Bard Class Preview

I can't say much about this. Don't have that much experience with Bards outside of the meme of "Well Half-Everything has to come from somewhere" and everyone turns to the Bard. Well I mean I can bring some things up but this is more questions than speaking from concern, worry, or railing against something.

1) So they get a spell(s?) at the same rate the others do. They learn them the same way? Wizards and Sorcerers seem to still have a bit of difference between how they pick up stuff, how do bards do it?

2) I think the changes will kick Bards further into the magic/support section. Good to some but others that liked switch hitting as a Bard might be out of luck until Skald comes along. We'll have to see how it looks with the feats/abilities and data though.

3)"The ally is quick and can use the action to Strike, Stride, or Step." So... attack, move, or 5 foot step? Move can maybe be run? That's what we're going with? If so I missed that, and I think might cause a bit of a speed bump when it comes to relearning. No seriously, another system called Move, or move like actions, Shifts. And it took my group awhile to wrap around that 1 change in a sea of new terms we had to deal with.

So yeah. Can't really get worked up about this one. Only reason I have some bard knowledge is because I tried looking into the Bard Channel archetype. Hope the changes are good enough to make them not be discount Rogue. Oh, well, in most community causes; Upgraded Rogue.

Xenocrat wrote:

Mark,

Xenocrat wrote:

Ctrl-F: "Charisma"

[No results found]

Is it feasible to make a Bard that doesn't pump Charisma? (I'd really prefer an Int based Occult caster). I'm sure Charisma is the Bard's casting stat, but I'm guessing that unless you insist on mind controlling people with your spells you've got enough utility/buffs that you might get by without worrying about your DCs too much.

If you didn't use the maestro stuff or rely overly much on spell rolls and DCs, I feel like you could do pretty reasonably, particularly in some of the "Bardic Knowledge" type stuff.

I really want to build a scholar character now as a bard with 10 Charisma, high Int lore muse. To add to that ...

Finally, you begin play at 1st level with two compositions, the inspire courage cantrip (which has been detailed above) and the counter performance power.

For how diverse the bard seems to able to built (between compositions, spell cantrips, spell powers, class feats and spell repertoire), the 1st level seems uncharacteristically forced into taking inspire courage and counter performance. If I wanted to build a reclusive scholar, it seems unfitting for her to have inspire confidence. Is this something that all bards must take and if so, is there hope of us dropping it in the future?

In all honesty it would pretty appropriate for someone self-centered with minimum Charisma to have the ability to buff their teammates, and just choose never to do it in favor of anything else more pragmatic.

Really, really (really) love the changes to bard. You can see in Wayne's art that Lem knows good things are on the horizon for him.

Voss wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Stone Dog wrote:

So Muses are an alternate way of saying "your characters passion" and that passion can be hung on whatever sort of narrative hook that you like. I like it.

As for what makes martials stand out in combat, while all characters share the same progression bonuses to dice rills, it feels like PF2 is focusing more on breadth of ability rather than just big numbers. At a range the elf wizard and the human fighter might be hitting the target roughly equally,but the fighter will have more tricks up their sleeve in actual adventuring conditions.

Which combined with getting more proficiencies on leveling is why I'm not bothered if fighters don't get as many proficiency ranks in skills at level one, at least if their weapon skills feel like actual skills in play.

Not only will the fighter have more tricks, but even the differences they have can lead to some pretty significant results.

For instance, suppose the elf wizard is pretty tooled up on Dexterity and his bow and can hit a solid challenging opponent on a 10 (pretty good for a wizard!) and the fighter is ahead by +3 on accuracy. The wizard is going to do pretty well on that arrow (especially since he can cast a spell and then shoot each round as sort of a freebie). But that fighter is going to do 50% more damage on average just from the accuracy, without any of his tricks.

Why +3? Can't the wizard just prioritize dex over int to close that gap(since stats don't give bonus spells and its presumably possible to just avoid save based spells)?

Are buff spells eliminated in PF2 that a spellcaster can't boost rolls/give higher bonuses? It would seem odd if all of those old personal buffs are missing (especially since bless isn't missing...)

I am pretty sure that extra +3 comes from weapon proficiency. Fighters get their ranked up proficiencies for weapons incredibly fast compared to others. So basically if the ability stats are equal then the fighter is going to...

