Ooooh, now I see where we got it wrong. We thought diverse lore made it so esoteric lore could replace occultist/arcana/nature/religion skills, when it's just for the purpose of recalling knowledge. Well, that's a really big difference and it'll make me less likely to step on the wizard's toes.
Hello, I'm currently playing a Twisted staff magus, and here are some pointers I hope will be useful. This is what I found optimized but there are no universal truths so take everything with a grain of salt ^^ 1) At low levels (say 1 to 5), spellstriking is useless. The best use of your low level slot(s) until you get a striking weapon is to cast magic weapon - and doubly so for an Iron Magus since you're using a weapon with a big dice. That means your guisarme will do 2d10+str (hopefully +4) and no amount of spellstriking will outdamage that. So even with a -5 penalty, it's better to attack twice and not spellstrike until level 5 or so. There are programs made by fans who'll give you the exact breaking point. But yeah, there you have it, our main feature is useless until level 5 which is pretty annoying. On the other hand, you'll deal a hefty amount of damage anyway. 2) Try to get a powerful focus spell. Your slots are valuable, so a way to deal more damage every fight is great. The best ways include going Psychic dedication (for 1d12+1 fire damage/2 lvl) or cleric dedication (for 2d6 fire damage/2 lvl). Going psychic also lets you get the best magus cantrip ever but you'll need 2 feats for that. 3) Since you took a wizard dedication, you should take hand of the apprentice. It works with spellstrike and deals a lot of damage at early levels. It will lose steam, though. 4) All magus focus spells suck big time. Don't use them. The only one that could be worth it is laughing shadows if you take the level 10 feat, but then that would force you to play laughing shadows which is plenty bad. 5) True strike is your friend. Use it, abuse it. That's also why Twisted Tree magus is the best magus by miles. True Strike into Spellstriking a big focus spell is an awesome nova round. 6) Always take a round to prep at the beginning of the fight. Don't rush headlong into battle with your low hp. A good first round could be Greater Invis + Cascade or GI + move depending on whether you want the cascade or not. 7) Don't hesitate to abuse weaknesses. Apart from the thaumaturge, you're the best at this. 8) Since you followed my advice (didn't you ?) and took an offensive focus spell, don't hesitate to fill your slots with something else than touch spells. A big trusty fireball, a mass slow/haste or even a mass fear at low level can do wonders. 9) Don't underestimate electric arc. It's everyone's favorite cantrip for a reason. Electric arc + cascade is a valid first round, and depending on the surroundings it might be better to do strike + Electric Arc instead of Recharge + Spellstrike.
Also, telling someone that something is an illusion might help, but it won't totally negate the illusion. Take virtual reality and how hard it is to walk through a chasm with a 3d helmet. You KNOW you're in your living room, you KNOW there's no lava and there's no monster coming to get you, but you still have to fight all your instincts to put your foot in the (fake) chasm. Now take Pathfinder, where magic does exist and people can make mistakes. Even if your fellow orc tells you "hey, this huge pit is strange, i'm 100% positive it's an illusion", unless he steps on it first, I probably won't try ^^
So 10 base+6 dex +6 wis + 3 monk AC bonus (monk robe) + 4 mage armor + 4 shield potion from alchemist + 4 ring of protection + 4 barkskin Ki power + 4 fighting defensively with Crane Style/Riposte + 4 crane wing until hit + 1 dusty rose ioun stone = 50 AC
I love PF1 and played it for more than 10 years. But for me, PF2 is just straight up better. 1) Three action systems.
2) Tighter Math.
3) Effect on a save.
4) Shield rules. They're so awesome everybody wants to get a shield in our games. 5) Balanced classes
6) Elegant solutions
I'm having a hard time understanding how you could get a TPK with a 5-man group including a champion and a heal. Could you perhaps list the opponents in one of those fights so we can see what went wrong ? Also, at low level, a wizard's job is not to whittle away the hp of the monsters (apart from magic missile on a boss), he's really bad at it. Burning hands is no actually no better than his cantrip. Good spells at first levels include the ever-popular Magic Weapon but, if he doesn't want to be a buffbot, spells like grease or gust of wind give the prone condition to multiple opponents, while fear can debuff a single boss.
Remind me again, why are you playing with jerks ?*sighs* Because they're jerks I've known for over 25 years. Jerks though they sometimes be, more still are they like brothers to me and mine. (And what brotherhood does not traditionally come with some low-level form of abuse?) Well, the real question, and only you can answer it, is "are you actually having fun playing with them ?". Honestly ? If you do despite the abuse, that's one thing.
