| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could see it being interpreted as essentially this equation:
Dying Total = Dying Increase from damage or failed save + (Current Dying Value + Wounded Value)
Whereas the primarily understood interpretation of the new wording is:
Dying Total = (Dying Increase from damage or failed save + Wounded Value) + Current Dying Value
That's a very succinct way of putting it. I'm in the first camp.
And yes, I also believe that the current wording is in error, or perhaps even placed by a rogue agent.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I hadn't actually read the new rules. Yeah, adding 2 or more to your dying value on a failed recovery check while you're wounded doesn't sound right. Probably not the right interpretation.
Recovery Checks:
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).I fail to see how the above can be interpreted any way other than adding your wounded value when failing a recovery check...
Remove the parenthesis (e.g. "Your dying value increases by 1 plus your wounded value, if any.") and you are absolutely correct.
Adding the parenthesis, however, confuses things. They turn the "plus your wounded value, if any" statement into an afterthought tacked onto a passage that is grammatically complete without the additional statement.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah the parentheses are bugging me too
Grammatically, removing a parenthetical doesn't materially change the meaning of a sentence. IF adding the wounded value to a failed recovery check is intended, then grammatically, the structure is completely wrong since removing the parenthetical would materially alter the instruction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, I think some of the discussion here and in the previous thread is a great case study in the human brain's drive and capacity to reject or qualify new information that conflicts with our pre-existing worldviews.
Being resistant to change is a positive survival trait. It is not the same as refusing to change. It is not the same as choosing not to change.
Different people are going to adjust at different rates. In this forum there is a long tail of people who want to talk about this issue.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I hadn't actually read the new rules. Yeah, adding 2 or more to your dying value on a failed recovery check while you're wounded doesn't sound right. Probably not the right interpretation.
Recovery Checks:
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).I fail to see how the above can be interpreted any way other than adding your wounded value when failing a recovery check...
Remove the parenthesis (e.g. "Your dying value increases by 1 plus your wounded value, if any.") and you are absolutely correct.
Adding the parenthesis, however, confuses things. They turn the "plus your wounded value, if any" statement into an afterthought tacked onto a passage that is grammatically complete without the additional statement.
If the Wounded value was intended to NOT be added, it was far simpler to not mention it at all.
|
|
I think this would go over better if they simply admitted it is a change, it's not a clarification or an errata, they made multiple rounds of errata and it never was clarified. Admit that y'all made a change.A thing that's gotten lost in all this discussion: Has any (current) dev made any comment at all on the "new" Death/Dying Rules since they were revealed? Before we ask that the devs recant whether the change in wording counts as a change or clarification, we can wait for somebody to say something?
Like Mark Seifter is cool and all, but did he work on the remaster books? Does it matter whether he says it's a clarification, not a change? In fact, does it matter at all whether it was a change or clarification? I can see arguing about what the "new" rules actually say, but aside from trivia, does it really matter if the remaster is officially a change or not?
No Paizo staff have said a word about this in public, verbally or in writing, unless they did so in the last 12 hours.
Mark Seifter has claimed this was always RAI, and furthermore that it was always a consensus among the devs back in 2019. However this would appear to be contradicted by (a) the fact that his submitted errata was never published across 4 errata passes, (b) nobody knowing of another dev saying the same or agreeing with him, and (c) perhaps even more significantly, Jason Bulmahn's combat rules explainer video on Youtube from about 9 months ago not saying anything about adding the wounded value on increases to dying values when failing recovery checks, when he walked through that process step by step. So with the greatest respect to a brilliant man whom we all have to thank for the 4 degrees of success and so much else about pf2e, I do believe that claim needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
At this point I'm getting increasingly surprised that Paizo is saying nothing about it, much as I'm aware they try to limit their commentary on rules arguments.
I 100% expect that we will NOT get any such clarification before the street date of the product. When the rules will be on AoN and everyone can read the RAW and understand what we're all talking about.
Also history on these boards has extremely clearly demonstrated that it is far better for a topic to settle down rather than become even more toxic that Paizo people say nothing.
|
|
Also history on these boards has extremely clearly demonstrated that it is far better for a topic to settle down rather than become even more toxic that Paizo people say nothing.I have no expectation that Paizo folks will show up in-thread and set things straight one way or the other. That seems like a recipe for being mobbed. But something like a blog post would be nice.
Agreed, but unlikely before street date IMO.
Hmm... looking into it, I've found at least two character options that might suggest that the Dying Yo-Yo is actually intended, at least for a few builds.
