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]​

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

A "hit" is a telling blow which causes significant physical injury, and a stronger character is more likely to land one of those with their sword than a more agile character is. Maybe not by much, in this situation, but this is an absurd corner-case scenario which is unlikely to show up during the game. The concept of rule efficiency is a design ideal which gives preference to modeling likely scenarios over unlikely scenarios. If the model doesn't work as well in absurd corner-case scenarios which are unlikely to ever come up, then that's considered an acceptable compromise for making the game easier to run.

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.

Ditto. You could make the situation even more absurd if you place that golem ten feet away, such that aiming is even less of a factor, but this simply isn't a scenario which the rules were designed to model.

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.

All models are necessarily abstract, to some degree. It's impossible to build a perfectly accurate model which is any less complex than the behavior which it is modeling. The way that RPGs get around this is by making sweeping generalizations that let them reduce complex situations to less-complex ones. For example, in Pathfinder, your ability to climb is directly tied to your ability to swim, and it's impossible for someone to be good at one but not the other (at least in the core rules). The rules assume that you're wearing armor, or there's some other explanation for why we don't care about blood loss, and that lets us exclude another chunk of reality from our model.

It's a lot like doing physics homework. We want to find out what happens next, but the actual math would be far too complicated to solve in a reasonable amount of time, so we keep making simplifying assumptions until such point that it is solvable in a reasonable amount of time. That doesn't make it any less based-in-reality; it just means it's limited to a sub-set of reality which happens to fit our simplifying assumptions. The best model is the one which gives us the closest answer with the least amount of work, and it's preferable if it can also apply to a wider range of situations.

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.

I think there's been a miscommunication on this point. I actually argued that Charisma-based Resonance is entirely consistent with what we know about how the game world is supposed to work, and my only real objection is in the unusual complexity which it adds to the model. They could be more efficient with their rules if they used something like a Magic stat instead of splitting effects between Int and Charisma.

 

[Shasarak]

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.

I do not believe that combat is as abstract as you claim. Already we have things like a strong person is able to hit more easily and do more damage, someone with good hand eye coordination can shoot better, someone wearing Plate armour is harder to hit and do damage to.

If we had truly abstract combat then we would just be quoting mathematical equations at each other.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Precisely. Yet more evidence that the Abilities and what they add their bonuses to are ultimately arbitrary.

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.

There are at least two editions of D&D in which it works that way. Sorry I got my systems mixed up.

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?

It’s your Charisma. The stat that adds to both social skill checks and the magic that sorcerers (the class defined by their magic being an inborn trait rather than being learned like wizards or granted by external forces like clerics) do. People with high charisma are objectively more socially magnetic, make better sorcerers, and under this resonance rule, better at using magic items. Tell me again about how what the Abilities represent isn’t arbitrary?

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?

Wizards don’t have more inborn magical talent. That’s sorcerers’ shtick. Wizards’ magic is learned. And just because a fighter doesn’t have spells doesn’t mean he has the magical talent of a rock. If he had been a sorcerer, he’d be pretty good at it, so evidently he has the raw potential for magic, even if it’s untapped. Now further evidenced by the fact that he makes a better battery for magic wands than the wizard does.

That is not dead which can eternal lie.

And with strange aeons even death may die, but why are we quoting scripture?

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Those books were my gateway drug to D&D. My friends’ older siblings played a D&D campaign set in Xanth, and while they never let me play with them, I always thought it seemed super cool, which is why I looked into it myself.

 

[Shasarak]

Precisely. Yet more evidence that the Abilities and what they add their bonuses to are ultimately arbitrary.

That is like saying wearing a blue shirt makes it harder to hit an un-armoured character and therefore that is more evidence that Abilities are arbitrary. Neither statement makes any real sense.

There are at least two editions of D&D in which it works that way. Sorry I got my systems mixed up.

I would agree that some editions are definitely more arbitrary then others.

It’s your Charisma. The stat that adds to both social skill checks and the magic that sorcerers (the class defined by their magic being an inborn trait rather than being learned like wizards or granted by external forces like clerics) do. People with high charisma are objectively more socially magnetic, make better sorcerers, and under this resonance rule, better at using magic items. Tell me again about how what the Abilities represent isn’t arbitrary?

You certainly have presented some good evidence for why choosing Charisma as your "Magic" stat is pretty arbitrary. Almost makes it seem nonsensical in fact.

Wizards don’t have more inborn magical talent. That’s sorcerers’ shtick. Wizards’ magic is learned. And just because a fighter doesn’t have spells doesn’t mean he has the magical talent of a rock. If he had been a sorcerer, he’d be pretty good at it, so evidently he has the raw potential for magic, even if it’s untapped. Now further evidenced by the fact that he makes a better battery for magic wands than the wizard does.

Of course that is the point, if the Fighter had magic then he would have been a Sorcerer but he didnt so he is not. I dont really get your argument that Wizards are not inherently magical while at the same time suggesting that a Fighter very well could be magical. One of these guys can cast spells and the other one is the Fighter so I am not sure where the confusion is? Is it because classes are arbitrary too?

And with strange aeons even death may die, but why are we quoting scripture?

I am because I am superstitious but I am not sure why you are.

 

[Charlaquin]

That is like saying wearing a blue shirt makes it harder to hit an un-armoured character and therefore that is more evidence that Abilities are arbitrary. Neither statement makes any real sense.

Except that wearing a blue shirt has nothing to do with Abilities.

I would agree that some editions are definitely more arbitrary then others.

Some editions are more honest about the arbitrary nature of Abilities than others. They’re always arbitrary, but some editions try to pretend they make sense and others don’t.

