I just wanted to state that a clarification/errata for the Dying & Wounded rules appears on the Paizo website. The clarification/errata changes the wording back to what was shown in the "legacy" rules.
Just because evil isn't a *mechanic* in the game, this doesn't forbid you from using the word or evil-doer to describe actions or creatures in your game.
I already feel like the wounded and dying conditions do what they're supposed to without the extra lethality of adding the wounded condition every time. It encourages people to grab stabilize cantrips but that's really all it does other than terrifying your players. I might run it RAW if I'm specifically running a lethal game, though that's the kind of game where I ask players to always have a back up character on hand.
I'm starting to think that Paizo thought there was so much downtime for the old crafting rules because for playtests they would rest for the day anytime one of them went down because of the wounded rules that the playerbase just didn't use.
We are already running this rule RAW. It really only becomes a problem if you are constantly going down and back up in combat, which to be honest is never fun. It’s pretty easy to navigate. It does stress the importance of having healer of some kind in the party.
Hey, I was waiting for that! You've made AMAZING rules explainer videos for Pathfinder! 💪💪 Would you re-record them all for the new edition? Or you'd say not too much changed in those videos?
The plan right now is to re-record anything that has had significant changes and to update thumbnails and descriptions for anything that is now "Legacy Content."
Thank you! I've been sending my players to your videos because not only are they the clearest, but you've got that "chill uni professor" vibe that I find is way better for retaining information than the typical "I chugged an energy drink and did a bump of ritalin LET'S GET THOSE CLICKS" youtuber energy.
To be fair, I think that dying changes make sense to make stabilization feats and spells have more urgency to be cast. However, if that's the case, they really went with an overkill change. Gonna try running it though to try it out.
Thing is, with these new changes, it's probably better to just let your dying team mate stay dying. If they get up and end up dying again, they're pretty much guaranteed to die. So, you should probably just leave them dying, unless you are 100% sure that they won't take damage if they get up.
We don't have any textual indication of whether or not "spirit damage with the holy trait" will take the place of "good damage" when it comes to fiends' weaknesses, do we? Though that does seem like an easy and natural adaptation. But I'm puzzled about undead- we have cause to believe a lot of undead are unholy, but should they take extra damage from sanctified spirit damage? Not all undead are weak to positive/vitality so there's no easy number to reach for there... I wonder if we're moving away from this kind of alignment weakness altogether, and instead relying exclusively on specific instances of "if the creature is holy/unholy, it takes xd6 spirit damage too". It makes me wonder about the point of sanctified actions that don't have that language, though, like divine lance. I'm a bit puzzled.
There are alot of people who has ran the death and dying rules the intended way. I myself have run it like that since 2019. Adding wounded to your dying when taking damage, Thats in current CRB, Its clear that you are meant to add your wounded to your dying whenever it increases... with exception on failed saves where you need to look at the GM screen. Regardless, CRB RAW and and Remaster RAW is a lesser impact than most people think.
I only saw the "add wounded when taking damage" part recently when I was going over things to brush up before I run my first game. Most of the people who have talked about the rules in the past seem to have missed that part. As far as adding wounded when you fail, that seems kind of unnecessary really. If someone is TRYING to KILL a character/creature(and some enemies probably SHOULD be, but most likely WON'T be) you're pretty much dead no matter what! Attacking any unconscious character/creature is an auto critical, so they gain 2 more levels of dying, even with no wounded they only have one more before they are dead!
This might be the wrong place to ask, but I heard it from someone (could be you or NoNat1 or Rules Lawyer) that creature abilities work differently now? Specifically things like "grab". Under the old rules, a monster that successfully makes a Strike can automatically grab you (assuming grab is listed on its stat block of course), but under the Remaster rules, they have to make a check (Athletics presumably)? Is this true? Thanks!
