Half casters, Gish, what's missing in 2e

[Martialmasters]

I love 2e. Despite any grievances I may voice at times, it's far and away my favorite edition.

But I really miss half casters. Examples being say, paladins, rangers, etc from DND 5e.

Furthermore I miss the ability to take a caster base and voluntarily lower my maximum spell slots available in exchange for increased martial prowess. A Gish many call it. Often considered suboptimal because of the innate power that high level spells have. But it read nice being able to start as a wizard, go into bladesinger, then multi class into rogue and pick up arcane trickster. I'd willfully reduce my access to spells beyond 5th level in exchange for more low level spell options as well as more martial power.

Both these things are not currently possible in 2e.

I would gladly take a dedication that stunts my access to higher level spell slots in exchange for higher martial proficiency to master as well as getting the progression a bit earlier.

I'd love to reduce myself to 1 5th level slot. 2 4rh. And 3 the rest. 10th level dedication? I don't know.

I'd love a constructive conversation on ideas on how we could achieve something like this within the mechanics of this game as well as maintain balance. So instead of looking at a caster achieving master martial proficiency as anathema. Or a martial getting to legendary spell progression.

Let's instead look at what they might need to give up to achieve it that doesn't just result in what we have now.

Any ideas?

[Reticent]

Off the top of my head, I would think your best bet would be to start with a martial class and pick up some token spell casting from your heritage. Then pivot to a spellcasting multi archetype ASAP.

Spending feats to progress your casting is the closest you'd get to a similar partial progression.

[cavernshark]

Based on your stated goals, I don't really understand why you don't just start with a martial base and use dedication feats to get spells. This feels even easier with investigator or rogue bases, but can just as easily be done on any martial.

You can take wizard dedication, basic spellcasting, arcane breadth and only ever get expert spellcasting benefits... you now have master weapons and expert spellcasting, with some decent synergy on your spell casting stat. If you want even more slots, you could grab witch dedication on the arcane list for more low level slots.

What do you want from a caster start that you can't get going the other direction?

[Martialmasters]

cavernshark wrote:

Based on your stated goals, I don't really understand why you don't just start with a martial base and use dedication feats to get spells. This feels even easier with investigator or rogue bases, but can just as easily be done on any martial.

You can take wizard dedication, basic spellcasting, arcane breadth and only ever get expert spellcasting benefits... you now have master weapons and expert spellcasting, with some decent synergy on your spell casting stat. If you want even more slots, you could grab witch dedication on the arcane list for more low level slots.

What do you want from a caster start that you can't get going the other direction?

Because having almost no spell slots at all until level 12 with near every class feat dedicated towards that end feels bad.

Plus you actually end up with higher level slots than I'd want as well as too few of low level slots.

[Salamileg]

The big problem with the idea of half casters in this edition is that only your high-level slots are really useful for damage spells, incapacitation spells, and summoning spells. It would make any class with half-casting useless at anything but buffs, non-incap debuffs, and utility. Which would work for some concepts, but not for others, such as the Magus and Summoner that we're playtesting next month (both of whom rely on damage spells and summon spells respectively).

[Reticent]

Maybe use your upper slots for heightened low level spells?

2e is stingy on spell slots in any situation by design, not a ton of getting around that.

Perhaps go Ranger, pick up Warden spells whenever you take class feats, do as much spellcasting muliclass archetype as fits your concept, and lean on focus spells to stand in for your 'extra' low level spells.

[cavernshark]

Martialmasters wrote:

Because having almost no spell slots at all until level 12 with near every class feat dedicated towards that end feels bad.

Plus you actually end up with higher level slots than I'd want as well as too few of low level slots.

If you only ever take Expert Spellcasting in your chosen dedication, you get 6th level spell slots at level 16. This is exactly 1 level higher than the spell level you mentioned in your post. At level 16, a full wizard will have only 3 level 6 spell slots. You will have 1.

Investigator
1: Class Feat
2: Wizard Dedication (Cantrips)
4: Basic Spell Casting (Level 1 Slot)
6: Class Feat (Level 2 Slot)
8: Arcane Breath (Level 3 Slot, +1 Level 1 Slot) -- you now have only 1 less level 1 spell than an equal level wizard
10: Class Feat
12: Expert Spellcasting (Level 4 Slot, +1 Level 2 Slot) -- you now have only 1 less level 2 spell than an equal level wizard

And you're done! Half your class feats get you literally exactly what you asked for? I think you're really overestimating how many spell slots a full caster gets of a given level. It doesn't keep climbing like it did in 1E so the difference between a full multiclass dedication and a full caster isn't as big in total output. They make up for it with more higher level slots... which you specifically don't want.

If you did want to, right now, flip the script, I'd point out that maneuvers don't rely on weapon proficiency. Your athletics as a caster can scale as well as a martial class. So there are definitely fighting styles you could go with that blend a caster base and a martial dedication together if spell slots really were important to you. If you look for combat feats that don't rely on weapon proficiency you can find some different value.

