I'll be playing a superstition barbarian in an upcoming campaign and a friend will be playing a bard, so I've been scouring the books and forums for clarity on this issue:
First, can you resist spells that don't have a listed save in their description? For example, Inspire Courage is a 60-foot emanation targeting allies, no save listed. If a pc didn't want that spell effect, is there anything they could do besides be 61 feet away?
Second, if my barbarian doesn't know a spell was cast, do you think that would affect his anathema? Would he automatically recognize a bard singing/playing was a magical effect without making Recall Knowledge check?
Thanks!
Yeah, Superstition Instinct is actually a bit of a problem. I wish that it had been marked Uncommon.
Because by a strict interpretation of the rules, there are definite problems with several other types of characters and party composition. Such as Bard. Or using Heal spell as the party's main in-combat healing.
Some more permissive rulings are needed in those cases, so work with the other players in the group to come up with something that still meets the spirit of the rules but doesn't become obnoxiously prohibitive.
For example:
Ruling that the Barbarian can decide that they are not an ally of the Bard for purposes of Inspire Courage, but that also affects anything else that requires an ally, such as flanking or Aid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's check how allies are determined based CRB 455.
Some effects target or require an ally, or otherwise refer to an ally. This must be someone on your side, often another PC, but it might be a bystander you are trying to protect. You are not your own ally. If it isn’t clear, the GM decides who counts as an ally or an enemy.
So the GM makes a call. And personally, I wouldn't let a character scared of magic have their Courage Inspired by a spell. I'd absolutely exclude the barbarian from this particular spell.
Other spells would depend. Good rule of thumb: if it is an emanation that distinguishes between friend and foe the barbarian can choose to be counted as foe. If the spell targets people without an AoE, like Haste, it just works. You could allow the barbarian a save against Haste much like Slow, but that's definitely a house rule.
Thanks for your answers thus far, I think the ally angle is interesting.
I've looked for precedent with other spells, but so many bard spells don't list "willing" as a target requirement and have HUGE ranges/areas of effect.
As for recognizing spellcasting, is it obvious a bard is casting when substituting components (instruments and singing)? This was the bards idea.
As for recognizing spellcasting, is it obvious a bard is casting when substituting components (instruments and singing)? This was the bards idea.
Bard has Melodious Spell for this purpose.
|
Playing a superstitious barbarian is always tricky. Make sure the party knows to never cast spells on you even when dying (though if they decide to do it anyway that's not willingly accepting it). Make sure the GM clarifies if stuff like Inspire Courage would affect you or not (no reason to force it to affect you).
Also, make sure the GM makes it clear that the other players are not to constantly try to cast spells on you against your will. You shouldn't have to constantly make saves against your own allies' spells. There should either be a built in mechanic to automatically avoid them or punishments to players for trying to break your taboo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depending on how you read the mechanics of area spells (there was a huge debate about this recently, it was pretty silly), you're either triggering anathema any time you move within 60 feet of the bard (because you're willfully allowing an ally to continue using magic on you), or Inspire Courage works perfectly fine, because you're neither willingly accepting the spell (there's no ability to save against it) nor is the Bard targeting you with anything.
Both of these answers kind of suck for different reasons.
IMO talk with your GM about having the ability to just opt out of beneficial AoEs. It's not rules, but it makes the Instinct more functional and more logical than either of the 'more legitimate' rulings I just mentioned.
There should either be a built in mechanic to automatically avoid them or punishments to players for trying to break your taboo.
That punishment is already baked into your average Barb player's psyche. You cast spells on me? I cast axe at you. Repeat until lesson learned.
There should either be a built in mechanic to automatically avoid them or punishments to players for trying to break your taboo.That punishment is already baked into your average Barb player's psyche. You cast spells on me? I cast axe at you. Repeat until lesson learned.
Yeah but more likely than not, there are more people that want that spell cast then don't: the barbarian casts axe while the champion casts Retributive Strike, the bard Dirge of Doom and flank with a rapier and the wizard Hastes the champion... The way Superstition Instinct is built, you're essentially griefing the other players unless the entire party has agreed to a non-magic party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My answer is simple : I warn other party members that they should not use magic that affects me. If they do it nonetheless, then they are not my allies. Since the Bard's Inspire Courage works only on their allies, it does not work on me.
