Angwa's page

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.

If an activity is not its subordinate actions, then it gains none of the traits or other properties of its subordinate actions, no?

Seems like quite the slippery slope as that logical process and line of reasoning would completely break the game when taken to its logical conclusion.

Ergo, it must be the case that Swipe can be used prior to Drink From My Foes.

Well, no, Subordinate actions keep their effects and traits, that is also very specifically covered in their rules, so let's quote everything this time:

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.

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

The subordinate actions themselves still do everything they normally do, unless modified or constrained by the activity, but the activity itself is not the same as the subordinate actions.

Swipe may use a Strike subordinate action, which functions for all intents and purposes like a Strike, except where Swipe modifies it, but it does not count as a Strike for anything that is looking for you taking the Strike action, like Haste quickened actions or previous/next action stuff because that just finds the activity as a whole.

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

This makes it clear, at least to me, that whatever you do is the activity, not the subordinate actions. Your current, previous or next action can never be a subordinate action. Yes, the specific example used is next action, but they clearly call it out as just an example so I see no reason whatsoever why this rule would not apply to previous action as well?

Indeed, allow it if you want.

But things become much, much simpler if you don't allow the targeting of specific steps of attack resolution. That way you can sidestep all these timing issues and focus on producing the most sensible outcomes.

Well, this is still a good example. Even if it is an utter worse case scenario: 3 lvl 1's without a tank vs a boar.

I had already established that if the opponent starts out adjacent it would get an attack in, but with map. Like in this example happened. It's a somewhat doubtful actually, though I guess not impossible, that Merisiel would go down from just a charge with map.

It's still the absolute best play those 3 could do. Hope that those pot shots crit or they last enough that damage accrues to the point they can go full out.

Anyway, the trigger being observable is just one part of the text. The other part is you can't reference game mechanics and you need to target a specific step of attack resolution, no matter how you dress it up in wording your trigger.

Very much not sold this is RAW, and most definitely not RAI.

The issue is that "the sub-steps of a Strike" are plenty observable, but the "flavor verbiage" a player would need is undefined, because that's definitionally outside game mechanic language.

This is were the disagreement is. I personally do not think they are observable to the extent that they can be used as a trigger for Ready.

'When I am being attacked' or every variation thereof still states that you are being attacked. The (N)PC may certainly WANT to leap away or whatever other action they readied before the blow connects, but why would that be guaranteed?

For this to work you really need to lock in on a specific step of the attack resolution, namely after declaring the attack, but before the rest of the resolution. However the trigger is described in natural language does not matter when what it unambiguously must describe is a sub-step of strike resolution. It does not get more mechanical than that and Ready disallows that. Disallows does not mean 'dress up in pretty natural language, but can not be anything else than this particular game mechanics widget'.

I don't think it breaks major concepts of the game...

Eh, it's not quite the same as the miss chance of attacking an invisible or concealed opponent as that just makes it harder to connect, not impossible. The attack just happens and those conditions add an additional flat check.

Nor is it the same as someone taking a gamble on attacking where they believe an opponent they have completely lost track off to be and being wrong. There was simply nobody there to connect with and you guessed wrong. If the opponent was in that square there would be a chance to hit them, even if the attacker is blindly flailing around.

It really is kinda a major concept that an attack hitting or missing is governed by either rolling an attack vs defense, or rolling a defense vs save DC. That's the general rule which has to be overruled by the specific exception.

It causes one action to fail. That's all.

Yes, that is true, but there is also the fact that the intended target has now moved away, and it costs an extra action to engage again. Whiff, move, Attack with MAP.

And if they started out not being in melee, it would most definitely just waste the entire turn. Move, Whiff, move again. That's it.

Add in anything that eats an action or Commander which can give an extra move and melee is now impossible.

I personally do not think that the perfect defense part of the readied stride on a being attacked trigger is the main problem. The action economy and how this can mess with it is a bigger issue.

Yes, you are trading 2 actions and a reaction of your own to eat up 2 actions of the opponent (move + attack).

This is either not worth it or an auto-win button. There is very little middle ground.

Powerful melee opponents are basically no longer a threat. If they get their 3 actions and start with the PC in range they are reduced to 1 attack per round, with MAP to add insult to injury. Combined with slow, trips, out-of-turn moves from a Commander or similar the opponent will not get to make an attack.

It's boring game-play that is not engaging at all and is way too easy to set this up in a way that has no counter-play, chance of failing and can be kept up infinitely. It reduces tactical options instead of broadening them.

Also, however the ready trigger which is needed to make this happen is dressed up, it imho most definitely remains a purely game mechanical instant which can not be observed in the fiction in a way that allows the time to insert the readied action and have it make sense that there shouldn't be an attack roll.

I don't agree with this. The target moves to a square adjacent to you indicates they stopped. It doesn't say moves through or moves by. It says moves to a square adjacent to you meaning they halted their movement in a square adjacent to you. Doesn't really matter if they're trying to pursue you or anyone else. They moved to the square and are done.

Otherwise you would write something like, "The target moves to or through a square adjacent to you."

Well, Zephyr's move is specifically someone entering a space within 5 feet of you, not ending their move there. You could for instance use it to get out of the way of an opponent using the trample ability.

Also, the entirety of the rules about 'stride' is allowing you to move up to your speed. You do not have to commit beforehand what your target square is, let alone declare it to the gm/other players.

Should the situation change while you are doing the action, which it can as every 5 feet can trigger reactions or reveal something that changes the situation, nothing prevents you from changing your mind.

I would have no problem with a ready trigger such as 'an enemy with the intent of attacking me coming close enough' paired with a stride/leap. If the enemy was using a move+attack action that might even invalidate the attack if you manage to move out of reach.

If the trigger were 'takes a swing at me' I would resolve the attack first.

In both cases the fiction is someone charging in to take a swipe at an opponent who tries to stay out of reach. In the first case the opponent attempts to outright avoid being close enough in the first place.

