Balkoth's page

Wait, I thought the order of operations went Immunities, Weaknesses, then Resistances are accounted for.

You are correct. Was not awake enough yet.

Still a factor for stuff like regeneration being turned off.

Speaking as someone who has played a champion from level 1 to 20, I'm quite happy with the new balance point.

I'm also playing a Fighter in a Free Archetype game with the Champion Archetype. I am also not worried about the balance for the Champion reaction. It's still good.

I do find the decision to apply the resistance to a single chosen damage type, rather than to the total sum of damage, a little curious though. Wouldn't that mean you won't benefit from your full resistance in some edge cases?

Yes. Or in other cases you might have resist 15 but choose to resist 3 damage (rather a 20+ damage portion of the hit) to avoid triggering a weakness (that was an error on my part, weakness triggers before resistance) or avoid regeneration turning off or something and "waste" the other 12.

Those scenarios are what I find problematic.

So you're L16, you've just got your weapon potency +3 rune and chosen which third property rune to add to your sword...and you chose Shock. It used to stink against both ghosts and skeletons, but uh oh now the errata has come out, it only stinks against skeletons. Time to sound the alarm?

It's weird that the ghost is only resisting one type of damage while the skeleton is resisting several, yes. That a Flaming +1 Striking Sword is very close to identical to a Ghost Touch +1 Striking Sword against a Ghost with Resist 5 all. That spelling out a bunch of resistances individually winds up being better than resist all.

Is is the end of the world? Of course not. That doesn't mean it's a good change or an explained change.

Yes any theoretical advantages are gone from a player perspective but those only ever mattered if the creatures had multiple damage types

Prior to the remaster, this seemed to be most common on fiends and similar outsiders doing extra alignment damage, making Champions particularly good at defending against them, which did make thematic sense.

Incorporeals already had a similar defensive statting compared to skeletons but those in practice usually only a single type of damage in most scenarios.

Ah, Skeletons are another problem. Skeletons get "Resistances cold 5, electricity 5, fire 5, piercing 5, slashing 5" (or better).

Meaning if you hit a ghost with resist 5 all with a sword that also deals 3 fire damage, 4 cold damage, and 2 electricity damage it'll reduce the damage by 5 slashing damage.

But if you hit a skeleton it'll ignore not only the 5 slashing damage, but also the fire/cold/electricity damage.

The errata says "a multi-type resistance can be applied to the most beneficial damage type if it could apply more than one."

So if resistances can apply in more than one, the PC victim gets to pick the way to apply it. On the con side, this also means that GMs should be picking the optimal resistance choices for monsters.

Yes, I know. That's why I said you'd have to do the math every hit to figure out which it should be.

Champion reactions specifically are still quite strong, I'm less worried about that and more about all the other ramifications.

Another fun example I thought of!

Say you have 5 resist slashing from Stoneskin and then get 10 resist all for something.

You take 12 slashing damage and 5 fire damage. If you resist the slashing, you take 2 slashing and 5 fire for 7 damage. If you resist the fire, you take 7 slashing damage and 0 fire damage for 7 damage. Identical.

But if it's 12 slashing and 6 fire, then resisting the slashing is 2 slashing and 6 fire for 8 damage while resisting fire is 7 slashing and 0 fire, so you want to resist the slashing.

And if it's 12 slashing and 4 fire, resisting slashing yields 2 slashing/4 fire for 6 vs 7 slashing/0 fire for 7, so you want to resist the fire.

And you'll need to figure out this math on every hit. Which is not impossible or even super hard, but it is an extra complication.

Also if you have like weakness 10 to fire or something like regeneration that's de-activated by fire then you basically always want to block the fire, so stuff like that is also a factor.

At this point I'm probably just going to completely ignore anything Paizo has to say on the matter and run as I see fit.

Alas, this is trickier for people who play at least one game with a VTT like Fantasy Grounds or Foundry.

You will still get more milage out of the new resist all 5 over the course of a campaign than you would with the resist 5 to 4 different kinds of energy damage, simply because majority of creatures deal physical damage.

If the items were equivalent, sure, but something like resist 5 all would be priced massively more expensively and higher level than resist 5 to 4 energy types of damage because it's using the original rules for resist all.

Same when it comes to defensive "budgets" for creatures or character abilities.

There are common alternatives that one could make the same argument about, like Energy Aegis, no GM permission needed there in most games.