• Too Angry to Die: An Intimidation skill feat that encourages you to leap straight back into the heat of battle after recovering from unconsciousness. While it works with anything that knocks you unconscious, the flavour text expects you to use it after recovering from Dying-induced unconsciousness specifically. (And, of course, hitting 0 HP is the most common source of unconsciousness in a fight, so you're mechanically most likely to use it after recovering from Dying, too.
• Euphoric renewal: An apocryphal domain spell that... well, it's actually physically impossible for a spell to be more about yoyo-ing than this one, actually. It's a two-action spell, and must be cast before you go down... but while active, it actively rewards you every time you gain Dying and then regain consciousness. The reward is admittedly just "you can get back into the fight without spending resources" (Quickened so you can stand up for free, plus temp HP & a bonus to saves to make you harder to kill for a minute), but still, the spell is explicitly designed with the intent of making it as easy to yoyo as possible; once you go down, your allies just need to bring you to 1 HP, and you do the rest yourself.It's honestly kinda fascinating how even the game's rules themselves seem to be arguing about how lethal Dying/Wounded should be.
2 Rare feats.
The first allows a free try to debuff, thereby increasing your chance of surviving an attack.
The second helps you be in a better shape to resist a new attack.
So, both are defensive.
They are not encouraging people to get back into the fray. The second one in particular looks very much like a good opportunity to get out of the fight.
People really need...
That's fair. I was just looking at how the two are literally designed to be used after being dropped to 0 and recovering, more than anything else. The first one in particular thematically seems like it was meant to leap back in (if you're too angry to die, then you're too angry to run, too), while the second is more neutral (it's literally tied to a domain that revels in death, so it's implicitly more about the act of yoyoing than anything else; it'd probably be fine with fighting or running, it just wants to yoyo first for the euphoria).
It's just that I find it interesting that they seem to suggest a conflict in developer intents, much like... well, a lot of things connected to this change, really. xD
pg 442 Conditions are persistent. Whenever you're affected by a condition, its effects last until the condition's stated duration ends, condition is removed, or terms dictated in the condition itself cause it to end.
When we are talking about wounded this is the most basic thing we should consider. It is a condition. It is persistent. And persistent effects do not keep applying themselves additively over and over when they are referenced by another rule. The only way wounded could as a condition contribute more than its current value to dying on repeated applications of its effect is if the value increased between applications.
The new parens stating (plus your wounded value, if any) do create a new situation not possible before though. IF there is any new ability or effect in the game that can increase wounded outside of its normal method (losing the dying condition) that higher value would have to be reassessed into your dying value every time you fail a check or take damage. But if your still treating it like a condition with a value you would treat redundant application of its effect by only taking the highest value.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How would fear 1 for example lower your AC of 18 lower than 17? If any rule in the game referenced plus your Fear value for some odd reason 17 is still the lowest that condition with a value of 1 can get your 18 starting AC. It still would need to be treated as a condition with a value and couldn't lower your AC to 16 or lower even if it was referenced by something in the rules saying (plus your fear value if any.) And if this example seems odd (and it should) its because the new recovery checks were written odd. With no change to the rules infrastructure around conditions the recovery checks and taking damage cannot work in a stacking manner with wounded.
They did not write this well, but all the rules taken together wont allow the effect of wounded 1 to increase dying by more than 1.
|
|
TBH the only way the Wounded value would not apply would be that the description of Wounded is correct. And the ones about adding Wounded when you increase Dying are not.
Wounded's description is the same as the CRB.
One of the RAW stating that you add Wounded when you increase Dying is new to the Remaster.
Which is more likely to be in error ?
The old description that has not changed or the new description that came with a whole package of other errata ?
I honestly think the former is far more likely.
Why add new incorrect RAW if people were already following the correct RAW with the CRB version ?
There are a few things going against it being increased by wounded every time. One was what i was saying but if they wanted to make a specific rule that overode the general telling us when to increase dying they really should have not used parens or plus and just said increase your dying by 1 and by your wounded value if any.
Using parens and not repeating increase in the parens makes it look like the reminder in the taking damage section. That was there pre remaster and was not taken as increase either. For taking damage they would have needed to remove remind and just make it a straight up do this.
Im not convinced I need to increase. Too much playing around with terminology to overide in my opinion.
Also the playtest language ive heard about that clearly would mean to increase by the wounded value did not make it to the final version. So it may as well also not have been the intention.
Also Easl you are making a good argument, im just not fully convinced. There are too many problems left.