In the second case however the enemy is allowed to get close enough to commit to an attack, avoid it and open up the distance again as they recover. Imho, the ready trigger in this case is specifically allowing yourself to be be attacked which you may or may not avoid but that means resolving the attack first. The readied action can not be 'a perfect defense AND a Leap action' unless we were playing Exalted instead of PF2e.

This spell is a bit of a mess.

Stunned 1 with a duration doesn't make sense. Stunned either has a rating which you buy off with actions to make it end or it has a duration. It can't have a duration AND a rating according to the description of the condition.

Frightened also ticks down unless it is called out that it does not, which definitely is not the case because they don't specifically mention frightened 1, 2 or 3 for the duration of the spell. They just give the condition and its rating.

So, it would seem that the frightened and stunned effects are ongoing effects outside the duration entry of the spell.

Which is good, because resentment witch exists.

But anyway, why then assign it a duration in the first place? It should have been an instant spell if there is nothing in the spell effect to apply any duration to and 'duration: 1 round' is likely a mistake or carried over from an earlier draft which did something else.

In my experience, the Animist was in fact better-equipped than most other casters for avoiding getting grabbed and Escaping grabs.

Everyone, caster or not, who does not need to be in the place where being grabbed happens way more is better equipped for avoiding grabs. It simply happens more to those who are easily available targets.

See, this is the kind of statement that makes me genuinely skeptical, because this is not at all true. Successfully Escaping means you can immediately Elf Step to start creating distance, all while triggering your Sustain effects, or cast blessing of defiance if you're anticipating another attempt to grab you. If a monster powerful enough to reliably grab you keeps focusing you this whole time, the action economy is in your favor, as you're wasting a lot of that monster's actions while keeping your engine up with minimal effort, all while your party focuses that monster with you assisting with your sustained effects.

Hold on, why is this a roll you can't possibly afford to make or risk failing? Because even if you spend two actions Escaping, that one action is all you need to Elf Step, or just cast or Sustain a vessel spell as needed. This is more options than even a martial class, particularly as you can keep yourself at only a relative -1/-2 to the Athletics checks of a Strength martial, equalizing with them entirely across several levels. I can't help but feel like the problem here is being greatly overstated for the sake of making an argument.

This reasoning is flawed on many levels. Against a powerful monster that grabs the realistic scenario is very much NOT that you are action-trading as it'll be a free action, nor is escaping guaranteed at all, even with good athletics and slippery prey. And in the other situations with many enemies action trading is not in the party's favor.

Additionally we were talking about feast or famine situations. Even in the best case of succeeding on the first action, your second action will be elf step and you are left with a third action and map. You have been shut out of 2-action spellcasting.

Not that it matters one way or the other. It's irrelevant. Animists could get a class feature that gives them a huge bonus to escape and be the absolute best, undisputed champions at it, there is still a big glaring difference between your elf stepping liturgist and everybody else which people who tried it in actual play will have noticed.

The others simply do not need to escape a grab as urgently as the liturgist in the first place.

Even in bad cases where the enemy has a devastating move against grabbed targets focusing on killing them is many times the best move, so they can forget about escaping if need be. The liturgist who is counting on his mobility to sustain has much, much more at stake.

Compared to the playtest feat which gave a bonus step or leap on your sustains, the current Liturgist feature might be an upgrade as you can push it further, but it's very much a double-edged sword as it has a real failure-point. Deny the mobility and you deny the free sustains. Every opponent with a decent athletics, let alone the grab features, or spellcasting, or the terrain itself, with or without repositioning, and many other things besides those has the potential to do this, and quite frankly, it is completely fair play for a gm to use against the Animist.

Does not make it impossible or anything, but investing the actions, focus points and counting on 2 free liturgist sustains is definitely high risk/high reward gameplay, which I like actually, PF2e could use more of that. Liturgist is pretty flashy and has a big wow factor, but also don't be blind to its risks.

I don’t think anyone’s really claiming that it’s trivial or easy to pull off a perfect setup; part of what this discussion has revealed is that the Animist has a ton of backup options and ways to hedge their bets, and more flexibility to use those than the average class. The Animist can certainly feast, but they can also very much protect themselves from famine, including by simply not putting themselves in dangerous ranges if needed. Adding to that, they’ll tend to have high Strength and good Athletics, so even if they do get grabbed, they’re more likely than most casters to Escape.

Myeah, ok, sure, let's keep it at me being entirely unconvinced that is not exactly what people are claiming.

More likely to succeed to Succeed at Escape is utterly irrelevant, because that means you are actually in the exact situation where you failed to protect yourself from famine. The only question that remains is whether this is an encounter where that matters.

Because when it matters, this is not a roll you can afford to make, let alone risk failing. Heavens forbid you are restrained and you have no other option. I hope this needs no further explanation.

Depends. Apparition's Quickening still good to use when you don't know the number of encounters, but still saves it to not use it more than once per encounter.

For example, at level 15 when you have 4 apparitions, considering that you don´t care about other apparitions and only want to blast with Steward of Stone and Fire and only wants to use the other apparitions as fuel to Apparition's Quickening.

If a GM sents to you an moderate encounter of this level and sents a moderate Troop (Troop (80 XP): One creature of party level, two creatures of party level – 2) with 2 enemies with around 235 HP and one with 285 HP. With lucky (all creatures failing in their saves) you can cut the enemies HP by half or more casting a Rank 8 Volcanic Eruption
+ Rank 8 Eclipse Burst. Considering that you are not the only one fighting and that your allies can also do a good amount of damage, probably you don't need to use Apparition's Quickening...

That is indeed the question. Can you miss the vessel spell, and all the apparition spells it provides, knowing you will have more encounters?

In my experience this is not a trivial sacrifice at all. That's a lot of options in Apparition spells you're chucking in the bin, not just a vessel spell.

I personally would never do that for extra first turn damage in the moderate encounter in your example. It was reserved for panic button situations (ah, unfettered movement, my dear indispensable and often quickened friend).

