Blue_frog's page

To me, it's more about suspension of disbelief.

It's easy to envision a champion doing the defend action, we've seen it many times in movies and books. It's just a guy moving cautiously with his shield raised.

It's a bit harder to envision a sorcerer sticking next to his buddy, cutting his own finger every six seconds to draw a rune on his back. Sounds ridiculous, looks ridiculous, and would probably be impossible to do for more than a couple minutes without losing focus somehow.

So yeah, mechanically a DM could allow it, and more power you if he does. But a lot of tables (including mine and it seems Deriven's and Yellowpete's as well) might not let it fly.

Being able to use it on short notice when you know a fight is coming is pretty powerful anyway - especially in dungeon crawling, where you usually scout ahead and have the jump on mobs.

What I believe no GM will allow, though, is having it on you in more social situations. If you're talking with the bandit chieftain and are expecting trouble, the simple fact of drawing a bloody rune on your friend might cut the conversation short.

In our games, we don't allow "permanent" anoint ally, but we do allow it before opening a door in a dungeon or entering a shady place.

"I'm doing Anoint Ally every 6 seconds" won't work, but "Ok, so we hear raucous laughter behind this door, there might be a few bugbears there, I use Anoint Ally on our champion before he bursts the door open" makes perfect sense.

My bad i read that wrong. Ok so each will get an extra 6 damage.

Ok so something like the new battlecry! Frozen Fog would only get the extra damage the first time it damages and not on any sustained rounds.

Yep, exactly !

I believe people put too much stock into knowing what's to come when a spontaneous caster can already have a wide selection of spells covering most angles.

Let's imagine a game where you ABSOLUTELY know what you'll encounter the next day - no gathering info, no check, just straight up divine knowledge entering your brain. "THOU WILST ENCOUNTER A GROUP OF GOBLINS THEN A GROUP OF FIRE MEPHITS THEN AN OGRE BOSS"

Most of the time, this knowledge won't translate into any advantage over spontaneous, because most challenges and monsters you face in campaigns are fairly classic. In the above scenario, for instance, the sorcerer will absolutely have the means to deal with the goblins, the fire mephits and the ogre boss, and there's very little the prepared caster can do to offset this.

In a few edge cases, there might be a very specific setup where you might actually get an advantage. I think someone in the thread mentioned Stone Bulwarks. They're tough cookies, with lots of immunities and resistance 10 to anything but adamantine, cold, earth and water. So in this case, IF the wizard has howling blizzard in his spellbook, he can prepare a boatload of it and win at being prepared, right ? Well, yeah, except that the arcane sorcerer has the very same spellbook, and can prepare howling blizzard as well (if he doesn't already have it), instantly giving him 4 flexible castings of the highest level - while still being able to cast something else with it if it becomes overkill).

But wait, what if the sorcerer somehow didn't make his research while the wizard did, or the sorcerer also didn't take arcane evolution for some convoluted reason, or the sorcerer didn't invest as much time and money as the wizard into said spellbook and doesn't have howling blizzard ?

That's a lot of "what ifs", but ok. Then the arcane sorcerer with a basic spell list can cast any kind of buffs or debuffs (mass slow, mass haste), still contributing to this very specific fight. Oh, and using a 6th level blasting spell, which gives him +6 from dangerous sorcery, he might actually end up ahead in damage despite the resistance 10 since he'll be more flexible in his choice of blast.

For instance, Howling blizzard by wizard at level 6 is 12d6 (av 42). Chain Lightning by sorcerer at same level, even without counting the void damage, is not only easier to aim but also 8d12+6 (av 58). So, even with resistance 10, sorcerer is ahead. And he's still more flexible with his defenses, his buffs and other spells.

Yeah, even in this case where the wizard holds all the cards, flexible spellcasting still comes ahead in the combat department. And even if you can somehow devise a scenario where you DO have a silver bullet that the sorcerer cannot use, I'm not sure being more useful in that 1% edge case will offset being worse the other 99% of the time.

How do we feel the animist compares to warpriest on martial capability, keeping polymorph options in mind (not that they necessarily matter)?

Here's my opinion:

One is not better than the other, they have different approaches.

- The animist is a full caster who can sometimes badly melee
- The warpriest is a lesser full caster who can melee great.

So depending if you want to lean on the casting or melee part, they both give you something different.

In one of my previous posts, I calculated the average damage a warpriest could do with Channel smite. And that's not taking into account any damage booster.

Your animist at level 17 with forest's Heart will strike for 4d8 + 10 (28 av) once during his turn and then maybe twice during his off-turn.

Using two actions and keeping one free, a level 17 warpriest using a guisarme will deal 4d10+9d10+7 (av 78,5). If he uses his last action for a cry of destruction, he'll deal an extra 9d12 more, putting it at 137 average.

And if he's optimized, he's got an AOO as well that, although dealing very little, will still add up to the tally.

And if he needs to heal or cast a wall spell, he can do it without dropping all his focus spells and losing both actions and focus points.

So, yeah, 28 damage is piddly, even with all your AOOs.

I think everyone here agrees that the animist is a strong class. It has a great chassis, great flexibility, is a full caster with 3 to 4 spells including some poachable ones, and good utility. I love my animist and I'm having a blast playing it.

The problem with it IMHO is that you're still constrained (even with liturgist helping) by a number of action per turn, and although you can switch roles, you can assume only one of them every round.

What I mean is: what does an animist do when entering combat against a group of opponents ?

Since he's very flexible, he has many choices. Let's list them.

1 - He can blast.

The animist has several tools at his disposal to enhance his blasting. Channeling stance, earth's bile, cardinal guardians and a couple non-divine spells added to his list makes him a force to be reckoned with. In fact, I even started a thread stating that with channeling stance active, an animist into oracle could throw disgusting numbers in one round. Let's also not forget how he can quicken his spells more than other

So yeah, the animist certainly can blast and earth's bile is very unique since it's a one-action AOE with good dps.

However, comparing it to most other spellcasters deemed powerful (like a sorcerer or an oracle), it needs a bit of a setup and lacks stamina, having only 3 top spells per day even at end game (in comparison to a fire/tempest oracle's or a divine sorcerer's 6). In fact, if you're taking into account N and N-1 slots, it has 6 to a divine sorcerer's or fire oracle's 11. That's kind of a big deal, since blasting can hardly be downcasted. The sorcerer also has sorcerous potency and can more easily multiclass into oracle, while the oracle has free foretell harm and can get access to the spells he lacks (like chain lighting for tempest, + one free from mysterious repertoire, + divine access).

I think we can safely say that, as blasting goes and while staying on the divine list so as not to skew the comparison, divine sorcerer and oracle are better than the animist - or at least on par, while having a bigger tank.

So yeah, the animist can blast, and blast pretty well. But if you're actually blasting, you would have been more powerful using one of those two other choices.

2 - He can use non-blasting spells and abilities

As a divine caster, the animist has a lot of buffs and debuffs, including some of his vessel spells that I rather like, and can empower them through cardinal guardians. It makes it a pretty powerful controller in its own right.

Problem is he lacks the most important buffing and debuffing spells. There's no simple way to get mass slow. No simple way to get synesthesia. No simple way to get mass haste.

It has calm, which is awesome but is incapacitation and thus needs a top slot even against mooks, and those come at a premium. It can eventually get a single quandary, a single phantasmagoria.

Meanwhile, any occult caster has all these spells and then some, the oracle could grab some of those, and the arcane sorcerer can get up to -3 on the save.

So, again, you can control ok - especially through gems like nymph's grace.

3 - He can melee

Well, not really.

Seeing that, you might think it's pretty powerful.
"Wait, I'm almost as good than blasters at blasting, and almost as good than controllers at controlling, and I can even melee for some reason".

Which is true.

But you could also say:
"Wait, I'm not the best at blasting. Nor the best at controlling. Nor the best at meleeing."

Which is true as well.

Also, as has been said, your tank is much smaller than an oracle or sorcerer.

So it really depends on how much you value this versatility.

In most games, it's better to have the right spell at the right time - someone casting mass slow while another is casting chain lighting - than being able to switch roles.

Since most groups consist of four, maybe five players, there's most of the time 2 or 3 casters max. By taking an animist, I believe you're not making your group stronger than by taking a sorcerer or an oracle. Especially if you insist on going melee.

It would maybe be the case if you're the only caster, but that's a hard cross to bear.

Of course, it would be incredibly boring if everybody only played sorcerers and oracles, but we're talking about optimization here, so that's where my money goes.

YMMV and if you value versatility, you will probably love your animist - like I said, I love mine. But to go back to first post, being able to "almost" be as good in many domains is not necessarily better than be "the best" in one domain, since you're limited by your actions.

The Sorcerer could do this but their spell list is limited and they don't get craft related feats the way a wizard does for scrolls. There list of scrolls or magic items will be more limited in range.

