Kaspyr2077's page

Kaspyr2077 wrote:

When you change the default assumptions of how a game is played...

The default assumption does not allow for designation of some campaigns as "normal" and others as "unusual".

They are all just as much whatever the GM decided to set up.

Most APs don't include a lot of guidelines on what you shouldn't play based on the contents of the adventure, because they're intended to be picked up and played by any group of players with any PCs. They don't generally have a theme of monsters with a common mechanic that disadvantages certain builds through encounter after encounter, let alone a whole AP.

This is the DEFAULT mode of play.

Creating a themed campaign with a unified mechanic to punish certain modes of play is uncommon. Unusual. Against the norm. And if you haven't talked to your players about what to expect before they sit down, you're not very nice.

Have you ever played any games hosted on a server, where the game's parameters could be configured at the server? There tends to be a default option, where everything works as expected and every available option is valid. Most people tend to play on those settings. If you make tweaks so that some things don't work as expected, then that is an uncommon configuration. Unusual.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Campaign optimization is different from class optimization.

Yeah, in that the former is a real and meaningful thing and the latter is at best a fool's errand because how well any given option available to a class performs depends upon campaign particulars - like how effective Slam Down will be depending on how high the AC and Reflex DC of your enemies are going to be.

The very fact that you wouldn't even play a martial in a particular campaign shows that you acknowledge the extreme case that results from this reality. That you can't see that there is a less extreme case in which a martial is still a high-performing option, perhaps even still the highest-performing option, but that favors a different feat over Slam Down is a Dunning-Kruger-esque blind spot.

If given the exact specifications of a specific encounter, I bet people could come up with an exquisitely tailored Fighter, even a perfect party, to defeat that encounter. Some percentage of the time, the Fighter will not be Deriven's Slam Down build.

Entering a campaign without specific knowledge of the encounters involved, though? If you wanted to play a Fighter, and you approach the game as a GAME you intend to win, you should probably do some generalized optimization, just to be the best Fighter you can be.

Maybe that's Deriven's Slam Down build. I don't know, but no one's tried to argue with Deriven on its performance, just on the concept of optimization.

Where you're messing up the argument is that no one is talking about the GM looking at what the player has built and countering that build on purpose or not being upfront and accurate about what sort of campaign they are running.

The rest of us are not arguing that a GM should counter player builds; we are arguing that builds are variable in their effectiveness depending on campaign particulars.

It's you and deriven that are, for some reason, equating "an undead-slaying character works better in an undead-focused campaign and worse in a campaign that has few undead show up" with undead-slaying options being less optimal than other options and trying to frame any GM running an undead-themed campaign as "unusual" or deliberately impairing a character.

My own personal experience, which isn't actually "none" by the way - I've personally participated in campaigns that have only used undead, demons, devils, wizards, and "beasts" (that one meaning vermin, animals, and magical beasts as were the designations at the time) as antagonists - is irrelevant to the discussion because we are not talking about what any particular GM has chosen to do, we are talking about what the game presents as equally valid options to all readers, past, present, and future.

No. This is blatantly false. You're using a Motte and Bailey. You use the outrageous example of the all-ooze campaign, which is a highly specialized kind of game that the players should know about and build for, because it nullifies the Slam Down build. Then you're retreating to the "normal variation in campaigns" position, trying to pretend that you don't know that hyper-focus on one creature type is a specialized game.

Running a game based on creatures immune to precision damage is something that players should know before they show up with their character sheets. Running a game based on creatures who resist a certain element is something that players should know before they show up with their character sheets. Running a game based on creatures who resist certain tactics is something that players should know before they show up with their character sheets.

The disingenuous thing going on here is the continual pretense that the claim of a "usual campaign" doesn't need any kind of evidence beyond the claim that everybody knows what it is.

It shouldn't be hard, if you're actually correct, to answer a question like the following; which is a more unusual encounter for a 4th level party, an ogre glutton or ghost commoner?

And then show where the game materials provided information that lead you to that conclusion.

A "usual campaign" is one where you can show up with a generically useful character sheet and expect not to hit a brick wall because the nature of the campaign invalidates your choices.

Kaspyr2077 wrote:

You're overselling the point.

In this case, that's functionally impossible.

Because this:

Kaspyr2077 wrote:

This is a highly specific and unusual choice by the GM

Is not at all true.

No theme, no matter what it is, nor how strongly it is adhered to or diluted by off-theme encounters the GM chooses to make it, is any more "unusual" than any other.

There literally is no such thing as "the usual campaign" in a more specific fashion than "the GM sets up the campaign."

And when you add stuff like:

Kaspyr2077 wrote:

In a normally designed, good faith campaign

to the discussion you become just as much a problem as Deriven has been being because you are claiming that either a campaign fits the parameters you've chosen to optimize under or else the GM is designing it not in good faith or in an abnormal fashion..

Tell me exactly, with book citations, where the game spells out which encounter designs and monster selections are "good faith" and which aren't, because I have never seen any such thing - it is as normal and good faith for a GM to choose any creature of a given level as it is to choose another, and without something that says otherwise there is no "this is normal design, and everything else isn't."

For decades, the advice has been that if a GM lets you sit down at a table with a character whose abilities are rendered useless or near-useless by their campaign design, it's their fault for not informing you. That is VERY true in an all-ooze campaign. This is "good faith."

How many campaigns have you actually sat in where most encounters consisted of a single creature, specifically one that invalidates certain tactical approaches? I bet it's none. This is "unusual."

I find the argument of "no book definitions of readily understood terms" to be disingenuous and hostile.

The thing with the slamdown build, or any trip build for that matter, is that it's only "monstrous" if the whole party builds for it.

DV takes it for granted that in a party there will be multiple reactive strikes available, because that's how his party is usually built.

But inserting as an example this type of character in my campaign, that we currently have a "swash, fire kineticist, bard, divine sorc" won't be the "objectively better option" that he presents.

Instead something like a shield using fighter, or a grappler, will, party wise, perform better.

Similarly, due to the theme of their campaign, most of the battles are against multiple lesser foes rather than single bosses. While bosses do exist here and there, someone capable of wide damage will fare better than someone specialising in simply knocking down one for. (Plus, it also makes the Swash actually quite powerful)

That's why it's impossible to say "this X build is superior to all other builds". The balance points of several feats and features are close enough that campaign differences easily skewer the balance from one to the other.

