John R.'s page

I believe The Raven Black is referring to how the Martial Artist archetype no longer contains the following:

"Whenever you gain a class feature that grants you expert or greater proficiency in certain weapons, you also gain that proficiency rank in all unarmed attacks."

Therefore, you can no longer have a constantly crazy high attack bonus while polymorphed with untamed form, such as if you were a fighter multiclassed into druid followed by Martial Artist.

John R. wrote:

From my end, it looks like you need to adjust some spacing or something on pages 6 and 10. A whole half or full page starts on the far right edge but is severely cut off.

That's a running issue with the Homebrewery; depending on your browser size and resolution it can cause text to go over the readable columns. I've asked the developers about this, and the workaround is so clunky and manual as to not really be feasible unfortunately.

Yup, just switched from phone to PC and it reads fine now. Will look it over.

From my end, it looks like you need to adjust some spacing or something on pages 6 and 10. A whole half or full page starts on the far right edge but is severely cut off.

I thought they maybe didn't want it to overshadow SF2's launch but...not even an announcement on the title...yeah, very confusing and almost concerning.

Keeping a continually open wound such that you lose even as little as a drop of blood per second will have you lose over 2 liters in half a day, which is usually the amount considered to be fatal. It’s the same principle as when you’re told to fix leaks in your pipes and faucets even if it seems like a slow drip: it adds up, and quicker than you think.

So I think your point here is that, unless the sorcerer has some means of magically extracting a drop of blood without breaking skin, the sorcerer is going to either need to create an open wound significant enough that it won't heal without intervention to regularly supply blood OR they will end up riddled with hundreds of pin pricks over the course of a day which in themselves will likely lead to infection or maybe exhaust the body through forcing it to actively heal multiple small injuries (not sure if that's really a thing). Yeah, I can see that.

What's weird is that in the playtest the Animist had Sustaining Dance, a 2nd-level class feat that let you Step or Leap and Sustain in one action. Although the effect was already considered very strong back then, it was still a lot less prone to abuse than Dancing Invocation, and had the benefit of being available to Animists of any practice. An assortment of different feats that let you Sustain a vessel spell at the same time as some small action, like Recalling Knowledge or even Demoralizing, could definitely help Animists get their action economy in a way that could cater to a variety of flavors and builds.

Yeah...it's almost like they went in the completely wrong direction with it...other than making it a 9th level ability...

I think the other practices just need another minor action to ride on sustaining as well. Recall knowledge or seek for seer, strike for medium and command familiar for shaman all seem fine to me.

I see, access means you’d have to pick when you make your character what apparitions are even in your potential pool of apparitions.

Yes.

That makes option 1 really bad and makes it almost impossible for them to use feats that burn apparitions throughout the day. It also removes the class narrative of the Animist being the class that can come to the river and reach out to commune with the spirits of the river because it is there, and then reach out to commune with other spirits as they encounter them in the world.

The only one that would be able to play that way is locked in to one primary apparition all the time and that doesn’t really make sense.

Again, this is a hastily thought up idea for an overhaul that would require a lot more work to flesh out properly, both mechanically and narratively. It's not like I'm throwing out ideas and expecting them to be top-selling 3rd party material.

You know your whole spell list with no effort nor cost

That's something I've taken for granted that is a big deal, especially when mixed in with all the signature spontaneous spells animists get. It seems minor but I think it's a subtle but major strength of the class.

John R. IIRC gave examples a while back of practices that would let you choose a larger number of permanent apparitions versus a smaller number of daily apparitions, which would allow fans of either type of model to be happy. Alternatively, rather than offer more fixed apparitions, practices could offer some equally powerful benefit as an alternative to daily apparitions, such as a version of Dancing Invocation at level 1 or something equally build-defining.

