It's not actually a house rule is the thing. Along with the GMG telling GMs to let it happen, there are feats that specifically call out that it has to be possible.
For example Vandal:
In addition, whenever you hit with a Strike against a trap or an unattended object, you ignore the first 5 points of the object's Hardness.
The game assumes GMs aren't going to be pedantic douchebags. Unfortunately...
It's not really a house rule when it's in one of the rulebooks.
It means it's up to the GM.
The GMG had a section on "Saying yes, but" that included this line:
Saying yes, but wrote:
Require a directed attack against an object, then allow foes to attempt saving throws against the object’s effect at a DC you choose. Example: cast a produce flame spell at a barrel of explosives.
The size thing only lasts so long though, then -2 level still caps out the spell.
I always guessed the strength requirement on form control was there to be a sorta guide to that if you were gonna use the form controlled forms in combat you'd want high strength anyway to have better accuracy from using your own unarmed attack mod
That only works if you're using a spell that caps out below your current maximum, or on like 4 levels otherwise. Building to use your own bonus is largely pointless if you're using the most recent form spell."
Subtle spells still exist and can be cast, Bards can still cast via an instrument instead and Sorcerers still (as they haven't been changed yet) have Blood Component Substitution.
The most hilarious thing about this, to me, is that this means it happened twice to Wounded.
When they printed the CRB there was a "consensus", but evidently not. When they printed this everyone thought they were ok the same page, but evidently not.
It also means that, as was noted earlier in that chain, basically everyone on both sides was right to some degree.
But I've tried to remember to put a caveat around that saying "I keep reading people claim this, but I want the receipts".
It's been linked to.
Watching this again, I see that he is saying he got deaths in the hundreds in PF1E, but has had 0 in PF2E.
He actually mentioned that he hadn't (at the time) killed anyone when it first came up on his server as part of that whole conversation that I've linked a couple times.
I believe he said the one that came the closest was Luis Loza once.
He does acknowledge that it's dangerous, but points out a couple of the ways the game is set up to otherwise give the player the greatest chance at survival. Initiative moving so the party has at least one round, hero points existing, persistent not triggering until the end of your turn, etc.
It's only really dangerous if you don't keep it in mind and instead try to just brute force everything.
I meant as someone that played a handful of Swashbucklers for a bit over three years at no point did I find moving to be painful.
With the speed boost I could generally follow easily. If they didn't move away I'd generally get a Riposte off. Frequently I'd be the one tumbling through enemies to go get the nice juicy enemy wizard though, that's what I'd meant by moving being the plan.
I don't think I ever found having to move to be painful. It was quite often the plan anyway.
It'll be situation dependant, which is a good thing to me.
Sometimes you'll need to get them back in the fight, sometimes you'll want to retreat and need them to run under their own power, sometimes it'll just be too dangerous to revive them again, sometimes it'll just be too dangerous right now so you may want to stabilize them to buy time to get them back in the fight a little later.
You kind of are newly seriously injured. It's an abstraction of accumulating injuries as you get your teeth kicked in. As you almost die, repeatedly, it leaves a mark. It's like in a movie where one of the characters keeps getting what should be mortal wounds, but keeps fighting anyway and then eventually just falls over dead.
What I like about this rule is it encourages/requires additional thought. Is it safe to get my ally up? If they get up will we continue to fight or retreat? Can we continue to fight without them? Does the enemy have AoE that might kill them anyway? Do I need to reposition either the enemy or my ally before reviving them? Instead of just "Eh, I'll throw a heal, they can go down three more times" and not really thinking about it.
A popular, or at least it used to be, 5e healing strategy was to have a Paladin use Lay on Hands to heal 1 HP at a time to allies that go down. They get Paladin Level x 5 HP that they can distribute however they please and this basically was used as Paladin Level x 5 free revives quite often.
Not sure how popular that still is, but when I played 5e it was in basically every group I saw or played in.
What bothers me about the adding the Wounded value to increases in Dying value while already Dying is that I don't know its purpose
Narratively, it seems most likely that the goal is adding tension. Will you win or escape the fight, or will you succumb to your wounds?
Mechanically, it heavily discourages yo-yo.
Medically, it means you got clocked and it's left you more susceptible to dying. It says what it is on the tin:
You have been seriously injured.
It's an abstraction to represent that you've been seriously injured in the course of almost dying.
Well they weren't going to just hand out Greater Darkvision at level 1. At some point it had to end, you still get to pick from all the other feats and get the flavour.
If you read the Reload rules there's a difference between reload with a number and reload '-'.