I'm not sure most of that is true. The Slam Down build works for both damage and control all on its own. Sure, it works BEST if the rest of the party optimizes around it, just like anything else does, but I have a hard time seeing a sword-and-board or grappler Fighter outdoing the Slam Down build in any particular metric. It would be different if there were party synergies with those builds that don't work with the Slam Down build, but I don't know of any that are especially enticing.

Certainly it's true that having more enemies on the field makes single-target damage specialization less appealing, but Fighters aren't great for AoE under any circumstances unless the enemy you're targeting can be popped with one blow of a one-handed weapon so you can move on to the next with your second attack. If that's not the case - and it seldom is - you're better off focusing one down before moving on to the next, and that's single-target damage. Back to higher single-target damage being the best option in most cases, and Slam Down even comes with some control while you're doing it.

Alright, I think we've gone a bit far afield for the sake of argument.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Optimizing builds off class strengths. It doesn't care about types of campaigns unless that information becomes relevant.

That information is inherently relevant.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I am still not sure why this is such a hard idea to comprehend or why it turns into these contentious discussions.

It is a hard idea to comprehend because it is incompatible with the reality of the game; you present "the optimal fighter" but the parameters you are treating as constant to arrive at that conclusion are actually variables - you simply dodge reality by saying there is a different sort of optimization (campaign optimization) and acting as though a character exists outside the context of the campaign such that "optimal fighter" and "optimal fighter for a specific campaign" being separate things isn't relevant.

And the conversations turn contentions because you refuse to acknowledge that you are saying that you've got the whole game solved so all the things you're saying are objectively correct and those of us seeing them as subjective or situational at best due to the inherent variability of the game are doing "something else."

Because you're so locked out of entertaining the very concept that you might have arrived at a flawed conclusion you're coming off as saying that you could show up at anyone's campaign and have your character crush the encounters - and if it doesn't it's because the GM "artificially" limited your build, not because there's no such thing as a "normal" campaign.

But yes, the conversation has gone on too long... unfortunately it will never end so long as you continue to post with an attitude like you are the big smart authority with all the correct answers and everyone else are struggling with the "extraordinarily easy to comprehend" concept; that concept being what is or is not optimal (which inherently depends upon campaign specifics for any practical examples).

You're overselling the point. This argument was based on the premise of "what if the campaign's combat encounters consisted of mostly oozes?" This is a highly specific and unusual choice by the GM, and I can't see a reason why it would be made except to hard-counter martial PCs in the game, especially ones like this. This is exactly like saying "Rogues are useless in combat, because all of the enemies in my GM's campaign are immune to precision damage" or "Spellcasters are useless, because my GM uses Silence all the time and boxes me into the AoE." Finding and arguing from an extreme, malicious edge case is disingenuous.

In a normally designed, good faith campaign, Deriven's Reach-Slam Down build is monstrous, specifically because it takes advantage of all aspects of the Fighter class synergistically, which many builds, even other great builds, fail to do. That's a sign of great optimization - use all of what you have to full effect. It will work in any circumstance not designed specifically to thwart it. You have to go to a campaign themed on one specific monster to do that. Alternately, you could have a campaign themed around extremely mobile enemies best fought at range, or something else that shifts the assumptions of combat, and that would also shut down Deriven's build. However, if you can assume a normal campaign with more or less standard expectations, the safe money is that this build will be incredibly useful in 99% of encounters. If you arrive at a table where they're playing a themed game that would alter that, the player should be informed of the game's theme so that they can build their PC accordingly.

If you have a mathematically-based argument that another build is more effective in more situations than Deriven's build, that's awesome. Show it to make your argument. Arguing that there exists an extremely specific scenario that shuts down the build is not at all valid, because just about everything in the game has a hard counter, and most of them are more common than an all-ooze campaign.

From my largely-outside perspective, this looks like a flimsy excuse to gang up on Deriven and condemn the mindset, rather than a legitimate attempt to argue against the points. I don't really know anyone here, but if you don't like Deriven or the analytical approach to the game, that's fine. To me, you all don't appear to be making reasoned arguments. Just shouting at somebody.

This is kind of a theoretical framework I've devised.

To me, healing, tankiness, and action denial are classified as "Not Losing." Not Losing is great. You definitely need enough Not Losing to get you through to the other side of a combat encounter. The thing about it is, Not Losing tends to be finite.

On the other side, offense is classified as "Winning." You want to be able to be burning off the enemy's numbers, reducing the number of actions they can take against you. Without enough Winning, you will run out of Not Losing.

You need to be able to handle all the Not Losing you need, but every PC should be able to contribute meaningfully to the Winning, too. If you ever find yourself at the tail end of the combat wondering what to do because the enemies are being routed and your combat role is therefore obsolete, you don't have a plan for Winning. You're entirely focused on Not Losing.

"Previously, I used this timer to remind me to give you all a Hero Point. I've changed this policy. I now use the timer to prompt me to evaluate if you've earned a Hero Point, no Hero Points, or a negative Hero Point. This can put you in debt. To get Hero Point privileges, stop faffing about and wasting everyone's time."

But none of those you say were the stated justifications.

The justification given from the player was "it's ok to kill them, they attacked us first".

As I said, there may be legitimate reasons to kill, but that ain't one.

That's a reason given from kindergarten kids of why they fight.

Why aren't they the stated justifications? Because they're true. We're talking about a scenario with a band of murderous bandit cannibals. Why are you stripping it down to a generic "attack"? We are talking about murder, and you're muddying the waters, introducing the idea of a harmless attack and then equating the two.

No one is talking about a mischievous kid. We're talking about murderers. Have been all along.

As I said in the other thread:

There may be reasons for killing them (esp due to cannibalism).
But the justification given "they attacked me first" is at minimum childish.

Would you kill a kid that threw a rock at you?

Both the captured bandits and a random kid are helpless after their capture.

The kid throwing a rock hasn't caused serious harm. Bandits murder, often along with a lot of other violent crimes. Self-defense is a question of proportionality.