Animist is very much a feast or famine type class. When you can flex, you can flex HARD. But it is very, very easy to counter your play and take the wind out of your sails. Grabby monsters or swallow whole sucks even more for you than others. Just any enemy with limbs and a decent athletics score. Anything that messes up your mobility actually. Even plain simple difficult terrain just shuts Elf Step+Liturgist down. You will run into things like this a lot. A. Lot.

I am highly skeptical of people who think it's all easy and trivial to pull off. Like almost a given or automatic even. Yeah, no, that's just not the case. There's just too many commonly encountered complications.

Apparition's Quickening is powerful when you know you'll just have one encounter. Definitely used it to great effect, but way less than I expected to.

When I had multiple encounters its value went down drastically. Part of it was admittedly self-inflicted by using Maneuvering Spell, and hence my spellslots, a lot. By the time I could afford to sacrifice Apparitions it was just not very useful anymore, as well as times I even wished I had a regular quicken. This is definitely a YMMV situation.

Darkened Form was not useful to me, but that is also somewhat build-related as locking myself out of spellcasting was not the way to go. Also, I really wasn't fond of the Apparition spells of Darkened Form.

Lastly, sustaining 2 spells with Liturgist shenanigans was definitely a regular occurrence, but definitely not all the time, for a variety of reasons. Certainly not if you have to rely on Elf Step as your main strategy and your gm is fond of terrain features, like mine, but there are just so many ways to shut it down you it pays to be conservative.

As someone who has played the class and fully optimized around the liturgist gimmick way beyond elf step, eh, I don't think it's broken. It's more that the other Practices are woefully underpowered.

Without having this I personally don't see how it's possible to function at the level of the other classes once you get to the double digit levels. You need to maneuver to remain in close combat to use your vessel spells, to sustain your vessel spells and preferably to do more than that, like casting spells, in melee, since you are a full spellcaster in the higher levels and that is where your actual power is. Pretending to be a martial, and as you level up increasingly weaker compared to actual martials, is fine for filler encounters, but eh, I personally think you can prepare more useful and impactful vessel/apparition spells.

This is not an easy circle to square once you are in actual play and takes a lot of actions, simply more than what other classes need. I invite you to play it in a half decent party and you will see that what liturgist gives you is not crazy but just what you need to achieve parity and keep up, at least in my experience.

YMMV and all that jazz. It's a busy class which needs to keep a lot of balls in the air simultaneously while in the most dangerous place of the encounter with all the constraints that brings to the table. Your routine/gameplan gets relatively easily disrupted, and you will have trouble adapting and recovering when it happens.

I really advise to play it for real, especially at higher levels, to understand the class' limits and actual versatility within a given adventuring day, which imho is vastly overstated by many who just look at it on paper.

Well, nobody who is in position to tell will come here and whether the game is designed around the principle that out-of-combat strength comes at the expense of in-combat strength.

It seems pretty dubious though, more than that they failed to implement this as a principle.

Rogue is the obvious pre-eminent example of a class being pretty potent in both areas, and without having to choose. There are plenty of other classes who do well in both, and obviously everyone can get 3 legendary skills and has a dedicated silo of skill feats reserved for this purpose.

Prepared casting in general seems, to me at least, seriously overvalued compared to spontaneous casting. PF1 was littered with silver bullet spells and especially those that could replace skills entirely, but that is simply no longer the case. There is not a lot, almost nothing really, to leverage, even with perfect foreknowledge, and even then you can never guestimate just how many and what level.

Recall Knowledge is in a weird place as well. It requires a bizarrely uneven investment and/or a high level depending on which class you play. For some it's cheap, low level and efficient, for others, like Wizard, not so much.

YuriP wrote:

*latest calculations*

Small correction: Cardinal Guardians becomes available at 14, not 15. If it's not an upgrade over using divine slots instead, that's interesting, though I can't honestly say I understand that tool and what exactly you have defined there so it's tough to double check the math.

I think the idea with Elf Step is one of the following:

1. Start 2 sustained spells on round 1 that will buff each other with Cardinal Guardians (only option I see is Earth's Bile + upcast Invoke Spirits), then sustain both at once with Elf Step starting from turn 2 and use the other two actions to cast another blasting spell (possibly choosing whichever apparition spell would get the save penalty that round, but probably just divine spells starting from round 3). Rinse and repeat.

2. Start with Hungry Depths (assuming that it will always hit despite its lower mobility on Sustain), then Channeler's Stance + Earth's Bile + Sustain Hungry Depths on round 2, then the same routine as above from round 3 (Elf Step for both sustained spells + one 2-a blast spell). Even slower setup, but Hungry Depths' damage isn't quite as anemic as Invoke Spirits (+ you get the Stance in there for two spells) so I suspect it turns better in terms of total damage than the first method probably in round 4 (complete guess).

Edit: Actually, 1. is probably improved by doing Stance + Earth's Bile + Quickened Invoke Spirits (only rank 5) instead.

Yeah, that's the general idea, the 2 steps from elf step can sustain 2 spells through liturgist. At the level that Cardinal Guardians becomes available, and depending on whether FA is allowed, you can go even further:

With maneuvering spell and skirmish strike you could sustain earth's bile and hungry depths, while also getting a strike and a 2 action spell for example.

The real problem with the remaining divine tradition regarding blasting is that during the cantrips and early ranks, especially the first 3 ranks, it's very limited. Since most adventures require you to complete these six levels, it can be somewhat frustrating for a player who wants to focus on blasting to play with the divine tradition. This is especially true for short, four-level adventures, and even for 12-level adventures and PFS, where you'll spend the first half of the game struggling with a lack of good blasts and having to play in different ways (likely debuffing and slamming).

For blasting Divine is definitely a slower starter than primal and arcane.

To be fair though, if you want to play a Divine blaster you'll likely also have a damaging focus spell to fall back on and/or have likely picked a class which gives some non-divine blasting options, which most of them offer.

Divine is certainly not in a bad place for blasting these days. They have some really nasty spells every blaster would be happy to take if they could.

