Pathfinder 2E's New Death & Dying Rules; More on Resonance

It's another day, and that means another round of Pathfinder 2nd Edition News! Today's menu includes more discussion on resonance, followed by the main course -- the new rules for death & dying! All added, as ever, to the Pathfinder 2nd Edition Compiled Info Page!

Photo by Paizo

​

• There are Pathfinder Playtest pro-order posters at the GAMA trade show. See above! And below...
• Gnome Stew reported on the Future of Pathfinder seminar at Gary Con. Mainly stuff we've heard before, but there are some new tidbits:
  • Shadow of the Demon Lord, white-box D&D, Magic: the Gathering, Tales from the Loop, and Star Trek Adventures were all referenced during development.
  • The item (shield) damage system has a name -- it's called "dented".
  • Some "signature gear" can level up with your character.
  • "Background will grant a specific Lore, which is similar to a specialized knowledge skill, such as Lore—Alcohol being granted to a character with barkeep as a background".
• Resonance proved divisive yesterday.
  • Jason Bulmahn weighed in on the heated discussion -- "Hey there all! Let's all just take a breath here before things get too heated. Resonance is a system that we knew was going to come with some controversy. It's really hard to give you a full sense of what the system allows us to do with the design space without going on a deep dive on magic items. This is a topic we are going to hit soon, so hang in there. I will say this before I go to run more demos at GAMA. Players have rarely run out of resonance in our games, and there is a lot more healing to go around than you might think."
  • Class features don't use Resonance -- "We avoided making class features that use Resonance Points unless they're directly tied to items. Resonance is a resource for items thematically and specifically. If you have abilities from a bloodline, you'll have to pay for those some other way..." (Bonner)
  • "...we've had some delightful occultist-based thought experiments based on some of these ideas as the "kings of resonance."[FONT=&amp] (Seifter)[/FONT]
  • Bulmahn commented -- "Hmm... I keep seeing posts that tracking one pool of points is too fiddly. It's odd, considering that it's meant to replace a system where everything had its own personal system of usage with times per day, total charges, and time based limits. Of course, I have plenty of reservations about this particular mechanic. We're definitely pushing the envelope here, but fiddly is not the complaint I expected to see so frequently."
• New Dying Rules! "RumpinRufus" reported on how they worked in the live streamed game at the GAMA trade show:
  • There are no negative hit points - if you take damage equal or greater than your HP, you go down to 0 HP and get the Dying 1 condition.
  • If a crit knocks you to 0, you gain Dying 2 instead of Dying 1.
  • Each round, you must make a save to stabilize. The save DC is based off the enemy - a boss may have a higher death DC than a mook, so you are more likely to be killed by bosses.
  • If you reach Dying 4, then you are dead.
  • If you make the stabilize check, you gain a hit point, but are still Dying. If you make another save at 1 HP, you are no longer Dying, and you regain consciousness.
  • If an ally heals you while you are Dying, you still have the Dying condition, even though you have positive HP. You still need to make a stabilize check to regain consciousness. But, once your HP is positive, you are no longer at danger of death from failing your checks - failing a stabilize check just means you stay unconscious.
  • The Stabilize cantrip puts you at 1 HP.
  • Mark Seifter further added -- "If you get well and truly annihilated by an attack, you die instantly. Even a 1st PC could probably insta-kill a kobold grandmother, even if the GM chose for full tracking of unconscious and dying NPCs."
• Erik Mona on monster books again, and how self-contained stat blocks will be -- "I don't think we've fully committed one way or the other yet. The playtest monster book is going to be mega stat block dump without a lot of description of what, say, a skeleton looks like or eats. As for special abilities and how they're formatted, while I know the design team has been hard at work on this stuff, I haven't interacted with it too much yet (I just finished going through magic items last night!)."
• Both Erik Mona and James Jacobs feel strongly about the presence of more outsider types on the summoning lists -- "No, actually, James Jacobs and I also feel very strongly about this. Very strongly."
• Logan Bonner comments on complexity, options, and the 'cognitive load' -- "We're keeping it in mind for sure. That's one reason we've rejiggered the number of bonus types, altered the action economy to make choice clearer, and (at least mostly) made it so you have options for static feats instead of only giving options to expand your list of actions. We'll see in the playtest whether that mix is right."
• Logan Bonner informs us that coffee and tea have been added to the Playtest Rulebook.
• Mark Seifter on how corruption could work "...gaining a corruption could unlock a new set of ancestry feats, as your fundamental nature has shifted."