Energy Aegis is an excellent example.

"You protect the target with a powerful, long-lasting energy barrier. The target gains resistance 5 to acid, cold, electricity, fire, force, sonic, vitality, and void damage."

If that instead said

"You protect the target with a powerful, long-lasting energy barrier. The target gains resistance 5 to damage (except physical, poison, and mental)."

it would be a straight up nerf now.

If you're thinking "Where would you even see language like that with resist all and exceptions for specific damage?" then look at incorporeals as an easy example:

"Resistances: all damage 10 (except force, ghost touch, spirit, or vitality; double resistance vs. non-magical) "

Yeah, what you're describing is how Hardness works.

And if they made Resist All work like Hardness that's...a decision (why even have both?) but at least it would be better than this new situation.

That's a rare item, it's a campaign-specific item, and it's L15 in a campaign that goes 1-20. The only time it's ever going to be available to PCs is if they're playing that campaign or if the GM explicitly wants them to have it.

It's also very similar to a lot of items I've seen in various RPG video games (though normally those don't have the dragon breath component, it's just resistance to several types of elements), so it's hardly some groundbreaking idea.

So yes. The devs are aware that this is something that is going to change up the balance of various abilities.

It just feels like they didn't make clear about some of those examples. Or didn't consider them, like how they didn't the first round of errata.

For example, a spell that gives you resist 10 to elemental damage can be worse than multiple individual spells that are lower rank giving resist to multiple specific elements, which again feels weird.

Champion reaction and Thaumaturge Amulet reaction are both drinking themselves under the table tonight because they are now both on equal footing of effectiveness with Flamekeeper Witch's Restored Spirit temp HP instead of being strictly better like they used to be.

The resistance can actually be worse. If you get hit by 10 fire and 10 cold damage with resist 20, you take 10 damage. If you get hit by 10 fire and 10 cold damage with 20 temp HP, you take 0 damage.

Previously, 5 resist to all meant you ignored the first 5 damage of each type of damage and was mostly seen on incorporeals or Champion reactions.

Now, it means you only ignore 5 damage of one damage type, period.

Which means a ring giving 5 resist to elemental damage types (acid/cold/electric/fire) similar to a Dragonscale Amulet could reduce 20 damage from a Cataclysm spell while a ring with 5 resist all only reduces 5 damage.

This seems very odd.

Yes athletics can help the whole party, but honestly that's not why I'm doing it. And acrobatics is very much just about yourself.

I mean, it also lets you reach stuff for the party so they don't have to be spending a limited resource like flight or teleportation on it. Or used when fighting in hazardous terrain. If you can't balance, you're literally unable to move, which is not helpful for the party relying on you in combat.

I guess when I'm looking at Acrobatics vs Medicine (unless there's someone else already planning for medicine) I just think that I'd prefer to generally make my character more useful to the group, at least in the way I'm evaluating it.

I'm just pointing out that you're assuming you'll survive the fight by planning on using Medicine to patch people up during Exploration mode.

Acrobatics helps you survive the fight itself.

But arguably you don't want it to be a cleric, who can likely do better with their magic.

Do better, technically, save resources, absolutely. You only get so many spells per day, that's one of the main reasons to get Battle Medicine.

And don't misunderstand me, I see the use case for Kip Up. I just...guess I don't value it that highly.

I suspect if you played melee characters in high difficulty campaigns you'd value it more, it becomes significantly more valuable when it's a common occurrence to be dropped and then healed during a fight.

But if you're never facing more than easy/moderate encounters plus a rare severe encounter it won't seem as useful.

Combing back to this, if my character had 5 skills that I could advance to Legendary proficiency for a generic strength based martial character they would likely be (in no particular order):

1) Athletics
2) Medicine
3) Intimidation
4) Acrobatics
5) Knowledge skill (if taking caster dedication) or other skill for character background development

I think it's fascinating you want to be a legendary medic on all strength martials whereas I've never seen a generic strength based martial with it.

Again, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it, but things like running off walls or nimbly dodging stuff seem like a lot more martial iconic than being a world renowned surgeon. Especially since wisdom isn't your primary stat.

Athletics/Acrobatics/Intimidation are the three I'm running on my current Elven Fighter, though Intimidation is less significant for me with Intimidating Strike as a class feature.

Plus I have Legendary Elven Lore from an ancestry feat.

