Ferious Thune's page

It may be that in the situation you present the DC should be adjusted. There have been issues in the past with scaling these type of encounters where parties of 4 players ended up needing more successes than were practically achievable (or at least very difficult to achieve) just based on pure numbers. A group of 2,2,3,4 would be high tier, and in the past would have required extra successes, meaning that they would need critical successes. But if the level 3 or 4 characters don’t have the necessary skills, it becomes nearly impossible. Some combination of number of characters and challenge points would probably be better, but strictly challenge points had issues of its own.

Since we won’t know what other gods will die until that is announced, if you rebuild your cleric of Gorum to be a cleric of one of those gods, do you get a second rebuild when they are announced? I assume the answer would have to be yes, but it would be good to know that for sure.

Also to clarify, is the cutoff for minor deities at the end of 2024 for playing those characters, or is that the cutoff for the rebuild? If the rebuild for Gorum is unlimited, shouldn’t that also be the case for the other gods? As long as you aren’t playing the character after the cutoff? It seems like a character shouldn’t be caught in a trap where the player doesn’t find out about the need to rebuild until after the point where they can rebuild.

An elf sees a half-orc wielding an elven branched spear…

Elf: Oh, you have a branched spear. Neat! I had to train from birth and forgo all other ancestry options to get mine. How did you get yours?

Half-orc: I, uh… I… spent achievement points? Yeah…

Squiggit wrote:

I'm glad Paizo decided to recreate this fixed problem for the remaster.

This is technically not a remaster change, as NO printing of the Core Rule Book, nor PDF, have that wording. I think that might be an extra reminder that AoN added themselves?

Looking at the copy-fitting of the 4th printing of CRB, I don't think it would have fit there without needed to reduce wording for other spell, or the main description.
The copy-fitting of the Player Core would allow it, BUT again, that's was never their own change, and were probably unaware of the change AoN made there.

From the FAQ for the Core Rulebook:

Page 258: In Battle Medicine, change the Requirements entry to “You are holding or wearing healer's tools.” Change the second sentence of the effect to “Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds, and restore a corresponding amount of Hit Points; this does not remove the wounded condition.” This means you need to use your healer's tools for Battle Medicine, but you can draw and replace worn tools as part of the action due to the errata on wearing tools on page 287.

Update: We will be updating the tools revamp to indicate that worn healer's tools (along with other tool kits) take only one hand to use, as you don't have to hold the whole kit in your other hand, just pull out the things you need. What this means for Battle Medicine is that you only need one free hand to perform it with worn healer's tools, you don't need both hands.

Whether or not that actually made it into a printing, I don't know, but it did originate with Paizo. The specific wording may have been AoN interpreting this text.

At any rate, the problem does seem to exist again, but at least this is still out there to point to from the pre-remaster (if you can find it).

Add the restriction on using Concentrate actions during Rage (particularly things like Demoralize without taking a Feat and Command an Animal).

I've always seen Quick Draw/Swap as more helpful for situations where you can't/won't have your weapon out. In town, for example, or at a society gathering. Also possibly in situations where you're expected to have your hands doing other things, like climbing.

This is what I mean. Yes. I, too often, see it hand waved in these situations. I've got no issue with assuming that weapons are out while exploring the trap-filled dungeon with bodies lying about. But if an encounter is designed to break out in a situation where you would not normally have a combat, then the action should need to be taken.

Hand economy. Looking at the rules I was unsure how it would feel dealing with action taxes to get things out, and dubious about the viability of 1H-weapon + open hand style. Now with a year+ of experience, I do find the action costs and hand juggling frustrating at times, but it's a good kind of frustration if that makes sense. And I completely underestimated the power of Athletics maneuvers and how strong having an open hand could be.

The action economy around drawing items is probably my choice as well. The remaster helps with Swap, too. It felt like it would be cumbersome, but it works well. I do wish that having weapons out at the start of a fight wasn’t handwaved so much. It diminishes a feat like Quick Draw or other abilities, and in some cases affects the encounter design. But overall, this is something about the three action economy I thought I would not like, but do.

I like the open hand fighting style, too. There are some good feats that build on that.

It’s also not really the 2E design philosophy to make anyone that much better than anyone else. Fighters get the boost in accuracy (and Gunslingers, but reload limits how much of an advantage that is). But for the most part, everyone is meant to end up right around the same place. There are small differences, but I don’t see them boosting Barbarian damage. I don’t see them taking away the AC penalty, either. Barbarian is the one class that gets it, and that’s balanced with the d12 hp. Whether or not that is actually balanced is debatable, but I don’t think it’s likely to change.

Aspects of Rage, given developer comment, do seem likely to change. I’ll hold out hope for removing the restriction on concentrate actions.

As an always on ability, ignoring crits would be broken in the too good direction, just like always on off-guard would be broken in the too bad direction.