In this case, because they are helpless, modern concepts of self-defense don't apply, but the lack of law enforcement within half an hour drive creates a situation foreign to just about anyone on this forum. The law isn't being effectively enforced. You are living in an anarchic state where the law doesn't apply, because it cannot be enforced. There probably isn't a clear answer to which authority should even be involved. If there is an authority, he probably got the job by killing bandits too.

Again all of these did not appear in the OP's game.

Which is a great thing to know after the fact, but "again," there was no way to know until after the decision what the consequences of the decision would be. I do not make decisions in-game on the assumption that I won't have to deal with implementing them, that the GM will handwave it all. I don't know why anyone would assume that.

Also confession is very very far from being a proof of guilt as those experts in legal matters you mentioned previously could tell you.

If someone is caught in the act of a crime, and then confesses to performing that crime regularly, then those legal experts are going to have a hard time formulating an argument for innocence. In fact, if you arrested them and turned them into authorities, on what basis are they going try, convict, and punish these people, if not eyewitness testimony and confession? What fact-finding options does a local fantasy authority have that PCs don't?

It's a really, really bad idea to confess to a crime, and then later try to argue that you didn't do it. If you admit to doing it, you're probably going down for it, because a confession is considered basically the gold standard of evidence by most every legal system in history.

Kinger wrote:

What are your thoughts?

Evil. It's killing for convenience as bringing them to the law would take too much time and energy. It's evil justice 101: You don't care about fairness or anything, you just kill whoever you want without justifications.

Is it unfair to kill someone who tried to kill and eat you? Are you worried you can't ascertain their innocence or guilt, what with witnessing it and hearing their confession? If you can't manage to transport them, what do you do? What if you're in a hurry to save the day somewhere entirely else? Are you going to slow your travel speed by 1/3 in order to humanely care for prisoners? What if the relevant legal authority is back the way you came, but lives will be lost if you don't get to your destination ASAP? Once you've captured them, is it an absolute moral duty to escort them safely and comfortably to the nearest authority to have THEM kill your prisoners on your word, or is there some specific number of people who would have to die before you considered another course of action? What if you didn't have enough food for the journey? What if you didn't have enough people to watch them and protect yourself? Are you willing to die in order to attempt to bring bandits to the judgment of a local guy with no qualifications except a political appointment to the job?

The OP's party delivered the 3 surviving bandits to the authorities with zero trouble.

I now wonder why the killer PC did not kill all of the bandits.

I'm assuming they accomplished it with zero trouble because no one at the table is familiar with prisoner transfer, or was interested in making a big deal of it. Which is fine, of course. I would expect that to be true of most tables. But here, we're getting into the decision-making process of why or why not one would execute a captured prisoner, so costs and challenges are relevant. "It happens with no problems" is hand-waving away something that is actually a serious challenge.

If the party had killed the bandits, no one would have even mentioned it again. But because they went to the effort of capturing and questioning them instead, the party is now apparently obligated to go to a lot of effort and expense to transport the prisoners to someone else, so THEY will kill them. Along the way, the party will provide food, water, latrine breaks, etc, along with extra security. If you do it wrong - like keeping them hogtied for multiple days - you've just tortured them to death, wasting your effort and everyone's time. Unless this party's objection was that the kill was too clean, and they wanted to torture the prisoners to death?

I don't have any info on the "killer PC," but I would not make any assumptions about the player or character. There are enough nuances to the situation that I laid out in my first post that it's entirely likely that this PC was operating under a different set of assumptions than the rest of the group, not a murderhobo.

I think any discussion about wild west style justice is moot since they were able to take 3/4 of the bandits in without any notable difficulties.

Wild west justice was often dictated by the harsh realities of the environment. It would be a very different prospect if you are a 200 mile walk to civilization and you barely have enough supplies for 4 people. And the captives seem dangerous enough to slip out and cut your throats in the night.

But that is not what we're dealing with. They even came with their own mule to carry them. You could hog tie them and wrap them up like mummies, and it would have little effect on your travels.

That's not something mortal beings can survive for multiple days, so if that's your plan, you could have gotten similar results by just crucifying them. You save a few days in the process, too.

Transferring prisoners safely costs time, effort, and resources. Trying to shortcut it like this just results in unpleasant death, or escapes. There is a very good chance you don't have the time, personnel, or resources to pull it off.

Also, you want to put three prisoners on the back of one mule? I hope these are Small creatures, because if not, you should probably just crucify the mule too. It would be more humane.

Okay, so, you've been attacked. You subdued and captured them, then got an explanation that they are "basically bandits and cannibals." I assume you mean that this means they've engaged in this behavior before.

You have a few choices here. You could execute them, take them to town, or leave them there to either escape or die of exposure. Or release them, I guess.

I figure the most evil is to leave them. If they escape, there's no justice, and other people are in danger. If they don't, you tortured them to death. This one I would definitely say is "evil."

Next, taking them to town for the authorities. How far is it to town? What are your supplies like? Can you afford to feed and water them on the way back to town? What's your security situation like? Do you have enough people to keep a watch on them while transporting them, while also watching for external threats, including more bandits trying to rescue these? What about using the latrine? What's your procedure for keeping them secure while giving them a chance to relieve themselves? Or are you not going to address that, and have them coated in filth by the time you get back? Where were you going when you were attacked? Do you have urgent business? Is making this trip going to prevent you from resolving more important matters? Will it cost lives somewhere else?
Are you prepared to invest the time and resources to take them back to town? If no, what do you do?

What about the authorities themselves? What are they going to do? Are they going to kill the prisoners for sure? If no, why? They're bandits and cannibals - pretty sure that's the only practical penalty. They won't be imprisoned - nobody can afford to do that. Will they let these guys go? Are they that corrupt, or is there another reason why they're ineffectual? If they ARE going to kill the prisoners while bound, why are you transporting them? What's the difference if you kill them or hand them over to be inevitably killed? Is the death somehow qualitatively different if performed by this authority? Where does the authority derive from? Is it divine, and that's why they have to be executed by the authority? Or is it secular authority, and you're enduring a potentially several-day-long, expensive, demanding prisoner transfer operation to hand over the prisoners to be executed by the state, as represented by people who are not much different than you?

