Fun fact: multiclassing into Animal Instinct Barbarian does nothing


Rules Discussion


Multiclassing into Barbarian gives you the following things (emphasis mine):

Quote:

You become trained in Athletics; if you were already trained in Athletics, you instead become trained in a skill of your choice. You become trained in barbarian class DC. You can use the Rage action.

Choose an instinct as you would if you were a barbarian. You have that instinct for all purposes and become bound by its anathema, but you don’t gain any of the other abilities it grants.

If you select the Animal instinct, the abilities it gives you is a natural attack. Anathema says (emphasis mine):

Quote:

Flagrantly disrespecting an animal of your chosen kind is anathema to your instinct, as is using weapons while raging.

Therefore, using the Rage action gives you nothing* because if you use a weapon, you break the anathema. This is until at a later point take the feat that gives you the ability of the Instinct.

There are some exceptions, like Monk, shapeshifting Druid, or Razortooth Goblin.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Or, y'know, you could punch someone. Everyone can punch people.

It's not super effective until you get the Instinct Ability, but it doesn't do nothing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Plus, all violating the anathema does is deny you access to the abilities you don't have yet. So long as you can fit in 1 day of downtime when you gain the feat to get the instinct's ability, you're fine.


You could also use a Bestial Mutagen.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Almost as good as the mutagenist alchemist xD
Such great game design.

Silver Crusade

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

Were you expecting them to give something unique to the multiclasser over the actual Core Barbarian?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

PossibleCabbage hits the nail on the head for this one. You don't actually lost anything for violating your anathema until you take that later feat, so swing weapons to your heart's content until then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
NemoNoName wrote:

Multiclassing into Barbarian gives you the following things (emphasis mine):

Quote:

You become trained in Athletics; if you were already trained in Athletics, you instead become trained in a skill of your choice. You become trained in barbarian class DC. You can use the Rage action.

Choose an instinct as you would if you were a barbarian. You have that instinct for all purposes and become bound by its anathema, but you don’t gain any of the other abilities it grants.

If you select the Animal instinct, the abilities it gives you is a natural attack. Anathema says (emphasis mine):

Quote:

Flagrantly disrespecting an animal of your chosen kind is anathema to your instinct, as is using weapons while raging.

Therefore, using the Rage action gives you nothing* because if you use a weapon, you break the anathema. This is until at a later point take the feat that gives you the ability of the Instinct.

There are some exceptions, like Monk, shapeshifting Druid, or Razortooth Goblin.

The thing is, you just answered why, what you are saying is not actually a fact.

There are certain combinations in which you will not get 100% use out of all of the options you receive from the archetype. That is an example of a fact.

The specific choices you are referring to are clearly meant for Unarmed-focused characters, like the examples you gave.

Given that, I think the title of the thread is just wrong, and misleading.


I think I ignored Unarmed attack a bit too easily; too stuck in the old way of thinking. It's d4 now, which is okay. How prevalent is nonlethal vulnerabilities? If there isn't huge swathes of creatures that ignore it, that could work, especially given it's also Agile.

Elorebaen wrote:

The thing is, you just answered why, what you are saying is not actually a fact.

There are certain combinations in which you will not get 100% use out of all of the options you receive from the archetype. That is an example of a fact.

The specific choices you are referring to are clearly meant for Unarmed-focused characters, like the examples you gave.

Given that, I think the title of the thread is just wrong, and misleading.

That is quite incorrect. As an example of how I even noticed this, I was trying to build a wizard that hulks out and goes smash occasionally. Normally not at all into Unarmed.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
NemoNoName wrote:
How prevalent is nonlethal vulnerabilities?

You choose if you want to do nonlethal for each attack, and it only works if it's a knockout blow.

"Unarmed deals only nonlethal" without a Feat was a P1 rule that got left behind.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
NemoNoName wrote:
How prevalent is nonlethal vulnerabilities?

You choose if you want to do nonlethal for each attack, and it only works if it's a knockout blow.

"Unarmed deals only nonlethal" without a Feat was a P1 rule that got left behind.

You have to take a -2 penalty on the attack roll if you want to go lethal with it though (unless you're a monk)

But like Rysky said, it only actually matters on the last hit before you go down


I'm pretty sure in P1 you could just choose to deal lethal at -4 to hit even without the feat. And -2 now is equivalent to that. That's not the problem.

