The clarification to Wounded surely will make many people happy. I was ok with the deadlier variant, but in my four years of playing P2 I haven't had a PC die due to the Wounded condition. Persistent damage while Dying is another story altogether.
Every table will be different, but I would have had a player die in my last session if we were playing with the deadlier rules. But my greater concern with the deadlier version is it will turn away new players. Unfortunately, this is likely still the case because it's the version that is printed in the book.
@@HowItsPlayed that assumes the players would not have played differently in response to the rule, which in my experience is not a reasonable assumption. And of course, any time you have a PC going down multiple times in a combat, particularly if the rest of the party is so stressed they can't heal them in the following round, there's a legitimate risk of death regardless of what rules you are using. I know lots of people who have said "x would have happened if we had used y rule" but I've yet to hear from anyone who has actually used the deadlier version for years who reported negative consequences. That's certainly not been my experience in 400+ sessions or so using the 'taking damage while dying' rule as printed in the CRB. I'm also not convinced that new players are likely to be turned away. I've played far, far deadlier games than pf2e with new players. I ran a session of DCC with 100% new players and there were 22 character deaths in the level 0 funnel, and they *loved* it. I think it can be damaging when us seasoned veterans export assumptions onto new players.
DCC is a very different game. Is like saying that Super Meat Boy is very deadly so is not a problem if, Skyrim is as deadly. Older game systems have a very simple character creation process, even if you only take the time to create characters, you could not create 22 characters in a PF2 session, and the game stories assume that you are not throwing people at a problem, many APs assume a small group of adventurers do the deed. Not that an army of people died trying to save a small town. @@lpslpslpslpslpslps
This is a strange errata, it seems like they really wanted to make this change for how specific the text was. Could there be a schism in design choices in paizo?
I'll put on my tinfoil hat and say that they rolled it back due to community outrage. A LOT of people were not happy about these super-lethal rules. Hell, the new rules would almost give Cyberpunk a run for its money.
Downside of being a smaller company. I imagine their editorial staff is probably not large. So, more mistakes get by. But they are pretty good about updating with errata.
Well they were what the designers originally intended. But the problem was that the rules were stated in conflicting ways. The CRB wounded condition only mentioned the case of first gaining dying. Then the CRB taking damage while dying rule added that case, but wrote it in a way that implied it was mentioned elsewhere. The GM screen had the version consistent with the remaster, where you add it every time the dying condition increased, including recovery checks. The condition cards agreed with that, as did the first two printings of the beginner box (but not the third). And most people were house-ruling to ignore the taking damage while dying rule, often without realizing they were house-ruling. So, in short, it was a mess. Although I don't like the version they went with, I'm glad that they finally addressed the issue and picked a consistent version of the rule, and I suppose it makes sense to go with what apparently most people in the community were doing, or at least what the loudest people in the community were doing (the Paizo forum all-stars especially)
Ah yes... the death and dying... showcasing that Paizo Editors and developers werent even on the same page. 4 prints, 1 remaster. And still they didnt bother clarifying it proper until now.
95% of people played it the correct way. The only reason there is an errata was because of the change in recovery check. When pf2 core book was originally released mark Seifter intended it to be the way it ended up being printed in the remaster. So the deadly way is the original intended way.
Day 0 errata rubs me the wrong way for such an expensive product that has even had plenty of external beta testing/early access. Lets say you buy the printed edition which has become more expensive and inmediatly you have to add an ugly printout or post-its or even writing in top of the book... the remaster crb should not have been released in this state
There are parts of your comment that disturb me IMMENSELY! Though to your point, this is why you shouldn't buy first printings of things like this, especially when it was rushed in less than a year!
Do you expect perfection on day one? No, then on what day? Never? Then there needs to be errata. If they know something needs errata, why not release it as soon as they can?
I think they have done an amazing job detaching Pathfinder from WOTC. Considering the bomb that was dropped at the beginning of the year, I find the “rush” both justified and comforting. For content creators, it gives us a good safe place to work from.