If you’re just trying to stabilize the main medicine guy after a fight a soothing tonic is plenty. They can do the medicine themselves.

Or a level 1 healing potion, yeah, good point.

I do think it's also worth noting that skill feat quality heavily influences skill selection, and Kip Up almost makes it worth investing in acrobatics by itself. A lot of other skill choices just have extremely weak feat options.

100% this.

But I suppose you mean, if your character is just that extra person to get the main healer up and working again then you're not wrong.

That would be why I said "patch up the main Medicine person", yep!

I guess I've always just volunteered because "grizzled veteran who knows how to sew himself back together" is a trope I like.

And that's perfectly fair. But in a lot of groups other people may be jumping at the role. In the three campaigns I'm either playing in or GMing, the main medicine person is an Oracle, a Cleric, and a Monk respectively.

Plus, even if you pick Medicine as your secondary skill, you still have a tertiary skill which could be Acrobatics still.

If you're just trying to stabilize or patch up the main Medicine person after battle, being Trained in Medicine is plenty.

Much like NPCs with counterspell or subtle spell vs parties that love silence, GMs will add kip up the more often you frustrate them with trip spam.

I feel like this is saying the equivalent of GMs will avoid sending groups of weaker enemies against the party the more the wizard uses Fireball.

Everything ScooterScoots said.

Sure, the Champion who wants some Charisma based skills will probably skip Acrobatics.

The Dwarf who wants to be a crafter and have another int skill will probably skip Acrobatics.

But there's a lot of Strength based characters who will boost Str/Dex/Con/Wis. And after Athletics, the other two skills are extremely open. Assigning one to Acrobatics for Kip Up is very valuable.

kip up’s pretty great and only gets better in hard fights where I might go down and have to deathloop a bit, exactly when I need it most, so…

I really want to emphasize this point in particular. I put a lot of value in feats/abilities that are extremely powerful when things are going badly. You're already going to win the easy fights. You want to plan for what to do when stuff hits the fan.

And you really don't want something like going down to dying, getting a heal, standing up, and being Reactive Struck back down to dying from a boss crit. "Deathloop" is accurate for what you really want to avoid in those scenarios.

And the added die of damage isn't nothing, either.

There's actually a lot of cases there the added die is nothing, since it's a completely separate bludgeoning instance of damage.

Basically doesn't affect constructs, devils, incorporeals, or anything with damage resistance to physical.

I mean, given how no NPCs I can think of have Kip Up naturally, that's not 'often', that's a GM writings 'screw Trip' into their encounter design.

I mean, I'd be very shocked if I ran into a high level rogue enemy who didn't have it personally.

You're also allowed to give every NPC save upgrades or put Freedom of Movement as an innate spell on everyone, this doesn't make save spells or grapple inherently bad.

You...do realize that there are creatures and NPCs with save upgrades, right? Like search for Evasion on the Archives. Hell, there's at least one NPC with Improved Evasion that I know of.

Meanwhile Freedom of Movement as an innate spell is not nearly on the same page as a high level martial having Kip Up.

Isn't how often PCs take Kip Up irrelevant to the utility of Crashing Slam which is the topic of this thread? No monster has Kip Up

Like Agonarchy said, Kip Up does mean crit failing a Trip attempt means nothing, free action to just stand up without provoking, which means Crashing Slam doesn't give that as an advantage (no risk of crit failing unlike Slam Down or a standard Trip).

But the broader point was that martial-like NPCs can often have Kip Up at level 12+, especially in homebrew campaigns where GMs may design NPCs similar to PCs (though probably with a few key class feats rather than trying to create an entire PC).

Great census. Thank you. Are PCs getting Prone that often?

In my PFS experience, it is rather uncommon.

In the two games I run, it's fairly common, especially the six person campaign which is a pretty high difficulty. A boss getting a crit or two can drop someone dying pretty quickly.

A lot of things, to be fair, are a lot more valuable in a higher difficulty game. Like in-combat healing is kind of useless vs easier encounters but a godsend in harder ones.

Knockdown is a reasonably common monster ability too.

PFS is probably tuned a lot lower given its nature of basically being a PUG with no guaranteed skill level or party synergy.

You said "people" so I was expecting multiple people.

It seemed initially you were also implying the same thing, but I may have been mistaken.

You were also listing an uncommon feat only available to a specific region of the world, incidentally, so that doesn't seem to be a fair comparison.