[Mewzard]

I mean, they're not half casters per se, but apparently the Magus won't get 10th level spells and will get fewer spell slots to compensate for their martial prowess.

Honestly, I like the system we have now. Before, multiclassing could be fairly punishing for a caster outside of perhaps a single level dip, but now, I like that you can still be good at your spells, but if you want to take the Archer archetype, you can do decent with a bow. Yeah, the lowered to hit isn't as fun, but you're only one proficiency rung below most martial classes.

But yeah, if you want a good martial ability with lowered casting performance, a spellcasting archetype is the best answer currently in the system.

[The-Magic-Sword]

You can also use other feats to pick up more casting through innate spells and such, this would make a charisma centric gish even more viable. I'm partial to feats like Fiendish Door myself.

[oholoko]

Martialmasters wrote:

I love 2e. Despite any grievances I may voice at times, it's far and away my favorite edition.

But I really miss half casters. Examples being say, paladins, rangers, etc from DND 5e.

Furthermore I miss the ability to take a caster base and voluntarily lower my maximum spell slots available in exchange for increased martial prowess. A Gish many call it. Often considered suboptimal because of the innate power that high level spells have. But it read nice being able to start as a wizard, go into bladesinger, then multi class into rogue and pick up arcane trickster. I'd willfully reduce my access to spells beyond 5th level in exchange for more low level spell options as well as more martial power.

Both these things are not currently possible in 2e.

I would gladly take a dedication that stunts my access to higher level spell slots in exchange for higher martial proficiency to master as well as getting the progression a bit earlier.

I'd love to reduce myself to 1 5th level slot. 2 4rh. And 3 the rest. 10th level dedication? I don't know.

I'd love a constructive conversation on ideas on how we could achieve something like this within the mechanics of this game as well as maintain balance. So instead of looking at a caster achieving master martial proficiency as anathema. Or a martial getting to legendary spell progression.

Let's instead look at what they might need to give up to achieve it that doesn't just result in what we have now.

Any ideas?

I am wondering if this might come with class archetypes even if i don't want that to happen. I hope class archetypes changes the whole chassis of the class instead of just a few options (Like doctrines and etc).

[Tarpeius]

This seems a poorly-timed complaint given that the magus playtest is next month. In the meantime, an eldritch trickster or martial ancient elf, two archetype feats, and a ring of wizardry will get you pretty close to 1e magus spell-slot progression by level 8. When you adjust for the fact that even a full 2e caster has fewer raw slots than a 1e magus, it's pretty dead-on.

[Schreckstoff]

The mauler archetype maybe enables some nice bespell weapon builds. Giving you access to scaling proficiency for the highest hit dice weapons that work well for a 3rd action.

[Claxon]

Martialmasters wrote:

cavernshark wrote:

Based on your stated goals, I don't really understand why you don't just start with a martial base and use dedication feats to get spells. This feels even easier with investigator or rogue bases, but can just as easily be done on any martial.

You can take wizard dedication, basic spellcasting, arcane breadth and only ever get expert spellcasting benefits... you now have master weapons and expert spellcasting, with some decent synergy on your spell casting stat. If you want even more slots, you could grab witch dedication on the arcane list for more low level slots.

What do you want from a caster start that you can't get going the other direction?

Because having almost no spell slots at all until level 12 with near every class feat dedicated towards that end feels bad.

Plus you actually end up with higher level slots than I'd want as well as too few of low level slots.

Full caster basically only gets 3 spell slots per level of spell (exceptions not withstanding).

That's just how this edition works, why would you expect anyone else to get more?

Casting is just different this edition, things simply wont be the same.

I don't care for it either, but I simply decided PF2 wasn't for me...not unless the drastically change stuff with new material. Which I guess is why I stick around here. Waiting, hoping.

[WatersLethe]

Also, use Free Archetype or double class feat rules and the complaint about using all your feats disappears

[Mellored]

I do think we need a few more weapon related focus spells.

Like...

Teleport slash. Level 3 focus spell.
2 actions.
Teleport up to half your speed and make a Strike. The surprise of your movement makes the enemy flat footed agaisnt the attack.
You can spend a third action to teleport back to your original location after the attack.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Mellored wrote:

I do think we need a few more weapon related focus spells.

Like...

Teleport slash. Level 3 focus spell.
2 actions.
Teleport up to half your speed and make a Strike. The surprise of your movement makes the enemy flat footed agaisnt the attack.
You can spend a third action to teleport back to your original location after the attack.

Oh damn, I really like that, actually.

[Salamileg]

Mellored wrote:

I do think we need a few more weapon related focus spells.

Like...

Teleport slash. Level 3 focus spell.
2 actions.
Teleport up to half your speed and make a Strike. The surprise of your movement makes the enemy flat footed agaisnt the attack.
You can spend a third action to teleport back to your original location after the attack.

This is the kind of stuff I'm hoping comes with the Magus.

[Castilliano]

I think trying to gish using spell slots on a martial won't get you very far w/ casting (w/ a possible exception at 18th+).