I appreciate the change from "Positive and Negative damage" (which is messy terminology in a game full of math). However, "Vitality" feels too physical (very similar to "Fortitude"), not like an aetherial energy. Would have preferred even just "Vita" and "Void."
In the case of cleric being mostly the same. Focus spells, alignment class abilities, war priest weapon proficiency, several cleric feats, charisma requirements for additional healing font. Yeah cleric hasn't changed one bit. I should be greatful to burn a 4 year old book. Now that its out of date, and waste more money on buying the update. Pazio should just use a subscription model and mail me new books Whenever they decide the rewrite all the rules in the book.
I dont get this „lethal“ discussion. 0 Hitpoints = still alive 4 levels of dying (that can be stopped with a ranged cantrip) Hero points Spells/Rituals to revive dead pcs
My favorite solution to the Dying condition is "Healing a character BEFORE they hit 0 HP", that may sometimes be hard to do but that's life... or rather, that's death!
New crafting rules are extremely exploitable. Though I don't feel there is a solution for crafting that doesn't take GM intervention. Changing the rule to allow for being born with the knowledge of creating fireball necklaces or sailing ships is as stupid as allowing seven of these to be crafted with a week of downtime. Running this as written makes crafting a must pick as it'd be the most powerful skill in the game; it's only limitation being gold.
about the recall knowledge, in critical failure you can give false information or say nothing, it depends if you want to make things a little harder to your players (my players don't like the false information, so i usually make stupid lies like "that fire elemental made of fire? you are pretty sure is weak to fire")
I agree with the dislike for false info - Derik from Knights of Last Call channel described my thoughts well - if a GM wants to encourage thoughtful play and lore engagement in your world, having players actually spend crucial resources (their actions in combat) in exchange for possibly actively harmful results when they could have just attacked or done a more reliable action is a bad idea, and actually discourages the activity.
It's a trade-off I believe, so long as the positive effects of recall knowlodge are impactful: you get to have a big advantage over your enemy and you have the possibility of having a negative result. A lot of players are risk-averse and aren't comfortable when the "gambleness" of a situation is explicit, so it might not work for some groups, but it can work for others. You might say: "an action is already enough cost", to which I say, yeah, depending on type of information you are about to hand out with recall knowlodge. Like, if the information you are giving is to the effect of "the fire elemental has immunity to fire", than I would say that even the action itself is useless from the get-go. @@queenannsrevenge100
I feel that the taking damage part of the death/drying/recovery check is worded poorly. I've watched the streams with Mark Seifter. And it's my understanding that when fail the check your dying and wounded conditions go up. I think the last sentence is just a reminder than if you take damage that makes you dying that you add your wounded to that number. Meaning that tour dying/wounded conditions are basically the same number at all times.
I guess I just don’t get the whole crafting thing to begin with. Why would I want to spend the time to craft something if after two or four days I have to pay the additional cost as opposed to simply buying it in the first place?
Concerning the spirit damage, how do i target a possessed creature i cant see ? The possessing creature is IN the possessed creature, and so it is undetected, or at least hidden...
Thank you for the video I ran all of curse extinction and I only had 1 player death during the whole campaign and that was level 3 sorc to massive damage rules. If I think back if I used these new death and dying rules, would I have more deaths. Very likley yes. I think what will happen players are going to change they play style, specifically in PFS and keep hero points now and won’t use them. Is the system the most deadly d20 system..I don’t think so
Do you have any idea why the "Aggressive Block" Fighter feat is now a Reaction? In the Core Rulebook (4th Printing) it was listed as a Free Action. I don't think it makes any sense it being a Reaction since the trigger is also a Reaction (You can only use 1 reaction per round). Am I missing something or is it a typo?
Almost certainly a typo. A number of free actions that modify another action got changed into actions that include the action that previously triggered them and I assume this was a casualty. They may have intended to reword it as a reaction that included a shield block along with the additional effect.
