|
| 2 people 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.
But then it would have been simpler not to mention adding the Wounded value beyond when you first get Dying.
Because your Wounded value stays the same until you get out of Dying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not a dislike as such, but I'm a bit disappointed we didn't see more stuff for ranger. I just watched Ron's vid and learned the rogue's got about 30-40% more feats than the ranger, and the fighter's got about 50%; it'd have been nice to get a few more new ranger feats.
Stuff like action compressors to make Hunt Prey flow more easily with your turn like Monster Hunter, and maybe a couple of feats to give Outwit a bit more love. So many people forget to mention Outwit when bringing up Hunter's Edges that it's bordering on meme territory.
I would have liked to see hunt prey have some kind of chassis progression and allow the basic hunters edge ability obtainable through and an additional feat after dedication. Not sure what level it would have to be to be balanced but it would be nice to get that through multiclassing ranger and give ranger more benefits of their hunters edge in the chassis.
| 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.But then it would have been simpler not to mention adding the Wounded value beyond when you first get Dying.
Because your Wounded value stays the same until you get out of Dying.
I can completely agree with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised after all this I think I have something to add, and there is an unsaid winkle w/ being Healed to stand up w/ Wounded 1 in combat in the "new" paradigm.
The idea of dropping that 2nd time and going to dying 2, with death being at the next fail / dmg is true, but there is a benefit of death being at dying 4 instead of 3.
If you are wounded 1, and get downed by a crit (which is very common in this system) you are not dead, but are down at dying 3. Same chances to get healed, same 1-touch from dead as if downed by a normal hit.
This rule setup means that you don't insta-die from a rather common means of getting knocked down your 2nd time. Yes, it is horribly conveyed, but it may be intentionally designed w/ that detail in mind.
------------
I think one other piece of the puzzle that hasn't been talked about is how the pf2e system is known to be a problematic "meat grinder" at low levels.
In addition to talking about the rule itself, it is worthwhile to discuss other parts of the contextual WHY this rule ~change may be seen as such a big deal that's worth arguing about.
-----------
As an Alch in the backline that was 100 --> 0 ed in a single crit as late as L4 (and my GM had given the character a freebie Belt of Good Health when it happened at L1 or 2), this system is in serious need of some tuning at low levels, IMO. A 5% chance of that Nat 20, every opening round, makes it practically inevitable for characters to drop to dying 2 without ever making any "mistakes." Any "intended inverted balance curve" of games like this should come from new options and selected build options, not from the base HP math.
The threat of "Bullshit" lethality *greatly* fades around L6-ish, and it is WILD to me that the HP math is known to be that screwed up at low L play, but has not been addressed in all this time.
IMO, even something as simple as a flat 2x to the starting species HP would massively improve the "bullshit meat grinder" issue, without bloating late game HP at all.
---------
Yes, it is good to speak out against a change that you can predict will cause massive unfun for players. IMO, try not to limit your vision to the one change, and look as wide as you can.
Eh, I'm glad Hunter's Edge isn't poachable via multiclassing. If that were the case we'd have multiclassed flurry ranger fighters everywhere; reducing their MAP by even a small margin would be brutal.I would have liked to see hunt prey have some kind of chassis progression and allow the basic hunters edge ability obtainable through and an additional feat after dedication. Not sure what level it would have to be to be balanced but it would be nice to get that through multiclassing ranger and give ranger more benefits of their hunters edge in the chassis.Not a dislike as such, but I'm a bit disappointed we didn't see more stuff for ranger. I just watched Ron's vid and learned the rogue's got about 30-40% more feats than the ranger, and the fighter's got about 50%; it'd have been nice to get a few more new ranger feats.
Stuff like action compressors to make Hunt Prey flow more easily with your turn like Monster Hunter, and maybe a couple of feats to give Outwit a bit more love. So many people forget to mention Outwit when bringing up Hunter's Edges that it's bordering on meme territory.
Oh good point actually.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter already has agile grace at 10 anyway for MAP reduction
Yeah I think the sentiment for me stemmed from being uninterested in dedicating ranger to be abetter tracker which is what hunt prey does by itself. But i guess if you want a fighter to get the flurry effect youll just have to have a fighter get it from the ranger in the group sharing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
“Puts on a tinfoil hat”
Ok here is my tinfoil hat theory.
I think it was one person on the writing team that has enough say to make it happen being insistent that players are reminded to include their wounded value in the result. Because it is supposed to be included to determine how close to death you are. It was important to someone deciding on what would go in that entry but I don't think they changed the rules on us even though it has made it more confusing.
|
So, I'm going to post the full text of the sidebar in the Conditions section on page 443 just because that hasn't been pasted yet in this thread. I'm not going to belabor it, because I understand that not everyone interprets this the same way that I do. But I don't think it is possible to have a real consideration of developer intent without it.