Remind me again, why are you playing with jerks ?
Just - just don't play with jerks. You'll find new players quicker than they'll find a new GM.Any player that throws a fit like you described would be expelled from our games - friend or not.
I added a very big part about choosing your arcane school.
Well, as for me, I'm kind of paranoid and as soon as my level 4 slots become utility (which usually starts at level 11), I load up on heightened invisibility and fly. If I'm being clearly targeted, one or the other gives me a much-needed breather, depending on the situation.
Here's my Hideously Biased Guide To (Spell Blending) Wizards And here's the discussion
That's a great question, and I really don't know the answer. The text on Spell Blending isn't clear, so I guess it's GM dependant so far. What I also found to be GM dependant (and I'll put it in the guide, because it has a tremendous impact) is whether you can use your specialist slots on Spell Blending or not.
I will ;)
It's true that you can buff your accuracy (bard song, for instance) and debuff the opponent, but you still run into the same problem that it does nothing on a miss, and that really hurts on a finite ressource that costs two actions. It might be more of a morale thing than a real one, but wasting one's turn can be really frustrating. It could be a viable choice if the attack spells were actually better (much better) than the save ones, but they mostly aren't. Take your heightened acid arrow. If you heighten it at level 4, it does 2d6 persistent damage on a hit. At the VERY SAME level, enervation does 4d8 persistent damage on a failed save + drained 1, and 2d8 persistent damage on a save. So a FAILED enervation is better than a SUCCESSFUL acid arrow (unless you're fighting undead). How is that even balanced ?
Hello, After playing a lot of wizards in a lot of campaigns, and after arguing in a lot of threads about a lot of misconceptions (that's what I call opinions that don't go my way) , I thought it was my sacred duty to write a guide about the wizard. But not any wizard.
(Drumroll) The Spell Blending Wizard I hope you'll enjoy it ;) Blue Frog's Hideously Biased Guide To Wizards Disclaimer: english isn't my native, so please don't be too hard on me for spelling mistakes !
Accuracy matters, so 18/14 would be better but yeah,that allows for a painless start.
The flowing monk (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo-monk-a rchetypes/flowing-monk/) was an attempt to implement aikido in PF1, and it was actually pretty interesting. Not quite powerful, but interesting. As for the main topic, I really think it's working as intended. Dex fighters start a bit weaker, and end up a bit stronger. I can see that the gap at low level is annoying, but like others said it's a player's decision to ignore STR altogether. STR is a weak stat in itself, since it affects no saving throws, only one skill (albeit a useful one) and the weight you can carry. PF2 is pretty generous with stat boosts, giving you 4 stats to raise every level when other systems (3.5, PF1, 4e, 5e...) weren't as lenient. The consensus for min-maxers is to raise always the same stats, i.e:
That's... really, really boring.
I mean, unless you're roleplaying a brainiac, nobody will invest in INT if it's not your main stat. And nobody will invest in STR if they get by with DEX. So, yeah, that's the thing. You CAN build a dex fighter with a reasonable STR. You CAN also invest in STR later to get more damage. Sure, it'll be a lower percentage of your damage but it's still there. Just skip CON or WIS once in a while.
+2 to hit is actually crazy good. My maths might be off, but an alchemist with quicksilver and hunter's aim actually has the best accuracy of the game, 1 more than an equal level fighter (well, till level 13 at least). investigator doesn't work for the reasons others have pointed out. I don't see where they pointed out it doesn't work. You cannot use INT instead of DEX but that's not the point. It's all about Devise stratagem.
Rand Al'Thor (WoT). Richard Cypher (Sword of Truth).The temple of the Thirty (Gemmell). Also Abercrombie, Guy Gavriel Kay, Sanderson, Erikson and basically 90% of the Fantasy best-sellers.
This. Not to nitpick since it has little bearing on the broader topic, but performance specifically says "You are skilled at a form of performance, using your talents to impress a crowd or make a living."Then, the DC of the task is based on the audience
This, for most DM, means that performing is trying very hard to get all eyes on you, not the other way round.