Yeah, it felt rushed, so I’m not rushing to get it. I hope the first printing was small, so there’s not too much to pulp. Archives of Nethys and PDF are more accessible anyway.
They had a day 1 errata when the edition first released to. but yes I am rather annoyed that these specific rules werent properly adressed between 4 prints and one errata.
as i've said in my other comment, it really irritates me too, specially with the steep price hike the paper books got(and even more expensive if you consider that CRB was player+gm and now you have to buy them separate, so more than twice as expensive)
Do you expect perfection on day one? No, then on what day? Never? Then there needs to be errata. If they know something needs errata, why not release it as soon as they can?
Anyone with even a modicum of common sense had no trouble interpretting the original rule. It makes NO sense whatsoever to even have the Wounded value if the instant you fail a roll or get hit again you die. That would make the mechanic completely and utterly pointless.
Thank god I managed to cancel my order as soon as the errata came out. I'm not going to pay a cent for books that are as good as paperweights on release day, since they are already outdated and contain errors such as this. I'll wait for the second round of prints when all this will be part of the book.
Do you mean "already have errata" or are you not at all familiar with how things like this work?! Errata is VERY normal for TTRPGs, though having it so soon DOES suck. It's not that hard to keep.
You do realize that's how erratas have always worked, right? Like, I think there's like 4 different versions of the P2E CRB, each subsequent one having different erratas in them.
So incredibly disappointing. This is bad news. I mean, it won't make hardly any difference in actual play, but the disorganization of this with day 1 errata is just shitty. I've played with the deadly version of the rules for 400 sessions, and literally never did a PC die as a result of those rules. I was looking forward to other people finding that out, but, alas.
If you, and your players, like the harder rules, then just keep using them. Paizo isn't forcing you to follow their erratas and rules, you can homebrew whatever you want.
@@cidlunius1076 No, they should inform the players about the errata, and then let the players choose how they want to play. You shouldn't fucking lie to your players and ignore a new change just because you personally don't like it, you'd be an awful GM in that case.
Didn't know it was broken in PF2! Wait! Was it broken in the remastered stuff? I haven't followed PFR at all so I don't know about it but from reading some of the comments it sounds like it was messed up in the remaster!
It was unclear in the CRB for all 4 prints, It said you were adding it when gaining or when taking damage but was unspecific on the recovery checks. The initial playtests leading up to the initial release, GM Screen and condition cards.. actually most accessory stuff was more specific and in line with the remaster text. so alot of people assumed quite rightly so that you were meant to add your wounded value to your dying when your dying increases for any reason. yes. "when it increases for any reason" was the specific condition on all of those mentioned. The remaster then clarified that those were indeed the intended rules... until this new day 1 errata came out and said this was not the case. As if Paizo have been playing a game of telephone all along.
@@mos5678I think it was corrected properly but there was so much negative feedback about it that paizo decided to errata it with a plausible, but unlikely, reason.
@@mos5678 >It was unclear in the CRB for all 4 prints, It said you were adding it when gaining or when taking damage but was unspecific on the recovery checks. This is correct technically, but the situation is even more confusing than you make it seem like. If you go and read the CRB, it actually only mentions adding your wounded value to your dying value when taking damage, on a SINGLE SECTION on page 459, the section in question being Taking Damage while Dying. NOWHERE ELSE does it specify that you have to do this. Even on the literal same page, nowhere does it mention this same rule, and IN FACT, under the Wounded section on the same page 459, it says that you need to add your wounded value to your dying value only when you GAIN the dying condition, it does not say anything about adding it when you increase your dying value. This makes following the right rules extremely hard. >so alot of people assumed quite rightly so that you were meant to add your wounded value to your dying when your dying increases for any reason. Many people probably did use this rule, but most players did not, and only added their wounded value to the dying value when gaining the dying condition. Fun fact, there was a poll about a month ago on the P2E reddit, asking how many people used which wounded rule, and just 2% of the answered, more specifically just 33 people, used the wounded system that you described.