But with all this talk of Arcane being weak, lets be contrary:

If playing a campaign spanning all the levels and you want to focus on blasting, the Arcane tradition has the widest range and will give you a good selection of spells covering all the saves, ranges, aoe, multitarget or single target and with a solid mix of damage types sooner than the other traditions.

Especially with how spontaneous casting and signature spells work that matters a lot. Arcane is in general the best equipped for exploiting vulnerabilities, sidestepping resistances or immunities, targeting the weakest saves and having a good blast for any range or situation.

Eh, anyway it is decided to narrate this can communicate the readiness to fight just as clearly as keeping a shield up, being in a stance, keeping up your kinetic aura, using cantrips like shield/detect magic/... or whatever else when not in encounter mode in my opinion.

For any of these players could argue the opposition wouldn't mind or notice, or perhaps asking for a check to hide it/make it look inoffensive. It can always be as obvious as the gm needs it to be, or not, and if such situations happen regularly and it matters, I would hope the table likely has a good baseline in place to manage expectations.

Anyway, just saying that this only as weird-looking as you want it to be, and just one among many such things which aren't codified outside encounter-mode.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

John R. wrote:

If I ran with a player using Annoint Ally as an exploration activity, I'd probably give them drained 1. Otherwise, I don't see any issue with spending an action to slap it on an ally before they open every door with a potential threat on the other side.

This can get more and more hilarious. Days have passed, the sorc is pale, drained 3, feels terrible, his pals all have blood runes all over them.

Sorc is begging for rests and is eating as much food as he can.

As they reach the entrance to the dungeon, the fighter is carrying the pale, unconscious sorcerer who has drained all his blood to keep the ally anointed.

___

Yeah. I'm not allowing that. The rules may allow it, but it looks crazy in play. Too strange.

XD

Heh, it's a funny image indeed, but it's not like that is the only way you could run it. Could be anything from applying it once and maintaining enough focus to keep the connection running to being attentive enough to apply it quickly when something happens. There's plenty of other stuff which would be weird if you just narrate it as repeating a specific combat action every 6 seconds.

Also, it being a bloodrune is something I as a gm would definitely allow the player to reskin as they see fit. Cool if that is how they imagine it, but it would not fit all Sorceror concepts. Heck, there are ancestries who do not even have blood to begin with, so this is something you need to be prepared to do anyway.

Blue Frog, have you seen anyone use the AC to position Explosion of Power yet? I think I'm going to try it. It would be nice to hear if anyone has done it as it gives the sorc more power over positioning. Sometimes my players are a pain about positioning.

We haven't done an AC yet, but in the party I was in the plant Eidolon was the usual target, but outside of the other pc's we also had an imp familiar which was a useful target in certain rare usecases.

I was running on the assumption that we weren't counting any setup. I'm happy to be wrong here, but once more, that means that if we're expecting the Sorcerer to set up, it stands to reason that the Animist ought to be afforded the same courtesy. Why then make excuses against it?

Except that same single action to cast a vessel spell or enter a stance is considered a massive action tax on the Animist. How do you reconcile this?

Why are you addressing me with these comments? I just said they require more setup than a regular Sorceror, but not so much that it's crippling or a deal-breaker. I told you how I built my Animist so that they would never be action-taxed doing the things I want them to do.

They would still have to spend a round turning on 2 apparitions though, but I'm not the one saying that is a crazy massive action tax and often this can happen before initiative is rolled. It's still more than Anoint Ally though?

If the "informed decisions" you make are made at character creation, it stands to reason you expect resistances and immunities to be solved at least in substantial part at character creation. This significantly differs from my experience and the experience I know of others, where enemies in any given campaigns are diverse enough that their resistances and immunities can't be solved at just one stage of the game.

Read my post again, please. You may discover that I said I expect to encounter resistances and immunities, as well as situations where any tactic might be less or not effective.

In case I was unclear because I was too busy being sarcastic and snarking I hope this is now clarified.

I informed my players prior to Abomination Vaults not to overcommit to fire or void damage, but if you know the AP, you should know that it's got quite a few different enemies, so it wouldn't really possible to optimize at character creation. Similarly, by its very premise, Gatewalkers is not exactly something you can prepare perfectly for at character creation. You'll have to tell me about your "oops, all oozes" campaign, but the number of adventures I've seen that revolve around a single monster family are... well, to be honest, I don't think I've played any.

As I said, it's a basic practice. You understand how it would not solve everything at character creation? It didn't, right? How this is not 'pick this element, it will not ever be resisted'? How your players could make an informed decision, because you, well, informed them?

So, this is exactly what I said I expect, nothing more, nothing less.

Anyway, we regularly interject shorter campaigns of about 5-10 sessions as palate cleansers and to let the main gm recharge and play as well. Those can get pretty focused. One was all a about a gnome cocaine wizard and his jelly factory gone wrong. All oozes, cubes and all the whole shebang.

And yet, that setup was included and now you're demanding to have Explosion of Power and Anoint Ally added on top of that, while refusing to allow the Animist to spend equal to fewer actions setting up. Why are you so afraid of letting the Animist set up to even a lesser extent than your Sorcerer?

Not what I actually wrote. If I wanted to make such a comparison I would make it myself and would most certainly not demand anybody else to do it. They included what they wanted to include, and are under no obligation to do anything more.

By all means, go nuts making all the comparisons you want with as much setup as you want. I honestly do not mind seeing a comparisons between any builds, including an Animist sustaining 2 damage spells while they are also in their stance.

I've done that as an Animist. Plenty of times. It's cool. It's fun. It's strong. It's not hard to pull off either as you can do while on your approach. It's definitely not unrealistic. Go for it! Nobody is effing stopping you, and certainly not me. Really don't know where you get that...

... helpfully pointing out that nuking of the mark is only good when facing many opponents ...

Hairsplitting countermeasure: this is in general. Specific situations and scenarios may potentially make going boom a bad idea or even impossible. I know this, you know this, we all know this, no need to point this out.

Okay. Thanks.