This and the wizard will never have an ability score that matches a fighter in its specialized stat, assuming both are keeping it maxed. The two have an equal modifier from ability scores from level 5-9 and 15-19, otherwise the fighter will be ahead on the ability score, and then you can account for proficiency. And fighters have a lot of tricks that we don't really have a full picture on yet.

Will Spell Kenning still potentially be a thing? That was my favourite addition to the Skald. It felt like something Bards should have had from the start.

Voss wrote:

Why is the lingering composition performance check expressed so oddly? Why not X+level rather than the ' convoluted high difficulty based on highest level or GM messing with you?'

I think it is so that the GM can actually make it easier rather than harder. If the Bard opts to use an incredibly appropriate piece of performance for the composition the effect would have an easier time lingering.

Yes, it's mostly to make it easier. In theory I guess if you sing an "inspiring" song to the dwarves of the Five Kings Mountains about the glory of Taldor's Fourth Army of Exploration (which attacked the dwarves) or something contrived like that, you might make it tougher on yourself.

Huh interesting what they have done with 1e core book casters. Seems like previous martial casters(paladins and rangers) are now just martials, even alchemist(not from 1e core) got turned into its own thing rather than being weird pseudo caster. Meanwhile the five original core casters seem to now follow this pattern: four of them have spell list unique to their theme(arcane = wizard, cleric = divine, bard = occult and druid = primal) and fifth one is generalist that can use any of them depending on bloodline.

It makes sense to make bards level 10 casters if they are now the "occult" rather than "just" funny magical music men

That said, Bard Supremacy(which has always been a thing) is now official :D

I think I love everything about this new bard. Yup. Everything.

I can live without having there be multiple casting progressions, and Bards drawing from the occult tradition works as well as any other if it lets them have spells that fit them.

Although from a design standpoint, it seems odd that Occult is the only tradition that isn't practiced by a prepared spellcaster by default. I think I could have totally accepted bards as charisma-based prepared spellcasters (especially with unlimited performances in the form of exclusive cantrips already baked into the class either way).

Otherwise I'll just have to wait for Paizo to publish four more primary spellcasting classes... one occult prepared, and one spontaneous caster of each of the other three traditions (no more, no less in order to satisfy my obsession with symetry in design). Sorcerers don't count because they pop up in every magical tradition (like lazy, superhuman roaches).

I am pretty sure that occultists or possibly known by another name would be the prepared occult spell casting class. Bard is a good choice though to show off the occult spell list until the other classes are added in the future.

The Sarcastic Sage wrote:

RiverMesa wrote:

Bardarok wrote:

Disk Elemental wrote:

Can we take this as an indication that the 6th level caster doesn't exist in 2e?

All the classes in the playtest have been previewed now and no half-casters to be seen so there will not be any the playtest and probably none in the PF2 CRB. Doesn't mean that there isn't room for them in future PF2 books but probably not till 2020.

There is still a chance for Druid being a half-caster! (...Probably not, though.)

What about Paladin, though?

Take a look at their preview. Paladins lost all spell slots, and now use spell points.

That does seem like the pattern. You are either a full caster with 10 levels of spells or you are not. But some classes like paladin and ranger have or can acquire the ability to cast stuff using their power points.

It likely makes it a bit easier for them to balance power wise when your casters all have similar types of access to stuff.

Given the way spell lists work a 6th level caster would be destined to suck in PF2, I think. Bards, Magi, etc. worked in PF1 because they had early access to spells that fit their theme or were otherwise important for the class to have "on curve". Given the standardization of spell lists (a positive change IMO, since it prevents the list clutter that PF1 ended up having) you wouldn't have the room to make the same exceptions.

kaid wrote:

Voss wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Stone Dog wrote:

So Muses are an alternate way of saying "your characters passion" and that passion can be hung on whatever sort of narrative hook that you like. I like it.

As for what makes martials stand out in combat, while all characters share the same progression bonuses to dice rills, it feels like PF2 is focusing more on breadth of ability rather than just big numbers. At a range the elf wizard and the human fighter might be hitting the target roughly equally,but the fighter will have more tricks up their sleeve in actual adventuring conditions.

Which combined with getting more proficiencies on leveling is why I'm not bothered if fighters don't get as many proficiency ranks in skills at level one, at least if their weapon skills feel like actual skills in play.

Not only will the fighter have more tricks, but even the differences they have can lead to some pretty significant results.