Next, release them. Do you really want to release these cannibal bandits to attack the next people to come along? Is that the "good" thing to do?

Finally, killing prisoners. It's easy, cheap, quick. You don't have state authority stamping your action, and if that's important to you, then you could see it as evil. If you aim to solve the problem, though, it may be the literal only solution you can afford.

----------

End of the day, I recommend not accepting surrenders or taking prisoners, if it's going to cause this amount of conflict in your group.

So, if I understand your belief system and world view correctly,

Oh, this should be good. A single post about a highly specific topic is always a great way to understand an entire person and their philosophy.

people/corporations cannot be 'forced' to do anything.

They are always simply making a decision.

... Dear Lord... it's everything I hoped it could be. Disingenuous and uncharitable reading, wild generalization... marvelous. I'm printing this and hanging it on my fridge.

People, corporations, any entity with agency can indeed be forced or compelled to do something. That's just not what happened HERE. Paizo wasn't compelled to flip Hasbro the bird, ride off on a motorcycle, and make their own licensing agreement, with blackjack, etc. That was one of many options. One I believe most didn't expect. And because it was their own decision, made by their own will and according to their own vision, it was AWESOME.

They had the option of waiting out the public backlash, banding together with other creators, and hoping they could pressure Hasbro to abandon the new OGL and go back to the old one, like they eventually did. They probably had the option of selling out, too. They didn't have to say "f 'em, I don't need 'em," and a less bold decision probably could have kept everything intact. But that's not the choice they made, and that's the biggest reason I am a Paizo fan. Cutting OGL material and replacing it with original stuff will probably result in an overall superior, if less familiar, product.

Which no one would have minded. But the actual license included that pesky word "perpetual", which Hasbro decided didn't mean "perpetual" after all.

Yes, absolutely, and Hasbro/WotC deserves heaps of scorn for what they tried to pull with the "updated OGL" debacle, as I said. This isn't the same issue, though. Even after Hasbro walked all that back, Paizo (wisely) maintained the posture that Hasbro/WotC could not be trusted to honor the OGL going forward, and decided to walk away from the OGL. That is a decision Paizo made.

There is no version of this course of events where Paizo becomes unbound by past, present, or future iterations of the OGL while retaining the ability to use WotC proprietary IP. Regardless of how in the wrong Hasbro definitely was, Paizo has no grounds to keep that IP, even if it was originally released in their own D&D publications. Hasbro owns all of that, to the extent that it's material that could be copyrighted or trademarked at all. In order to leave their (suddenly abusive) relationship with WotC, Paizo had to leave behind the things that belong to WotC.

Is the Two-Handed Weapon Fighter really lacking in some way? Because from my reading of these boards, Fighter is recognized as probably the best class, and Two-Handed is arguably one of the better ways to build it. I haven't heard anyone particularly bemoan its survivability.

There does seem to be relatively little reason to use a weapon and shield. You give up the damage option of a weapon in both or each hand, and the control option of each hand. Those builds tend to have options to emulate the defensive nature of the shield. Shield Block is the only thing really uniquely good about using a shield. Sacrificing damage and control for survivability is possibly a valid trade, but what if the other options are sturdy enough?

Personally, I think shields should be buffed substantially before we talk about taking away what benefits they currently get.

Boy, do I hate getting this free thing I do not want. Class ruined. F tier. Gimme back my money pls

Nah, I get it. It does make sense. Ordinarily, you would expect the class chassis to work 100% with every build you might want to play, while the build-specific features should come in a subclass, feats, etc. Seeing a feat included in the chassis that seems intended for a build you don't intend to play can feel a bit awkward.

The thing with Fighters in PF2, though, is how much the game emphasizes their versatility. Flex feats built in, etc. Say OP's character is for some reason in a situation where they can't use their main weapon, or just needs extra defense in the encounter. Swap your flex feats to fit, and you can be a sword-and-board Fighter for the day. Lucky for you, you don't even have to burn a feat on Shield Block, because you're at least that good with a shield by default.

Toi bad that you did not mention "whereas others try to hold back the storm of emotions inside them and release their rage only when it matters most."

FWIW my PFS Animal Barbarian is a LN Dwarf and tries to always take the most sensible course of actions when fighting.

Should he Rage as soon as a combat starts, even if all opponents are flying ? Because suddenly he is more useless than if not Raging because of his anathema.

And TBT I find my Barbarian much more interesting to play with these constraints than if the one true way was always Sudden Charge+Rage. Not all Barbarians should have to be Hulk Smash.

How silly of me, ignoring one sentence in the introductory flavor text, and concentrating on 100% of the content below that.

I'm here, arguing that your preferred playstyle needs more mechanical support and encouraged, not dismissed, by the text, and here you are acting like you're arguing with me by telling me you're doing it already, and anyone not doing it is wrong. Gosh, the Internet is great.

Yeah, I think Errenor really misread exequiel. At that level, for that slot, you can learn to demand the True Names of supernatural beings, perform battlefield medicine, advanced herbalism, two languages, circus acrobatics, alchemical crafting... or how to guess how many jelly beans are in the jar, apparently.

Estimating numbers is something you can get better at, and has its uses (like I mentioned earlier with military scouting), but it's not as big, comprehensive, or useful as a first-level skill feat. It should be a basic skill check, not a feat at all.

Hey, SuperBidi, Gortle, Raven Black. Thank you for your contributions. If you don't mind, I would like you all to do a couple small favors for me, to better ensure we're all on the same page here.

First, I would like you to open your book or the AoN to the Barbarian class and give it a quick once-over.

I invite you to consider the "During Combat Encounters..." section. The first guidance on how to play a Barbarian.

You summon your rage and rush to the front lines to smash your way through. Offense is your best defense - you'll need to drop foes before they can exploit your relatively low defenses.

After that, I suggest taking a read through the class features, and take a note of how many of them mention "your rage" or "your fury" as a flavor element before giving Barbarians basic progression upgrades. While you're there, observe how access to critical specialization effects - basic for other Martials - is gated behind Rage for the Barbarian.

Now, please explain to me again how it's debatable that the class is supposed to be all about Rage, and that the player who plays according to the above advice is somehow at fault for failing to consider other tactical approaches.

