PSA: All-champion (or all-champion-multiclass parties) are terrifying catch-22s


Advice

51 to 85 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

If the party wants to try this strategy, they are not actually limited to the champion class alone. It does take a 6th-level party, though. One can be a bard, another can be a fighter, a third can be a ruffian rogue, and a fourth can be an actual champion. Attack of Opportunity comes by default for fighters, and barbarians and champions can pick it up as a 6th-level class feat.

I am not seeing where the grabbed condition stops a Champion's Reaction, and I am not seeing where a Tumble avoids an Attack of Opportunity.


Yes, but how is it a catch-22?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Grapple doesn't provoke the Reaction, and from my reading of Tumble it doesn't provoke AoO from movement if you're successful, though that very well could be an error.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Grapple doesn't provoke the Reaction, and from my reading of Tumble it doesn't provoke AoO from movement if you're successful, though that very well could be an error.

The failure does specifically call out triggering movement-based reactions however, so seems to bee an error from my estimate. Still doesn't change the point that the goalposts for this neat trick are shifting farther and farther with every post.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:

Perhaps the biggest issue with the champion class is that it is made to fight in tight, cramped, indoor spaces (e.g. a typical Paizo premade adventure dungeon). Champion's Reaction really, really does not work too well in set piece battles with larger maps, and it is unreasonable for a champion to ask their allies to constantly stay within 15 feet.

Is it a catch-22? Absolutely. Can the catch-22 be circumvented? Yes, much like many catch-22s.

You keep saying things like "the biggest issue", when really it should be "my biggest issue" since your opinion is not fact.


It is a catch-22 because it places enemies in a "damned if you do, damned if you do not" situation. The playstyle of the champion class itself revolves around catch-22s: "I am in heavy armor, and I have my shield raised. You can attack my allies and take a Champion's Reaction, or you can attack durable me and go through my Shield Block."

If the champion class had no catch-22s to it, then it would not be a decent class.

Tumble's failure mentions reactions because you never move out of your space to begin with, yet provoke reactions anyway.


...so attacking PCs that have reactions is a catch-22? Look, this is your out. You can call it like, "a hard choice" for a creature.

"Oh gee gosh, if I attack, that guy is gonna hit me," is not a catch-22, it's disincentivizing attacking. If you're the type of GM that wants to outwit their players and not make their powers feel special, it's very easy to avoid and counter. We've made NUMEROUS examples throughout the thread.

You just don't want to admit that it's not a catch-22 and that is sort of telling.


Colette Brunel wrote:

It is a catch-22 because it places enemies in a "damned if you do, damned if you do not" situation. The playstyle of the champion class itself revolves around catch-22s: "I am in heavy armor, and I have my shield raised. You can attack my allies and take a Champion's Reaction, or you can attack durable me and go through my Shield Block."

If the champion class had no catch-22s to it, then it would not be a decent class.

Tumble's failure mentions reactions because you never move out of your space to begin with, yet provoke reactions anyway.

Or the enemy moves past the Champion and attacks an ally 30 ft. away from said Champion. Or backs up out of your reach and shoots the ally. Or does... a whole lot of other things that aren't going to get Retributive Strike, or attacking the Champion.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:
It is a catch-22 because it places enemies in a "damned if you do, damned if you do not" situation.
Except that isn't the situation.
Quote:
Tumble's failure mentions reactions because you never move out of your space to begin with, yet provoke reactions anyway.

That does read better, yeah.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The playstyle of the champion class revolves around a defender-role catch-22. Just because it can be circumvented through various means does not mean that the class's playstyle is something else entirely.

This is getting terribly semantics-mired.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not a catch-22, though. Like, at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not a catch-22.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

If it can be circumvented it's not a Catch-22.

We're not nitpicking, a Catch-22 is a specific situation and you keep calling situations that aren't remotely a Catch-22 Catch-22s. It's an extreme hyperbole.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:

It is a catch-22 because it places enemies in a "damned if you do, damned if you do not" situation. The playstyle of the champion class itself revolves around catch-22s: "I am in heavy armor, and I have my shield raised. You can attack my allies and take a Champion's Reaction, or you can attack durable me and go through my Shield Block."

If the champion class had no catch-22s to it, then it would not be a decent class.

Tumble's failure mentions reactions because you never move out of your space to begin with, yet provoke reactions anyway.

It's less "Damned if I do, Damned if I don't" and more "melee with 4 heavily armored holy warriors with glaives is a bad idea." Which is pretty appropriate IMO.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

for those wondering about the origins of catch 22 and what it actually means, it's from a vietnam book.

i forget that exact narrative but a character is remarking over a strange phenomenon.