4:52 the question about states of awareness/stealth. There kind of was but I think it was more about invisibility, I think rules lawyer might have covered it? But from what I gathered it was a little convoluted so I won't try to make it worse, as I am a noobie who doesn't understand very well either. But it was mentioned.
If recall knowledge is a secret check, how does it work with magus analysis? if its a crit success spell strike is recharged, which i would then know that i succeeded because my spell strike is recharged
Are the questions really supposed to be as specific as "is it weak to fire"? Because that seems incredibly useless unless you already know out of character what it's abilities are. Even something like "What damage types is it weak to?" is going to be pretty useless in most cases - since the answers going to be "none" for so many monsters. If you've got the Bestiary memorized and know exactly what to ask about each critter, then it's really powerful, but if you're stabbing in the dark ...
I dont know about you but, I wouldn't call no weakness to damage types useless information, Stops me from trying all the lower damage spells of various types. You could ask about their defences to and get a hint on wether to target fort, reflex or will.
@@mos5678 The broader the question, the more potentially useful, unless you're asking about something you already know out of character. If it has to be as specific as the example of "is it weak to fire", that's really rough. Even learning it has no weakness to damage types doesn't tell you it's not resistant to some. More importantly, from my point of view, this approach won't ever do what the old one should have done - warn you about iconic powers. You might learn the basilisk has poor reflex saves, but not about the whole turn to stone thing.
That is assuming you ever had a GM that would tell you such things. Now you can ask in regards to what the creature is, iconic abilities, inherent weaknesses. Everything that was up to the GM to decide when you just stated recall knowledge.
@@mos5678 I guess that's the point, it's an approach that shields you from bad GMs and, as I said, really helps if you know what it is out of character, but at the cost of being much less helpful than a good GM is likely to make it. It will also depend on how specific you have to make the questions. It was the example of "Is it weak to fire?" that really made me question.
That one is odly specific yes and gives me a headscratcher since one could just ask "Do I know any weaknesses?" but I guess that is up to the table to decide how specific or generic it can be and if GM answers generic questions fully, An undead might be weak to fire and vitality, Asking "do I know any weaknesses" might just have the GM tell you vitality while omitting the fire.
tin hat on the dye/wound rules even after the recent errata: think they were testing in prep for starfinder 2e release and merge in 2025. cause this i can understand in starfinder with the slew of tech and such to support allies from afar to keep them alive and get them out of bad situations if down compared to pathfinder.
I will refuse to ever use that rule i will play as a i used to. Like he said the game is enought hard alredy as it is. Dont need to make even more deadly and less fun.
The wounded condition is only applied when you are revived from dying. Thus, your first exposure to death is with wounded 0. Those that don't extradite themselves from battle after going down, take a nasty risk. Careful party construction (medicine skill) will mitigate the issue. This mirrors the action sequences we know and love - a hero goes down and needs to be extradited from the scene while the others pick up the slack.
The wounded condition isn’t that bad. We’ve been running the “new” rules since started playing PF2E earlier this year. It really only impacts you if you are constantly going up and and down, which is kind of lame to begin with. It should raise the stakes a little bit but it really isn’t that big of a change unless you character drops more than once an encounter.
Great video! This was a really comprehensive explanation of a lot of the changes going on. Honestly love most of the changes, the only one that rubs me weird is death. You fall prone, drop your gear and that can lead to some recovery time of getting your stuff and standing. Not to mention you can only go down three times (without feats) in a fight before instant death by the rules most played by. (Along with at low levels a crit can just wipe out most of your health in an instant.) With how these rules are with wounded 1 your first saving throw fails and you just die!!
Death and Dying seems fair, because you can reduce a wounded value with a treat wounds so you just need people to start taking Battle Medicine to be safe. People die, its a game and any game has a lose condition. If your wounded 1 already you probably dropped at least once before in the same combat. This isn't babies first RPG, getting up at all is a large luxury in the system, count your lucky stars that there isn't a permanent injury table and you loss an eye or a hand every time your opponent puts you in the dirt. Either say down the first time or take the risk to help your friends potentially dying in the process, but don't cry about it and have that new character sheet ready.
