I like like that.
i'm going to ask my new group if they want to play with plot armor switched on lol.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Yeah that’s the key. That’s why is also important how characters shows to others. I.e. if a Cleric has the “Cleric” neon over its head, with the holy symbol clearly visible, or it wears hidden under the clothes (so the others only can see a character in armor), and etc.
I insist to players about this and define how their characters are and shows. It can have implications beyond something merely mechanic.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't really made a value judgment on the rules either way yet but,
I actually don't think bringing a player at your table back into the action should be penalized too heavily. More so than any realism concern of game play is the ability for your friends to have fun playing the game and no one is having a good time when their character is downed and coming back into the fight means they will likely have to re-roll.
They will pay attention when they are about to die if they have hope of coming back and getting turns again, they will walk away from the table to the detriment of gameplay and a good time if they are basically out of the fight for the rest of it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't really made a value judgment on the rules either way yet but,
I actually don't think bringing a player at your table back into the action should be penalized too heavily. More so than any realism concern of game play is the ability for your friends to have fun playing the game and no one is having a good time when their character is downed and coming back into the fight means they will likely have to re-roll.
They will pay attention when they are about to die if they have hope of coming back and getting turns again, they will walk away from the table to the detriment of gameplay and a good time if they are basically out of the fight for the rest of it.
I see this change as merely resulting in a change of tactics to take into account how going down the first time ends up really dangerous later on.
Not as PCs getting taken out of the fight more often. Unless the players keep to their old tactics.
Similar in a way to how PF1 veterans had to forget all their best PF1 tactics to adapt to the PF2 paradigm.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The most recommended change of tactics I've seen has been to stabilise and leave the dropped person on the ground where the player can't do s@%&, the other one I have seen after that where the downed player can actually do things has been to just get them up and then everybody run away if someone gets dropped
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I and others have repeatedly noted that Mark S seemed to have been the advocate for the more lethal rules. But I've tried to remember to put a caveat around that saying "I keep reading people claim this, but I want the receipts".
And the other day on the Roll For Combat livestream, the Rules Lawyer brought the topic up.
The answer is a lot more nuanced and ALSO helps me understand why we have the rule we now have even if I still disagree with it.
Here's a quote from a comment I made on reddit inside a thread where someone was complaining about how lethal Abomination Vaults is (hint: folks in the thread suspect that person's GM has altered the encounters but we've not figured out for sure yet). I went down a tangent and got called out, so I dug up the quote (and in rewatching realized I had a few things wrong):
****************************
Watch Roll for Combat where Mark S has been talking about wiping out PCs in the hundreds.
Most recently near the end of the video they did together with The Rules Lawyer.
Full context: https://www.youtube.com/live/SVS4gSv2wlE?si=HdHiRmyKzfjmMXJc&t=8946
Statement about killing a LOT of PCs: https://www.youtube.com/live/SVS4gSv2wlE?si=TfSVpLT7hQqamY-B&t=9367
You can see my name in the chat bar as this is going, using my non-reddit handle of arcady.
Watching this again, I see that he is saying he got deaths in the hundreds in PF1E, but has had 0 in PF2E. That does change the context a LOT.
He actually also suggests good tips for reducing PF2E lethality because he gets that not everyone is him. But his baseline fir the right level if challenge is brutal.
One of the most fascinating things about that video is that one idea during PF2E development would have actually almost removed PC death. A mechanic we now see in some other tRPGs: when you go down as a player you decide between staying down for the fight or getting a heroic last stand where you get to achieve something but your character doesn’t survive.
I forget the whole conversation but I think they decided not to do that because it would be too different from the old game. But Mark laid it out and suggested people wanting less lethal or at least lethal by story games try it.
That lethality by drama option: https://www.youtube.com/live/SVS4gSv2wlE?si=VHZZtoB5zTYVbL96&t=9238
************************
So the note on "I forget" - right after typing that I rewatched for time stamps, and realized the nuances here.
I suspect they don't think this new remaster version is as lethal as we think it is.
It is interesting to note in watching this that the two Roll For Combat guys who work together everyday on Pathfinder 2E content - thought the rule said two different things.
Mark mentions that were some 40 different death and dying options proposed during PF2E development. Rules Lawyer asks if we could see some of them. Mark declines... but I would love to see some of them make it into a future book as variant rules for tuning a game in either direction.