That done, let's revisit something before coming back around to my big question.

RootOfAllThings wrote:

Teridax wrote:

The restriction on concentrate actions sort of makes sense as a legacy restriction against spellcasting, perhaps also Recalling Knowledge, but ends up meaning the Barb can't Demoralize without a feat, which is a bit silly. It also means a Barb can't do something like Hunt Prey, which would otherwise be thematically appropriate.

It also locks the Barbarian out of 90% of active/reactive magic item use. Both envision and command are concentrate-tagged, and a surprising number of runes weapons, and wearable items have one of them. 108 of the 154 talismans are Envision, and 19 are Command. Magic items are already bad enough that there's not much incentive to use them (low DCs, awkward handedness, bad action economy), so its not like a barbarian is really expected to give up their class feature to use them, but it still feels bad to look at all the toys you can't even begin to fit into your combat routine. Preventing spellcasting barbarians is one thing, but it seems wrong for them to be cut off from a good chunk of one of 2e's axes of character progression.

The restriction on Concentrate is only when Raging.

Entering Rage is not necessarily the best use of a Barbarian's first action. Or even of later actions.

I sometimes spent entire fights with my PFS Animal Barbarian not Raging.

Even the Barbarian has to use sensible tactics in PF2

Here is a great list establishing what Barbarians can't do while Raging. Included for emphasis is the argument why that's somehow not a big deal, despite my point above.

Would the Barbarian be overpowered without these limitations?

Would they really be notably ahead of the Fighter or Rogue if they could use Demoralize without a feat buy-back? If they could Hunt Prey? If they could use any weapon runes they chose?

The Barbarian is the only class that suffers a "thou shalt not" clause on their core class mechanic. This should be a rather heavy balance consideration. It seems to me that the Barbarian accepts more limitations than any other class, and in return, gets to be overall-pretty-good-with-the-right-subclass, which... doesn't seem like enough.

Most Monk stances forbid you from attacking with other attacks.

But a stance is not required to use FoB.

And Hunting Prey is one action each time you choose a new prey. Which is often more than once per combat.

Not that straightforward to compare.

True, yet missing the point.

A stance prevents you from using other attacks, but you're not losing anything, because the new attacks are better. More relevant, it doesn't lock you out of huge swathes of the PF2 combat experience.

Hunting Prey imposes no limitations at all, except that you need to spend an action on it it before you get the damage boost from it.

Barbarians get two sources of limitation - rage and anathema. Of the two, I suggest anathema is the minor one. It influences some character decisions, sometimes. Rage, on the other hand, is the core of the Barbarian combat engine. Everything about the class is designed and themed around Rage. If you choose not to be Raging in combat for a turn, you're foregoing everything that makes being a Barbarian enticing and fun for that turn. Whatever you're doing with that turn, is it going to make a difference by the time combat is over? Are you really the one who should be doing that? What if you're Fatigued, or fell down in combat with your AC penalty? Congratulations - you have no class abilities for the duration of this combat.

Now, in a hypothetical PF3 where I had any input whatsoever, I would at least want to consider the idea that Barbarians could have benefits to non-Raging combat turns. This is not that edition. Right now, the important question is, would Barbarians really be overpowered without either of those restrictions? Because Fighters and Rogues don't have ANY of those restrictions, and I don't think Barbarian is so awesome that it would outpace Fighter or Rogue without two separate leashes holding it back.

Those two leashes are interesting and thematic and traditional, but they also introduce penalties and burdens to the character that I do not feel are properly addressed in the balance equation. The Barbarian is the only character iced out of most of the combat system by playing them as intended. If that isn't a great loss, then is the rest of the combat system really doing what it's supposed to in the game? If it is, are Barbarians fully compensated for that loss?

All that said, let's remember the Fury Barbarian, who accepts the penalties of Rage in return for a whole lot of not much.

In some campaign out there, someone has made decent use out of having a character with Eyes for Numbers do some military scouting and come back with accurate troop numbers and dispositions. And good for them.

Still, though, true military combat with hundreds of people isn't exactly what PF is for, and you could do a lot more good in any number of situations with the much better feats listed above. I don't think that scouting needs to be gated behind a feat, either. It feels like the feat exists to fill someone's quota.

So, what you're working with is a party setup that works well in a variety of situations, but works optimally when you can set up a chokepoint and a vertical killzone.

As an infantryman, that makes sense to me. There are a variety of scenarios to prepare for, but you have to be able to respond to them with more or less the same loadout every time. Each one is more optimal or less optimal, and the degree to which you can choose or shape the scenario to your advantage is important. Succeeding is making the battle take shape in a way very much resembling one of a small number of scenarios in which your weapons and tactics are effective, while theirs aren't.

The setup you're describing works with great effect in a common scenario, but even in a scenario that doesn't resemble that one as much, it still works better than most. Yeah, I wouldn't want to be running an unmodified AP with you guys and be looking for a challenging fight.

I don't think you said what you meant, because the theming is a draw. Having the theme makes you stronger. It is the vanilla barbarian (fury) that is weaker. (Well, assuming you think getting a feat instead of extra damage and resistance to all weapon physical damage is weaker.)

Speaking past each other.

If the theme is good and fun and mechanically useful, then people should be drawn to playing it. Therefore, there is no sensible reason to balance the subclasses as if "not having a theme" was a huge balance factor, so it should be weakest.

If you want to look at it from a more in-setting viewpoint, as if the theme was the source of power and so it makes sense that someone without supernatural power isn't as strong... the Fighter kind of hurts that argument, being a more powerful class with no supernatural themes. Also, the devs shouldn't be thinking about class design this way. It's why games descended from D&D had been ruled by spellcasters for so long before now.

Anathema are fantastic. Gaining power at the cost of a taboo that is a) rules significant, therefore feels weighty, but b) isn't hard to follow, while being close enough to your character's life that you can reflect on it from time to time, is a masterful interaction of crunch and fluff. We should have more things like this, not less. (Superstition Instinct, obviously, being the exception.)

-1 AC, though, is pretty harsh. Barbarian has a lot to offer as a class, but that AC penalty is pretty daunting. I know where it comes from, but I don't know that it fits as well here, where it's pretty scary steep at early levels.