The ones I stated above are some of them. Then theres the fact that the entries for both dying and wounded are clear and complete. Those entries do not tell you they are i complete. Only the sidebar on page 443 says its incomplete. Dying even provides the outcome without the wounded mention as if is intended. If followed along with the wounded entry you get the old rules. Why am i to take the entry on 411 to mean something different when on all other pages in the book the rules have not changed at all?
After all, there's really only a few situations where it makes a huge difference - the clearest one being where you have Wounded 1 going into a combat, you go down (Dying 2), then you get hit again while down or you fail your recovery check... = Dying 4? Or Dying 3?
I have avoided commenting on the Remastered Wounded rules because I won't own the Remastered PDFs until November 15. But I do have experience in PF2 combat.
When I read the Wounded rules in my original Pathfinder 2nd Edition rulebook, I made a mental note to talk to my players about houseruling them, because taking damage while dying and wounded seemed too harsh:
Taking Damage while Dying
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, remember to add the value of your wounded condition to your dying value.
The Wounded condition seemed like to say that the character resumed dying at the value where they had left off, unless they had medical treatment that restored their deep vitality. In other words, stabilizing and the Heal spell and Battlefield Medicine did not repair the deep injuries on the character. On the other hand, increasing Dying value by Wounded value upon further damage did not seem to match any real-world situation, so it seemed unnecessary and bothersome. Why would being healed make a character more vulnerable to damage while dying?
I planned on dropping that rule. But I waited until that rule mattered before I would discuss it with my players. And the opportunity never came up. The Damage while Dying and Wounded rule was never invoked in my campaign from 1st level to 20th level.
My players are unusual. They are tactical experts who practice well-honed teamwork. In that campaign, only four characters ever dropped to dying. No-one ever was dying while wounded.
At 4th level, the ranger Zinfandel was moved away from the party while they battled a hobgoblin garrison and two 4th-level Hobgoblin Archers had followed him. He dropped in the outnumbered combat as two other party members ran up to finish off the last archer. The player decided to spend a hero point to stabilize, and then the party retreated to the woods for Treat Wounds rather than finishing off the remaining fragment of the garrison.
At 6th level, the rogue/sorcerer Sam critically failed a Reflex save against a trap and took double damage that rendered him dying. The rest of the party had plenty of time for Treat Wounds on Sam and the other two damaged PCs, because the hallway had no active opponents.
At 16th level, the party decided to provoke the next opponent because it would probably attack their current opponent, an advanced 18th-level Wendigo that hated everything, while they hid in a side cave. The next opponent was a 19th-level Primal Bandersnatch. The gargantuan bandersnatch quickly finished off the half-defeated wendigo, and then tried to squeeze into the cave in pursuit of the party. The party identified the bandersnatch's 30-foot Confusing Gaze and decided that their champion Tikti would hold the bandersnatch in melee combat while the rest of the party fought from beyond 30 feet. As the sole target of the bandersnatch, Tikti eventually fell. Sam used Friendfetch to pull Tikti to safety and quick healing. The monk Ren'zar-jo stepped up to replace Tikti as melee combatant. Ren'zar-jo was knocked dying just before the party's ranged attacks killed off the bandersnatch. The bandersnatch had some guards tending it, but they were not going to disturb the unknown hazard in a cave that had killed the bandersnatch. Thus, the party had time for Treat Wounds.
In my experience, because the party protected its members, a PC fell to dying only due to an obviously deadly situation that offered time for Treat Wounds afterwards.
Does the Remastered Treat Wounds still remove the Wounded condition? And has Administer First Aid been rewritten in the Remastering, because the new Remastered Wounded rules makes a critical failure too risky on a Wounded character.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does the Remastered Treat Wounds still remove the Wounded condition? And has Administer First Aid been rewritten in the Remastering, because the new Remastered Wounded rules makes a critical failure too risky on a Wounded character.
Wounded is still removed in the same ways: Treating Wounds or getting to full hp by any method and resting 10 min. So 10 minutes out of combat either way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is still ambiguity. Before the "new" rule only appeared in one place, but not the others, and so the intent was ambiguous.
Now, it still only appears in one place, and not in others, and so the intent remains ambiguous.
The Wounded condition seemed like to say that the character resumed dying at the value where they had left off, unless they had medical treatment that restored their deep vitality.So this isn't quite correct.
No matter how high your Dying value gets, if Dying is removed by any means other than spending hero points, your wounded increases by 1. It doesn't go to the value Dying was at, or anything like that - it is explicitly designed to counteract 'yo-yo' healing that plagues games like 5e, where there is no reason to heal until somebody goes down - Wounded encourages more proactive healing, to prevent going down to start.