Crashing slam is 10th level, so that's only the second skill feat you can get from the 7th level ones if you're spending just skill feats.

Right, but a good portion of the thread is people pointing out how Tactical Reflexes and other level 10 feats are better are thus people might not take Crashing Slam until level 12 or 14 anyway...and that was pre-clarification too.

Who's doing that?

Here, literally shortly after I pointed out Kip Up will be taken for a lot of builds around the time Crashing Slam is.

I sure didn't get that as your main point.

I said it here:

"Crashing Slam is when you were supposed to get a major upgrade (especially with Kip Up becoming a lot more common at that level) and your class feats overall are a lot more powerful."

Is there a reason people keep mentioning taking it as a 7th level general feat? Most people wouldn't get it until 8 at the earliest, skill feats are by default on even levels.

And the whole point is that someone might not even pick it up until level 10, 12, or even 14 (same as Crashing Slam) -- especially given Acrobatics is often a secondary or tertiary skill.

Still a huge ratio IMO. I do not think 9% to 25% of Martial PCs have it.

*shrug*

Campaign 1: 67%
Campaign 2: 40% (or more)
Campaign 3: 50% (or more)

That's not counting people I've played with in Dawnsbury Days taking it either, just full TTRPG parties.

Most dex based classes will have it.

Many str based classes will pick it up after Athletics unless they're strongly into another two skills.

Creating a NPC with it is perfectly reasonable. MOST of the NPCs having it is not.

I've literally never said most NPCs have it.

I said most martial-like NPCs have it. That's a huge difference. So like 30-50% of NPCs overall which make up like 30-50% of opponents.

So like 9% to 25% of overall opponents.

Your GM is quite in their rights to make changes to NPCs they feel are best for the story.

But it means your experience with so many enemies having Kip up is definitely not typical.

I said "creating" intentionally there, I'm talking about homebrew campaigns with that last post.

The GM for the game I'm playing in is a different matter. But we're doing Free Archetype so it's kinda whatevs really, we're already stronger than intended.

So yea, if you're GM makes sure a feat stays irrelevant instead of using statblocks as written, then yea, that feat will be irrelevant. Doesn't seem like worthy discussion of game balance, though.

A GM creating a high level NPC who could very reasonably have Kip Up is not a crazy or unfair notion.

How often you fight NPCs like that (as opposed to creatures or NPCs who wouldn't reasonably have Kip Up) is very campaign dependent.

An urban campaign is very different from a dungeon crawl is very different from a wilderness campaign.

The fact that a level 7 feat (Kip Up) which has low feat cost significantly weakens prone is a factor, though. Just like you'd expect a high level NPC to have stats accounting for stuff like Fleet and Toughness.

Only having 3 skills and needing Acrobatics to be one of them is the biggest limiting factor here.

If your going down enough for the free stand to have a big impact you might need a change in tactics.

Depends on the campaign difficulty.

What I'm getting here is that not a lot of GMs use the athletics skill that so many monsters have to put PCs on the floor for debuffing and reaction triggering purposes. If that's the case then a free action to end a debuff you aren't getting hit with will obviously look niche.

Or even just the (Improved) Knockdown ability that a lot of creatures have, yeah.

I don't think those NPCs actually have it in the book, though. It's an extremely rare ability on any NPC, and I don't think either of those have it.

I'm not saying they actually do in the book, I'm saying you're almost certainly right that he's just adding it to most NPCs that could feasibly have it.

And given it's a widely available and fairly easily accessible ability, it doesn't really seem out of line to do so. It's not like a permanent Freedom of Movement on every NPC to avoid grapples or something.

*shrug*

I think that might be your GM making life harder for you hah. I GMed that and can't remember a single npc with kip up, certainly not almost every significant humanoid having it!

Without spoiling anything since you're still playing it, I will say this is 100% down to your GM. No enemy in AoA has an ability equivalent to Kip Up in the entire Adventure Path.

Welp. The

And again, I'm used to most players taking it if they're martialish, and even many non-martials.

Which means it feels like prone is just less significant at higher levels (not a bad thing) but it means Crashing Slam needs to be a bigger improvement to be worth taking given that.

And people accounting for kip up is crazy to me. NPCs aren't built as PCs. You don't need to worry about a PC feat. How often do NPCs have a kip up like ability? I'm sure it exists, but I don't recall encountering it. Which to me says it's very infrequent.