Cantrips & Focus Spells, because they're reusable and auto-scale, are far more helpful. Tie those to a Champion (divine) or Monk (divine or occult) who increase their casting proficiency and you can do some decent casting most battles, and they can both improve their Refocus. Or you could use an MCD to increase proficiency, recognizing that the spell slots are secondary backups. And remember innate spells default to one's best casting proficiency, so you can pick up Electric Arc on your Monk and it'll progress (though you'll need Cha unfortunately).

Plus Ki Blast, Dragon's Rage Breath, and a few other martial abilities are pretty gishy too.

[Squiggit]

cavernshark wrote:

What do you want from a caster start that you can't get going the other direction?

A martial who takes a caster dedication doesn't get a spell slot until level 4 and doesn't get a second spell slot until 6.

Seems pretty obvious on its face why that's terrible at emulating a character that's meant to cohesively blend magical and combat ability together.

[Temperans]

That sounds like a different version of Bladed Dash

Bladed Dash was 30 ft of instant movement with a bonus to your attack.

The high level version allowed you to attack everyone adjecent to your path.

[manbearscientist]

I think it is more accurate to frame this as an issue with player agency rather than an issue with game balance.

It is easy to say a featless fighter is still better at doing martial things than any caster putting all feats and items toward martial ability because the fighter has higher proficiency, but that is the wrong focus in my opinion.

As early as level 1, said Fighter would fall behind a caster dedicated towards buffs despite being an expert in their weapon and the caster only trained. Such is the power of Magic Weapon, True Strike, Shillelagh.

You could go back an forth figuring the DPR, but that isn't the point. The people that are dissatisfied aren't upset because a Fighter does 110 DPR at level 17 with basic items and a caster only 105.

I believe that a lot of this is tied to the conceptual weight behind proficiency and lack of control a player has over it.

When we look at casters, a huge portion of their conceptual space and class features are entirely locked up in spellcasting. Read any caster, and you can see just how hard it is to give them more than a single class feature that is not just a proficiency increase. They get a subclass at level 1, maybe a focus spell, and that's it.

This isn't bad from a game design standpoint. There are already vastly more ways for a caster to branch out from their main class than in the entire 10 year run of 1E, because it was almost a trap to lose a level of spellcasting progression. A Fighter 5 / Wizard 5 is barely more powerful than a 5th level wizard or fighter, but either a Fighter with Wizard archetype or Wizard with Fighter archetype is going to keep up numerically in 2E.

But from an issue of player agency, it is both a feel-bad and something that cannot adequately be addressed through what feats, spells, and items are allowed to do in 2E.

I think the best solution is not to change that equation and give ways for casters to reach master proficiency, but to allow casters more options like the Cleric's Warpriest Doctrine. But in general, I would go farther than what Warpriest did. Said Doctrine has the awkward downside of not going far enough, and eventually leaving the Cleric with no unique benefits and lower proficiencies at high levels.

Instead, what I'd like to see are class archetypes that:

Follow the Warpriest proficiency progression for armor and weapons

Grant additional access to martial or advanced weapons

Reduce casting slots (2 per level) and give up on 10th level spells (level 20 feat to get one)

Give unique, tangible benefits through special actions or focus spells

For instance, I would have rather seen the Warpriest give up 1 spell slot per level to get a Fervor-esque metamagic Focus Spell that as a free-action reduced the casting time of your next spell if if it only affected you with similar wording to Quickened Casting, but also reduced one-action spells. That would be a great example of how to:

Give a unique niche for gishes even at high levels of play

Incorporate 1E class mechanics

Satisfy player agency

Stay within 2E design constraints

I want that sort of mechanic for all the casters, and I want an Eldritch Trickster style path for all the martials it makes sense on.

Unique things I could see for these gish class archetypes:

Bards: A 'skaldlike' team buff that gives Clumsy 1 but big boosts to damage

Cleric: Above.

Druid: A focus spell that allows them to cast and benefit from certain spells while polymorphed

Oracle: A revelation spell to gain the effects of a Stance, and when heightened the ability to use any feat with that stance as a prerequisite for the duration

Sorcerers: A heroism/rage type buff that gives unique abilities based on bloodline to encourage melee

Witch: A free-action focus spell that allows you to make an unarmed Strike and if it hits apply a hex spell, and Sustain said spell with additional unarmed Strikes

Wizards: A 'dancing' type effect for their weapon with additional benefits at higher levels

Classes like Magus could have this as part of the basic chassis.

[Mellored]

Temperans wrote:

That sounds like a different version of Bladed Dash

Bladed Dash was 30 ft of instant movement with a bonus to your attack.

The high level version allowed you to attack everyone adjecent to your path.

That would work too.

Bladed Dash, focus spell 1
2 actions, must be wielding an agile weapon
With a magical burst of speed you run past an opponent and slash them. Move up to your speed and make a strike at any time during the movement with your agile weapon. The movement does not provoke reaction.
Heightened +2, you gain a +10 status bonus to speed for the movement, and you an make one additional strike. The strikes must be made against different targets. Each Strike counts toward your penalty, but only after you make all the attacks.