Nice but not every magic requires permission. Do you play that the superstitious barbarian can only be healed by magic when they are unconscious?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah but more likely than not, there are more people that want that spell cast then don't: the barbarian casts axe while the champion casts Retributive Strike, the bard Dirge of Doom and flank with a rapier and the wizard Hastes the champion... The way Superstition Instinct is built, you're essentially griefing the other players unless the entire party has agreed to a non-magic party.There should either be a built in mechanic to automatically avoid them or punishments to players for trying to break your taboo.That punishment is already baked into your average Barb player's psyche. You cast spells on me? I cast axe at you. Repeat until lesson learned.
Yep, instead of casters you have Alchemists and Inventors, plus martials.
It can work, but its a weird party.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My answer is simple : I warn other party members that they should not use magic that affects me. If they do it nonetheless, then they are not my allies. Since the Bard's Inspire Courage works only on their allies, it does not work on me.Nice but not every magic requires permission. Do you play that the superstitious barbarian can only be healed by magic when they are unconscious?
They can be healed when unconscious without breaking anathema (not willing). But if it happens frequently, they have to stop adventuring with the disrespectful caster, lest they break the other part of the anathema : "If an ally insists on using magic on you despite your unwillingness, and you have no reason to believe they will stop, continuing to travel with that ally of your own free will counts as willingly accepting their spells (as do similar circumstances) and thus is also anathema to your instinct."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be playing a superstition barbarian in an upcoming campaign and a friend will be playing a bard, so I've been scouring the books and forums for clarity on this issue:
First, can you resist spells that don't have a listed save in their description? For example, Inspire Courage is a 60-foot emanation targeting allies, no save listed. If a pc didn't want that spell effect, is there anything they could do besides be 61 feet away?
Second, if my barbarian doesn't know a spell was cast, do you think that would affect his anathema? Would he automatically recognize a bard singing/playing was a magical effect without making Recall Knowledge check?
Thanks!
The rules for this type of Barbarian are incomplete, unclear and just unworkable for most parties. The best answer is talk to your GM and work out a reasonable compromise so you can play the superstitious character you want without affecting everyone else badly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They can be healed when unconscious without breaking anathema (not willing). But if it happens frequently, they have to stop adventuring with the disrespectful caster, lest they break the other part of the anathema : "If an ally insists on using magic on you despite your unwillingness, and you have no reason to believe they will stop, continuing to travel with that ally of your own free will counts as willingly accepting their spells (as do similar circumstances) and thus is also anathema to your instinct."My answer is simple : I warn other party members that they should not use magic that affects me. If they do it nonetheless, then they are not my allies. Since the Bard's Inspire Courage works only on their allies, it does not work on me.Nice but not every magic requires permission. Do you play that the superstitious barbarian can only be healed by magic when they are unconscious?
Its pretty terrible anathema but I guess its a roleplaying opportunity. Perhaps the caster might be someone of moral flexibility.
Casts Heal on unconcious barbarian.
Hey
Shakes barbarian
Are you Ok? You were out for a bit there. You seem OK now. Damm you are tough!
You might get away with it a few times.
Remove Curse is difficult. You may need to get the barbarian blind drunk first.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are not that many spells that target your allies.
Obviously, Bard compositions, but it's just one class.
And of course healing, even if there are non magical healing. That's the hardest to work around, but Barbarians are quite tough, so you can play with it.
At high level, magic becomes much more of a thing but even in that case there are not that many spells cast on characters. Long duration buffs are the exception (and a lot of them are personal anyway).
Also, Superstition Barbarians don't attract as much attention as other Barbarians as they don't rage as soon as they have the occasion (most of their damage bonus only applies against spellcasters and they heal while raging encouraging you to only rage at the right moment).
It is definitely harder to use and overall weaker than some more straigthforward Instinct, but that's not the pain some people think it is.
Still in the OP's case, with a Bard in the party, I'd encourage them to switch. Bard + Superstition Barbarian is kind of the worst possible combo you can come up with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I think the RAW makes allowances for edge cases like this: the GM gets final decision if it is unclear. In this case, Inspire Courage is an Emotion effect. It literally inspires courage in people. A creature who deeply distrusts magic to the point of anathema simply wouldn't feel that emotion.
Also, the idea that the bard can't make this distinction themselves feels questionable. If the bards have no say in who it applies to, why don't enemies ever get the bonus? Is the spell sentient? This fees like trying to read a rule that already has a rule zero built into the text and ignoring any semblance of imagining what is happening in fiction.
Bards and superstition barbarians are still bad combos, because the barbarian failing to take Inspire is a huge loss for the bard's contribution. But I don't think they run into the rules problems people are discussing here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I think the RAW makes allowances for edge cases like this: the GM gets final decision if it is unclear.
