1 on the second drop.
This greatly accelerates the need for immediate combat healing and is real bad if you are taking persistent damage, in a damage aura, or get hit by an AoE after you drop. I expect a fairly big increase in lethality which will be noticeable to all players and especially so for new players.
I know that having wounded 1 and failing a recovery check has happened extremely often in my campaigns and can happen just from an unlucky dice roll.
There are a whole lot of effects and hits in PF2 with critical effects that happen often enough this is going to increase the lethality of campaigns.
Like you pointed out It seems outside the norm for this game to consider a conditions effect applying separately and repeatedly from its condition value and rules entry. I also don't think its so strongly justified by the recover entry as other do and actually undermined by the reminder statement in the taking damage entry, and further undermined everywhere else in the book wounded and dying are referenced.
I have to now admit that if I can read the rules and believe it clearly states things one way and others read it and see it as clearly saying something completely different then it is confusing and requires a clarification.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like if they wanted this outcome it would have been much easier to just say you die at dying 3. That is your maximum dying value is 2. Its a whole lot of extra complication to add a wounded value each time you are down for very little gain.
This seems to be a case of overly complicating things for minimal gain and honestly feels like a throw back to some of the more complex PF1 rules and interactions. I am not saying the change isn't the intended change but there are easier and cleaner ways to reach the same outcome and I wish they had done that rather than this convoluted way of going about it.
This change, if intended does massively increase the value of Toughness, Diehard, numb to death and orc racial feats which were already very strong and overshadowing other options. Not sure why they needed this buff, they now feel almost mandatory which I feel is a bad change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am guessing here but I think someone at Paizo really felt strongly about reminding players they are going to die cause of wounds. So much so they they included the reminder in the recover roll outcomes and the taking damage entry. I don't think it was more than that.
If it was I think we would have seen the condition entry cover it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like if they wanted this outcome it would have been much easier to just say you die at dying 3. That is your maximum dying value is 2. Its a whole lot of extra complication to add a wounded value each time you are down for very little gain.
This seems to be a case of overly complicating things for minimal gain and honestly feels like a throw back to some of the more complex PF1 rules and interactions. I am not saying the change isn't the intended change but there are easier and cleaner ways to reach the same outcome and I wish they had done that rather than this convoluted way of going about it.
This change, if intended does massively increase the value of Toughness, Diehard, numb to death and orc racial feats which were already very strong and overshadowing other options. Not sure why they needed this buff, they now feel almost mandatory which I feel is a bad change.
Characters can get to dying 3 without ever getting wounded.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wounded is now doubling or more the effect of a failed Recovery check whereas before it was additively increasing the cost of being brought to dying.
Prior Rule was brought to zero.
Dying 1.
Healed.
Wounded 1.
Brought to zero.
Dying 1 plus wounded value, dying 2.
Failed recovery check.
Dying 3.
Failed Recovery check dead.
That gave 2 rounds to get someone healed versus 1 round with wounded 1 accounting for a single failed recovery check.
Prior rule. Wounded 2 should be roughly the same other than weakening Diehard.
Go down. Dying 3.
Failed recovery check dead.
Only difference is now Diehard doesn't help as wounded 2 with a failed recovery check is dying 6.
So this rule makes the game roughly 40 to 50% more lethal with less forgiving healing. The need for combat healing just went way up.
There are at least four roles that need to be filled in a party, and a party's expected size is around that. Makes it hard to build in too much redundancy.It's your point of view, hardly a truth. PF2 is no MMO, there are no roles to be filled at all. Outside of an emergency healer, I could play without all of your roles and still perform fine.
Out of curiosity, what would a party that doesn't cover the four roles look like? The four roles are frontliner/tank, support, nuker/mage, and skillmonkey, or as Kaspyr put them, "a front line tank, a skills character/melee damage, a healer, and AoE/magical utility". A party that doesn't include any of these would have to omit (at minimum)...
• Frontliner/Tank: Barbarian, Champion, Fighter, Gunslinger, Inventor, Magus, Monk, Ranger, Summoner, Swashbuckler.
• Skillmonkey: Alchemist, Bard, Investigator, Rogue.
• Support: Cleric, Druid, Oracle, any Medicine specialist builds.
• Nuker/Mage: Sorcerer, Wizard, Witch.
