Angwa's page

Oh, and another way is to place the fight in an environment that heavily favors the opponent or actively works against the pc's.

Hurricanes, sandstorms, earthquakes, underwater rapids, traps everywhere, a lava field, in a collapsing cave vs a burrowing creature, etc...

The idea here is to mess with the PC's action economy, make executing their standard go-to tactics very challenging to execute and make it a much more dynamic situation.

Well, to be fair, for Moment of Renewal it's just the oracle that becomes immune so it's a R8 slot and 2 actions to get con mod x lvl hp's and lose some conditions just for yourself if you cast it a second time.

Meh, heals less than Heal and clearing/lowering conditions would be very situational in encounter mode, and outside encounter mode you will have better ways of dealing with these. Definitely not TGTBT in my opinion.

Nothing currently would really be TGTBT if you allow this, but yeah, that would mean the battle curse comes with a little bonus advantage unlike all the others which does feel unintended.

On the other hand it actually makes Battle feel more like the old Oracle curses and I wouldn't mind the other Curses also having perks like this. It feels in theme for a battle oracle and it's a fun, cool perk, but nothing more, so I'd allow it.

A second initiative track and more hitpoints are things I have used as well and can say definitely worked.

There are some variations you can do. E.g. instead of straight up increasing hitpoints I've had the boss go through stages ('You fool, this isn't even my final form!').

Also once had the boss start powered-up with loads of buffs/immunities/resistances/regeneration which the players could turn off by disabling the ritual focus items sustaining them, obviously also on a timer because this was a ritual for ascending to godhood nearing its climax.

On the other hand improvised weapon fans aren't exactly hot stuff and neither are bucklers, so I wouldn't object if the player really wants this...

Full casters in PF2e are most certainly not weak, and that asessment of just being good for buffs, 1-turn debuffs and cleaning up mook is simply untrue.

Now, that said, buffing/debuffing and CC is the Bard's specialty. If this is what you are looking for, yeah, it's one of the strongest choices, if not, well, YMMV.

Fortissimo can be great, but you want to combine it with things like True Target and Synesthesia before it really starts to shine.

You already got a bunch of good spells, and all I can say is that you seem to undervalue the effects of even a successful save vs the likes of slow or laughing fit and overvalue the cost of a slot.

Anyway, some more spells to consider:

Friendfetch and Lose the Path: R1 evergreens with excellent utility, one of 'em a reaction.

For R2 heightened Illusory Object and Revealing Light can be real game changers and turn an encounter around.

At R3 Bonewall Bulwark can be nasty in AV (rare, but eh, you're the GM) and also Rouse Skeletons for sustained damage, which is a good way to go if you do a lot of encounters per day as you guys seem to do. The damage really adds up, it creates difficult terrain and targets Reflex save.

At R4 a heightened Silence can have a huge impact on encounters. And in AV Spiritual Anamnesis would have its upgraded effect very often.

A lot of these are a bit situational, but when they can have an impact, like e.g. Revealing Light vs invisible opponents or Silence vs a caster, they will have a tangible impact.

Meh, like I said before, I disagree that Zelekhut and Kraken's double strikes activities are incompatible with the container reading as they give permission to be followed up with trip and grab and even modify how to resolve it.

This seems, to me at least and call it disingenious all you want, just as valid in the rules as giving them a special trip/grab which contains a modified prerequisite and resolution. Especially as it saves wordcount and the monsters are self-contained and their abilities are bespoke.

But yeah, what Trip.H keeps dancing around is providing a convincing chain of logic that if 'next action' is always only the activity and not the first subordinate action why 'previous action' would suddenly see the last subordinate action and not only the activity, taking into account that it was just examples illustrating the principle that doing an activity is not the same as doing the subordinate actions and not an exhaustive list.

Dude... text is not some ambiguous thing you can just call "close enough" and claim truth. If you are going to talk like that, why are you even wasting your time posting here?

...

If you want to have any sort of productive discussion, you need to engage in good faith. You can easily still attack the cited text; diminish it's weight by saying that it's just monster ability with less QA, and a dev error, etc.

Respectfully, Trip.H, when it comes to people reading and interpreting text 'close enough' is all we'll ever get. And in the case of GM's reading the Kraken or Zelekhut entries I am confident they will be able to run them as intended and it is totally unambiguous.

Also, please cool it with the accusations of wasting time or not engaging in good faith.

They never say they carve out such an exception. They simply provide for what would happen if you *were* allowed to activate the actions, there’s no text overriding the normal activation conditions for trip/grab

Yes, well, if stating how trip/grab works following the double attack is not considered allowing you to do just that we are quite frankly being very silly.

This not code to be run by a computer but rules to be applied by humans.

The Zelekhut is a good example, has an ability it literally can’t activate otherwise. The Kraken is similar as well.

Except that the double attack activities of both creatures explicitely carve out the exception that allows them to be followed up with a trip/grab, and even more modifies these follow-up actions to work on all targets hit.

Well, we seem to have reverted back to the exact same discussion as on page 1 of this thread.

When clarifying the subordinate actions and stating that using an activity is not the same as using the subordinate actions they gave 2 examples, namely quickened and next action, and specifically called them out as just examples.

Two examples are not an exhaustive list, and any reading that results in that conclusion seems, to me at least, pretty forced. Therefore judgement is required and this is where consistency becomes important.

I do not believe PF2e balance breaks if you let next/previous action abilities trigger on the subordinate actions by the way, but I do believe that the rules text prohibits just that, both for next as well as previous.

I like having attributes. I think they are realistict and help describe the character. I do think it is silly just handing out large amounts of attributes as the characters level. Are you just fixing a maths problem in the game? What are they supposed to represent in the first place?

It could be covered with a set of feats eg like choose some feats that describe what your character is best at and provide a mechanical bonus. I think I prefer to do both this and have attributes.

I'd prefer if there where a few more options where attributes where not important. Example at the moment you can build a caster with just buff, healing, summons, walls and force barrage. You cut out almost all your offensive options but it is somewhat workable and you don't have to have a good spellcasting attribute. Can we get a class without a primary attribute?

In the current system attributes are too important for the mechanical side of things to be properly used for expressing and describing your character. They are a very large part of your attack bonus, set your DC's, defenses and what skills you can be really good at. This severely limits your freedom in how to use them without having to choose between mechanically viable vs staying true to you concept.