For instance, suppose the elf wizard is pretty tooled up on Dexterity and his bow and can hit a solid challenging opponent on a 10 (pretty good for a wizard!) and the fighter is ahead by +3 on accuracy. The wizard is going to do pretty well on that arrow (especially since he can cast a spell and then shoot each round as sort of a freebie). But that fighter is going to do 50% more damage on average just from the accuracy, without any of his tricks.

Why +3? Can't the wizard just prioritize dex over int to close that gap(since stats don't give bonus spells and its presumably possible to just avoid save based spells)?

Are buff spells eliminated in PF2 that a spellcaster can't boost rolls/give higher bonuses? It would seem odd if all of those old personal buffs are missing (especially since bless isn't missing...)

I am pretty sure that extra +3 comes from weapon proficiency. Fighters get their ranked up proficiencies for weapons incredibly fast compared to others. So basically if the ability stats are equal then

...

The argument is going to however be at the end of the day; "Is this equal to or not, Magic".

If with a simple spell, maybe two, a Muscle Wizard can tie or surpass Fighter while still having access to extra casting and other abilites that are better than "Walk up and hit things" than Fight will still get kicked down to the useless bin. Even more so if God Wizard is still a thing.

This is, however, something we have to wait and see. The Stamina system was something they tried to do to help Martials out so the Tricks Fighters get can build off of that.

Ultimatecalibur wrote:

Voss wrote:

Why is the lingering composition performance check expressed so oddly? Why not X+level rather than the ' convoluted high difficulty based on highest level or GM messing with you?'

I think it is so that the GM can actually make it easier rather than harder. If the Bard opts to use an incredibly appropriate piece of performance for the composition the effect would have an easier time lingering.

Yes, it's mostly to make it easier. In theory I guess if you sing an "inspiring" song to the dwarves of the Five Kings Mountains about the glory of Taldor's Fourth Army of Exploration (which attacked the dwarves) or something contrived like that, you might make it tougher on yourself.

It's another one of those open ended written tools that lets GMs do GM things. Good and bad.

Though I do recall earlier this year or late last year a topic about GMs giving bonuses for good role playing. That topic saw mixed stances, so I wonder how this will go over.

kaid wrote:

The Sarcastic Sage wrote:

RiverMesa wrote:

Bardarok wrote:

Disk Elemental wrote:

Can we take this as an indication that the 6th level caster doesn't exist in 2e?

All the classes in the playtest have been previewed now and no half-casters to be seen so there will not be any the playtest and probably none in the PF2 CRB. Doesn't mean that there isn't room for them in future PF2 books but probably not till 2020.

There is still a chance for Druid being a half-caster! (...Probably not, though.)

What about Paladin, though?

Take a look at their preview. Paladins lost all spell slots, and now use spell points.

That does seem like the pattern. You are either a full caster with 10 levels of spells or you are not. But some classes like paladin and ranger have or can acquire the ability to cast stuff using their power points.

It likely makes it a bit easier for them to balance power wise when your casters all have similar types of access to stuff.

Given the way spell lists work a 6th level caster would be destined to suck in PF2, I think. Bards, Magi, etc. worked in PF1 because they had early access to spells that fit their theme or were otherwise important for the class to have "on curve". Given the standardization of spell lists (a positive change IMO, since it prevents the list clutter that PF1 ended up having) you wouldn't have the room to make the same exceptions.

Magi actually had few early-access spells on their list (barring a few weird places that didn't get the memo that they aren't usually early access), but they had incredibly action economy advantages, which is also very useful. This is very true for every other 6-level caster in PF1 though.

Mark, I remember one of you guys saying that there wasn't arcane spell failure chance for armor in 2e. Can you please confirm or deny? If it helps I even remember the dev going on to say that they'd actually like to see if arcane casters will grab the proficiency feats and find them worth it.

This is hands down one of the best previews in my opinion. The bard is one of my favorite P1e classes, so reading that not only are they now full casters, but they also have a specifically defined spell list and are tied to occult themes? At that point, everything else is just a lot of icing on the perfectly moist cake.

I must ask, though, especially since the Occult spell list is also going to be accessible to the Sorcerer and presumably other classes in the future, what are the combat options like for the spell list? Are they particularly limited, or are they just more focused on mind-affecting effects?

MusicAddict wrote:

kaid wrote:

Voss wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Stone Dog wrote:

So Muses are an alternate way of saying "your characters passion" and that passion can be hung on whatever sort of narrative hook that you like. I like it.