I think you've mistaken, Battle Medicine doesn't actually remove the Wounded condition, it just heals. And while you might like games where you die a lot, many players don't, so a lot of people aren't happy with these new changes. But the neat thing is, all tables are free to house rule things, so people like you can use the harsher system, while others can use the more leniant system.
I mean you are right, But these arent changes at all so all this really shows is that GMs might need to adjust the way they play creatures and players need to value preventative healing as opposed to only giving it when people are down. Those things would do more for the harshness of a system compared to adding your wounded value to dying whenever you fail a recovery.
Hey great video as always. Thank you for answering some questions.I have a follow up question about holy and unholy. How are undead healed? If they are no longer animated and healed by negative energy how.does that work?
Sanctification: - Sanctification is a _liability_ by itself. And worthless without spells or abilities that use it. And for triggering vulnerabilities, you just want your strikes to have the trait - not yourself. - unless you are a divine caster or have feats for it, there will be little incentive to be sanctified - In the Exemplar Playtest, the Exemplar could choose to sanctify with a feat. So sanctification is likely limited to specific classes. - I would bet the Champion also has to sanctify. Or at least would handle it like that in the interrim - I would also bet there is going to be a archetype or two about sanctification
I remember reading that Jason Bulmahn really loves having the first few levels especially deadly for player characters. Makes sense that reflects on the game's overall math and mechanics, but these new dying rules seem WAY too hardcore.
I think Paizo looked at how every video game is trying to be the next Dark Souls, and said, "Huh, I guess people just like dying a lot!!" without also remembering that no one would play Dark Souls if they had to go through the character creation screen every time they died.
Will you please post your homebrew solution to Paizo's choice to make Death & Dying more lethal? I'm a Patreon supporter, if you would like this to be Patron only. I mean posting it in writing somewhere.
The homebrew is nothing fancy, it's just how the rule was written in the Core Rulebook. When you are knocked unconscious, you gain the Dying 1 condition plus the value of your Wounded condition, if any (Dying 2 plus wounded if you were knocked unconscious by a critical hit). And that's all there is to it... that's the only time your Wounded condition interacts with your Dying condition.
I really enjoy how you provide the information in a clear and concise manor. Thank you keep up the good work!
Thanks! 😀
I just wanted to state that a clarification/errata for the Dying & Wounded rules appears on the Paizo website. The clarification/errata changes the wording back to what was shown in the "legacy" rules.
Just because evil isn't a *mechanic* in the game, this doesn't forbid you from using the word or evil-doer to describe actions or creatures in your game.
100%. Just like *in real life*
I already feel like the wounded and dying conditions do what they're supposed to without the extra lethality of adding the wounded condition every time. It encourages people to grab stabilize cantrips but that's really all it does other than terrifying your players. I might run it RAW if I'm specifically running a lethal game, though that's the kind of game where I ask players to always have a back up character on hand.
I'm starting to think that Paizo thought there was so much downtime for the old crafting rules because for playtests they would rest for the day anytime one of them went down because of the wounded rules that the playerbase just didn't use.
It's also a buff to Toughness and Diehard feats, which they could use.
We are already running this rule RAW. It really only becomes a problem if you are constantly going down and back up in combat, which to be honest is never fun. It’s pretty easy to navigate. It does stress the importance of having healer of some kind in the party.
Hey, I was waiting for that! You've made AMAZING rules explainer videos for Pathfinder! 💪💪
Would you re-record them all for the new edition? Or you'd say not too much changed in those videos?
The plan right now is to re-record anything that has had significant changes and to update thumbnails and descriptions for anything that is now "Legacy Content."
