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]​

 

[Shasarak]

I'll tell you what. Let's both run the same level 15 fighter through a dungeon, except mine will have level-appropriate wealth and yours can have starting equipment, and we'll see who survives longer. If yours lasts anywhere close to as long as mine does, then I'll concede that magical items aren't absolutely mandatory in PF1.

What are you even talking about? Who ever said that some dude who wants to do it on his own merit is going to be as effective as someone who uses magical equipment?

That just sounds mental to me.

That's really a matter of perspective. The Forgotten Realms of 5E is a vastly different place from the Forgotten Realms of 2E or 4E, and at least one of those editions allows you to adventure successfully without relying on magic.

Sure man, you show me the Forgotten Realms adventure that does not have any magical items in it and I'll show you the edition that allows you to adventure without relying on magic.

 

[Arakasius]

There is a difference between magical items making your character better (totally fair) and magical items being necessary to play. 5e has shown that it’s quite possible to play into high levels while doing this, something that PF1 fails at.

 

[Shasarak]

It seems you haven’t played high level PF which is very much rocket tag. If you don’t want to die then you need the magical items otherwise your stats just don’t hold up. So yes against powerful save or suck spells that +3-5 saves actually is a huge difference. Same with attack bonuses. Same with stars. I could agree many clauses can get by without the AC boosters, but the other ones are pretty much mandatory. If you go without those items and don’t use unchaineds progression you’re at a much higher risk of death/tpk when running adventures.

You are going up against a Dragon without any magical equipment, of course you have a much higher risk of death. Even Beowulf used a magical sword to fight a Dragon and he is the guy that liked to rip Monster arms off with his bare hands.

 

[Shasarak]

There is a difference between magical items making your character better (totally fair) and magical items being necessary to play. 5e has shown that it’s quite possible to play into high levels while doing this, something that PF1 fails at.

Sure, if you like the type of game where 100 Villagers with slings are able to take down Dragons.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, if you like the type of game where 100 Villagers with slings are able to take down Dragons.

Maybe not quite to this extent, but I for one very much prefer a game where the so-called weak can occasionally take out the so-called strong.

My go-to example for this is Eowyn (a middling-at-best Fighter) and Merry (a less-than-middling anything) taking down the in-theory invincible leader of the Ringwraiths. This sort of thing is something the game has to allow for, and which d20-style games such as 3e and PF are notably poor at due to their too-steep power curve.

Another way to put it: "level appropriate" needs to cover a much broader range than d20 systems tend to support.

 

[CubicsRube]

Sure, if you like the type of game where 100 Villagers with slings are able to take down Dragons.

Yep. I do. If the villagers can overcome a dragons fear effect while they are being strafed with fire breath and being burned in massive lots and they don't run in terror, then they've earned that bloody dragon!

 

[Shasarak]

Maybe not quite to this extent, but I for one very much prefer a game where the so-called weak can occasionally take out the so-called strong.

My go-to example for this is Eowyn (a middling-at-best Fighter) and Merry (a less-than-middling anything) taking down the in-theory invincible leader of the Ringwraiths. This sort of thing is something the game has to allow for, and which d20-style games such as 3e and PF are notably poor at due to their too-steep power curve.

Another way to put it: "level appropriate" needs to cover a much broader range than d20 systems tend to support.

I am not sure how tough Ringwraiths really are. Aragorn seemed to be able to handle four of them alright and that was using a torch, not even his magic sword. Immunity to men (but not to women or hobbits) seems like an obvious flaw in your defenses if you consider it for a moment. I would be tempted just to use a normal Wraiths stats.

 

[CubicsRube]

[MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION] i feel often granting a number bonus is a cheap way out of thinking up a magic item. Its a vestige from the early days but it doesnt invoke wonder.

Id much rather a sword that chants in a forgotten language when striking foes than a +1 sword. Even though it does nothing.

Now im thinking about a musical set of weapons and armor. Battleaxe would definately play metal when it hit

 

[Aldarc]

[MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION] i feel often granting a number bonus is a cheap way out of thinking up a magic item. Its a vestige from the early days but it doesnt invoke wonder.

Id much rather a sword that chants in a forgotten language when striking foes than a +1 sword. Even though it does nothing.

Now im thinking about a musical set of weapons and armor. Battleaxe would definately play metal when it hit

A short sword or long dagger that glows when orcs are around is still regarded as one of the most iconic magic items in literature. I would also much rather see magic items of that nature.