As for what makes martials stand out in combat, while all characters share the same progression bonuses to dice rills, it feels like PF2 is focusing more on breadth of ability rather than just big numbers. At a range the elf wizard and the human fighter might be hitting the target roughly equally,but the fighter will have more tricks up their sleeve in actual adventuring conditions.

Which combined with getting more proficiencies on leveling is why I'm not bothered if fighters don't get as many proficiency ranks in skills at level one, at least if their weapon skills feel like actual skills in play.

Not only will the fighter have more tricks, but even the differences they have can lead to some pretty significant results.

For instance, suppose the elf wizard is pretty tooled up on Dexterity and his bow and can hit a solid challenging opponent on a 10 (pretty good for a wizard!) and the fighter is ahead by +3 on accuracy. The wizard is going to do pretty well on that arrow (especially since he can cast a spell and then shoot each round as sort of a freebie). But that fighter is going to do 50% more damage on average just from the accuracy, without any of his tricks.

Why +3? Can't the wizard just prioritize dex over int to close that gap(since stats don't give bonus spells and its presumably possible to just avoid save based spells)?

Are buff spells eliminated in PF2 that a spellcaster can't boost rolls/give higher bonuses? It would seem odd if all of those old personal buffs are missing (especially since bless isn't missing...)

I am pretty sure that extra +3 comes from weapon proficiency. Fighters get their ranked up proficiencies for weapons incredibly fast compared to others. So basically if the

...

I think we won't know that for sure until we see the weapon/martial class feats that get unlocked are. It is not just that being a higher proficiency is a flat bonus better but it also opens the door to taking feats/abilities that require that level of proficiency and that should be the real differentiation point between casters who dabble in combat to those martials fully focused on it.

Ultimatecalibur wrote:

Voss wrote:

Why is the lingering composition performance check expressed so oddly? Why not X+level rather than the ' convoluted high difficulty based on highest level or GM messing with you?'

I think it is so that the GM can actually make it easier rather than harder. If the Bard opts to use an incredibly appropriate piece of performance for the composition the effect would have an easier time lingering.

Yes, it's mostly to make it easier. In theory I guess if you sing an "inspiring" song to the dwarves of the Five Kings Mountains about the glory of Taldor's Fourth Army of Exploration (which attacked the dwarves) or something contrived like that, you might make it tougher on yourself.

On this topic, I assume "high-level DC" both has a specific meaning, and is used elsewhere in the rules (enough that you won't have to go digging through the books to find out what exactly the DC should be or just winging it).

Because if the rules are essentially "A high level DC of a given level is 15+level" or something like that I can see some justification for not repeating it, but I could also see it being just easier saying "The DC for this performance is 15 + the level of the highest level target of this spell" and rely on circumstance bonuses or penalties to apply as with other things.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Aiken Frost wrote:

Can we *please* don't let spellcasters have more skills than the Fighter? Please?

I mostly agree here, but think an exception can be made for Bard, as the 'high skill' caster Class just as Rogue is the 'high skill' martial one.

My only problem with that is the fact that the Bard already is a full caster and I bet his spells are going to give him absurd levels of versatility. And having that many skills alongside full 10 levels of spells will certainly just make the Rogue cry in a corner.

But if there must be an exception about skilled casters, I agree that the Bard should be it.

Spells that duplicate skills now generally either give a decent bonus to the target's own skill check, or give you a bonus a bit worse than a true specialist. You either make your skill guy really, really, good, or the spell lets someone untrained act as a decent second best alternative. There's no more of the spell in isolation beating a skilled PC and rendering his talent obsolete.

Plus, the Occult list likely won't be able to do as much skill wise as the Wizard list, lacking physical essence.

Meh.

I'm sure bards will be viable under the new system. But I'm not particularly excited about all spellcasters being 9th level spellcasters or simply having powers that aren't spells but work like spells. 6th level casters were some of the most fun classes in PF1e.

I don't mind that their performances are now spells (or powers? which are pretend spells?). But we've got everyone is now a full BAB class (with different degrees of the fighter's weapon training being the only differentiation) and if you're a caster you must be a 9th level caster. The level of homogenisation isn't to the degree of 4th ed. But it's still too damn high for my enjoyment. PF2e has some great ideas in it, and a lot of "bleuch" ideas for me.