Fury Instinct has always felt incomplete, and has been in need of some real power and flavor since it was printed. Especially frustrating, since I always wanted a Barbarian that didn't need to be a dragon or a Hulk.

I don't see how using focus points to measure burst capacity for martial maneuvers would be in any way "magic-adjacent." It would be taking a design concept that was, for some reason, reserved for casters, and expanding it to be a more general concept.

I would be almost all for a setup like this, with one reservation. Casters are already viewed as lacking in terms of power compared to martials, and if focus points were broadened to be useful to martials as well, I'm sure the players who favor spellcasters would be very upset at having to share one of their best toys. They would have to get something fun at the same time.

I feel like the whole case for "martial weapons and simple weapons being different" is that "a spear" is the classic peasant weapon in every civilization that went to war. They're easy to make and anybody with half a day of training can use it effectively. This is very different from a sword or a longbow. Most of the simple weapons are "whack them" or "stick them with the pointy end" or "point and shoot" whereas martial weapons are not something anybody can just pick up and use effectively.

Agreed here. You can make a peasant into an adequate spearman in an afternoon. A sword or a bow requires MUCH more training.

PF2 is much better about "Martial and Advanced indicate level of training" than exoticism, since like the kusarigama and katana are martial weapons.

... Not so much here, though. The katana is a specialized weapon, and people who start using other styles of swords often dislike it. It's weighted oddly, light as a one-hander but balanced more ideally for two... but it's a slashing weapon, not a chopper, which isn't the most common thing for a two-handed sword. To really get the best performance out of a katana, you have to learn some quite specialized techniques that I feel like even most "proficiency in all martial weapons" types wouldn't immediately consider.

And really, the KUSARIGAMA? Long soft weapons with mismatched ends... just considering this thing makes my head hurt.

What makes a Dwarven War Axe any harder to use than any other axe?

It's a hand-and-a-half weapon, which means that it's not really optimally designed for use in either one hand or two. This design philosophy results in weapons that each need special training to get used to their peculiarities.

What about these weapons? Rhoka Sword, Repeating Crossbow, Aldori Dueling Sword, Broadspear, Gada, Kalis, Butterfly Sword, Falcata, Hook Sword, Karambit, Nodachi...

Rhoka Sword - hand-and-a-half weapon with two blades. In addition to the above concerns, you would have to learn how to deal with the odd balance and to mitigate the downside and maximize the benefits of the design.

Repeating Crossbow - It reloads and fires via completely different mechanisms than any other sort of crossbow. Of course it's going to require specialized training. It's not just a regular crossbow with a magazine - the whole mechanism, including firing, operates much differently.
Aldori Dueling Sword - hand-and-a-half weapon that relies on agility and technical proficiency more than strength. DEFINITELY going to require specialized training.
Broadspear - a spear that is also an agile cutting weapon? Yeah, that's definitely its own thing.
Gada - its balance alone makes it obvious that learning to use this weapon isn't like learning to use any other weapon.
Kalis - wavy blades are SUPER tricky to use, and will obviously require special training.
Butterfly Sword - almost useless without specialized training.
Falcata - odd half-way point between sword and axe. It's still a sword, so you should probably still try to fence with it to some extent, but being more of an axe-like chopper makes that difficult. Definitely best with some specialized training.
Hook Sword - barely even a weapon. You can trip and disarm with it, but would be more effective with one larger weapon you could put both hands on. Can't thrust with it, because it's rounded. To use the point, you would have to pull, which is... not ideal. Can't slash, because the end is rounded. Can't bash, because it's not heavy enough. Definitely requires some specialized training to be useful, and even then, we're making some allowances for fantasy.
Karambit - much more of a tool than a weapon. I would rather have the hook sword. Again, making fantasy allowances, you'd need specialized training to turn a tiny hooked blade into a weapon.
Nodachi - I wouldn't have made this Advanced, personally, but it is a weapon with the size and weight to be a chopper, but designed to be a slasher, so it works.

It frankly doesn't make sense that it's any harder to use these than their martial or simple counterparts. In reality, it's harder to fight an opponent with a sword with a dagger than it is to fight back with another sword yet a dagger is a simple weapon and swords are martial.

A person with a dagger is at a disadvantage against a swordsman, sure, but a dagger is a far, far simpler weapon to use than a sword. It takes serious training to turn someone into a proficient swordsman. You can know more or less all you need to know about how to use a dagger in an afternoon.

You can still slash with it and many kinds of hooksword have a point at the end to stab with. Non-proficiency should mean less effective tripping and disarming, not a penalty to hitting people with it.

... Nope. It is extremely hard to even know how to strike someone properly with a hook sword.

The issue with shooting a longbow is strength more than technique. Yet in PF2 some willowy elf with a strength penalty and 18 dex is effective with a Longbow. Please, explain that logic to me.

This is an issue of the abstraction necessary to create a ruleset. Strength and Dexterity aren't actually separate things in the real world. To increase your agility and hand-eye coordination, you use strengthening exercises. If you're strong but not agile, you have weak links and are not able to move powerfully. You're going to have to make some allowances that the game isn't super realistic at all times.

Fantasy gaming has roots in the kind of fiction that believes that small, dainty people are better suited to archery than swordplay. In the real world, swordplay doesn't require much muscle, but a good archer will have a huge back. For the last several decades, gaming has prioritized the fantasy over the simulation.

There is an awful lot wrong with this.

Wounded is a condition that treats your dying as though it is higher than it would be without it. Like doomed is a condition that treats your death threshold as lower than the default generally 4.

They have a value that tells us the amount it modifies by. We wouldn't treat that value like damage. We would treat it like a condition with a value. Those go by the highest value. Yes the recovery section has a note on failure in parens but its no different from the reminder in the taking damage section which was there pre remaster and not seen as applying the condition effect in a stacking manner.

No. This is just wildly incorrect. Your Dying value is your Dying value. It is CALCULATED using your Wounded value. It isn't a constant modifier.

The new Recovery Check section rules aren't reminding us, on a failure, to consider why our Dying value is what it is. It is clearly telling us to add (1+W) to Dying on a failure, and (2+W) on a Criticial Failure. It's not in the least bit ambiguous. It is a terrible idea, but it is as clear as can be.

