Agents of Edgewatch Player’s Guide Is Now Available!

But if I'm reading your post as a pre-coffee "hey, Erik here, please don't go there", I'll delete that one. *hisses back into the ventilations shaft*

That’s a pretty accurate summary of my position. I’m not offended by someone disagreeing with me, but your post strikes me as likely to encourage further argument and disagreement in general. This is already a highly sensitive topic with a lot of raw feelings and we’re trying to be respectful and delicate with how we address people’s concerns. I just think it’s bad form to stir the pot.

I know you fight to the death to defend us, frequently. But not every fight is worth dying for, or even worth picking in the first place.

Erik, dear, every fight is worth it when you're driven by adversity. But so is worth it to consider nice people asking you not to do that.

Does the Sally Guard Neophyte background intentionally not get a skill feat?

You’re trained in the Nature skill and your choice of Hunting Lore or Stabling Lore. You start out with a riding horse, as well as a suit of shoddy half-plate armor, a shoddy longsword, and a shoddy lance (see page 273 of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook for the rules on shoddy items).

My initial assumption on my first past read was that the equipment took the place of the circumstance bonus to various charisma checks that the other backgrounds get but now that I'm importing it into Fantasy Grounds for my group it just seems odd.

With the Sally Guard, I have to appreciate the logical reason why they'd have got thrown off their steed... It seems they don't have a saddle haha

From the guide:

"Refer to the Special Rules For This Campaign sidebar on
the next page, which supersedes any rules or suggestions
in the Adventure Path text (particularly the rule about all
damage being nonlethal)."

Is this really phrased correctly?

As I understand it, the meaning is "the sidebar on the next page supersedes every other rule".

But as I read it, it says "the sidebar on the next page supersedes rules of the AP, such as all damage being nonlethal".

Obviously the latter interpretation makes no sense, since the sidebar is where damage = nonlethal is defined.

Still, did I fail reading apprehension or did you too find this to be phrased wonkily?

...

As I understand it, the meaning is "the sidebar on the next page supersedes every other rule (take note especially on the nonlethal damage rule there)".
...

is how I read that.

Personally I'm disappointed Paizo went with a rule that makes it impossible for the heroes to deal lethal damage.

I thought restraint would be a centerpiece for any campaign asking players to roleplay law enforcement. I thought the decision which criminals are bad enough to warrant lethal force would be put in the laps of the players' characters (and their superiors, if and when things go sideways).

If and when I will run this AP, my first instinct would be to run with the regular rules, meaning that anytime a cop wants to take a criminal alive, she must suffer the -2 penalty. I dislike Paizo effectively throwing up their hands, saying "okay but then it's on you, not us" (even though it is you who came up with the idea and wrote the AP!).

And certainly cops should not be able to just fireball her enemies. You can't cast fireballs nonlethally, full stop. That's, like, why other spells exist!

After all, we're playing a game where heroes have killed enemies with nary a thought for years. Hobbling cop heroes with a rule that makes them clinically unable to apply lethal force comes off as a panic reaction from Paizo. With respect, but that is my honest thought.

If anything, lifting the stifling Incapacitation trait to allow heroes to talk down even high-level BBEGs peacefully would appear much more useful, while representing a much more deliberate measured response to the current discussions in American society.

I probably should add that I expect others to have different feelings on this matter. I have no intent to inflame. My personal 2 cents only.

However, I will heed the advice to discuss rules changes with players beforehand, so everybody is, if not on the exact same page, at least in the same chapter of the book.

Sincerely,
CapnZapp

See, explanations are important.

Pathfinder is full of strange and grotesque monsters so I didn't even take note of that artwork.

As someone with English as a second language and someone who didn't know that particular monster I thought "pickled punk" was slang for an arrested punk (the social group) and that was the problem since it fit with the cop theme. I was then confused that no such artwork was in my PDF.

I guess my suggestion would be to emphasize that genuinely non-violent conflict resolution should be the first priority for police (conversation, mediation, referral to treatment, or--in a fantasy setting, perhaps spells that magically calm situations--etc.) with "nonlethal" violence only employed in emergency situations (and with "lethal" force a measure of last resort).

Exactly.

Thank you.

THIS is what separates (responsible) law enforcement from your regular dose of murderhoboing (which isn't nearly as controversial).

If the module wants you to... do pretty much the exact same things as every AP has you do, then Paizo (unwittingly) tries to both have the cake and eat it.