Of course people are different and some have a natural advantage in athletics, academics or socializing, but I don't believe a pure and permanent mathematical numbers advantage which can never be overcome is the best way to express that.

I think most of the suggestions here will not result in a fundamentally different game or a rules light game.

You can reverse this and ask what absolutely needs to be kept to make it feel like PF2e or an iteration on it.

I'd say that would be tight math, scaling with level to create a zero to hero arc, great customization for building characters and the 3 action system.

Nixing attributes, fundamental runes and handling the weapon categories, spellcasting or skill feats in a different way is mostly streamlining.

Just saw the update to the guide, @Nintendogeek01, and it's unfortunately wrong.

Amps are, in effect, spellshape, as they require you to cast a psi cantrip as your next action. They're thus completely incompatible with spellstrike. So psychic should be red (*), since all you get from the dedication is one cantrip, and getting the amp doesn't even give you a focus point, since you start with one as magus (and the rule about having a focus pool as large as you have focus spells does not apply to amps).

That makes it strictly inferior to, well, every other spellcasting dedication. At least for the Magus.

Amps working exactly like spellshapes is a reasonable assumption, however they should have been clearer on what next action Amp expects.

Spellshapes ask for your next action to specifically be the 'Cast a Spell' action while Amps RAW make no such demand. Spellstrike is after all also an action which can cast a psi cantrip, so technically it is allowed to make an amped spellstrike, though this is likely not RAI.

Hopefully they will clear this up in the Spellstrike specifics when they remaster Magus.

My wishlist for 3e:

- No more attributes

- No more Vancian casting

- Use trained/expert/master/legendary for spell-tiers instead of 10 ranks

- integrate item bonuses/fundamental runes into the base math

- change simple/martial/advanced weapons to training and let those with the training upgrade damage dice/add tags

- change all the little passive modifiers into an actively used pool. now you can play around with how to generate them, limits on which rolls you can use them for, whether you can use them before or after the roll, etc.

- Even more modular character building, preferably completely doing away with classes and offering the class features as buldingblocks/feats like in pathwarden, giving you complete freedom to build exactly the character you want

You don't understand that Imaginary Weapon and Exemplar cleary stepped outside the normal range of damage expectations that they had established?
For me it was as a distinct change where they went off the rails.

Exemplar dedication, sure, but IW?

There's tons of ranged focus spells, aoe even, with 2d6 scaling and decent riders. The touch range should give something, no?

Would IW be out of bounds if it were a save spell? If Starlit didn't exist? And because Starlit exists there should never be a spell attack that increases damage by reducing the range to touch?

Because you're casting the psi cantrip as part of the container of spellstrike, you're not using a specific action to cast the cantrip? Is that how people are parsing it?

I vaguely recall an FAQ about actions and container actions and stuff that supports that interpretation. But in a plain text reading it's not disingenuous to think/argue once you're inside the container action of spellstrike, you're granted an action to cast a spell (which can be the psi cantrip) which could grant you the free action to amp.

Without the FAQ that I can only vaguely recall....I feel like it wouldn't be unreasonable to think you could still amp the psi cantrip as part of spell strike.

The main question is about what amping requires.

If you parse it as needing the next action to be specifically Cast a Spell (like the spellshapes do) it won't work with Spellstrike, Act Together and all the others like it.

If you parse it as needing the next action to be any generic spellcasting action Spellstrike e.a. obviously work.

The former is likely correct, even if they didn't explicitely capitalize, but with the IW nerf nothing would break if you take the latter interpretation.

As was mentioned unless a spell mentions only enemies are affected, everyone in the aoe must save.

I would personally also do so with Revealing Light. The players should learn to cooperate and use tactics that allows casters to use aoe spells effectively.

Besides, in the specific case of Revealing Light it may not be as detrimental as you make it out to be.

If the enemy is invisible it is now concealed. Even if the PC is also dazzled that makes no difference against the now concealed enemy. This is always a net positive.

Using it against concealed enemies while also catching the pc's in the aoe may also be a net positive, depending on how your table/gm reads the spell and party make-up:

I've seen gm's rule that Revealing Light also removes the concealed caused by dazzled, so basically nobody affected by the spell suffers from or gains concealed. But even if that is not the reading odds are the aoe can be placed so just one pc is also hit, and for that pc things won't get worse, and for all the rest the situation improves.

I just don't see how you can turn either RAW or natural language to mean that "action is casting the psi cantrip" is one and the same as "action which [also] lets you cast a psi cantrip". Even when "Cast a Spell" is not written explicitly.
Unless you engage in nonsense like 'next action is the next basic action inside complex activity' which is not how this game works.

Because 'Cast a Spell' is not the only action which casts spells. Spellstrike does too. And that is specifically because we do not engage in the nonsense you mention.

Because we also know that are capable of writing in such a way that makes it clear and explicit whether they require the next to be Cast a Spell, like they do in spellshapes and everywhere else they refer to Cast a Spell.

But for some reason they did not write amping in the same way, so, no, it is unclear, to me at least, whether this is intentionally allowing Spellstrike or a formatting mistake.

I don’t think you can take any free action without a trigger inside a combined activity, so the issue is that’s spell strikes explanation of why spell shapes don’t work is underinclusive.

Spellstrike's explanation why spellshapes don't work is because they require your next action to be 'Cast a Spell'.

'You typically can’t use spellshape with Spellstrike because spellshape actions require the next action you take to be Cast a Spell, and Spellstrike is a combined activity that doesn’t qualify.'

They didn't make an Amp action summary like they did with unleash psyche, but the way they worded it amping isn't a triggered free action since it is talking about next action being casting a psi cantrip, which would be impossible if it were triggered.

Pffff.

Just checked it on Demiplane Nexus and the wording of amping is still really sloppy. Bah.

'Whenever you cast a psi cantrip, you can amp it by spending 1 Focus Point as a free action. If the next action you take is to cast the psi cantrip, you add the amp effect.'

Unlike spellshapes it does not require the next action to be 'Cast a Spell' specifically, so all other actions which let you cast a psi cantrip would also qualify. Like Spellstrike.

Is there a sidebar in Dark Archives which goes in to more detail?