• You immediately move your initiative position to directly before the creature or effect that reduced you to 0 Hit Points.
• You gain the dying 1 condition. If the effect that knocked you out was a critical success from the attacker or the result of your critical failure, you gain the dying 2 condition instead. If you have the wounded condition, increase these values by your wounded value. If the damage came from a nonlethal attack or effect, you don’t gain the dying condition—you are instead unconscious with 0 Hit Points.
My interpretation of this is that they are explicitly saying that the descriptions under the conditions for Doomed, Dying, Unconscious, and Wounded are incomplete (presumably for reasons of word count, but that is my conjecture) and that the rules on pages 410-411 are the full rules and should govern in the event on an incompatibility. Others interpret that differently.
It isn't ideal, but it really seems to me that this sidebar *is* the clarification everyone is asking for.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you.
Its interesting that they say the most significant information and dont say that you increase dying by the wounded value stacking each time you roll a recovery check or take damage. That would have been very significant if it was a rule change.
Also what they do say is most important in that section it says when you gain dying thats the time to increase your dying by the wounded value. Or more technically when you drop to 0hp you gain dying and increase it by your wounded value.
One is pushing you closer to death the other lowering the threshold for death. But neither would do so more than the value of the condition.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
One minor peeve that isn't all THAT bad in the grand scheme of things, but was a bit disappointing to me: The remastered changeling indicates that the "sweet hag" is NOT, in fact, a new kind of hag inspired by the witch in Hansel and Gretel, but rather just the new name for green hags, indicating the "sweet" part of their name is in reference to their love of seduction and deceit and has nothing to do with gingerbread houses. :P
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I'm going to post the full text of the sidebar in the Conditions section on page 443 just because that hasn't been pasted yet in this thread. I'm not going to belabor it, because I understand that not everyone interprets this the same way that I do. But I don't think it is possible to have a real consideration of developer intent without it.
** spoiler omitted **
My interpretation of this is that they are explicitly saying that the descriptions under the conditions for Doomed, Dying, Unconscious, and Wounded are incomplete (presumably for reasons of word count, but that is my conjecture) and that the rules on pages 410-411 are the full rules and should govern in the event on an incompatibility. Others interpret that differently.
It isn't ideal, but it really seems to me that this sidebar *is* the clarification everyone is asking for.
Thank you. Soon the whole Remastered RAW will be on AoN and I will be able to make up my mind more completely.
| 4 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.
This is what's kind of strange. Because if you add wounded 1 every time you increase the dying condition, it's like you were at Wounded 2 rather than wounded 1 because wounded is having a compounding effect when it's a condition.
It would be like adding doomed 1 each time the dying condition increased which would make it more like Doomed 2.
That's anther area that doesn't quite make sense with Wounded being a condition.
This is an excellent point.
Now I'm starting to lean back to adding Wounded 1 only once because it is a condition. Adding wounded a second time when increasing dying is like adding Frightened up and stacking it or any other condition, which is not how it works. A condition is added only once using the highest condition modifier.
Wounded is a condition. So if dying increases by 1, Wounded 1 is only added once no matter how many times Dying increases. The Dying condition is a completely separate track from the Wounded condition.
If we added Wounded multiple times, it's a compounding condition which is against everything we know about conditions that isn't explicitly stated as stacking with clear rules such as the Enfeebled condition for Shadows which states it stacks to Enfeebled 4.
I have to say given Wounded is a condition and conditions don't stack unless explicitly stating they do with a clear maximum, I'm back doing it the old way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now I'm starting to lean back to adding Wounded 1 only once because it is a condition. Adding wounded a second time when increasing dying is like adding Frightened up and stacking it or any other condition, which is not how it works. A condition is added only once using the highest condition modifier.Remastered Wounded seems to be acting more like a "weakness to Dying" than a condition. If you have weakness 5 to fire and take 5 fire damage, you're actually taking 10 fire damage. If you get another hit for 3 fire damage, you're taking 8 points, and now you've taken 18 points of fire damage. You've taken your weakness damage twice, because you've taken two instances of fire damage.
Similarly, Wounded "triggers" each time Dying would increase. If you're Wounded 1 and hit 0 hp, you would normally gain Dying 1 but instead you're Dying 2. You fail a recovery check and would normally increase Dying by 1 but instead you increase it by 2 and hit Dying 4 which means you're dead.
Wounded is a condition. It has no rules indicating it compounds. If you read the rules, you add it like a condition one time following the same rules for conditions. If I do that way absent a clear example saying otherwise from the designers, I'm still following the rules. So that's what I'll do until they indicate otherwise.