And that's also a major aspect in which the Animist shines, as your play experience would have shown: because vessel spells are designed to provide a benefit throughout the entire encounter, the Animist gets to have this baseline of consistent, reusable power, while spells like ancestral memories or elemental toss only give you their benefits once a pop. Whereas slot-dependent classes like the Sorcerer suffer when forced to settle for lower-rank slots or cantrips, the Animist gets to have that much higher floor of power to fall back on. Not only does the Animist benefit immensely from setup (and still performs well without it), their performance in encounters gets to be a lot more consistent than that of other casters thanks to their vessel spells.

Okay. Thanks.

Why would anyone be scared of Animist being a good blaster? It's a relatively strong blaster for sure. However, it really does favor either really long protracted fights and preferably more than one per day to really get mileage out of it's kit.

One thing that doesn't click for me, though, is: if you think no class is unique and everything in Pathfinder just blends into itself, why make a special mention of the Animist? Because according to your spiel here, it's not even that the Animist isn't special in conforming to this framework of yours, it would be effectively impossible for the Animist to be any different. You could have just said "I think all classes are essentially the same and what differences that do exist are erased by archetypes", and that would have been a more accurate reflection of your perspective.

I did not single out the Animist. I just said this in this very thread which happens to be about the Animist. And to be fair, Animist is one of the harder kits to replicate gameplay-wise close enough using other classes and archetypes, but it can be done.

Also:
The gameplay elements classes provide are very restricted however, and not that varied. Most classes are indeed very samey when looking at gameplay loops and outcomes.

Not quite saying the classes are the same.

Oh, so we're also including Anoint Ally, then? That's great, let's add even more setup time to the Sorcerer while denying a much smaller setup to the Animist, that'll definitely make for a fair comparison.

Obviously we include Anoint Ally and lets not pretend you didn't know.

One action per minute is not some huge, complicated set up. Keeping that up all the time should not even require your exploration activity.

That action isn't actually the 'hard' part of Explosion's setup, that would be your anointed ally being in a good enough place. But in such situations you also have plenty of good options you want to use anyway which don't trigger your blood magic if for some reason you need to be conservative with those. It's all very easy to work around and anticipate even in more fluid chaotic encounters.

We can have a discussion about how to best work Explosion and all the different options and potential snags and pitfalls if you want. It's strong and easy to leverage, more so for certain blood lines than others, but it's never weak.

Mostly though: it does not have to be weak for Animists to be a strong blaster. Imho Animist is not in competition with any of the specialists, and that includes the premiere blasting specialist.

No shade on your GM, but it sounds like you play some pretty monotonous campaigns if the distribution of enemies and their resistances and immunities is so homogeneous that you can solve it all at character creation. That certainly hasn't been my experience, and my campaigns have been full of diverse enemies that serve to shake things up rather than just pile on more of the same.

How do you get from I said to to this? And yes, please, no shade on my gm's. Resistances and immunities happen. Well, mostly not Force, but okay.

You wouldn't inform your players if the campaign focuses on, say, an invasion from the Elemental Plane of Fire, or fighting the magitech soldiers of an ancient civilisation, or lotsa oozes?

Sneak attack and Rogue isn't made weak because you will encounter enemies who are immune, sometimes entire encounters. Trip isn't a weak combat maneuver to invest in just because some enemies can't be tripped, sometimes entire encounters. Fire Kineticits, Oracles or Sorcerors aren't weak because... Well, you get the gist, I hope.

All of these character options will work more often than not. Way more often than not. There will also be other reasons why any given tactic or damage type will be harder to leverage or less effective beyond resistances and immunities. That's fine. Explosion of Power is no different, and actually much less build-defining or crippling when it fails.

But, seriously, when the gm is planning a campaign where there will be enough of such encounters to make any of these options a bad idea, then yes, it's common courtesy to give a heads up. That's pretty basic. Why does this need to spelled out?

How on earth does this lead to solving everything at character creation or a homogeneous campaign without diversity or that going all-in, no compromises, on a certain damage type or tactic without a back-up plan should not have the expected consequences?

As already pointed out, though, this is false, they also included a build that required prior setup and even made mention of how this gave the Animist an action economy advantage. In fact, your own Anoint Ally + Explosion of Power combo proves this false, as you too are implicitly demanding more setup to favor the Sorcerer. All I'm pointing out here is the double standard in giving the Sorcerer generous amounts of setup time for these calculations while denying a much smaller setup on the Animist that would carry much greater returns, to say nothing of how they also had several other force multipliers and entire parts of their kit excluded. Even if it is not your explicit intention to counterfeit the comparison, that is what it ends up being in practice when every concession is made for the side you've been favoring long before the comparison was made and no such grace is extended towards the other.

Blasting Sorcerors in general do not require much setup, if any. This particular build did. That's all. For my Sorcerors Fiery Body would be a back-up scroll for cases where I would either not want to touch my slots or start the fight without focus points. But that does not matter because this is what they put in their comparison, and they did not include certain other options from Animist or Sorceror. That's okay, but it does not mean anything more than that.

I like Animists, I really enjoyed playing one. It was fun. I also enjoy Sorcerors and many other characters. They all have things they excel in and their pain points.

I would definitely put Animists in the group of classes who benefit greatly from a pre-combat buff-round, though they are hardly alone, and before hairs get split, everyone can get a benefit from that obviously. It's a matter of degrees. It's not crippling, or a deal-breaker, but it's there.

Stand-off ranged damage dealers and casters by their very nature require less set-up than those who need to close the gap. Certainly not blaster casters like Sorcerors/Oracles/... Round 1, your turn, press your nuke button. Hairsplitting countermeasure: this is in general. Specific situations and scenarios may potentially make going boom a bad idea or even impossible. I know this, you know this, we all know this, no need to point this out.

By all means, feel free to disagree, but it's all rather self-evident and something everyone sees happening all the time in their games.