Those who are clinically insane are discharged back to america and since only the insane would want to stay in vietnam anyone who wants to stay is sent home and anyone who wants to go home is forced to stay.

it's a system which specifically finds a way to make all involved forced out of what they'd like to do or find preferable.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:

for those wondering about the origins of catch 22 and what it actually means, it's from a vietnam book.

i forget that exact narrative but a character is remarking over a strange phenomenon.

Those who are clinically insane are discharged back to america and since only the insane would want to stay in vietnam anyone who wants to stay is sent home and anyone who wants to go home is forced to stay.

it's a system which specifically finds a way to make all involved forced out of what they'd like to do or find preferable.

*sigh*

The book is called Catch-22 by Joseph Heller. It's about the European theater of World War II, not Vietnam.

Here is the quote from the book loosely referenced above:

"There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle."

A true Catch-22 is an inescapable loop.

Edit: Another definition of Catch-22 in the novel that has always stuck out in my mind is one that is something like: "They can do anything to you they want to that you can't stop them from doing."


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

well, at least it's nice to know my brain was in the right hemisphere


Rysky wrote:
Grapple doesn't provoke the Reaction, and from my reading of Tumble it doesn't provoke AoO from movement if you're successful, though that very well could be an error.

Can we grapple two enemies since it only requires one hand?


I'll add some echo.
It's not a catch-22 situation.
It's not even remotely close, the amount of reaching is actually kind of amazing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

#NotACatch22Gang


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm starting to get why MaxAstro missed these threads. It's refreshing to see more people calling out Collette's BS, and just how far they will reach to insist their bad/irrelevant examples and points aren't bad/irrelevant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
You just don't want to admit that it's not a catch-22 and that is sort of telling.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

I'll add some echo.

It's not a catch-22 situation.
It's not even remotely close, the amount of reaching is actually kind of amazing.

Hi, this is Colette. Have you met?

Those of us from the Playtest days are well-familiar with this, we had to deal with this and far worse for what felt like ages. XP

Like seriously, it got to the point where the Paizo staff was very done with their s*** and started locking their threads pretty much straight-off while (politely) telling them off.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

How can it be that no-one has noticed that the OP misplaced their closing parenthesis not only in the thread subject, but again in their first post?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I came here to discuss what I thought would be a good mechanical strategy and party optimization routine. I never said it was perfect or 100% without holes; any form of optimization has its weak points, but that does not mean it is not optimized.

Apparently, people are more interested in bringing up semantics and syntax errors (in a forum with a highly limited ability to edit posts) instead. This does not exactly seem like the best venue to discuss mechanics and optimization in an in-depth manner.


Saldiven wrote:

A true Catch-22 is an inescapable loop.

And language evolves and the definition and colloquial usage no longer conforms to the exact form as presented in the novel 60 years ago.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:

I came here to discuss what I thought would be a good mechanical strategy and party optimization routine. I never said it was perfect or 100% without holes; any form of optimization has its weak points, but that does not mean it is not optimized.

Apparently, people are more interested in bringing up semantics and syntax errors (in a forum with a highly limited ability to edit posts) instead. This does not exactly seem like the best venue to discuss mechanics and optimization in an in-depth manner.

A catch-22 has no holes, so it was everything but perfect. It was in fact the very opposite. The funny thing is if you posted this as a "silly team setup" sort of post, it'd probably be a decent laugh.


Ruzza wrote:

"So that's why we've decided to make an all champion team!'

GM nods, confused, and just notes down "Use spells, I guess?" in his notebook.

I got to run my Gobbo Redeemer of Sarenrae this Tuesday. I took the class feat that improves the Glimpse of Redemption to have the option of Stupefied 2. It rather nicely solves casters. That flat DC of 7 isn't huge, but a 30% chance of blowing two actions can be rather persuasive. If it affects a future spell, oh man, it's over for some type of blaster-caster. I know this option is only there for 1/3 of Champs, but it's a good one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:

I came here to discuss what I thought would be a good mechanical strategy and party optimization routine. I never said it was perfect or 100% without holes; any form of optimization has its weak points, but that does not mean it is not optimized.

Apparently, people are more interested in bringing up semantics and syntax errors (in a forum with a highly limited ability to edit posts) instead. This does not exactly seem like the best venue to discuss mechanics and optimization in an in-depth manner.

Put simply, if you're the type of person who won't admit to being wrong even when faced with an overwhelming amount of evidence that you are, you aren't here to discuss anything. You're here to make baseless claims.