Mark, I remember one of you guys saying that there wasn't arcane spell failure chance for armor in 2e. Can you please confirm or deny? If it helps I even remember the dev going on to say that they'd actually like to see if arcane casters will grab the proficiency feats and find them worth it.

I remember that too but not who said it. Whoever said it was right.

Classes like bard used to need to get certain spells at lower spell-levels just to still get them at an actual level that was useful to them. Now our design space doesn't need that by default. Where we do occasionally need add a spell to a casters list at a particular spell level, we can still do so explicitly through a feat, feature, etc.

From my read of this, Mark, doesn't this essentially lock in the monk-bard as the ultimate multi-class build?

[/onlyhalfserious]

Aiken Frost wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Aiken Frost wrote:

Can we *please* don't let spellcasters have more skills than the Fighter? Please?

I mostly agree here, but think an exception can be made for Bard, as the 'high skill' caster Class just as Rogue is the 'high skill' martial one.

My only problem with that is the fact that the Bard already is a full caster and I bet his spells are going to give him absurd levels of versatility. And having that many skills alongside full 10 levels of spells will certainly just make the Rogue cry in a corner.

But if there must be an exception about skilled casters, I agree that the Bard should be it.

Spells that duplicate skills now generally either give a decent bonus to the target's own skill check, or give you a bonus a bit worse than a true specialist. You either make your skill guy really, really, good, or the spell lets someone untrained act as a decent second best alternative. There's no more of the spell in isolation beating a skilled PC and rendering his talent obsolete.

Plus, the Occult list likely won't be able to do as much skill wise as the Wizard list, lacking physical essence.

Debatable. We'll have to see what the spells look like at the end of the day, but this is a stance that might loosen by mistake when they're up to splat book 10 or something.

Yeah it's not a worry now but Paizo better make sure to not just invent spells/feats/things in isolation if they want to keep it that way.

The homoginization of spell lists will also do wonders for magic items like scrolls and wands and potions. A paladin helping to make a wand of Greater angelic aspect always felt off.

Vessa wrote:

Mark, I remember one of you guys saying that there wasn't arcane spell failure chance for armor in 2e. Can you please confirm or deny? If it helps I even remember the dev going on to say that they'd actually like to see if arcane casters will grab the proficiency feats and find them worth it.

I remember that too but not who said it. Whoever said it was right.

Wow great news

This is hands down one of the best previews in my opinion. The bard is one of my favorite P1e classes, so reading that not only are they now full casters, but they also have a specifically defined spell list and are tied to occult themes? At that point, everything else is just a lot of icing on the perfectly moist cake.

I must ask, though, especially since the Occult spell list is also going to be accessible to the Sorcerer and presumably other classes in the future, what are the combat options like for the spell list? Are they particularly limited, or are they just more focused on mind-affecting effects?

You mean in-battle options or specifically damaging/offensive options? The influence from the spiritual focuses on force and sonic damage spells, combined with mental attacks like phantasmal killer and so on.

Bard looks awesome! I think this is a great improvement over the PF 1.0 Bard. So far, Bard looks to be far more than the support class it was for 1.0.

It's a shame we can't mark blog entries as favourite, as this one would be a shoo-in :-)

Bravo, Paizo - and encore!

From my read of this, Mark, doesn't this essentially lock in the monk-bard as the ultimate multi-class build?

[/onlyhalfserious]

I like ranger-bard, personally.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Ultimatecalibur wrote:

Voss wrote:

Why is the lingering composition performance check expressed so oddly? Why not X+level rather than the ' convoluted high difficulty based on highest level or GM messing with you?'

I think it is so that the GM can actually make it easier rather than harder. If the Bard opts to use an incredibly appropriate piece of performance for the composition the effect would have an easier time lingering.

Yes, it's mostly to make it easier. In theory I guess if you sing an "inspiring" song to the dwarves of the Five Kings Mountains about the glory of Taldor's Fourth Army of Exploration (which attacked the dwarves) or something contrived like that, you might make it tougher on yourself.

On this topic, I assume "high-level DC" both has a specific meaning, and is used elsewhere in the rules (enough that you won't have to go digging through the books to find out what exactly the DC should be or just winging it).

Because if the rules are essentially "A high level DC of a given level is 15+level" or something like that I can see some justification for not repeating it, but I could also see it being just easier saying "The DC for this performance is 15 + the level of the highest level target of this spell" and rely on circumstance bonuses or penalties to apply as with other things.