I still think the change the remaster has is a dramatically bad rule.
But for me, having some context around it is vital. I'd love to find a video like this from someone who was actually on the Remaster rewrite team and had input on this part of the rules.
Lol i love the comment from Stephen Glicker. Theres four rules for death and dying choose the one you like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It'd be nice if we knew when poison triggered in the turn, so that we could better gauge the lethality of it in light of the new rules.
|
|
The most recommended change of tactics I've seen has been to stabilise and leave the dropped person on the ground where the player can't do s!!#, the other one I have seen after that where the downed player can actually do things has been to just get them up and then everybody run away if someone gets dropped
That is the reactive change.
The proactive change mentioned several times is ensuring PCs do not go down. Builds, tactics, healing are all tools that will be used differently in light of this.
Defenses are becoming more valuable than they were.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The most recommended change of tactics I've seen has been to stabilise and leave the dropped person on the ground where the player can't do s~**, the other one I have seen after that where the downed player can actually do things has been to just get them up and then everybody run away if someone gets droppedThat is the reactive change.
The proactive change mentioned several times is ensuring PCs do not go down. Builds, tactics, healing are all tools that will be used differently in light of this.
Defenses are becoming more valuable than they were.
I don't see that as being a change though, buildwise wis/con and either str or dex depending armour were already highly valued, healing to keep people up was already happening because the action economy of going down was already bad
It comes back to my problem with this change/clarification making the game more lethal doesn't hurt the strongest groups but does hurt both the weaker classes and the weaker players (meaning both less interested/capable in the tactical side of it and also just people new to the system) and I don't really see the benefit of it, you can say oh just run dying how you want but new players are the most likely to just run as written
It looks like Ravingdork meant in the Remaster, and it is on page 436 (Step 3: End Your Turn).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The most recommended change of tactics I've seen has been to stabilise and leave the dropped person on the ground where the player can't do s~**, the other one I have seen after that where the downed player can actually do things has been to just get them up and then everybody run away if someone gets droppedThat is the reactive change.
The proactive change mentioned several times is ensuring PCs do not go down. Builds, tactics, healing are all tools that will be used differently in light of this.
Defenses are becoming more valuable than they were.
I don't see that as being a change though, buildwise wis/con and either str or dex depending armour were already highly valued, healing to keep people up was already happening because the action economy of going down was already bad
It comes back to my problem with this change/clarification making the game more lethal doesn't hurt the strongest groups but does hurt both the weaker classes and the weaker players (meaning both less interested/capable in the tactical side of it and also just people new to the system) and I don't really see the benefit of it, you can say oh just run dying how you want but new players are the most likely to just run as written
In PFS I saw PCs jumping right back into the fray when coming back from Dying (so, Wounded 1) because they knew that they could not be killed (ie sent to Dying 4) right away.
Not being able to do this anymore will change how people plan their contribution to a fight.
And I really believe this kind of meta approach to Wounded 1 I describe above is not what new players do.
It looks like Ravingdork meant in the Remaster, and it is on page 436 (Step 3: End Your Turn).
It's not as clear as I'd like; poisons aren't even mentioned.
Still, better than what came before from what I can recall.
I thought it was strange that death effects were so mean compared to dying normally. Now with the clarified dying rules, you're basically out of the fight if you go down once. That makes more sense to me. Death effects don't look so mean by comparison anymore.
I thought it was strange that death effects were so mean compared to dying normally. Now with the clarified dying rules, you're basically out of the fight if you go down once. That makes more sense to me. Death effects don't look so mean by comparison anymore.
When the whole world is dark and bleak, no one can see the shadows.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought it was strange that death effects were so mean compared to dying normally. Now with the clarified dying rules, you're basically out of the fight if you go down once. That makes more sense to me. Death effects don't look so mean by comparison anymore.
I mean, you aren't... you just make sure you can actually heal up properly.
Infact you can go down exactly the same number of times as before, it only matters if you take damage when down or nobody heals or stabilizes you in a full round. It is always a full round due to initiative shifting (persistent damage and AoE being the real danger since the CRB literally says not to attack downed players). Oh and getting crit when wounded 2.
And remember how few rounds are usually in combats.
It is more dangerous but it inherently encourages play that will result in less deaths, and yeah as Raven was saying earlier in my experience new players tend to be cagey about going down anyway so it isn't as likely to apply to them.