If you won't engage with the people having the discussion, it isn't a discussion is it?


vagabond_666 wrote:
Saldiven wrote:

A true Catch-22 is an inescapable loop.

And language evolves and the definition and colloquial usage no longer conforms to the exact form as presented in the novel 60 years ago.

It's evolved in such a way that everyone here is going to point out it's... wrong? Boy, that's a real Sophie's Choice.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
It's evolved in such a way that everyone here is going to point out it's... wrong? Boy, that's a real Sophie's Choice.

For creatures that only have melee attacks, which are a large portion of creatures, there are no good options. Pointing out that they can grapple or trip when those are a) usually even worse options, and b) just delay the inevitable point at which you need to hit them to win the fight doesn't change the situation. As a result this seems like a perfectly reasonable use of the phrase catch-22.

It has however become apparent to me that this entire thread is a bunch of forum regulars s+*+ting on another forum regular because of prior history and as a result you'll never give an inch on any of this, so I'll leave you to your fun...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
vagabond_666 wrote:
For creatures that only have melee attacks, which are a large portion of creatures, there are no good options. Pointing out that they can grapple or trip when those are a) usually even worse options, and b) just delay the inevitable point at which you need to hit them to win the fight doesn't change the situation. As a result this seems like a perfectly reasonable use of the phrase catch-22.

Vagabond, seriously, I'm not saying that people should cow to overwhelming pressure, but as multiple people have pointed out that it's not even close to being a reasonable use of the phrase catch-22. This thread is literally:

"Hey, if you have a four champion team, they can each use their reactions on one action!"

At that point, it's just, "Oh, neat. Yeah, we know that." The only reason this has gotten legs at all is because it's presented in this awful clickbait style of "GMs have no choice but to lose against this set-up!" which patently isn't true.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
Colette Brunel wrote:

I came here to discuss what I thought would be a good mechanical strategy and party optimization routine. I never said it was perfect or 100% without holes; any form of optimization has its weak points, but that does not mean it is not optimized.

Apparently, people are more interested in bringing up semantics and syntax errors (in a forum with a highly limited ability to edit posts) instead. This does not exactly seem like the best venue to discuss mechanics and optimization in an in-depth manner.

Put simply, if you're the type of person who won't admit to being wrong even when faced with an overwhelming amount of evidence that you are, you aren't here to discuss anything. You're here to make baseless claims.

If you won't engage with the people having the discussion, it isn't a discussion is it?

Again, this is Colette. They kept this up through the entire Playtest with a large number of people and literally Paizo staff calling BS on them and they STILL think they're in the right about essentially everything they post. I'm not saying stop calling BS, I'm just saying this is absolutely no surprise, just regular Colette form.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
vagabond_666 wrote:


It has however become apparent to me that this entire thread is a bunch of forum regulars s@@+ting on another forum regular because of prior history and as a result you'll never give an inch on any of this, so I'll leave you to your fun...

Actually I think I'm the only regular here who was around for that prior history. The rest is all just a response to Colette's current conduct and posting habits, which are a very thorough return to form of how they were during the Playtest, which is why I felt justified in bringing it up, so that the people who are seeing the same patterns as we did back then know they aren't just seeing things.


vagabond_666 wrote:
It has however become apparent to me that this entire thread is a bunch of forum regulars s~#+ting on another forum regular because of prior history and as a result you'll never give an inch on any of this, so I'll leave you to your fun...

I never seen that until after PF2 released and I can see a string of quite silly threads being made.


vagabond_666 wrote:
Saldiven wrote:

A true Catch-22 is an inescapable loop.

And language evolves and the definition and colloquial usage no longer conforms to the exact form as presented in the novel 60 years ago.

It hasn't evolved remotely far enough that the circumstance in the OP would qualify, though. Common usage today includes " illogical situation, or a problem in which the solution is denied by the problem itself." (Merriam Webster)

The usage in this thread is just incorrect.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
vagabond_666 wrote:


It has however become apparent to me that this entire thread is a bunch of forum regulars s@@+ting on another forum regular because of prior history and as a result you'll never give an inch on any of this, so I'll leave you to your fun...
Actually I think I'm the only regular here who was around for that prior history. The rest is all just a response to Colette's current conduct and posting habits, which are a very thorough return to form of how they were during the Playtest, which is why I felt justified in bringing it up, so that the people who are seeing the same patterns as we did back then know they aren't just seeing things.

I was here for some of it, they're insufferable.

51 to 85 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / PSA: All-champion (or all-champion-multiclass parties) are terrifying catch-22s All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.