Search Posts
Let’s not Forget that you cannot step while flying, which negates a lot of utility.Air walk. It’s true (and actually a much better spell in 2ed). It has limitations , though, since it cannot be heightened nor be made permanent through ancestries. But yeah, you’re right.
Let’s not Forget that you cannot step while flying, which negates a lot of utility.
- 10mn duration with no cost would make it so you can actually have it on all the time, except perhaps a few social situations. - "Encounter-mode only" would prevent you from using it even when you absolutely know there's someone behind that door. 1 minute duration is actually a nice middle ground.
There are many ways a DM could give info to his players through a few not-so-subtle clues. - Two days away from the temple, the characters encounter a village. The natives worship a huge totem and believe it to be a god, for the legends say it used to move. It's a badly damage clay golem, thousands year old. - The characters find carrions circling next to the road. If they investigate, they discover the body of an historian who seemingly died of thirst since he was so bad at survival. In his backpack are his notes about huge statues in a temple. - The characters encounter a wounded thief. He tried to enter the temple and can tell them he found some huge pieces of clay - it so happens he took one with him. Then he ventured further and a trap nearly cut his arm, making him flee for his life. A good DM can point them in the right direction without resorting to some kind of deus ex machina.
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.
For the record, The Slithering is a fan's favorite and actually includes "lots of oozes". Two big PF2e campaigns, Blood Lords and I believe Season of Ghost, include lots of undead. Wardens of Wildwood is advertised as lots of animals, druids and wood beasts (cannot vouch for it, didn't play it yet). Triumph of the tusk is basically all orcs. And converting things like Wrath of the Righteous will make you expect lots of demons. So knowing this beforehand is actually a big help - in an ooze scenario, an occult caster will lose some steam; in an undead scenario, a holy divine caster will shine while a wit swashbuckler might fall short both mechanically and flavor-wise (if only you could insult undeads monkey-island style !).
Yep, exactly !
Sorcerous potency can affect every target once, so in the case of an AOE or a chain reaction like chain lightning, every opponent gets the bonus 6 damage.
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.
Well, yes, except moar spell doesn't equate moar power. It has the smallest amount of tradition-specific spells, and is burdened by a lot of chaff. It's great to have 757 spell, less great when most of them are useless like Bread Crumbs, Fold Metal, Mending, Unbroken Panoply and yet another part are redundant spells or spells who get upgraded after a few levels.
Despite my OP, I don't think arcane is that bad or weak per se, it's just that it lacks flavor. If you were to explain traditions to a newcomer, you would say something like:
And Arcane ? Most of the time, Arcane is defined by what it cannot do. "You can do a lot of things except healing". It's great to have access to many spells - including a heap of garbage, but also some great ones - but I just feel it would be better if there would be some coherence or cohesion. It doesn't need to be stronger, just give some purpose or direction.
In all fairness, prepared divine is much better than prepared arcane, and is much less a hindrance to the animist/cleric as it is to the wizard/arcane witch for many reasons: 1) You know your whole spell list with no effort nor cost
So, while I still think spontaneous is better, its lead is not as huge as it can be in arcane.
Just to nitpick, average is 65 for disintegrate, not 55. Also, an interesting thing is that it’s not a death spell while the text hints at it.
Whops, yeah, my bad, it's been a long time since I used it. You could use Savor the sting for an extra 9d4 + 9d4 persistent.As for property runes and feats, I specifically didn't mention them in the comparison but it's true that they'll boost the damage even further (but then so could the animist). As for healing/harming font, it's really two different ways of playing your warpriest. If you're the sole healer, it might be prudent to be healing font but if someone can be a backup healer, then Medicine + a few healing slots are usually enough to go through the day. Especially if you go with medic archetype on Ragathiel (for the sweet bastard sword and haste). I really love what you can do with harm, from burst damage (in a pinch, you *could* deal 27d10 damage, save for half), to making anyone prone on anything but a crit, to healing yourself and your friends through dealing damage (not much but hey, some shadow priest vibes) to channel smite without manipulate. Warpriest is one of the few classes where I'm usually strapped for feats since there are so many fun ones.
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:
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.
Which is true. But you could also say:
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.