Sure the DM may step in and place limits but over time the wizard players will end up developing this anyways.

A lot of people are downplaying the ability of wizards to learn spells but I do not think they are experienced wizard players. The ability to learn spells is very important.

Now the cheese factor here is a wizard that takes the cleric dedication or sorcerer or witch dedication to gain access to other spell lists. More scrolls and more spells learned by wizards. Swap out sorcerer spells at every level but copy them to scrolls and learn them as wizards first. They just have to also be on the wizard list.

I don't know about the rest of you but I could build a powerful wizard if I roleplay it from level one on.

It's true that the wizard, by virtue of being an INT caster, will probably be a better crafter than the sorcerer. This actually was one of the (many) reasons the wizard was so powerful in PF1e.

But in PF2E, crafting has lost a lot of steam since you don't gain any discount by doing it. What it gives you is more accessibility to scrolls you already have (like you said, duplicating a rare scroll you found). But a sorcerer can take an oracle dedication just as you can (more easily, actually) and use heal scrolls at the same price as you scribe them.

Most APs (at least those I've played, I don't have an extensive knowledge) happen in a big town or next to it (AoE and Extinction Curse have Absalom, AoA has Catapesh, Fists of the Ruby Phenix has Goka, Strength of Thousands has Nantanbu...), so there's little difficulty in finding the right scroll for the right price - and the sorcerer can do quests just as much as you do, because he also would like to fill his spellbook.

And, as Deriven said, even if you were to know all spells in all books published, it wouldn't help you much since there are very few silver bullet spells in the game and you'll be constrained by your daily preparation, number of slots and action economy anyway.

The one benefit of having a full spellbook is using clever counterspell, which is actually a good feat (although it got nerfed in the remaster).

Let's also not forget in this analysis that divine spells are way better than arcane spells against unholy opponents.

Sure, you'll meet trolls and dragons and highwaymen during your campaigns, but you'll probably also meet liches and imps and cultists champions. In this case, the damage gap shifts dramatically.

As I said earlier, is it better to be always consistent like arcane, or to deal maybe 10% less damage 60% of the time and 30% more damage 40% of the time ?

YMMV depending on the campaign you're on, but deciding which class deals the most damage cannot be done by just randomly choosing a dragon and calling it quits.

As for OP's original question, it's pretty simple, actually. If you're starting a campaign with friends and someone says "I'm gonna play an animist" - and you're at least a bit concerned about your group strength - would it deter you from playing any class ? Maybe another divine caster, but that's a problem with all casters, and that's not even a given. You certainly won't say "oh wow, someone's gonna play an animist, better not play my fighter/my sorcerer/my rogue, I'll get overshadowed".
Says nobody.
Ever.

Blue_frog wrote:

- Master spellcasting is what the animist gets if he wants to use EoB (since he loses 2 DC).

Except for war priest this is permanent. For animist it's very temporary.

That's why I said:

One is not better than the other, they have different approaches.

- The animist is a full caster who can sometimes badly melee
- The warpriest is a lesser full caster who can melee great.

It's definitely been a thing in a few recent threads. I think Teridax might be the only person arguing the point though I understand where they are coming from.

As my OP stated, the difference between the animist and thaumaturge stepping on others' toes is, the thaumaturge has to lock in a couple roles to focus on and often, they still need to focus on a single target to perform that role. The animist can competently swap into any role overnight and their only real cost is in sustaining vessel spells which aren't even necessary to function. They're more of a bonus a lot of the time.

Well, look at the build I gave you, which is pretty standard: Parangon tome, regalia adept and whatever you want as a third implement. Take the scroll feats and whatever catches your fancy. Get STR 10 DEX 16 CON 12 INT 10 WIS 12 CHA 18, for instance, and increase DEX/CON/WIS/CHA.

With this single chassis, which is pretty flexible since I only locked three feats, you:
- Are better at CHA skills than anyone in your group (except maybe swash in one skill)
- Are better at initiative than anyone in your group
- Get two extra skill increases over other classes. It's easy to miss but it's there, at level 9 and 17
- Can get TWO LEGENDARY SKILLS that you can SWAP EVERY DAY. No other class can do that, even the rogue or investigator. Need to blend in with nobility ? Hey, I'm legendary in society. Need to go dungeon crawling and you have no rogue ? Hey, I'm legendary in thievery. Need to track someone ? How about legendary in survival. Well, you get the gist.
- Can choose ANY SPELL from ANY tradition for levels 1-7 and change every day, using your thaumaturge DC.
- If you take wonder worker (and you should), you can cast ANY SPELL OF ANY TRADITION just by thinking about it, no preparation required. The wizard would drool about it (use the tome to get legendary in what you need).

So how does that lock the thaumaturge into one role ?

I would love to see an implémentation of risk/reward with unleash psyche like:

- You can start unleashing psyche whenever you want.
- When your psyche is unleashed, you suffer your level/2 d6 as Spirit damage, unmitigated, increasing by 1d6 every round.
- You can stop your psyche whenever and are fatigued
- During unleash psyche, you have unlimited focus points

For the record, here’s what I wrote six years ago:

Well, no, it’s not an incredible feat, it’s more of a trap feat (notwithstanding the fact that it costs you your level 8 option, and feats are pretty valuable in PF2).

First of all, it takes an action to activate and you have to cast a spell on the same turn. This means that it burns all your actions for the turn. You can’t move, you can’t interact and you can’t use metamagic on the spell you’ll be casting – which is a shame. It doesn’t look so bad on paper but in a fight, it might mess you up tactically.

Second, you can only use it to regain a spell two levels lower than the one you just casted. So, once per day, you’ll get back a spell of your max level – 2. The other times, It’ll be max level – 3 or worse. These are NOT encounter-wrecking spells.

Third, you HAVE to cast the spell you got back on the next round. So not only will you be casting a weaker spell than what you could do, but you also won’t be able to change your plan if something goes wrong.

People read Bond Conservation and go “oh wow, the universalist can chain that for some awesome shenanigans”. In reality, it’s downright awful in a combat perspective.

The only time it IS useful, actually, is out of combat, where you can actually plan for this and use utility spells. It’s not that bad, it just doesn’t compensate what you lose for going Universalist.

It’s a fair point but any sorcerer using arcane evolution should get assurance in arcana.

With merely expert arcana, you can learn level 3 spells with no failure chance at character level 6, and level 6 spells at character level 14.

It’s true that after a time, if you don’t invest in arcana, you cannot learn a new top spell but I use them mostly for utility and utility is usually lower level.

I agree with you that if you suddenly need MANY INSTANCES of a TOP LEVEL SLOT from a NICHE SPELL and you need it TOMORROW then wizard is better. But it never happened so far in my games - especially since on-level scrolls are costly.

That's an interesting thread and here's my opinion:

1 - Primal
2 - Divine
3 - Arcane
4 - Occult

Before jumping at me, hear me through.

Most campaigns at higher levels get more and more unholy opponents - fiends, undeads, evil dragons, champions or clerics of evil deities. In this case, some spells like holy light (best scaling spell in the whole game), holy cascade, sunburst and the like are the clear winners.

When you're not fighting undead, then the best blasting spells are things like fireball at low levels, chain lightning, eclipse burst, execute and the like.

So Primal got it all. It has the best spells against fiends, and the staple spells against the rest - which is why I rate it first. Holy light, execute, eclipse burst, chain lightning, it's hard to go wrong with primal. It's compounded by the fact that elemental sorcerer has a very agressive bloodline effect and focus spell.

Divine is way better against fiends, a bit worse against regular opponents (it still has eclipse burst or execute, though). So, in a regular campaign, it kind of creeps up. Dealing 10% less damage 66% of the time and 30% more damage 33% of the time is a fair deal to me (those numbers are fabricated to explain my point, don't throw feces at me please). It's even better in campaigns with a big number of undeads and/or fiends, of course. And, most of the time, it's got a way to get those coveted staple spells anyway (hello divine access, blessed blood, demonic bloodline...).

Arcane is worse against fiends, because it has no specific spells and has to use the same as always. It has most of the staple spells, like fireball, chain lightning, eclipse burst, so it's consistent. It lacks execute, though. I rate it a tad lower than divine, but it can be the other way round in a campaign with little or no unholy opponents.

Occult is a bit of an odd duck. It has a few occult-only gems, like Phantom pain who's the best single target blast in the game for a loooong time. But it doesn't have any of the "best" AOE blasting spells, it lacks fireball, chain lighting, eclipse burst, and most of his blasts have some kind of debuff component. Phantasmagoria, for instance, is a great spell in itself - but won't win any dps race.