Problem was that constructs, undead, and I think anything with 2 or 3 Natural AC used to be automatically immune to nonlethal

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ngodrup wrote:
Rysky wrote:
NemoNoName wrote:
How prevalent is nonlethal vulnerabilities?

You choose if you want to do nonlethal for each attack, and it only works if it's a knockout blow.

"Unarmed deals only nonlethal" without a Feat was a P1 rule that got left behind.

You have to take a -2 penalty on the attack roll if you want to go lethal with it though (unless you're a monk)

But like Rysky said, it only actually matters on the last hit before you go down

Huh, that isn't mentioned anywhere outside of the Monk's Powerful Fist ability, so that might be leftover text.

Otherwise you would think it would be mentioned in the Unarmed weapon description (it's not)


Rysky wrote:

Huh, that isn't mentioned anywhere outside of the Monk's Powerful Fist ability, so that might be leftover text.

Otherwise you would think it would be mentioned in the Unarmed weapon description (it's not)

Because it has nothing to do with Unarmed, and everything to do with Nonlethal trait:

Quote:
You can use a nonlethal weapon to make a lethal attack with a –2 circumstance penalty.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
NemoNoName wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Huh, that isn't mentioned anywhere outside of the Monk's Powerful Fist ability, so that might be leftover text.

Otherwise you would think it would be mentioned in the Unarmed weapon description (it's not)

Because it has nothing to do with Unarmed, and everything to do with Nonlethal trait:

Quote:
You can use a nonlethal weapon to make a lethal attack with a –2 circumstance penalty.

Yeah forgot they call it "Fist" now specifically, I was looking through Unarmed Strike.

Silver Crusade

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

Doesn't help that Unarmed and Unarmed Attacks are two separate things.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So the OP is saying that the Barbarian Instinct that's built for making unarmed attacks is only really useful for characters that focus on making unarmed attacks?
Huh. Who knew?

/s


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Castilliano wrote:

So the OP is saying that the Barbarian Instinct that's built for making unarmed attacks is only really useful for characters that focus on making unarmed attacks?

Huh. Who knew?

/s

Nope, that if you take the barbarian dedication and the animal instinct you get nothing. But sure if you're saying that spending a feat to get nothing is good game design and not worth pointing out, I'm sure you will love the mutagenists' first ability and PF2 is obviously the perfect game for you /s


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think this is another issue that popped up because the game evolved as it was built and it didn't get a solid reread as one final set of rules before publishing. So you end up with some choices that were balanced and good at one point now giving you less than you paid for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think "the animal barbarian multiclass gives training in one skill and rage that's incompatible with a weapons" is really more of a problem than "the fighter multiclass gives nothing except a trained skill to any class which already has martial weapon proficiency."

Shadow Lodge

I see an error in Op's comment. He calls out animal instinct, but really it should say ALL instincts as it specifics you gain none of the abilities from the instinct.

As others have pointed out, you lose nothing breaking your anathema. You also may make unarmed attacks. Finally just like in 1e you cannot make LITERALLY all forms of combinations and it being viable. Just because you can doesn't make it a good choice, but in the end you made that choice for a reason and accept the restrictions that come with it.

Another note, just like any game system you don't like something....change it. Talk to your GM and work out a solution.

Also I don't understand why people are crapping on the Mutagenic Field. As I read it it DOES do something. You increase your Unarmed proficiency at the same rate as Simple weapons, if not greater, AND you can consume any mutagen you find. That can be a big deal in dungeon crawling or adventuring. You take out an alchemist group trying to take out a kingdom you can use any mutagen they have. Sounds to me like people think too one dimensional and not thinking about other aspects and how a feature can work in game.

I make a lot of my own rules, hell I even came up with with a bunch of stuff for this system as it is by far the most modular d20 system to date. You want an ability, figure out it's relative power and make a feat.

Oops long winded. Either way I find this comment out of place like there MUST be some SUPER benefit to taking the 1st feat that is designed to give rage and some proficiency and is the start to your dedication, that can be taken at 2nd level for anyone that meets the requirement. Listen people if it doesn't fit your character don't take it, how hard is that?

I want my wizard to sometimes rage out and hit people with the staff he has, the instinct IS NOT what this feat is for that is what the Instinct Ability feat is for.