Thank you! I've been sending my players to your videos because not only are they the clearest, but you've got that "chill uni professor" vibe that I find is way better for retaining information than the typical "I chugged an energy drink and did a bump of ritalin LET'S GET THOSE CLICKS" youtuber energy.
@@VoltasP LOL -- Thanks!! 😆
@@VoltasP haha lol so true 😂😂
Nice channel. Subbed! The Wounded rule is fixed in the errata on the Pathfinder FAQ page.
To be fair, I think that dying changes make sense to make stabilization feats and spells have more urgency to be cast.
However, if that's the case, they really went with an overkill change.
Gonna try running it though to try it out.
Thing is, with these new changes, it's probably better to just let your dying team mate stay dying. If they get up and end up dying again, they're pretty much guaranteed to die. So, you should probably just leave them dying, unless you are 100% sure that they won't take damage if they get up.
@@eamk887 damn, you're right. Can't argue with that.
Please tell me there is a trait that says a monster is immune to spirit damage. I don't want to have to decide that.
My question is - do you think we need to get the new books? I am not eager to buy a bunch of new books at $55 each!
We don't have any textual indication of whether or not "spirit damage with the holy trait" will take the place of "good damage" when it comes to fiends' weaknesses, do we? Though that does seem like an easy and natural adaptation. But I'm puzzled about undead- we have cause to believe a lot of undead are unholy, but should they take extra damage from sanctified spirit damage? Not all undead are weak to positive/vitality so there's no easy number to reach for there... I wonder if we're moving away from this kind of alignment weakness altogether, and instead relying exclusively on specific instances of "if the creature is holy/unholy, it takes xd6 spirit damage too". It makes me wonder about the point of sanctified actions that don't have that language, though, like divine lance. I'm a bit puzzled.
I wonder if the angel/demon/undead eidolons would gain the holy/unholy traits too.
D6 limitation on martial ruffians is actully tragic
There are alot of people who has ran the death and dying rules the intended way. I myself have run it like that since 2019.
Adding wounded to your dying when taking damage, Thats in current CRB, Its clear that you are meant to add your wounded to your dying whenever it increases... with exception on failed saves where you need to look at the GM screen. Regardless, CRB RAW and and Remaster RAW is a lesser impact than most people think.
I only saw the "add wounded when taking damage" part recently when I was going over things to brush up before I run my first game. Most of the people who have talked about the rules in the past seem to have missed that part.
As far as adding wounded when you fail, that seems kind of unnecessary really. If someone is TRYING to KILL a character/creature(and some enemies probably SHOULD be, but most likely WON'T be) you're pretty much dead no matter what! Attacking any unconscious character/creature is an auto critical, so they gain 2 more levels of dying, even with no wounded they only have one more before they are dead!
I had a question that I thought I heard something else about what the changes to the attack+grapple feature?
This might be the wrong place to ask, but I heard it from someone (could be you or NoNat1 or Rules Lawyer) that creature abilities work differently now? Specifically things like "grab". Under the old rules, a monster that successfully makes a Strike can automatically grab you (assuming grab is listed on its stat block of course), but under the Remaster rules, they have to make a check (Athletics presumably)? Is this true? Thanks!
That's correct! The glossary for Rage of Elements has updated entries for monster abilities and Grab now requires an Athletics check.
@@HowItsPlayedThanks! Hm I might pick up Rage of Elements then. Plus the Kineticist sounds so cool.
I appreciate the change from "Positive and Negative damage" (which is messy terminology in a game full of math).
However, "Vitality" feels too physical (very similar to "Fortitude"), not like an aetherial energy. Would have preferred even just "Vita" and "Void."
In the case of cleric being mostly the same. Focus spells, alignment class abilities, war priest weapon proficiency, several cleric feats, charisma requirements for additional healing font. Yeah cleric hasn't changed one bit. I should be greatful to burn a 4 year old book. Now that its out of date, and waste more money on buying the update. Pazio should just use a subscription model and mail me new books Whenever they decide the rewrite all the rules in the book.