It has a specific meaning and should be easy to find, the best way to describe from a PF1/other RPG perspective is something like "On a GM screen this would be a chart in a prominent position."

It's a shame we can't mark blog entries as favourite, as this one would be a shoo-in :-)

Bravo, Paizo - and encore!

If you're looking for an encore, I'll be on Know Direction talking about the bard (and other stuff but I think the episode has the bard in the title) this Wednesday!

Friendly Rogue wrote:

This is hands down one of the best previews in my opinion. The bard is one of my favorite P1e classes, so reading that not only are they now full casters, but they also have a specifically defined spell list and are tied to occult themes? At that point, everything else is just a lot of icing on the perfectly moist cake.

I must ask, though, especially since the Occult spell list is also going to be accessible to the Sorcerer and presumably other classes in the future, what are the combat options like for the spell list? Are they particularly limited, or are they just more focused on mind-affecting effects?

You mean in-battle options or specifically damaging/offensive options? The influence from the spiritual focuses on force and sonic damage spells, combined with mental attacks like phantasmal killer and so on.

I was thinking of damaging/offensive options specifically, such as Ear-Piercing Scream or Chord of Shards from the Bard spell list in P1e, but if the Occult spell list has a focus on force effects due to the spiritual influence, does that mean spells like Magic Missile could also appear on it?

From my read of this, Mark, doesn't this essentially lock in the monk-bard as the ultimate multi-class build?

[/onlyhalfserious]

Oh in what way? It could be pretty effective, if also pretty MAD.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Friendly Rogue wrote:

This is hands down one of the best previews in my opinion. The bard is one of my favorite P1e classes, so reading that not only are they now full casters, but they also have a specifically defined spell list and are tied to occult themes? At that point, everything else is just a lot of icing on the perfectly moist cake.

I must ask, though, especially since the Occult spell list is also going to be accessible to the Sorcerer and presumably other classes in the future, what are the combat options like for the spell list? Are they particularly limited, or are they just more focused on mind-affecting effects?

You mean in-battle options or specifically damaging/offensive options? The influence from the spiritual focuses on force and sonic damage spells, combined with mental attacks like phantasmal killer and so on.

I was thinking of damaging/offensive options specifically, such as Ear-Piercing Scream or Chord of Shards from the Bard spell list in P1e, but if the Occult spell list has a focus on force effects due to the spiritual influence, does that mean spells like Magic Missile could also appear on it?

Sure, why not? I could totally see a bard playing the violin at a frenzied pace and releasing three missiles of force, and it fits with the spiritual focus.

Wow, bards look great! I like that performing is more active now, and that Countersong works on visual effects too! Agree that the Lingering Composition wording is weird, though, and that status effects like quick should probably be capitalized or something to set them off.

I also notice, between this and the character sheets being released at ENWorld, that most buff effects seem to be conditional bonuses now? Which presumably means they don't stack. Bless in particular is looking kinda sad next to Inspire Courage! (Sure, it lasts longer, but it doesn't affect damage, lost its bonus on saving throws against fear, had its AoE reduced, AND still eats a spell slot while IC now consumes no resources besides actions...) As someone who's been playing a support oracle in RoW, I can appreciate not having to spend multiple rounds casting nearly-identical buffs like Bless and Prayer (I hope the former scales into the latter, now?), but it would still be nice if different classes' support abilities played well together.

Also, if we're renaming the occultist somewhere down the line (please do bring him back! he was a cool concept, if over-complicated), my vote is for "ritualist." And that's only 60% because I spent all my teen years playing one in Guild Wars...

For how diverse the bard seems to able to built (between compositions, spell cantrips, spell powers, class feats and spell repertoire), the 1st level seems uncharacteristically forced into taking inspire courage and counter performance. If I wanted to build a reclusive scholar, it seems unfitting for her to have inspire confidence. Is this something that all bards must take and if so, is there hope of us dropping it in the future?

You could flavour it as instead rattling off handy knowledge based fighting tips to your allies.

"If you can, the chitin under it's mandibles is thinner than anywhere else on the beast."

"According to Malthar's Tome of Unearthly Horrors, you really shouldn't be listening to the gibberring."

"Did you know that most monsters have testicles? Kick them for fascinating results!"

LoreKeeper wrote:

From my read of this, Mark, doesn't this essentially lock in the monk-bard as the ultimate multi-class build?