Earlier, I suggest a limited reaction to ignore a crit once per rage. I think that is balanced against other things in the game. It has a cost, in that if you use it, you can’t use Reactive Strike that round. But it lets you every once in a while shrug off an attack that would kill a lesser being.

Deny Advantage would have to be altered to accommodate that. It doesn’t completely prevent Off-Guard. Only in specific circumstances (flanking, hidden, or undetected). If you’re Off Guard from raging, it doesn’t help as written. I suppose it would still apply when you aren’t raging, so only mostly invalidated.

Yeah, I don’t think off-guard as a general rule while raging is a good direction. As others have noted, it can be an incredible penalty when the enemy does decide to gang up on you. It would also invalidate Deny Advantage.

I can take or leave the AC penalty. I’ll trust someone has or will do the math on just how much that hurts. I play a Giant Instinct Barbarian, so I’m already even worse of than other Barbarians, but I haven’t felt fragile. Being Off-Guard on top of that, though, really hurts.

But I don’t know, aside from a few trap feats, I’ve never really felt the Barbarian was that bad off in 2E. They have good feats at every level. They deal good damage from the start, without gimmicks to be able to do so. Rage for your bonus damage/feats and you’re good.

Ferious Thune wrote:

Sure, maybe. But it doesn’t make it a good feat or worth a 10th level feat. And, again, my response was to someone who was claiming both that it is the best taunt in the game and that the main benefit is that you can make yourself off-guard. Which, again, you don’t need a feat to do.

I had a player dropping Prone to attract attention, but it's much more penalizing and enemies have easier time seeing through it (unless the PC rolls a Deception check to feint stumbling).

There are also very few taunts in this game, and no hard ones. Personally, I consider that a Barbarian coming to an enemy, hitting them with a good Barbarian blow and using Come And Get Me divert most enemies from a squishy caster. It is the essence of the ability, considering that enemies don't fall for it is denying the ability entirely.

Ferious Thune wrote:

My argument is that the main benefit of Come and Get Me is that it allows you to take.Vengeful Strike. Come and Get Me on its own is kinda terrible.

It’s exactly the kind of feat tax that 2E largely did away with.

I fully agree on that, in my opinion both feats should be merged. Come And Get Me alone is far too niche for a level 10 feat.

This is a more measured view than some of your earlier posts, so it seems we aren’t that far apart from each other.

Does Come and Get Me offer some benefit over just falling prone or something similar? Yes, but also different disadvantages. Is that at all worth at 10th level feat? No.

Remember that Kip Up exists, so by 7th level you could even avoid the penalty when attacking and not trigger reactive strikes, as you could stand up for free. You would need to spend an action every round dropping prone again, and you would look silly. I’m just saying that, without considering Vengeful Strike, Come and Get Me isn’t that much better than something you can already do. I don’t personally ever do this. My preferred tactic is to move so that I am flanked. Most of the time the GM forgets that Deny Advantage is a Barbarian ability, so I both draw the attacks and don’t suffer off-guard. Granted, you can’t count on that in a continuing campaign, but in PFS I get away with it enough. It’s better that a class not have to count on a metagame tactic, though.

Antagonize is a better taunt, at least for a single opponent. Imposing a penalty on someone until they attack you is a win whether they attack you or not. But sadly 2E has moved away from Demoralize being something easy to use for a Barbarian (without another feat tax), and instead made that a Swashbuckler feat.

It’s been mentioned a couple of times that I should view Come and Get Me as a deception, but I don’t think that is the intent with the feat. You aren’t pretending to leave an opening. You are leaving an opening. It’s a challenge, not a deception. I’m pretty sure anyone attacking a Barbarian knows that if they don’t get a good hit in, they’re going to feel the punishment, whether or not they know it’s going to make them off-guard.

Sure, maybe. But it doesn’t make it a good feat or worth a 10th level feat. And, again, my response was to someone who was claiming both that it is the best taunt in the game and that the main benefit is that you can make yourself off-guard. Which, again, you don’t need a feat to do.

My argument is that the main benefit of Come and Get Me is that it allows you to take.Vengeful Strike. Come and Get Me on its own is kinda terrible.

It’s exactly the kind of feat tax that 2E largely did away with.

Ferious Thune wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

I dont think the foe knows it will be made off guard

Maybe not until the first time it happens. But then, the foe also doesn't know that it will get a +2 to damage, either.

I would think of it as a matter of televising an opening in your defenses but not what your going to do to them for taking that shot at you.

The first time. And maybe they fall for it. Or maybe they just keep killing the person they are already killing, particularly if that person is already Off-Guard. For a taunt to be effective, you need to be able to actually draw enemies away from other targets. One off-guard foe is the same as another Off-Guard foe. It's certainly not a situation where you are going to automatically draw all of the attacks for the rest of the combat. But you will be Off-Guard for the rest of the combat.