Well, from our interpretation, people see you performing, they just don't see you casting. It allows for flexible shenanigans, just much less so than silent casting. For instance, you're perfoming in front of a noble lord and you're using charm so that he likes you more. Nobody will ever see you cast the spell, nothing out of the ordinary, and still you'll win the grand prize. Or you're playing the drums and, while everybody's watching you, you cast invisibility on a friend of yours. Or sleep on those guards in the corner, who will suspect you if they're dozing off ? But none of our GM will ever allow a performance to be discreet.
Well, apart from silent spell, what makes imho a wizard better at illusion than a bard is Convincing Illusion. Someone disbelieving an illusion at the wrong time can really wreak your day. Getting a free chance to change that seems crazy powerful to me.
I can give you my view as a bard. It's not very fun to be honest with you. Your cantrips are so good that people expect you to use them every round because they make their characters better. When you don't use them, they get unhappy. Thanks for your candor, that's pretty consistent with what I see in my groups. The bard is incredibly powerful, but his power relies on very specific action, notably inspire courage/dirge of doom and some broken spells like Synesthesia or True Target whenever there is a single target. It's a balance problem when a 5th level spell is more powerful than almost every 9th level option. So bards are powerhouses, but also a bit tedious to play, because they won't have the luxury to use their incredible skills and charisma to Demoralize, Bon Mot, Create a Diversion, or look for the best spell in a given situation. They're still chock-full of goodies and have great flavor, but the fact that some options are way better than others kinda hamstring them in one style of play.
I would really love to have imput from people actually playing bards, and how much they like their character. Because we have a bard in two of our tables, and both are ok with their character but nowhere near as "godlike" as the forum make it to be. Sure, they feel like they contribute a lot through their cantrips, and both inspire courage and dirge of doom are very useful. But the three slots really hurt them, especially in the APs where you can get a lot of fights back to back. They very quickly have to resort to cantrips (one of them took adaptative cantrip for electric arc, but still) or skill feats. Meanwhile, I'm a wizard (Harry) in one of those games and a draconic sorcerer in the other one, and I feel like I always have something to do with my turn. I know I may sound tedious because in every thread I contribute, I emphasize the importance of spell slots, not only for spell attrition but also for spell selection (I know the bard can get a grimoire but then so can the sorcerer, and that's still nowhere near 1 more choice per level). In the first fight of the day, the bard is arguably a beast. He can first turn inspire courage or dirge (with focus to linger) AND throw a top spell to turn the tide of the game. There's little a wizard or sorcerer can do to top that, no 1-action will be as potent as a bard cantrip. My sorcerer usually uses Bon Mot and my wizard Recall Knowledge, and that's powerful in its own way, but nowhere near a flat +1 or -1. However, as the fights drag on (and i'm not speaking about 5 fights a day, even 3 is enough), their turn starts to get less powerful. While I can still fling a fireball or a heightened slow, they're all out of their top two levels and they have to resort either to cantrips or less powerful spells. Not only that but lingering composition, though powerful, isn't eternal. If the fight isn't finished in two or three rounds, our bard has to sustain his song throughout the fight, effectively becoming slowed 1, which has its own problems when monsters move around and you have to follow them. So, TLDR, I'm not saying bard is a bad class, it's an awesome class loaded with a great chassis, great spell list, great cantrips. I'm just wondering how you see them in actual play because, IN MY TABLES and FROM MY EXPERIENCE (which is arguably limited), they lose steam quicker than other characters, and the tradeoff seems ok for me.
Thank you for your contribution.You're very welcome. Knowledge, that's what us wizards are all about ^^ Exactly. I'm all for giving a wizard shiny new toys so they're less bland... but there's a balance to consider, so as not to overpower it in the process. Also, I'm a bit confused as to all this wizard hate when, from what I see (but I'm ready to admit my experience is lacking there), the witch is in a wayyyy worse place than the wizard ever was or will be. For me, the witch needs a huge buff (and I mean a huge one), what with being a prepared spellcaster with few slots, weak feats, weak wizard chassis and so-so focus spells.
Honestly, i’m not being mean, but you have missed literally every point made about the wizard and just listed some class features. You could make a post like this for every class in the game and it would read almost exactly the same. My bad, it seems I should have been more blunt, so here's the TLDR. 1 - A spell substitution wizard is the best utility caster bar none.
Pick one, profit.