Hint: you can't. Either the adventure allows for proper mediation techniques (not sure the correct term, I'm not in law enforcement), making your hero actually act like a cop (in my limited view most cops aren't actually beasts). Or, you're pretty much just yet another murderhobo (not controversial) this time with a badge (suddenly extremely controversial), and baby-ification the entire combat model isn't going to change that.

Then it would be much more straight-up to simply acknowledge that D&D and Pathfinder is a game where heroes kill monsters, take their loot and level up.

This time, the heroes have badges and the monsters might be criminals. But nothing fundamental has changed (or at least, no such change is intended). It's still nothing more than a game of pretend where heroes kill monsters, take their loot and level up.

Erik, dear, every fight is worth it when you're driven by adversity. But so is worth it to consider nice people asking you not to do that.

FWIW, the remainder of your initial post reads hilariously when you aren't aware of this later discussion :)

C'mon, if you can have IRL non-lethal 40mm automatic grenade launchers, you can have non-lethal fireballs. Set magic to stun, you've suspended enough disbelief anyway.

So woo for player's guide :3 I'm kinda curious of what it would have been like if it was released year ago.

Honestly it's pretty easy to tell what stuff was added in compared to what would have already been in the book regardles.

thejeff wrote:

...it's the "you don't have to take any care not to kill people, go ahead and use all your usual killer tactics and we'll just say cops are incapable of killing anyone."

Option A (leave the rules as-is, but expect the players to go the nonlethal route) skews encounter balance and that is assuming that you can get players to actually buy-in to playing on this 'hard mode' setting.

There's a good chance the players would actually end up frustrated because of the "arbitrary" difficulty increase or because they tried to strategize lethal attacks to wear down enemies and then nonlethal attacks to finish the fight, but poorly timed dice rolls result in someone they weren't supposed to kill dying and now their characters are in trouble.

Option B (default all attacks to nonlethal without penalty applied to or extra effort expected of players) maintains encounter balance and doesn't leave the potential for campaign-derailing accidents like killing a character the adventure assumes gets arrested and interrogated.

Which is why I suggested in my first post on this making it easier, just not mandatory.

The path they took was the simplest one to preserve encounter balance, but blows my suspension of disbelief out of the water and seems likely to lead to comedy and a total lack of restraint.

I am now curious if there were rules in the AP about non-lethal damage, that are now superseded by the "all damage is nonlethal" bit in the player's guide. Perhaps such rules manage to strike a balance more to my taste.

I like the idea that a default assumption of the entire game system is that the people responsible for enforcing the laws are fundamentally trained not to kill people. That Is a bold and refreshing take on fantasy, even if it came about just at the beginning of this AP, I hope to see it continue forward into all new material.

...yet another murderhobo (not controversial)...

You have been in the echo chamber too long.

The "murderhobo" type of character/play absolutely is controversial - that's why so many gaming "horror stories" shared basically boil down to someone playing murderhobo style.

I don't even understand it. What happens when you disintegrate someone to 0? What if you push someone out of a building? Is the ground padded? Is a hay cart always passing by?

Why would you want to take an ooze in for questioning?

Was this tacked on after the concern over real life issues, or was it intended from the start?

It would be interesting if players needed to sometimes use non-lethal methods, and it made things more difficult for them. But to always, automatically have to use them is so far beyond belief, it makes it farcical. Why would any guard ever carry a sword, if they're always using the hilt, or the flat of the blade?

"You are never allowed to deal lethal damage." It reminds me of the Community episode with GI Joe, and the enemies always blast at each other, but no one hits, because no killing is allowed in the children's cartoon. But here, it's not even people you're avoiding killing, but monsters, like the cockatrice on the cover?

"As written, the Adventure Path will never force you into combat with anyone other than creatures determined to kill you."

Sometimes, lethal force is justified.

It's a game. Suspend your disbelief. If a person is trying to kill you, you can arrest them.

Lethal force is never justified from law enforcement.

Also, I'm glad to see a hint of the player reward system - bounties and reward payouts, basically. Similar to Zeitgeist's stipend system, a good way to still get the players their money without having them literally loot the people they're beating up.

In a fantasy game the ability to not kill someone is farcical?

Non-lethal force, in a fantasy setting where magical healing is available, instead sounds potentially pretty gruesome to me.

Non-lethal sword attacks - sure, they're covered in slashes, deep cuts, an arm is almost hacked off - but they're still alive. Just call in the clerics.

Non-lethal fireball - 3rd degree burns, excruciating pain, but still alive! They can sit there and suffer until a cleric arrives.