Basically, Paizo had an original "intended" rules on how the wounded condition worked, which 98% people didn't use, since it was so poorly explained, and with the remaster, someone at Paizo thought that they were inverting back to the "intended" rules, so that's what got released in the release of the remaster. Now though, Paizo has errata'd it and made it clear that this was a mistake. And if you're wondering what's different about the rules, the original intended rules (that were mistakingly released with the remaster) stated that whenever you gain or increase your dying value, you add your wounded value to it as well. This means that if you go down a second time in a battle, you will instantly die if you fail a single recovery flat check, or if you take a single point of damage. In the rules that most people used though, you only added your wounded value to your dying value when you gained the dying condition, i.e. when you fall below 0 HP.
according to Mark Seifter and Mike Sayre the situation came about because three people med in a room and thought they were on the same page without confirming they were, I believe the reason for the way it was printed in CRB was due to an editor not understanding what the rule was.
Pathfinder 2e Errata: paizo.com/pathfinder/faq
The clarification to Wounded surely will make many people happy. I was ok with the deadlier variant, but in my four years of playing P2 I haven't had a PC die due to the Wounded condition. Persistent damage while Dying is another story altogether.
Every table will be different, but I would have had a player die in my last session if we were playing with the deadlier rules. But my greater concern with the deadlier version is it will turn away new players. Unfortunately, this is likely still the case because it's the version that is printed in the book.
@@HowItsPlayed that assumes the players would not have played differently in response to the rule, which in my experience is not a reasonable assumption. And of course, any time you have a PC going down multiple times in a combat, particularly if the rest of the party is so stressed they can't heal them in the following round, there's a legitimate risk of death regardless of what rules you are using.
I know lots of people who have said "x would have happened if we had used y rule" but I've yet to hear from anyone who has actually used the deadlier version for years who reported negative consequences. That's certainly not been my experience in 400+ sessions or so using the 'taking damage while dying' rule as printed in the CRB.
I'm also not convinced that new players are likely to be turned away. I've played far, far deadlier games than pf2e with new players. I ran a session of DCC with 100% new players and there were 22 character deaths in the level 0 funnel, and they *loved* it. I think it can be damaging when us seasoned veterans export assumptions onto new players.
DCC is a very different game. Is like saying that Super Meat Boy is very deadly so is not a problem if, Skyrim is as deadly. Older game systems have a very simple character creation process, even if you only take the time to create characters, you could not create 22 characters in a PF2 session, and the game stories assume that you are not throwing people at a problem, many APs assume a small group of adventurers do the deed. Not that an army of people died trying to save a small town. @@lpslpslpslpslpslps
This is a strange errata, it seems like they really wanted to make this change for how specific the text was. Could there be a schism in design choices in paizo?
I'll put on my tinfoil hat and say that they rolled it back due to community outrage. A LOT of people were not happy about these super-lethal rules. Hell, the new rules would almost give Cyberpunk a run for its money.
@@utes5532 ehh not sure, they were far too deadly to be on purpose
@@gglovato IMO it was far too specific to be on accident
Fixed seems like such a strong word... :D
That's fair. 😀
Downside of being a smaller company. I imagine their editorial staff is probably not large. So, more mistakes get by. But they are pretty good about updating with errata.
Hey, that's fine. I kinda liked hard mode, but maybe a fun homebrew for a gritty game.
i honestly prefer the pre eratta version. im gonna have my players choose which one they want. in like 3 years of play we havent had one death
It's weird.. the pre-erata rules for Dying and Wounded in the remaster were my interpretation for the 2.0 Dying/Wounded rules.
Well they were what the designers originally intended. But the problem was that the rules were stated in conflicting ways. The CRB wounded condition only mentioned the case of first gaining dying. Then the CRB taking damage while dying rule added that case, but wrote it in a way that implied it was mentioned elsewhere. The GM screen had the version consistent with the remaster, where you add it every time the dying condition increased, including recovery checks. The condition cards agreed with that, as did the first two printings of the beginner box (but not the third). And most people were house-ruling to ignore the taking damage while dying rule, often without realizing they were house-ruling.