I really don't understand how you cannot see the many advantages of a wizard. Of course he won't be the best at everything, else it would make every other class moot, but it still can be either the most powerful or the most flexible caster in the game. Let's assume a player will choose one of the two interesting thesis, Spell Blending or Spell Substitution. You have a point in that the other ones are weaker but then that's the same with every class: Maestro is often seen as much better than Enigma for bard, Draconic better than Undead for Sorcerer and so on. So, what do you get there ? 1) SPELL SUBSTITUTION WIZARD
You need water or food ? Create water. Or food.
Meanwhile, the bard has three spell known per level. A standard bard spell list might look like this:
...and so on, and so forth. It's just an example of course, other players will pick other spells, but it still means that the bard, while strong in combat, has a severe lack of utility spells. Of course, you might say that a bard will double as the party face, but the wizard will double as the party nerd, and Recall Knowledge/Crafting is just as powerful in my book as Diplomacy/Intimidation. So, will a bard or a druid or a sorcerer be more powerful than a spell substitution wizard IN COMBAT ? Probably (unless the wizard had time to prep specifically for the encounter, like cone of cold against fire opponents). But the tradeoff is that the wizard will shine much more out of combat, and the other members of the group will rely on him to have all the answers. It's a very Gandalf-y way to play a wizard, and it's appealing to a lot of people. I, for one, would rather contribute a little less in a fight (a little, mind you, a wizard is still no slouch) and be the one everybody in the group turns to whenever there's trouble. That, my friend, was the spell substitution wizard. Now, let's go to the second viable thesis: spell blending. 2) SPELL SUBSTITUTION WIZARD Holy s+%!, you're Dark Schneider (from Bastard)(I know)(sorry). You have the most stamina of any caster, ever, and you never seem to run out of meaningful spells.
What does that mean ? Well, in comparison to a druid, a witch, an oracle or a bard, I have TWICE the number of highest level slots. Or, numerically speaking, 5 more spells from the top two slots.
3) FEATS We already talked about Scroll Savant. But there's more.
So, yeah, other feats are pretty bland. And yeah, focus spells are pretty crappy.
The only thing the wizard doesn't have is synesthesia. But that's more a question of a spell being overpowered/more powerful than any other than a specific wizard problem.
Just to point out on the "chain lightning" vs "black tentacule" exemple that chain lightning is an awesome spell...because it's foe only. That's it. That's its value. In a big melee where two camps are fighting, it's way better than tentacles who will indiscriminately hentai the hell out of everyone. BUT in the scenario you depicted with the armies apart, chain lightning is NOT a good spell. A simple fireball would have probably dealt more damage since it doesn't stop on a crit. Or, one level later, eclipse burst.
I think people are really downplaying the strength of the arcane list. Sure, it has less unique spells than other tradition, but boy are those staple. I mean, contingency. Hello.
Merely spell turning makes any encounter with a spellcaster from another tradition trivial. Also, let's not forget that wizards are the brainiac casters, with high INT to power their skills. This makes them arguably the best ritual casters to make clones, golems and the like. A level 20 wizard isn't more powerful than another caster. But it still fits the theme better.
Nobody ever mentions the hag sorcerer.
Also, cha-based, occult casting, 4 slots per level.
My main beef with warpriest as it is comes from the way Channel Smite works, i.e. it expends the slot even if you miss. That's brutal and pretty much requires you to choose a deity with True Strike in order to land those blows. If it only expended the slot on a success, I feel the warpriest would be much more powerful.
As for wizard, I would love more interesting feats - not necessarily more powerful but more flavorful, like what the magus has so far. Something to block with your spellbook, to replicate a spell being cast by an opponent, to steal a buff.. Also, it would be nice to have a real gameplay change coming from your school specialization. So far, it's really, really bland. Abjuration: You get d8hp and permanent free enhanced mage armor.
Make all cantrips save-based. Electric arc is good because it can have two targets, but the real draw is the save-based part, which makes it so much better than anything else. Acid Splash - Saving Throw basic Fortitude
Produce Flame - Saving Throw basic reflex
Ray of Frost - Saving Throw basic Fortitude
Telekinetic projectile - Saving Throw basic reflex
If I were to play a wizard, I would probably abuse spell blending. He's the only class to get that option and boy does it look good on paper. I mean, a 8 level specialist wizard could have:
How's that for staying power ? Twice as many high level slots as a bard or a druid, half as much as a sorcerer. In a game where heightened spells are incredibly useful and low level spell tend to lose steam, being able to unload on average two big hitters per fight could be worth way more than a focus spell. At said level 8, you're using dirge of doom and a cantrip ? Yeah, ok, I'm using hightened fear for probably better results and that's not even a top slot. You're using Tempest surge for 4d12 single target ? Well let me use enervation or heightened fireball. I agree, it's just theorycrafting, but most people discussing the wizard seem to disregard spell blending, either dismissing thesis altogether or assuming a wizard would take spell substitution or improved familiar. Hell no. If I were to make a wizard, I'd fling more spells than you can count, baby. And the higher level I get, the bigger an advantage it becomes ^^ Edit: however, I just looked at their feats and I totally agree on how bland they look. Bleh.