Saying that a 10th level feat's main benefit is that you can make yourself Off-Guard (and that you will take extra damage), which is what SuperBidi said, just doesn't make any practical sense. You can make yourself Off-Guard without a 10th level feat, by lying prone or balancing or moving into a flank (at which point, you might also trick them, given Deny Advantage). And all of those can be undone if you start taking too much damage, unlike Come and Get Me.

I dont think the foe knows it will be made off guard

Maybe not until the first time it happens. But then, the foe also doesn't know that it will get a +2 to damage, either.

Ferious Thune wrote:

Come and Get Me is also only a "taunt" if nobody else is off-guard. If the enemy can flank someone else and get off-guard and not get hit back by the high damage Barbarian, then you aren't taunting anyone.

I personally consider that enemies will switch to the Barbarian quite often if they use Come And Get Me, not because the Barbarian is Off Guard but because they're voluntarily dropping their guard to attract attention.

Also, there's the +2 to damage that makes attacking the Barbarian more appealing than someone you flank.

But there is absolutely zero mechanically to require them to do so. I can’t really think of why, if they’re already attacking someone else, and they can easily flank that person, they would feel the need to change targets. Even if they know there’s a +2 to damage, if they can drop another character, they’re going to drop them. An actual taunt either compels them to attack you, or penalizes them for attacking someone else. Come and Get Me does neither.

Squiggit wrote:

It's less that the feat is going to get you killed, imo, and more that spending a 10th level feat and an action to maybe make someone flat footed is kind of underwhelming.

That's why I consider the main benefit of Come And Get Me is not to give the Off Guard Condition but to take the Off Guard Condition and more damage from attacks. For me, it's a control ability, not a debuff.

It’s not a control ability if it doesn’t make someone do something, prevent them from doing something, or at least present a difficult choice. Nothing in Come and Get Me does any of that. If anything, it encourages them to attack someone else to avoid being made Off-Guard.

As has been pointed out, ranged characters can attack the Off-Guard Barbarian. Yes, somehow they’ll also become off-guard, but then the Barbarian has to waste actions moving to them or attack someone else and just take the ranged damage. It just really doesn’t feel like a win for the Barbarian in that situation.

I don't think Come and Get Me is particularly good in 2E. It's higher level than it should be, and it's a lot of drawback for little advantage. It only makes the enemy off-guard to you for one round at a time, and in exchange you have to be off-guard for essentially the rest of the fight. There are so many other ways to get an enemy off-guard which don't require getting hit that it's just not worth it.

Come and Get Me is also only a "taunt" if nobody else is off-guard. If the enemy can flank someone else and get off-guard and not get hit back by the high damage Barbarian, then you aren't taunting anyone.

It really feels like what's being argued as good about Come and Get Me isn't what's in that feat. It's Vengeful Strike, which as I noted above, I think could be the signature Barbarian reaction. It's got a different flavor from the other "get an extra attack" reactions. If it was not tied to Come and Get Me, then it would fire on the majority of rounds (like Opportune Backstab), or it would cause enemies to have to make a choice between attacking the big damage dealer (at the cost of more damage), or moving to avoid them. But, again, I think based on Opportune Backstab, Vengeful Strike should be an 8th level feat and trigger when you are hit by a creature within your reach.

Any static DC becomes irrelevant at some point. So it happens a few levels earlier now. That’s better than putting new players off the action entirely. But as I said, I would be fine with something that scales.

I would be fine with a scaling DC, but I much prefer this lower DC than the DC 20 it was before. At low levels, it was really disheartening to have to beat a higher DC than the task itself just to help someone try to succeed. (Note that I mainly play PFS, so the GM using a lower DC for the aid isn't an option.) In a game that is built so much around encouraging teamwork, starting the Aid DC at 20 was really counter productive in teaching new players to cooperate.

Ferious Thune wrote:

Now a reaction to negate a crit might be something worth considering.

Valuable when it fires.

It would be hard to use in practice as you have to leave a reaction spare in order to keep the option open.

I would make it a lower level feat, so you could, in theory, take both it and Reactive Strike. If it needs to be limited to 1/rage to do so, I think that would be fine. Even that could mean the difference between the Barbarian dripping halfway through the fight, then losing Rage for the remaining part, and the Barbarian staying up and murdering the boss.

This also makes me wonder why Barbarian doesn’t have an equivalent to Orc Ferocity. A reaction to stay conscious when you would normally drop also seems good for a barbarian. Anyway, a series of feats around the idea of them powering through damage twitch their rage seems more thematic than some of what we’ve got, while also addressing the serviceability without raising their AC.

Now a reaction to negate a crit might be something worth considering.