Photo by Paizo
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT]​

 

[Sunseeker]

Agreed, I think that’s a good way of handling it. I do hope we don’t see too much Condition bloat though. Chronicles of Darkness introduced a Condition system in its second edition, which I thought was a great idea, but after about the third gameline to get updated to 2e, there are just way too many conditions. I hope they lean on existing conditions as much as possible rather than constantly inventing new conditions representing basically the same thing as an existing condition but with slightly different details

I'm really hoping that we see conditions like "Panicked" rolled into things like "Frightened 2" or the ever expanding variants of "Dazed" and "Confused" rolled into a single condition with multiple tiers of how bad it is. "Afraid" can easily cover Cowering, Frightened, Panicked, even if they want to use the old condition as a sub-condition "Afraid 2 - Panicked". I mean I don't want to see 4 different Afraid entries, I hope they can trim it down to something like "When you reach Afraid 4 the following effect is applied to you: Everything you do is meaningless."

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Then why am I more likely to hit with a longsword with 18 Strength than 8 Strength?

At least nominally, the point of the attack roll is to determine whether your attack is sufficient to injure an opponent. If you're swinging a sword, then the primary factors involved in determining the possibility of injury are your Strength and skill and the type of armor the enemy is wearing. If you were just trying to touch the enemy with your sword, then Dexterity would be a factor and Strength would mostly not; but simply making contact with their armor would be insufficient to cause injury, and D&D has always classified a non-damaging hit as just a miss.

On a complete side note, the one rule in Pathfinder which bothered me more than any other was that spellcasters used Strength when making a melee touch attack to try and land a spell effect. It's easy to see how the rules got there, but there should have been a sanity check to catch that.

 

[Charlaquin]

Because having higher strength means your blade does not just bounce off that armour you just hit. Its just simple physics.

Sure, if that’s how you want to define armor class. Now explain why having better hand-eye coordination makes unarmored characters’... err... clothing? harder to penetrate.

I am not sure why your bow attacks do more damage with an 18 Dex though. Do you add your dex bonus to damage for some reason?

Sorry, is that not standard in Pathfinder? It’s been a while since I’ve played it. But now, if being more likely to hit means hitting harder and being more likely to penetrate armor, then Dexterity is making bow shots hit harder. Only now it’s also not doing more damage despite hitting harder.

It’s almost like a “hit” and “damage” have always been handwavium. Shocker.

You have certainly made it clear that you believe attributes are arbitrary so I am not sure if it is useful for me to explain why it makes sense to me that someone who has higher Wisdom is better at understanding the mysteries of Druidic magic while at the same time being better able to perceive the world around themselves.

I mean, that’s fair. Kinda wish you’d apply the same logic to trying to convince me that it doesn’t make sense for your character with stronger inborn magical talent is better at using magic items though.

I remember the worst correlation i have seen until now was a character class that hit people with its constitution. Making these types of arbitrary correlations just makes for worse stories.

I assume you’re referring to a 4e class? Yeah, that sure was arbitrary. But at least 4e had the balls to admit that the ability scores have been arbitrary since the switch from specific subsystems for specific attribute related tasks to the unified d20 system instead of trying to make up in-universe explanations for nonsense things like everyone who’s good at aiming a bow also being good at sneaking, picking locks, and picking pockets.