I'm playing in Age of Ashes, and the answer is quite often. Like almost every significant NPC (not necessarily every random guard mook) who's humanoid and martial-like has it past level 12 it's felt like.

And while being tripped is annoying, if the same monster doesn't also have some kind of reactive strike ability then kip up isn't doing anything for you.

1, free action instead of action, that's a big deal.

2, as I mentioned before, it also applies when you get knocked dying from damage. So I guess if you're in a campaign with easier combats, that's less helpful, but if you're getting knocked down a good chunk, it's very powerful.

Do you disagree with my analysis of the options at level 4 for a two handed fighter?

Yes, because you're not looking at level 1 and 2 feats.

Exacting Strike, Sudden Charge, and Vicious Swing (situationally, especially vs Swallow Whole enemies) are all useful at level 1.

Brutish Shove, Intimidating Strike, and Lunge all useful at level 2. Even something like Blade Brake can be situationally usefully to not get shoved off a cliff or out of position or something (if I could pick up Crashing Slam at level 10 without Slam Down at level 4 I'd probably value Blade Brake over Slam Down, just because Slam Down is marginal and Blade Brake is potentially really valuable in bad situations).

If we're claiming "Crashing Slam is fine because you might pick it up at level 14 or 16 if you run out of better feats" then we have to consider the lower level feats we might be taking instead of Slam Down.

Kip Up makes up some of the deficit by eliminating the main drawback of Strike+Trip, but that has a notable opportunity cost for most classes (namely everyone not named Rogue or Swashbuckler; or anyone without the Acrobat dedication)

In one campaign I'm running, 4 out of 6 players have it.

In the second campaign I'm running, I expect 2 or 3 out of 5 players to get it. The main two who I'm confident won't get it are both Champions.

In the campaign I'm playing in, 3 out of 5 people at least have it (not sure about the Druid or Wizard).

None of the campaigns are jammed pack with optimizers, there's a few but it's mostly pretty casual players.

But is slam down enough better to justify a 4th level feat, on fighter, a class with really good feats?

Additionally, trip -> strike is also an option and you don’t have to worry about crit fails much with that one, and decent odds of a crit as well (relevant if you have something to proc off it). The -2 even buffs the following strike!

This.

The standard isn't "Is it better than nothing?" but "Does the meet the power budget of a class feat of that level?"

Does it have a clear benefit that can be used almost every fight? Also Yes.

I literally provided the math above showing that Slam Down doesn't even clearly increase the odds of Striking + Tripping successfully compared to Strike + Trip.

The main benefit is the first part you pointed out, allowing you to trip with any 2H weapon.

Agree with everything you're saying, but I think we might be missing the point, and it's slightly my fault. Because the real question is "Is Crashing Slam, the second feat in the chain, worth it?"

And when you compare to the other 10 level feats available, it is hard to say that it's the one I would choose first. Though I think there's opportunities at level 12 and 14. Level 10 for fighters is just packed with good options.

Exactly. Also note that at 14 you're opening up stuff like Whirlwind Strike.

If Crashing Slam was "After hitting with a Strike, you can auto-trip with a 2H weapon as an additional action, this auto-trip counts as increasing MAP" then that would make it significantly better.

But if your first attack misses, you waste the second action. And if your first attack has a very high chance to hit, you're probably going to succeed on the trip anyway. So it's a relatively minor increase in many cases, especially vs low reflex enemies.

That's the problem with White Room math.

Slam Down is useful if you're in a position where you have bigger bonuses on a single strike, fortune effects, if a teammate used Aid, Guidance, you used Feint, etc. Not to mention that your +X runes will apply to Slam Down, while it might not if the weapon you're using doesn't have the trip trait.

Slam Down is two rolls. Not sure why you're talking about fortune effects here.

I personal find Disruptive Stance and Tactical Reflexes to be a bit overkill, but I can't say it's a bad choice.

How is Disruptive Stance overkill? Interrupting spells on a hit, not just a crit is huge. Plus you can do things like interrupt a Barbarian starting to Rage.

Bonus points for foiling Rage twice with Tactical Reflexes.

The problem with the Boots of Bounding (Greater) is that they are expensive and too high level.

...you were literally the one who brought up mid to high levels, man. When we're discussing a level 1 feat.

A lot of assumptions about party composition, builds, and purchases here. Certainly may apply about a main class fighter for the higher to-hit option. Crashing Slam is also part of 3 different archetypes.