One of the most telling changes with PF2 is that Reach Spell is one of the most powerful and useful metamagic feats in the game. In PF1 Reach Spell could be ok, but hardly comparable to Quicken or Dazing Spell or Empower or Heighten. Now Reach Spell is a highly useful spell because it replaces a move action for 1 action to extend a spell's range without the caster having to move. It shows how far Metamagic has been weakened. In PF1 the wizard was the king of metamagic. Now everyone uses metamagic equally well. It also has the added benefit of adding to the spell's range for every instance of it. So, blazing bolt allows you to choose up to 3 targets in a 60-feet radius, which is much, much more powerful than just moving.
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".
Have you read my animist guide and the section on how the animist can cover the function of a lot, if not most, basic skill actions with their apparitions? Yeah, and I fundamentally disagree with your view of lore skills, like a lot of people in the comments IIRC. Thinking that circus lore can allow you to replace acrobatics or forest lore can allow you to replace survival is just something that doesn't happen. If your GM does it this way (or if you're the GM and you do it this way) then more power you, and it certainly gives a huge power boost to the animist. Edit: It still only goes to master AND is tied to int, which probably isn't the animist's forte, so EVEN IF you SOMEHOW find a DM who says "oh what the heck, use forest lore to track this boar", you're still meh at it.
-the animist class is not being argued as broken due to power. It is being argued as broken due to covering too many roles well inside its chassis. What can the (liturgist) animist cover well ? - Casting (duh)
What can the (tome/regalia) thaumaturge cover well ?
I don't know which one looks the most broken here.
My bad, then. I still believe that the animist is nowhere near the height of the power curve, and a thaumaturge will step on more toes, though. And that's after playing both. I believe the post I just made explains quite specifically why. And an animist can most definitely be played as melee. I've already pulled off a few crits with an ogre hook using Grudge Strike and it feels amazing. Teridax has referenced plenty of 1st hand examples of procing multiple reactive strikes. It's not a strength of the class but it's definitely capable. Well, here our experiences differ. While it's great to pull crits with an ogre hook using Grudge Strike, it's still nowhere near what a martial could output in your place, and nowhere near what you could have done casting instead. The argument is not how many things you are able to do in a vacuum, but how many thing you'll actually be able to do in the space of your round. If you are using Embodiment of Battle and Grudge Strike, then you've used your whole round (you have maybe one action left to move or strike if hasted) while you could have used Divine Wrath to damage and sicken everyone while blasting with earth's bile, dealing probably more damage and debuffing them. Or confusing all mooks, or using spirit blast, or whatever spells you want. Usually, the best way to play a caster is... to cast. Or what, you're hoarding resources because you're expecting a long fighting day ? Fine ! Without spending any resources and without even using Channeler's stance, earth's bile + Needle Darts benefits from cardinal guardians, will be more precise than your strikes, and will deal: At level 5: 4d4+2 persistent in an area, 5d4 on one target. (av 22,5+2 persistent, and earth's bile deals half damage on a miss). Your grudge strike with a d10 weapon and EoB: 2d10+4+2d6+1, average 23 with no half damage on a miss). Advantage casting, even on one target, and of course much better if there are more targets. At level 10: 6d4+3 persistent in an area, 7d4 on one target (av 32,5 + 3 persistent, and still half on a miss) Your grudge strike is still stuck at the same damage, except now you get an extra +1 from EoB, whoop dee doo, average 24. I won't do all levels but EoB Grudge Strike is mathematically subpar, even when using no stance and no slots. I'm glad you enjoyed it, but it has more to do with you rolling 19s and 20s on your attack than any true data. Animist is a strong caster with strong spells and strong feats.