Hold on, so if all you care about is outcomes, wouldn't this just mean that most classes are the same to you anyway? Forgive me, but this seems like just about the driest, most depressing way to evaluate gameplay that you could suggest me: it's not just that the Animist does generate a combination of outcomes that is unique to them, moving into close ranges and casting from there very much does lead to different outcomes when it changes how you and enemies interact with each other at those ranges. There is no sense in separating the how from the outcome here in my opinion; the two are inextricably linked, and one cannot ignore one or the other without drawing an extremely bland and incomplete picture of any given class.

My powers of abstraction are great indeed.

Every character I build in PF2e is unique, and I have an immense array of customization options. This is true.

The gameplay elements classes provide are very restricted however, and not that varied. Most classes are indeed very samey when looking at gameplay loops and outcomes. Classes themselves, and the way you can combine them and the by now extensive library of dedications you can plug in means we're about as close to a classless system as this edition's implementation can manage without putting of those who dislike that. This is also true, imho, but your YMMV.

PF2e an exception-based system, but with a very dominant base and is very conservative in doling out its exceptions, as well as having immense overlap, shared ways of interacting with the base system and design space between classes. The one that doesn't integrate as fully as the others stands out. Hairsplitting countermeasure: this is relative to other similar exception-based systems, especially its predecessor and close relatives of the d&d family.

There is no contradiction or inherent opposition here, nor is this some scathing condemnation of PF2e. There are good reasons for this approach and worthwhile pay-offs.

There are little to no character concepts that can not be built using different classes/dedications. There are no gameplay loops or desired mechanical outcomes that can not be built using different classes/dedications. This separation is not bland or dull, but enriching. The details of course matter because at the intersection of my character concept and how I implement it and the resulting gameplay is where I can find the uniqueness, and nowhere else.

...

About Explosion of Power and supposedly being dismissive of white room theorycrafting...

Look, believe what you will about Explosion of Power. Perhaps it really is hard to use at your tables. I would consider that weird, even for PFS pick-up play, but okay.

My Sorceror at least has no shortage of allies to anoint who will gleefully wades into the melee to be adjacent to as many enemies as they can, even without the incentive of being turned into a living nuke. Most parties tend to have at least one of them crazy people. They may even start or be expected to grow to large or huge size in your campaign to make that 5 foot emanation really juicy. Since you know this when creating characters you can actually be 100% certain of all of these facts and take them into account, or at least I would be. There is also no range limit. It's not short ranged at all.

And about the damage type, resistances and immunities, these are also things you can make pretty informed decisions about when the campaign is pitched and characters made. The types of Sorcerors most likely to make use of Explosion of Power will end up with either Force, Fire or Spirit and all three will be excellent in a regular campaign. A campaign heavily featuring enemies resistant or immune to Fire or Spirit will need a heads-up beforehand anyway because of its impact on what characters may or may not be viable, so you can choose accordingly.

Sorry about the snark, but I've seen it in action and it's really easy to use, will catch a lot of targets and it will work much, much more often than not, unless we are assuming deliberately antagonistic gm's or fellow players.

Now about that comparison. What I actually said it was not without value, but not to take too much away from it. That's it. And YuriP called his own comparison a whiteroom experiment and quite plainly explained the constraints he put on it.

The only conclusions you can get out of this experiment are about what is put into it and what you are measuring. In this case they compared 1 round of average damage against 1 opponent, using a handful of builds they found interesting running the action routine and setup they wanted.

If you come away from this with the impression that Sorcerors use singular damage types, that fiery body + ignition are widely used, especially by fire elementalists or that Sorceror is in any way, shape or form a slow starter needing setup time, myeah, sure.

Alright, glad we agree. How then can you simultaneously argue that moving into close ranges and Sustaining these vessel spells, which you admitted to being the main draw of the class, does not feel different from playing any other caster, despite the fact that the latter do not engage in this gameplay? This is a pretty glaring difference, so if this does not register as different to you, I'm curious to know what does.

I explained this. In detail.

What would register as a difference in gameplay to me is the Animist being unable to combine that move and sustain.

Because then the Animist would be unable to Cast and Sustain effectively like the backline caster could.

I am obviously more focused on the final outcome than how something is done to get there. Both get the same result, and that move tacked on the sustain is just the fix needed to achieve parity.

Angwa wrote:

A regular Animist, and by that I mean a Liturgist, will honestly not feel all that different from many other casters. Adding a sustain to movement only matters in cases you need the movement, which is less vital to casters in the backline.

Wasn't the point a few posts ago that this movement was necessary due to the short-ranged nature of most vessel spells? This feels like one of the actual few applications of Schrödinger's Animist in this thread, where the Animist is both uniquely constrained in their need to move and Sustain their one-action vessel spells and also plays identically to other casters.

Huh? Yes, the point indeed is that the short-ranged nature of vessels spells makes adding that movement to a sustain much more important.

Backline casters are generally able to sustain and cast a 2 action spell without needing to move. Your Animist is likely to be in need of a move on top of a sustain if they want to still do a 2 action spell.

The end result is exactly the same: both casters being able to cast a spell and sustain a while positioned so both are effective.

Hence why I wrote 'honestly not feel all that different' and 'less vital to casters in the backline'. The one that is likely to need a move gets one, the one that is likely not to need one, does not. The outcome of the essential gameplay elements, namely upkeeping this effect on intended target and cast a new spell are the same for both casters.

If the Animist could not get a sustain added to the move action there would actually be a difference in gameplay relative to the backline caster, because the Animist would be unable to both cast and sustain effectively. You need it to achieve parity.

A comparison in the other thread showed the Animist isn't far behind elemental and imperial sorcerers in terms of blasting power -- and this is before even factoring in being able to Sustain a second damage spell and boost all of their spell DCs and spell attacks by 2. In fact, the person who ran the comparison pointed out that the Animist required less setup than several Sorcerer builds, so their action compression does matter. If the Animist can look that good even when you subtract a spell and a bunch of feats from their damage output, including those Oracle feats that the Animist can easily access, and also limit them to just half their spells instead of factoring in the many non-divine spells they can cast, then that in my opinion says a lot about how good a blaster the Animist is, and how scared some people are of acknowledging that.

