Remaster Dying with Wounded

[The Raven Black]

Simpler and not a change for most this way.

I am tempted to use the deadlier version for my home games to make yoyoing back into combat a real high risk choice and increase the value of defenses.

We had a lot of interesting, if sometimes heated, debates on this. Thanks a lot to all who contributed.

[Ravingdork]

Chrono wrote:

"Pages 411: The text for the wounded condition was changed for consistency, but became consistent with the wrong piece of text. This would lead to much deadlier encounters! The following changes should ensure that death and dying works the way we intended.

In the Recovery Checks degrees of success, remove all instances of "(plus your wounded condition, if any)"; that's both in the failure and critical failure entries.
Under Taking Damage, remove the final sentence that reads, "If you have the wounded condition, remember to add the value of your wounded condition to your dying value." This reminder should only apply to when you gain the dying condition after getting knocked out."

From Player Core Day 1 Errata, problem solved.

Whoever could have predicted that would happen? :P

[TOZ]

Huzzah for errata!

[Ravingdork]

TOZ wrote:

Huzzah for errata!

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!

[Guntermench]

Disappointing.

[Gisher]

For convenience, here is what the changes look like when applied to the text.

Quote:

Recovery Checks

While you’re dying, attempt a recovery check at the start of each of your turns. This is a flat check with a DC equal to 10 + your current dying value to see if you get better or worse.
Critical Success Your dying value is reduced by 2.
Success Your dying value is reduced by 1.
Failure Your dying value increases by 1 (plus your wounded
value, if any).
Critical Failure Your dying value increases by 2 (plus your
wounded value, if any).

Taking Damage
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.

[SatiricalBard]

The Raven Black wrote:

Simpler and not a change for most this way.

I am tempted to use the deadlier version for my home games to make yoyoing back into combat a real high risk choice and increase the value of defenses.

We had a lot of interesting, if sometimes heated, debates on this. Thanks a lot to all who contributed.

I think the always clear clarified but always RAW changed why Paizo why 'deadlier' rules would make for an excellent official variant rule, for those groups wanting a 'grittier' game.

(Struckthrough text added for some light humour about the huge arguments we've all engaged in for the past few weeks - I am solidly behind Mark Seifter's probably over-optimistic hope on Reddit for this to bring about a "peaceful conclusion to the discourse")

[magnuskn]

Can't wait to see what Rogue Eidolon says about that on the next Roll For Combat podcast... if Stephen brings it up or a guest does. ^^

[MadamReshi]

SatiricalBard wrote:

I think the always clear clarified but always RAW changed why Paizo why 'deadlier' rules would make for an excellent official variant rule, for those groups wanting a 'grittier' game.

(Struckthrough text added for some light humour about the huge arguments we've all engaged in for the past few weeks - I am solidly behind Mark Seifter's probably over-optimistic hope on Reddit for this to bring about a "peaceful conclusion to the discourse")

I think it'd make for a great rules variant too for particularly deadly game and a particularly well optimised group; rather than throwing harder encounters consistently and making things too difficult in that area, having a game where death can come more suddenly could be quite an interesting variant.

[Gortle]

SatiricalBard wrote:

I am solidly behind Mark Seifter's probably over-optimistic hope on Reddit for this to bring about a "peaceful conclusion to the discourse")

Yes but unlikely. There will be some who still want the deadlier option.

Mark also posted an explanation.
MarkSeifter
1 hr. ago
Roll For Combat - Director of Game Design

Just because it was intended back 4 years ago doesn't mean they all intended it now. I got a quote from Mike Sayre that what happened here was that three people met, all thought they understood what to do, and had different understandings based on institutional knowledge or lack thereof.

"Three people all in the same room who thought they were on the same page, but that institutional knowledge poisoned the well and created a misunderstanding for one of the inputters."

That sort of incident is remarkably common in life.

[arcady]

Ravingdork wrote:

Chrono wrote:

"Pages 411: The text for the wounded condition was changed for consistency, but became consistent with the wrong piece of text. This would lead to much deadlier encounters! The following changes should ensure that death and dying works the way we intended.

In the Recovery Checks degrees of success, remove all instances of "(plus your wounded condition, if any)"; that's both in the failure and critical failure entries.
Under Taking Damage, remove the final sentence that reads, "If you have the wounded condition, remember to add the value of your wounded condition to your dying value." This reminder should only apply to when you gain the dying condition after getting knocked out."

From Player Core Day 1 Errata, problem solved.

Whoever could have predicted that would happen? :P

Good to see.

Clarity resolved. Paizo intent now known.

Which means now we can pick how we want to handle it in awareness of what the 'default' is supposed to be.

Clarity is a win for everyone - even people who decide to use a different method.

[arcady]

SatiricalBard wrote:

I think the always clear clarified but always RAW changed why Paizo why 'deadlier' rules would make for an excellent official variant rule, for those groups wanting a 'grittier' game.

Given the survey that showed some 25% of people were using the deadlier option - I think you're right.

I'll go a step further. If they ever do GM Core 2... or maybe even snuck into Player Core 2 or Monster Core - I'd like a whole chapter of different variant rules for death. Mark S mentioned some 40 ideas were around back during development, and dug in his heels when people asked if he was just exaggerating.