That's true. At earlier levels, it's harder for the sorcerer to cover all his fighting bases (Ref/Will/Fort/AC, Single/AOE/Friendly AOE) and have some utility to boot.But then, so it is for the wizard. For instance, at level 1, we could have this kind of setup. I'm not saying those are the best spells, but it gives us an idea if they're trying to do the same thing. Imperial sorcerer lvl 1
Wizard (battle specialist) lvl 1
Here the wizard is the clear winner: unless you REALLY need 3 casting of one spell, he has the same flexibility, 1 more casting per day, and a couple utility spells he can keep in his spellbook. Now let's see at level 5, assuming again they're trying to do about the same thing. Imperial sorcerer lvl 5
Our sorcerer took arcane evolution at level 4 and, since he doesn't need to switch spells yet, got another free signature spell (blazing bolt). has a nice defensive spell he can use up to 4 times if needed. He's got a few utilities now that he can share with his party if needed (Tailwind, invisibility). He has Fireball for mass blasting, Blazing bolt for mass friendly blasting, and still force barrage for single target. Even against fire-resistant opponents, he can cast fear both single and multitarget, make them prone, or haste a friend. He also can freely heighten dispel magic. Wizard (battle specialist) lvl 5
We already see the wizard sputtering. His first level force barrage is useless apart from a single-action filler. He only has 2 interposing earth and that stopped him from taking shockwave (sure, no big deal, but it's an example) as well as making him more vulnerable. He still gets his 1 slot advantage but didn't have room to put dispel magic, can only cast blazing bolt at level 2 and has only two of them, doesn't have tailwind, cannot cast invisibility on more than one target, and so on and so forth. It's true that he can still tailor his spell list to cater to a specific need, but what I wrote was a pretty standard "regular all-around battle caster" list and in all those days when you don't expect anything incredibly special (like underwater adventuring or knowing you'll fight a dragon), it will underperform. And in those days where there IS an incredibly specific challenge to accomplish:
One subclass that, as written a few posts earlier, makes the thaumaturge infringe on just about everyone's toes. No need for other subclasses when one gives you all the flexibility you need. And that's quite what happens with the animist as well.
I played this playtest psychic and IMO this playtest version was way better mechanically and thematically than currently Unleash Psyche. But probably due to it made the usage of focus spells much more frequently than any other options in that time and due to the higher complexity of the class the designers chosen to turn the Unleash in the current version that we have today that. Wow, I'm sorry I missed that, it looked fun !
That's why I said:
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:
So how does that lock the thaumaturge into one role ?
- Master spellcasting is what the animist gets if he wants to use EoB (since he loses 2 DC). - Starting at level 1, the warpriest can choose a deity and get all his spells. It's certainly not as good as what the animist gets, except you can pick and choose - especially with things like splinter faith. Ragathiel was a great pick pre-remaster (and still good post-nerf), giving you Sure Strike and Haste, for instance. The animist has no way to get haste. Again, it's not as good, but it's there.- Zealous rush is great action compression, especially in the first round of battle (move while casting haste, then strike) or when you need to heal yourself - Heaps of feats help the warpriest deal more damage or be more tanky - The warpriest damage blows the melee animist out of the water, and has way more top slots to heal or harm depending on the build. One is not better than the other, they have different approaches.
So depending if you want to lean on the casting or melee part, they both give you something different.
It's true that the thaumaturge can be a bit mad (though going into DEX is a thing). Like you said, it can be compounded by going into heavy armor if you have the feats for it. You also get to legendary in will at level 13, reducing the pressure on your WIS attribute in comparison to most other classes. However, since we're talking about the liturgist animist and how powerful it can be, it wouldn't be fair to leave the thaumaturge without implements. Let's give him tome (which is probably as busted for thaumaturge as liturgist is for animist) and, at higher levels, you get:
This all ends-up with the most accurate martial possible (well, unless the fighter somehow archetypes to get sure strike, except he can do it only once in a fight) while doing very respectable damage. Now let's give him adept regalia (my second favorite) and he's better than anyone but a derring-do swashbuckler at all social skills, all while giving your whole group + 4 damage and + 1 to will saving throws. And that's only with his implements (his "subclass") without even touching his feats. I've never heard before this thread people complaining about an animist "stepping on their toes" or "eating their lunch". But I've heard it said a lot about the thaumaturge because he makes every recall knowledge class useless (another reason why INT should be buffed all around), he's an incredible skill monkey, he can use any scroll he can put his hands on, and eventually cast spells from ANY TRADITION AT A WHIM, all while being a great DPS and a boss-killer. He's still a d8 melee without a shield, with most of his actions provoking AOOs and no defensive feats or implements to speak of (amulet would be great if it weren't manipulate), so he's very much a glass cannon, and that's his biggest flaw. I never played with the new Shield implement, dunno how good it is.