But it's a Fighter feat first and foremost. That got added to archetypes. You balance it around the core class, not an archetype that may happen to get it.

You are not guaranteed any particular status bonuses, and certainly not constant ones. Fortune effects are almost always one-roll wonders.

You're not guaranteed to have Guidance either! Guidance is a lot more niche. Especially considering it's 1 roll per fight if you're lucky, and there's no guarantee of that given the 1 hour immune and the fact the third action might not be available for it.

What fortune effect do you expect to have apply except for maybe a hero point, and from my experience people are generally more likely to save those in case of death. Maybe once in a blue moon it's used for a "crucial" Crashing Slam but the feat shouldn't be balanced around that.

It's possible that, for a traditional fighter on a traditional team it's a bad choice on the balance, but it's not so niche that it needs to leave you with a functional +5 on your third attack to be viable.

How much of an improvement do you think Crashing Slam actually is over Slam Down? Like a number.

Remember you're still committing two actions to it. And if the Strike misses the whole thing misses. As opposed to Trip + Strike (or Strike + Trip) where you can change your second action depending on the outcome of the first.

Yeah, we're talking about a level 1 feat where you don't have all that stuff yet. A lot of low level feats are less useful at higher levels.

I have an Elven Fighter at level 16 with 50 feet without Tailwind or armor, 55 with both.

But Tailwind is a far more niche thing and you could very easily have a Human/Dwarf/etc fighter with 20 (armored speed) + 5 (fleet) + 10 (greater boots of bounding) = 35 feet in the vast majority of cases. Or less if you want to use other boots.

I like slam down because you can play a two-handed weapon user without requiring that you use a weapon with the trip trait.

Yep.

But you expect Crashing Slam to be a significant upgrade compared to that given it's competing against other level 10+ feats.

Not everyone has Kip Up. Guidance etc. are always useful unless you have something better, which may still be a one-action use.

I would wager a significant majority of martials do have Kip Up at that higher level, it's too useful for when you get tripped or get knocked unconscious/dying.

Literally any status bonus is better than Guidance (Bless, Bard Song, Wand of Heroism, etc). At that point in the game (level 10+), even just moving, raising a shield, Demoralizing, etc is generally better than Guidance.

It's quite possible that your and your party's choices don't make the best use of the feats, but it's easy enough to make use of.

But the other level 10 feats do not require you to twist yourself into knots to be powerful.

Do you see that?

Tactical Reflexes is just good.

Disruptive Stance is just good.

Fearsome Brute is just good.

Certain Strike is just good.

Etc.

That's what Crashing Slam is being compared against. That's the opportunity cost.

The Sudden Charge still is very circumstantial and usually is dependent from most enemies being scattered along the battle map and due in most adventures the battles are indoor without much space to run and that most PF2e creatures are melee it's uncommon to use it more than once in the first turn to get closer to a target and do your first attack or to chase fleeing opponents. So it's rare to use it as second Strike.

If you have 20 movement speed (25 base - 5 from heavy armor), the enemy just has to be 30 feet away to require part of a second move. That's pretty close.

Plus if you engage an enemy to the right and some of the enemies go after a teammate (especially someone in the backline) to the left it's very easy for that space to be created.

I've found it to be consistently useful, both as a player in a normal game, a GM for two campaigns, and in Dawnsbury Days, an indie video game based on the PF2 ruleset (which you should absolutely play if you haven't yet).

Reducing the number of rolls needed lets you use single-use buffs for both effects, like guidance or fortune effects. Plus no chance of tripping yourself.

I assume this is referring to the original post about Crashing Slam vs the above discussion of Slam Down? Because Slam Down is still two rolls.

You're not wrong about being able to hero point or guidance one roll vs two (how often are you getting guidance at level 10+ though?) and eliminating the nat 1 case of tripping yourself...but if you DO trip yourself, you can literally just Kip Up as a free action since it's your turn. No harm done at all.

And those seem like very minor bonuses that should be part of a level 4 feat, not a level 10 feat that's competing with Tactical Reflexes, Disruptive Stance, etc.

In practice what makes pure Slam Down numerically better than Strike + Trip is its higher proficiency.

I'm not following you here. If you strike at +13 and have Athletics of +12 then...

Slam Down is Strike at +13 and IF you hit (really important point) then Trip at +12.