PAIZO is introducing a new death tax rule in Core 2. Every time your character dies you have to send them $5. Hope that clears up the new death rules.
I dont get this „lethal“ discussion.
0 Hitpoints = still alive
4 levels of dying (that can be stopped with a ranged cantrip)
Hero points
Spells/Rituals to revive dead pcs
My favorite solution to the Dying condition is "Healing a character BEFORE they hit 0 HP", that may sometimes be hard to do but that's life... or rather, that's death!
New crafting rules are extremely exploitable. Though I don't feel there is a solution for crafting that doesn't take GM intervention. Changing the rule to allow for being born with the knowledge of creating fireball necklaces or sailing ships is as stupid as allowing seven of these to be crafted with a week of downtime. Running this as written makes crafting a must pick as it'd be the most powerful skill in the game; it's only limitation being gold.
Recall Knowledge correction: Critical Failures: The GM answers your question falsely (or decides to give you no information, as on a failure).
about the recall knowledge, in critical failure you can give false information or say nothing, it depends if you want to make things a little harder to your players (my players don't like the false information, so i usually make stupid lies like "that fire elemental made of fire? you are pretty sure is weak to fire")
Moreover instead of asking about fire weakness you can ask about all weaknesses...
I agree with the dislike for false info - Derik from Knights of Last Call channel described my thoughts well - if a GM wants to encourage thoughtful play and lore engagement in your world, having players actually spend crucial resources (their actions in combat) in exchange for possibly actively harmful results when they could have just attacked or done a more reliable action is a bad idea, and actually discourages the activity.
It's a trade-off I believe, so long as the positive effects of recall knowlodge are impactful: you get to have a big advantage over your enemy and you have the possibility of having a negative result. A lot of players are risk-averse and aren't comfortable when the "gambleness" of a situation is explicit, so it might not work for some groups, but it can work for others. You might say: "an action is already enough cost", to which I say, yeah, depending on type of information you are about to hand out with recall knowlodge. Like, if the information you are giving is to the effect of "the fire elemental has immunity to fire", than I would say that even the action itself is useless from the get-go. @@queenannsrevenge100
My party is currently arguing about if a white dragon's breath weapon is a cone or a line because one of them crit failed and we can't figure out who.
Well, the statblock literally indicates that the breath is a cone@@a_pet_rock
The info you provide is by far the best delivery on YT. Please continue to make vids my man!
Thanks!
Very excited for the remaster
I feel that the taking damage part of the death/drying/recovery check is worded poorly. I've watched the streams with Mark Seifter. And it's my understanding that when fail the check your dying and wounded conditions go up.
I think the last sentence is just a reminder than if you take damage that makes you dying that you add your wounded to that number.
Meaning that tour dying/wounded conditions are basically the same number at all times.
I guess I just don’t get the whole crafting thing to begin with. Why would I want to spend the time to craft something if after two or four days I have to pay the additional cost as opposed to simply buying it in the first place?
Concerning the spirit damage, how do i target a possessed creature i cant see ? The possessing creature is IN the possessed creature, and so it is undetected, or at least hidden...
You target the possed creature, but any Spirit damage is applied to whoever is possessing them (whether you can observe them or not).
25:50 I thought you started with all(or MOST) of the COMMON craft formulas already?
Thank you for the video
I ran all of curse extinction and I only had 1 player death during the whole campaign and that was level 3 sorc to massive damage rules.
If I think back if I used these new death and dying rules, would I have more deaths. Very likley yes.
I think what will happen players are going to change they play style, specifically in PFS and keep hero points now and won’t use them.
Is the system the most deadly d20 system..I don’t think so
I had two TPKs in the first book of Extinction Curse alone. But my players may not be as bright as yours. LOL
@@HowItsPlayedwell I wouldn’t say bright. More lucky. The chicken and bees nearly got them all in book 1
reverse pickpocketing a unholy dagger on holy creature
🫡
So can the warrior bard now attack and cantrip every turn keeping 2 going constantly?