This is flatly incorrect. Both Cast A Spell and Strike are subordinate actions inside of Spellstrike.

Yes, indeed, you are right and I stand corrected. AoN did not use capitalization, just a link, but that link went to Cast a Spell and in Secrets of Magic it was capitalized correctly.

However what matters is whether amping requires that Cast a Spell is your next action or not, and that is unclear from the quote is all I'm saying. The Spellstrike action casts spells just fine, even if it's obviously not the Cast a Spell action.

You can disagree all you like, that is not how the basic sequence of actions works. You yourself said it: your next action is Spellstrike. That is distinct from casting a psi cantrip, even if you cast a psi cantrip as a subordinate action of the Spellstrike. Once more, this is how spellshapes work for the purposes of determining what the next action is, and I don't see why we would make an exception here on top of this leap of logic.

It does not matter whether the next action is Spellstrike or Cast a Spell if all you care about is casting a spell.

Both actions cast a spell, and imho, the way Spellstrike is worded it never invokes Cast a Spell as a subordinate action, only Strike.

Angwa wrote:

Quote wrote:

You can apply an amp only to a psi cantrip, spending 1 Focus Point as a free action. If the next action you take is to cast a psi cantrip, you gain its amped effects.

If this quote however is directly lifted from the book and not paraphrased amping is not asking specifically for the Cast a Spell action like the spellshapes do and is therefore compatible with Spellstrike.

Okay, but again, to be very clear, Spellstriking is not casting a psi cantrip. If you use an amp and then Spellstrike with a psi cantrip, your next action after using the amp is to Spellstrike, not cast the psi cantrip. Thus, by that quote alone, you would not gain the benefits. Although the spellshape trait makes it explicit that the benefits are lost if you don't immediately follow up with the exact specified action, the core principle here is the same.

Eh, no, I disagree. If your next action is Spellstrike with a psi cantrip you are most definitely casting a psi cantrip and it will be amped.

You channel a spell into a punch or sword thrust to deliver a combined attack. You cast a spell that takes 1 or 2 actions to cast and requires either a spell attack roll or a saving throw....

The Spellstrike action is not the Cast a Spell action, that much is obvious, so not compatible with spellshapes which ask for that specific action, but you are still casting a spell when you use Spellstrike. That is explicitely stated in Spellstrike's description.

Spellstrike is not Cast a Spell, though. If you use the free action before Spellstriking, your next action would be to Spellstrike, not to cast the psi cantrip, so the amp wouldn't function. Because the free action presumably has no trigger, it can't be used during Spellstrike either, so there is no order of actions that could allow the amp free action to be used immediately before Casting the Spell as part of Spellstrike.

Yeah, I know the Spellstrike action is not the Cast a Spell action.

You can apply an amp only to a psi cantrip, spending 1 Focus Point as a free action. If the next action you take is to cast a psi cantrip, you gain its amped effects.

If this quote however is directly lifted from the book and not paraphrased amping is not asking specifically for the Cast a Spell action like the spellshapes do and is therefore compatible with Spellstrike.

But maybe this quote is not literal and the actual text is just as explicit as the spellshapes...

I had a situation the other day where our commander used pincer attack. I stepped adjacent to an enemy no one else stepped adjacent to. The commander claimed that the person I stepped adjacent to was not off guard to my attacks because the text states all OTHER squadmates. I claimed the enemy was off guard to my attacks as well. Who is correct in this situation?

I believe you are correct. Imho any enemy an ally, so not the Commander themself, ends up adjacent to by taking the step is offguard to:

- the Commander, even if they did not use a reaction to step.
- all others who used a reaction to step.

Responding to Pincer Attack, to me at least, means those who choose to use a reaction to step. The Commander can't force anyone to follow their tactics after all, so those who stepped responded, the others didn't.

I honestly see little support for a potential third choice on offer, namely, not using a reaction to step, but still counting as if you executed the tactic and responded.

It appears that amped cantrips can no longer be used with Spellstrike, anyway.

Reportedly the text now says

Quote:

You can apply an amp only to a psi cantrip, spending 1 Focus Point as a free action. If the next action you take is to cast a psi cantrip, you gain its amped effects.

You can't spend the focus point as a free action during the Spellstrike, and activating Spellstrike after spending the focus point would mean that your next action wasn't casting the psi cantrip so the cantrip wouldn't be amped.

So there's no way to use an amped cantrip as part of a Spellstrike.

Well, if that is the exact wording and not paraphrasing you can still Spellstrike with an Amped psi cantrip. Spellshapes typically demand the next action must specifically be the 'Cast a Spell' action and that is what makes it incompatible with Spellstrike, but Amp as is quoted does not restrict what action is used to cast the spell.

The Spellstrike action would definitely qualify as casting a psi cantrip and thus gain the amped effects.

Things I'm hoping for:

- Give the Eidolon its own skill progression instead of using the Summoner's skills. Yes, would make Summoner a skill monkey class, but why not. It really fits the class fantasy and the way it works now often feels very forced and weird.

- Let Eidolons use the tools their skills require.

- Just let Boost Eidolon's duration go up by heightening the spell. This shouldn't require a feat (and definitely not a successful non-KAS skill roll vs lvl based DC).

- Tandem Movement should be a class feature instead of a feat tax.

Well, to be fair, I believe care needs to be taken to avoid mixing different use cases or we risk comparing apples and oranges.

If all you want is a decent focus spell and increasing your pool and never plan to invest more Blessed One has just as much to offer as Psychic. Just depends on what you are looking for and if it fits your ability scores.

However, if you are looking for a decent focus spell and increasing your pool, but don't mind investing a bit more and can wait until level 4, most spellcasting dedications have your back. In this case you are likely using FA so you must that investment anyway.

It is actually only if you have a use for a particular basic amp in combination with either an advanced amp and/or spellslot casting that that Psychic can come out ahead.

Myeah, Psychic Dedication is unique in that it offers you a choice from a reasonably wide selection of focus spells that may be useful for many different builds and party set ups.

It's class that is all about focus spells so I don't really mind even it gives one out with the basic dedication. It's in theme and it fits. Sure, to be the same as all the rest it should ask for a lvl 4 feat, and that would be fine too.