Bladed Dash Flurry. Magus/Bard feat 6.
If you are wielding 2 weapons when you do cast bladed dash, You can spend an extra action when you cast it to double the number of stikes you make. Each Strike must still be made against a different, and you alternate which weapon you strike with.

[Squiggit]

manbearscientist wrote:

I think it is more accurate to frame this as an issue with player agency rather than an issue with game balance.

I think this hits the nail on the head. You find a starting point and then realize there's basically no way to get to your goal from where you start.

I disagree to an extent about proficiency though. I think part of the reason the disparity can feel so frustrating is because it's centered around accuracy. That means not only is our wizard in question worse with a weapon (which to be fair, they should be compared to a dedicated martial), but they're worse in a way that emphasizes failure. You're not actually going to be dealing that much less damage when you hit, but you will be failing to deal damage at all significantly more often, which imo is one of the worst ways to make someone feel weaker, because it creates a sense of incompetence that further compounds the lack of player agency.

Ultimately though that's just the cornerstone of the game's math so there isn't really all that much that can be done about it.

[manbearscientist]

It is also worth noting that martial class gishes have far more agency in that regard. A Fighter who wants a Shield cantrip and nothing else can have that. A Barbarian that wants to master the power of divine casting through his oracle dedication can do that. A rogue that just wants to get up casting a Heightened Invisibility can do that by becoming an Expert.

The question of whether taking 5 feats to get 16 spells per day and master proficiency is better than spending 5 feats to ignore MAP or otherwise get martial actions is one up for debate.

But I think it is easy to see how it is more rewarding to go the martial to caster route from a perspective on building a character or feeling a sense of achievement. It very clearly outlines how you go from basic skills, to expertise, to mastery. Each step is a stopping point that means something different. Unlocking the ability to do a dueling riposte or use multiple weapons okay isn't nearly as definitive.

I think the combat style archetypes are a good step up from the martial multiclass archetypes in this regard. The feat selections are way better and more rewarding, and being able to use Path of Iron at 12 or Triple Shot at 8 is a much more satisfying sense of progression. Still though, I can clearly see why people feel more agency going the other way. The game practically spells it out for you.

[Martialmasters]

Tarpeius wrote:

This seems a poorly-timed complaint given that the magus playtest is next month. In the meantime, an eldritch trickster or martial ancient elf, two archetype feats, and a ring of wizardry will get you pretty close to 1e magus spell-slot progression by level 8. When you adjust for the fact that even a full 2e caster has fewer raw slots than a 1e magus, it's pretty dead-on.

Magus can maybe fulfill the half caster depending how they do things but that I'm itself is not a Gish either

[Martialmasters]

Manbear you are both correct and incorrect.

Because the point of the gish, isn't necessarily power. As you said a level 5 fighter/5 wizard wasn't much better than just a wizard.

The point of it is the iconic theme of a blend of martial and spell prowess that is strictly lacking right now.

The closest thing I've seen to something gishlike is Eldritch Archer dedication. There Eldritch shot while a heavy cost is extremely nice when you can utilize it.

I don't even take a spell casting dedication with my Eldritch Archer builds. It's nice but also extremely functional without.

But long short. I'd like 2 first level spells at 4 not 1. 2 2nd level by 6. 3 1st and 2 3rd by 8. Etc. I just want more slots at earlier levels not never reaching the height of a full casters slots in exchange for more martial proficiency.

Closest I've gotten to this is using free Archetype with Eldritch racket rogue and taking both bard and sorcerer dedications. Then by level 10 or do taking Eldritch Archer.

[Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich]

I just can't relate to the OPs grievances. This character is pretty solidly gish.

Wizard with Champion dedication. He wields a +1 striking longsword of divination. He had proficiency with longsword at 1st and full plate at 2nd. At 4th he picked up bespell weapon. At 6th he picked up divine ally for his staff of divination so that he could give it shifting and turn it into a longsword. He casts fireball with 2 actions and throws his, now empowered, sword across the battlefield with hand of the apprentice. Casts true strike with 1 action and swings with the empowered sword with the other 2 actions. He also sometimes spends an action to cast shield. And he usually casts haste on himself at the beginning of every combat so that he can move and gish even more.

Outside of combat he is a knowledge monkey. He chose the spell substitution thesis and gets as many spells as he can in his spellbook, so that he has an answer to many situations given time. I even used his human ancestry feats to give him the ability to cast level 1 heal as an arcane spell.

My brother is happily playing a Fighter with a wizard dedication. While not as spell enthusiastic, he still has had several gish moments.

I am curious to see what the Magus holds and how it compares to our builds.

I think that the options are there, it just requires some creativity.

[Unicore]

Martialmasters wrote:

Manbear you are both correct and incorrect.

Because the point of the gish, isn't necessarily power. As you said a level 5 fighter/5 wizard wasn't much better than just a wizard.

The point of it is the iconic theme of a blend of martial and spell prowess that is strictly lacking right now.