Why would anyone be scared of Animist being a good blaster? It's a relatively strong blaster for sure. However, it really does favor either really long protracted fights and preferably more than one per day to really get mileage out of it's kit.

In that light, I wouldn't take away too much from that comparison you mentioned, to be honest. It's totally a white room training dummy situation measuring 1 round of damage on 1 opponent, which is not without value, mind you, but eh, what can it really tell us?

Also, it's a comparison to Sorceror which does not take Explosion of Power into account. If the opponents are not seriously resistant or immune to its damage type there honestly is no point in comparing anyone to Sorcerors. It would not matter how many fights per day, whether it favors aoe or single target, or how long they last to put Sorcerors in the lead by a wide, wide margin.

OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:

Angwa wrote:

Anyway, it's great to strike and cast a spell while tumbling and leaping around while also having 2 other effects go off.

I’m definitely not up to speed on most of the mechanical points being made here. And so I wonder, with all of the talk about action economy and action compression - narratively (and citing the above example), are other classes doing as much?

This is an interesting thought experiment. The animist does feel very different from other casters in their approach to spell casting. They really are not a “spam the same thing” over and over again caster, and so pigeonholing them into any caster role except maybe healer is going to end up a little off. Channeler’s stance for pure blasting is unwieldy. Mixing it in to a combo of healing and multi round sustained damage with debuffs is not too bad and not really something other casters do to well. Its melee potential is much better as a secondary option for when casting isn’t optimal. It can do a fair bit of control, but through weird means, link grabbing and making enemies waste time with their vessel spells.its just pretty different from something repetitive like a sorcerer or Oracle.

They can feel unique among the full casters and have turns with lots of stuff going on, but there are others who can do the same. Bards and Witches for example are similar in that regard and can build out an impressive array of impactful 1-action choices alongside their regular spellcasting.

The other thing that sets them apart among full casters is that they want to be in the frontline. Warpriests and Warrior Bards however are also able to cater to that fantasy.

You also have the Apparition spells, which is also not really new in essence, just the application. It's a special version of the flexible caster archetype. Only applies to a portion of your slots, and you don't have to give up a slot in exchange for giving predefined choices, though they you get spells from another tradition. Cool I guess, and actually a pretty nice but complex implementation of the flexible archetype built in the chassis.

Due to the complexity might have been better to silo this in a particular Practice to make it a choice for the players who want it and give the rest a third prepared spell slot. Also, to balance the Practices better because Liturgist exists.

So, different and unique, but more in the specific combination of elements, not the particulars?

A regular Animist, and by that I mean a Liturgist, will honestly not feel all that different from many other casters. Adding a sustain to movement only matters in cases you need the movement, which is less vital to casters in the backline. Elf step sustaining 2 spells is only a difference until effortless concentration comes along. Granted, that's 7 levels earlier, but other casters in general don't particularly have the need to sustain 2 spells, and the Class that actually might has Cackle. Which can also be easily poached if you're going for some special build that needs to regularly sustain 2 spells before you can get effortless concentration. If legacy is not a problem and the restrictions are ok, there is also effortless captivation.

You can take it further, like Maneuvering Spell, Skirmish Strike and stuff like that, but that takes serious investment and extreme build choices because ideally to truly change the action economy you'll need 2 and it'll only be possible much, much closer to the level Effortless Concentration comes online.

Some more observations to add to the discussion: beware Schrodinger's Animist. You can not be everything all at once. You can not bring all Apparitions. And once you are in the thick of things and committed it takes you time to shift gears between the ones you did bring.

You are also a full caster on the front lines, and that brings a lot of complications and demands with it that those who are not simply do not have to deal with in general.

I'd mention that the apparition spell repertoire (and their associated spell slots) is a massive point of power by itself alongside what you listed, but I think this highlights a different criticism from the current discussion, and a no less valid one: correct me if I'm wrong, but it feels like vessel spells are your main draw to the Animist, yet their limitations didn't make them feel as fun to use as you wanted. This is a sentiment I share, that and stuff like the Lore skills being needless complexity and yet more power that isn't put to proper use in the class's abilities.

Although I do think vessel spells are very powerful, and thus more worth using than not, I agree that they can often feel a bit clunky to use, and it can feel especially bad when a spell like embodiment of battle does nothing specific when Sustained, other than have its duration extended. The Liturgist in this respect plays quite an important part in helping bypass that clunkiness, even if independently both represent a significant amount of power and exploit potential for the class. In effect, I do think these are things that make the Animist extremely powerful (and, like a curse-less Oracle, on a class that's already got a lot of raw power elsewhere too), but I also agree with you that in practice, that power doesn't necessarily translate to enjoyment so much as annoyance.

Vessel spells are very much the draw indeed. It's the class' unique selling point to me.

The Apparition spells were fine, I guess?

I mean way back when I played a Halcyon wizard flexible caster. Everything basically being a signature spell which you can change around is nothing new or special to me. Also played 2 sorcerors and I feel confident enough that I can build a repertoire that covers all the bases just fine. There's a point where getting more signature spells starts having serious diminishing returns.

Anyway, about the clunckiness of using the vessel spells, lvl 1-4 were fine. Being a slowed pocket martial is fine. Tossing cantrips or the occasional spell while sustaining Earth's bile is fine. You're not amazing, but really, who is. Lvl 5 you get fireball, but you really start feeling your accuracy lagging. Earth's Bile started becoming more dominant. It mostly was a drag around levels 6-8. The other caster starts getting under steam, everyone has good reactions, the martials are pulling ahead and their builds have their basics covered.

Level 9 is obviously very 'yay'. Stupidly so. Think this is the only class which has to wait so long for something so essential.