 

[Charlaquin]

At least nominally, the point of the attack roll is to determine whether your attack is sufficient to injure an opponent. If you're swinging a sword, then the primary factors involved in determining the possibility of injury are your Strength and skill and the type of armor the enemy is wearing. If you were just trying to touch the enemy with your sword, then Dexterity would be a factor and Strength would mostly not; but simply making contact with their armor would be insufficient to cause injury, and D&D has always classified a non-damaging hit as just a miss.

Yeah, I understand that AC is a highly abstract system and involves elements of both whether or not you make contact and whether or not that contact was sufficient to cause whatever the hell HP loss is. But the abstractness of that combat system causes the definitions of the physical attributes to break down. Which I don’t really see as a problem. But if you’re ok with strength making you more likely to damage a naked man with a sword, but not to hit him with a bow, Dexterity making you more likely to hit him with a bow but not with a sword, Strength making you more likely to bring whatever his HP represent down further with whatever a sword hit represents but Dexterity not making it more likely to do the same with whatever a bow hit represents, all of which he can potentially survive depending on a combination of how long he can hold his breath and how many goblins he’s killed... I don’t see how you would still be bothered by Charisma making you better at whatever kind of magic it is Paladins do. The Attributes make a nod to verisimilitude with what rolls they contribute to, just as HP makes a nod to verisimilitude with how it relates to physical wellbeing. But they’re just nods. They all break down if you look at them too closely. So sure, why not have pretty people be better at using magic items? It makes as much sense as people with good hearing all being good at training horses. More, in fact, because magic is made up, the writer can make it based on the user’s sex appeal if that’s the story they want to tell. Kinda reminds me of Xanth.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Sure, if that’s how you want to define armor class. Now explain why having better hand-eye coordination makes unarmored characters’... err... clothing? harder to penetrate.

If you're asking why someone with high Dexterity has a bonus to AC, it's because an agile fighter is harder to land a telling blow against. They might dodge, or parry. AC is a combination of a lot of factors, of which the hardness of their armor is only one component.

If you're asking why Strength is the only factor in the attack roll, when the argument for Strength relies on the opponent being armored, it's because an armored opponent is a reasonable assumption and a nimble opponent is not. Of the monsters you might be fighting, the vast majority of them have armor-like hide which needs to be overcome. Of the humanoids you might be fighting, the vast majority of them are going to be wearing actual armor, and the ones who don't wear armor are magic. To contrast, the number of nimble monsters with flesh-like hide is rather negligible. And even if you were going against an unarmored peasant, for whatever reason, you are still more likely to cause significant injury to them if you are strong. Strength is always a factor in your chance to deal a telling blow, where your agility only occasionally matters.

Sorry, is that not standard in Pathfinder? It’s been a while since I’ve played it. But now, if being more likely to hit means hitting harder and being more likely to penetrate armor, then Dexterity is making bow shots hit harder. Only now it’s also not doing more damage despite hitting harder.

Pathfinder doesn't use Dexterity to damage, outside of a few corner cases with obscure class abilities or feats. And the difference between swinging a sword and firing a bow, is that the ability to actually impact your arrow against a target is a larger factor than how hard it impacts if it does hit, in determining whether or not you cause meaningful injury.

Think about it. Swinging a sword in an arc at a distance of two feet, actually touching the enemy is trivial and the hard part is hitting them hard enough to hurt. Firing a bow from a distance of 30 feet, actually touching the enemy is non-trivial and firing harder isn't going to help much.

It’s almost like a “hit” and “damage” have always been handwavium. Shocker.