My experience in actual play is that the Spellblender Wizard is especially powerful and that the added flexibility of the spontaneous casting isn't as important unless I focus on spells that may or may not be useful over spells that certainly will be. Giving up some lower level slots just fundamentally isn't that painful compared to the performance delivered via the extra castings on the top two spell ranks.

I wrote a guide about the spellblending wizard, so I'm really aware of how powerful it can be as a blaster.

But that was pre-remaster, when he could poach dangerous sorcery. Now that it's become the sorcerer purview AND said sorcerer got buffed, it's not a contest anymore. Actually, at higher levels, a level 8 spell cast by a sorcerer might outdps a level 9 spell cast by a wizard. How's that for a discrepancy ?

And that's without factoring any bloodline power. You can either easily add your spell level to damage AGAIN against a single target, or use explosion of power shenanigans to win the DPS race before it even started.

I've already said my piece earlier about how spontaneous is leagues better than prepared. 90% of the time, spontaneous is better. 10% of the time it's about the same. And there's no scenario where prepared is better as arcane - or if there is, I would love to hear it. Because between arcane evolution and scrolls, the sorcerer can basically cover everything the wizard could, while the wizard struggles to get the same versatility in combat.

That's one of the problem about arcane, by the way, hence the title of the thread. Divine and Primal have a lot of condition removal spells that work on a counteract check, so prepared is at least good for that: if you need to cure a disease or a curse, you can wait till the morrow and have it prepared at max level. It's also compounded by the fact that divine evolution and primal evolution give an extra slot but no flexibility. Occult suffers from the same problem with bard being able to get a spellbook. So you won't feel as bad as a druid or a cleric as you would as a wizard or occult witch (except the occult witch can go resentment).

Arcane evolution really ate the wizard's lunch, there.

With the right scouting (which doesn't happen in every group), you MIGHT get a slight advantage with spell substitution, slotting in 10mn this one incredible spell that you would need. Except that there are no more silver bullets in PF2e, to the extend that it would actually be useful. And if you're a spell substitution wizard, you're not a spell blender, so your combat abilities are even worse.

Dispel magic, shadow siphon and basically all counteract spells are way more useful as a signature spontaneous spell than a slotted spell. So are most reaction spells, as I said. And so are blasts, by the way.

For me to feel like Spontaneous casting is meaningfully better as described, I would have to be ending up in situations where I'm not casting all my prepareds because they aren't filled with useful spells, or where I'm feeling the sting of needing to spend them in a different way.

In actual play, it happens a lot. Not that they're totally useless, but that they underperform - especially those top level slots that the spell blender is so proud of.

What happens when your last top spells are two falling stars and you lost initiative, and the opponents are now on top of you ?

What happens if you instead didn't prepare falling stars because your friends are too charge-happy, but then you suddenly win initiative and you could wreak havoc through the ranks ?

You slotted a phantasmagoria - hope you don't meet mindless opponents.

Of course, in all those scenarii, you will probably have another spell to cast instead, so it's not a complete bust - but it's never optimal.

And without even going into specific monsters, what happens when you meet opponents with very high dex and will but low fort ? How many fort-targeting blasts did you take in your 9th level slots ? Because the sorcerer can use all four of them. Same goes with low-ref and low-will opponents.

One of the few advantages of the arcane list is that you can easily target all three saves with great spells. But it works way better when you can actually juggle between them.

the Wizard specifically hasn't fallen behind any of our optimized Sorcerers.

I honestly don't see how that could be possible.

That's a really abstract difference in actual play where most players find a fairly stable rosters of spells they like and change up what they're prepping for the day around the edges based on what situations they think are likely to come up. When the Sorcerer spontaneously makes 3 of their 4 slots on fireball, and the Wizard prepares 3 of those 4 slots to be fireball, it's kind of academic.

Not quite - for instance, reaction spells.

I'm a big fan of interposing earth, wooden double or unexpected transposition. But they're worthless if you're not getting targeted (and wooden double needs a crit to be used). So a sorcerer can know it and use it whenever it's needed, while the wizard has to make a choice. Either he doesn't invest in his defense (and those spells are CRAZY STRONG), or he does at the risk of having some unused spells at the end of the day.

If you get critted three times in the day as a sorcerer, you'll be happy to know wooden double, and if nobody crits you, you can use those slots for something else. Not so as a wizard.

Same goes with things like blood vendetta, brine dragon bile, warping pull, cloud dragon's cloak and so many more. They're awesome as a sorcerer, and just meh as a wizard.

Meanwhile, the only advantage the wizard could have, preparing some kind of silver bullet spell (that hardly exists in PF2), is reproduced by a single level 4 feat.

Basically, the sorcerer is ten times more flexible than a wizard in an adventuring day, when it should be the other way around.

In my experience, the Animist absolutely did not deal "piddly damage". Not only did they deal good Strike damage, they made Strikes often, in part thanks to their MAP-free Reactive Strikes. What's becoming apparent is that your standard for "piddly damage" seems to be unreachably high for any kind of full caster gish, including the Warpriest.

So let me get this straight.

Before level 9, you cannot use your "two-reactive strikes combo" (that i'll mark as TRSC because I'm lazy) without spending two actions starting the combo, then two actions sustaining every round, not even being sure that you'll be able to use both reactive strikes - and not being able to cast anything more than one-action spells OR striking once.

After level 9 as a liturgist, and unless you're entering high shenanigans with elf step or some such (that you yourself said you didn't allow anyway), you still spend two actions starting the combo then two actions sustaining but now you can move, so I guess that's... better ? Still no two-action spells for you, though.

After level 16 and taking Forest's Heart, you spend one action entering your stance and two actions starting your combo, then two actions sustaining every round, but now at least you have 30 feet reach so you will probably get your two reactive strikes going, it's looking a bit better.

After level 18 and taking cycle of souls (thus not taking spirit sacrifice that some might consider awesome, or echoing channel that's incredible for healing, just so you can strengthen your combo), you now enter your stance for free, still burn two actions per round sustaining, still are not able to cast two-action spells let alone three-action spells like walls, all for a 4d8 attack.

How is that busted again ? You've gimped yourself to a sub-martial when you could have been a glorious caster.

What's becoming apparent is that your standard for "piddly damage" seems to be unreachably high for any kind of full caster gish, including the Warpriest.

In one of my previous posts, I calculated the average damage a warpriest could do with Channel smite. And that's not taking into account any damage booster.

Your animist at level 17 with forest's Heart will strike for 4d8 + 10 (28 av) once during his turn and then maybe twice during his off-turn.

Using two actions and keeping one free, a level 17 warpriest using a guisarme will deal 4d10+9d10+7 (av 78,5). If he uses his last action for a cry of destruction, he'll deal an extra 9d12 more, putting it at 137 average.

And if he's optimized, he's got an AOO as well that, although dealing very little, will still add up to the tally.

And if he needs to heal or cast a wall spell, he can do it without dropping all his focus spells and losing both actions and focus points.

So, yeah, 28 damage is piddly, even with all your AOOs.

But the Animist does, is the point, and doesn't even have to stop using embodiment of battle to do something else. In fact, the casting and the Striking go well together, and using wall spells in particular will make you especially effective at isolating enemies before taking them down. As my above comment makes clear, it's not even that I want to nerf embodiment of battle to the ground here, I just think it could be implemented in a way that is less about just being a pocket Fighter, and more about having one really good Strike in a way that still synergizes with other apparitions.

Most Wall spells take three actions to cast, de facto preventing the animist from doing it AND sustaining a spell.

So if having better Strike accuracy and equal spellcasting accuracy to a dedicated gish caster, while also having the option to opt out whenever you need a better Striking mod, is "a deal breaker" to you, you may want to let us know which full caster gish in the game meets these unreasonably high standards. If picking a Strength apex item is a dealbreaker to you... don't pick the Strength apex item. It's that simple.

I think I've already said, and even dedicated a whole post to it, that accuracy means nothing without damage (heh, that sounds like an old Pirelli Slogan).

You're taking only a fraction of the Animist and holding them up to the expectation that they ought to beat a dedicated class not just at a few martial things (which is already the case with Strike accuracy and Reactive Strikes), but at everything, while deliberately discounting everything else about the Animist. To you and to those defending the class, the Animist is seemingly totally fine if they only mostly beat other specialists at their own thing, and would only be a problem if they beat those specialists at literally everything.

No, I expect a character to meaningfully contribute, especially in hard fights. Using embodiment of battle to deal piddly damage is not meaningfully contributing.

It's a bit like a sorcerer watching a magus trying to play the blaster or controller with his few slots. It can sometimes be powerful, and being able to cast premonition, disparition or group haste at high level is an incredible boon, but it's hardly stepping on a full caster's toes.

... no? Where is this stated or even implied?

My bad, I read too fast and thought you also wanted to strike in the same round (which couldn't even be done with sustaining). That's on me !