But why not go the other way and strip the feats for slot spells from the dedication instead of turning it into a carbon copy of all the other spellcasting dedications? We already have spellcasting dedications like that for all of the traditions and in all the flavors you could wish for.

I hope they lean even more into the focus spells for the Psychic class AND its dedication in the Remaster.

The remastered Cursebound trait from Oracle is indeed the best comparison point as that lets everything with it default to spell DC.

The Mindshift trait uses very similar language and until we get an official remaster I would include using Spell DC for saves as a temporary houserule patch.

Psi Burst is just one among many feats with the Mindshift trait and I am confident that, just like the Oracle's Cursebound feats, using the Psychics Spell DC for them is RAI in Remaster. After all that's the DC you would us when playing legacy and Psychic really doesn't need nerfing, on the contrary.

The Psychic dedication itself is a spellcasting dedication with all the regular perks, but which also hands out a focus spell. And not just a fixed focus spell, you get to pick from a pretty wide array of choices on offer. Damage with saves, spell attack damage, good reaction, defense, there's something useful here for everyone. And as a bonus you have 2 attributes which allow you to qualify for easy access.

It's no doubt ahead of other spellcasting dedications and if you feel your caster's focus spells don't fulfill your needs, odds are you can patch or supplement them easily with Psychic. It's also nice for martials as you can pick up some impactful and sustainable magic without bothering with slotted spells by picking just the psi cantrips.

Anyway, you can move the first psi cantrip out of the base feat and that would bring it in line with other spellcaster dedications, though I personally don't mind. I prefer the dedications to be either frontloaded with a couple of good choices to supplement it and quickly inject the wanted flavor into you character, or a solid longterm slow burner you can stick with over the course of the campaign.

Anyway, Magus has the issue of relying on spell attacks, not a great selection to begin with, and within that selection they have a preference for melee spell attacks as those trade range which they don't need for something they could actually use. Those are really rare.

I believe the easiest fix would be to give Magus some bespoke spellstrike cantrips and build in ways in the hybrid studies to amp them. Combine this with easier ways to use their Arcane Cascade and change its element. The alternative is publishing lots more close range spell attacks (cantrip, regular, focus) for them to access. If focus spells are disallowed for spellstrike dedicated slots will be necessary.

Several of my players went for similar builds with some key differences: rather than go for heavy armor and Intelligence, for instance, they often went more for Dexterity and Rogue dedications for Skirmish Strike, plus the Sixth Pillar archetype later on for Maneuvering Spell, and they took feats like Embodiment of the Balance instead of Apparition's Enhancement. Despite these differences and different party compositions involving a Champion, a Sorcerer, and an Investigator in one, and a Rogue, a Barbarian, and a Witch in another, the Animist consistently took a lot of the spotlight both for their ability to fill in more niches overall than other party members, and for their ability to frequently step on their teammates' toes.

Sorry, I really can't see Animist getting in the way of a Champion, Sorceror and Investigator and definitely not Rogue, Barbarian and Witch.

And then there was even a third party with Fighter, Monk and Psychic? Psychic has issues and compares badly to, well, everything, not just Animist. Fighter and Monk honestly should have zero issues.

This isn't true at all, as untamed form takes 2 actions to cast, meaning an Animist can start swinging right away if they're not setting up with other vessel spells. If both classes have to spend at least one action Striding each turn, that still means the Animist can make a 0-MAP Strike on turn 1 compared to the Untamed Druid's second Strike on subsequent turns, so it will take a while for the Druid to catch up. When there isn't a Bard in your party buffing everyone's attack rolls, embodiment of battle allows you to eventually match and then exceed the Untamed Druid's accuracy while also boosting your damage rolls, so even if your first turn would be longer to set up, you'd exceed the Untamed Druid in all respects from there. Add that to the fact that the Animist's vessel spells automatically provide elemental form as they scale, and Monstrous Inclinations has the wandering trait, this allows the class to easily outscale a Druid, and therefore Strike more accurately than martials at certain levels too.

You forgot to mention that the Druid also has to spend an action to exit untamed form, but that matters indeed much more rarely.

However, fact remains that it is hard to you need Liturgist lvl 9 and something like skirmish strike not to be 1 action per round behind, and even if you have that maintaining 2 vessel spells, like combined EoB in your example, brings us back to 1 action per round behind.

This is not a trivial cost and needs a very particular situation for the Animist to come out ahead in the action economy.

Elf Step continues to let you Sustain two vessel spells in one go, and is how you would normally Sustain EoB and DFF in a single action while retaining some measure of movement. Of course, you wouldn't be moving as far as with a full Stride action, which is why being able to use river carving mountains instead of EoB with a Bard giving you its usual bonus would give you immensely more mobility and let you readily make several Strikes on the same turn. This is why I wouldn't knock the feat.

Sure, ok, but why would Elf Step and 2 strikes while maintaining RCM and DFF be synergizing better than Skirmish Strike and Maneuvering Spell while maintaining RCM and anything else, like e.g. EB to pick one?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is an error in propositional logic that I think comes up often in conversation with you: for sure, Striking is not the only aspect of martials, but it nonetheless is an aspect of martials, and one you included in your comparison. It is therefore correct to call out the fact that you did not build your Animist for any amount of serious Striking power when you claimed that the Animist doesn't outmartial martials, including the high-Striking Rogue. The fact that you count Striking as a martial strength when it counts against the Animist, but not when it doesn't suit your comparison as with the Champion, is a double standard worth noting.

It boils down to generalist vs specialist. No matter how you build your Animist, no, not even yours, you will never come close to the striking power of that Rogue (or Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, etc who builds for it). Nor reach the tanking potential of a Champion (or Guardian, Fighter, Monk, etc who builds for it).

The Rogue went for single target striking DPS, the Champion went for tanking, so in what way, shape, or form could it be considered a double standard to evaluate exactly that when discussing whether Animist steps on their shoes?

Yes, the Animist is a better generalist, and that is something I will never deny, but those martials weren't generalists at all.

A party of, let's say an Animist, War Priest, Thaumaturge and Bomber Alchemist would be much trickier to manage, but you could swap the Animist for an Untamed/Storm Druid and it would remain just as difficult.