Edit note: I forgot to mention most modular I have played...there may be ones I don't know that are more modular. and i specifically call out d20 systems, I have many MANY other systems that I think are even better than PF 1e and 1e, but are not d20.


"The barbarian subclass focused around unarmed/natural weapons can only be used for unarmed/natural weapon characters, of which several exist."

It seems like the only thing you lose is the ability to have animal skin on any Barbarian MC.

How is this not the system working as intended?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kunpo wrote:
I see an error in Op's comment. He calls out animal instinct, but really it should say ALL instincts as it specifics you gain none of the abilities from the instinct.

Yes, but other instincts can use normal Rage bonus without breaking the anathema.

Kunpo wrote:
As others have pointed out, you lose nothing breaking your anathema.

Nothing except RP immersion. I am trying to make a character, not just a bunch of numbers.

Kunpo wrote:
You also may make unarmed attacks.

This is the only remotely reasonable point you made.

Kunpo wrote:
Finally just like in 1e you cannot make LITERALLY all forms of combinations and it being viable. Just because you can doesn't make it a good choice, but in the end you made that choice for a reason and accept the restrictions that come with it.

There's reasonable and unreasonable restrictions. There's also unintential mistakes.

Kunpo wrote:
Another note, just like any game system you don't like something....change it. Talk to your GM and work out a solution.

That is a cheap copout. Why bother even saying it?

Kunpo wrote:
Also I don't understand why people are crapping on the Mutagenic Field. As I read it it DOES do something. You increase your Unarmed proficiency at the same rate as Simple weapons, if not greater, AND you can consume any mutagen you find. That can be a big deal in dungeon crawling or adventuring. You take out an alchemist group trying to take out a kingdom you can use any mutagen they have. Sounds to me like people think too one dimensional and not thinking about other aspects and how a feature can work in game.

Sounds to me like you didn't read the rules properly; anyone can already use any mutagen they find.

As for proficiency, I give you half a point. Problem with that is that designers already confirmed that Unarmed proficiency should increase for everyone already, so again, mutagenist doesn't gain anything all other fields don't get.

Kunpo wrote:
I want my wizard to sometimes rage out and hit people with the staff he has, the instinct IS NOT what this feat is for that is what the Instinct Ability feat is for

Actually the character I was making is Transmuter that actually, you know, transmutes themself into a combat form from early levels when I noticed this issue. I discarded it as an option and moved on, but wanted to be friendly to Devs and point out an issue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Faenor wrote:
Castilliano wrote:

So the OP is saying that the Barbarian Instinct that's built for making unarmed attacks is only really useful for characters that focus on making unarmed attacks?

Huh. Who knew?

/s

Nope, that if you take the barbarian dedication and the animal instinct you get nothing. But sure if you're saying that spending a feat to get nothing is good game design and not worth pointing out, I'm sure you will love the mutagenists' first ability and PF2 is obviously the perfect game for you /s

At that point you're just trying to dead end yourself.

Or troll the forums. Jury's out at this point.
Can most any warrior take Barbarian and get great value? Yes.

It's only one instinct and it's tied to one type of fighting: Unarmed.
Even the Animal-Instinct Barbarian itself loses out on all the martial weapon proficiencies while raging. And you somehow think that a non-Barbarian w/ MCD shouldn't have that same limit? Absurd.

In the OP you even list many builds that it would be great for. Funnily enough, many of those use animal themes.

This is like complaining your greatsword Fighter took Monk MCD to get Flurry, but it doesn't work w/ greatswords. No, it doesn't.
So why the heck did you take it?
That's not on Paizo at all. That's on you.


NemoNoName wrote:

I'm pretty sure in P1 you could just choose to deal lethal at -4 to hit even without the feat. And -2 now is equivalent to that. That's not the problem.

Problem was that constructs, undead, and I think anything with 2 or 3 Natural AC used to be automatically immune to nonlethal

The natural AC thing in PF1 was immunity to Whips specifically, not Nonlethal in general.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think my biggest quibble with the animal barb MC is that it doesn't really work very well with a monk who is getting really into an animal style. Since your animal instinct literal claws don't have any synergy with tiger claw attacks.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a bad thread.


Castilliano wrote:
It's only one instinct and it's tied to one type of fighting: Unarmed.

First of all, the actual thread title points out that this is a problem for one instinct, and one instinct only.