So we're back to square 1: the animist can melee if he wants to but:
1) He'd be more effective doing something else.
2) He won't step on any martial's toes.

Sure, man, play however you like.

Now can we go back to the topic at hand ?

(Apologies, the website seems to have some problems tonight and it's hard to answer correctly)

Well, as per the above, the Animist genuinely does exceed the attack mod of most martials at quite a few levels, and matches it at quite a few levels more -- in fact, the levels at which the Animist is behind a martial in Strike accuracy when using embodiment of battle are a very small minority. As my prior exchange with Deriven discusses, the Liturgist only needs two apparitions to get a benefit that a Fighter has to dedicate a 10th-level feat to get

An animist does exceed the attack mod of a barbarian or a rogue at level 11-12, that's true (provided again there's no buff involved, and that's not the case in my games).

But the level 12 animist using a guisarme deals 3d10+6 damage (av 22,5), and 3d10+9 (av 25,5) at level 15 (not counting propriety runes).

The level 12 giant barbarian using the same guisarme deals 3d10+16 (av 32,5) damage, and 3d10+29 (av 45,5) at level 15, while being sturdier, faster and, depending on feats, better at maneuvers, benefitting from action compression, or reach, or funny things like whirling strike at 14, and let's not forget critical specialization.

The level 12 thief rogue using a d6 weapon deals 6d6+7 (av 28) at first strike, 8d6+7 (av 35) afterwards, and with preparation can use his reaction twice to use AOOs just like your animist.

The much-maligned level 12 thaumaturge with adept regalia and tome, using crunch jaws, often has +1 circumstance bonus to attack, while dealing at least 3d8+15 with vulnerability 6 (basically 3d8+21 av 34,5). At level 15, that's 3d8+20 with vulnerability 7 (basically av 40,5), all while being able to sure strike every single turn.

The level 12 swashbuckler will use a bleeding finisher for 3d8+4d6+5 (assuming a 12 starting str) with 4d6 bleed (av 46,5 with a single tick) and at level 15 will deal 3d8+5d6+10 with 5d6 bleed (av 58,5 with a single tick).

Oh, and since you mentioned the warpriest, at level 12 a dps warpriest can use two actions with the same guisarme and one of his 6 free spells to deal 3d10+6d10+4 (av 49) and at level 15 it becomes 3d10+8d10+8 (av 68,5).

The level 12 inexorable iron magus spellstriking with amped imaginary weapon will deal 3d10+12d8+6 damage (av 76,5) and at level 15 it becomes 3d10+16d8+11 (av 99,5). Sure, it costs one focus point and needs recharging, but it's still spectacular.

And let's not start about the fighter, that would be painful.

Of course, all those classes don't need to spend an action first round to cast a spell, and don't need to move in order to sustain, which gives them much more freedom (apart from arguably magus).

So yeah, accuracy is one thing (and even so, a flimsy one since a single buff spell would change everything), but damage is another one - and animist doesn't hold a candle to all those martial classes.

Right, but it's not the details that are flawed here, it's the premise. Although I have seen plenty of Bards at my table, neither they nor the Marshal were such a fixture that a +1 status bonus to attack and damage rolls can be taken for granted, in my opinion.

If it's not the case, then I apologize. It seems so meaningful to us that we wouldn't ever go without it. But I guess in PFS plays it happens more often.

So worst case scenario, you're only a point behind a full martial, as opposed to the Warpriest being two points behind, and if you do take that Strength apex item you match martials in Strike mod (and even exceed it across many levels) while being only a point behind full casters... as opposed to a Warpriest, who's two points behind

Well, no.

Since you're comparing it to the warpriest, at least he can output respectable damage when built for it - and, lo and behold, he can use heroism as a 10mn buff without the need for sustain, without using an action at the beginning of the fight and without reducing his spellcasting. It costs him a slot so it's not as cheap, but it's much more efficient.

As has been pointed out, accuracy is one thing, damage is another, and there's little point to striking when you hit like a wet noodle.

Not only do you have no problems citing apex items, which are only one level below, when it suits you, Forest's Heart is itself a very high-level feat. We're now entering a different kind of Schrödinger-style dilemma where the Animist is either high level or not based on argumentative convenience. The fact of the matter is that this feat exists, and directly addresses the concern you raised. You'll notice as well that I haven't really raised many competing options, so I'm curious to know where that "Schrödinger's animist" bit came from.

You're not the only one I was answering to, since I specifically mentioned both sides of the argument.

As for citing apex items, I said that it was late in the game, but that I mentioned it because forest's heart was mentioned.

Games are usually played from 1 to 20, and it's certainly a very different thing if you're doing a one-shot at level 18 or 20, in which case my comment need not apply.

If you really want to blast still, sure strike + ignition is a cheap way of firing up Cardinal Guardians to close that accuracy gap, albeit one that will take up your turn.

Wait, so I cannot imagine that most parties use a way to get +1 to attack, but you're hasted in your scenarii ?

Again, the Animist doesn't sacrifice that much spellcasting power in practice when going full gish, and I personally did not find that accuracy debuff an issue at all given all the other options at my disposal (that, and some spells are still extremely effective even on a successful save, like roaring applause). Turns out, Summoner-grade spellcasting accuracy is still pretty decent.

That's an opinion, and you have every right to believe it. As for me, -3 accuracy on spells is a deal breaker.

Also, I believe someone was saying (I don't remember who) that in their table, the animist was overshadowing the melees and I don't see how that's possible. Any melee would be more accurate, deal more damage, be better at manoeuvers and have more tricks, while also probably being more sturdy, than an animist focused on battle.

And that's a good thing, since the animist brings much more to the table through his spells.

I find it a bit strange that the self-professed cure to "theorycrafting, white room maths and a fair bit of schrödinger's animist" is itself white-room theorycrafting that presupposes every party has a Bard or a Marshal.

Well, it's just been my experience, because it's very effective for little cost.

But you might have noticed that in my comparison I took care of using the unbuffed attack bonus (and take the levels where Embodiment of battle shines the brightest), in order to be as fair as possible.

Just to point out a few other bits that really do not appear informed by experience, or at the very least do not correspond at all to my own:

The Animist being able to benefit significantly from a Strength apex item as well as a Wisdom one and being capable at both gish and blast builds either way is somehow presented as a downside.

The downside is that you cannot have two Apex items. So despite having a very flexible chassis, you'll have to choose at around level 17 whether you want to be better at casting and worse at fighting or the other way round.

It's great to have this choice - but it's also wrong to say you can be BOTH a great blaster and a great fighter, even if you change your apparitions and feats, just because your stuff and attributes don't change.

Point #3 appears to completely forget that Cycle of Souls exists, and that if we're discounting that kind of feat, most melee martials using a stance would have to also spend an action entering said stance, and then an action moving into range before Striking.

Cycle of souls is a level 18 feat, which means it matters at end-game. Apart from apex items, which I specifically mentioned as end-game items, I tried my best to relate my experience going from 1 to 20.

Point #4 appears to forget entirely that there are a vast number of spells at the Animist's disposal, whether from the divine list or their apparitions, that don't rely on a spell DC to be effective. Wall spells in particular are not only on many apparitions' spell lists, but synergize incredibly well with a gish playstyle. If we really want to avoid any accusasations of "schrödinger's animist," one need only look at the Witness to Ancient Battles, i.e. the apparition that offers the embodiment of battle vessel spell, and see how it gives sure strike, enlarge, ghostly weapon, and true target.

That's very true, which is why I specifically mentioned DC spells. You can stick to buffs as an animist (although the nerf to sure strike hurts) but it cuts you off from most of a spellcaster's power, while giving little in return since your damage is so low.

All of which is to say: if you want to try a gish Animist, do give embodiment of battle a try if you want. Don't expect to consistently outdamage a Barbarian blow-for-blow (and don't base your standards of balance around that either), but expect to be able to Strike capably if you build your Animist decently, and break expectations for what a full caster is allowed to do if you build the right options.

That's not been my experience - but then this doesn't invalidate yours, I'm merely giving my opinion from what I saw and played.

I've posted many times that the animist was a strong class - far from overpowered, but very interesting - but if you want to really leverage its power, I believe you're better off leaning on the casting side of things than the martial one. I even posted a comparison showing (without any status buff) that you're dealing more damage more consistently with darken forest.

You said yourself, and I wholeheartedly agree, that one shouldn't fall into the trap of sustaining a vessel spell forever just because you can. I got my best experiences with the animist by dropping a focus spell when needed and going for another one.

I feel there's a lot of theorycrafting, white room maths and a fair bit of schrödinger's animist going on from both sides, so let's root it all in actual play, from what I've seen and done.

1) Most, if not all groups, get a +1 status bonus to attack almost from the get-go.

