Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2E Remaster's Death and Dying rules are brutal.

Can you paste the text on the wounded condition from the Player Core, please.
Wounded
You’ve been seriously injured during a fight. Anytime you lose the dying condition, you become wounded 1 if you didn’t already have the wounded condition. If you already have the wounded condition, your wounded condition value instead increases by 1. If you gain the dying condition while wounded, increase the dying condition’s value by your wounded value.
The wounded condition ends if someone successfully restores Hit Points to you with Treat Wounds, or if you’re restored to full Hit Points and rest for 10 minutes.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Staffan

Legend
I would like to see the actual text from Remastered, as it seems there is some disagreement on the internet over the OP interpretation is correct (if message boards are anything to go by).
These are the results of a recovery check in the Remaster (I don't have the book myself, but they were posted to Paizo's forums):

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).

That seems pretty straight-forward to me. The pre-master rules didn't have the "(plus your wounded value, if any)" reminder. However, there are secondary sources (e.g. the GM screen) that apparently indicated that it should apply in the description of the Wounded condition, and one of the original designers (who now no longer work at Paizo) has come out and said that this was the intention from the start (though I'm not so sure, since I don't think I've seen any games run by official Paizo folks using the harsher version).
 


Retreater

Legend
In the PF circles, there are MANY groups that will not be using the new interpretation. I think the new rules (which are actually the old rules) are way too brutal.
It's bad design for a system designed to support Adventure Paths with low lethality. It's a failure in the system, and the first thing I'm house-ruling.
 

Reynard

Legend
Supporter
Wounded
You’ve been seriously injured during a fight. Anytime you
lose the dying condition, you become wounded 1 if you didn’t
already have the wounded condition. If you already have the
wounded condition, your wounded condition value instead
increases by 1. If you gain the dying condition while wounded,
increase the dying condition’s value by your wounded value.
The wounded condition ends if someone successfully restores
Hit Points to you with Treat Wounds, or if you’re restored to
full Hit Points and rest for 10 minutes.

These are the results of a recovery check in the Remaster (I don't have the book myself, but they were posted to Paizo's forums):

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).

That seems pretty straight-forward to me. The pre-master rules didn't have the "(plus your wounded value, if any)" reminder. However, there are secondary sources (e.g. the GM screen) that apparently indicated that it should apply in the description of the Wounded condition, and one of the original designers (who now no longer work at Paizo) has come out and said that this was the intention from the start (though I'm not so sure, since I don't think I've seen any games run by official Paizo folks using the harsher version).

Yeah, that is brutal. If you are wounded at all you are essentially dead after a single failed save.
 

I don't know that the change would make my game any more or less deadly since my players at level 4 have a few ways to help heal each other and generally don't hit 0 HP often anymore. But I've read enough reddit threads to know there's plenty of groups that don't quite get that the game design heavily favors team effort and the GMs for those groups seem to refuse to tone things down for them when they don't pick up on that. It's easily a rule that can be ignored, but where I am interested in seeing what it does over time is in organized play where they have to use the new rules.
 

payn

I don't believe in the no-win scenario
In the PF circles, there are MANY groups that will not be using the new interpretation. I think the new rules (which are actually the old rules) are way too brutal.
It's bad design for a system designed to support Adventure Paths with low lethality. It's a failure in the system, and the first thing I'm house-ruling.
If it’s a common house rule, so be it. I’ve noticed a bit of a difference in casual gamers and the team tactical minded ones that want more challenge. Paizo not been great with catering to either but a weird middle ground for both.
 

Jahydin

Hero
Thanks everyone for the responses, especially explaining both versions better. I went to bed right after posting, so just waking up.

That seems pretty straight-forward to me. The pre-master rules didn't have the "(plus your wounded value, if any)" reminder. However, there are secondary sources (e.g. the GM screen) that apparently indicated that it should apply in the description of the Wounded condition, and one of the original designers (who now no longer work at Paizo) has come out and said that this was the intention from the start (though I'm not so sure, since I don't think I've seen any games run by official Paizo folks using the harsher version).

Didn't know that! I've been playing it "the wrong way" this entire time then. :D

I still can't believe that's right though? It's almost as if it was written correctly in Core, then misprinted on the screen, then that mistake was carried over to Remastered?

Why have such an intricate, two variable dying system if the results always boil down to: the first time you're downed you have 3 rounds to live; the second time, 1; the third time, you're dead.

Then again, maybe that's just PF being PF...
 

Jahydin

Hero
In the video I linked, Nonat points out with the new interpretation, Orc Ferocity might not be desirable since it sets you up for an easy kill:

"You would be reduced to 0 Hit Points but not immediately killed. Fierceness in battle runs through your blood, and you refuse to fall from your injuries. You avoid being knocked out and remain at 1 Hit Point, and your wounded condition increases by 1."
 

In the video I linked, Nonat points out with the new interpretation, Orc Ferocity might not be desirable since it sets you up for an easy kill:

"You would be reduced to 0 Hit Points but not immediately killed. Fierceness in battle runs through your blood, and you refuse to fall from your injuries. You avoid being knocked out and remain at 1 Hit Point, and your wounded condition increases by 1."
Yep, if the enemy takes you down on its first or second action, it’s probably best to just stay down. Especially if any of it’s actions results in a basic saving throw to avoid damage.
 
Last edited:

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top