• Unplaced/Unknown: Kineticist, Psychic, Thaumaturge
[Note: In case of multi-role classes, I placed them in the first role that applies. We're mainly concerned with determining which classes cannot be placed within any of these roles, after all. Medicine skill specifically is worth calling out, since any character that specialises in it fits the support/healer role. I'm not familiar enough with the last three to know where they fit, though I believe Kineticist can fit in (at minimum) the frontliner and support roles?]
If we omit the big four, then a party is going to look really weird, with or without letting an emergency healer (healer/support role) sneak in. I'm actually really curious what sort of playstyle your group would have, have you tried it in any actual campaigns yet?
Wounded tells you here when you will actually add your wounded value to your dying value. It happens when you gain the dying condition.
It doesn't happen any other time. So when you increase your already existing dying condition you are not gaining it.
That's the old rule, yes. From what I understand, though, the Remastered version of that same rule (the Wounded entry, in the conditions list) actually stated that you add your Wounded value when you "gain or increase" the Dying condition, not just when you "gain" it like we're used to. This specific text change is the reason people are talking about adding Wounded again every time you get Dying from any source (hitting 0 HP, being damaged at 0 HP, failing a recovery check, etc.), not the wonky text in the Recovery Check section.
For other conditions that are applied in different locations, compare with the Frightened condition (applies to all checks and all DCs), or with the Stupefied condition (applies to all Int/Wis/Cha checks and all Int/Wis/Cha DCs, and also to attempts to cast spells). The reason Wounded feels so bad here is that all of the places you're told to apply it are subordinate to a single overarching value, which is essentially a form of built-in rules lawyering that causes them to compound with each other ("You aren't applying Wounded to Dying multiple times, you're just applying it one time to every value that changes Dying! They're different!").
That said, you're entirely right that it's something we don't see anywhere else, and that does make it look like a glaring mistake. It's comparable to if Flat-footed/Off-guard was written as something like, say, "Decrease any bonuses to your AC by 2"; wording like that would cause Flat-footed to apply to both your proficiency bonus and your armour's item bonus, allowing it to become a -4 AC penalty if you're wearing medium or heavy armour even though it only applies -2 (because it would apply it in two different places that feed into AC, once per place). But everyone would hate that, because it's stupid. ...But unfortunately, that's what the Remastered version of Wounding does do, as far as anyone can tell: It applies to multiple numeric values which themselves feed into Dying, allowing it to sneakily subvert the "only apply each number once" rule.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Out of curiosity, what would a party that doesn't cover the four roles look like?
It'll look like any party. Your roles are either not really important or non existent at all.
For example, you have the "Frontliner/Tank" role. Let's take a party of Champion, Wizard, Sorcerer, Witch. The "Frontliner/Tank" role is covered by the Champion. Still, the party is fragile as hell and will surely get TPKed quickly because of a lack of tankyness. How is that possible? Because tankyness is not a role, it's a party characteristic. It's the sum of all the party member tankyness that makes the party tankyness, not the tankyness of a dedicated "Frontliner/Tank".
Skill Monkey is no role. It's very easy to be maxed in a skill and very hard to push beyond that. The only important thing is: Does your party cover all skills? If yes, then you don't need to think about skill monkeyness. And a 4-man party can cover all skills fine.
Support looks like healing to me. It's a bad role. Dedicated healers are a burden, it's better to have a few emergency healers. And emergency healing is cheap so multiple characters should have it in your party.
Nuker/Mage is not necessary. Martial oriented parties fare well without much AoE damage.
PF2 is not an MMO where roles are super strong. In WoW, if I was yawning for 3 seconds with my healer or tank we were all back to spawn point. That's not the case at all in PF2 where characters are all supposed to cover a lot of different abilities. If the Fighter is incapacitated, someone else will take the "Frontliner/Tank" role, including casters who can be quite tanky.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the old rule, yes. From what I understand, though, the Remastered version of that same rule (the Wounded entry, in the conditions list) actually stated that you add your Wounded value when you "gain or increase" the Dying condition, not just when you "gain" it like we're used to. This specific text change is the reason people are talking about adding Wounded again every time you get Dying from any source (hitting 0 HP, being damaged at 0 HP, failing a recovery check, etc.), not the wonky text in the Recovery Check section.Wounded tells you here when you will actually add your wounded value to your dying value. It happens when you gain the dying condition.
It doesn't happen any other time. So when you increase your already existing dying condition you are not gaining it.
They did not update the wounded trait to say gain or increase, it said that in the playtest and that's it, player core wounded still just says gain
|
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.