Battle Medicine is not magical, is pretty common, and doesn’t even have Concentrate, so a Barbarian can use it themselves. Elixirs are not magical, and while they aren’t fantastic in terms of action economy or the amount of healing, they are options in an emergency. That’s not much worse than where most negative healing (or whatever it’s called now) characters end up in random PFS groups where other characters haven’t necessarily planned for it.

Renewed Vigor is an option, though not a great one as an 8th level feat.

Anyway, I think the issues with not being able to benefit from buff spells is much bigger than the issues around healing.

We have but they are still limited to some classes or archetypes (and there's many like Cleave that currently is one class only). Many of these feats was general feats in PF1/3.5.

I'm not saying that this need to be changed. As I said it was a design choice made by designers to make some combat feats unique to some classes to make these classes more unique. What I just say is that's a thing that won't be change in PF2 and if someone doesn't like how it was made in PF2 these people will need to wait some years to propose these changes in a PF3 or make it as homebrew.

My earlier point wasn’t an attempt to get the design philosophy changed. I understand how we got here and why. The end result is that we have feats that don’t have anything to do with class identity being artificially turned into class identity. Because we have Cleave, or because Reactive Strike is a class feat, if you want to improve or in some cases keep up, you have to spend class feats on generic combat feats, instead of on actual class feats. Cleave is a Barbarian only feat because someone chose to make it one, not because it has anything to do specifically with being a Barbarian. Reactive Strike/AoO is a near automatic choice when it becomes available, because it’s just mechanically good. So instead of taking a Champion/Barbarian/Swashbuckler/Magus/whatever other class gets access to it feat, you have to spend a Class feat on it.

I don’t expect that to change, but it is part of the reason we don’t have more thematic feats for the classes. “Fixing” Cleave might make Cleave a better feat, but it won’t make it feel like it should have been a Barbarian-only feat in the first place.

I guess I just don’t find Cleave any more thematic for a Barbarian than it would be for any other martial. Meaning that yes, a Barbarian who Cleaves makes sense, but when I think of a Barbarian, I don’t think of Cleave as a defining ability. It’s a feat that shouldn’t have been class locked.

Reactive Strike should have been automatic for the classes that get it. Either when proficiency advances to Expert or instead of Weapon Specialization.

In a way, though we disagree on whether Reactive Strike should be more or less common, I think we both agree that more interesting actually class specific options would be good for the game. It does feel like a feat tax, and it feels boring, but it’s too good to pass up. I would rather have feats that build on a class’s abilities. More Rage powers that are interesting. Which is what we had in 1E and why I still hate that Combat Feats got mixed in with Class Feats.

Ferious Thune wrote:

I don’t think Cleave as a reaction was the right direction for it in the first place.

Well then you are just creating another problem then. There are too many Reactive Strikes in the game. I would prefer is the martials all had different reactions, and not just minor differences to Reactive Strike like they do now. Really speaking only the Champion and the Rogue's is good enough.

I wrote a response earlier, but I guess the forums ate it.

Isn’t Cleave just a minorly different Reactive Strike? But worse, and not as thematic as Vengeful Strike.

If there’s another reaction that would be thematic for a barbarian, I’d be all for seeing what that is. As things are structured now, most Martial classes have some alternative to Reactive Strike that grants an extra attack. Just some of them are much better than others. Opportune Riposte iis in a similar place as Cleave, in that it’s too situational.

Ranger has Disrupt Prey, which is basically Reactive Strike only against your Prey. And Twin Riposte, which is basically Opportune Riposte.

Monk has Stand Still.

Magus doesn’t get a unique take on it. Just AoO/Reactive Strike.

Gunslinger doesn’t really have one, but at a ranged focused class, that’s understandable.

So it makes sense that Barbarian would have one, too. Where I think they went wrong is that Barbarian had three of them, counting AoO/Reactuve Strike itself. Cleave as written could be a 4th level feat, and that would be about right. Maybe then it might get taken over Swipe and other things. As you could still take Reactive Strike at 6. Vengeful Strike, to me, should be an 8th level feat. It’s comparable to Opportune Backstab. And it creates a strategic problem for enemies. Having both Reactive Strike and. Vengeful Strike puts an enemy in an uncomfortable spot. Cleave just means enemies have to try to not end up adjacent to each other.

Anyway, none of that is going to “fix” the class or Cleave. It’s just a kind of not great feat.

Ferious Thune wrote:

The whole point is to fix Cleave and make it competitive so there is a choice.

Yes, but I don’t think Cleave as a reaction was the right direction for it in the first place. So, I’m not sure how to fix that. Unless it’s just anytime you hit, you can use a reaction to strike another opponent within reach, it’s going to fall short of Reactive Strike (and Opportune Backstab that Rogue gets, and Retributive Strike from Paladin). Reactions that require such a limited specific circunstance to trigger just aren’t going to compete.