Otherwise you have Strike at +13 and Trip at 7.

Same proficiency in both cases.

Per the above, the fact that you get an effective +5 bonus on your trip with Slam Down is usually almost cancelled out by the fact the first Strike has to hit or it's just wasted.

The other advantage is that it allows to use it Trip with non-trip trait weapons like d10 reach weapons (that allows to make a Trip at 10 ft)

It's important to note the Guisarme is a d10 reach weapon with Trip and immensely popular for these reason. Especially given since the other d10 reach weapons tend to be underwhelming -- Halberd gets versatile piercing/slashing vs the pure slashing of a Guisarme, but it's very rare where piercing is better than slashing.

or non-trip weapon and board.

Alas this doesn't work.

"If you’re wielding a two-handed melee weapon, you can ignore Trip’s requirement that you have a hand free."

So 2H weapon or hand free only, can't sword and board trip attempts.

Just like all other low level fighters' feats they only gives some minor advantages to use. Usually something a bit better only within some conditions.

I mean, Sudden Charge is a feat that basically says "Get an extra attack at MAP -5 if you have to move twice to reach an enemy" which is a fairly common thing.

Intimidating Strike is just really good overall for consistently applying Frightened with no cooldown, generally letting you trade a third attack at -10 for Frightened 1/2 if the first attack hits.

Etc.

Those are lower level feats with significantly better advantages.

Slam Down is good

It's not though?

Say you have a 60% chance to hit on a Strike and 60% chance to succeed on a trip.

So if you Slam Down you have a 60% chance to hit, and of the 60% of the time you hit you have a 60% chance to trip. So overall 0.6 hits and 0.36 trips per use.

Now say you Strike and then Trip. That's 60% chance to hit and then a 35% chance to trip. So overall 0.6 hits and 0.35 trips per use...practically identical.

How about 80% for each? 0.8 hits and 0.64 trips per use for Slam Down, 0.8 hits and 0.55 trips otherwise, so slightly better.

How about 40% for each? 0.4 hits and 0.16 trips per use for Slam Down, 0.4 hits and 0.15 trips otherwise.

So it's only marginally better vs enemies you have a very high success rate against already. Having to commit both actions even if the Strike misses hurts a lot. This is simplifying the math slightly but it gets at the main point.

I'm happy to run the numbers in other scenarios, but like ScooterScoots said it's not substantially better if you have a trip weapon, the main purpose is allowing trips with a non-trip weapon.

Crashing Slam is when you were supposed to get a major upgrade (especially with Kip Up becoming a lot more common at that level) and your class feats overall are a lot more powerful.

People read that in a way favourable to them, as players are wont to do. All this change does is telling people to stop doing that.

I get the point you're making here.

I'm just used to seeing significant disagreement when players are taking advantage of a wording, but there was close to universal agreement on this in threads like this one.

And people making the point about Wolf Drag and Furious Drag.

As well as pointing out that Crashing Slam is having to compete with Disruptive Stance and Tactical Reflexes.

So when comparing it to similar abilities and the opportunity cost of taking it, Crashing Slam didn't seem like a too good to be true reading (saw a lot of jokes about how Paizo only printed one level 10 Fighter feat, Tactical Reflexes).

I believe it works with "The Harder They Fall", but it at least opens up the possibility.

So if you're rogue multi-classed and pick up both the sneak attack and THTF feat, you gain another 3.5 damage in this scenario.

The main difference is, of course, still the stance.

I mean, which worst case you're spending 1 action at the start of combat to enter (on a class with excellent action compression) and starting at level 12 you have the option to not even spend that action.

And again, in most scenarios this doesn't even have an impact (move + Crashing Slam, Intimidate + Crashing Slam, etc), the biggest impact is making Haste (or another source of Quickened) significantly worse than it used to be.

You're comparing a stance to a flourish. Slam Down/Crashing Slam may also trigger additional riders on the auto-crit, if any such exist.

I've never heard of any riders? Remember the auto-crit is on the trip, so it lacks all weapon traits (including magic so does nothing to incorporeals) and doesn't trigger weapon criticals or runes or anything.

From the newest FAQ (Player Core Errata, Spring 2026, 1st Printing):

"Page 147: Crashing Slam was updated to make it clear how it works with your multiple attack penalty. Replace the second sentence with the following text: “If the Strike you make with Slam Down hits, you can automatically get a critical success on your Trip instead of rolling a check. (Both the Strike and Trip still count toward your multiple attack penalty.)”