If they were already Wounded 1, why did they stay in the fight and ended up going back to Dying ?
This is what the Remaster rule will help preventing.
Wounded 1 is now a dire warning of not going back into the fight.
Whereas before it was Go back and fight.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The new rule is indubitably deadlier but we need to play with it to see if it's really problematic. Some players have reported using it and not seeing an endless stream of dead PCs, so it doesn't seem completely out of line.
Even if I dislike Xenocrat's "diplomacy", I have to give them credit on that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They did not update the wounded trait to say gain or increase, it said that in the playtest and that's it, player core wounded still just says gainThat's the old rule, yes. From what I understand, though, the Remastered version of that same rule (the Wounded entry, in the conditions list) actually stated that you add your Wounded value when you "gain or increase" the Dying condition, not just when you "gain" it like we're used to. This specific text change is the reason people are talking about adding Wounded again every time you get Dying from any source (hitting 0 HP, being damaged at 0 HP, failing a recovery check, etc.), not the wonky text in the Recovery Check section.Wounded tells you here when you will actually add your wounded value to your dying value. It happens when you gain the dying condition.
It doesn't happen any other time. So when you increase your already existing dying condition you are not gaining it.
Exactly. Wounded is still the same. Although the changes in the recovery section have caused a lot of confusion they are not the rule of how and when to apply wounded to dying. They just include a reminder to apply wounded. You still need to follow the rule in the wounded entry for when and how to apply the wounded value and you only do it when you gain the dying condition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, it would be nice if this thread could be about actual critiques of the remaster and not endlessly going back and forth about the change to wounded. Maybe that could be its own thread?
Yeah. It is too bad that people couldn't keep it civil in the thread dedicated to that topic.
And the discussion about the Dying change wouldn't bother me so much if people would debate it using what the actual rules are and with a realistic view of what the impact of the change is going to be.
But trying to claim that RAW is unambiguous that you only add Wounded when you first drop and gain the Dying condition is unreasonable. And claiming that this change is a catastrophe and will ruin the game is a complete exaggeration.
And to be fair, on the other hand claiming that this isn't a change to the rules (even though the wording of the Recovery Check section literally changed) is not really justified. As is claiming that RAW is completely unambiguous that you always add your Wounded value when you gain or increase Dying.
I disagree, but you know that already.
This discussion is a little bigger than the dying rules because its also about how to apply conditions with values.
I think it is reasonable to apply the rules of redundancy to all conditions with values. Even wounded. So when the recovery entry says plus wounded value if any I assume that as a condition we only use the highest present wounded value and it never stacks with itself. Can an effect of a condition be applied outside the entry from the condition itself?
I can see why someone would see the recovery rules on there own and come to a different conclusion but condition rules still apply the wounded entry still applies.l so I read the recovery rules with those limits in mind.
|
|
Exactly. Wounded is still the same. Although the changes in the recovery section have caused a lot of confusion they are not the rule of how and when to apply wounded to dying. They just include a reminder to apply wounded. You still need to follow the rule in the wounded entry for when and how to apply the wounded value and you only do it when you gain the dying condition.They did not update the wounded trait to say gain or increase, it said that in the playtest and that's it, player core wounded still just says gainThat's the old rule, yes. From what I understand, though, the Remastered version of that same rule (the Wounded entry, in the conditions list) actually stated that you add your Wounded value when you "gain or increase" the Dying condition, not just when you "gain" it like we're used to. This specific text change is the reason people are talking about adding Wounded again every time you get Dying from any source (hitting 0 HP, being damaged at 0 HP, failing a recovery check, etc.), not the wonky text in the Recovery Check section.Wounded tells you here when you will actually add your wounded value to your dying value. It happens when you gain the dying condition.
It doesn't happen any other time. So when you increase your already existing dying condition you are not gaining it.
Or Wounded is what Paizo forgot to update.
That is also a possibility.
I think if they do they should no longer keep it as a condition.
It really would be a special other thing at that point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is reasonable to apply the rules of redundancy to all conditions with values. Even wounded. So when the recovery entry says plus wounded value if any I assume that as a condition we only use the highest present wounded value and it never stacks with itself. Can an effect of a condition be applied outside the entry from the condition itself?
The Redundant Conditions rules say that you can't have three instances of Frightened 1 and end up with Frightened 3 as a result. You can have three instances of Frightened 1 that have different durations, but the combination will still be effectively only Frightened 1.
But taking that to mean that Frightened 1 only applies to your AC the first time you get hit doesn't make any sense.