Vengeful Strike is more comparable to those other reactions, and more thematic to a Barbaian (at least when the class is taking AC penalties and is essentially the get hit but deal big damage class), but for some reason they chose to make it 8 levels higher and require a prerequisite.

I mean, Cleave wants to compete with Reactive Strike, but since Barbarians can get Reactive Strike at the same level, I’ve never seen anyone choose Cleave over it. Cleave is far too situational. Sure, Barbarians might drop a lot of enemies, but the requirement that the target of the cleave be adjacent to that enemy drastically reduces its usefulness. Plus having to take the MAP hit on the second attack. Swipe has the adjacent issue, but at least is a full MAP attack, and likely with a to-hit bonus if you combo it with a Sweep weapon.

Maybe it’s just annoyance that they used a feat name from 1E, but made it work differently. Then they create a feat with a different name, but made that one work almost like Cleave from 1E.

For those who've brought up Cleave, Swipe is essentially what Cleave should have been. Though I wish there was some way to get it to a point where the enemies don't have to be adjacent. My barb will eventually be Huge with a 15-foot reach, but will still only be able to Swipe 5-feet.

I'm in the camp that thinks that there are too many feats that are locked to specific classes that don't really have anything to do with that class. I'd have preferred that Combat Feats had remained as its own category, instead of being how they tried to differentiate the core classes from each other. But, I know enough not to think that will change in the remaster, so it is what it is at this point.

I find that Barbarian has a lot of good feats. Level 1 is a little underwhelming, but that's true of a lot of classes. Sudden Charge means there's at least one good choice that also helps with the action economy of needing to rage. Acute Vision is also decent if it's an ancestry without Darkvision. Yes, Raging Intimidation, Moment of Clarity, Adrenaline Rush, and Raging Thrower are all kinda meh, but two decent/good 1st-level feats is more than some classes get.

Evening out the instincts would be good. And yes, the biggest issue with Rage is not being able to do Concentrate actions, so it would be great if that got fixed. I don't mind so much that Rage ends if you get knocked unconscious, as that gives incentive to not get dropped.

In general, though, I'm pretty happy with where the Barbarian is. I'd just want more cool, unique feats that let them do interesting Barbarian things. But I want a version of that for all of the classes.

One Remaster change that affects one of my characters is that Witch suddenly wakes up one morning and now their familiar can do more cool things. But that isn't really all that jarring. Witch familiars already do rather unexpected things. And when they level up it is not uncommon for the Witch to wake up one day and have they're familiar able to do something new.

My Witch will just assume that her familiar was hiding her extra abilities, because, well, her familiar is a cat.

Just noting again that this situation does not exist. The boons for Agents of Edgewatch, Age of Ashes, and Blood Lords that appear in the FAQ are boons purchasable with Achievement Points regardless of whether or not you have played the APs. They are not the boons available from the chronicle sheets for the APs. There are no boons from the chronicle sheets for any APs in the FAQ. Some of the options from the Age of Ashes ACP boons likely overlap with the ones you can get from the chronicles, but they are only on the FAQ because they are purchasable with ACP.

The boons from Age of Ashes and Agents of Edgewatch are ones that you can buy with ACP. There are no chronicles for playing Agents of Edgewatch, and they released the ACP boons for Age of Ashes, since it was the first AP (or one of the first?). They might eventually release ACP boons for more APs.

Isn’t the more important question for shield block whether it can apply to both attacks, or if you have to pick one to block? You wouldn’t normally be able to block two attacks without quick shield block or something similar letting you use two reactions. My take here would be that you apply the hardness once against whichever attack you pick, and it can only reduce the damage from that attack. If you use two reactions, you could block both, and hardness would apply twice (once against each attack).

Now, if it’s an enemy with hardness, I would go with it applying once, since double slice seems to be meant to let you overcome the damage reduction.

What interests me more than how this fits for Rogue is how it will fit for Swashbuckler, assuming it’s added there in Player Core 2. It’s a better Opportune Riposte, but the investment for a Swashbuckler is steep, as it competes with Derring Do, some of the finishers, and the always on AC stances. Eating up the 1st, 8th, and 10th level feats on that class is rough. But not having to rely on a crit fail to do a Swashbuckler thing would be nice.

I’m hoping for larger changes for that class (maybe wishful thinking), but as is, I think it would be tough to build for Nimble Strike, given everything you’d have to give up, and Opportune Riposte being free. Honestly, they should just give Swashbuckler a feat in this level range that makes Opportune Riposte work without the need to be critically missed first, but also without all the prerequisites that Nimble Strike has.