I intend to use the non-lethal rule as laid out, but play up how messed up and hurt the victims are, even if though they are still alive, possibly persuading the players to look more for non-combat options if possible.

Yeah, resolve the non-lethal disparities at your table? Rename or reflavor as needed, or skip that spell entirely if you can't find a way? The guide gives you a blanket power to use any spell as a non-lethal option. Any further hangup is your own limiting.

Okay, read it through properly now and going to be throwing my thoughts into the campfire we have going here, as well as my party's reaction reading it. I'm just going to preface this as commenting I've been coming at this as fantasy guards being different to real world police and the former never intended to provide commentary on the latter (a paraphrasing of the Player's Guide). I really don't mean that to stoke arguments, I'm really sorry, but because I feel like it might contextualise some of my thoughts going in.

So the Absalom lore is splendid, the map immensely useful and I actually adore all the Backgrounds that, more than ever, tie themselves into the adventure tightly. It really aids RP, which seems to be the name of the game here. The Player's Book seems to really emphasis talking to quell disputes and only using force at the very last resort, and even then non-lethal always (unless if it's a beastie that can't take non-lethal, then go lethal with no penalties). I could lightly grumble it feels oddly bureaucratic for a genre filled to the gills with vigilantism; overall I definitely can dig it especially in the biggest city in the Inner Sea which are bound to have A LOT of policies about guards.

The non-lethal sidebar is neat and definitely plays into it, but yeah, I still feel like my suspension of disbelief is beginning to creak at the mental image of a fireball non-lethally knocking someone out (not to mention the carnage such a spell leaves). On the flipside, I do wonder at the absence of Incapacitation tweaking. It's a good way to just non-lethally knock someone out, but I sympathise it could lead to just one-shotting enemies. I wonder if there's a middle-ground where 25% health or less the Incapacitation rule no longer count, so you can fling around your more-lethal-than-you-had-hoped spells and then finish it with an Incapacitation spell. It fixes my weird disposition about non-lethal fireballs (which is to fix spellcasters being stuck unable to do anything due to their DPS being lethal normally) and leans into what I believe are the current non-lethal rules (i.e. if the last attack that brings a foe below 0 is non-lethal they are just unconscious).

So, I presented the Player's Guide to my group (who are about 25% through Book 3 of Extinction Curse) and 3 of my players were interested. In fact, me and one other player were excited about crime-solving investigation action which we have not been able to experience outside of Call of Cthulhu. A spot of fantasy-Sherlock Holmes pondering over clues and hunting criminals, with a splash of morally grey conundrum of what to do with the solved case (e.g. do we hand in the well-intended manslaughter to the gaol, or just let them go).

The 4th player, well, wasn't too pleased. Their dreams of classic fantasy of slaying the dragon and rescuing the princess (or is it the other way around?) was being smashed to the floor. They wanted to kill monsters, not non-lethally arrest trouble-makers in a Lawful Good manner. To be honest, if Agents of Edgewatch are even 1/10th of the quality I have in my mind, it's definitely going to be tough saying goodbye to one of my two reliable players to chase an AP I've looked forward to since announcement, and even tougher to find a replacement (I find online play prone to reliability issues unfortunately). I could go with Age of Ashes, but I know me and the other reliable player will be disappointed not to tackle Agents of Edgewatch and we left our last attempt towards the end of Book 1 before we quitted and moved on to Extinction Curse.

Good or bad, Agents of Edgewatch has definitely heightened positive & negative emotions in people.

In a fantasy game the ability to not kill someone is farcical?

Is this actual confusion, or are you being disingenuous? I clearly said that it's the requirement that you always, automatically have to use non-lethal force that's beyond belief.

As for Grankless' response... I don't have a response. We probably don't share a world view that's close enough for reasonable discussion.

So, don't use that rule?

Well yes in real life police using always and automatically non-lethal (and it actually be non-lethal) is beyond belief sadly currently, but in a fantasy with magic and various superhuman feats not so much.

Especially since we’ve have had always automatic nonlethal options for attacks both physical and magical going back to P1.

Non-lethal force, in a fantasy setting where magical healing is available, instead sounds potentially pretty gruesome to me.

Non-lethal sword attacks - sure, they're covered in slashes, deep cuts, an arm is almost hacked off - but they're still alive. Just call in the clerics.

Non-lethal fireball - 3rd degree burns, excruciating pain, but still alive! They can sit there and suffer until a cleric arrives.

I intend to use the non-lethal rule as laid out, but play up how messed up and hurt the victims are, even if though they are still alive, possibly persuading the players to look more for non-combat options if possible.