You can indeed... at level 18. I didn't see any other feat allowing you to get spells from other traditions before. Also, expanding your repertoire usually needs the polymath muse while most will first choose Maestro, which means you'll have to take yet another feat to circumvent this. I'm not saying bard isn't strong, it is, it really is. But I really don't understand how you could say that you would go with bard to get other traditions: A bard has Impossible Polymath: You can get spells from other traditions, but you can have ONE AND ONLY ONE prepped every day. At level 18. A sorcerer has Crossblooded evolution - so one spell from another tradition prepped every day. At level 8. And Greater Crossblooded evolution, three spells from other traditions, at level 18. So, yeah. My wife plays a sorcerer in the game I DM and I don’t necessarily agree with you. There are some fine feats there but I don’t think the evolution powers are that strong. She plays arcane sorcerer and it basically comes down to those feats just give you more uses of powers or more spells known. Spells known is valuable but cross blooded is basically a feat to get one spell. I don’t find that exciting. I like things like interweave dispel or scintillating spell and feel those are worth it. Dangerous Sorcery I agree is just a feat tax. But I’m not a huge fan of the evolution or focus power feat lines. Sure getting more spells makes you act a bit more like a wizard, but I don’t think they’re terribly necessary since 3 spells plus bloodline is usually enough. When she took the greater evolution feat and got one spell for each level there wasn’t that many great options that she had to get. Now as Paizo adds more spells that will get more exciting but for right now it doesn’t seem that great. I for one found it awesome, playing an arcane sorcerer. I got heal at level 8, which gave me a nice backup option that I didn't have as an arcane caster. Sure, this wasn't probably the best choice, but it fit our group and made me that much more flexible. If you're lacking a healer, breath of life could be useful as well.
Well, I'm only speaking for sorcerer here since I never played a wizard, but I really thought every level had really powerful, impactful and meaningful feats. Level 1 has dangerous sorcery. Nothing fancy, but interesting enough that a lot of other classes try to poach it. Level 4 has Arcane/Divine/Primal/Occult evolution, which is so incredibly good I wish I could take it more than once. Level 6 gives you your advanced bloodline focus power, which really changes the way you'll play every encounter from now on, provided you chose a meaningful bloodline (Draconic or Nymph, for instance). Level 8 gives you one of the best feat of the whole game, period, with crossblooded evolution. Level 10 has more choices, like a third focus spell or signature expansion. In both cases, it's very powerful. I could go on and on, but the class feat options of a sorcerer are actually among the most exciting of the spellcasters. Who wouldn't like to get a spell from just about any tradition, or more flexibility in your casting ? I, for one, find this way more exciting than druid ones (my pet gets stronger, yay) or bard ones (apart from dirge of doom, most won't change the way you play), let alone oracle or witch ones. I agree that wizard feats seem really lackluster. But sorcerer ones are so damn good they suffer from the opposite problem: they're pretty much feat taxes.