Yeah, it was in another thread and I also threw out the idea during playtest (perhaps further fleshed out). The only issue with that is it would add a lot more complexity to the class's entirety and I'm not sure if simplifying other aspects would still overcome that added complexity to generate a net positive in favor of simplification. It'd make it simpler to play AFTER building a character but it'd be a nightmare for some looking to build one for the first time.

Here's that last post about it:

Another idea I had that I suggested during playtest was having the subclass dictate different allowances in the number of accessible apparitions, limit of attunable apparitions, primary apparitions and ease of swapping primaries and/or attuned apparitions. It'd be way more complex but allow for possibly the most diverse class.

For example:

Practice 1 - access to 10 apparitions, can attune to 2 max, stuck with 1 primary each day and can't swap primary

Practice 2 - access to 6 apparitions, can attune to 3 max, 1 primary, able to swap primary during refocus

Practice 3 - access to 4 apparitions, can attune to all 4, attuned apparitions are always primary

I'm sure there could be 1 or 2 other variations but yeah...I thought it was a cool idea but probably broken on what's acceptable for complexity.

Aside from the flexibility, I like the animist because it adds a ton of flavor to divine spellcasting which I find to be very bland. The cleric and oracle are definitely effective but they don't have the flair I get from arcane and animist adds that.

in practice, that power doesn't necessarily translate to enjoyment so much as annoyance.

"With great power comes great responsibility." - Some Buzzkill

To me, it falls into the pattern that I see generally in the Animist. You do competetive things in your role as a mostly divine caster as you should, and you have a solid chassis, but if you branch out into other roles like martial or crafter/skill monkey, you never reach the overall effectiveness of a specialist of another class in that role.

Yeah, this is where I'm at but where I can sympathize with Teridax as well. Animist doesn't have the raw power of a specialist but can also copy their gimmicks which I think is what Teridax is after.

For example, yes, at level 1, an animist can pull off 2 reactive strikes....but they have to spend 3 actions prepping to do so (embodiment of battle, Circle of Spirits, store time).

So it's kinda like:
"Look what I can do guys!"
"Pfft...yeah, I can do that too...just gimme a minute...almost there...*pop* There we go! (Not so special now are we?)"

I think it really just depends on the group or player on if copying a gimmick is OK if it's balanced out with extra action cost (which liturgist then often violates).

John R. wrote:

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.

I'm talking mostly through spells. Your spells can accomplish the goals of a lot of basic skill actions if not more.

It wouldn't make sense to compare the thaumaturge and the animist with each other since they're totally different. Like you said, the animist is a full caster. It is only fair that the thaumaturge is leagues better than the animist at melee (and it is), and only fair that the animist is leagues better than the thaumaturge at casting (and it is). The only time I compared them was when you said the animist could be played as a melee (and it cannot).

Unless I misunderstood the point of the whole thread, it was more about comparing thaumaturges to other melee and animists to other casters. I do believe that a Thaumaturge casts a bigger shade over other melees than an animist does over other casters.

Yes, I really think you need to reread the OP.

The point of the thread was comparing both classes in how they compete with all other classes and roles. They each do so in different ways. The argument is dynamic versatility is stronger than static versatility.

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.

Yeah, I think people are forgetting the major point of this thread. Thaumaturges have build diversity. Animists don't because they can innately do everything at least OK, if not well. One argument may be valid for why the thaumaturge may cover one base but in doing so, you've tied that character down with a build choice. Animist doesn't suffer such limitations. It doesn't have to remain tied to 1 or 2 or 6 apparitions permenantly. It can select any of the 13 of them each day.

- 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.

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.

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.

Their key attribute is Charisma, putting them between a -1 and a -2 in Strike accuracy relative to other martial classes. This also makes them inherently MAD, since in addition to the usual trifecta of Dex/Con/Wis they also depend on Charisma for their important checks, while still depending on Strength for strong melee attacks.

Oh yeah (duh!). Though, I do think they can function perfectly fine with a fairly low charisma. But yeah, being behind on your attack stat is definitely a weakness especially since they don't have much for special attack actions to make up for that. They pretty much just get extra flat damage in return.