[/onlyhalfserious]

I like ranger-bard, personally.

I fully intend to go druid-bard at some point during the playtest, to see how that behaves.

Wow, bards look great! I like that performing is more active now, and that Countersong works on visual effects too! Agree that the Lingering Composition wording is weird, though, and that status effects like quick should probably be capitalized or something to set them off.

I also notice, between this and the character sheets being released at ENWorld, that most buff effects seem to be conditional bonuses now? Which presumably means they don't stack. Bless in particular is looking kinda sad next to Inspire Courage! (Sure, it lasts longer, but it doesn't affect damage, lost its bonus on saving throws against fear, had its AoE reduced, AND still eats a spell slot while IC now consumes no resources besides actions...) As someone who's been playing a support oracle in RoW, I can appreciate not having to spend multiple rounds casting nearly-identical buffs like Bless and Prayer (I hope the former scales into the latter, now?), but it would still be nice if different classes' support abilities played well together.

Also, if we're renaming the occultist somewhere down the line (please do bring him back! he was a cool concept, if over-complicated), my vote is for "ritualist." And that's only 60% because I spent all my teen years playing one in Guild Wars...

Inspire courage is a key ability for the bard, and so bless is very intentionally not as good as having a bard around due to the slot cost, but it's a good spell to use if you don't have one. And if you do, the cleric is freed up for other options (or the cleric sticks with bless and frees the bard up to use a different composition!).

LoreKeeper wrote:

From my read of this, Mark, doesn't this essentially lock in the monk-bard as the ultimate multi-class build?

[/onlyhalfserious]

Oh in what way? It could be pretty effective, if also pretty MAD.

One action to inspire courage (wise sensei's advice), one action to flurry, one action to do whatever is required in the current situation.

This is obviously not for a caster-centric build, but for a battle-bard the two classes seem to compliment each other mechanically nicely. The monk part solidifies the bard as a melee combatant; the bard part escalates the combat effectiveness and significantly increases out-of-combat options.

Not to mention that "occult" seems a natural thematic fit for a monk.

I picture a monk 8 / bard 2 kind of split.

I've generally enjoyed the class previews thus far and this was no exception. Looking forward to the full reveal when the pdf drops.

Quick question...

Does Counter Performance count in the 1 composition/turn limit? Ex: if you cast inspire courage on your turn, you cannot react with Counter Performance since you already have an active performance

I sure hope it does not, otherwise it's still really limited... (even if that would make sense)

Xenocrat wrote:

David knott 242 wrote:

I see that the word "occult" is changing its meaning between PF1 and PF2. In PF2, there seems to be no connection between "occult" and "psychic" -- in fact, I suspect that "psychic" spellcasters may end up using all of the existing spell lists but with a slightly different casting method.

Disagree. The PF2 occult list mixes mental/spiritual essences, skipping physical and vital, and most of the PF1 psychic/occult spell lists (certainly the Psychic, Mesmerist, and Spiritualist) had a similar theme.

I half wonder if the PF2 Occultist won't even be a spellcaster, instead being a resonance focused class with spell points, just because "Occult" is right in the name but the Occultist is eminently a "stuff" focused concept.

I'd think the occultist would make for a simple archetype for alchemist. Sub out alchemy/bombs for wonderous items/trinkets, give them a boost to rituals, add some spell point casting and you're good to go. When it comes down to it, they're the same sort of class with a focus on magic items rather than alchemical items.

Does Counter Performance count in the 1 composition/turn limit? Ex: if you cast inspire courage on your turn, you cannot react with Counter Performance since you already have an active performance

I wondered about that interaction as well.

I'd think the occultist would make for a simple archetype for alchemist. Sub out alchemy/bombs for wonderous items/trinkets, give them a boost to rituals, add some spell point casting and you're good to go. When it comes down to it, they're the same sort of class with a focus on magic items rather than alchemical items.

Sub out bombs and alchemy. I mean, sure, but since "alchemy" includes basically all class abilities and related feats I'm not certain that it is as minor a swap as you're thinking.

Although I do agree that the class when it arrives will likely focus around trinkets, spell point powers, and have the same increased resonance that alchemists have (possibly even more). Hey, maybe they can call it a hedge mage.

Depending on how rituals work, I can see an Indiana Jones type archaeologist being a rogue who took the ritual skills.