It is the Taking Damage While Dying section that invites us to reflect on a rule that isn't. You are correct that the definitions of Wounded and Dying spell out a completely different process than the Taking Damage While Dying section suggests we "remember." That isn't at all what's happening in the section in Recovery checks.

Yeah, I got that dying only gets bigger when you recover. Some people were saying it the other way.

... You're saying it the wrong way. Wounded is the one that gets bigger with every recovery.

And as far as wounded, it all makes sense to me. It is more lethal, but only if your character is yo-yoing. Being knocked unconscious and waking up multiple times in a fight is really rather silly.

It doesn't make much difference to someone getting up multiple times. It is most relevant when someone goes down, tries to heroically get back into the fight and save the day, and goes down a second time. Specifically the second, because that's the one where the rule changes the outcome that doesn't involve lots of improbable rolls.

And to be clear, I love the Monk class and embracing other cultures. I specifically don't like the monk trait on weapons because it others eastern weapons for know real reason. Martial artists exist all around the world. The name comes from a specific group (Shaolin Monks), but the class shouldn't be narrowed down to their weapons. There are Indian martial artists that use the urumi or Filipino martial artists that use escrima sticks.

The monk trait is largely used on specifically Chinese (and occasionally Japanese) weapons. Nixing the monk trait and tackling weapon monks in other ways would be better in my opinion.

The Monk is not meant to encompass all Eastern martial arts, armed or unarmed. There are lots of other martial classes you could take to use armed martial arts. You can make Fighters in Tian Xia too. The Monk represents a mystic martial arts fantasy that has been popular for many, many centuries in the East. Does it capture that particular fantasy well? Not really, and some consideration to expanding the weapons list would improve that, for sure. If you want the Monk to encompass Shaolin monks, neglecting their signature weapon, the monk spade, seems just ridiculous. I would actually like to see much improved rules for weapon styles for a Monk. I just don't think that veiled accusations of racism are productive or fair.

All it takes is one editor with a different idea than the rest of the team. As a professional graphic designer who helps make educational texts for a living, I know how easy it is for myself or others to sneak in "corrections" or other little changes should it be desired.

Absolutely, 100% agree with this point, as you did when I was making it. However...

In any case, if you didn't account for it, the calculation would be off.

If it was any other way then you get weird oddities like numerous helpful abilities doing harm, or how there is no practical difference between a critical hit dropping you and a regular hit dropping you.

This part makes no sense. If this is the explanation, then someone needs to be fired, and probably referred to a doctor. Writing the explanation for a process with multiple interruptions to remind you what you should have done at the beginning of that process is ridiculous. Leaving it ambiguous if that's a reminder or a thing that you're supposed to be doing at the current point? This person would never be employed as a technical writer.

Oh, wait, the Recovery Check section. Why would there be a reminder to go back and check your math in the Failure and Critical Failure entries specifically? If they for some reason felt the need to remind the player to check their math, why wouldn't they do it before the check is made? Why the two failure conditions, if it wasn't referring to some consequence of failure?

I have a question, has anyone ever had a party TPK because one or more characters died to quickly, instead of just staying unconscious?

Every TPK I have seen as a player or GM involved multiple rounds of multiple characters spending actions trying to get another character back up and into the fight. I won’t say I fully know how the rule is exactly supposed to work until I get to read all the context stuff together for myself, or if it gets Errata’d or FAQed. But either way, I am strongly inclined to run my games “the more lethal way” from now on. TPKs are exhausting to the whole table and have ended more than one campaign for me. The occasional Individual character death usually results in the players getting more invested in the story, naming items/places/teams after a fallen hero.

I totally get that some players respond very badly to their character’s dying, but those players don’t respond more positively to TPKs in my experience. It’s not what happens to downed PCs that demoralizes players about PF2. It is a mismatch of player expectation and encounter difficulty, or a sense that the GM /game is punishing the chosen character’s playstyle or tactics. Tables and adventure writers are much better off trying to dial that in than in trying to worrying about the severity of what happens after a character falls, gets up, and the falls again.

I have never once seen an encounter that was so deadly that a PC got downed early, yet so easy that the party didn't need the help. I'm not even sure how that could work.

It's one thing if a PC goes down at the tail end of combat, as things are winding down and the party is mopping up. Then sure, unconscious for a little bit might be okay, as long as you take the time to stabilize them. Because, after all, even without Wounded or extra damage, Dying is only three rounds of failure away, maximum. If it happens early, then the enemies are deadly, and the party needs all hands on deck, no time to be napping on the job. Actions spent picking them up at the beginning will pay dividends in action economy, as long as that character can be kept on their feet. If they can't, then the PCs were always outgunned and this was going to be a TPK either way.

This becomes a problem when the Wounded condition becomes significantly more lethal (at Wounded 1), because the PCs suddenly can't afford to leave a party member on the ground and lose out on 1/4 or 1/5 of their entire combat potential, but are also averse to the newly increased risks of recovering it. Extra difficult if the players actually roleplay as someone who cares about the downed character and would like a viable way to save that party member's life, as well as their own.

If the TPKs you've seen involve lots of effort to try to recover downed PCs, maybe that's because what they had in common is that the PCs were outmatched and needed more people on the field, not that the healing itself was the wrong thing to do. It can eat up actions immediately, and most of the downed PC's next turn is spent recovering, but if they're not burned down again immediately, their following turns will start paying dividends in terms of actions that they would not otherwise have been able to take. If they ARE burned down immediately, then the party wasn't going to last long either way.

I *really* *really* don't want dex-to-damage on the Swashbuckler. The whole fictional archetype the Swashbuckler is supposed to evoke is someone who benefits from Str and they're going to make a lot of athletics checks for climbing nets and swinging from chandeliers and swimming to board ships.

I don't like that the rogue gets dex to damage, but I tolerate it, but I do not want it on the Swashbuckler.

The real problem with Panache is that you only get it for succeeding, when in reality you should get it for trying.