So, in short, it was a mess. Although I don't like the version they went with, I'm glad that they finally addressed the issue and picked a consistent version of the rule, and I suppose it makes sense to go with what apparently most people in the community were doing, or at least what the loudest people in the community were doing (the Paizo forum all-stars especially)
generally how long does it take to get a second printing were they would likely implement the erratas?
When the current inventory sells out.
Still not good for new players who start by buying the book or PDF.
Thanks, that's very helpful!
Ah yes... the death and dying... showcasing that Paizo Editors and developers werent even on the same page.
4 prints, 1 remaster. And still they didnt bother clarifying it proper until now.
95% of people played it the correct way. The only reason there is an errata was because of the change in recovery check.
When pf2 core book was originally released mark Seifter intended it to be the way it ended up being printed in the remaster. So the deadly way is the original intended way.
Day 1 errata?
Of a book that is a revision?
Does Paizo knows how to edit a book?
This is so annoying.
a book that also got an insane price hike (and that really ends up costing more than double if you take PFR player core+gm core were one book before)
Lesson: don't buy the first prints, especially from the smaller publishers (I'm looking at you cephalo)
A little off-topic: does anyone know, if the changes we see in the remaster were already applied in Rage of Elements?
They sure walked back that rule quick
Day 0 errata rubs me the wrong way for such an expensive product that has even had plenty of external beta testing/early access. Lets say you buy the printed edition which has become more expensive and inmediatly you have to add an ugly printout or post-its or even writing in top of the book... the remaster crb should not have been released in this state
There are parts of your comment that disturb me IMMENSELY!
Though to your point, this is why you shouldn't buy first printings of things like this, especially when it was rushed in less than a year!
Do you expect perfection on day one? No, then on what day? Never? Then there needs to be errata. If they know something needs errata, why not release it as soon as they can?
@@xczechr I'd expect them to maybe take their time and not rush the thing out.
I think they have done an amazing job detaching Pathfinder from WOTC. Considering the bomb that was dropped at the beginning of the year, I find the “rush” both justified and comforting. For content creators, it gives us a good safe place to work from.
Yeah, it felt rushed, so I’m not rushing to get it. I hope the first printing was small, so there’s not too much to pulp. Archives of Nethys and PDF are more accessible anyway.
A problem they completely made on their own.
The amount of erratas reminds me 4th edition.
Its such a mess. And this book is a revision of the system.
I cannot beleive they had day 1 errata....it really irratates me that there was so much errata.
They had a day 1 errata when the edition first released to.
but yes I am rather annoyed that these specific rules werent properly adressed between 4 prints and one errata.
as i've said in my other comment, it really irritates me too, specially with the steep price hike the paper books got(and even more expensive if you consider that CRB was player+gm and now you have to buy them separate, so more than twice as expensive)
Do you expect perfection on day one? No, then on what day? Never? Then there needs to be errata. If they know something needs errata, why not release it as soon as they can?
They had to get themselves divorced from D&D as soon as possible. No reasonable person expected perfection in such a short amount of time.
While it irritates me as well for the reasons you stated, they've done an incredible job getting this out after the OGL scandal.
I hope @Nonat1s saw this. I was really annoyed by this new rule. They made the whole thing viciously deadly!
Anyone with even a modicum of common sense had no trouble interpretting the original rule. It makes NO sense whatsoever to even have the Wounded value if the instant you fail a roll or get hit again you die. That would make the mechanic completely and utterly pointless.
Does taking damage still increase your dying by 1? (Just don't add the value of the dying condition)
Yes it does. Or by 2 on a crit.
Thank god I managed to cancel my order as soon as the errata came out. I'm not going to pay a cent for books that are as good as paperweights on release day, since they are already outdated and contain errors such as this. I'll wait for the second round of prints when all this will be part of the book.
They now have errata in their printed books this sucks
That is how Errata always worked.
CRB 1st printing is _very_ different to 4th Printing/Errata.
Do you mean "already have errata" or are you not at all familiar with how things like this work?! Errata is VERY normal for TTRPGs, though having it so soon DOES suck. It's not that hard to keep.