Because wounded isn't a weakness. It doesn't say it stacks up to whatever number. It is a condition modifier with a track showing exactly how it increases. You only add conditions once unless the rules text clearly states they stack.
So you get Dying 1, you stacked Wounded 1 one time for Dying 2, then track dying increases only increasing wounded when the target is healed above zero increasing the Wounded Condition to 2. Then rinse and repeat the rules.
I'm a really glad that person mentioned how to deal with stacking conditions. Wounded very much is a condition. It doesn't stack. It's added once like all other conditions. I'm going to play it that way until I see a Paizo dev confirm otherwise.
One thing Paizo devs did not do is say the Wounded condition stacks. Going from Dying 1 increase and adding Wounded again is basically saying it's Wounded 2 and adding Wounded 1 twice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The part about Wounded being applied to Dying in multiple ways is one of the biggest points I continue to make. It's strange, and doesn't have a parallel anywhere else in the system. It could escalate very quickly, if it wasn't working in such a small space already. Which is another facet of the issue. It's making an already small space much more crowded.
Seeing that Redundant Conditions rule cited bothers me, though. I would appreciate a new angle of attack, but this ain't it. The Wounded condition is quite explicit on how it is incremented, not duplicated in any way.
I highly disagree it is clear.
This game has had rules printed in several different areas that interact in a way to ensure the game is properly balanced. I've had them pointed out to me when I read one section of the game that reads one way, then someone points out a different section of the game that when applied changes how the original rule interacts.
To me this is clearly another example of that. If you apply the redundant condition rules, it makes the recovery check operate exactly as it used to act. That may very well be the intent.
The designers expected us all to follow the redundant conditions rule and not stack Wounded more than once. Even now I went and confirmed that Wounded is indeed a condition listed under all the conditions for Death and Dying.
Death and Dying: Doomed, Dying, Unconscious, Wounded
Nowhere does it say to apply a separate rule or that the Wounded conditions stacks with itself.
If you apply the Wounded 1 condition more than one time, you are stacking it. It does not stack.
Which once again leads back to me believing they added the parenthetical text to make sure you added the Wounded condition into the original dying condition before applying separate dying track increase, not each time dying increases which would be the wounded condition stacking with itself.
This very much is the proper way to apply rules in PF2 where different sections in different parts of the book apply to multiple rules showing you how to apply them.
Ok so I opened my preremaster core rulebook to page 623 and compared it to 447 in the new book. These both have that wounded entry. They both use the exact same wording in both editions if that helps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok i am convinced there is no rule change. Comparing pages 459 pre remaster with 411 remaster. Some things have been moved a bit like the conditions related to death and dying becoming a sidebar. But they are saying the same things. Even the taking damage section is word for word the same.
I am looking at it now. It seems the language may have been added to recovery checks to make sure you dont use the rules to exclude your wounded value just because it wasn't explicitly stated there.
I dont think the intention was that we stack its effect.
I'm leaning toward thinking the parenthetical under the recovery section is just bad grammar for a reminder be sure your total dying value includes your wounded value - not that it's added each time you make a recovery check.
Obviously I have cognitive bias because I don't like the "change" and believe it's dramatically bad game design.
My mental gymnastics on this is the conversation above on conditions and stacking, but more so from reading the text when my print copy arrived today. Note: It's the same text. I just chose to read it again in print because whatever.
First... it was a misread of grammar before to read 'gain' an 'increase' when that 'gain' had no modifier like 'gain another'. But it opens the mind to grammar issues being possible.
Second... Rules consistency. Adding in the wounded condition every time you make a recovery check is inconsistent not just with other conditions - it's inconsistent with other ways that your dying value can increase - like taking damage or being downed after coming back up.
All other methods that increase your dying value only add the wounded value once to that dying value's total.
And no other condition (that I know of) works like the recovery check does.
Weaknesses DO sort of work this way when taking damage - but the recovery check isn't taking damage, it's similar to a saving throw.
Text in parenthesis is usually written in a document to remind of something outside them, clarify, etc. Dictum - added verbage that is not actually the rule.
So I'm thinking, again my own bias plays a role here; that this note in parenthesis is just telling us to add our wounded value to the dying [value's total as a total].
- The part in brackets being the thing NOT written that had it been there would make this note in parenthesis more consistent with the other rules in the game.
Given that the change has such a major impact on the meta, a major impact on survivability, and was neither announced or play tested - I'm leaning on thinking it wasn't or at least should not be seen as intended. But that until Paizo clarifies, it should just be seen as a badly worded 'reminder' of the things that are stated outside of parenthesis.