I don't understand why people say sorcerers have crappy focus spells. Sure, some of them are weak, but others are actually quite potent, even on par with tempest surge who's supposed to be the end-all be-all of damage focus spells. Draconic sorcerer has Dragon Breath, which is basically a free heightened fireball every single fight. Depending on your dragon, you can deal damage in a line or a cone. It's about the same damage as tempest surge on a single target (but without the clumsy rider, I agree) and provided you get two or more targets, it outperforms it by a wide margin. Oh, and you can also sprout wings should you need flight. Angelic sorcerer has Angelic Halo. Granted, it's niche, but it's the best damn healing mechanism in the whole game. Also, flight later. Nymph has blinding beauty which can blind everyone in a 30-foot cone for a round (and even on a save, they're dazzled). What's that you say ? Not "everyone" ? Ah, right, only opponents. Hell yeah, it's a FRIENDLY AOE BLIND. Genie has Heart Desire, which is a guaranteed stupefied 2 unless the opponent crit saves. Or wish-twisted form, a guaranteed hefty debuff, not quite synesthesia but almost as powerful in its own way. Every. Single. Fight. Would you rather give someone clumsy 2, or give him weakness 5 to everything, -10 speed and -1 saving throw... even on a success ? And if the target fails the save, it'll last the whole damn fight. If that isn't broken, I don't know what is. Hag has horrific visage which is awesome when heightened. But wait, there's more. You can get You're Mine - opponent is stunned even on a save, and on a fail you can control him. And starting at level 7, it becomes ridiculously powerful, even with the incapacitation tag. Shadow has Steal Shadow (3d4 damage and enfeebled 1 as long as you sustain the spell). Fey has a free 2-rounds Greater Invisibility with Fey Disappearance starting at heightening 5. Sure, some options are weak. But a lot of those focus spells, from my perspective, are much better than the much-vaunted Tempest Surge.
... I agree that a GM won't let their players stumped so they always find a way to push the adventure forward, even if the group is lacking a certain skill or certain spell. But, for a lot of players, shining out of combat can feel as rewarding as shining in a fight. The bard who managed to convince the guards, the thief who sneaked into the fort then opened the door from inside, the barbarian who jumped into the river to save the drowning merchant, the druid who detected poison on the food, the wizard who recognized the heraldry, the priest who realized this guy was lying to them, the rogue who discreetly palmed the key, the champion who seduced the waitress, they all get exhilarating feelings from their actions, even though they weren't mandatory. So, sure, everybody will remember the fighter who downed the dragon with two crits from his picks. But, at least in our games, the memories we cherish the most fondly even years later are those "remember when you tried to disguise yourself as a servant to enter the temple then had to serve food to the evil boss and everybody thought you would be caught but instead you conned them into giving you gold for, quote, "grocery shopping" ?".
Well, if all you're concerned with is combat, yes. Higher slots are going to be way more efficient to use if your sole existence is designed around surviving one combat. It also saves GMs from having to check every spell past a certain level, when odds are they won't ever need to use them. True. Also, I don't see why people say low level slots are less efficient than in PF1 since the DC scales - it didn't in PF1.Some do become useless (those with scaling damage, or incapacitate) but some don't, and provide interesting options even at much higher levels. Befuddle uses a level 1 slot and gives clumsy 2/stupefied 2 for a round. Even on a save, it's Clumsy 1/Stupefy 1. Great for setting up a nova round. Fear on a level 1 slot gives Frightened 2 or Frightened 1 on a successful save. Grease on a level 1 slot gives a ONE MINUTE - 2 attack to any weapon-user who doesn't save against it - or can trip up to four mobs, mixed with area denial (they pretty much have to move or they'll keep making checks and falling). Illusory object is still as solid as it was at first level, making walls and mazes to annoy your opponents. True Strike is still a staple, even at higher level. I could do the list for level 2 spells as well, but the fact remains that you can use a lot of low level spells to create interesting effects, while in PF1 you could only put buff spells in it.
Well, I think everybody on this thread agrees on the fact that the wizard usually has more spells to play with than other casters. But people disagree on whether those added slots are enough to counterbalance a bland chassis. In our games, the wizard did just fine, but let's break this per level. Let's take a specialist wizard so as not to go into bond conservation shenanigans and compare it with a bard, since people seem to think bards are much better in this thread. Let's also assume a day with three big fights. Doesn't seem too little or too much. Level 1: Wizard has 4 level 1 spells in comparison to a bard's 2. Bard can Inspire Courage and that's a huge deal, but the wizard can throw two more color sprays, effectively making a fight trivial if it works. If it doesn't, it's less useful but still gives the dazzled condition. Also, let's not