Yeah, comparing something like embodiment of battle (a caster getting better martial stats) to Cursed Effigy and scrolls (a martial getting better caster stats) would seem even but the thaumatruge innately suffers from being -1 behind on their primary function. Then animist can get Cardinal Guardians on top of it all...yeah, I can see animist as unbalanced in comparison.

the Thaumaturge has clear weaknesses in their own chassis relative to other martials that the Animist simply does not have compared to the average caster.

Other than having 8 hp/level, what weaknesses does the thaumaturge have compared to the typical martial?

I really think it should provide more skill ups to show intelligence and learning rather than just more trained skills.

I would actually LOVE this.

Nothing feels as dumb as when you get a +1 to INT at lvl 20 and get TRAINED in a skill you haven't been using your entire career.

Plus, even a low INT rogue would still be ahead, overall, on skill increases and they still have the advantage of more skill feats.

AND this would actually define the investigator as THE skill monkey of the system.

We have like... the 3rd INT martial in Runesmith for instance and I'm 90% sure it's because it's crafting related and not really power budgeting related..

More than that...

Alchemist
Commander
Inventor
Investigator
Magus (if counted as martial)
Mastermind Rogue

John R. wrote:

So what happens if you gain proficiency with anything greater than simple weapons? Are you still limited to simple weapons? I'd almost say it'd have to be because free repeatable sure strike sounds stronger than what we now have.

Correct, it would still be limited to simple weapons and unarmed attacks, so that it wouldn't go off the rails with martial weapon proficiency.

I don't know how to feel about this. It's good but I'm the kind of person who likes to get hits in with a big meaty martial weapon. Maybe treat such a weapon when using this variation of embodiment of battle as a simple weapon appropriate to its type...sorta how improvised weapons work. That way it stays balanced but someone who normally wields a martial weapon doesn't have to swap between two types of weapons.

Animst needs a rework to make more practices viable and vessel spells not cost costly in actions for any practice other than a Liturgist at level 18. They really need a free vessel spell sustain for all the practices at higher level.

Agreed. The class could maybe use a few nerfs elsewhere if it is indeed unbalanced but the liturgist is such a glaring problem.

Shaman could get free sustain when commanding their familiar.

Medium could maybe get a free sustain when they sustain their locked-in apparition's spell. That might be too strong but it'd make the Witness/Echo combo and the medium itself way more viable.

Seer....I'm not sure. It's so limited as is, I'd almost just give it a free unconditional sustain but then that'd be too strong....maybe a free seek or Recall Knowledge when you sustain. It's the only thing I can think of that might fit thematically.

My take away from all of this: I love being a filthy casual and enjoying all the stuff other people say sucks.

Please try to exemplify the cases where the class is overshadowing others.

I'm not arguing whether or not it does. I'm just raising the discussion as it blends in with the topic of another class that also covers multiple roles.

However, the class does broadly cover the roles of other classes such as:

- Martial combat, commonly using a combination of embodiment of battle and Grudge Strike

- Utility in exploration and downtime by utilizing spells from both Crafter in the Vault and Imposter in Hidden Places to replicate common thief tropes.

- Variety of caster roles. As a divine caster and with a few other options, the animist is more than a competent healer, especially when opting into medicine as a wisdom-based class. They also have a huge variety of blasting and control spells. I've also seen many druid players state that darkened forest form is arguably a better untamed form

The only role they don't really excel at (at least not in an obvious way) is defending or tanking but they do have some tools at their disposal for such activities.

Apologies, I forgot to specify in my OP that when I was talking about balance, I was referring to what Teridax's main concern was, class role balance. I was expecting the focus to be more about a class's capacity to overshadow other classes and what qualifies as acceptable or not. Raw power balance is also fair game I suppose in how it can play into that, especially concerning how action economy is in the system.