People say this often. Or rather, they say that combat is an abstraction and that you shouldn't look at anything too closely. While that's definitely true, the rhetoric can get out of hand sometimes, to the point where they forget that there is an underlying logic which is grounded in reality at the base. The rules are abstract, but they aren't nearly as abstract as some would have you believe.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But if you’re ok with strength making you more likely to damage a naked man with a sword, but not to hit him with a bow, Dexterity making you more likely to hit him with a bow but not with a sword, Strength making you more likely to bring whatever his HP represent down further with whatever a sword hit represents but Dexterity not making it more likely to do the same with whatever a bow hit represents, all of which he can potentially survive depending on a combination of how long he can hold his breath and how many goblins he’s killed... I don’t see how you would still be bothered by Charisma making you better at whatever kind of magic it is Paladins do. The Attributes make a nod to verisimilitude with what rolls they contribute to, just as HP makes a nod to verisimilitude with how it relates to physical wellbeing.

I have a pretty good idea about what sort of reality corresponds to HP, and the difference between a hit and a miss with a sword or arrow. The system is extremely simplified compared to reality, but I understand where they're coming from with everything (in Pathfinder, not 5E). The rules all make some sort of sense.

The reason that Charisma-based magic bothers me comes down to a degree of complexity. I have a pretty good idea about how complex our real-world reality is, and the degree of simplification involved in translating that into game rules. It's not that Charisma-based magic is unrealistic, as much as it's more complicated than it needs to be; it's more complicated than it should be, given how simplified the combat model is.

Wizards using Intelligence for magic and Sorcerers using Charisma for magic is a lot like if longswords used Strength to hit and scimitars used Dexterity to hit. You could do it, and you could try and justify it if you really wanted to, but nothing else in the game uses so-detailed of a model and this would be incongruously complex.

 

[Charlaquin]

If you're asking why someone with high Dexterity has a bonus to AC, it's because an agile fighter is harder to land a telling blow against. They might dodge, or parry. AC is a combination of a lot of factors, of which the hardness of their armor is only one component.

If you're asking why Strength is the only factor in the attack roll, when the argument for Strength relies on the opponent being armored, it's because an armored opponent is a reasonable assumption and a nimble opponent is not. Of the monsters you might be fighting, the vast majority of them have armor-like hide which needs to be overcome. Of the humanoids you might be fighting, the vast majority of them are going to be wearing actual armor, and the ones who don't wear armor are magic. To contrast, the number of nimble monsters with flesh-like hide is rather negligible. And even if you were going against an unarmored peasant, for whatever reason, you are still more likely to cause significant injury to them if you are strong. Strength is always a factor in your chance to deal a telling blow, where your agility only occasionally matters.

But for some reason, being stronger makes you more likely to do whatever a “hit” is to a naked human being with two left feet and Dexterity doesn’t.

Pathfinder doesn't use Dexterity to damage, outside of a few corner cases with obscure class abilities or feats. And the difference between swinging a sword and firing a bow, is that the ability to actually impact your arrow against a target is a larger factor than how hard it impacts if it does hit, in determining whether or not you cause meaningful injury.

Think about it. Swinging a sword in an arc at a distance of two feet, actually touching the enemy is trivial and the hard part is hitting them hard enough to hurt. Firing a bow from a distance of 30 feet, actually touching the enemy is non-trivial and firing harder isn't going to help much.

And yet, having higher Dexterity makes you more likely to do whatever a “hit” is to a 50-foot stone golem that has been magically rooted in place, but being able to use a bow with heavier draw strength doesn’t.

People say this often. Or rather, they say that combat is an abstraction and that you shouldn't look at anything too closely. While that's definitely true, the rhetoric can get out of hand sometimes, to the point where they forget that there is an underlying logic which is grounded in reality at the base. The rules are abstract, but they aren't nearly as abstract as some would have you believe.