”Non-lethally” chopping people’s arms off and causing third degree burns is an assumption you’re having with this. In pathfinder Non-lethal means non-lethal.

So, don't use that rule?

Of course don't use that rule, but there are balance problems, if you do need to take people in alive (alleviated by allowing the free non-lethal, but not requiring it). Even permitting the no-penalty non-lethal, some spells are just strange as non-lethal.

I think the more interesting discussion would be, why is this rule even in there? Was it just because of recent concerns, or was it always intended to be run as such?

As for others' talk of fantasy world, "Fantasy world" is not a catch-all for logic problems. A world where guards never use lethal force against murderous aggressors is a very different kind of place. One example I pointed out was that guards would never use swords. What's the point of an edged weapon, if you can never use the edge? Another would be recognizing that criminals would be more likely to be murderous, rather than just trying to run away (though given that there will probably be a lot more fighting than guards typically have to deal with, maybe that's accounted for).

It also raises the question of whether these non-lethal fireballs and power word kills are possible to learn for characters not in the AP.

I wonder if all the padding on the crossbow bolts affects the range.

Moximus wrote:

Non-lethal force, in a fantasy setting where magical healing is available, instead sounds potentially pretty gruesome to me.

Non-lethal sword attacks - sure, they're covered in slashes, deep cuts, an arm is almost hacked off - but they're still alive. Just call in the clerics.

Non-lethal fireball - 3rd degree burns, excruciating pain, but still alive! They can sit there and suffer until a cleric arrives.

I intend to use the non-lethal rule as laid out, but play up how messed up and hurt the victims are, even if though they are still alive, possibly persuading the players to look more for non-combat options if possible.

”Non-lethally” chopping people’s arms off and causing third degree burns is an assumption you’re having with this. In pathfinder Non-lethal means non-lethal.

Non-lethal means non-lethal? Of course, non-lethal doesn't kill the victim. But weapons, spells, every type of attack has some kind of description to go with it - swords do slashing damage, fireballs do fire damage, etc. We can go with the complete abstraction of Hit Points, where everyone killed "non-lethally" is perfectly fine after just being unconscious for a bit, or play up the consequences of the attacks. Highlighting the violent consequences might make players less eager to commit it.

And, yes, I admit I probably wouldn't go has far as hacked off arms and third degree burns. But shallow cuts and singed, definitely

In a fantasy game the ability to not kill someone is farcical?

The inability to kill someone can easily become farcical.

And lead to players casually using extreme force with no risk and, likely for many players, much joking about all the craziest ways they can take people out without killing them. Especially "non-lethal" magic that stretches the bounds of disbelief in somehow leaving people alive.

I'd definitely like to see more effective non-lethal options. To see players encouraged to build characters intended to make use of those non-lethal options. Rather than characters decked out with all the usually lethal options, but not being lethal with them.

I'd rather see players change their approach, rather than do the same things they always do, but make the violence cartoon violence.

Especially since we’ve have had always automatic nonlethal options for attacks both physical and magical going back to P1.

Have we? I'm unaware of this, but PF1 has lots of options and it's easy to miss things.

So there are ways in PF1 to make all your spells do non-lethal damage? Does that include those with actual death effects and the like?

Suspension of disbelief issues being mentioned here aren't actually caused by the "for this campaign, narrate all the damage the characters inflict as not being fatal" rule put into the guide - but by how hit points and damage have always been defined.

The entire pool of never-actually-any-specific-thing points that provide a mechanic to determine who is or isn't out of the fight and the not-defined-the-way-people-intuit-them-as-defined totals and types of "damage" (a word which the very usage of is part of the cause of misunderstanding) thing which is a long-standing core element of the game is what is creating the "I can't even imagine how that didn't kill somebody" issue.

And all it should take to illustrate that is this pair of facts (the first proving the second): the only time there is a game mechanic difference in the resolution of a "lethal attack" and a "nonlethal attack" is when that attack is the cause of the target reaching 0 keep-fighting points, the "take a -2 to make a lethal attack nonlethal" rule is arbitrary.

A world where guards never use lethal force against murderous aggressors is a very different kind of place.

These specific guards, not all guards in the setting.

I'd rather see players change their approach, rather than do the same things they always do, but make the violence cartoon violence.

But what if that's not the two possible outcomes? What if instead you have to choose between do the same things they always do "but make the violence cartoon violence." or do the same things they always do and say the campaign and/or the GM sucks if they can't succeed by doing that?