I think your build explains why rather well, as you purposefully did not make use of the Animist's other apparitions and stuck to the same handful each time. The equivalent would be another prepared caster sticking to only a narrow subset of their available spells and complaining that their selection is limited. By contrast, I not only swapped out to many more apparitions, including battle form apparitions, but also got to swap out wandering feats to suit my playstyle in the day, and I can tell you that it made a huge difference.

I said that at the level liturgist kicks in those where the Apparitions I generally attuned. At the lower levels I made other choices, and of course in downtime as well. And if we had a good idea of what we were up against that day that might make a difference as well, obviously.

I know how prepared casters work, thank you very much, and how to properly evaluate this particular strength.

Can it make a difference? Yeah, sure it can, just like for Wizards and the other prepared casters, and I refer you to the many, many threads about the subject. A huge difference? Nah, not really, no. Most of the time you don't have a complete picture of what you will be up against and the other PC's can't shift roles on day to day basis and those will be covered, and the expectation that you cover yours.

There is clearly a discordance between what you were presenting and the way you were trying to present it, though it does go back to the reason why I asked for the build in the first place: it is clear that you wouldn't feel that your Animist encroached on the niches of other classes if you built your character to maximize its potential as a generalist, rather than commit to any subset of its strengths in particular. In my experience playing and GMing for an Animist, where the class was built differently in several key respects, I did encounter this problem.

Eh, I disagree on all points. Encroaching on niches isn't a problem in itself as long as you can't outperform the specialists, which I firmly believe the Animist is unable to do. But why don't you share the builds and the parties you have experienced

I agree with you, embodiment of battle is made largely redundant by your party composition... which makes the Stalker in Darkened Boughs an even more attractive option for gish combat. Normally, you'd have to spend essentially your whole turn setting up EoB and then darkened forest form, but in this particular case you had the opportunity to spend only a single action transforming before being able to start fighting right away with a maximized attack modifier. With Skirmish Step on your Liturgist later on, the action cost to Sustain is effectively removed entirely, so you can comfortably move and Strike x2, or Strike at least once and do whatever else you need to do. In fact, this would've synergized particularly with river carving mountains, as you could've set up with that instead of EoB before polymorphing and found yourself with even more mobility as needed.

Eh, sure, battleforms give more accuracy in exchange for your spellcasting and not using your fully runed weapon.

However there is no meaningful difference in gameplay or efficacy with Untamed Druids, except that you have to wait till 9th level before potentially not being a slowed untamed druid. And while not bad at all, Untamed Druids will not outmartial martials, nor will a Stalker Animist.

And I honestly do not see how River Carving Mountains would synergize better while in Stalker because you'll have trouble getting 2 free sustains since you can't access Maneuvering Spell.

If we're defining "martial" as "is mainly used at close range" then sure, any touch spell, aura, or emanation is a martial ability. Clearly, though, that is not the definition you're using when you bring up the Rogue's Opportune Backstab damage as an example of the class not feeling "outmartialled" by the Animist. Clearly, Strike damage factored into your personal assessment, even though your character was built for only mediocre Strike damage when they could have ostensibly done a better job.

Yeah, it's a factor but the Champion on the other hand did not go for maxing his damage but other stuff, so clearly my definition of what makes a good martial goes beyong striking.

But to be clear, yes, anything that requires you to be in 5-10 feet range I would call supporting a martial, or in the case of casters, a gish role.

Of course, committing more to a gish playstyle would likely have incurred tradeoffs elsewhere, but by that same token, that means you had other things to give up that you considered valuable enough to keep, more so than what you stood to gain by specializing. For all the claims that that Animist isn't outdoing any particular class, you've still managed to highlight that the Animist could cover more bases than any of your teammates at any given time, be at least competent at each of those, and all while being by far the best class at reorienting their strengths from one day to the next. That by itself, in my opinion, is extremely strong, and the class need not beat every other class at their specialties all at once just to meet those qualifications. That the class can still feel underwhelming despite all that power is arguably even worse than the class being too powerful, as it means their power isn't lending itself to the most appreciable enjoyment and makes for a class that ultimately appeals only to few people.

My ideal round at the later levels was a strike and a 2-action spell while sustaining 1 or 2 spells and getting mobility. Does not get more gish than that, but YMMV.

Being a competent generalist but master at nothing is a form of strength, no doubt. So is being a specialist and to be honest most tend to favor the sort of strength specialists offer. Anyway, there are plenty of other classes who can be excellent generalists, but between the way apparitions its other features work Animist was purposely built to do just that in a way no other class is.

One thing though that I believe is seriously overvalued is the capability to reorient your capabilities/role on a day to day basis. That is, in my experience, way less useful and powerful than many imagine it to be.

Well, you asked for my specific build and since I believe the Animist's strengths lie in being a versatile generalist, that is what I made.

It was, however, an excellent gish in my opinion.

With a Bard in the party Embodiment of Battle is pretty meh, and I found it worthwhile to invest in martial proficiency and get the Champion reaction. This character has approximately everything that apparition gives, permanently, without the -2 spell DC penalty. Lurker did not fit the concept.

And besides Earth Bile and River Carving Mountains the apparitions I listed are all intended to be used in close combat, so, why are they not considered martial apparitions?

I have mentioned this already, but in both my play experience and that of others at my table, the Animist managed to do things the Fighter and other martial classes wouldn't have been able to do without a decent amount of feat investment thanks to a combination of extreme range via Forest's Heart and doubled Reactive Strikes every turn, and made the party Psychic feel pretty crap about their blasting. Had a dedicated support joined the party, they would have had trouble competing with a class that can easily turn on a dime to output massive amounts of resourceless healing while accessing utility spells from across all four traditions. The fact that you have trouble even visualizing this, let alone understanding basic facets of the Animist's design such as their spell output and staying power, concerns me a little. Assuming you yourself have actually played the class, I'm curious: what even was your playstyle? What feats did you take and what did a typical turn with your Animist look like? What were your considerations during encounters and throughout the adventuring day?

Okay, sure:

This was in a FA game, the other party members were a Redeemer Champion who went all in on shield of reckoning, a Rogue who went Spirit Warrior and Heavenseeker and a pretty classic Maestro Bard.