Speaking of, action economy is actually a good point when comparing back to PF1. From what I remember, in PF1, you usually just had 1 standard action you could pull off per turn; putting it very simplistically, you either cast a spell or made a attack. By default, you couldn't attack with a weapon and cast a spell. You could usually get a single move action in there as well though. Now, in PF2, you can make a strike and cast a spell in a single turn if you sacrifice your ability to move. Unfortunately, the reality of the system's action economy is much more complex, especially with the animist so I don't think it's practical for me to delve much further into that without rambling into oblivion.

I played a Thaumaturge and ultimately found that the “fun”…wasn’t. Sure, you can get pretty creative with just how you flavor your offense schtick with the nigh-endless pockets of just-what-will-work, but ultimately it was the same thing over and over.

Ever since the animist playtest was released, I've felt the same way. Animist has all but killed thaumaturge for me. With thaumaturge, I loved being a martial that could dabble effectively in a lot of magic while still being a perfectly capable martial. With animist, I can be a full spellcaster and still land strikes just about as well as a thaumaturge and hitting with a strong 2-hander with Grudge Strike, my strike damage is on par (assuming only 1 strike per turn). Then, if you equate apparitions with implements, it's no longer any contest - animist wins out for having access to 100% of their options at all times.

As for the Animist, I have no experience of it, but weirdly it does have some strange overlap with 1e Occultists, particularly the Haunt Collector archetype. I’ve seen one of these *absolutely* make almost an entire party vestigial, covering scouting, traps, combat (with attendant spirit companions) and more. Personally I’ve never really been one for being upset at classes “stepping on other classes’ toes” but when one character is literally stomping on errybody’s feetsies it is kinda rough.

Ha! Haunt collector is a perfect reference for this topic. Pretty much occultist with medium archetype. Also, one of the few ways to compensate for the glaring annoyance that was the useless conjuration resonant power.

Coincidentally, the occultist that I converted to an animist was a psychodermist that was originally built to also get around that conjuration implement annoyance. Theoretically giving a class like the occultist access to every spell in the game (limited to 6th level - but actual summon spells included) plus monster abilities was probably about as good as you could get before getting into full caster territory in that system. The medium could have done the same but they just didn't have the resources and couldn't really be a "strong" martial and spellcaster at once with how their spirit mechanic worked....except maybe a spirit dancer. I went through SO many PF2 iterations until animist existed. Mechanically, now I just manifest the powers of slain monsters through my apparitions instead of implements and I mix in druid and wild mimic archetypes to further replicate monster abilities.

Apologies if this post is comes off as completely unfocused.

Some background: Teridax brought up an interesting topic in another thread that I was already had interest in but previously thought it was a bit specific or pointless to ever start a thread about. So I'm starting the thread since there is at least a 2nd person up for the discussion and I didn't want to derail the other thread further. Also, let’s keep any discussion about balance with purely base rules in mind – no variant rules like free archetype or dual classing involved.

To start with, to initiate a better conversation than what I would have with nothing more than an extravagant observation, here is what Teridax’s stated in the original thread:

I think the Thaumaturge is a good point of comparison, because the class is also all about emulating the niches of other classes, except I think the Thaumaturge does this successfully by a) getting close but not quite in crucial ways, b) having fixed implements, meaning they can't rebuild themselves from the ground up each day, and c) having something that is truly unique to themselves while paying an appropriate price for it (namely, Exploit Vulnerability and not having a physical key attribute). If we were to apply this model to the Animist (and still perhaps applied a few tactical nerfs), I think that would justify a framework where the Animist could choose between more but fixed apparitions (which could each let you emulate the better part of another class's niche), or fewer apparitions that you could swap out every day.

Now for my extravagant observation:

The animist and thaumaturge are the PF2 versions of the PF1 medium and occultist, respectively (just pretend the animist isn't also the new shaman). This is significant because not only did I find the occultist and the medium two sides of the same coin, I also find the animist and thaumaturge to also be two sides of the same coin for the same reasons....except they're both almost completely different from their PF1 counterparts.