The closest thing I've seen to something gishlike is Eldritch Archer dedication. There Eldritch shot while a heavy cost is extremely nice when you can utilize it.

I don't even take a spell casting dedication with my Eldritch Archer builds. It's nice but also extremely functional without.

But long short. I'd like 2 first level spells at 4 not 1. 2 2nd level by 6. 3 1st and 2 3rd by 8. Etc. I just want more slots at earlier levels not never reaching the height of a full casters slots in exchange for more martial proficiency.

Closest I've gotten to this is using free Archetype with Eldritch racket rogue and taking both bard and sorcerer dedications. Then by level 10 or do taking Eldritch Archer.

If you factor in equipment, it is reasonable for a dedicated gish to have wands or a staff by level 4 to get 2 level 1 spells per day. As a matter of fact, lot of lower level spells per day is exactly what wands allow you to accomplish. DOn't underestimate the importance of equipment in character development. PF2 Characters are still very dependent upon what they cary. If you are a Martial base class, with a casting dedication, skipping out out your striking rune right away, for more spells is a pretty reasonable trade off.

[Martialmasters]

Unicore wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

Manbear you are both correct and incorrect.

Because the point of the gish, isn't necessarily power. As you said a level 5 fighter/5 wizard wasn't much better than just a wizard.

The point of it is the iconic theme of a blend of martial and spell prowess that is strictly lacking right now.

The closest thing I've seen to something gishlike is Eldritch Archer dedication. There Eldritch shot while a heavy cost is extremely nice when you can utilize it.

I don't even take a spell casting dedication with my Eldritch Archer builds. It's nice but also extremely functional without.

But long short. I'd like 2 first level spells at 4 not 1. 2 2nd level by 6. 3 1st and 2 3rd by 8. Etc. I just want more slots at earlier levels not never reaching the height of a full casters slots in exchange for more martial proficiency.

Closest I've gotten to this is using free Archetype with Eldritch racket rogue and taking both bard and sorcerer dedications. Then by level 10 or do taking Eldritch Archer.

If you factor in equipment, it is reasonable for a dedicated gish to have wands or a staff by level 4 to get 2 level 1 spells per day. As a matter of fact, lot of lower level spells per day is exactly what wands allow you to accomplish. DOn't underestimate the importance of equipment in character development. PF2 Characters are still very dependent upon what they cary. If you are a Martial base class, with a casting dedication, skipping out out your striking rune right away, for more spells is a pretty reasonable trade off.

i disagree on a fundamental level as equipment isnt universal and having the functionality of your concept only work if you have a nice DM who gives you what you want, isnt a solution.

[Martialmasters]

Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:

I just can't relate to the OPs grievances. This character is pretty solidly gish.

Wizard with Champion dedication. He wields a +1 striking longsword of divination. He had proficiency with longsword at 1st and full plate at 2nd. At 4th he picked up bespell weapon. At 6th he picked up divine ally for his staff of divination so that he could give it shifting and turn it into a longsword. He casts fireball with 2 actions and throws his, now empowered, sword across the battlefield with hand of the apprentice. Casts true strike with 1 action and swings with the empowered sword with the other 2 actions. He also sometimes spends an action to cast shield. And he usually casts haste on himself at the beginning of every combat so that he can move and gish even more.

Outside of combat he is a knowledge monkey. He chose the spell substitution thesis and gets as many spells as he can in his spellbook, so that he has an answer to many situations given time. I even used his human ancestry feats to give him the ability to cast level 1 heal as an arcane spell.

My brother is happily playing a Fighter with a wizard dedication. While not as spell enthusiastic, he still has had several gish moments.

I am curious to see what the Magus holds and how it compares to our builds.

I think that the options are there, it just requires some creativity.

your to hit proficiency and AC are going to lag behind as you level to the point where its nonsensical to keep utilizing. im not going to count a build that only really works for half the game.

[manbearscientist]

Martialmasters wrote:

Manbear you are both correct and incorrect.

Because the point of the gish, isn't necessarily power. As you said a level 5 fighter/5 wizard wasn't much better than just a wizard.

The point of it is the iconic theme of a blend of martial and spell prowess that is strictly lacking right now.

I think auto-heightening cantrips and focus powers do help in this regard. Even at level 1, many ancestries allow you to start with a cantrip and Ancient Elf lets you start with a full multiclass dedication. A 5th level Ray of Frost is a lot more magical firepower than a caster level 9 Ray of Frost from 1E, but there are also lots of ways to start with a cantrip even with a purely martial class. Something like Moonbeam or Fire Ray off a domain would likewise add some magical might while being accessible early on.

In 1E, getting access to spells at full BAB would take getting to level 4. And you'd be very limited in terms of spells per day, rather than being able to use a cantrip all day long. 6th level casters had it better, but not much at early levels.

Even base level casting dedications let you use scrolls, wands, and staves without Trick Magic Item which can let a martial do a lot of magical stuff in a day.

[Unicore]

Martialmasters wrote:

i disagree on a fundamental level as equipment isnt universal and having the functionality of your concept only work if you have a nice DM who gives you what you want, isnt a solution.