Essentially, if a character goes down to a crit, they go to dying 2. They take damage when they are inside the splash radius of a bomb, dying 3. The cleric casts heal on them, all dying cleared, Wounded 1.
Sorry, my lack of experience with the Wounded condition means that I have not memorized how the numbers work.
I read about D&D 5th Edition providing too much mid-combat healing, but I had not imagined that it meant letting teammates drop before healing them. My PF1 and PF2 players are careful to heal their teammates before they dropped, except in the three situations that I mentioned in my previous comment. And in the Primal Bandersnatch example, the party healer was casting ranged Heal every turn on the defender facing down the bandersnatch, while carefully standing just outside the 30-foot range of the the bandersnatch's Confusing Gaze. PF2 combat is so fast that having a teammate down for a single round would be a major handicap.
There is still ambiguity. Before the "new" rule only appeared in one place, but not the others, and so the intent was ambiguous.
Now, it still only appears in one place, and not in others, and so the intent remains ambiguous.
By way of example, the rules for the Dying condition:
https://2e.aonprd.com/Conditions.aspx?ID=11Nothing in those rules says you should add wounded when you gain dying, because those rules are elsewhere in the book. The sidebar has a reminder, but that is not part of the condition’s rules text.
The argument you are using here is equivalent to ‘the rules for dying as a whole and the rules for the dying condition differ, so we cannot say for certain which is correct.’ The answer is that they don’t differ and both are correct, because the rule is printed in a different location. This is almost certainly an issue of organization, not one of interpretation.
This seems to me a simple case of a specific rule (add Wounded value to Dying value) overriding the general rules about Dying condition. However, specific rules overruling general rules is never perfectly simple.
For example, consider the Immunity rules. A creature with Immunity to a type of damage does not take damage of that type. In addition, Immunity can be against a trait or effect rather than a type of damage. But we have Golem Antimagic, which is such a confusing special case overriding the general Immunity rules that I pray that the Remastered Bestiary will totally change golem antimagic. If a fighter hits a wood golem with a sword that has the Magic trait due to a +1 weapon potency rule, does that prevent the slashing damage from the sword? Don't answer, because that question is just a sample of the confusion.
I compare Wounded condition to Immunity to critical hits. This immunity is a special case called out in the Immunity rules, so we know it does not negate the critical hit, instead it reduces the damage to normal amounts. Wounded appears to be a special case of the Dying rules, called out in the Taking Damage while Dying rules and in the Remastered Recovery rules.
What bothers me about the adding the Wounded value to increases in Dying value while already Dying is that I don't know its purpose. I had assumed that adding Wounded value to the Dying value when gaining the Dying condition represented that damage hurts more than just hit points. Chrono explained that it prevents some unflavorful uses of repeated healing. Further analysis supports Chrono's explanation, because the two methods of removing the Wounded condition require 10 minutes of time, which is not available during repeated healing in combat.
But what is the purpose of adding the Wounded value to the Dying value whenever the Dying value is increased? I cannot think of a medical situation that that represents. And I don't know of an unflavorful exploit that it prevents either. It just makes PCs die faster, which is an undesirable outcome.
I don't need it to make monsters die faster. The rules from Knocked Out and Dying say, "When most creatures reach 0 Hit Points, they die and are removed from play unless the attack was nonlethal." I use the Dying condition on creatures only when I think the PCs might want to revive them and question them later, or with ferocity, regeneration, or fast healing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Wounded condition seemed like to say that the character resumed dying at the value where they had left off, unless they had medical treatment that restored their deep vitality.So this isn't quite correct.
No matter how high your Dying value gets, if Dying is removed by any means other than spending hero points, your wounded increases by 1. It doesn't go to the value Dying was at, or anything like that - it is explicitly designed to counteract 'yo-yo' healing that plagues games like 5e, where there is no reason to heal until somebody goes down - Wounded encourages more proactive healing, to prevent going down to start.
Essentially, if a character goes down to a crit, they go to dying 2. They take damage when they are inside the splash radius of a bomb, dying 3. The cleric casts heal on them, all dying cleared, Wounded 1.
Sorry, my lack of experience with the Wounded condition means that I have not memorized how the numbers work.
I read about D&D 5th Edition providing too much mid-combat healing, but I had not imagined that it meant letting teammates drop before healing them. My PF1 and PF2 players are careful to heal their teammates before they dropped, except in the three situations that I mentioned in my previous comment. And in the Primal Bandersnatch example, the party healer was casting ranged Heal every turn on the defender facing down the bandersnatch, while carefully standing just outside the 30-foot range of the the bandersnatch's Confusing Gaze. PF2 combat is so fast that having a teammate down for a single round would be a major handicap.