It's the best cost-benefit you can hope for, and I've never played in a group where someone didn't take care of it one way or another. Either there's a bard or bard dedication with courageous anthem, or a marshall with inspiring marshall stance, or lacking that a caster using bless, or even guidance in a pinch. But by level 4, even with no FA, most groups have this sorted out.

This means that embodiment of battle already loses a bit of steam by "only" getting a +1 bonus over the others at levels 7 and a +2 at level 13. It's great, don't get me wrong, but not as much as you might think.

If you're comparing the animist using embodiment of battle to a martial when there's some kind of anthem going on (so, like, always), then the animist is always lagging behind, sometimes severely. Grudging strike helps somewhat with accuracy but takes two actions, and doesn't deal that much damage. Especially since...

2) The animist can hardly do everything at once.

Sure, the animist is flexible, but his attributes and stuff aren't. Assuming you start with 16 STR and 18 WIS, you'll have to make a choice for your apex item around level 17. Sure, it's pretty late in the game, but that's also where Forest's Heart starts to see some use. If you choose STR, you're a bit behind martials and you gimp your DC. If you choose WIS, you end up with -2 accuracy at level 20 (assuming the martial didn't get an heroism going as well, in which case you're down -4, and -6 against a fighter).

And what about your stuff ? Casters usually don't spend much money on weapons (or at least not as much as a martial), but you will have to. You can change your apparitions and feats at level 16 when you get forest's heart but that means you spend the first 15 levels using some other kind of weapon that you upgraded - meaning no staff, less scrolls, less items... Forest's heart doesn't need striking runes but you probably used one so far and it certainly cut into your budget, and you'll need the other runes for your handwraps.

So, IF you gimp your spellcasting (embodiment of battle + STR apex means a whopping -3 to your DC) and spend as much money as a martial on your weapons, you might be able to do some piddly damage. Who cares if you get two AOOs when they tickle monsters ? As for your manoeuvers, you're 1 point behind from STR half of the time, and you don't get any special trick like barbarian's Furious Bully, fighter's crashing slam or swashbuckler's derring-do that makes them dance circles around you.

3) Your action economy sucks big time.

Battle starts and you roll initiative. Since you have a big bonus to it, let's say you win. Your first round will be move + embodiment of battle + going into Forest stance, go you.

Compare that to any martial who can usually already attack twice and that's a gap you'll take a long time to clear.

Compare that to any caster who can turn the tide of the fight with a flick of the wrist and you're feeling more sad by the minute.

4) If you really want to melee, don't use embodiment of battle.

That's what we found out in our games. Embodiment of battle is kind of a trap, when compared to other options.

Don't use this vessel spell at all.

Attack of opportunity and proficiencies can easily be poached through multiclassing, especially in a FA game.

If you want to melee without Embodiment, you'll lose 1 or 2 points of accuracy BUT your DC will be top tier and you'll be able to use a much more useful vessel spell (with the mandatory spiritual expansion). Against mooks ? Nymph's grace is akin to instant win. Against higher level opponents ? Discomfiting whispers makes your team tanky as hell. Against boss ? Trickster's Mirror is incredible as long as he doesn't use AOEs. And of course, you still have the option of hitting + blasting with earth's bile, dealing way more damage than embodiment of battle.

And if you really want to go full melee, just use Darkened forest form in a pinch, it will hard carry you up to level 15.

For a quick and dirty comparison, a lvl 7 animist (where embodiment goes to +2) using embodiment of battle can swing a +1 guisarme for +16, dealing 2d10+6 damage.

A level 7 animist using darkened forest hits for +16 (+17 if there's any kind of status bonus) as well, dealing 2d8+9 (10 with anthem) and same reach.

To be fair, the first one could cast while the second one cannot, but since their action economy is so tight, it's hardly likely to matter. So the second one is ahead both in accuracy and damage.

A lvl 13 animist using embodiment of battle (where it goes to +3) is at his peak and will have a +2 greater striking guisarme, hitting at +26 for 3d10+9 .

A lvl 13 animist using darkened forest will hit at +25 (+26 with any status buff) for 4d10+11 and better reach.

Again, the first animist had to pour his money into a fully upgraded weapon, and even at his peak, he's still worse than the second one who doesn't even need to invest in STR if he doesn't feel like it.

Later in the game, the second animist will lag behind since darkened forest doesn't upgrade anymore, but at this point your magic should be at its peak anyway - and you'll be more dangerous as a forest's heart user if you take Nymph's grace/discomfiting whispers/earth's bile/whatever than embodiment of battle.

TLDR: Kids, embodiment of battle sucks. Don't do this at home. The only reason people think it's good is that it's much better than the pile of garbage Battle Oracle got.

Giving wizards 5ed spellcasting as their "thing" would indeed make them both powerful and interesting to play, and give them a real identity.

But like Teridax said, it might make them too powerful and might need some rebalancing elsewhere.

As for the arcane list, i'm not exactly saying it's weak - it's not. It's just that it lacks some kind of... I don't know, purpose ? It's good to have breadth, but not at the expense of depth.

The item and the attack are different things.

A boost keying off of an item's stats and numbers, is *not* keying off of the final attack made with that item.

That's what you believe, but you give me nothing to back off your claims except that it's too good to be true.

And, as I said, all alchemist guides go my way. I'd rather believe them than a random guy on the internet - no offense.

Blue_frog wrote:

Expanded saying "status bonus to splash damage" 100% unambiguously prevents it from boosting Sticky.

For there to be "bonus damage" it means that you have separate, distinct splash damage to be boosting.
[bomb's splash damage] + [bonus Expanded splash damage] = Strike's splash damage

.

Sticky Bomb very clearly does *not* say "the Strikes damage" or "the throw" , etc. It's keyed to just the bomb's splash damage. It's like when normal classes with rune-usable weapons talk about damage dice.

The bomb splash damage in this instance is the original + the status you add to the damage.

Same as any status bonus, really. If your attack bonus is +11 and you get a level 6 heroism thrown on you, your attack bonus becomes +13. If your damage is 2d8+6 and you get inspire courage, then your damage is 2d8+7. I don't understand why you suddenly want to do things differently here.

You can try to argue the opposite and die on that hill, but I've always seen it played like this, all alchemist guides mention it like this and, more importantly, my DM plays it like this.

But if you're the only one playing it differently, I can see where you might find that the bomber lacks damage.

Another confounding issue w/ Alchemist talk, especially after the remaster, is that it is really easy to accidentally buff the class in very significant amounts via misreading abilities, such as changing Tox's immunity bypass from "alch poisons" --> "poison trait items".

I hate, hate to be the 'nuh uh' bad guy, but if the 'um akshually' RaW needs to be set straight anywhere, it's on the pf2 forums.

Sticky Bomb's damage is another common misread, sorry to say.

** spoiler omitted **...

Sticky bomb:

A creature hit by a sticky bomb also takes persistent damage equal to and of the same type as the bomb's splash damage. If the bomb already deals persistent damage, combine the two amounts.

Expanded splash:

You gain a status bonus to the bomb's splash damage equal to your Intelligence modifier.

If you have 5 int and throw a bomb with 2 splash damage, the creature takes 7 splash damage (2 from the bomb + 5 from expanded splash).

To me, it's pretty clear the splash damage is 7 and so sticky bomb makes it +7.

(Also, it's not 0 resource since you cannot use it on a free bomb).

Another "uh oh Alchemist" detail I've seen accidentally ignore-buffed is that Expanded Splash explicitly only works if you boost the AoE size (... If you do ...) It cannot be used at the same time as Bomber's "only 1 square" splash shrink ability.

The two were very clearly written to be incompatible. You've gotta choose one or the other.

This one is true, though, you have to choose.

I recently played a remastered bomber from lvl 5-10.
He was a smart goblin, enraged at the stereotypes others had on his people, and always speaking in a painstakingly erudite way. His true name was Fizzball but he chose to be called Enguerrand de la Mare, just because it felt less cliché.

Anyway, of course he took Burn It ! And he was a blast to play, pun intended.

I took some control bombs like skunk bomb, which are certainly great, but most of the time I used him as a DPS with interesting results. From lvl 7-10, my accuracy was actually higher than all martials but the fighter (using collar with quicksilver), my fails still dealt splash damage (i.e. my INT modifier) which made throwing a third bomb a viable strategy, and my damage was not too shabby.

When attacking (with far lobber and quick bomber which feel like feat taxes) I usually used a versatile vial on first action, then free vials on MAP actions. That allowed me to keep my vials supply high.

From levels 5-7, Alchemist's fire dealt 2d8 damage + 5 splash damage + 3 persistent. Free bomb turned to fire dealt 2d6+5, without persistent.

From levels 8-9, it got ugly. Alchemist's fire now dealt 2d8 +6 splash damage + 10 persistent damage.