If this is true than all martial characters are in terrible shape because if the GM doesn't give them what they want (weapons and armor, doubling rings and useful skill bonus items) they are going to fall horrifically behind in all of the important things they need to be able to do. A GM holding back spell casting items from a Gish character is the same thing as holding back striking runes. Imagine playing a dual weapon fighter and the GM never giving you doubling rings.

Equipment is either fundamental to character identity or else the GM has to make up ways to help you get around it.

This is why just trying to look at the core chassis of number of spells and proficiencies is a bad way of envisioning character identity. You also have feats and items and both can be very instrumental in building a concept. At the point that you take equipment out the picture, you might as well be considering other variant rules like dual classing or extra feats.

[Martialmasters]

Unicore wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

i disagree on a fundamental level as equipment isnt universal and having the functionality of your concept only work if you have a nice DM who gives you what you want, isnt a solution.

If this is true than all martial characters are in terrible shape because if the GM doesn't give them what they want (weapons and armor, doubling rings and useful skill bonus items) they are going to fall horrifically behind in all of the important things they need to be able to do. A GM holding back spell casting items from a Gish character is the same thing as holding back striking runes. Imagine playing a dual weapon fighter and the GM never giving you doubling rings.

Equipment is either fundamental to character identity or else the GM has to make up ways to help you get around it.

This is why just trying to look at the core chassis of number of spells and proficiencies is a bad way of envisioning character identity. You also have feats and items and both can be very instrumental in building a concept. At the point that you take equipment out the picture, you might as well be considering other variant rules like dual classing or extra feats.

incorrect, striking runes are a base expectation as evident by the variant rule that does away with them and just gives you auto scaling dice and such. but it doesnt do anything to wrap wands and staves into base game progression.

[Martialmasters]

manbearscientist wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

Manbear you are both correct and incorrect.

Because the point of the gish, isn't necessarily power. As you said a level 5 fighter/5 wizard wasn't much better than just a wizard.

The point of it is the iconic theme of a blend of martial and spell prowess that is strictly lacking right now.

I think auto-heightening cantrips and focus powers do help in this regard. Even at level 1, many ancestries allow you to start with a cantrip and Ancient Elf lets you start with a full multiclass dedication. A 5th level Ray of Frost is a lot more magical firepower than a caster level 9 Ray of Frost from 1E, but there are also lots of ways to start with a cantrip even with a purely martial class. Something like Moonbeam or Fire Ray off a domain would likewise add some magical might while being accessible early on.

In 1E, getting access to spells at full BAB would take getting to level 4. And you'd be very limited in terms of spells per day, rather than being able to use a cantrip all day long. 6th level casters had it better, but not much at early levels.

Even base level casting dedications let you use scrolls, wands, and staves without Trick Magic Item which can let a martial do a lot of magical stuff in a day.

what does that help with? you are still behind on proficiency with it if you are a martial base and as a caster its still a 2 action restriction for poor overall damage on its own and nothing to do with being a gish unless you have ways to wrap it into a strike, atm thats eldritch archer.

[manbearscientist]

Martialmasters wrote:

your to hit proficiency and AC are going to lag behind as you level to the point where its nonsensical to keep utilizing. im not going to count a build that only really works for half the game.

I've done roughly 100 sessions of 2E, including a full 1-20 AP run at this point. I've had gish characters throughout, and my experience is that while it is true that such a Wizard would fall behind in base numbers, that isn't the full story.

Said Wizard is going to have ample slots to use True Strike on, and if his main weapon is a Staff of Divination he can essentially do that all day and get benefit from it using Bespell Weapon.

A champion is going to be at +2 to attacks for most of the game over a comparable Wizard. At level 6, the Wizard is likely swing for +13, the Champion at +15. This means that the Wizard will need an 11 to hit and would crit on a 20, while a Champion would need a 9 to hit and would critically hit on a 19 or 20. But True Strike means that the odds of Wizard hitting or critically hitting are 69.5% (9.75% crit.), while the Champion is at 55% (10% crit.).

Mirror Image, Blur, Blink, and other defensive spells likewise can make up discrepancies in AC. Mirror Image alone is worth far more than 2 AC. Said Wizard from before would have 56 health and 25 AC at level 7, while a Champion would have 86 HP and 27 AC. And yet a creature swinging at +16 for 8.5 damage is going to deal 4.25 damage to the Champion and 2.02 damage to the Wizard.

The cost of this is action economy, but there are tools for casters to jump into melee and both deal and dish out damage at acceptable levels.

[manbearscientist]

Martialmasters wrote:

what does that help with? you are still behind on proficiency with it if you are a martial base and as a caster its still a 2 action restriction for poor overall damage on its own and nothing to do with being a gish unless you have ways to wrap it into a strike, atm thats eldritch archer.

To quote, "Because the point of the gish, isn't necessarily power."

Are you worried about proficiency, or theme? Is being a gish entirely about being able to cast and Strike in the same action? That might be true of 1E Magus, but that was largely because it was mostly impossible to Strike and cast a standard-action spell otherwise.