Thank you, that's been my experience as well and I almost used the exact same words a few pages ago. EoB is kind of a trap option and store time probably the worst vessel spell so far. Maybe the latter will get some love if the animist ever gets better reactions.
I would love to see an implémentation of risk/reward with unleash psyche like: - You can start unleashing psyche whenever you want.
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.
Nobody mentioned bond conservation because it sucks big time except out of combat. It’s good if you want to be all about utility but you have to be an universalist (thus losing a top level slot) and thus makes you even worse in a battle.
I totally agree and I love Divine Wrath so much so that I miss it whenever I don’t play divine ^^ I didn’t mention it because the thread was specifically about blasting and, although the rider and friendly aspect is great, it’s not very impressive damage-wise.
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
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.
consider the wizard at level 13 can casting group haste and eclipse burst in 3 encounters straight, a sorcerer is making choices with the 3 rank 7 casts they have the wizard is choosing to do both every encounter. It's not the first time you said something like this, you also mentioned it earlier: The level 5 example I gave looks to me to clearly be better as a wizard with 6 level 3 spells to cast in that extreme encounter than the sorcerer that only has 3 of them Unless I missed something, at level 5, a spell blending specialist wizard has 2 regular spells + 1 specialist spell + 1 blended spell + 1 arcane bond spell. That's 5 slots, not 6, to the sorcerer 3. At level 6, he'll indeed get 6 slots but then the sorcerer has 4. Likewise for your level 13 example.
1 - 2 spells
In comparison to a sorcerer having 4 spells everywhere and 3 level 7. So the difference is not as big as you make it out to be. I did tout that in my guide, but the remaster changed everything. And even 6 top level slots aren't what they used to be.
Arcane évolution, learn shape Wood, done. Arcane évolution, learn humanoïd form, done.Arcane évolution, learn invisibility (if you don’t already have it as a staple), done.
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.
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.
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.
I rather like the idea of the wizard being a master of magic and as such being able to get spells from all traditions. As such, it would be incredibly powerful, so there would need to be some boundaries. How about:
I honestly don't know how powerful and/or broken it could be. After all, pre-remaster crossblooded evolution didn't break the game, and neither does mysterious repertoire, nor all kinds of divine access. But it certainly would make the wizard unique and play into his vaunted flexibility, without giving him more slots or bonuses.
I really mean this sincerely, how does an EoB animist use a wall spell effectively? If you trap yourself in with enemies on your turn with a 3 action spell, you don't have any reactive strikes at all, so they rush you (you just showed yourself to be the caster) and then you might never get a reactive strike against any of them for the rest of combat. Ignore what I said about walls in my post, I didn't see this answer. So ultimately we're in agreement, animist power has nothing to do with embodiment of battle - the real catch is Apparition's Quickening being infinitely better than other casters and liturgist level 9 ability being abusable - which is what everybody's been saying from the start. But as I mentioned earlier, you'll get much (much) (MUCH) more payback using other vessel spells instead. Embodiment of battle is meh and store time sucks big time, while you could confuse mooks every round (while being untouchable by them), or make opponents roll with disadvantage, or simply blow them to smithereens through earth's bile.
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.
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:
Sure, man, play however you like. Now can we go back to the topic at hand ?
You’re saying that one feat shouldn’t be « too good to be true » and shouldn’t double the damage of a bomb. I’m answering that it doesn’t work this way but it’s progressive. No feat doubles the damage. The bomber field adds 50% damage to your acid bomb. - provided you are a bomber. The sticky bomb feat adds 33%/50% damage to that - provided you spend a Vial. The expanded splash feat adds an extra 50%/33% to that - provided you expand the splash. If you really want a comparison, bleeding finish turns at level 9 a rapier attack dealing 6d6 + 2 damage (assuming 12 starting star) into 6d6+2+4d6 bleed, which is a much bigger increase than any of those feats, even with a single tick. And I find incredible that, when every guide rules one way, when foundry rules the same way, when other players tell you they rule this way, your reaction is to believe that everyone is wrong instead of thinking that maybe, just maybe, you’re the one who misinterpreted it.
(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.
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.
Well, no. Those numbers you gave include Embodiment of battle, so you're not one point behind full caster but a full three points behind - and behind the warpriest as well.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.
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.
Sign in to create or edit a product review. |