I feel like this is mostly an issue with the division of physical ability into three discrete abilities that don't influence each other. For some reason, gaming and pop culture think you can be nimble and agile without also being strong. Actually, all that stuff is a function of having powerful muscles relative to what you're moving, smooth and practiced muscle control, etc. Gymnasts are crazy strong, good archers have great backs, etc. Inversely, if you're strong but not agile, you've got some serious weaknesses. Then there's the idea that being injury-resistant and tough is independent of either of those things... whew.

I get where you're coming from with it, but abilities are an abstraction, and Swashbucklers with Dex to damage would be a significant buff and entirely on brand.

It needs more, though, because Swashbucklers lose most of their class mechanics benefits if their turn goes wrong.

I just took a look at the dying and wounded rules and I really don't see the inconsistency everyone else is mentioning.

The Wounded condition has a very specific explanation of where it applies. A nearby sidebar says that the condition rules are incomplete, and to look elsewhere for the complete rules, but takes the time to explain the "most significant" omissions, which omits a huge, important change in the rules. Very strange formatting decisions, very strange decision to omit MOST of the Remaster functions of Wounded.

The "Taking Damage While Dying" section says that we add 1 or 2 to Dying if a character takes damage, then tells us to "remember" to add any Wounded value. This existed in the Core book before, and was widely ignored, because it isn't actually a rule, just a suggestion to reflect on a potential rule.

The "Recovery Check" section is where it gets really wild, because suddenly, unannounced, untested, you add your Wounded value to Dying if you fail a Recovery check, meaning that you will only ever survive a failed Recovery check while Wounded if you are Dying 1, Wounded 1. Diehard can expand this all the way to Dying 2, Wounded 1 and Dying 1, Wounded 2. Mind you, this is a check that is less than 50% success. If you're Wounded, go down, and it doesn't look like someone can pick you up before you are damaged or your next turn arrives, go ahead and start working on your next character sheet.

In addition to being even more lethal, in a game that already wasn't the most forgiving, it's clumsy, inelegant, and does a weird and unique thing with the rules where a condition is applied at multiple points in the same process.

And this bit about wounded increasing with each instance of dying seems incorrect. Granted, I thought that was how it worked in the original game, but I was clearly mistaken with RAW. With the Remaster, it's even more clear.

Check the Wounded condition definition. It gets bigger every time you recover from dying.

I was hoping the monk trait would go the way of the dodo. I think it is a vestige from old D&D orientalism.

A complex issue. The Monk itself is needed, because Pathfinder, like D&D, is not a strictly European fantasy game, and Eastern fantasy elements are welcome. Therefore, the Monk needs rules constructs that allow it to satisfy the needs of a certain type Eastern kung fu cinema fantasy no other class can provide. Restricting it to weapons appropriate to said fantasy is perfectly reasonable. I'm not a fan of specifically how they did it, because it's not like the Monk would be overpowered if you let them have free use of their abilities with a longsword. Maybe a monk's spade would actually make the class competitive with a Rogue.

Regardless, while it's not perfect, if you see an attempt to branch out and explore other cultures as some sort of affront, you're going to encourage games to be very, very European and only that.

Ok i am convinced there is no rule change. Comparing pages 459 pre remaster with 411 remaster. Some things have been moved a bit like the conditions related to death and dying becoming a sidebar. But they are saying the same things. Even the taking damage section is word for word the same.

I am looking at it now. It seems the language may have been added to recovery checks to make sure you dont use the rules to exclude your wounded value just because it wasn't explicitly stated there.
I dont think the intention was that we stack its effect.

We're dealing with rules text here, which is technical language, so we ought to be careful on which words we're using.

The Recovery check rule change and the weird "reminder" in Taking Damage While Dying, added to the basic adding of Wounded value to Dying condition on gaining it, aren't "stacking" anything. They're separate, discrete instances of Wounded value being added to Dying.

It's addition we weren't doing before, and it doesn't take a lot of addition of even very small numbers to add up to 4. So much so, in fact, that it's only at Wounded 1 that the rules are likely to make a difference, because with Wounded 2 and Dying, you are already as close to dead as you could mathematically get. Dying 3. At that point, to survive unassisted, you would need three successes before you fail once or take damage, at less than 50% per roll. Before the Remaster, you had the hope of rolling just well enough to not have more failures than successes, but now, even if you get up to Dying 1, a single failed roll or point of damage at Wounded 2 is death.

I see the tangent is spiraling into tinfoil territory. Somehow, I don't believe the image of an internal war over dying rules being the most believable possibility. Keep calm and roll dice, folks

Unresolved creative disputes in a finished product is a conspiracy theory to you? Because I spot it about once week. Not counting when I walk past my Sony gaming console every day.

I didn't bring it up because I'm reaching for an explanation. I brought it up because I see tell-tale signs of a common phenomenon.

Ravingdork wrote:

Kaspyr2077 wrote:

It looks like an internal rules dispute.

^ This.

Very unprofessional, Paizo.

It's not like they were in a rush or anything.

And I'm more charitable on that score than RD is. They were in a hurry, and honestly, an internal dispute under those conditions can cause a situation where both sides' contradictory ideas end up in the finished product. I don't want to rip on Paizo. Can't expect perfection from their combination of resources and demands on them. I would just like to see them resolve the argument for us.

I have my well established rationale for why I want one particular side to win out, but mostly I want it to be resolved.

It's strange, because if the change was an intentional thing, it would be far simpler to include it in the Wounded condition with two or three words than to create a sidebar declaring it incomplete and referring to another section. It looks like an internal rules dispute.

Also, if it was intentional, it would be nothing to have someone drop in and clarify it for us.

Also, it's just an odd rules construction. Is there any other system in the rules like this, where a condition applies repeatedly through a process, scaling itself rapidly?

Then there's the complexity of it. Before, it was simpler. Fail a Recovery check, take 1 damage. Critical failure, take 2. The "Taking Damage While Dying" issue was complex because it was a reminder of a rule that didn't exist elsewhere, so it was largely ignored, so again, 1 or 2. Adding a math step in there seems clunky. Why do that just to make Wounded 1 and 2 one turn more punishing?

Adding Wounded to Recovery check failures is odd and unexpected, but another instance doesn't exactly make the"Taking Damage While Dying" section less of a broken link, really. Neither does a sidebar declaring that to be the complete rules.