Because, given the "it's a game" nature of the situation, I expect there's a not insignificant chance that people don't want to significantly alter their basic approach to the game in a way that will make it harder to succeed and forces them to avoid thoughts like "oh, I'm trying to take him down easy and this guy stabs me?! Fine, stabbings it is!" which seem to come very natural to players when in the "it's a game" mindest in my experience.

Rysky wrote:

Moximus wrote:

Non-lethal force, in a fantasy setting where magical healing is available, instead sounds potentially pretty gruesome to me.

Non-lethal sword attacks - sure, they're covered in slashes, deep cuts, an arm is almost hacked off - but they're still alive. Just call in the clerics.

Non-lethal fireball - 3rd degree burns, excruciating pain, but still alive! They can sit there and suffer until a cleric arrives.

I intend to use the non-lethal rule as laid out, but play up how messed up and hurt the victims are, even if though they are still alive, possibly persuading the players to look more for non-combat options if possible.

”Non-lethally” chopping people’s arms off and causing third degree burns is an assumption you’re having with this. In pathfinder Non-lethal means non-lethal.

Non-lethal means non-lethal? Of course, non-lethal doesn't kill the victim. But weapons, spells, every type of attack has some kind of description to go with it - swords do slashing damage, fireballs do fire damage, etc. We can go with the complete abstraction of Hit Points, where everyone killed "non-lethally" is perfectly fine after just being unconscious for a bit, or play up the consequences of the attacks. Highlighting the violent consequences might make players less eager to commit it.

And, yes, I admit I probably wouldn't go has far as hacked off arms and third degree burns. But shallow cuts and singed, definitely

Yep, HP are an abstraction so whatever damage or gore you’re adding to something is flavoring you’re adding on your own, not something that the rules actually say.

Also another thing to point out, Edgewatch are trained to use nonlethal in their combats, that can be known.

NPCs knowing agents will always and automatically use nonlethal so there’s absolutely no risk of dying ever is outright metagaming.

‘Tis but a flesh wound...

Rysky wrote:

Especially since we’ve have had always automatic nonlethal options for attacks both physical and magical going back to P1.

Have we? I'm unaware of this, but PF1 has lots of options and it's easy to miss things.

So there are ways in PF1 to make all your spells do non-lethal damage? Does that include those with actual death effects and the like?

Yep, there were feats and I believe traits to make all your stuff non-lethal.

Death Effect isn’t damage so no.

Regardless, Non-lethal Fireballs have been in the game for a long while.

Edgewatch Guards are kinda being painted as the best and brightest, recruited from the other precincts. I guess they have better training, at least in non-lethal attacks, then some of the guards still in their home precincts. And from the sounds of it, there are serious consequences if an edgewatch guard starts killing people (at least, there better be).

After all, I wouldn't expect the corrupt guards working in the puddles to be too concerned about not killing, and at least some of the guards at the various gates likely have to deal with outside monster forces getting too close to the city.

Also another thing to point out, Edgewatch are trained to use nonlethal in their combats, that can be known.

NPCs knowing agents will always and automatically use nonlethal so there’s absolutely no risk of dying ever is outright metagaming.

This is especially true because (at least IRL) non-lethal policing methods still carry a chance of disability or death, and the NPCs don't know it's a game.

Rysky wrote:

Also another thing to point out, Edgewatch are trained to use nonlethal in their combats, that can be known.

NPCs knowing agents will always and automatically use nonlethal so there’s absolutely no risk of dying ever is outright metagaming.

This is especially true because (at least IRL) non-lethal policing methods still carry a chance of disability or death, and the NPCs don't know it's a game.

Yep-yep.

Product page for the player's guide seems to be bugged in manner of it being impossible to post product discussion posts?

Yeah, I'm getting that too, Corvus.

Also, if you're concerned your players are going to make a joke out of the nonlethality... ask them not to?

Product page for the player's guide seems to be bugged in manner of it being impossible to post product discussion posts?

I'm pretty sure that's a feature, not a bug.

Genuinely, if you can't think of how to represent non-lethal damage without making it in to a joke, you need to be more creative.

Genuinely, if you can't think of how to represent non-lethal damage without making it in to a joke, you need to be more creative.

It's certainly possible to do it occasionally. It's trickier to do it for everything. Nonlethal fire? Nonlethal acid?

And, as someone asked earlier, why are the police wielding all these normally lethal weapons, but using them non-lethally? Why not work with nonlethal weapons to start with?

It's literally only a problem if you decide to make it a problem.