You certainly have presented some good evidence for why choosing Charisma as your "Magic" stat is pretty arbitrary. Almost makes it seem nonsensical in fact.

It doesn’t really make any less sense than intelligence being a magic stat. Or Wisdom. Or hell, Dexterity if you want to go Avatar the Last Airbebder with it. And it makes a lot more sense than Wisdom being both the “see things good” and the “do first aid good” stat, considering the fact that unlike magic those are both real life traits that in real life have nothing to do with each other.

Of course that is the point, if the Fighter had magic then he would have been a Sorcerer but he didnt so he is not.

But he has the potential for sorcerous magic that he has not fulfilled. As evidenced by the fact that he has high Charisma and high Charisma is what makes one good at being a Sorcerer. Like... My partner’s dad had ing amazing artistic talent, but he worked as a carpenter all his life. If he had become a painter, he probably could have been great at it. But he didn’t. Unfulfilled potential.

I dont really get your argument that Wizards are not inherently magical while at the same time suggesting that a Fighter very well could be magical. One of these guys can cast spells and the other one is the Fighter so I am not sure where the confusion is?

Are you intentionally ignoring the words “inherent” and “learned” or is your reading comprehension actually failing you? A sorcerer is born with magic. A wizard is not, and learns it through study. Charisma is what makes a sorcerer better at magic. Ergo, in the fictional world implied by these setting assumptions, Charisma equates to inherent magical potential. Those who do not have such potential, or who have it but fail to tap into it, can potentially learn magic anyway, through hard work and study, in which case Intelligence is what makes them better at this learned form of magic.

 

[Shasarak]

Except that wearing a blue shirt has nothing to do with Abilities.

Saying that "having better hand-eye coordination make unarmoured characters harder to hit" does not actually mean that "having better hand-eye coordination make unarmoured characters harder to hit". I have never heard of that suggestion being true which makes it as likely as wearing a blue shirt making it harder to hit.

Some editions are more honest about the arbitrary nature of Abilities than others. They’re always arbitrary, but some editions try to pretend they make sense and others don’t.

And look what happens to the one that does not make sense.

It doesn’t really make any less sense than intelligence being a magic stat. Or Wisdom. Or hell, Dexterity if you want to go Avatar the Last Airbebder with it. And it makes a lot more sense than Wisdom being both the “see things good” and the “do first aid good” stat, considering the fact that unlike magic those are both real life traits that in real life have nothing to do with each other.

I dont care how many times you tell me that being able to see things good and do first aid good have nothing to do with each other because there is no way that I am letting the blind surgeon do any first aid to me. That is just rule 1 of surviving operations 101.

But he has the potential for sorcerous magic that he has not fulfilled. As evidenced by the fact that he has high Charisma and high Charisma is what makes one good at being a Sorcerer. Like... My partner’s dad had ing amazing artistic talent, but he worked as a carpenter all his life. If he had become a painter, he probably could have been great at it. But he didn’t. Unfulfilled potential.

Are you intentionally ignoring the words “inherent” and “learned” or is your reading comprehension actually failing you? A sorcerer is born with magic. A wizard is not, and learns it through study. Charisma is what makes a sorcerer better at magic. Ergo, in the fictional world implied by these setting assumptions, Charisma equates to inherent magical potential. Those who do not have such potential, or who have it but fail to tap into it, can potentially learn magic anyway, through hard work and study, in which case Intelligence is what makes them better at this learned form of magic.

Being a Wizard is no more a "learned" skill then a Sorcerer is an "inherent" skill. You can "learn" to be a Sorcerer as easily as you can "inherently" become a Wizard. A Wizard does not have to work hard to learn magic anymore then a Rogue has to work hard to learn to pick pockets.

 

[Mark Craddock]

Three solutions that are close, because all three are solving the same problem.

Add in that many of these designers know each other and might be friends. I think some of us would just like them to be honest and say that "we looked at the latest d20 tech (which is a good thing) and adapted what we thought would work".

IMO, PF2 sound quite a bit like DnD 4 and 5. It would be foolish to overlook certain ideas found in both games. Advantage/Disadvantage is an idea that many people like in gamed derived from DnD. Doesn't mean they all have to use it, but if it works it should be considered.

 

[Lanefan]

Being a Wizard is no more a "learned" skill then a Sorcerer is an "inherent" skill.

Actually I've always seen Wizard as being very much a learned skill - sure you've got some built-in aptitude but it's irrelevant until you do the years of study required to learn how to channel it.

Sorcerers just come by it naturally...which is the one aspect of Sorcerers I've never quite grabbed on to.

You can "learn" to be a Sorcerer as easily as you can "inherently" become a Wizard. A Wizard does not have to work hard to learn magic anymore then a Rogue has to work hard to learn to pick pockets.

Again, I see picking pockets as something a Rogue might work for years to learn how to do.

It's just that by the time we start playing them our characters have already done all this stuff, and so we ignore it.

 

[Shasarak]

Actually I've always seen Wizard as being very much a learned skill - sure you've got some built-in aptitude but it's irrelevant until you do the years of study required to learn how to channel it.

Sorcerers just come by it naturally...which is the one aspect of Sorcerers I've never quite grabbed on to.

Again, I see picking pockets as something a Rogue might work for years to learn how to do.

It's just that by the time we start playing them our characters have already done all this stuff, and so we ignore it.

So what happens when the 4th level Fighter picks up a level of Wizard? In my games they did not need to spend years learning how to cast spells, I am guessing that it was different in your games.