And at level 10 with expanded splash and int +5 , it dealt 2d8+ 12 splash + 15 persistent damage.

At level 12, I'll be able to deal 3d8 + 14 splash + 17 persistent. Fun times !

Of course, if there's a weakness to exploit, it's incredibly easy to do since free vials can be fire/acid/cold/electricity while versatile vials can basically cover everything.

I always had bravo's brew and eagle eye elixir on me, and a numbing tonic on my hand if needed (10 temporary HP EVERY SINGLE ROUND IS NUTS). Gave a couple numbing tonics at the beginning of the day to friends in case of emergency, and that was that for permanent vials.

As for versatile vials, boy did they make me MVPs. DM made us fight in a room filled with smoke ? Cat's eye elixir. Healer next to me got double crit ? Combine elixir for 2 moderate elixir of life, make him drink for 10d6+24 (av 59) at a level where a max heal is 5d8+40 (av 62). Need to climb a cliff to ambush opponents ? Spiderfoot brew. Annoying bleeding monster ? Blood booster. And silvertongue mutagen to the bard before he enters a room to bluff, and so many more.

Never before have I felt like Batman. And that's only with common options, because I didn't want to overshadow my team mates.

I posted a thread about how an animist can outdps most classes (except a sorcerer using explosion of power) against multitargets. Its DPS is solid, thanks to:
- Earth's Bile being the only 1-action AOE in the game AND sustainable
- Liturgist being able to sustain it while moving at lvl 9+
- The divine list being heavily buffed by the remaster, to the point where it's subjectively one of the best for blasting (and objectively not the worst anymore).
- Medium's Awareness giving him the best initiative in the game.
- Apparition's Quickening giving him the best quicken in the game.

Added to that, they get a better-than-average caster chassis with medium armor, d8hp, WIS casting and lots of goodies, plus great flexibility through changing feats, spells or lores.

Still, this alone doesn't make the animist broken. In order to see whether it's too much, we need to compare it to some other casters.

1) The sorcerer is for me the best caster in PF2E. It lacks the strong chassis of the animist, but his abilities certainly make up for it. I know it's subjective, but its great focus spells, spontaneous 4-slots, unpoachable extra damage/heal on every spell, pick-any-tradition-you-want approach and awesome feats make it a prime pick in almost every case. Thus I, personally, consider it stronger than the animist by virtue of having more flexibility in what spells they can take, more slots, more sustained damage and basically more options. Arcane evolution, for instance, gives as much or even more flexibility than apparitions ever could, since you can choose what spell to add instead of needing to pick a list. So if the animist is broken, then so is the sorcerer.

2) The (caster) oracle has been heavily buffed (mechanically) in the remaster. We've talked about it in another post, and I know some builds were gutted by it (hello battle, hello life), but right now an oracle has almost the same chassis (light armor instead of medium is about the same if you don't plan on taking heavy armor later). He is limited to the divine list but has right from the box 4 spontaneous slots per level, blowing the animist out of the water. But wait, with foretell harm he'll deal more damage (at least once). With gifted power he now has 5 slots from his highest rank (especially useful for flame, for instance). With (free) divine access he can have spells from other traditions - and mostly choose them. With Mysterious Repertoire, he has one more from any tradition - and totally choose it). With divine effusion you now have 6 slots for your top level spells and 5 from your top - 1 (while the animist is still stuck to 3 and 3).

3) The bard is an awesome caster as well. He's locked into occult, but it's a pretty impressive list nowadays - everybody knows it's got the best debuff in the game, but also great buffs/debuffs (for instance, the animist has no way to access slow or haste, which are amongst the best spells in PF2e) and even great blasting. He's got three spontaneous slots to the animist's 2 prepared + 1 spontaneous (+ 1 later at lower levels), which to me is leaning towards the bard. He's got great cantrips that are incredibly powerful and, if maestro, can be sustained easily for free. He has once again the same chassis as the animist except for that mostly useless medium armor. His feats are great as well, and most people in the forum agree that he's pretty solid.

So yeah, Animist is great. But at the risk of comparing apple to oranges, I don't think he's stronger than a sorcerer, an oracle or a bard.

Is he better than a cleric ? It's debatable, since the cleric still has from 4 to 6 more top slots to heal, so it depends what you want to do.

Is he better than a witch, a druid or a wizard ? Probably (apart from a few broken builds) but it's not a very hard bar to clear.

So IMHO the animist is a strong class, solidly in the middle of the caster pack, but nowhere near the top, and nowhere near busted.

As for using embodiment of battle and grudge strike, I would advise anyone thinking it's even a token martial to play it and reconsider.

Once upon a time, the arcane list was the biggest and the most powerful of the four, and it was considered a boon to have access to it. Primal was strong but limited, occult had some strong debuffs but was all over the place and divine was widely considered to be the deal est.

Now they’ve all been buffed and it seems to me arcane is lagging behind.

Occult still has the best buffs and debuffs, some great damzging spells and some healing.

Primal has great blasts, great healing and condition removal, great mal controlling and some more utility.

Divine got the best lift and is now arguably one of the best lists with incredible buffs and healing alongside impressive blasting abilities.

So… what’s the point of arcane exactly ? You have very few specific spells, and the selection, while solid, is lacking specific gems.

Am I the only one disappointed in Arcane ? Shouldn’t they give it some specific spells to give it back some lustre.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Alchemist: Definitely made worse for our group playstyle. Vials regenerating every 10 minutes is too slow for how we roll.

I'm still surprised at how you play. It's not bad, I certainly don't want to imply that, but it certainly goes against the grain of how it's designed to be played.

But how did the Alchemist get worse? Pre-remaster they had an X amount of daily resources, right? They still have those, as well as two pools of regenerating resources. Seems like they only got more resources, right? Am I missing something?

Previously, their daily resources scaled based on int AND level, now it's just Int. Also, you could use a reagent to do a batch of two items, three from your field.

So a level 10 bomber with 20 int had 15 reagents every day, and could for instance
- Keep 5 open for quick alchemy
- Use 5 to get 10 daily items to use and give freely
- Use 5 to get 15 bombs to use throughout the day.

In comparison, a remastered level 10 alchemist with 20 int has:
- 9 daily items (that's it, no special bonus)
- 7 versatile vials (2 regen every fight, but limited to 10mn.

So if you're playing in a party where you do a lot of 10mn breaks, you'll be swimming in versatile vials - though you'll still have less versatility in long-term buffs.

If you're in a party with no or few breaks, you're really underwhelming in comparison to premaster.

Alchemist is a bit like the warlock of PF2, they thrive on short rests.

I think its funny that when I remember that back then I used to argue the swashbuckler sucked and that it needed a rework ASAP most people didn't agree with me, yet right now everyone agrees that the swashbuckler was rough before so the buff made sense. I feel that sometimes people don't want to believe that "the company that makes this game I really like couldn't have released a bad product" so they conform themselves by thinking that the design is intentional or that they are missing something. PF2e pre-remaster is the living proof that, while the system was certainly really good and IMO leagues better than its predecesor, it had the potential to be so much better than it was. For us players, the remaster was a blessing.

I totally agree with you - and for what it's worth, I posted at release how weak I thought the original swashbuckler was ( https://paizo.com/threads/rzs434dw?Is-the-rogue-a-better-swashbuckler-than- the#19 ).

I guess the dilemma, before lvl 9 and my exemplary finisher, is "something to do with my third action once everyone has been demoralized and I don't need to move".

For instance, round 2 can be
1) Demoralize
2) Finisher
3) One for all

Round 3 starts with panache, so you get:
1) Finisher
2) One for all
3) ??

This is the reason why I wanted exuberant parry, but you're totally right: since One for all does the out-of-turn panache generation, I don't need exuberant parry, a simple steel shield will do the trick.

Well, thanks, that's a relief ;)

I understand, Finoan, and I do empathize but, at the risk of being blunt, a group doesn't have to suffer for the actions of one player, even if his attitude comes from a disorder.

Nobody should bully someone for having ADHD - but neither should they sacrifice their games for the sake of one person.

I might be harsh, but I think you should tell them that kind of behavior is annoying for the rest of the table and that they have to change if they still want to play.

It's one thing not to pay attention (especially with VTT where lots of players doing something else at the same time) when you still can play quickly because you can quickly take snap decisions, quite another to slow the game for everyone for your sole convenience. The freedom of one ends where the freedom of another begins.

So either they change, or they get booted.

I hope we can make a lightly armored (or even unarmored) PC who Taunts and then deftly avoids attacks, a la Spiderman.

Maybe with the Guardian archetype.

Swashbuckler with antagonize/enjoy the show and guardian archetype ?