Obviously everyone disagrees not only on the reading and intent, but on what the result should be.
So Paizo's rules team ought to step in at some point, after giving this all careful thought.
I just took a look at the dying and wounded rules and I really don't see the inconsistency everyone else is mentioning. And this bit about wounded increasing with each instance of dying seems incorrect. Granted, I thought that was how it worked in the original game, but I was clearly mistaken with RAW. With the Remaster, it's even more clear.
To the topic at hand, I was hoping the monk trait would go the way of the dodo. I think it is a vestige from old D&D orientalism.
Also, while I'm glad they improved weapon training, I wish they went a little further with scaling.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here are excerpts from every contextually appropriate mention of Death, Dying, and Wounded in Player Core, all in one location. You're welcome.
The more I look at it, the less I believe the "extra deadly" interpretation is correct at all.
Pray may it bring some sanity to this silly debate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reminders on page 411 to not forget the wounded condition are not intended to mean that you add it every time your dying condition goes up, I believe, but rather to remind you not forget to account for it in your total dying condition calculation (that is, you only ever add it once per dying state upon gaining said state).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That doesn't check out. Adding your Wounded value to Dying is a thing that definitely happens when you gain Dying, because you fell to 0HP.
lolwut??? That's what I said.
The procedure for "Taking Damage While Dying" is referring to another step in the process, where you roll a check, add or subtract 1 or 2 from Dying value as a consequence, and if you failed, reflect on that time you had to add your Wounded value to your Dying condition value.
Recovery checks are much the same, except it explicitly directs you to actually add your Wound total to your Dying condition if a check is failed, in addition to the 1 or 2.
The more I read it the more I think that you and others are misinterpreting it; that it's simply intended as a reminder to keep track of it on top of your dying value, not to add it over and over again every time your dying value increases. It's literally never mentioned again in half a dozen other entries and locations. Just that one spot, and always phrased as a reminder.
That combined with all the odd jank people describe that comes out of the new "rules change" leads me to believe that a change was not intended at all.
I'm not trying to convince you; I'm merely explaining my own (current) view on the matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a question, has anyone ever had a party TPK because one or more characters died too quickly, instead of just staying unconscious?
Every TPK I have seen as a player or GM involved multiple rounds of multiple characters spending actions trying to get another character back up and into the fight. I won’t say I fully know how the rule is exactly supposed to work until I get to read all the context stuff together for myself, or if it gets Errata’d or FAQed. But either way, I am strongly inclined to run my games “the more lethal way” from now on. TPKs are exhausting to the whole table and have ended more than one campaign for me. The occasional Individual character death usually results in the players getting more invested in the story, naming items/places/teams after a fallen hero.
I totally get that some players respond very badly to their character’s dying, but those players don’t respond more positively to TPKs in my experience. It’s not what happens to downed PCs that demoralizes players about PF2. It is a mismatch of player expectation and encounter difficulty, or a sense that the GM /game is punishing the chosen character’s playstyle or tactics. Tables and adventure writers are much better off trying to dial that in than in trying to worrying about the severity of what happens after a character falls, gets up, and the falls again.
Why would they tell you to remember to add it only to the first instance in the section about when you're already dying and you get hit again?
All it takes is one editor with a different idea than the rest of the team. As a professional graphic designer who helps make educational texts for a living, I know how easy it is for myself or others to sneak in "corrections" or other little changes should it be desired.
In any case, if you didn't account for it, the calculation would be off.
If it was any other way then you get weird oddities like numerous helpful abilities doing harm, or how there is no practical difference between a critical hit dropping you and a regular hit dropping you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think so far my biggest dislike is that it seems a little rushed, but I have a very casual experience with the book releases and whatnot.
There's just a few "How did this pass QA" moments, such as with shields and new swap rule, and unstrapping costing an action but strapping does not, but also the phrasing on the shield holding is just confusing to me (maybe because english is 3rd language)
Yeah, I got that dying only gets bigger when you recover. Some people were saying it the other way.
And as far as wounded, it all makes sense to me. It is more lethal, but only if your character is yo-yoing. Being knocked unconscious and waking up multiple times in a fight is really rather silly.
And to be clear, I love the Monk class and embracing other cultures. I specifically don't like the monk trait on weapons because it others eastern weapons for know real reason. Martial artists exist all around the world. The name comes from a specific group (Shaolin Monks), but the class shouldn't be narrowed down to their weapons. There are Indian martial artists that use the urumi or Filipino martial artists that use escrima sticks.
The monk trait is largely used on specifically Chinese (and occasionally Japanese) weapons. Nixing the monk trait and tackling weapon monks in other ways would be better in my opinion.