forget Inspire Courage costs one action unless it's used with a successful lingering composition. That means a bard casting and singing won't be able to move, raise a shield, intimidate, aid or use metamagic (because reach spell can actually be awesome). Level 3: Wizard has 4 level 1, 4 level 2 spells. Bard has 3 level 1, 2 level 2. Again, the discrepancy is kind of big. Every fight, the wizard can have an illusory creature out, or a heightened color spray or a flaming sphere that will eat your third action, or a Sudden Bolt, or a vomit swarm. All of those can ruin a level 2-3 mob's day. Assuming a fight takes four rounds, those three big fights take twelve rounds, and the wizard can throw a spell two out of three rounds without breaking a sweat while the bard has only two big hitters and can't even use a spell every other round. Level 5: 4/4/4 for wizard, 3/3/2 for bard. That's two more fireballs if you want to blast, two more Slows if you want to debuff. Now our wizard can cast a spell every round and make it meaningful. Level 7: 4/4/4/4 vs 3332, you get the drift. Two more enervation or phantasmal killers or Confusion or whatever you like - and also one more fireball/slow to throw in the mix. Level 9: Two more cones of cold or heightened fireballs if you like to blast. That's pretty brutal as far as minion popping goes. Basically, depending on what your GM likes to throw at you, the wizard has one spell per encounter of the highest level more than his brethren. That's nothing to scoff at. I think the problem is not one of actual power discrepancy, but of perception. If you're playing a bard, there's always a composition you can rely on if you have crappy luck with the dice. If you throw your biggest spell at the opponent and he saves, you still feel like you're contributing because maybe the barbarian wouldn't have hit without you. If you're playing a wizard and roll badly (or your opponents roll high), you feel like you've wasted your turn. Rogue: "I hit, wow, he's dead, I proc "you're next" and intimidate the next target, now I use skirmish strike to step and I'm at range so I attack again, damn a miss, well I raise my shield. Wizard: "I throw this big spell. Oh, he saved. Well, I'm done".
For me, harmonize is a trap feat, especially since it doesn't work with lingering inspiration. It turns you into a boring buffer, while a bard can be so much more. Every turn you're using harmonize is a turn you're not casting. It's true that harmonizing between Inspire Courage/Inspire Defense/Dirge of Doom is crazy powerful, but it's not the end-all be-all of bard strategy. I'd much rather use lingering inspiration on one cantrip then have my three actions to do something meaningful. I posted on this board about a friend wanting to do a melee bard. We had two sessions these last few days and he was having a blast. He's probably not as optimized as your character was, but man is he having fun. He has way more things to do than actions and his rounds are all different - that's at low level, mind you. He used Lingering composition on Inspire Courage, then moved and hit a mob with his longsword. Next round, he smashed a mob once then used color spray with some effect (three targets, one fail, two successes) . Next round, he went nova with a strike + electric arc that did great damage. He doesn't plan on taking harmonize and nobody will fault him for that: the martials at the table are already extatic about the +1 bonus of Inspire Courage, and the casters are eagerly waiting his level 6 and Dirge of Doom. I strongly believe RPGs are designed to have fun. If we don't have fun, then maybe we should adjust our playstyle without getting pigeonholed into a boring role. We expect our cleric to heal in case of emergency, but we also understand when he wants to cast Spiritual Weapon or some big AOE spell instead of a buff. Likewise, we expect our bard to give us some kind of buff, but nobody will cry if he uses a third level slot for something else than haste.
"Your life expectancy is kind of like your manhood: short and shriveling at my sight".
Thanks for your posts, a lot of great ideas there. One thing that wasn't explored was the impact of buff spells. The occult list gets some staple ones, specifically Mirror Image, Blur, Invisibility, Circle of Protection, Haste... The bard also gets spells that work only at melee range and seem pretty powerful, like Blood Vendetta or Vampiric Touch. So, while we wait for the magus, the option of going Strike + Spell (while on lingering composition) is nothing to scoff at.
Well, spell striking as I wrote it would prevent them from getting MAP as well as gain an action, which makes them insanely powerful. Since cantrips scale in 2e, a magus casting chilling touch through his weapon would get Weapon damage + 1d4 damage per two levels + casting modifier. This is way more than what the rogue gets - and it can be done all day long. And if they use a spell slot, for shocking grasp since it was their signature move, damage goes from incredible to insane. A swashbuckler using a finisher can deal Weap damage + 4d6 at level 9, provided he has panache. A magus using spell strike with a freaking cantrip can deal weap damage +5d4+mod. And that's without taking into account a weap damage + 6d12 shocking grasp. So, yeah, even if spell slots were less than other casting classes, it would be enough to make it a beast. If it were to get master proficiency, it would be way over the top.