In 2E, I count it as pretty darn gishy to finish a foe off with a longsword and zap two other enemies from range with Electric Arc and that can be done at level 1. You used a Strike and Cast a Spell in the same round. What about that is not worthy of being called a gish?

[Squiggit]

manbearscientist wrote:

But True Strike means that the odds of Wizard hitting or critically hitting are 69.5% (9.75% crit.), while the Champion is at 55% (10% crit.).

Kinda skewing things by giving the Wizard two actions and the Champion one, though. If the Champion swings twice contrasted with the Wizard's TS-> Swing the hit chance goes up to nearly the same as the Wizard's and the crit chance becomes significantly higher... while also using a much better weapon than a staff and not having any kind of limitations on how often they can do it.

[Unicore]

Martialmasters wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

i disagree on a fundamental level as equipment isnt universal and having the functionality of your concept only work if you have a nice DM who gives you what you want, isnt a solution.

If this is true than all martial characters are in terrible shape because if the GM doesn't give them what they want (weapons and armor, doubling rings and useful skill bonus items) they are going to fall horrifically behind in all of the important things they need to be able to do. A GM holding back spell casting items from a Gish character is the same thing as holding back striking runes. Imagine playing a dual weapon fighter and the GM never giving you doubling rings.

Equipment is either fundamental to character identity or else the GM has to make up ways to help you get around it.

This is why just trying to look at the core chassis of number of spells and proficiencies is a bad way of envisioning character identity. You also have feats and items and both can be very instrumental in building a concept. At the point that you take equipment out the picture, you might as well be considering other variant rules like dual classing or extra feats.

incorrect, striking runes are a base expectation as evident by the variant rule that does away with them and just gives you auto scaling dice and such. but it doesnt do anything to wrap wands and staves into base game progression.

Yeah, if you start using variant rules, then you might as well just use the dual class variant rule as well. That is what I am saying. If you take crafting options you are not even that dependent on the GM giving you the lower level spell items. They are incredibly cheap ways to fill in a few missing spell slots.

[Martialmasters]

Unicore wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

i disagree on a fundamental level as equipment isnt universal and having the functionality of your concept only work if you have a nice DM who gives you what you want, isnt a solution.

If this is true than all martial characters are in terrible shape because if the GM doesn't give them what they want (weapons and armor, doubling rings and useful skill bonus items) they are going to fall horrifically behind in all of the important things they need to be able to do. A GM holding back spell casting items from a Gish character is the same thing as holding back striking runes. Imagine playing a dual weapon fighter and the GM never giving you doubling rings.

Equipment is either fundamental to character identity or else the GM has to make up ways to help you get around it.

This is why just trying to look at the core chassis of number of spells and proficiencies is a bad way of envisioning character identity. You also have feats and items and both can be very instrumental in building a concept. At the point that you take equipment out the picture, you might as well be considering other variant rules like dual classing or extra feats.

incorrect, striking runes are a base expectation as evident by the variant rule that does away with them and just gives you auto scaling dice and such. but it doesnt do anything to wrap wands and staves into base game progression.

Yeah, if you start using variant rules, then you might as well just use the dual class variant rule as well. That is what I am saying. If you take crafting options you are not even that dependent on the GM giving you the lower level spell items. They are incredibly cheap ways to fill in a few missing spell slots.

thats like expecting boots of flying

id rather have sufficiency gained through the class then rely on crafting

[The-Magic-Sword]

Different variant rules are not the same, one of those is deliberately designed around the fantasy of having two classes at once. That is its only purpose.

The other is about not having magic items (or having a game that doesn't require magic items) and gives you striking benefits because the core game treats that as mathematically mandatory, so it needs to be accounted for to enable a different fantasy. The game outright tells GMs that they're mandatory.

This shouldn't be a debate.

[manbearscientist]

Squiggit wrote:

manbearscientist wrote:

But True Strike means that the odds of Wizard hitting or critically hitting are 69.5% (9.75% crit.), while the Champion is at 55% (10% crit.).

Kinda skewing things by giving the Wizard two actions and the Champion one, though. If the Champion swings twice contrasted with the Wizard's TS-> Swing the hit chance goes up to nearly the same as the Wizard's and the crit chance becomes significantly higher... while also using a much better weapon than a staff and not having any kind of limitations on how often they can do it.

The Wizard is using a shifting rune, so they aren't necessarily using a weaker weapon. The 1d6 from a different rune isn't really a thing at this point (flaming etc. not unlocked yet), and the Wizard is getting an extra 1d6 per swing anyway with Bespell Weapon.

If you are comparing a Wizard using a shifting 'bastard sword' for 2d12+4+1d6 (20.5) vs a Champion swinging twice for 2d12+4 (17) the Wizard will deal 16.24 and the Champion 17.

The wizard also has access to Haste, making it totally possible to True Strike > Strike > Cast a Spell every round, which I was thinking about when I gave them the extra action. That makes such a economy disparity a possibility. Haste>True Strike>Strike into True Strike>Strike>Mirror Image is something I've seen a lot from my gishes.