I agree with the sentiment in general, its fine for edge cases and really is our only way forward for now. But I really think this is providing excuses for what is a badly written Barbarian instinct. Flaws should be identified so they are fixed. We are not Paizo's marketing department.
The rules should be clear
Again, I think the RAW makes allowances for edge cases like this: the GM gets final decision if it is unclear.I agree with the sentiment in general, its fine for edge cases and really is our only way forward for now. But I really think this is providing excuses for what is a badly written Barbarian instinct. Flaws should be identified so they are fixed. We are not Paizo's marketing department.
The rules should be clear
And to me, this feels clear. But even if it doesn't... It is an edge case involving the worst party composition you could possibly make. This isn't an important enough interaction to sweat or add word count for.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I couldn't disagree more. The number of people that have been confused about this is a lot. Its a regular query. These rules are antisocial, harsh, and have large poorly defined areas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And to me, this feels clear. But even if it doesn't... It is an edge case involving the worst party composition you could possibly make. This isn't an important enough interaction to sweat or add word count for.Again, I think the RAW makes allowances for edge cases like this: the GM gets final decision if it is unclear.I agree with the sentiment in general, its fine for edge cases and really is our only way forward for now. But I really think this is providing excuses for what is a badly written Barbarian instinct. Flaws should be identified so they are fixed. We are not Paizo's marketing department.
The rules should be clear
Edge cases like these are a major reason why I wish Paizo could start answering questions on their FAQ/errata page. Having clearer adjudication for some pain points would be really nice.
I think the idea of a superstitious Barbarian was someone's attempt at force role playing an A-Team/B.A. Baraccus situation where you have to find clever ways to use magic on them...
It just doesn't work though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People have very different perceptions of what is reasonable. Very different expectations. Very different ways of thinking about things. This is all a good thing. It makes life interesting.
It can come across as very condescending to say these things are obvious or driven by self justification.
Of course that can happen, but its far from the only factor and for the people who make it to these forums its probably not even the largest factor.
The real problem with the anathema, is one person want to do X, another Y and the anathema is causing a clash. So we need to understand how or to what extent we can accommodate both choices and what are the legitimate compromises we can make so everyone is happy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly it's a little weird that it's flagged as a common option given how much potential for awkwardness, clashing, and rules issues it is. Seems a lot more potentially problematic than a lot of other options that have been rarity restricted.
In my opinion, you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
There are tons of character/classes clashes in the game: Sarenite/Pharasmite and necromancer, Liberator and Summoner, Cleric/Champion and follower of the Laws of Mortality, same classes twice (Bard/Bard, Cleric/Cleric, Alchemist/Alchemist). And I don't count the broader issues a party can meet: Lack of martials or lack of casters, lack of healing, multiple faces, etc...
That's what session 0 is made for. You want to play a Superstition Barbarian, you ask if someone wants to play a Bard and if not that should be fine.
The superstition barbarian is a barbarian who dislikes, or to better say hates, spellcasters.
He won't probably join a party with spellcasters.
Some players love to play tensions inside the party. They bring shady characters, they love to play evil/chaotic ones, or just they love the paladin/rogue trope. So for them, bringing a Superstition Barbarian in a party with spellcasters is a lot of fun. As long as it's not disruptive, I don't see issues with that. Nothing forces the party to be the best friends ever, and actually I've rarely seen that and seen more often slight tensions and differences of beliefs that were clashing periodically.
As a side note, confabulators avoid the anathema if they manage to convince the Barbarian they will stop casting spells on them or that it's not really magic. So it can be also a fun way of handling the anathema as both Bards and Clerics tend to have high charisma.
Shortly, I do not expect them to be modified just to please the players ( partially ruining their concept ).
I also don't think they should be modified. And I don't think it's ruining anyone's concept (outside of the Bard/Superstition Barbarian interaction which is the only really problematic one to me).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. There are tons of character/classes clashes in the game
Lets no forget simple good, and evil.
You want to play a Superstition Barbarian, you ask if someone wants to play a Bard and if not that should be fine.
No that is far too simplistic. Clerics main ability is Heal. Suddenly that has problems/greatly reduced value. Its not just Bards, its all magical buffers, which should be to a certain extent most casters.
It's one thing to take a character that like a particular play style its another to take one which is actively uncooperative and interferes with your interaction with the rest of the party.
Some players love to play tensions inside the party.
The majority don't, its normally a team game. If you want to role play a disruptive character and your group is happy, then go ahead there is nothing that stops you, but the game shouldn't enable it like its a feature.
