Our DM ruled it as they stayed up from the initial damage of the attack but the persistent bleed made them unconscious at the end of the turn. I was wondering if this is the case of it being truly RAW and is 100% the correct call, or maybe it is RAW but it doesn't really follow the spirit of the rule(our DM tends to be very inflexible with the way rules are written and doesn't take into account the spirit of a rule almost ever), or just an incorrect ruling? I am not nearly as familiar with pf2e as I am with dnd 5e so I am not exactly sure how this would work exactly.
Just seems kind of silly to have a feat that takes a reaction and whose ONLY use it to allow you to survive 1 attack that would normally down you, so if that attack downs you anyways, what's the point? Its totally fair if it was a 2nd attack from the same creature or an attack from another creature that ended up downing him, it just feels wrong to me to have the actual triggering attack for Orc Ferocity to be the one downing him.
Any thoughts by those more experienced than I? Thanks!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Dropping while affected by Persistent Damage is brutal. Many characters die that way. Hero Points don't even do much against that by RAW.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
It's my understanding that persistent damage occurs at the end of the effected parties turn, thereby, they would drop after having a turn to deal with the persistent damage or the low health, which seems perfectly fair
SpireSwagon wrote: It's my understanding that persistent damage occurs at the end of the effected parties turn, thereby, they would drop after having a turn to deal with the persistent damage or the low health, which seems perfectly fair They didn't have a turn to deal with it though. An enemy combatant hit them with an attack that would have downed them and also added persistent bleed damage. They used their reaction on Orc Ferocity to not go unconscious from the attack, but then the persistent bleed damage was applied at the end of the attackers turn and knocked our Orc unconscious. So are you saying he shouldn't have taken the damage at the end of the attackers turn from the persistent bleed, but at the end of HIS next turn instead?
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Swizzle13 wrote: SpireSwagon wrote: It's my understanding that persistent damage occurs at the end of the effected parties turn, thereby, they would drop after having a turn to deal with the persistent damage or the low health, which seems perfectly fair They didn't have a turn to deal with it though. An enemy combatant hit them with an attack that would have downed them and also added persistent bleed damage. They used their reaction on Orc Ferocity to not go unconscious from the attack, but then the persistent bleed damage was applied at the end of the attackers turn and knocked our Orc unconscious. So are you saying he shouldn't have taken the damage at the end of the attackers turn from the persistent bleed, but at the end of HIS next turn instead? Sounds like you're using house rules.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Conditions.aspx?ID=86
"Instead of taking persistent damage immediately, you take it at the end of each of your turns"
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
> So are you saying he shouldn't have taken the damage at the end of the attackers turn from the persistent bleed, but at the end of HIS next turn instead?
Yes, that is what the rule is
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Yeah bleed damage happens at the end of the bleeding character's turn and they get to roll to remove the effect.
If it happened at the end of the attackers turn it wouldn't be much different than taking normal damage
Bluemagetim wrote: Yeah bleed damage happens at the end of the bleeding character's turn and they get to roll to remove the effect.
If it happened at the end of the attackers turn it wouldn't be much different than taking normal damage
Do you still take the damage once if you successfully roll to remove it? Or only if you fail?
Bluemagetim wrote: If it happened at the end of the attackers turn it wouldn't be much different than taking normal damage And yes that was my exact point to the DM I was like this makes absolutely 0 sense what's the point of this stupid Orc Ferocity thing if it works this way lol.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Swizzle13 wrote: Bluemagetim wrote: Yeah bleed damage happens at the end of the bleeding character's turn and they get to roll to remove the effect.
If it happened at the end of the attackers turn it wouldn't be much different than taking normal damage
Do you still take the damage once if you successfully roll to remove it? Or only if you fail? take the damage at the end of your turn, then roll to see if you recover from the condition.
If you fail the condition stays and you do it again on your next turn.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Swizzle13 wrote: Bluemagetim wrote: If it happened at the end of the attackers turn it wouldn't be much different than taking normal damage And yes that was my exact point to the DM I was like this makes absolutely 0 sense what's the point of this stupid Orc Ferocity thing if it works this way lol. Maybe your GM will do what I do when I get a ruling wrong. I give a hero point. Up to them.