Thrown will generally have '-' which requires an interact action to draw before they can be thrown.
Reload 0 would be when you draw ammunition and attack in the same action, so like a bow or very select number of throwing weapons.
Or it's just not aimed at Martials.
Or Sentinel still exists and they don't want a General Feat to be equivalent.
That is correct.
I am pointing out a very clear example to show that Twin Feint would not work with thrown weapons, and also providing an alternative that would do roughly what they want (thrown weapons, but minus sneak attack).
Corabee Cori wrote:
Yeah, I feel like people are putting too much stock in white room math where people never move.
When I played Swashbucklers for the well over three years that I have I moved around a lot.
S. J. Digriz wrote:
Dual-Weapon Warrior provides:
Double Slice wrote:
Requirements You are wielding two melee weapons, each in a different hand.
Dual-Weapon Blitz wrote:
Requirements You are wielding two one-handed melee weapons, each in a different hand.
Both of these have the same requirements as Twin Feint:
Twin Feint wrote:
Requirements You are wielding two melee weapons, each in a different hand.
In order to use them ranged you are required to take Dual Thrower
Dual Thrower wrote:
Whenever a dual-weapon warrior feat allows you to make a melee Strike, you can instead make a ranged Strike with a thrown weapon or a one-handed ranged weapon you are wielding.
Clearly when something calls out that it requires a melee weapon you are making a melee attack.
For the OP I would recommend Dual-Weapon Warrior for this build over Rogue. It'll take just as long to throw two things at once as if Twin-Feint was allowed, and you get two attacks with no/less MAP earlier.
That said, I've read a lot of people claiming Mark has this stance and has said this - but no one has provided links with the proof.
I have actually. They're comments in his Discord.
Don't really expect them to change your mind however as you seem very invested in this being a mistake.
Option 3: they're all intended and cover different situations.
The Wounded condition only covers gaining and losing the condition and when you first gain the Dying condition.
The Recovery Check section is correct and covers recovery checks.
The Taking Damage While Dying section, while oddly worded, is intended to add Wounded when you get bonked.
He has several comments on it on his Discord. 31/10/2023 he has a short discussion about how people seem to think not just zerg rushing a boss and allowing it to get 3rd action attacks off is apparently advanced tactics. 13/10/2023 he has a short discussion about the team being on board with the more lethal rules because they don't kill you immediately but increase tension. 1/4/2020 has just first discussion on it where he says:
It does look like the wording on recovery checks is not perfectly clear because of the use of "gain" vs "gain or increase". But damage while dying definitely has the reminder.
He's pretty clear overall that it was intended as "gain or increase".
I have a question, has anyone ever had a party TPK because one or more characters died too quickly, instead of just staying unconscious?
Wasn't a TPK but it was a close thing and also turned into a five hour fight when we kept trying to save our Barbarian last month. We did not succeed, and callous as it sounds we likely would have been in a better spot overall as a party if they had died faster.
Why would they tell you to remember to add it only to the first instance in the section about when you're already dying and you get hit again?
I have a Swashbuckler PC at level 12 in a game I am running. I see she has two big problems. The first is that she can't Bon Mot because whatever we are fighting doesn't speak common. The other issue is she never uses Opportune Reposte because she holds on to her reaction for Charmed Life instead.
If you pick the Bon Mot option you definitely want someone to cast Tongues on you or to grab more languages, but that's the same as anyone that wants to use that.
I don't think that necessarily means what you think it means for Monk about multiple paths.
It already has multiple paths.
You can go full in on Ki, you can go full in on multiple stances, you can pick one stance and some ki, you can go reasonably heavily into maneuvers, etc. That already exists. They can change literally nothing and it would still meet the "has multiple paths" statement.
Alright: I spent a couple levels with some (very) mild panache issues, then was doing about the same damage as anyone else (unless I wasn't trying to do damage), then I was doing more damage as we went up in levels. Bleeding Finisher at 8 and Perfect Finisher at 14 are great.
At no point was I significantly behind enough to warrant concern.
Not really. I picked my subclass based on the skills I was already planning to level.
I'm just going to quickly put in my 2¢ that really I disagree they need an overhaul. Tweaks at most.
I've played multiple Swashbucklers to various levels, one all the way to 20, and at no point did I feel like I didn't contribute. Only really had issues with Panache at levels 1 and 2, after that it wasn't a problem.
It looks like the only thing that's changed is they added a table that shows what degree of success would counteract what rank for each rank, and the associated level range. If that makes sense.
I guarantee no caster knows every spell. You're still going to, especially when facing enemies higher level than you, run into spells you don't have rather frequently.