It’s a good point that some of the attacks you get from Nimble Strike will be without sneak attack, even if you also have Gang Up. While if you have Gang Up, there are only a few situations where the attack you get from Opportune Backstab won’t have sneak. Things that are immune to precision, or flanking, or have Deny Advantage and are at least your level.

I don’t see many builds having both Nimble Strike and Opportune Backstab. You’d need to be 12th level, as Nimble Roll and Opportune Backstab are both 8th level feats. So, you’re not only giving up a 10th level debilitation, but also a 12th level one or a different 12th level feat. For the handful of rounds when one of the two would trigger, but not both. That doesn’t seem worthwhile.

Again, if you’re already going Nimble Dodge and Nimble Roll, then Nimble Strike is a great and welcome addition to that chain. At that point you’re devoting 3 of your 6 class feats to that chain. You may as well build for making it work.

With Opportune Backstab, you aren’t really building for that feat. It’s just a great addition to any melee build.

Ferious Thune wrote:

A Nimble Strike Rogue can benefit from Gang Up also, but it doesn’t make it more likely that Nimble Strike will happen.

Nimble Strike helps you stay alive, though. A common issue I've seen Opportune Backstab Rogues have is that they tend to fall down rather quick in lots of encounters. Doing lots of damage, being squishier and needing to stay adjacent to enemies does that. Feat is bonkers, but it has a few downsides.

So Gang Up may not help Nimble Strike proc more often, but Nimble Strike does make Gang Up be relevant for more rounds.

Which is why I prefaced all of that with if all you care about is the extra attack. If you have already gone down the Nimble Dodge, Nimble Roll path, you may as well stick with Nimble Strike. Encouraging enemies not to attack you is good in that situation.

But Nimble Roll partially keeps you alive by letting you move away to avoid subsequent attacks. At which point you may not be providing the Gang Up bonus anymore.

Just build a sturdier Rogue. :)

I’ve not seen Nimble Strike in action, so I’m not sure. However, if all you care about is the extra attack, then I think I will still end up preferring Opportune Backstab. Nimble Strike requires a 10th, 8th, and 1st level feat. Yes, those other feats do something, so you are getting more than just the attack from taking them.

Give the Opportune Backstab Rogue Gang Up, though, and if they are in position to get an Opportune Backstab, then they are also making the opponent off-guard to their allies in melee. Which means their allies are more likely to hit. Which means Opportune Backstab is more likely to trigger.

A Nimble Strike Rogue can benefit from Gang Up also, but it doesn’t make it more likely that Nimble Strike will happen.

It will, of course, depend on circumstances and party composition. If you’re fighting a single boss, they just stop attacking you if you’re using Nimble Strike. If you are fighting one on one a lot, you’ll get more use out of Ninble Strike. But an enemy can’t control who attacks it. And while it’s off guard, there a pretty good chance that someone is going to hit it. Worst case, the enemy starts wasting actions to move away from you, which is still a win.

I’ve found Opportune Backstab to trigger far more often than reactions from other classes, like Reactive Strike or Paladin’s Retributive Strike (or any of the Champion reactions). You really only need 1 other melee character to make it work.

You could just only heal using Risky Surgery. That way you are inflicting more pain while also making sure they don’t die. So they can experience more pain.

My witch uses Soothe, but justifies it as the subject needing to be able to experience the new pains fresh, so that they can properly describe how it feels. But not a Cleric, so not as bound by the anathema.

Thanks. Just making sure, since I don’t have GM Core yet.

Is... is the GM ChatGPT? Is this a VTT game? Are you sure there's a human on the other end?

The chronicle for this lists some odd prices for the weapons. 1001 gp for a +2 Striking mace and 101 for a +1 Striking glaive. Are those typos, or did the remaster change things so that we need to start paying for the base weapon?

Yeah. It’s really hard to not just make Gang Up an automatic selection at 6th level. And yeah, I should have said as long as the enemy is in your reach, not adjacent. Having played a few games now with both the new Gang Up and Opportune Backstab, I have a hard time imagining taking alternatives to either of them (on a melee build). Opportune Backstab triggers more reliably than Reactive Strike or a Champion’s Reaction.

Though Gang Up is plain amazing, there are situations it does not help (and it kinda encourages Rogues to not offer the mutual flank, which kinda stinks. Meanwhile, Tumbling Behind and standing there offers that nice mutual flank if desired).

Just noticed this point. In the remaster, Gang Up now provides a flank to all of your allies as long as you are adjacent to a creature.

You and your allies harry an opponent in concert. You can flank an enemy if it’s within reach of both of you and an ally—you and your ally don’t have to be on opposite sides. This benefits your allies as well as you, but only if they’re flanking with you, not each other. The other requirements for flanking must still be met.

Bolding mine. Gang Up was already one of the better feats in the game, and somehow they decided to make it even better in the remaster. But I can understand skipping it on a thrown/ranged build.