We are circling back to a point that's been made ad nauseum, which is that of course spontaneous casting is better in a no-information or "pop-up miniatures battle" style of game. That's totally fine, not every class has to be a good fit to every campaign. It's just something GMs and players need to be aware of when they talk through session 0: witch and wizard, with their INT focus and prepared lists, are a better fit to games where some time in the evening (after 'returning to base') or morning before daily prep can be spent gathering info. If nobody at the table wants to play that sort of game, they probably aren't the best fit. Or to turn it around, if some player takes Witch/Wizard, then that signals to me, the GM, I should think about how to integrate a bit of information gathering into the campaign.

Eh, we do information gathering and generally will know what we're up against. My Resentment Witch will definitely switch some spells around, and it helps, but we hit lvl 10, so we're way past the point where no matter what we encounter the Sorceror will have good options. Might not be perfect, but always good.

Having that info is just the baseline, and it generally won't put you on even footing with the spontaneous casters.

Not having the correct info however and encountering stuff you did not expect, oh boy, that really has the potential to leave you with a bunch of dead slots.

What I am trying to say is that it is more like you will be punished if you don't have info than that you will have the edge compared to spontaneous casters.

Okay, and that feeling is valid, as all feelings are; what interests me though is what basis you're operating on here. I get that these spells need to be Sustained, and needing to Sustain something is itself worse than if the duration were consistent (though this would make things like repeatedly dropping earth's bile every round a little weird without a Sustain action), the bit I want to highlight the most here though is that these are things that you absolutely can choose not to do and still be very powerful for it, much like an Oracle who doesn't lean into their curse and still finds themselves a powerful generic caster. If it's just a vibe, that's fine, but if you're trying to convince me or others that this completely optional choice to Sustain that would only happen due to a net benefit is, in fact, a detriment, that requires some kind of justification.

It's more than vibes.

Obviously sustaining is optional, and if the effect is desired it's a benefit. The build I was talking about was all about enabling sustains, so it's clear I see value in it, and in the way Liturgist allows me to do that.

The lore skills are nice-to-haves, but honestly pretty meh and tacked on almost as afterthought. They do something special with the structure of their spell slots, but honestly it's just a mess, adding needless complexity for little gain. On top of that pure spontaneous spellcasters are still better imho, but okay, good enough, it's still a full spellcaster, and I can live with using digital tools because Animist and paper character sheets don't jive at all.

That leaves the vessel spells. To me those are most mechanically impactful thing about the class is the vessel spells. For me that is the Animist's selling point and why I am playing it. The core class features.

Just like that Oracle who doesn't use its cursebound abilities you mentioned, I personally would never play that.

Anyway, the Animist core class features that matter to me are all sustained spells, with a short range. Even if they are impactful of course this is a detriment. Sustaining spells is a huge cost after all.

To further put this in focus and approaching it from the opposite angle: I will argue that at the higher levels the practices other than Liturgist are at most mediocre. And that is mostly because of their out of combat utility. In high level combat I am really confident they will be outperformed by every spontaneous caster at the very least, but also prepared casters who have useful class features they can leverage.

That's how much gating your most potent class features behind sustains is a detriment.

Now, of course Liturgist exists and offers tools you can invest in, but you have to invest to get to the level you're comfortable with, be that elf step or going for another route. It's something you have to fight against to put to effective use.

The Animist in this respect is an exception: we can happily disagree on where the floor starts and the ceiling ends, but in my opinion it'd be better for the class if they were made less finicky didn't have such a large gap between optimized and unoptimized builds.

PF2e, even though they put effort into balance, has also been expanded upon for many years by now. There are tons of classes and a bazillion dedications. Especially those dedications have been getting more and more power, with so many juicy higher level class feats, like tactical reflexes or opportune backstab now available for everybody. And the more classes come out the more combinations of poachable low level stuff.

This gap will only increase, and it's fine as long as it does not get too wide. That said, Animist definitely has issues in this regard, starting with the fact of the practices are so unequal.

Regardless, I think that ultimately brings us to what is probably the more important point, one I think we agree on: although you may think the Animist isn't strong and I do, neither of us seem to have found the class all that fun to play. Compared to other classes, the Animist is really fiddly and dependent on hidden synergies to shine, when it is normally standard for PF2e classes to be more accessible and to contain all of their most important synergies within their own class features and feats. In this respect, I think the Animist is more akin to a PF1e class than a 2e one: the class is extremely complicated and difficult to make work properly, but if you're a min-maxer who pores through splatbooks and knows just what disparate options to stack together, they can go off the rails, or at the very least become so much more powerful that there ends up being a major difference in performance between builds that have those synergistic options and builds that don't. I personally really don't like this, and would much prefer it if the Animist were made more accessible and less prone to exploits.

Well, this would be another point of disagreement: I do think it's strong and fun to play. Just not OP and better than anyone else. Except perhaps druids, but that is mostly because Druid is pretty frontloaded and many of their options don't scale all that well.

Also, while you can get the tools to deal with sustains and being in melee range, I remain convinced that these are in essence disadvantages you have to address by minimizing the costs and maximizing the returns.

Anyway, it's great to strike and cast a spell while tumbling and leaping around while also having 2 other effects go off. And yes, I really do know you can also sustain apparition spells, like Earth's Bile and Grasping Spirits if you want to go pure damage (short range blasting is imho their strong suit).

Awesome visuals, respectable damage, good support, a full caster, very intense gameplay and risk vs award because you are in the frontlines as a caster. What's not to like?

What I can wholeheartedly agree with is the Animist being fiddly, very dependent on system mastery and going out of class and having lotsa mental overhead. So, while they can take their place among the strong options, it's easier to get the same general level with the other strong classes, and there are plenty which can be downright better in a broader range of group set-ups than Animists.

Most of other casters I play don't require that kind of a set up. I mostly open with a big blast spell. With the arcane sorc, usually ancestral memories and a big blast spell. You want to open with the big hammer before your allies close so you can drop the heaviest blast you can with the least chance of affecting your allies.

Well, to be fair, a Sorceror going with explosion of power and anoint ally does require some set up and faces some restrictions on how to place their blasts.

Not a lot, and you can work around the restrictions, but it's there.