Second, that instinct is not tied to unarmed fighting. It is tied to fighting like your chosen animal, using the unarmed weapons of that animal. It's just mechanics that enable you to use other unarmed attacks as well.

Castilliano wrote:
Even the Animal-Instinct Barbarian itself loses out on all the martial weapon proficiencies while raging. And you somehow think that a non-Barbarian w/ MCD shouldn't have that same limit? Absurd.

Wow, I am impressed at how much confusion requires for you to write this.

My point is that giving the anathema without giving the ability makes no sense. In fact, my solution would be simple; move the instinct selection to the Instinct Ability feat, which would then give you both the ability and the anathema tied to that ability.
Castilliano wrote:

This is like complaining your greatsword Fighter took Monk MCD to get Flurry, but it doesn't work w/ greatswords. No, it doesn't.

So why the heck did you take it?
That's not on Paizo at all. That's on you.

Again, the misunderstanding/confusion seen from these claims is impressive. I didn't take it. There is a reason why Rage gives you a bit of damage, and then more damage if you are actually using your Instinct ability.

Edge93 wrote:
The natural AC thing in PF1 was immunity to Whips specifically, not Nonlethal in general.

Ah, fair enough.

Silver Crusade

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

There's no confusion.

If you want Rage but don't want to use Unarmed Strikes don't take Animal Instinct.


NemoNoName wrote:


Kunpo wrote:
As others have pointed out, you lose nothing breaking your anathema.

Nothing except RP immersion. I am trying to make a character, not just a bunch of numbers.

So you're trying to make an animal based barbarian, which by definition means not fighting with weapons. You're saying you want to RP this and then complaining that the dedication gives you stuff to role play?

Also, this isn't unique to the animal instinct. For any barbarian instinct, the dedication binds you To the anethema but doesn't actually penalize you for it unless you take other feats. This is also how the champion dedication works. The particulars of the animal instinct are irrelevant.


I'll take your points in reverse order:

Captain Morgan wrote:
Also, this isn't unique to the animal instinct. For any barbarian instinct, the dedication binds you To the anethema but doesn't actually penalize you for it unless you take other feats. This is also how the champion dedication works. The particulars of the animal instinct are irrelevant.

That's not correct. Animal Instinct restricts you to using unarmed attacks when you Rage, with RAI obviously being the unarmed attacks of your animal.

For all other instincts when you take a dedication, you can use the normal weaponry while Raging, without breaking the anathema. You still don't get the extra damage or other abilities, but that's okay. However, only weapon you can use RAW when you have animal instinct is unarmed.

Captain Morgan wrote:
So you're trying to make an animal based barbarian, which by definition means not fighting with weapons. You're saying you want to RP this and then complaining that the dedication gives you stuff to role play?

Hence, it doesn't. You have 3 options for most characters:

1 use weapons and break anathema
2 use regular unarmed attacks
3 do not use Rage

1 is obviously bad from RP reasons.
2 is slightly better (although in my opinion still breaks the spirit if not RAW of anathema), but as I pointed out in the earlier post here, I missed this option due to still thinking that Unarmed attacks were utter garbage they were in PF1. This is kinda okay.
3 is the reason I created this thread.


I don't think "you can only use the unarmed strikes of your animal" is the intent of the animal anathema at all. I think the intent is "don't use manufactured weapons". If you want to headbutt people while transformed into a frog, by all means do so.

Specifically, an animal barbarian who multiclasses into monk to get a style feat is not going to violate their anathema for using said style when they rage. That this doesn't really help any is irrelevant.

The Exchange

Can't you unlock the instinct traits with a class level later at lvl 6 ? Instinct Ability Archtype feat


Kunpo wrote:

I see an error in Op's comment. He calls out animal instinct, but really it should say ALL instincts as it specifics you gain none of the abilities from the instinct.

As others have pointed out, you lose nothing breaking your anathema. You also may make unarmed attacks. Finally just like in 1e you cannot make LITERALLY all forms of combinations and it being viable. Just because you can doesn't make it a good choice, but in the end you made that choice for a reason and accept the restrictions that come with it.

Another note, just like any game system you don't like something....change it. Talk to your GM and work out a solution.

Also I don't understand why people are crapping on the Mutagenic Field. As I read it it DOES do something. You increase your Unarmed proficiency at the same rate as Simple weapons, if not greater, AND you can consume any mutagen you find. That can be a big deal in dungeon crawling or adventuring. You take out an alchemist group trying to take out a kingdom you can use any mutagen they have. Sounds to me like people think too one dimensional and not thinking about other aspects and how a feature can work in game.