My Animist went for Champion and Ranger dedication, and at the higher levels Sixth Pillar and Acrobat. I did not take many Animist feats. Embodiment of Balance, Quickened Apparition and Cardinal Guardians were the important ones, and there was also Apparition's Enhancement and Eternal Guide at lvl 20 because why not. Used a Guisarme.

At the higher levels the Apparitions I used were mainly Steward, Impostor, Monarch, Reveler and Vanguard. Steward for blasting, Reveler for survivability and I liked its spells, Monarch and Impostor were good CC, Vanguard for mobility and its interesting spells.

My animist was usually found in melee to support the Champion and Rogue, skirmish strike and a 2-action spell were in general the actions taken and will give 2 sustains if needed. Could be blasting, could be CC/disruption, probably a mix of the two. Reactions were generally Retributive Strike.

Our GM has a tendency for 4e style set piece encounters which go big, complicated and long, and will have objectives beyond killing the opposition. Animists can definitely deal with the endurance aspect, but before Liturgist kicked in struggled with the mobility/action economy such set pieces demanded.

Anyway, at no point did the Champion or Rogue feel outmartialled. The Champion was a ridiculously good tank with 3 shields of reckonings per round, not to mention all the other stuff he had going on like being a hobgoblin with the intimidation feats and later on cleric. The goblin spirit warrior thief rogue with heaven's thunder and 2 opportunistic backstabs did downright ridiculous damage. Spirit Warrior in general is crazy overtuned, but especially on a rogue imho.

The Bard was pretty classic full-on support, buffs and debuffs, and both at lower or higher levels excelled at it, and in the double digit levels also joined in on the blasting. By lvl 14 he also had 2 sustains thanks to captivator (we started before remaster, and my first 7 levels were with the playtest Animist, and, oh boy, lvl 8 was miserable for me), so yeah, we played pretty similarly at those levels, except he stayed out of combat and I was in the thick of it.

The Rogue and Bard had the medicine feats, the bard also the healing song, the Champion and my Animist had lay on hands. Everybody had resourceless healing, both in and outside combat. Everybody also had the max focus points, and actually more than 3 focus spells. Both the Rogue and the Bard were the main skill monkeys.

Anyway, everybody had their main niche, but everybody also intruded on the others' niches, especially at the higher levels, but that's okay. Almost impossible to avoid, really.

The one most in danger of having their niche usurped was actually my Animist (by the Bard, at the higher levels).

1. Do you like the current animist class overall?
2. Do you think it is too powerful?
3. Do you think it is too complicated?

1. I had fun with it on a full playthrough, but the class imho has design issues.

- Without Liturgist the class is downright weak, and even that kicks in rather late and warps everything around using that feature. They should have given the playtest feat 'Sustain = step or leap' as a general class feature to all Animists at the lower levels.

- The class feats are pretty meh and don't feel like they expand on the class fantasy.

- I dislike that mostly the only way to deepening your connection to certain Apparitions are wandering feats which are just plain temporary. Combined with the above point the class feels... ephemeral and like a grabbag of game mechanics? As a player you need a strong RP concept because your class will not help you define it, on the contrary even.

- It is a very close-ranged full caster, and I believe you leave much on the table if you don't plan to gish. The class could benefit from having more long-ranged vessel spells to enable more playstyles and give it more replayability.

2. Not at all.

3. I don't mind the complexity, but I would never want the hassle to play it without digital aid and just a paper character sheet.

Angwa wrote:

First off there is some serious underestimation of what other classes can do, and most definitely when it comes to blasting. While the Animist is a partial spontaneous caster, it is not a full 4 slot spontaneous caster with all the bells and whistles.

This just in, apparently every class needs to be an Oracle or a Sorcerer to even qualify as good. I guess Resentment Witches better pack it in, then.

And there go the goalposts...

I love the Resentment Witch I'm playing, but yes, when it comes to blasting she her bags are packed. Not that anybody minds or expects otherwise.

But more seriously, I find this argument both silly and emblematic of the discourse around the Animist: it's never about assessing the complete picture, or seeing how the Animist performs overall, it's always about claiming that the Animist can't possibly be overtuned, because they don't beat the literal best at X at the thing they're best at. This, despite the fact that the Animist has in fact far more spell slots than the average caster by having 4 slots per rank up to max rank-2, and gets to stretch their spell output even more thanks to their vessel spells and plenty of resourceless actions in their feats. The Animist has in my opinion some of the best spell output in the game, if not the best, and can outlast even 4-slot casters by using vessel spells to supplement their slots.

I also find this argument silly. But then I'm the one saying that Animist is a generalist and can't beat the specialists, and especially when it comes to this focus on blasting.

And Animists can't have more focus points than others, so why would they outlast anyone?

As shown with a simple example of earth's bile + fireball, an Animist absolutely can out-blast an Imperial Sorcerer, and so before factoring in benefits from the Animist's subclasses and feats. If you think other classes can stack more damage boosts, that to me suggests a lack of awareness of feats like Channeler's Stance and Cardinal Guardians.

Yeah, sure, that example shows absolutely nothing.

Look, Imperial Sorceror has no direct blaster bloodline spells and almost no blaster bloodline gifts. They are good allrounders but when blasting can not easily trigger blood magic more than once. Still, Anestral Memories + Explosion of Power on an annointed ally + 2 action blasting spell of choice is not being a slouch.

But they have Force Barrage as a gift, so in moments where you need ALL THE DAMAGE RIGHT NOW they can burn their resources to do bonkers insane damage, though that won't look the least bit like your example.

And than you have bloodlines and builds which are actually focused on blasting...

Anyway, you said that Animists being best at X was a silly argument, didn't you?

This reads as fairly off-base to me on a number of levels. For starters, the Animist is perfectly capable of casting from a distance if they so wish, and has the raw spell output for it even without vessel spells, but also very obviously has the tools to survive in both the frontline and the backline, including fantastic action economy, top-tier defenses for a caster, and access to the entire divine list, including amazing mobility spells like air walk.

Uhuh. Of course you can hang back. Every caster can. The vast majority have no need to ever consider anything else. But when gishing and using vessel spells their defense is neither top tier and Liturgist just makes your action economy manageable, not fantastic.

