It's simple "A prop can be anything large and sturdy enough for you to push yourself off of".
Nothing states the ground isn't "large and sturdy enough" to be a prop. The only thing that really prevents you to use the groud as prop is that you normally doesn't tries to Relocate/Shove anyone to the ground because it's a barrier, but the same could be said to all other props.
So what really prevents a daredevil to tridimensionally try to use the ground as prop to Relocate to the ground and do some Stunt Damage or Shove if the daredevil have some fly speed and it's over the target?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think RAI probably not, but I honestly think it should. I don't know if Paizo made it like this for the playtest, but I feel the class relies too heavily on shove as a mechanic when I feel it should encompass all Athletics maneuvers.
I think RAI probably not, but I honestly think it should. I don't know if Paizo made it like this for the playtest, but I feel the class relies too heavily on shove as a mechanic when I feel it should encompass all Athletics maneuvers.
I think shove is normally not useful (especially compared to grapple or trip), so it's being made into a minor damage maneuver so that they're all on more equal footing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that Xd6+Str isn't enough to make shove worth it IMO. Shove is a menuver that most of the time its more troublesome for your allies than it is for your enemies, because unless you have the perfect turn order it likely results in at least one of your allies having to reposition so in the end you are dealing mild damage to the target and taking away actions from your party members.
It feels like Tripping, or somehow shoving someone into the floor, should work. But I am not sure if it is the intent.
Trip already gets damage from the ground on a crit. No daredevil would ever use any maneuver but trip if they just get free stunt damage on top of the other effects of trip
Trip already gets damage from the ground on a crit. No daredevil would ever use any maneuver but trip if they just get free stunt damage on top of the other effects of trip
Its just 1d6 though. If that would too problematic (it wouldn't) just reduce stunt damage on a trip.
That would be kind of a shame, though. I like how the prop system encourages creatively using the environment. I can see how that becomes problematic for a GM or mapmaker who needs to balance having enough props for a daredevil with having an open enough environment for large PCs or mounts and large or bigger creatures.
Or even just a GM who doesn't generally think about adding prop level items because it hasn't been important on a map before.
I think this issue is going to be the downfall of this class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't in good faith agree to the ground being a prop.
Every single "you are next to a prop" requirement becomes meaningless if so.
I think it should work for a flying character. 3D movement opens up the floor and ceiling IMO.
I think it should work for a flying character. 3D movement opens up the floor and ceiling IMO.I can't in good faith agree to the ground being a prop.
Every single "you are next to a prop" requirement becomes meaningless if so.
that's why I said "in good faith".
Permanent flying is something that comes way later in the game progression, imagining that the whole class design from level 1 is based upon a limitation that only may arise at some point around level 12+ and enven that as a very drawn out maaaaaybe, is not realistic.
I meant when they were flying they could use the floor as a prop, not that the existence of flying opened it up from 1st.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At that point, it makes more sense to scrap all of the prop requirements and let the daredevil always have any benefit that would have required a prop, even if they and their enemy are both flying.
If I'm totally honest, even if Paizo doesn't go into this direction (unlikely) it is probably how I'm going to play it anyways. I prefer the player describing their maneuver as suplexing someone into the ground with brute force or pushing someone away with a lariat and in their way the clash against a rocky bump on the cave that was always there but wasn't important enough to describe because it didn't have an impact on movement or taking space, rather than having design every map to include props or redesign them if I'm playing an AP. It changes nothing whatsoever on how the class plays and likely its more satisfying for the player as well.
I said it before and I'll say it again; GMs and AP designers aren't going to change how they design maps for a class that is going to come out 9 years after the release of the system.
That would be kind of a shame, though. I like how the prop system encourages creatively using the environment. I can see how that becomes problematic for a GM or mapmaker who needs to balance having enough props for a daredevil with having an open enough environment for large PCs or mounts and large or bigger creatures.Or even just a GM who doesn't generally think about adding prop level items because it hasn't been important on a map before.
I think this issue is going to be the downfall of this class.
Honestly I just expect that most GM not even remember that Daredevil exists in most case and just say "well there aren't anything large enough in this room" or "just Shove it to that table I don't care if it's isn't large enought" or even "why don't you just make a small character or take a companion to work as Prop?" or simply invent some random prop in time that he thinks that makes sense to the place.
|
I'm going to keep advocating for the Daredevil to be the fighting game/action adventure class.
It makes me want it to be more like the Nioh/Wo Long games I've played, where it's about staying in combat and maintaining your (the player's) adrenaline as you time dodges and nail those strong combos. Or maybe Zell from FF8 with his combos when using Limit Break.
Which might be hard translating into a TTRPG where it's about thoughtful processes.
Having a flowchart of your combos would be cool and so much more different to the Swashbuckler...though raising the complexity of the class exponentially...
On the original topic, if the ground can count as a prop then there's no point in requiring a prop at all.
On the other hand, I think the prop requirement is a bad idea as I've already expressed because of how maps often are designed and it leaves the class entirely at the mercy of a GM remembering/deicing to include things.