Similarly, you can only have one instance of Wounded 2. Having a second instance of Wounded 2 (in addition to not being possible from any gameplay scenario) would result in an effective Wounded 2.
But taking that to mean that you only apply your Wounded value the first time you are hit doesn't make any sense.
I think it is reasonable to apply the rules of redundancy to all conditions with values. Even wounded. So when the recovery entry says plus wounded value if any I assume that as a condition we only use the highest present wounded value and it never stacks with itself. Can an effect of a condition be applied outside the entry from the condition itself?But taking that to mean that Frightened 1 only applies to your AC the first time you get hit doesn't make any sense.
Similarly, you can only have one instance of Wounded 2. Having a second instance of Wounded 2 (in addition to not being possible from any gameplay scenario) would result in an effective Wounded 2.
But taking that to mean that you only apply your Wounded value the first time you are hit doesn't make any sense.
I think this is constructive. I will address each point but first i just wanted to add the below.
Think of it this way. You have wounded 1. The condition is there and the value has not changed. You gain dying. Now you have dying 1 and wounded 1 is increasing it to dying 2.
No matter how many times the game says to you (plus your wounded condition, if any) it is really only checking to see if you have that 1 there thats supposed to be there. It is not saying something more explicit like and increase your dying by your wounded value.
The word they use is increase when they want you to increase dying. They didn't actually use it. I take this to mean they meant something different than increase.
The Redundant Conditions rules say that you can't have three instances of Frightened 1 and end up with Frightened 3 as a result. You can have three instances of Frightened 1 that have different durations, but the combination will still be effectively only Frightened 1.
Same page so far
But taking that to mean that Frightened 1 only applies to your AC the first time you get hit doesn't make any sense.
i agree that doesnt. My meaning was actually that you cannot keep applying the ac penalty to stack for every time the rules says to apply the fear value. Fear 1 no matter how many times the rules refer to including your fear value will only ever reduce a foes ac by 1.
It would also be uncharacteristic of a condition to apply the - to checks over and over again stacking every time fear is referenced in another section
Similarly, you can only have one instance of Wounded 2. Having a second instance of Wounded 2 (in addition to not being possible from any gameplay scenario) would result in an effective Wounded 2.
Same page
But taking that to mean that you only apply your Wounded value the first time you are hit doesn't make any sense.
i agree on that, what i am saying is that dying plus wounded will always just be dying plus wounded. It cannot be dying plus wounded+wounded again. Every time wounded is referenced you will include make sure its included but that doesnt mean it will be added in a stacking fashion.
Is bolded ok? Or should I use a different way of distinguishing my words? I dont want it to come off loud.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It looks like an internal rules dispute.
^ This.
Very unprofessional, Paizo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bold is fine.
I have also used ooc tags to indicate quoted text. It gives a similar effect of distinguishing between what is quoted and what is added.
But taking that to mean that you only apply your Wounded value the first time you are hit doesn't make any sense.
i agree on that, what i am saying is that dying plus wounded will always just be dying plus wounded. It cannot be dying plus wounded+wounded again. Every time wounded is referenced you will include make sure its included but that doesnt mean it will be added in a stacking fashion.
The thing is that the Dying rules are inherently self-additive.
Every time you fail a recovery check your Dying value gets added to. It gets added to by an amount that is a calculation. A calculation that involves the Recovery Check result and your current Wounded condition value. That is literally what the rules for recovery checks say:
When you fail:
new Dying value = Current Dying value + 1 + Wounded value.
When you critically fail:
new Dying value = Current Dying value + 2 + Wounded value.
And putting the '+ Wounded value' in there was added. Deliberately. Ignoring it seems hard to justify.
Calling it a no-effect line of added text is also really hard to justify - the rules to add Wounded when you get the Dying condition already exists in the Knocked Out and Dying rules. So adding it in the Recovery Check rules but saying it has no effect makes no sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you.
Im not ignoring it as much as i am treating adding a conditions value as non stacking.
Also in the text for the wounded entry it uses the term increase the dying value. Saying plus wounded value sounds to me like something different from increase dying by your wounded value.
Lol how much do you want to bet the team writing this content was like ok so the recovery section says this and one of the team kept interjecting saying plus wounded value as the other team member was reading what they had for results. In the end they printed it exactly like that.
Lol thats my guess of what happened.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems clear, at least, that how the dying and wounded conditions work is something that could benefit from additional clarification.