I make a lot of my own rules, hell I even came up with with a bunch of stuff for this system as it is by far the most modular d20 system to date. You want an ability, figure out it's relative power and make a feat.

Oops long winded. Either way I find this comment out of place like there MUST be some SUPER benefit to taking the 1st feat that is designed to give rage and some proficiency and is the start to your dedication, that can be taken at 2nd level for anyone that meets the requirement. Listen people if it doesn't fit your character don't take it, how hard is that?

I want my wizard to sometimes rage out and hit people with the staff he has, the instinct IS NOT what this feat is for that is what the Instinct Ability feat is for.

Edit note: I forgot to mention most modular I have played...there may be ones I don't know that are more modular. and i...

One issue on the mutagen issue is it looks like the ability to use any mutagen you find benefit may be a left over from how things worked in the play test. Currently there does not appear to be anything listed with mutagens locking it to one specific person nor any penalty for others drinking them. So in the playtest it is something that would have been situational but potentially useful but in the actual release version it appears to have no effect at all. The other benefit of the improved hand to hand skill is questionable for two reasons. First because it is not much of a starting bonus if it does not do anything for many levels. The other issue is in a Dev stream one of them mentioned the following 2) All classes should have proficiency in Unarmed Attacks equivalent to their Simple Weapons Proficiency level (or better in the case of classes like the monk). Wizards should also have unarmed training, even though they don't have Simple Weapons Proficiency. So if this is the case then it literally does nothing because they should get that boost anyway when their simple weapons skill increases.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I don't think "you can only use the unarmed strikes of your animal" is the intent of the animal anathema at all. I think the intent is "don't use manufactured weapons". If you want to headbutt people while transformed into a frog, by all means do so.

Specifically, an animal barbarian who multiclasses into monk to get a style feat is not going to violate their anathema for using said style when they rage. That this doesn't really help any is irrelevant.

Yeah, that's why the monk/barbarian combo is specifically highlighted in the book. Plus you have things like the razor tooth goblin or draconic sorcerers.


The monk/barbarian issue is mostly that the animal instinct (aka the unarmed one) has less synergy with unarmed monks than the rest of the instincts.

Like I could see an animal barbarian wanting to MC monk for Flurry of Blows at level 12, or grapple feats, but stances and animal barbs just don't work well together.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

The monk/barbarian issue is mostly that the animal instinct (aka the unarmed one) has less synergy with unarmed monks than the rest of the instincts.

Like I could see an animal barbarian wanting to MC monk for Flurry of Blows at level 12, or grapple feats, but stances and animal barbs just don't work well together.

I dunno about that. Some stances don't mix well with some instinct attacks, but some can be used together to mix and match traits, especially instincts that give you fangs and such.

You can also just save a feat and not take incompatible options. Animal Skin and Pounce both seem useful on a monk.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
NemoNoName wrote:
That's not correct. Animal Instinct restricts you to using unarmed attacks when you Rage, with RAI obviously being the unarmed attacks of your animal.

This is neither obvious, nor correct. If they'd meant that, they could easily have said so, and it would remove options like a Monk/Barbarian (which the book encourages) were it true.

The intent is exactly what it says it is: no use of weapons. That's much more thematically on point anyway.


Faenor wrote:
Nope, that if you take the barbarian dedication and the animal instinct you get nothing. But sure if you're saying that spending a feat to get nothing is good game design and not worth pointing out, I'm sure you will love the mutagenists' first ability and PF2 is obviously the perfect game for you /s

Except, as established, that's wrong. Barbarian Dedication with animal instinct gives you the exact same thing as barbarian dedication with any other instinct: trained in athletics and the rage action.


How did you get from "No weapons" to "Only this specific weapon/s" When it would stop you from the following:
Attacking while raging if you are mcing until level 6,
Using racial natural weapons such as Razortooth,
Using combat maneuvers that you don't have traits for,
Etc, etc.

Yes, if you have a silly interpretation of the rules, you will have silly results. The point is that you are unarmed/natural weapon subclass, so you can only use unarmed/natural weapons.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Fun fact: multiclassing into Animal Instinct Barbarian does nothing All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.