You do realize that's how erratas have always worked, right? Like, I think there's like 4 different versions of the P2E CRB, each subsequent one having different erratas in them.
Lol so a very expensive errata update in the "Remastered" books requires a day 1 errata update????
So incredibly disappointing. This is bad news. I mean, it won't make hardly any difference in actual play, but the disorganization of this with day 1 errata is just shitty.
I've played with the deadly version of the rules for 400 sessions, and literally never did a PC die as a result of those rules. I was looking forward to other people finding that out, but, alas.
If you, and your players, like the harder rules, then just keep using them. Paizo isn't forcing you to follow their erratas and rules, you can homebrew whatever you want.
I had 2 tpks cause this rule.
The amount of erratas reminds me 4th edition.
Just never tell your players the errata happened. They probably play better because the death spiral is more like a death slide.
@@cidlunius1076 No, they should inform the players about the errata, and then let the players choose how they want to play. You shouldn't fucking lie to your players and ignore a new change just because you personally don't like it, you'd be an awful GM in that case.
Good news! You can still use the deadlier version at your table.
Didn't know it was broken in PF2!
Wait! Was it broken in the remastered stuff? I haven't followed PFR at all so I don't know about it but from reading some of the comments it sounds like it was messed up in the remaster!
It was unclear in the CRB for all 4 prints, It said you were adding it when gaining or when taking damage but was unspecific on the recovery checks.
The initial playtests leading up to the initial release, GM Screen and condition cards.. actually most accessory stuff was more specific and in line with the remaster text. so alot of people assumed quite rightly so that you were meant to add your wounded value to your dying when your dying increases for any reason. yes. "when it increases for any reason" was the specific condition on all of those mentioned.
The remaster then clarified that those were indeed the intended rules... until this new day 1 errata came out and said this was not the case.
As if Paizo have been playing a game of telephone all along.
@@mos5678I think it was corrected properly but there was so much negative feedback about it that paizo decided to errata it with a plausible, but unlikely, reason.
@@mos5678 >It was unclear in the CRB for all 4 prints, It said you were adding it when gaining or when taking damage but was unspecific on the recovery checks.
This is correct technically, but the situation is even more confusing than you make it seem like. If you go and read the CRB, it actually only mentions adding your wounded value to your dying value when taking damage, on a SINGLE SECTION on page 459, the section in question being Taking Damage while Dying. NOWHERE ELSE does it specify that you have to do this. Even on the literal same page, nowhere does it mention this same rule, and IN FACT, under the Wounded section on the same page 459, it says that you need to add your wounded value to your dying value only when you GAIN the dying condition, it does not say anything about adding it when you increase your dying value. This makes following the right rules extremely hard.
>so alot of people assumed quite rightly so that you were meant to add your wounded value to your dying when your dying increases for any reason.
Many people probably did use this rule, but most players did not, and only added their wounded value to the dying value when gaining the dying condition. Fun fact, there was a poll about a month ago on the P2E reddit, asking how many people used which wounded rule, and just 2% of the answered, more specifically just 33 people, used the wounded system that you described.
Basically, Paizo had an original "intended" rules on how the wounded condition worked, which 98% people didn't use, since it was so poorly explained, and with the remaster, someone at Paizo thought that they were inverting back to the "intended" rules, so that's what got released in the release of the remaster. Now though, Paizo has errata'd it and made it clear that this was a mistake.
And if you're wondering what's different about the rules, the original intended rules (that were mistakingly released with the remaster) stated that whenever you gain or increase your dying value, you add your wounded value to it as well. This means that if you go down a second time in a battle, you will instantly die if you fail a single recovery flat check, or if you take a single point of damage. In the rules that most people used though, you only added your wounded value to your dying value when you gained the dying condition, i.e. when you fall below 0 HP.
according to Mark Seifter and Mike Sayre the situation came about because three people med in a room and thought they were on the same page without confirming they were, I believe the reason for the way it was printed in CRB was due to an editor not understanding what the rule was.
We'll all laugh about this ten years from now.
I honestly could not give a fluff about all of this "remaster" non sense. PF2 is a great game as it is.