I encourage people to try it and record how many times it comes up in their games. Because I have had people die to persistent damage, people die to crits, death effects and more... but only once to my memory where wounded was why they died. PF2e characters are incredibly resilient, if paizo would stop publishing level 1-3 solo fights with severe and extreme encounters there would be far fewer new players struggling imo.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For a single anecdote about an encounter using this more lethal interpretation of the rules:
Last night we had an encounter, that knocked my character to dying 2 in the first round. The party healed me, I retrieved my weapon, stood up, and stepped away. (Under the old rules I probably would have struck). I had a reach weapon so with the step I could still attack next round, while forcing the opponent to spend an action to come to me (or more, likely, attack my closer allies since it appeared to be mindless.
Next round it put a lot of damage on an ally, but didn't drop anyone and we got some healing out. I missed with a spellstrike, used a hero point (had one remaining after this), still missed.
Next round it dropped our second frontliner (only dying 1).
Our primary healer was now out of spells, our secondary in-combat healer was down. We knew were in trouble. We also knew the enemy was getting low and had a weakness I could trigger.
Next round, I tried another spellstrike, missed, committed to winning the fight or dying, used my last hero point (lower). Second front-liner made the recovery check, so safe, but unconscious. Boss knocked out a third character.
We tried kiting the boss, stole two of its actions for one of ours each, but it still crit me, so dying 3. At which point the bard managed to finish it off. But we have no stabilize, no healing, no consumables (miscommunication about what we could purchase in the first place/lack of loot), no one up who was trained in medicine.
So we had one dying 3, one dying 1, and one unconscious. The dying 1 stabilized on her own. I passed my first recovery roll (dying 2), before we had any ability to help. By the next round we were debating having the bard try to administer first aid, untrained (spent the previous round getting the healer's tools off one of the downed combatants). (So my DC 12 flat check, versus her DC 17 @ +2, IIRC) We decided on my flat check. I made it -- dying 1. Next round same idea, but I failed --- Dying 3. Next round we decided to risk her DC 18 check. Since I would need three passes in a row and if either of the first two failed it was death. Felt roughly equal odds and wouldn't drag things out. She succeeded.
It definitely felt higher stakes. It still felt fair (and I'm someone who didn't like the new interpretation ahead of time). it highlights some lack of healing redundancy in the party, which I think was the greater problem than this version of the rules.
That's a nice story, NielsenE. Thanks for sharing.
It is always a full round due to initiative shifting...
This assumes you're fighting a single adversary, which is rarely the case.
You won't have a full round if a minion walks up and kicks you in the head, or fireballs you along with the rest of the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or if the boss had a wounding weapon!! oh man that will be a nightmare.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This assumes you're fighting a single adversary, which is rarely the case.
You won't have a full round if a minion walks up and kicks you in the head, or fireballs you along with the rest of the party.
As I said, the GM advises against GMs doing this explicitly. If your GM is doing this with any sort of regularity your characters are likely dead before you get wounded anyway. Which is totally fine, but sounds more there would be need to a discussion between the player and the GM if they are running a hard mode gritty game and the player dislikes relatively minor increases of lethality like this dying rule.
And AoE wise I did mention it, but even with wounded 1 generally only matters if you crit fail, which again is possible, but less likely in a fight with lots of enemies unless you got really unlucky when you were going down. I get what you are saying but it is very very niche.
"Adversaries usually don’t attack a character who’s knocked out. Even if a creature knows a fallen character might come back into the fight, only the most vicious creatures focus on helpless foes rather than the more immediate threats around them." - crb.493/gmc.26 (along side advice not to avoid metagaming creature actions)
Does it mean it can never happen? No, but it isn't what the people writing PF2e's rules expected as the default behaviour.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing about AoE damage while dying is that the rules always had that bit about adding your wounded condition to your dying value, so the remastered change does nothing about that risk.
In the example given either rules interpretation would have been equally tense. There only interaction in that example with the recovery checks while wounded were successes and a failure was death either way since the player was at dying 3 from the crit anyway.
if anything the player made a better decision to step away than strike. Even with wounded only being added once on dropping to zero staying and striking would have meant the foe can take a full round and kill the PC. Then the PC would not have been able to use their hero point on a spell strike cause they would have had to use it to live.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This assumes you're fighting a single adversary, which is rarely the case.
You won't have a full round if a minion walks up and kicks you in the head, or fireballs you along with the rest of the party.