The "coin" I'm referring to is versatility and the sides are "static versatility" and "dynmatic versatility". What I mean by this is both classes are pinnacles in versatility for their ability to cover many, if not all roles, but they approach this in different ways. The occultist and thaumaturge are capable of being built in a large variety of ways and could almost replicate nearly any other class to some extent. On the other hand, mediums and animists (DEFINITELY animists) are more lacking in build variety but get around this by being able to swap their role focus on a day-to-day (maybe even round-to-round) basis. The occultist and thaumaturge are static. The medium and animist are dynamic. Keep in mind that the reason prepared spellcasters were considered more powerful than spontaneous in PF1 was because they were able to swap around their spells each day for whatever was best suited for a situation. For this reason, all other things being equal, dynamism is better than staticity.

So does this mean the medium was seen as better than the occultist?

In PF1, the more access you had to spellcasting, the stronger you were, generally. The medium was originally mostly a martial with a bit of casting like the ranger or paladin with the option of stretching a bit deeper into spellcasting if they wanted. The occultist on the other hand had such a deep reserve of spells and spell-like abilities that it pushed them about as far toward casting as possible without it being a full caster. So, the medium might have had an edge with dynamism but the occultist blew past with raw power from their spellcasting. Funny thing is, now, the animist (the new medium) is a full spellcaster while the thaumaturge (the new occultist) is, by default, a martial class.

(Quick personal story related to topic: when recreating an occultist I made in PF1, I ended up most comfortable with turning that character into an animist. Meanwhile, when I tried to recreate the iconic medium, Erasmus, for PF2, I ended up happier with a thaumaturge with animist archetype build.)

Now to bring it altogether:

The medium, as a martial at its core, was never considered strong and actually pretty underwhelming compared to how it was advertised. This was more due to limitations of the system it existed in and the page space it required for its full potential - the playtest medium was 11 pages with 18 spirits, the final release was 8 pages with 6 spirits. Ultimately, it pretty much just barely surpassed full martials.

The occultist, as a gishy, 6th level caster was considered by many as perfectly balanced considering full casters dominated the system. However, a rare few players did think the occultist was, in fact, broken due to its ability to eventually cover every role well outside of going “god wizard mode” like full spellcasters could.

With PF2 having much better class balance, the thaumaturge, while popular (at least when it was new) has not been viewed as broken, as far as I am aware, by anyone. Beyond being a hard hitting martial, it can still cover a handful of the player's selection of roles well and can often come up with a solution to any problem given time with their scroll thaumaturgy but their form of spellcasting is lacking in quality and quantity compared to a full spellcaster. It's pretty much the PF1 occultist but trading in its static spellcasting power for spellcasting dynamism and a more martial leaning, similar to the medium, but inside a system where martials actually shine.

The animist, however, has been seen as overpowered by a fair number of people. It’s a fair assessment that I can understand but don’t exactly agree with, mostly because I trust the Pathfinder designers know what they are doing (I acknowledge, it the the appeal to authority fallacy). But it IS a full spellcaster with the chassis of a cleric or druid but with the ability to cover any role, ultimately a huge number or signature spontaneous spells picked from all traditions, strong feats and the ability to swap around all of this on a daily basis. It’s roughly the PF1 medium with the spellcasting of the PF1 occultist existing outside of a system with god wizards.

So with all that, what do you think? Do you believe the animist is balanced within the system it exists in? Or do you just think it’s interesting how these 4 classes relate to one another and how versatility relates to balance in PF2?

The Raven Black wrote:

Second, a book has to get the designers enthousiastic about it first. And I really believe designing a new class from scratch that will bring a new concept for players to love is much much more motivating for them than improving on an older design. Even moreso when it is someone else's older design.

... don't do stuff like this.