The instinct is a landmine. Its just not needed. It could have be easily worded to be reasonable. It says:
Willingly accepting the effects of magic spells (including from scrolls, wands, and the like), even from your allies, is anathema to your instinct. You can still drink potions and invest and activate most magic items you find, though items that cast spells are subject to the same restrictions as all other spells. If an ally insists on using magic on you despite your unwillingness, and you have no reason to believe they will stop, continuing to travel with that ally of your own free will counts as willingly accepting their spells (as do similar circumstances) and thus is also anathema to your instinct.
Just make it:
You can't use or accept magic spells. While conscious you can not gain any beneficial effects on your person from a spell. You can still drink potions and invest and activate most magic items you find, though you can't ever cast a spell - even from an item. If an ally insists on targeting you with magic despite your unwillingness, and you have no reason to believe they will stop, continuing to travel with that ally of your own free will counts as willingly accepting their spells (as do similar circumstances) and thus is also anathema to your instinct.
Its simple, its way less disruptive and you can still adventure with bards and clerics.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No that is far too simplistic. Clerics main ability is Heal.
So you can't heal the Barbarian, but it doesn't prevent you to heal the others. Unlike the Bard whose compositions affect everyone and as such creates a real issue, the Cleric can operate perfectly with a Superstition Barbarian. The only thing they can't do is 3-action Heals. And even in that case, playing a Dhampir or another negative healing character can allow the anathema to not be triggered (as the Cleric is obviously not willing to blast you with his Heals).
For the other casters, they just have to switch targets (there are really few AoE/multitargets buffs).
It technically affects them, but whatever the class you play you have an impact on the other characters. As long as the impact is limited, I hardly see the issue.
Another way to handle it for a DM may be to make the barbarian hateful towards specific spellcasters, given how the instinct works.
For example, getting DR from arcane and occult schools would forbid the barbarian from going with those specific spellcasters.
This would allow them to join a party with a cleric or a primal sorcerer.
That's the player issue, not the GM one. There's nothing in the Instinct forcing you to hate spellcasters and not being able to travel along them. So the player can choose whatever background/story/roleplay reasons for that to happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dhampir Superstitious Barbarian sounds great TBH.
Someone called me?
Dhampir Superstitious Barbarian following the Laws of Mortality!It started from a joke and I found it actually quite logical for a good-aligned Dhampir to end up hating the divine and move to Rahadoum while developing quite a rage against divine casters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly it's a little weird that it's flagged as a common option given how much potential for awkwardness, clashing, and rules issues it is. Seems a lot more potentially problematic than a lot of other options that have been rarity restricted.
This, I agree with.
So my barbarian and my friends bard are from different parts of the world. The barbarian has been bred and trained to be a mage hunter (as magic is outlawed where he is from) but has fled that land for story reasons. The bard has similarly immigrated to a magic-permissive province once his aptitude for it developed. This concept is the crux of the story the GM is developing, so I'm trying to find all the hard lines to steer around here (as is the GM). It's homebrew, but we like to follow RAW as much as mqakes sense.
So my barbarian and my friends bard are from different parts of the world. The barbarian has been bred and trained to be a mage hunter (as magic is outlawed where he is from) but has fled that land for story reasons. The bard has similarly immigrated to a magic-permissive province once his aptitude for it developed. This concept is the crux of the story the GM is developing, so I'm trying to find all the hard lines to steer around here (as is the GM). It's homebrew, but we like to follow RAW as much as mqakes sense.
Then what makes sense is for the GM to follow the raw in the ally rule that gives them discretion and not let the barbarian be affected by Inspire.
So my barbarian and my friend's bard are from different parts of the world. The barbarian has been bred and trained to be a mage hunter (as magic is outlawed where he is from) but has fled that land for story reasons. The bard has similarly immigrated to a magic-permissive province once his aptitude for it developed. This concept is the crux of the story the GM is developing, so I'm trying to find all the hard lines to steer around here (as is the GM). It's homebrew, but we like to follow RAW as much as makes sense.
Since this odd couple pairing is the focal point of your game, your GM should ignore any rules that get in the way of this narrative.
I had no idea what the other players were making. In fact, my wife is playing a very melee-centric magus (a warrior who fled the tyrannical antimagic land when her powers manifested). the other two players have yet to decide or announce anything. I'm down with interpreting "ally" loosely if the GM is, I mean, does the magic recognize your allies or does the caster choose them? Strictly RAW, we aren't given anything other than "allies within 60'". For further context, the barbarian is an elfbane hobgoblin with the antimagic background, so I have potentially three different contributing factors to my magic saves. The anathema by RAW is the tricky part.