As long as it can hit with a strike, with his lower proficiency with weapons that seems hard to do. Really dislike this change personally
Do you have any idea why the "Aggressive Block" Fighter feat is now a Reaction?
In the Core Rulebook (4th Printing) it was listed as a Free Action. I don't think it makes any sense it being a Reaction since the trigger is also a Reaction (You can only use 1 reaction per round). Am I missing something or is it a typo?
Almost certainly a typo. A number of free actions that modify another action got changed into actions that include the action that previously triggered them and I assume this was a casualty. They may have intended to reword it as a reaction that included a shield block along with the additional effect.
It was a mistake. It got a day 1 errata today, to make it a free action again.
4:52 the question about states of awareness/stealth. There kind of was but I think it was more about invisibility, I think rules lawyer might have covered it? But from what I gathered it was a little convoluted so I won't try to make it worse, as I am a noobie who doesn't understand very well either. But it was mentioned.
If recall knowledge is a secret check, how does it work with magus analysis? if its a crit success spell strike is recharged, which i would then know that i succeeded because my spell strike is recharged
Are the questions really supposed to be as specific as "is it weak to fire"? Because that seems incredibly useless unless you already know out of character what it's abilities are.
Even something like "What damage types is it weak to?" is going to be pretty useless in most cases - since the answers going to be "none" for so many monsters.
If you've got the Bestiary memorized and know exactly what to ask about each critter, then it's really powerful, but if you're stabbing in the dark ...
I dont know about you but, I wouldn't call no weakness to damage types useless information, Stops me from trying all the lower damage spells of various types.
You could ask about their defences to and get a hint on wether to target fort, reflex or will.
@@mos5678 The broader the question, the more potentially useful, unless you're asking about something you already know out of character.
If it has to be as specific as the example of "is it weak to fire", that's really rough. Even learning it has no weakness to damage types doesn't tell you it's not resistant to some.
More importantly, from my point of view, this approach won't ever do what the old one should have done - warn you about iconic powers. You might learn the basilisk has poor reflex saves, but not about the whole turn to stone thing.
That is assuming you ever had a GM that would tell you such things. Now you can ask in regards to what the creature is, iconic abilities, inherent weaknesses. Everything that was up to the GM to decide when you just stated recall knowledge.
@@mos5678 I guess that's the point, it's an approach that shields you from bad GMs and, as I said, really helps if you know what it is out of character, but at the cost of being much less helpful than a good GM is likely to make it.
It will also depend on how specific you have to make the questions. It was the example of "Is it weak to fire?" that really made me question.
That one is odly specific yes and gives me a headscratcher since one could just ask "Do I know any weaknesses?" but I guess that is up to the table to decide how specific or generic it can be and if GM answers generic questions fully, An undead might be weak to fire and vitality, Asking "do I know any weaknesses" might just have the GM tell you vitality while omitting the fire.
Great video!
tin hat on the dye/wound rules even after the recent errata: think they were testing in prep for starfinder 2e release and merge in 2025. cause this i can understand in starfinder with the slew of tech and such to support allies from afar to keep them alive and get them out of bad situations if down compared to pathfinder.
Dyeing wounds seems like it would be a LOT like putting salt in them, it would sting like crazy!
I will refuse to ever use that rule i will play as a i used to. Like he said the game is enought hard alredy as it is. Dont need to make even more deadly and less fun.
The wounded condition is only applied when you are revived from dying. Thus, your first exposure to death is with wounded 0. Those that don't extradite themselves from battle after going down, take a nasty risk. Careful party construction (medicine skill) will mitigate the issue. This mirrors the action sequences we know and love - a hero goes down and needs to be extradited from the scene while the others pick up the slack.