As I recall, the issue you raised over this was that you couldn't Step into difficult terrain. How come you didn't pick Feather Step? At high level, that should've normally been a trivial investment. I find this statement all the more perplexing considering how the action cost of Sustaining can be eliminated entirely via feats like Maneuvering Spell, and how the Animist has enough Focus Points at high level to not even need to Sustain their vessel spells if they don't want to.

I did mention that difficult ground can shut down Elf Step and other step subordinate actions, but that was not why I trained out of Elf Step as soon as I could. Of course I took Feathered Step, but not for Elf Step but to use Skirmish Strike, so I needed the dex anyway. And I told you about Maneuvering Spell as well, so no need to be perplexed.

What makes all of this so weird is that this has essentially no correlation to my play experience with the Animist. My character encountered zero struggles with surviving damage or Sustaining, in large part because they made use of divine spells to boost their already-strong base survivability and didn't force themselves to spend actions Sustaining vessel spells on turns where it was inconvenient (that, and I was playing a Liturgist). They had ample room to try out new builds and excel at them, and on several occasions performed well enough that I had to rein them in to not step on the toes of my teammates, who were nonetheless playing and building their own characters optimally for the party. In general, it was patently obvious that they far fewer limitations than any other class and could simply do far more in general, to the point where they sometimes felt like a dual-classed character. Coupled with a few exploits that massively increased their power and that I had to petition to houserule against, notably Channeler's Stance and its damage bonus applying to earth's bile's persistent damage, this is about as close as it felt to me to playing a 1e caster in 2e, and not necessarily for the right reasons in my opinion.

No need for a houserule about channeler's stance, it doesn't boost persistent damage.

Anyway, should I choose to believe you have actual play experience with the class, which based on our previous discussions about the class I have serious trouble with, I can only conclude that by the level Liturgist kicks in there must be an incredibly vast gulf between what is considered playing and building optimally at our tables.

I truly wonder, besides a druid, on whose toes could you have possibly tread?

There are clearly many people talking here who have never played an Animist in a full play through. They are good and they can be fun if you can deal with their quirks and complications.

First off there is some serious underestimation of what other classes can do, and most definitely when it comes to blasting. While the Animist is a partial spontaneous caster, it is not a full 4 slot spontaneous caster with all the bells and whistles. All the reasons why that is plain better than prepared in general, and particularly for blasting, apply.

Yes, earth's bile is a good blasting focus spell, but other classes can have good focus blasting spells too. Other classes, and especially Sorceror, can stack more damage boosts. An Animist will not beat a blasting focused Oracle and no one will beat a blasting focused Sorceror.

If you think that you have never played or seen one.

Range matters. Your Animist will be in the frontline. Especially at the higher levels casting there comes with a whole slew of complications you need to be prepared for, and the tools for that aren't really in your kit.

This is also why this idea that just by attuning the right apparitions you can step into some role with minimal investment is just plain wrong at the higher levels.

Sustaining sucks. This is why Liturgist isn't broken and why when I was playing an Animist I even trained out of Elf Step. It simply wasn't good enough.

Blaster focused Sorceror is all about Anoint Ally+Explosion of Power.

Whichever bloodline plays nice with that works. Imperial, Elemental, diabolic, whatever, there's plenty.

No other blaster can even come close, which I'm not particularly a fan of, but okay, it is what it is.

Look, Animist is hands down the very best generalist, and there really is no comparison.

This, however, really comes down to system mastery and at what level you play. Animist, and by that I assume Liturgist, only starts to shine at the double digit levels.

And even there you will not beat the specialists at their game. Anything you can do, someone else can do better, and this includes blasting which for some reason gets outsized attention.

What no one else can do however, is be decent enough at most things that are needed whenever they are needed and easily provide whatever makes your specific party come out on top and disrupt your gm's game plan, especially in encounter mode.

It's a class which exels at higher levels and has high ceiling. I disagree that it only has one build and that all Animists play alike (except that there is only one practice, which is Liturgist). This is because in my experience what you need to build around is what your party needs the most.

Your strengths are your class features, your weaknesses are short range and having bad class feats.

The example is too vague to come to any conclusion whatsoever. Everything depends on how many opponents are on the field and how they are positioned, not to mention what class that fireball-tossing caster is and their potential 3th action.

Anyway, Animists aren't bad, and especially not lvl 9+ Liturgists. I had fun playing one for sure.

They are excellent generalists, offer decent utility and can be outstanding gishes, but won't in my opinion outperform any specialists in their chosen field however. There are many reasons for this.

There is also maneuvering spell from sixth pillar for a free sustain when you cast a regular spell.

If you want to add melee into the mix there are things like skirmish strike and e.g. clawdancer offers dashing pounce (though that is 2 actions), wheeling grab and springboard.

There's many ways to get one or more free sustains while doing something useful, even beyond elf step.

I would definitely try to get something besides elf step as that gets shut down by difficult ground.

No. This contradicts the text.

It does not. You only quoted the second paragraph. The one above stated that you resolve the subordinate actions with all their normal effects, consequences and triggers (unless modified by the activity).

A subordinate strike IS a strike with all that entails, but what you spent your actions on was the activity, you did not do the strike action. The last/previous thing you did is sudden charge, not a strike or stride. That's the part that is stated in the paragraph you quoted.

Hide
"You cease being hidden if you do anything except Hide, Sneak, or Step. If you attempt to Strike a creature, the creature remains off-guard against that attack, and you then become observed. If you do anything else, you become observed just before you act unless the GM determines otherwise."

The Hide text specifies Strikes. You are starting the activity Double Slice; Double Slice is in the "anything else" bucket, because Double Slice is not the same as using strike twice; therefore it requires GM fiat for the...

This is indeed correct. The way the stealth rules are written is very minimalist.

What is 'doing anything except Hide, Sneak or Step or that attempted Strike'? It does not play well with activities and subordinated actions, that's for sure, as they RAW would all go into the 'anything else' bucket by default.

However, this is not code written to be run on a computer but rules to be used by thinking people, and the stealth rules are so restrictive you have to go gm fiat the majority of cases anyway.

This is generally my interpretation, but for certain things like Hide or Create a Diversion I think the first attack should benefit (in the given example of Double Slice), even if the RAW doesn't support that.

Yeah, the way the stealth rules are worded they basically leave everything up to the gm except basic step, hide, sneak and strike.