In MMORPGs you had forums specifically dedicated to min-maxing. I don't know if such forums or discussions exist for PF2. I know min-max discussions were common in PF1. But since min-maxing is less of a thing in PF2 and pretty narrowband, I imagine not many do it.

We're kind of hijacking the topic but it's an interesting discussion.

I find that the problem with always min-maxing is:
1) We tend to always play the same classes
2) We tend to always use the same actions.

Yes, it's great when we all delay so that the bard can dirge of doom into synesthesia, the furious bully barbarian trips on the now -4 reflex save, the sorcerer uses ancient memories into slow and the two-weapon archetype fighter mows the one-action -5 AC boss down with dual pickaxes while everybody is waiting for him to stand up so he can get AOO'd to hell.

But it gets annoying fast for the sorcerer to spam slow, the barbarian would sometimes like to actually deal damage instead of tripping, the bard can feel like a bot and the fighter uses double slice brainlessly. It's not a very hard routine to master, and like in MMOs you just go through your opener into your rotation.

Also, after a few games, you get tired of playing top tier classes and maybe you'd like to try a bomber, that's fun too. Or a druid (I know you like them, but our group finds them underpowered). Or a warpriest. Or, hey, even an investigator although it's probably at the bottom of the barrel currently.

I'm a huge sorcerer fan, I believe that they're basically the best at everything magical. Best arcane caster ? Sorcerer. Best primal caster ? Sorcerer. Best occult caster ? Sorcerer (bard is great for different reasons). Best divine caster ? Sorcerer.

But when you play sorcerer in three different campaigns, even with different bloodlines and traditions, you start to feel a bit bored and you choose other classes, even though they're mechanically weaker.

I don't know, maybe I'm jaded because like you I've been playing a long time, but if someone asks me to join a new game these days, I'll probably pick a new class (like guardian or commander) or a class I don't know that well (like swashbuckler), although they're not top tier.

And there's something fun about overcoming challenges with a team including a champion of Caiden Callean, a tiger style monk, a wizened old witch and an outwit ranger. Feels like you deserve your victory more somehow.

Safe element's main shtick is allowing you to permanently exclude either allies or opponents from your aura.

It's very useful for offensive-minded auras like ravel of thorns, steam knight or drifting pollen.

The fact that it also allows your AOEs to avoid opponents is more like a nice bonus - the waste of an action really hurts.

The problem here is that, well, I can't use a greatsword because it isn't Desna's favored weapon

Actually, you very much can, starting at lvl 3 (and dropping off at lvl 19-20).

You will lose:
- a +1 status bonus on restorative strike (that is basically useless since you should have bless, heroism or a bard song running).
- Divine rebuttal (nobody ever takes this feat)
- Replenishment of war (this one actually really hurts)

And well, that's about it.

So yeah, from level 10+, you lose replenishment of war which is an amazing feat for a warpriest, but that might be an acceptable price to pay in order to fulfill your fantasy and deal d12 damage.

Let me see if I can focus this a little more. The kineticist is fine for AOE damage. They have lots of useful and good options.

I think the kineticist needs more single target impulses. Even if two actions, impulses that hit a single target for good damage would be an impulse niche that would be highly useful.

Having nearly every decent attack impulse focused on AOE is overkill for AOE.

They put in the game a way to use AOE without hitting your allies called Safe Elements, but they made it cost one action while many of your major impulses are 3 action overflow impulses. So you can't even use Safe Elements with these impulses.

Safe Elements also feels like an action tax to be able to hit targets in smaller or single target fights. So you no longer are able to use a 2 action impulse and a blast to try to land a decent single target hit on a boss. You instead would have to use safe elements to drop a ignite the sun or scorching column in combination.

I think if they add more content for a kineticist, a few single target attack impulses for each element would be really useful to round out the kineticist abilities.

This post wasn't just about comparative damage, but out a lack of tools for the kineticist in smaller fights.

First of all, thanks for your answer, I agree with you on the subject.

I'm kind of worried of some kind of power creep if the kineticist were to get single target impulses, though. If they were to have at least a modicum of interest, they would need to deal more damage than AOE ones (obviously). But at the same time, they're supposed to be weaker than single target spells, since they're an unlimited resource.

So we have very little wiggle room between basically 1d8/spell level (2 action overflow progression) while being weaker than the like of Phantom Pain, Sudden Bolt or Spirit blast.

And being able to one-action hit + two-action cast is a gish metric, and has been severely reined in by Paizo (through bonded casting or reduced martial abilities).

Do you ever play rogues? Landing 3 attacks per round is the default for a rogue. They will usually get up to 4 to 5 attack attempts with haste and their reaction with debilitations.

We have exactly the same numbers so we agree on this.

Since our maths match, we can say that the kineticist is ahead if the rogue lands one hit, is on par with two hits and is ahead with three or more hits. Please notice that's exactly what I explained in my post.

The part where we don't agree is where your rogue usually lands 3 to 4 hits a round. I know your team likes to optimize, but when comparing classes and saying one is lacking, it's unfair to add a whole optimized buffing crew around you.

Sure, if the rogue is hasted (which, before level 13, only targets one character, so that's all a caster's turn to buff you) AND someone uses One for All to give him a circumstance bonus AND he gets an ally to flank with (even with gang up).

More importantly, in your scenario, the boss monster (who, since you are level 15, might be lvl 18-19) somehow lost initiative, didn't have enough perception to see you, cannot grab you, swallow you whole, teleport you away, pin you in place, have a dangerous aura, maze you, dominate you, confuse you, fly, burrow or drop you in one round with some kind of draconic fury.

Being right next to a rogue in order to opportune backstab is often a great place to be - it can also be a pretty shitty place when you're a d8 martial in leather with (at lvl 15) expert in will and fortitude.

And sure, when the boss is tripped and perma-slowed by slow-spam and affected by Synesthesia, it gets much easier, but even so, the more I read your posts, the more I think that your team is really good at optimizing, but your DM also isn't optimizing the monsters half as much - and that's great, because this way you can all have a good time.

Besides, boss fights - with only one single opponent - are the easiest, since the action economy is so heavily skewed towards the players. If your DM wants to make things harder, let him add a couple high-level adds (and then kineticist pulls ahead again).

You'll probably tell me that I'm wrong, that I don't know what I'm talking about and that your DM isn't pulling punches, but the simple fact that you can use 3 actions to attack every round without somehow being disturbed is quite telling.

Back to the topic on track, let's assume everything you say, so you're buffed to the gills, the opponent is debuffed, you landed all your hits, and you dealt:

141 to 147 average damage for the rogue thief
82 to 83 average damage from the fire kineticist

Rogue is ahead if everything goes right, sure, but remember single target isn't the kineticist's forte. Add just one mob to the equation (a +2 boss and a +1 lieutenant, say) and the numbers look very different. Add more mobs and it's not even a match.

Like I said in my first post, the kineticist has more utility, is way tankier, is better at range and better at AOE. If he also were better in single target melee, that would be quite busted (and yet... ^^).

So, going back to your OP, kineticist damage is just fine (provided you're earth/fire, or maybe air but I'm less knowledgeable here).

An average rogue thief by 15 with an elven curve blade doing 3d8+11 plus 2d6 plus 3d6 sneak for a total range of 19 to 65 per action with automatically applied riders.

Oh boy, I do so love those topics !

What does a level 15 kineticist have over a rogue ?

First, it's way sturdier. Armor in earth and CON as a primary means you have at least 1 more AC, 2 more HP/level than a rogue, armor specialization and funny things like Spike skin that give you DR 10 and makes everyone hitting you take 8 damage.

Then, like you said, it can AOE. It's not something you can just ignore by saying "it's good enough when able to AOE". The rogue just cannot output the damage a kineticist does when there are multiple opponents.

So where does that leave us ? The rogue is better at single target damage and skills, while the kineticist is tougher and better at AOE damage. Sounds pretty balanced, right ?

But wait. Let's break this down, using an earth/fire kineticist, because that's what I play and what is widely considered to be the best build dps-wise. Starting with 3 STR and 4 CON, he at lvl 15 has 5 STR and 5+ CON. He has Thermal nimbus and took fire junction.

What are the possible outcomes ?

First, the opponent is in your fire aura. So, he gets hit with 14 damage from turn start, no save, no rolls. Those 14 free damage are incredibly useful against opponents with good saves and AC, like bosses - so, the most important fights. It's also 14 free damage PER opponent in your aura, so it adds up incredibly quickly.

But let's go back to single damage. You already dealt 14 certain damage. Now, with 1 action, you can deal 4d6+5 (str) + 7 (weakness) for an average of 26.

With 2 actions, you can use Flying flame for 8d8 damage without shutting down your gate, or Blazing wave for 9d8 and prone-crit effect if you shut it down. Don't forget the 7 weakness as well.