As far as limits, a level 6 Wizard can cast True Strike a lot of times per day. Up to 4 times from 1st level slots, and 3-9 times from their staff. It will be a rare adventuring day where you need to fight for 13 rounds or more.

[Martialmasters]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Different variant rules are not the same, one of those is deliberately designed around the fantasy of having two classes at once. That is its only purpose.

The other is about not having magic items (or having a game that doesn't require magic items) and gives you striking benefits because the core game treats that as mathematically mandatory, so it needs to be accounted for to enable a different fantasy. The game outright tells GMs that they're mandatory.

This shouldn't be a debate.

and crafting wands and staves are not mandatory

[The-Magic-Sword]

manbearscientist wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

manbearscientist wrote:

But True Strike means that the odds of Wizard hitting or critically hitting are 69.5% (9.75% crit.), while the Champion is at 55% (10% crit.).

Kinda skewing things by giving the Wizard two actions and the Champion one, though. If the Champion swings twice contrasted with the Wizard's TS-> Swing the hit chance goes up to nearly the same as the Wizard's and the crit chance becomes significantly higher... while also using a much better weapon than a staff and not having any kind of limitations on how often they can do it.

The Wizard is using a shifting rune, so they aren't necessarily using a weaker weapon. The 1d6 from a different rune isn't really a thing at this point (flaming etc. not unlocked yet), and the Wizard is getting an extra 1d6 per swing anyway with Bespell Weapon.

If you are comparing a Wizard using a shifting 'bastard sword' for 2d12+4+1d6 (20.5) vs a Champion swinging twice for 2d12+4 (17) the Wizard will deal 16.24 and the Champion 17.

The wizard also has access to Haste, making it totally possible to True Strike > Strike > Cast a Spell every round, which I was thinking about when I gave them the extra action. That makes such a economy disparity a possibility. Haste>True Strike>Strike into True Strike>Strike>Mirror Image is something I've seen a lot from my gishes.

As far as limits, a level 6 Wizard can cast True Strike a lot of times per day. Up to 4 times from 1st level slots, and 3-9 times from their staff. It will be a rare adventuring day where you need to fight for 13 rounds or more.

The action from haste takes place at the beginning of the turn, so you couldn't true strike before you strike, you'd have to strike first without the benefit.

[Squiggit]

manbearscientist wrote:

The Wizard is using a shifting rune

Fair, though worth noting that I've seen a number of people here and other places say they wouldn't allow that combination to work.

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

The action from haste takes place at the beginning of the turn, so you couldn't true strike before you strike, you'd have to strike first without the benefit.

That's not at all how the quickened condition works. You gain an additional action and then that action has restrictions on it, but there's nothing about requiring you to perform that action at a specific time. The only hiccup is that you can't benefit from Haste on the turn you cast it.

[manbearscientist]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

The action from haste takes place at the beginning of the turn, so you couldn't true strike before you strike, you'd have to strike first without the benefit.

Yeah, that wasn't an accurate example. You are still likely to see the True Strike > Strike > Cast a Spell happen later in the combat, but not Round 1 if they are casting Haste.

[Castilliano]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

The action from haste takes place at the beginning of the turn, so you couldn't true strike before you strike, you'd have to strike first without the benefit.

That's not true (though I used to think so too).

In a vacuum, Quickened sounds that way, but if you go to the basic parts of the CRB (the ones veterans are most likely to skip over because they're stating the obvious), you can read how one is given a pool of actions at the beginning of the round, which is when Quickened gives you an action. Which is to say that the spell's just tossing another action into the pool. Even though it has to be specific actions, they can take place whenever.

Haste: Gives one action (unspecified time frame)
Quickened: Gives action at the beginning of the round, sounding at first like that's also when you have to take the action. Except your three actions are always regained at the beginning of your turn, not taken then. With Quickened, you're just being given a bonus action to add to that three. It's not forcing you to take it before the others.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Do we have a source for these more permissive readings being correct?

[Squiggit]

That tells you when you gain the action. There's no "This action must be taken before any other actions" language anywhere, though.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Weird, thanks for bringing it to my attention, I'm still not sure, but the two readings are dead equal in my head.

Because it seems like that wasn't the clearest way to reference the general rule, which is usually couched in "as normal" or something.

[Alaryth]

I have an idea on how a Magus can work to combine magic and martial capabilities. On my mind it seems good, but it may have problems that I don't see.

The idea is to give Master proficiency on weapons, and Master or Legendary as an Arcane Caster. Then give only 6 levels of spells, like the half casters from 1E. Then give the class, and only this class, some capability to improve the caster DC for Saving Throws and attacks with some martial weapon.

That way, with a +3 weapon, the DC of spells improve on 3, exactly the number that lacks to arrive to same DC of 9 level spells.

I can see problems with Incapacitate spells (I dislike Incapacitate, but is not for here not now). Also not sure how balanced the lack of 7-9 spells can be, but I think with care it can work.

Opinions?