Hero point doesn't do much good when you're dead lol.
Swizzle13 wrote: Hero point doesn't do much good when you're dead lol. An Orc deity (maybe one of the new ones) decides the PC should get a new lease on life for whatever reason : instant resurrection.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
It looks like your DM made an error applying the persistent damage on the enemies turn, maybe you can convince him to retcon.
In any case, it should have been a bit of time for a heal spell, a potion or something else for your allies, even if your dying condition automatically increases with persistent damage.
It is a condition that is often underestimated, but quite deadly - at least once you are unconcious/dying.
Bluemagetim wrote: Yeah bleed damage happens at the end of the bleeding character's turn and they get to roll to remove the effect.
If it happened at the end of the attackers turn it wouldn't be much different than taking normal damage
Much more interesting question would be if this was not persistent damage of any kind, but a poison with damage on 1st stage. So: Strike - 0 hp - Orc Ferocity (wounded 1) - Save from poison, (crit)fail - Poison damage - Dying 2(3). Right? Because afflictions definitely work on attackers' turn (initially, nuances follow en masse...)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Errenor wrote: Bluemagetim wrote: Yeah bleed damage happens at the end of the bleeding character's turn and they get to roll to remove the effect.
If it happened at the end of the attackers turn it wouldn't be much different than taking normal damage
Much more interesting question would be if this was not persistent damage of any kind, but a poison with damage on 1st stage. So: Strike - 0 hp - Orc Ferocity (wounded 1) - Save from poison, (crit)fail - Poison damage - Dying 2(3). Right? Because afflictions definitely work on attackers' turn (initially, nuances follow en masse...) While there's no explicit rule for this situation in particular, there is a rule for something very similar:
Quote: The damage you take from persistent damage occurs all at once, so if something triggers when you take damage, it triggers only once; for example, if you're dying with several types of persistent damage, the persistent damage increases your dying condition only once Obviously, not exactly the same scenario, but close enough for me to rule into my tables that the Poison damage occurs simultaneously as the Strike damage, hence only bringing you to Dying 1.
To clarify my position a bit more, Poison rules say you roll immediately upon exposure. And no onset says you immediately take the damage.
Those two "immediately" tell me that you take the poison damage simultaneously as the Strike damage.
And while persistent rules speak about persistent damage, the rationale between the printed rule there is exactly the same: if you takes a bunch of different damages simultaneously you progress dying once.
shroudb wrote: Obviously, not exactly the same scenario, but close enough for me to rule into my tables that the Poison damage occurs simultaneously as the Strike damage, hence only bringing you to Dying 1.
To clarify my position a bit more, Poison rules say you roll immediately upon exposure. And no onset says you immediately take the damage.
Those two "immediately" tell me that you take the poison damage simultaneously as the Strike damage.
And while persistent rules speak about persistent damage, the rationale between the printed rule there is exactly the same: if you takes a bunch of different damages simultaneously you progress dying once.
Or like that, yes. Maybe this is better for game balance and 'feel'. But there were a lot of discussions of instances of damage and sameness/differentness of effects in general.
Errenor wrote: shroudb wrote: Obviously, not exactly the same scenario, but close enough for me to rule into my tables that the Poison damage occurs simultaneously as the Strike damage, hence only bringing you to Dying 1.
To clarify my position a bit more, Poison rules say you roll immediately upon exposure. And no onset says you immediately take the damage.
Those two "immediately" tell me that you take the poison damage simultaneously as the Strike damage.
And while persistent rules speak about persistent damage, the rationale between the printed rule there is exactly the same: if you takes a bunch of different damages simultaneously you progress dying once.
Or like that, yes. Maybe this is better for game balance and 'feel'. But there were a lot of discussions of instances of damage and sameness/differentness of effects in general. Ehhh, my ruling is less about "instance of damage" and more about "when things happen".
As long as stuff is happening simultaneously, I'd argue that the spirit of the rules say that you trigger death stuff once.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
When it comes to character death, it's better to err on the player side. Having a player pissed because you killed his character is not what you want.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