Don't go making arguments based on your hypothetical suppositions about the emotional states about a group of people you don't know. You could be right, you could be wrong. Neither of us know it, but trying to use it in to make a point is basically just lying. But, because these are real people after all, you're just being insulting to think that you are entitled to make claims on their collective emotional states.

The Raven Black used words such a "think", "maybe" and "believe". They did not state any speculation or opinion as fact.

Now, that is a topic I'd love to discuss but thought it might be a bit too specific to post. I'll start up a different thread later so we don't derail this one and the new one should get more visibility in the general threads.

In the future, however, I would also recommend that you change some of the ways you engage with others if you want to avoid coming across as confrontational or insincere: for starters, it is generally recommended to avoid asking people to repeat themselves, as it is likely to irritate them even if your request was done in good faith. If you want to initiate a conversation with someone on your own terms, a good way to do this is to take the first step, express yourself the way you want the conversation to proceed, and invite the person to do the same: this helps set an equal relationship in the conversation from the start, and avoids setting the expectation of having someone else carry the conversation for you at your request.

Yeah, I try to start off with a more casual tone when I can to avoid a stricter, matter-of-fact tone. It usually misses on specifics but I feel starting off blunt and literal prematurely can come off as abrasive. It seems I may have instead come off as sarcastic or disrespectful unintentionally.

I wasn't trying to have you repeat yourself entirely but I can see where you could feel that way now. I really just wanted additional points I felt you might have been passing up, but summarized in short bulletpoints to avoid you having to write a lot of extra. My quality of word usage varies depending on my mood or mental state and I admit I probably flubbed on that attempt.

I ultimately saw my request as a way to point out more areas where the animist might need nerfs but I won't push if you'd rather not engage the topic from that angle. I've honestly kinda lost interest in this thread as the OP hasn't participated further and I was just looking to help, as I personally find the class doesn't need nerfs.

TL;DR: I don't think your way of engaging with the topic of discussion is at all helpful and I'd much rather not be made to constantly repeat myself. I think that in order to have a more productive conversation, you will need to take the time to read what others have to say, rather than demand people metaphorically chew your food for you. If you have any questions or requests for clarification after you've read a little more on the topic, feel free to ask.

I'm sorry. I was just trying to elicit some feedback from you that was easier to engage with. With your previous comments from other threads I also thought this was a topic you might have more thoughts on and might want to elaborate more points without all the detail. I didn't mean to offend and was trying to avoid having this all develop a confrontational tone. I guess I failed but at least try to keep in mind that not everyone is trying to attack you. I know tone can be difficult to convey through text, especially in a community obsessed with a game based in cold, technical phrasing but I think most people here are trying to communicate in good faith.

If you've genuinely read or remembered this and are somehow still unclear, you may want to express where this confusion on your part stems from.

Not trying to offend but your comments are a lot and many (and a lot of your points exist on other posts) so I was just asking for a point-by-point breakdown/summary of your opinion on where you think the animist could use nerfs, both for OP who might not be familiar with your previous points and for myself as some brief notes to keep in mind.

Not sure if the rest of your comment is directed at me or just part of the conversation in general.

Add anathema for each apparition, requiring the player to roleplay around the apparitions they choose. If they violate an anathema, they either lose the apparition for the day or take a thematic penalty. Look at PF1 medium's taboo mechanic for reference/inspiration.

Paizo, until you bring back the shifter, every thread is going to evolve into "bring back the shifter".

I think optimizers just need to state that their intent is optimization instead of not saying so and starting with a tone implying that their case is a matter of fact for all parties. I hate when a functional build or even entire class in this system is considered "bad" without the context of "it's going to be left in the dust of a fully optimized party" and instead suggesting a build/class is just inherently bad by default when it isn't.

I really think you should open each similar post with a brief summary of your situation for context.

I'm not sure you can really expect an applicable answer when, I believe most groups don't use dual classing or exclusively play at level 12+.