It's very minimalistic as far as guidance goes, to say the least, and activities are just a small part of it. It really could have used some more wordcount.

I mean, as an example which isn't about activities I would give off-guard when you use a spell attack from stealth but I'm sure plenty of gm's won't.

...So Double Strike should proc off-guard, because I get all the effects of a named action strike, including effects that ask for Strike by name, even though using an activity isn't the same as using its subordinate actions and you don't think you ever actually use a strike and just drop in the rules text of strike?

Yes. That is what that sidebar says.

While resolving the subordinate actions treat them as if you used the referenced base action, potentially modified by the activity. While not resolving the subordinate actions only the activity exists.

That's why a subordinate strike gets everything a regular strike gets, but when not resolving it the only thing that you can refer to is the activity, so next/previous action and the like won't see the subordinate actions.

On the subject of "previous/next" action, most people do agree that indeed a subordinate action doesn't count as either previous/next action for requirements.

There is though not clear (enough) RAW, to support either side of the argument.

So depends on each table what kind of ruling they make concerning this, although from experience and from what I've seen in most such topics here, you should probably be planning for the more restrictive reading in a new table you don't know about.

Let's take sneaking closer while unobserved and using Double Slice as an example because there is difference with, e.g. Spellstrike imho.

Double Slice has 2 subordinate strikes and those still have their regular effects, which would include breaking stealth. However, when considering before and after there is only Double slice, and not a chain of 2 strikes. That is clearly stated RAW.

That means when resolving the second subordinate strike you still get off-guard because the previous action is sneaking closer and not the first subordinate stealthbreaking strike. You are in stealth and sneaking, then you do Double Slice, and after Double Slice you are observed.

Spellstrike and other activities which combine a strike with something besides sneaks, hides and steps are RAW up to the gm, because those would make you observed before you act unless gm decides otherwise, and that would mean before the activity itself.

This means that doing a Skirmish Strike is a flat chain of [Skirmish Strike] --> [Step] --> [Strike]. And that yes, by RaW this means that "your last action" does default to including subordinate actions chained by an activity.

I have seen zero text that instructs activities to "containerize" and isolate their sub-actions in any way. If that happened, then we would no longer be able to trigger Sneak Attack off of sub-Strikes, etc.

That text is still as clear as when we discussed it earlier:

'Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions. For example, the quickened condition you get from the haste spell lets you spend an extra action each turn to Stride or Strike, but you couldn't use the extra action for an activity that includes a Stride or Strike. As another example, if you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn't count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action.'

Skirmish Strike is not a flat chain of anything. Next action or previous action abilities will never find a Strike or Step, only Skirmish Strike.

But this does not mean that subordinate strikes won't trigger sneak attack:

'An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but it's modified in any ways listed in the larger action. For example, an activity that tells you to Stride up to half your Speed alters the normal distance you can move in a Stride. The Stride would still have the move trait, would still trigger reactions that occur based on movement, and so on. The subordinate action doesn't gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified. The action that allows you to use a subordinate action doesn't require you to spend more actions or reactions to do so; that cost is already factored in.'

When resolving the activity itself the subordinate actions have their regular effects (unless modified by the activity). A subordinate Strike is still a strike, so sneak attack gets triggered and all that.

But outside the resolution of the activity itself, only the activity takes place.

Since this thread is brought back from the big sleep. Here is three things I didn't like about 4E

1. classes were all the same All the classes had all the same things with different names and some niggley differences. The wizard was the only class that had some different abilities with his spells.

2. Balance focus. (or not) The focus was on balance (this is also a problem with the brand's current system) to the detriment of the player. So much so, that the levels were stretched to 30 to make up for the lack of scale. Then they just threw in the 3.5 weapons without a care that broke that balance. Stupid.

3. Crafting So, when one crafts anything, you pay the full price. When you buy something, the DM needs to mark up the pricing from 10 to 40 percent, depending on the DM's preverences or dice. Thing is, no one ever did the mark ups, and a PC could only sell things at Half Price. So, crafting never made anyone money, and you would lose money everytime you crafted items. (Crafting was for self satisfaction, it seems)

So, my group dropped 4e after facing the monster that was so badly done that the errata on it made it a baby in comparison, and I was shortly introduced to PF1. Goodbye 4E, take your Essentials and stick it!

To be fair, when 4e dropped and you just had the 3 basic books it really felt pretty anemic compared to 3.5/PF1 and its huge catalogue. Those 3 issues might have held some truth at the start of the edition.

However, by the time Essentials was there none of it is true, except perhaps the third point partially.

1. 4e with all the bells and whistles offers a truly stunning diversity in build/playstyle options. You could build even the same class, especially the older ones with lots of content, in many different ways that play and feel very, very differently from each other. And the differences with another class are even greater, so this is just an outlandish statement.

2. It is only more balanced than 3.5/PF1 and didn't break quite that badly at the higher levels. There was plenty of fun to be had with charop, and boy, the difference between a sufficiently charop'ed character and a regular one were huge. And that is before going into group charop, like a radiant maffia setup and getting a proper nova round strategy.

There were some serious stacking issues and action economy optimizing that could break the game. Weapons were really not the issue.

3. That was a deliberate choice. PC's make money by going out and having adventures. It was still useful however if you wanted a particular item which you could not find or buy.

And there has been no instruction to the effect of "X hides contained Ys"

'As another example, if you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn't count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action.'

Except I believe this means exactly that. And yes, that it applies equally to 'previous action'. I honestly see no other way to parse this.

Under your interpretation an activity that includes a Strike would count, and that is the opposite of what is written.

And that would be the first paragraph of the rules about subordinate actions:

'An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but it's modified in any ways listed in the larger action. For example, an activity that tells you to Stride up to half your Speed alters the normal distance you can move in a Stride. The Stride would still have the move trait, would still trigger reactions that occur based on movement, and so on.'

The subordinate actions have their normal effects, traits etc, unless modified. Sneak attack works just fine. Something that would restrict the action, like a subordinated move when grabbed would apply the restriction, it can trigger reactions, etc. You resolve the subordinated action just like you would if it wasn't a subordinated action.

But it's the second paragraph you have issues with. That says that outside of resolving the subordinate action itself you have to treat it as if you have done the activity and not the separate subordinate actions.