It’s called reductio ad absurdum. It is ment to demonstrate the absurdity of an argument by applying it to its logical extremes. Because combat is abstract, arguments based on realism are absurd. The combat isn’t realistic, period. It has an internal logic, and that logic is partly based on comparison to similar real-life situations, but looking at the extreme cases makes it clear that the system is still not an accurate representation of reality. What arguments based on realism are trying to appeal to is willing suspension of disbelief. We know that D&D (or Pathfinder) combat is unrealistic, but we suspend that disbelief for the sake of our enjoyment of the game. The nods to versimilitude help make it easier for some people to suspend their disbelief. And the threshold for what people are willing to suspend disbelief about are different for different people. For you, it may be within your tolerance of willing suspension of disbelief that Strength, Dexterity, and Armor Class interact the way they do in Pathfinder, but beyond it that Charisma plays a role in Resonance. For others, both are within tolerance. Saying that the rule is bad when it “makes no sense” is a poor argument. Saying that you don’t like it because it breaks your suspension of disbelief is a perfectly valid opinion, but also a very different argument.

 

[Charlaquin]

I have a pretty good idea about what sort of reality corresponds to HP, and the difference between a hit and a miss with a sword or arrow. The system is extremely simplified compared to reality, but I understand where they're coming from with everything (in Pathfinder, not 5E). The rules all make some sort of sense.

The reason that Charisma-based magic bothers me comes down to a degree of complexity. I have a pretty good idea about how complex our real-world reality is, and the degree of simplification involved in translating that into game rules. It's not that Charisma-based magic is unrealistic, as much as it's more complicated than it needs to be; it's more complicated than it should be, given how simplified the combat model is.

Wizards using Intelligence for magic and Sorcerers using Charisma for magic is a lot like if longswords used Strength to hit and scimitars used Dexterity to hit. You could do it, and you could try and justify it if you really wanted to, but nothing else in the game uses so-detailed of a model and this would be incongruously complex.

Sure, but now we’re out of the realm of “this is a bad rule because it’s unrealistic” and into the realm of “I dislike this rule because it strains my mental model of how the game world works.” Which is a very different conversation. I can certainly accept and respect that Charisma-based Resonance doesn’t work for you personally. It’s when you try to argue that its objectively a bad rule because realism that we have a problem.

 

[Shasarak]

Sure, if that’s how you want to define armor class. Now explain why having better hand-eye coordination makes unarmored characters’... err... clothing? harder to penetrate.

I dont know, why does having better hand-eye coordination make unarmoured characters harder to hit? That seems like a strange thing to happen for sure.

Sorry, is that not standard in Pathfinder? It’s been a while since I’ve played it. But now, if being more likely to hit means hitting harder and being more likely to penetrate armor, then Dexterity is making bow shots hit harder. Only now it’s also not doing more damage despite hitting harder.

It’s almost like a “hit” and “damage” have always been handwavium. Shocker.

It almost feels like I am discussing rules with someone that does not understand the rules. Dexterity making bow shots hit harder? How does that work? Or maybe in which game does that work would be a better question.

I mean, that’s fair. Kinda wish you’d apply the same logic to trying to convince me that it doesn’t make sense for your character with stronger inborn magical talent is better at using magic items though.

I thought you said that it was Social Magnetism that made you better at using magic items but now it is your inborn magical talent?

In any case if I was to try and convince you then I would ask why a character with a lot of inborn magical talent like a Wizard is not inherently better at using magical items compared to someone with the magical talent of a rock like a Fighter who just has good social magnetism?

I assume you’re referring to a 4e class? Yeah, that sure was arbitrary. But at least 4e had the balls to admit that the ability scores have been arbitrary since the switch from specific subsystems for specific attribute related tasks to the unified d20 system instead of trying to make up in-universe explanations for nonsense things like everyone who’s good at aiming a bow also being good at sneaking, picking locks, and picking pockets.

That is not dead which can eternal lie.

 

[Shasarak]

More, in fact, because magic is made up, the writer can make it based on the user’s sex appeal if that’s the story they want to tell. Kinda reminds me of Xanth.

I used to enjoy those books when I was about 13. Good old Piers Anthony and David Eddings eh. Whatever happened to the times where having Thief land next to Horse land made sense.