So, to summarize (for 2 actions):

Trip + Strike means Trip at no MAP and then Strike at -5 MAP, then -10 MAP after that.

Slam Down (level 4 Fighter feat) means Strike at no MAP and Trip at no MAP, then -10 MAP after that.

Crashing Slam (level 10 Fighter feat) means Strike at no MAP and auto-crit on Trip, then -10 MAP after that.

But let's take a look at Wolf Drag, a level 6 monk feat:

You rip your enemy off their feet. Make a wolf jaw Strike. Your wolf jaw gains the fatal d12 trait for this Strike, and if the attack succeeds, you knock the target prone.

Wolf Drag means Strike at no MAP and auto-success on Trip, then -5 MAP after that, PLUS the Strike has Fatal d12.

So the fighter feat is 4 levels higher and gets d10/d12 crit trip bludgeoning damage (which doesn't inherit any weapon traits like holy or cold iron), meaning it often does nothing against stuff like constructs/devils.

Meanwhile the monk feat gets only one MAP vs two and the strike has Fatal d12.

The Fatal d12 and crit trip damage seem to be a wash (or in favor of Fatal), meaning the Monk feat avoids the second MAP increase that Crashing Slam doesn't.

I would much rather have success on the Trip and only one MAP increase than a crit success on Trip and two MAP increases.

Now, if you move and then Crashing Slam...nothing changes. Literally. That's your whole turn anyway normally. So this nerf has no impact whatsoever on that.

It only changes if you have another action to Strike, either by starting in melee reach or having quickened from something. At which point your extra Strike is at -10 vs -5, making it significantly less valuable.

Or probably in many cases now, you do a Strike first at no MAP and then Crashing Slam on the SECOND strike, since if it hits you trip automatically. Meaning (ignoring off-guard for a moment due to potential flanking or other similar things) you're looking at

Strike, Strike -5, trip if second Strike hits

rather than

Strike, trip if first Strike hits, Strike at -10

This just seems...odd.

lol. Then I’m interested in what you decide. Are you asking for a player or as an idea for an NPC?

For a player.

I'd lean towards it being gone, but was trying to figure out what a fallen Champion still keeps. Still a d10, martial AB progression, highest AC progression, and good saves class.

In this case I am the GM.

Say you had a Liberation Champion who suddenly decided to enslave someone and fell.

They lose anything that comes from their connection with their deity.

This definitely includes the holy trait, focus pool, and blessing of the devoted, but weirdly doesn't explicitly mention the champion reaction.

"The class features that you lose are determined by the GM, but they likely include your holy or unholy trait, your focus pool, and your blessing of the devoted."

Does that mean the fallen Liberation Champion who enslaved someone can still use Liberating Step?

The Balor taunted them ahead of the fight (first time they faced a Balor) that even if they managed to strike him down, he'd take them all with him by exploding, more or less.

The goal was to have the party not be completely blindsided and play with that explosion in mind.

But "knock him unconscious with 1-2 non-lethal attacks which lasts 10+ minutes and then run away and shoot up from extreme distance" didn't cross my mind.

Like Obi-wan Kenobi going "If you strike me down I'll become more powerful than you can possibly imagine" and then Darth Vader says "Okay," knocks him unconscious, and imprisons him in the Death Star.

I don't think they knew the exact distance either, they just ran to the extreme opposite corner of the cavern they were in just to be safe.

Just felt weird that a signature "on death" effect can be bypassed with 1-2 non-lethal hits at low HP.

Specifically they hit it with a few non-lethal blows (at -2) when the Balor was at low HP to knock him out.

Then they ran 150 feet away and had the ranger shoot him for the lethal shot and the explosion they now outranged.

Humbug.

I know another exception is something like a Justice Champion. If you attack an enemy and miss, then attack a second time and hit, and the enemy has a reaction like "Deal 10 fire damage to everyone within 10 feet" and that hits an ally, then your reaction would trigger (assuming all other conditions are met). You could shield the ally but technically your Retributive Strike would be at MAP #3.

Personally I think that's a super weird interaction, wouldn't expect a player to remember that (and in a way that only affects Justice and not say Redemption or Liberation), and would just give the Justice Champion the Strike without MAP...but I do recognize that's a house rule, not RAW.