Well, they have more mobility than anyone but the monk. They can dart about the Battlefield with little concern for AOO (vexing tumble) and more speed than a mobility rogue or shield fighter. Their AC is 1 less than a shield fighter and with buckler dance better than most melee. Their damage with panache is on par with most dps and some options allow them to have insane dps (impaling finisher, dual finisher, bleeding finisher). Starting at level 10 with derring do, they're the unmatched masters of acrobatics and their respective trade. A gymnast is the best character there is at tripping/grappling, a braggard is the best at intimidating. It's not even close. Meanwhile, a wit swashbuckler can give every turn +4 to a friend's attack while gaining panache. Bah, I wasn't convinced at first but now I think they're pretty strong.
That's what Gang Up is for, and it comes up pretty early at level 6. Unless you're playing with a VERY SPECIFIC PARTY (no other melee, or the only melee is a monk who dashes away after every attack with no concern for the rest of the group), there's no way you cannot get flanking every turn without risking yourself.
All those points are pretty interesting, but it still looks very clunky to me. Either you keep panache in order to be efficient at demoralizing/tripping/disarming/tumbling/whatever, or you use your finishers and can't guarantee you'll get panache when you want. The class would look MUCH better to me if you got all those nifty bonuses to tumbling and feinting even without panache. THEN you would have less chance of just miserably failing to gain panache because you didn't roll well enough on your feint. But this is just me theorycrafting. I would really love to see someone who actually plays a swashbuckler chime in and tell us how his fights go, in a round by round basis. This might help get a feel for the class ^^
Understand me guys, I really, really want to like the swashbuckler. I think the ideas are awesome. I just find it kind of weak. Here's an example of how I picture a fight. Feel free to correct me, since I didn't play a swashbuckler yet. I did, however, play a rogue. Enter Swashy and Roguy, the awesome twin brothers Here could be their stats, quickly put together at level 11 (since that's where they both get a bump). They'll be human since it can't go more vanilla than that. Roguy, level 11 rogue (thief)
Movement: 25 feet. STR 10, DEX 20, CON 16, INT 10, WIS 16, CHA 19 Perception: 20
Feats
Skills: Acrobatics +22, Athletics +13, Deception +21, Diplomacy +17, Intimidation +21, Medicine +16, Stealth +22, Survival +16, Thievery +22
Swashy, level 11 swashbuckler (fencer)
Movement: 25 feet (45 feet with panache) STR 16, DEX 20, CON 16, INT 10, WIS 10, CHA 19 Perception: 17
Feats
Skills: Acrobatics +22, Athletics +16, Deception +21, Diplomacy +17, Intimidation +21, Stealth +20
Of course, you could choose other feats but those seemed solid enough for this tryout. Now let's get into action. Both brothers are in a standard group, with say one melee fighter and two ranged (wizard, cleric, archer...).
The rogue could actually shoot a bow or something since opponents are flat-footed if he rolled stealth, but let's assume he'll run in so we can compare it to the swashbuckler, who has no incentive to use a bow. Roguy strides to barbed devil (flat-footed first turn), hits with his shortsword, then SKirmish Strike away. That's two attacks at +22/+18. Barbed devils have AC 30 so that's 28 flat-footed.
Swashy strides to the barbed devil, then uses a goading feint. That's a +21 against the devil's +34 perception DC. If the Swashbuckler fails the roll, he's SOL - and 60% of failing is really hurting. He can try again, giving himself altogether 64% chance of succeeding - or he can try to hit for a piddly 2d6+5. Since the opponent is not flat-footed, his odds are actually worse than the rogue.
So, if EVERYTHING goes in the swashbuckler's way and including his bleed, he'll be averaging the same damage as the rogue.
On the other hand, the rogue is safely away. The barbed demon will have to stride/step once to hit. Then the rogue will use nimble roll and roll away, avoiding the third strike or the harm altogether. He's got the same AC as the swashbuckler for this single attack, then he's safe. "Okay", you say, "what about the other rounds ?". Well, our melee friend should have come now, so opponent will be perpetually flat-footed thanks to gang up. Rogue can strike, demoralize or run around in circles, now enjoying the full +2d6 from the debilitation - or permanently enfeebling it to alleviate the pressure on the group and himself. Meanwhile, the swashbuckler still has to succeed at pretty hard checks in order to be relevant. So, yeah, a swashbuckler has a lot of mobility, and can probably run to the backlines to maul the evil mage quicker than everyone but a monk. But is it their only shtick ? When I envision a swashbuckler, I see a daring, witty fighter, not a sprinter. Feel free to correct me and tell me how to better use the swashbuckler feats and chassis, like I said, I WANT to like it.
|