5e's yoyo healing came about because its healing is generally bad and healing word exists as a bonus action, trying to keep people up in that system is just wasting your time, it is also the only system I know of where it's such a constant thing because that's kind of how they built the system (also the only example that really gets made)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have been seriously injured.It's an abstraction to represent that you've been seriously injured in the course of almost dying.
Yet I am still bewildered.
When a character has Dying condition, they have been seriously injured. Wounded is what happened after they are healed partially from dying. They are not newly seriously injured; instead, they are still seriously injured despite regaining hit points. That makes sense to me. And Dying 2 and Dying 3 going to Wounded 1 implies that the deep injury was partly healed.
Yet imagine that a character dropped on the battlefield to Dying 1 due to a knife thrown by an enemy. Then another enemy casts Burning Hands on the area, so the injured character drops to Dying 2. At the beginning of their turn, they make a Recovery check, have a regular failure, and go to Dying 3.
On the other hand, add the extra event that a bard friend cast Soothe on the injured character just after they dropped. The injured character is now conscious and Wounded 1. Alas, before they start their turn, that other enemy casts casts Burning Hands on the area, so the injured character drops to Dying 2 because of the Wounded 1. At the beginning of their next turn, they make a Recovery check, have a regular failure, and go to Dying 4. They are dead.
The Soothe spell did not buy the character any more time; instead, it led to a hasty death due to nasty targetting by the enemy.
That gives the unflavorful impression that magically healing a character makes them more injured, because it makes them more Wounded. The magic forces them awake at a potentially deadly cost.
Narratively, it seems most likely that the goal is adding tension. Will you win or escape the fight, or will you succumb to your wounds?
The added tension appears to be, "I had better roll well on the healing spell, or this will be worse than nothing." An intelligent and malicious enemy would realize that the revived character is more easily sent to the afterlife by a single attack.
A popular, or at least it used to be, 5e healing strategy was to have a Paladin use Lay on Hands to heal 1 HP at a time to allies that go down. They get Paladin Level x 5 HP that they can distribute however they please and this basically was used as Paladin Level x 5 free revives quite often.
Not sure how popular that still is, but when I played 5e it was in basically every group I saw or played in.
I thank Guntermench, Staffan Johansson, and Karneios for their insights into Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition healing. An old friend asked me to DM a D&D 5e over Roll20 this upcoming January, and I need to learn the nuances of that game.
Well the change is that now the Wounded value is added to failed Recovery Checks.
Probably all parties want to have Stabilize cantrip. Beyond that there is no much discussion, as in all other cases is the same than currently.
The Wounded condition is not bad designed in the way it avoid the yoyo dying/healing to get up. For a normal character the max you can get up are 3 times as if knocked again you directly die.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably all parties want to have Stabilize cantrip.
I still don't see the value there. I don't want to be lying on the ground at -6 to my AC. Are you sure the downed PC is not going to be targetted?
Yes that's what I think too. If GM wants to kill players then right you can just sacrifice monsters for doing that. But if they act for optimizing the actions they should target something more threatening.
Reverse it and apply Dying condition to monsters, in this case if a player knocks down a creature, it continues using actions to kill it or goes for another one?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've had GMs attack downed PCs just because the creature had dragon frenzy or a similar multi-attack ability, left over attacks in the activity, and no other available targets.
"Downed you on the first crit, so here's two more for ya!"
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In most cases it's a bad idea to waste actions on double-tapping a target that is not an active threat, from a mechanical perspective.Probably all parties want to have Stabilize cantrip. Beyond that there is no much discussion, as in all other cases is the same than currentlyI still don't see the value there. I don't want to be lying on the ground at -6 to my AC. Are you sure the downed PC is not going to be targetted?
Sure, the first time you drop them. The second time you dropped them, now that you know they are at least Wounded 1, you only have to hit them one more time to be sure they are dead. (Going by the new rules.)
I also see opponents hit downed characters with their 3rd action which due to MAP would normally be crit-fishing, but actually has a good chance of hitting a downed character.
Probably all parties want to have Stabilize cantrip.I still don't see the value there. I don't want to be lying on the ground at -6 to my AC. Are you sure the downed PC is not going to be targetted?
I would assume any monster that is motivated by killing living things will kill the easiest target first.
A monster just trying to defend itself might ignore a downed character because its no longer threatening them.A Hell Knight is killing the downed PC if they see a cleric in the party cause they know that's the most efficient way to neutralize any attempt at bringing the PC back into the fight.