Also, I'm with Blue_frog on optimization. Sure it might be fun to mow down an entire dungeon floor in under an hour but that's gotta get old playing the same classes over and over and experiencing little to no challenge.

With 40 years of experience, I would expect you to know how these games work and find it both unnecessary (due to experience) and inappropriate (due to your group playing in a highly atypical manner) to ask these questions without giving that context as a preface. You just come off as the opposite without that context. And yes, I think you should do so on every such post because not everyone is going to remember or even be aware of the first explanation.

Yeah, forgot about Double Shot and its -2 penalty. You got a good point there. If Ready triggers were more GM dependent, I would still say it's balanced but yeah....effectively gaining 2 feats for 1 (the "bonus" one being higher level) and avoiding all penalties does lean toward too good.

Honestly, bard with the commander archetype or vice versa might scratch your itch.

River carving mountain doesn’t have the once a round limit, so elf step would give you 2 steps, 2 strides with +10 Spd, and making a Lott of difficult terrain.

All vessel spells are limited to 1 casting/sustain per round:

"Because vessel spells are a manifestation of a specific apparition, an animist can't cast or Sustain a specific vessel spell in the same round they have already cast or Sustained it (for example, an animist who has cast earth's bile during their turn can't then cast or Sustain another instance of earth's bile during that same turn)."

Don't forget Sayre's second response, later quoted in that thread. It's key to confirming the intended meaning of his first statement.

Y'all might be missing this part further down.

This might add context

Another user said:

"Honestly it’s really good to know that the tumble in that is intended to be able to be used as just a stride since there’s been a lot of debate about that. Thank you for the clarification!"

To which he responded

"I mean, if you're not backflipping as you go you're literally doing it wrong, but we were very cognizant of how Tumble Through works."

I guess all roads lead back to the Kineticist

Yeah, I was starting to be reminded of how kineticists are built as well.

Would this be more reasonable?

Yeah, assuming any of this ever actually happened, I think I could live with that.

Sorry if my list contradicts or all of a sudden matches what you suggested. I just made some edits after I saw some flaws in my examples.

Another idea I had that I suggested during playtest was having the subclass dictate different allowances in the number of accessible apparitions, limit of attunable apparitions, primary apparitions and ease of swapping primaries and/or attuned apparitions. It'd be way more complex but allow for possibly the most diverse class.

For example:

Practice 1 - access to 10 apparitions, can attune to 2 max, stuck with 1 primary each day and can't swap primary

Practice 2 - access to 6 apparitions, can attune to 3 max, 1 primary, able to swap primary during refocus

Practice 3 - access to 4 apparitions, can attune to all 4, attuned apparitions are always primary

I'm sure there could be 1 or 2 other variations but yeah...I thought it was a cool idea but probably broken on what's acceptable for complexity.

Yeah, I need a class that enables my indecisiveness. I'd still prefer my suggestion of extra complexity on top of an already complex class for nerfs over something simpler and static for balance....but that's definitely a "me" problem. If they, for whatever reason, overhaul the class like the oracle in Teridax's direction, I'll stick to the legacy version kicking and screaming. Lol.

Or instead of "Tumble THROUGH" it could just be "Tumble".

You are in no way wrong if you use RAW or RAI at your table for this, and he and I are not wrong for saying "Not at my table." Every table is different, and rules should be adjusted for what makes the game fun for that table.

That's the problem though. No one has even implied that he is personally required to run it that way at his table and plenty of others have stated they also choose to not run it that way but he still resorts to inflammatory language, "despising" people and calling them "cheaters" for simply being allowed to follow the RAW and RAI rulings when he likely won't ever be playing with these people. I'd hate to see his reaction when changing groups in 5e.

The fact you need this much explanation to cheese this ability shows you know this isn't how it should work.

The explanation was for you. I already had a clear understanding of the difference between "can" and "must" or that the omission of the word "can" in the first place would have implied necessity of the movement through an enemy space....so sounds like the word was placed there intentionally...implying intent.