The wounded condition isn’t that bad. We’ve been running the “new” rules since started playing PF2E earlier this year. It really only impacts you if you are constantly going up and and down, which is kind of lame to begin with. It should raise the stakes a little bit but it really isn’t that big of a change unless you character drops more than once an encounter.
29:30 It always worked this way, the other part was just in the rules for taking damage while dying.
Eh, debatable. It was RAI, sure. But RAW was ambiguous.
@@cris5555 Just because the rule was on another page doesn't mean it wasn't RAW.
Great video! This was a really comprehensive explanation of a lot of the changes going on. Honestly love most of the changes, the only one that rubs me weird is death.
You fall prone, drop your gear and that can lead to some recovery time of getting your stuff and standing. Not to mention you can only go down three times (without feats) in a fight before instant death by the rules most played by. (Along with at low levels a crit can just wipe out most of your health in an instant.) With how these rules are with wounded 1 your first saving throw fails and you just die!!
Death and Dying seems fair, because you can reduce a wounded value with a treat wounds so you just need people to start taking Battle Medicine to be safe.
People die, its a game and any game has a lose condition. If your wounded 1 already you probably dropped at least once before in the same combat. This isn't babies first RPG, getting up at all is a large luxury in the system, count your lucky stars that there isn't a permanent injury table and you loss an eye or a hand every time your opponent puts you in the dirt.
Either say down the first time or take the risk to help your friends potentially dying in the process, but don't cry about it and have that new character sheet ready.
I think you've mistaken, Battle Medicine doesn't actually remove the Wounded condition, it just heals.
And while you might like games where you die a lot, many players don't, so a lot of people aren't happy with these new changes. But the neat thing is, all tables are free to house rule things, so people like you can use the harsher system, while others can use the more leniant system.
I mean you are right, But these arent changes at all so all this really shows is that GMs might need to adjust the way they play creatures and players need to value preventative healing as opposed to only giving it when people are down. Those things would do more for the harshness of a system compared to adding your wounded value to dying whenever you fail a recovery.
Hey great video as always. Thank you for answering some questions.I have a follow up question about holy and unholy. How are undead healed? If they are no longer animated and healed by negative energy how.does that work?
We still have negative energy functionally it is Void now. So Harm still heals undead it is just 'void healing' instead of 'negative healing'.
@@mentalkitty789 Thanks for the clarification
Sanctification:
- Sanctification is a _liability_ by itself. And worthless without spells or abilities that use it.
And for triggering vulnerabilities, you just want your strikes to have the trait - not yourself.
- unless you are a divine caster or have feats for it, there will be little incentive to be sanctified
- In the Exemplar Playtest, the Exemplar could choose to sanctify with a feat.
So sanctification is likely limited to specific classes.
- I would bet the Champion also has to sanctify. Or at least would handle it like that in the interrim
- I would also bet there is going to be a archetype or two about sanctification
I remember reading that Jason Bulmahn really loves having the first few levels especially deadly for player characters. Makes sense that reflects on the game's overall math and mechanics, but these new dying rules seem WAY too hardcore.
Seems like such an odd choice. Do you *want* to deter new players and GMs?
I think Paizo looked at how every video game is trying to be the next Dark Souls, and said, "Huh, I guess people just like dying a lot!!" without also remembering that no one would play Dark Souls if they had to go through the character creation screen every time they died.
Will you please post your homebrew solution to Paizo's choice to make Death & Dying more lethal? I'm a Patreon supporter, if you would like this to be Patron only. I mean posting it in writing somewhere.
The homebrew is nothing fancy, it's just how the rule was written in the Core Rulebook. When you are knocked unconscious, you gain the Dying 1 condition plus the value of your Wounded condition, if any (Dying 2 plus wounded if you were knocked unconscious by a critical hit). And that's all there is to it... that's the only time your Wounded condition interacts with your Dying condition.
Thanks
The remaster sucks. Also i love your videos!
Why does it suck?