"Adversaries usually don’t attack a character who’s knocked out. Even if a creature knows a fallen character might come back into the fight, only the most vicious creatures focus on helpless foes rather than the more immediate threats around them." - crb.493/gmc.26 (along side advice not to avoid metagaming creature actions)
Does it mean it can never happen? No, but it isn't what the people writing PF2e's rules expected as the default behaviour.
Attacking a downed PC is an evil act for an intelligent foe. Its also an act any malicious or just hungry foe could take. One more bite attack to get a taste of the easy prey. Almost any demon or undead would do this. Some undead would simply ignore other players to feast on the downed target in an unthinking manner.
Like I said before a Hell knight or a foe with similar sensabilities is killing downed players because they are smart and ruthless and would realize the potential threat a revived pc can be if they see anyone other pc they recognize as capable healers.Not doing this is holding the PCs hands. If they didnt want a lethal environment the rules should reflect it not GM refrain
Might as well be giving PCs plot armor, which is fine but thats what it is.
TBH I’d like that Wounded be something different. In D&D on the DMG manual there are injuries optional rules, which can be applied i.e. when reaching 0 HP. I use it and works well, if you are knocked down roll in an injuries table and get a penalty that you will have until healed properly.
lol because deep down PCs are evil, tombrobbing, corpselooting, opportunists.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Attacking a downed PC is an evil act for an intelligent foe.It might be, but it's definitely something damn near every PC would do if unconscious enemies got back up nearly as often as unconscious PCs do.
I had this issue with a player in one of my most recent games. Her character was CG and using coup-de-grace routinely on downed foes (like town guards), to the horror of everyone at the table. Soon figured out that she had picked up the habit from the Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous video games.
Culture definitely varies by table on this, but also by campaign. Had to point out that she was definitely making a bad impression on the townsfolk.
As far as what *monsters* do with downed foes...it's usually pretty clear from the tactics in written encounters. I had one recently where the tactics were to down the weakest, then take the body back to their lair. Came very close to killing the character downed on a crit (1 hp away from killing outright with massive damage) because getting in healing range was so difficult.
In my experience players want the rules to be fair and the encounters to be balanced or allow for their creativity to avoid or deal with them differently than just fighting. But I haven't seen players want the GM to pull punches that the foes in front of them can and would do based on their motivations. I as a player wouldn't feel like I overcame a challenge with my party. There would always be that yeah but the GM was holding back.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience players want the rules to be fair and the encounters to be balanced or allow for their creativity to avoid or deal with them differently than just fighting. But I haven't seen players want the GM to pull punches that the foes in front of them can and would do based on their motivations. I as a player wouldn't feel like I overcame a challenge with my party. There would always be that yeah but the GM was holding back.
Understood, and something to be discussed and agreed by the party and GM beforehand.
But, as mentioned above, that is not the premise in the CRB.
In my experience players want the rules to be fair and the encounters to be balanced or allow for their creativity to avoid or deal with them differently than just fighting. But I haven't seen players want the GM to pull punches that the foes in front of them can and would do based on their motivations. I as a player wouldn't feel like I overcame a challenge with my party. There would always be that yeah but the GM was holding back.Understood, and something to be discussed and agreed by the party and GM beforehand.
But, as mentioned above, that is not the premise in the CRB.
I agree. You shouldn't ignore instructions then get mad that the leopard is eating your face. You only do it if you were explicitly signing up for leopard kisses
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fun fact. Hero points can be used to remove the dying condition (without getting wounded) not just when it increases, but also at the start of your turn. Any ideas for how to make use of this?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This assumes you're fighting a single adversary, which is rarely the case.
You won't have a full round if a minion walks up and kicks you in the head, or fireballs you along with the rest of the party.
"Adversaries usually don’t attack a character who’s knocked out. Even if a creature knows a fallen character might come back into the fight, only the most vicious creatures focus on helpless foes rather than the more immediate threats around them." - crb.493/gmc.26 (along side advice not to avoid metagaming creature actions)
Does it mean it can never happen? No, but it isn't what the people writing PF2e's rules expected as the default behaviour.
Attacking a downed PC is an evil act for an intelligent foe. Its also an act any malicious or just hungry foe could take. One more bite attack to get a taste of the easy prey. Almost any demon or undead would do this. Some undead would simply ignore other players to feast on the downed target in an unthinking manner.