I think it’s both. If you’re with a group consistently, hopefully they’re eventually working as a group. Even in PFS, though, there are a lot of very good players. But it doesn’t hurt to have some options for things you can do on your own for when it’s a smaller table or there are less experienced/saavy players. This edition encourages teamwork, though, and I’ve run into quite a lot of characters in PFS built around doing things to make other characters more effective. And a lot of players who light up when a debuff or buff they have can combine with another character’s abilities.

Ferious Thune wrote:

Gortle wrote:

Most Rogues I've seen quickly get to 40ft move. Then they get trick magic item and get Longstrider/Tailwind and are a 50ft in mid levels. Easier for Swashbucklers. It is great action economy.

I've seen versions of this a couple of times. How is a Rogue getting to 40 move without Longstrider and in a way that stacks with Longstrider? Excepting being an Elf (and maybe one other Ancestry?), the only way you can even get Fleet at 1st level is to be Human. For a lot of ancestries, it'll be 3rd level before they can get a 30-foot speed, which is not significantly earlier than Dread Striker.

No one is all there at level 1. I'm talking a few levels in. But there are base 30ft move ancestries, elves can start with 35ft. Presumably the player taking such a build would prioritise speed. Then there is fleet for +5. An item bonus to speed from is Boots of Bounding at level 7. A status bonus from speed would be Trick Magic Item and a Wand of Longstrider but there are also things like a Bracelt of Dashing from level 3. If you are prepared to get into consumabless like Quicksilver Mutagen or Prey Mutagen you can be going from level 1. 50ft by level 3 is doable.

Everyone agrees that DreadStriker makes all this tumbling effort obsolete.

What I was questioning was the assertion that “most rogues” will have a 40 ft speed “quickly,” because I don’t see that happening at the tables I’m at. And Rogues don’t have any options for increasing speed that aren’t available to everyone else (unlike Swashbuckler). They do have more skill feats, making Trick Magic Item easier to fit into a build, but no Rogue specific speed boosts that I’m aware of. If I’m missing something, it would be good to know. Elf can do it.Human can get Fleet from the start. I’m going to assume that not every rogue is an elf or human (or whatever other 30-foot base ancestry exists). If you want to build for high speed, you have those options, but that doesn’t qualify as most rogues for me, since those aren’t options available to the vast majority of Ancestries.

Of the other things you listed, other than the boots, longstrider, and fleet, those aren’t (effectively) always on bonuses. Being possible to get 40 or 50 speed for a few rounds by third level isn’t the same as having a 40 or 50 speed by 3rd level. At 1st level, most rogues are going to have a 25 speed. Meaning tumble behind will only work for one action if they start their turn close to the enemy.

Scrolls of longstrider are available at level 1, a wand at 3rd. But that’s the 1-hour version. While it’s one of the few things that can effectively pre-buff, I wouldn’t consider that an always on bonus. Not until 5th level with a heightened version of the spell as a wand.

I would say that most rogues have a 25 or 30 base speed by the time they can take Dread Striker, since even humans, who can get fleet early, don’t ultimately have more options than anyone else. Elves, if you are building specifically for speed, can obviously do better, but they are the only ones I see getting to 40 by 3rd (without burning scrolls of 2nd level longstrider every day). Even another base 30 speed ancestry would only get to 35. At 5th, those numbers go up by 10 due to 8-hour longstrider wands. But at that point it’s a backup tactic to use against things you can’t intimidate.

Having a high base speed is a good thing in this system, so even if you stop using tumble behind, it’s only hurting you in that you can’t put those resources elsewhere (unless you retrain). If you want to build around tumble behind, it’s certainly possible to do so and should be fun. It’s just not, to me, something that should be assumed for the majority of rogues. Meaning that tumble behind may struggle to do what you need it to do, or at least require extra actions, at the low levels where you need it the most for a thrown weapon build.

Most Rogues I've seen quickly get to 40ft move. Then they get trick magic item and get Longstrider/Tailwind and are a 50ft in mid levels. Easier for Swashbucklers. It is great action economy.

I've seen versions of this a couple of times. How is a Rogue getting to 40 move without Longstrider and in a way that stacks with Longstrider? Excepting being an Elf (and maybe one other Ancestry?), the only way you can even get Fleet at 1st level is to be Human. For a lot of ancestries, it'll be 3rd level before they can get a 30-foot speed, which is not significantly earlier than Dread Striker.

Since there are instances where Juggler won't be allowed, like PFS, I'll offer this alternative build. Apologies if the names of any of these feats have changed in the Remaster (or gone away). Also, not saying this is a perfect build or better than others presented. Just another option, if your focus is to keep at range and boost the damage a little.