So of those 40... I'd like to see a few of them. Both more and less deadly options, along with guidelines on tuning it to group taste.

25% would make this a very popular variant. That's a percentage worth addressing.

[Ravingdork]

arcady wrote:

SatiricalBard wrote:

I think the always clear clarified but always RAW changed why Paizo why 'deadlier' rules would make for an excellent official variant rule, for those groups wanting a 'grittier' game.

Given the survey that showed some 25% of people were using the deadlier option - I think you're right.

I'll go a step further. If they ever do GM Core 2... or maybe even snuck into Player Core 2 or Monster Core - I'd like a whole chapter of different variant rules for death. Mark S mentioned some 40 ideas were around back during development, and dug in his heels when people asked if he was just exaggerating.

So of those 40... I'd like to see a few of them. Both more and less deadly options, along with guidelines on tuning it to group taste.

25% would make this a very popular variant. That's a percentage worth addressing.

Want a grittier game? Use the deadlier Death and Dying rules...and then remove Hero Points.

[aobst128]

It WAS a mistake! Lmao. Thank goodness.

[Errenor]

Blessed consistency... So good...
Yeah, I'm content and thankful that they made an effort to actually solve this.
Also an interesting example on what we consider intended or not.

[Guntermench]

Gortle wrote:

SatiricalBard wrote:

I am solidly behind Mark Seifter's probably over-optimistic hope on Reddit for this to bring about a "peaceful conclusion to the discourse")

Yes but unlikely. There will be some who still want the deadlier option.

Mark also posted an explanation.
MarkSeifter
1 hr. ago
Roll For Combat - Director of Game Design

Just because it was intended back 4 years ago doesn't mean they all intended it now. I got a quote from Mike Sayre that what happened here was that three people met, all thought they understood what to do, and had different understandings based on institutional knowledge or lack thereof.

"Three people all in the same room who thought they were on the same page, but that institutional knowledge poisoned the well and created a misunderstanding for one of the inputters."

That sort of incident is remarkably common in life.

The most hilarious thing about this, to me, is that this means it happened twice to Wounded.

When they printed the CRB there was a "consensus", but evidently not. When they printed this everyone thought they were ok the same page, but evidently not.

It also means that, as was noted earlier in that chain, basically everyone on both sides was right to some degree.

Absolutely hysterical.

[aobst128]

Strange there's been such discrepancy in what's been put to paper before now. Would have thought it would be more solidly agreed upon with it being a fairly fundamental rule of combat. Oh well. Fixed now. I actually hadn't noticed before these threads though.

[Staffan Johansson]

Guntermench wrote:

When they printed the CRB there was a "consensus", but evidently not. When they printed this everyone thought they were ok the same page, but evidently not.

I could see the conversation going like this:

"Hey, wasn't there some discrepancy with how Wounded works in different places?"
"Right, the GM Screen had a different version than the core rules."
"Well that's not ideal. Let's make sure that gets fixed in the remaster."

... and then it got "fixed" in the wrong direction.

[Easl]

Problem solved! The new errata release today explains it. Both camps were right in a sense: the remastered text *does* say add wounded when you gain another Dying tick, but this text is *in error*. The RAI is the 'old' way, where you only add Wounded when you go from not having the Dying condition to having it.

For reference, here's the errata text in full:

Pages 411: The text for the wounded condition was changed for consistency, but became consistent with the wrong piece of text. This would lead to much deadlier encounters! The following changes should ensure that death and dying works the way we intended.

In the Recovery Checks degrees of success, remove all instances of "(plus your wounded condition, if any)"; that's both in the failure and critical failure entries.
Under Taking Damage, remove the final sentence that reads, "If you have the wounded condition, remember to add the value of your wounded condition to your dying value." This reminder should only apply to when you gain the dying condition after getting knocked out.

I think this makes most of us glad. It does me. :)

[Ravingdork]

Wounded only applies upon gaining Dying. Wounded has always only applied upon gaining Dying.

[Megistone]

Good job. Now you really should go and answer back to certain smug and arrogant people there...

[Fumarole]

Gortle wrote:

That sort of incident is remarkably common in life.

It's the entire premise of Three's Company.

[Ravingdork]

Fumarole wrote:

Gortle wrote:

That sort of incident is remarkably common in life.

It's the entire premise of Three's Company.

Crap, now I got another show to check out.

[pauljathome]

Ravingdork wrote:

Fumarole wrote:

Gortle wrote:

That sort of incident is remarkably common in life.

It's the entire premise of Three's Company.

Crap, now I got another show to check out.

Go for the original British version (Man about the house). Far superior to the American remake

[Bluemagetim]

jack Tripper.
Oh that show might be hard to watch with today's sensibilities

[Easl]

Guntermench wrote:

It also means that, as was noted earlier in that chain, basically everyone on both sides was right to some degree.

Absolutely hysterical.

OT, but just another day of being human. Writers interpret their written words through the premises and knowledge in their brains. When readers don't have that same set of premises or knowledge, the intended meaning of the writing will not be as obvious as the writer thinks it is. Clear communication is it's own skill, separate from subject matter knowledge.

I once had a QM professor get upset at our undergrad class because he thought his QM explanations were "intuitively obvious." Same basic problem. Working day in and day out with the subject matter left him unable to see how someone *without* his knowledge base might read his writing.