Like I said before a Hell knight or a foe with similar sensabilities is killing downed players because they are smart and ruthless and would realize the potential threat a revived pc can be if they see anyone other pc they recognize as capable healers.
Enemies have motivations.
You need to distiguish intelligent enemies from other opponents.
A young member of a tribe might want to steal a first kill to establish their status.
Consider animals. They attack things that move. A dying creature is probably still twitching. If you stop moving they will stop attacking. But that is not an automatic thing. The animal probably won't stop their attack routine till they have a short pause to evaluate. It would be very common to just keep attacking for a bit. Domesticated animals are probably not hungry enough to start eating straight away, but wild animals especially those in a pack will eat as they know they won't get another chance. A solitary animal is likely to attend to other threats using this same line of thinking.
An animal defending its territory is not going to go for a kill. It won't even finish off enemies. Its main goal will be to hurt every one and scare them off.
Then there are mindless enemies.
Those with lifesense and a hunger for life probably get very excited when a creature is dying. They may even prioritise dying foes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few scattered thoughts, but applying the clarified rules without making hard fights more lethal would definitely involve some getting used to from the players at the table, which could be tricky in ongoing campaigns where things like builds, party synergies, and access to competent healing might be set in stone and thus hard to change.
It feels like with how dangerous getting up after going down can be, the game effectively incentivizes characters that can operate at near-full effectiveness while at range, to the detriment of melee-oriented characters (including most Barbarians and all those who dumped DEX). Having powerful, consistent ways to mess with enemies' actions is more important now, conversely.
By the way, how do you guys feel about fast healing now? Some sources of it, like Witch's Life Boost, scale well enough to still be useful, especially since they help you avoid dropping to 0 in the first place. But some other things like mutagens could turn you into a liability if they heal you up from the floor, again, unless you have access to strong in-combat healing.
It goes back to what some people were arguing for at the start, that it might become tactically sounder to just let your dying ally stabilize on their own while you try to close the fight - if you spend your turn trying to heal them and then they have to spend theirs getting away from the danger (and the action!), then neither of you used your actions to help stabilize the fight or tip the scales in your favor. I can't help but think this has the potential to run counter to the way the game is set to be played, with a heavy emphasis on teamwork and party coordination.
Those are the impressions I've gotten so far after one session at level 7, at least...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.As multiple posters have pointed out to you, specific rules trump general rules. If there is a general rule that says "strikes cost one action" and under power attack it says "this strike costs two actions," then power attack costs two actions. The same thing here. If you read a general rule somewhere else in the rulebook that says persistent effects don't add, but under the remaster Wounded rules it says "any time you increase your Dying, add your Wounded rating to it," then you add Wounded to your Dying value when your Dying value increases. Not because that's normal. Not because anyone is claiming that's how persistent effects work in general. But because the specific text for Wounding makes it work differently than the general case.
I'm holding out hope that this particular section is just really poorly written and that the authors mean what you, Bluemagetim, think it means. But reading the rules as objectively as I am able, this does not seem to be the case. As written, there is a specific sentence in the remastered rules that indicates you do indeed add your Wounded rating to your Dying increase every time dying increases.
In no way that is that rule so specific that is overrides the redundant condition rule.
It has already been pointed out that a specific rule that overrides the redundant condition rules is written like a shadow applying enfeebled where it specifically states it stacks up to Enfeebled four.
Nowhere does the Recovery Check state the wounded condition stacks. It says increase dying by 1 then parentheses (and your wounded condition).
To me it reads more like a reminder to ensure your initial dying condition which starts at 1 is increased by 1 and please remember to have added your wounded condition to dying as part of the overall equation.
And that's how I will run it until a dev clarifies otherwise because I do not find the remaster rule written any more clearly than the previous one. It's another rule that should have been written clearer with a clear example illustrated for they intended to work rather than let three topics and 100s of posts discussing.
So as long as the devs don't clearly show an example otherwise, I will apply the Redundant condition rule just as you will not apply the redundant condition rule and run it as you interpret that rule within the context of the entire ruleset.
I've already seen multiple rules in different areas of the book modify things. The only time something is "specific" as people like to keep bringing it up is when a condition clearly states it stacks with itself which this rule does not do.
Shadow strength drain clearly state its stacks up to enfeebled 4. So does the drained condition a specter.