Ruffian Rogue

Lvl 1: You're Next
Lvl 2: Quick Draw (or Strong Arm)
Lvl 4: Dread Striker
Lvl 6: Strong Arm* (or Far Throw)
Lvl 8: Sly Striker
Lvl 10: Vicious Debilitations

* It's disappointing to have to spend a 6th level feat on Strong Arm, but if the goal is to stay at range and throw daggers, it lets you stay farther away. The alternative would be to get a returning rune and do away with Quick Draw, but as others have noted, that has damage implications later. Still, it would let you take Far Throw, which lets you stay 40 feet away with just a -1 penalty.

You're Next gives you an intimidate check as a reaction after you down an enemy, meaning that you can have rounds that look like:

Action 1 Demoralize
Action 2 Strike with Sneak Attack
Reaction You're Next (if you down them)
Action 3 Strike 2nd target with Sneak Attack

Sly Striker helps make up for the low base damage of a dagger and gives you a chance to do okay damage even when you don't have Sneak attack.

Vicious Debilitations can give them Weakness 5 to piercing, helping to make up for the low base damage of the weapon.

Up until 4th level, rely on Create a Diversion to try to get 1 sneak attack off per round.

From there on, Demoralize to get off-guard.

Ruffian (as others have mentioned) lets you have alternative weapons for a larger damage die or different damage types. It also gives bleed damage on a critical (with a dagger).

But you could easily swap for Thief and Precise Debilitations. Or Scoundrel and maybe Dazzling Display (Tactical Debilitations isn't as directly helpful) then Bloody Debilitations at 12 to help with overall damage.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

Some additional guidance on what you learn from a Discovery check would also help. If you are asking for a skill, the default seems to be to provide a single skill with the lowest DC first, which is often an obscure lore that no one is going to have. That means the first Discovery check is essentially a wasted round, even when you succeed. It gets even worse when there are two or more obscure lore skills for an individual, potentially wasting multiple rounds trying to figure out a skill someone has that they can use.

But in general, it's good to know our local group has been essentially running this correctly.

EDIT: Hmm... I guess the lowest-DC thing is written into the success condition of the Discover check, so it doesn't really need clarification or guidance. It's just unfortunate when it leads to multiple wasted rounds just trying to figure out what skill to use.

As mentioned, I used a slow track Dark Archive adventure to even out my xp after I was past the level of the quests. I think Big Trouble in Little Absalom is still 1XP, but with full rewards?

<trimmed>

- Fascinated and captivated are separate effects, fascinated breaks normally and immediately, but the captivated doesn't break until it says it does.

So if "captivated" is some kind of condition, what really "is" it? Well it definitely meets the definition for "effect":

PC1, p. 455 wrote:

effect An effect is the result of an ability, though an ability’s exact effect is sometimes contingent on the result of a check or other roll.

Yes. This is more or less how I see it working, whether I like the end result of that or not. Captivating Song has an effect. Part of that effect is that the creature is Fascinated, but part of it is everything that is being described as “captivated.” No, Captivated is not a condition, but that doesn’t matter. Plenty of abilities impose both a condition and other effects. If something makes you Frightened and imposes some other penalty, removing Frightened doesn’t remove the other penalty unless the ability says that it does. Captivating Song gives specific conditions which remove the effect. Those are separate from the conditions that remove Fascinated, and it does not say that removing Fascinated removes the other effects.

Again, I don’t necessarily like that version, but to me it’s the most direct reading. Attaching Fascinated to the other effects and removing them when Fascinated is removed is adding language that isn’t there in the ability. Is it a reasonable ruling to balance the ability? Sure. And possibly was even intended. It’s just not what the ability currently says to do. Language to clarify one way or the other would be welcome.

logsig wrote:

Blakeg wrote:

I feel strongly that they should allow more online lodges to qualify as RSP supported locations. [...] it really feels like Paizo is picking and choosing winner Discords

RSP status is not determined by Paizo. Your Regional Venture-Coordinator is the person that approves all requests for RSP in your region. Speak to your local VO if you have questions about this or other aspects of policy in your region.

To me that's kind of the issue given online play is often NOT regionally based? I play with people all over the world and the whole regionally based rewards for playing online seems like it could use an overhaul?

I understand that the VCs/VO's determine the RSP status but ultimately it IS determined by Paizo because Paizo off-loads that part of the programs/society play TO the VCs/VO's so presumably Paizo could ultimately influence how the RSP status is determined/distributed.

My point is that why not treat all DM'ing equal in an effort to get more people to DM if that's the ultimate goal?

I understand wanting to offer incentives for people running cons or special events but that's not how the RSP system is working on a daily basis when it's applying to daily play as well.

One of the original goals of the RSP was to help physical locations recruit new GMs. That (rightly) expanded to online a few years in. I'm not sure how determinations are made about which online lodges get RSP, but I assume there is an opportunity for any lodge to apply and be considered.