And of course, with 3 actions, you can use both, Flying flame into Elemental blast for 4d6+5 and 7 weakness, then 8d8 and 7 weakness, without any MAP.

If we combine it all, we have 14 unavoidable damage + 4d6+8d8 + 19 for an average of 83.

I don't know how we can weight in the fact that some damage is unavoidable and that weaknesses don't double on a crit, but that still looks pretty solid to me.

Meanwhile, from your own numbers, your rogue deals 3d8+5d6+11, average 42. So unless you're actually hitting ALL THREE OF YOUR ATTACKS THROUGH MAP, I'm afraid your rogue is behind or just barely ahead.

And I can do this from 30 feet away, which means using my 3 actions to attack is much more likely than the rogue, who will probably have to burn at least one action on positioning.

You took one of the best class in the game, gave it the best weapon you could think of, in the best situation he's supposed to shine in, and the kineticist still beat him. Add just ONE MORE opponent and it becomes ridiculously one-sided.

That's "what I think of Kineticist damage" ^^

I know it doesn't exactly help the discussion, but I always thought a fencer swashbuckler with a sorcerer dedication would make an incredible ninja.

Most people think about swashbucklers as flashy braggards, the opposite of the ninja DNA, but it just depends on how you play it - the chassis is actually very solid for a ninja-like character.

- DEX-based ? Check.
- Focused on confusing opponents during the fight ? Check (fencer)
- Good at stealth ? Take it, you're dex-based.
- Good at acrobatics and deception ? They're bound to be legendary

With the sorcerer (shadow) dedication, you'll add some staples from anime (mirror image or blur, invisibility...) as well as some solid focus spells.

So here's my take at a Ninja with what already exists.

Ancient Elf (Shadow sorcerer dedication) Swashbuckler (fencer) (level 10)

STR 0 DEX 4 CON 1 WIS 1 INT 0 CHA 3

1 - Nimble Elf, Goading Feint. Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Intimidation, Medicine, Occultism, Stealth, Thievery
2 - Elegant buckler, Slippery Prey
3 - Acrobatics and Deception to expert. Fleet, Lie to me
4 - Basic Bloodline spell (dim the light). Quick Disguise
5 - Stealth to expert, STR 0 DEX 4+, CON 2 WIS 2 INT 0 CHA 4, Elven instincts
6 - Basic Sorcerer expertise, Backup Disguise
7 - Acrobatics and deception to master, Breath control, Kip Up
8 - Bleeding Finisher, Slippery Secrets
9 - Elf Step, Stealth to master
10 - Buckler Dance, Swift Sneak, STR 0 DEX 5 CON 3 WIS 3 INT 0 CHA 4+

Spells: Flashy Disappearance, Mirror Image, Wooden Double

So what do we have here in comparison to the usual image of the ninja ?

- We're master in stealth, acrobatics and deception so we can basically enter any compound through infiltration, lies and bribes.
- We're hard to pin down (slippery prey), are great at disguises (quick disguise, backup disguise), our thoughts cannot be read (slippery secrets) and we're good at detecting lies (lie to me). We can also stop breathing for a long time (Breath control) and do all kinds of acrobatic stunts (cat fall, kip up).
- Our usual combat routine is creating a diversion or feinting and then striking to make the opponent bleed to death which feels very ninja-ish.
- We're damn fast (55 feet with panache, without factoring equipment)
- If needed, we can turn invisible, create clones or avoid a hit using a wooden double.
- I wanted to take a shadow spell with Dim the Light but ended up short, that's a bummer.

To me, that looks like a great way to play a ninja. Just say your rapier is a ninjato, your buckler is a metal bar tied to your forearm, and you're all set.

(By the way, apart from the obvious RP angle, this is a pretty strong character).

I'm not saying we cannot homebrew a ninja class, but it would need to be around this power budget.

Wait, now I want to play it :o

Edit: you can also go Smokeworker Hobgoblin and use smokesticks.

Taunt is basically the guardian saying « hey, pal, if you try and touch my buddy here, you’re in for a world of hurt ».

The créature will be rattled but can very much ignore it.

That's not my point. What I'm saying is that the GM tends to respect Taunt for both thematic and mechanical reasons.

With this in mind, is it really worth investing in feats that expect the GM to try to disrespect Taunt?

There's a high probability that feats like Proud Nail and Ring Their Bell will never be used because the GM can simply make the provoked creatures attack the guardian (what is the main intention of Taunt). Unless there are two guardians in the group, which would effectively make the creature negatively affected by both guardians, these feats would be the only thing preventing it from ignoring them and attacking other PCs, since it will suffer the effects of Taunt anyway.

So, with this in mind, is it really worth investing in feats that will never, or almost never, will have its requirements met?

Most DMs will try to play their monsters based on their intelligence score (a zombie will try to bite the closest target, a lich will choose the best outcome) in order to produce a dynamic environment.

Focusing the big bad guardian clad in steel and wielding a shield as big as him shouldn't be the optimal play, and a lot of monsters will try to attack squishier targets, even if they have to eat a -1 malus and get flat-footed.

I know I would. Faced with a sorcerer and a guardian, I would try to focus the sorcerer down despite the guardian protection, instead of trading blows with a juggernaut while being incinerated from behind.

If your DM plays all his monsters as brainless creatures who will always focus you then, sure, the others feats won't be useful. But in most games, it will depend on the fight. Sometimes you'll get focused, sometimes you won't, and you'll have tools for all situations.

What does the MCD for the guardian look like?

You get taunt and light/medium armor.

True but I am just saying the new reaction seems inferior to their old reaction, sure it lets you move but like the Champion's Reaction can happen within 15ft, which is the first reason I bought it up. Not only that but they give 2+Level for DR instead of the new version which is 1+Half level which seems a little silyl if you ask me. You trade out 22 DR for only 11 but you gain 12 hit points instead of 10 a level. So you trade 11 DR for +40 max hit points. Is this trade worth it?

Both have a different goal.

If your lvl 16 sorcerer has 60hp left and the boss crits him for 100 damage, reducing damage by 18 like the champion could won't cut it, even with an additional debuff attached. No matter what you do, the sorcerer will go down.

If you're playing a guardian, though, the boss will already have a -1 on his attack which might prevent the crit in the first place - and you can take the 100 damage (minus 9 from your resistance) instead of him.

Sure, you take 91 damage total instead of 82. But the sorcerer is alive, the opponent is flat-footed and you can now make him regret his decision.

As for the comparison to playtest, your DR is now always on. So an opponent who tries to tackle you in order to get around your taunt mechanism has to deal with the highest AC in the game, the highest HP pool in the game AND the highest static DR in the game.*

* A barbarian starting with 16 CON will have 1 more DR at lvl 10 against specific attacks.

All this already (except 12HP/lvl) existed into playtest and in practice this almost killed the guardian sometimes until my friends and I noticed that the guardian shouldn't use Intercept Attack in the same way that a champion uses its reaction. This was to a point that in order to “fix” this we decided to invest into a champion reaction and the character survivability and allies protection increases were huge.

The new Intercept Attack is weaker in resistance than the old Intercept Strike because we have half of the damage reduction now (the old resistance was 2+lvl the new one is 1+half-lvl).

The GM can easily start to use the Intercept Attack as an indirect way to damage guardians that frequently tries to protect its allies, workarounding its higher AC using a weaker allied AC. It's easily to justify that the enemy hostile action predicting that the guardian will try to Intercept Attack was against the guardian because it damaged it, basically disabling the Taunt effects.

So to thrust into use Intercept Attack like a champion reaction is a suicide easily noticeable in earlier levels for anyone in practice. This isn't even a white room because it just made the situation worse than it was during playtest.

That's correct, intercept attack is not the core of the guardian strategy as the champion's reaction is. The equivalent to the champion reaction would be the guardian taunt.

Intercept attack is more useful against:
- Small attacks that won't penetrate the Guardian DR much.
- Attacks with a nasty rider that the guardian thinks he can tank better than the intended target (read: poison)
- Attacks that would drop the intended target down.

When an enemy is faced with a champion and a rogue, he has a choice to make.
1) Go against the squishy rogue and eat the champion's reaction, thus dealing reduced damage and getting probably debuffed or hit in the process.
2) Go against the tankier champion, who cannot protect himself with his reaction but has higher AC and can shield block.

Now, when a taunted enemy is faced with a guardian and a rogue, he also has a choice to make.

1) Go against the squishy rogue
a) at a -1 circumstance penalty that stacks with almost everything
b) exposing himself to some of the most brutal guardian reactions, like huge damage spike or stun even on a success (incapacitation so more for henchmen)
c) maybe get his hit redirected to the guardian if it's worth it.

2) Go against the tankier guardian, who has higher AC, higher HP, DR and maybe shield block.

It's a different way of tanking, but just as effective. But you're right that intercept attack is not as mandatory.