The Remaster Recovery check rule in no way states that the the wounded condition stacks with itself which it would be doing if it applied more than once to the dying condition. There is no clear text indicating wounded stacks with itself, so I will not do so.
I'm still not sure why others are making it seem like that Remaster Recovery check states the wounded condition stacks with itself when they have seen how the Paizo devs write a rule where a condition stacks with itself. There are multiple examples of this. It is never written like the Remaster Recovery rule.
So that's how I will run it within the overall context of the rules until a Paizo Dev makes it 100% clear and official, not a discussion by Mark Seifter on some podcast.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This assumes you're fighting a single adversary, which is rarely the case.
You won't have a full round if a minion walks up and kicks you in the head, or fireballs you along with the rest of the party.
"Adversaries usually don’t attack a character who’s knocked out. Even if a creature knows a fallen character might come back into the fight, only the most vicious creatures focus on helpless foes rather than the more immediate threats around them." - crb.493/gmc.26 (along side advice not to avoid metagaming creature actions)
Does it mean it can never happen? No, but it isn't what the people writing PF2e's rules expected as the default behaviour.
Attacking a downed PC is an evil act for an intelligent foe. Its also an act any malicious or just hungry foe could take. One more bite attack to get a taste of the easy prey. Almost any demon or undead would do this. Some undead would simply ignore other players to feast on the downed target in an unthinking manner.
Like I said before a Hell knight or a foe with similar sensabilities is killing downed players because they are smart and ruthless and would realize the potential threat a revived pc can be if they see anyone other pc they recognize as capable healers.Enemies have motivations.
You need to distiguish intelligent enemies from other opponents.
A young member of a tribe might want to steal a first kill to establish their status.
Consider animals. They attack things that move. A dying creature is probably still twitching. If you stop moving they will stop attacking. But that is not an automatic thing. The animal probably won't stop their attack routine till they have a short pause to evaluate. It would be very common to just keep attacking for a bit. Domesticated animals are probably not hungry enough to start eating straight away, but wild animals especially those in a pack will eat as they know they won't get another chance. A solitary...
All of these can be awesome for your table and your game. They are also very much opposed to what the CRB states.
They are Houserules. Which are absolutely fine to play the game the way you best enjoy it.
|
|
Also: It is still mechanically and tactically bad to go after a downed character instead of going after active threats and potential healers, regardless of if the enemy also goes to dying or not. The only way a downed creature becomes a threat again is if they get healed, so going after and threatening the healer (or the rest of their group if there is no clear healer) with Reactive Strikes, Grabs, etc. is more efficient and more effective than going for a double tap. This is especially true for creatures who have high damage effects or death effects, as they know that if a creature gets healed they can eventually wear them down by downing them again easily enough. Figuring out ways to get around those problems is fun, repeatedly attacking downed characters is both non-interactive and immersion-breaking (because it's a bad idea for any creature except the most mindless or vicious).
RE: Afflictions timing, the rules are (still) under Duration, which is on page 426 of Player Core. It's a general rule that applies to all durations from all effects, so afflictions do not need to have theirs spelled out separately.
Not to mention that, with the changed rule, a creature that comes back from Dying is visibly in bad shape and close to death, so extremely likely to disengage.
I had several fights in PFS where some opponents fled when the fight was going against them and we usually let them because the other still fighting threats required immediate attention.
In fact I really dislike NPCs' tactics that are just variations on Fight to the death when it would make perfect sense for the opponent to just flee or surrender.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
lol because deep down PCs are evil, tombrobbing, corpselooting, opportunists.Because one person healed back from dead who drops a high level spell and TPKs the party, teaches you that down doesn't mean out.
Double tap to make sure.
Double tap, then sever the head, then burn everything to ashes - and possibly scatter them, too. Just what my group routinely does with dangerous foes, after... some bad experiences.
i agree with Deriven. I haven't seen anything that really convinces me the rules as written are actually a change in the rules from preremaster even now that some people making videos believe the rules have been clarified to add wounded everytime.
The comments in the video from Mark Seifter make it seem like he believed that wounded was added everytime as they did in playtest but then the rules printed didn't match the language he thought it would be either. What was printed does not look to me like a clarification but actually an obfuscation as Stephen Glicker pointed out in the same video. I see there are just more incongruencies if you read different sections in isolation and don't consider the full rules infrastructure applying the same limits on wounded as any other condition in the game.
Thats where I am still at.