Aiken Frost wrote:

Quote:

You also have the most trained skills at 1st level except for rogues, just barely edging out rangers. Finally, you begin play at 1st level with two compositions, the inspire courage cantrip (which has been detailed above) and the counter performance power.

Can we *please* don't let spellcasters have more skills than the Fighter? Please?

Also:

Quote:

You perform rapidly, speeding your ally. The ally is quick and can use the action to Strike, Stride, or Step.

The Allegro wording is terrible. It would be better like this:

Quote:

You perform rapidly, speeding your ally. The ally gets one action he can use only to Strike, Stride, or Step.

The wording is the way it is because Quick is a status effect that doesn't stack with other abilities that give Quick and can be countered by Slow.

So in a counterspell battle, it would go SLOW, SLOW, QUICK, QUICK, SLOW...

Quick question...

Does Counter Performance count in the 1 composition/turn limit? Ex: if you cast inspire courage on your turn, you cannot react with Counter Performance since you already have an active performance

I sure hope it does not, otherwise it's still really limited... (even if that would make sense)

It's off your turn so you can use it; I worded very very carefully to make sure it didn't block reactions. However, without some of the crazy maestro mix-and-match stuff, it will end any current effects of inspire courage when you use it (this may not matter if the monster goes right before you though).

Sounds like pretty much every class can pick every feat from each of their subclasses without picking the subclass. True? Can I pick a divination school (which I assume is not just a specialization option but a subclass thing) then get all the feats from the necromancy school?

ErichAD wrote:

I'd think the occultist would make for a simple archetype for alchemist. Sub out alchemy/bombs for wonderous items/trinkets, give them a boost to rituals, add some spell point casting and you're good to go. When it comes down to it, they're the same sort of class with a focus on magic items rather than alchemical items.

Sub out bombs and alchemy. I mean, sure, but since "alchemy" includes basically all class abilities I'm not certain that it is as minor a swap as you're thinking.

Although I do agree that the class when it arrives will likely focus around trinkets, spell point powers, and have the same increased resonance that alchemists have (possibly even more). Hey, maybe they can call it a hedge mage.

Honestly, while I don't think making it an archetype would be either simple or practical, I feel that basing the Occultist pretty heavily off of the Alchemist (no spellcasting, but a lot of neat tricks involving magic items and class abilities that focus in on these abilities) would be a really smart way to approach it, especially now that 6th level casters are somewhat being phased out in favor of default full casters (and this is assuming this doesn't change in the future, or that it's easy for classes like the fighter to invest into spellcasting and get partial magic).

Bailey Allen wrote:

For how diverse the bard seems to able to built (between compositions, spell cantrips, spell powers, class feats and spell repertoire), the 1st level seems uncharacteristically forced into taking inspire courage and counter performance. If I wanted to build a reclusive scholar, it seems unfitting for her to have inspire confidence. Is this something that all bards must take and if so, is there hope of us dropping it in the future?

You could flavour it as instead rattling off handy knowledge based fighting tips to your allies.

"If you can, the chitin under it's mandibles is thinner than anywhere else on the beast."

"According to Malthar's Tome of Unearthly Horrors, you really shouldn't be listening to the gibberring."

"Did you know that most monsters have testicles? Kick them for fascinating results!"

This is why Malthar's Tome of Unearthly Horrors should be required reading. They always underestimate the gibbering...

Mark Seifter wrote:

LoreKeeper wrote:

From my read of this, Mark, doesn't this essentially lock in the monk-bard as the ultimate multi-class build?

[/onlyhalfserious]

Oh in what way? It could be pretty effective, if also pretty MAD.

One action to inspire courage (wise sensei's advice), one action to flurry, one action to do whatever is required in the current situation.

This is obviously not for a caster-centric build, but for a battle-bard the two classes seem to compliment each other mechanically nicely. The monk part solidifies the bard as a melee combatant; the bard part escalates the combat effectiveness and significantly increases out-of-combat options.

Not to mention that "occult" seems a natural thematic fit for a monk.

I picture a monk 8 / bard 2 kind of split.

I thought it might be that; flurry+performance is indeed a potent combination. It's also pretty solid for other situations like fist ranger with pet (as someone else mentioned upthread).

I like moving the songs over to spells. Much slicker. I wonder though, since we have inspire courage as an occult cantrip, does that mean a sorcerer with the occult spell list has access to it, or are cantrips class locked rather than spell list locked?