Strill's page

255 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 255 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Gorbacz wrote:

In Pathfinder, it would take several direct hits from a longbow to get you down, in real life one would suffice.

There goes the comparison.

One arrow is more than enough to take down your average peasant.


"Beast" in PF2e covers monsters that used to be in the "Magical Beast" category from 3e. So yeah, plenty of them should be able to talk or use tools, if they care to do so, and their anatomy allows it.


Squiggit wrote:

It's basically a really mediocre backup option for characters who don't have a way to fight at ranged normally. Which is a relevant niche to consider. If you're a greatsword barbarian or fighter or whatever it can be pretty expensive to get a decent ranged attack otherwise.

I agree it doesn't make you go "Wow that's a cool power!" but that's the way it goes.

I would've just made it "X times a day on your turn, you can give a melee strike a reach of 30, and it deals fire damage instead of its normal type"


Divine Magic focuses on spells that enable you to solve problems, but don't solve problems on their own. It can provide for necessities, release restraints, clear curses, and heal wounds, or blind your enemies, but you have to be the one to go out and kill the monster, not the magic.

The few spells that do solve your problems for you, tend to also be weaker than similar spells from other lists, like how Flame Strike has a much smaller radius than Fireball, has a higher level requirement, and does less damage than an equivalent-level fireball.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
You substitute the material; as in full on replace the old stats with the ones of the Precious Material. So we found rules for that.

You still haven't explained how to account for the fact that Specific magic shields often have higher stats than their corresponding precious material shield. We therefore don't know what to do with those bonus stats. Do they add onto the stats for the new material? Do you ignore them? There's nothing to tell you one way or another.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Puna'chong wrote:

I don't think that Erastil having wealth as a domain is that difficult to imagine, honestly. He's a god who supports hardworking, salt of the earth folks. Their wealth is a plentiful harvest and fertile land, full pantries, abundant game to hunt, rivers that never run dry, children to carry things over to the next generation, etc. He represents the cornucopia, horn of plenty.

Erastil's about old-school practical wealth; he'd probably view gold as inherently worthless because you can't eat it, you can't plant it, you can't hunt with it. It might be given worth, and is certainly supported by Abadar, but Erastil looks to a more holistic type of plenty. wealth doesn't have to be emperors in gold-trimmed robes. Nor is Erastil a god of primitives. Even in a world like Golarion the vast majority of a given landmass will be farms and rural villages, not cities.

It's a pretty prevalent religious archetype throughout human history, really.

You just proved why the Wealth Domain is wrong for Erastil. The Wealth domain's spells are not about prosperity, they're about coins and money.


Asgetrion wrote:
Puna'chong wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:


I'm going to start a new campaign, and I was going to suggest (to a certain player) that a Warpriest of Gorum or Iomedae might be a solid choice for them. After taking a look at the class I realized Warpriest is a terrible Doctrine for, well, followers of most deities, but especially those who are more zealous and warlike (which is contradictory to what this class is supposed to do). I guess we'll go with a "simple" choice, i.e. a Cloistered Cleric of Sarenrae or Torag.

I've seen some posters around here have a great time with Warpriests, and in particular I think MaxAstro(?)is playing in a group with a Warpriest of Gorum who seems to be doing pretty well. What doesn't match up for a Warpriest of Gorum or Iomedae in your view? From what I can see they seem like perfectly viable mechanically and flavor-wise for a zealous or war-like god.

It's because the main things the Warpriest gets from the First Doctrine are the Shield Block reaction and bump to the weapon damage die, but only if the deity's favored weapon is simple. If your deity's favored weapon is martial you don't get the bump, and it's even worse if it's a two-handed weapon (because you are not wielding a shield). Gods & Magic implies most followers want to wield their deity's favored weapon, even suggesting lay followers tend to do so as well, so a Warpriest of Gorum or Iomedae wielding a simple weapon + shield might be frowned upon by their brethren.

You're looking at it wrong. A simple weapon that's been bumped up a die step is still a bit worse than a martial weapon. Deadly Simplicity is just there to make otherwise useless deity favored weapons not objectively bad.


Talonhawke wrote:
So every monster that has an innate spell with a material component now needs to have that pouch no matter how odd it is or implausible it might be for them to have one?

Of course. Greater Nightmares keep the material components for their innate spells in their pockets. If you part their mane, you'll find a zipper. Open that up, and you'll find a set of trinkets each originating from one of the major planes, which they use as a material component for Plane Shift. You'll also find a bunch of candy, but that's beside the point.


graystone wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
HammerJack wrote:
Without specific components, casting a spell would have no traits like manipulate or concentrate (normally derived from somatic/material and verbal components). As a result you could easily cast spells without risk of provoking reactions, while raging, etc.

That would also be correct.

You're basically asking how Fey cast glamour on themselves. They just do. They don't have to think about it, speak aloud, or gesture. (It still takes the listed number of actions, usually 2)

I disagree: innate spells still use the Cast a Spell action and nothing tells you to ignore the components of the spell in the innate spell section themselves. As presented, the only thing innate means is a different way to get the spells[access the spells] but nothing about the actual spell differs from the same spell cast from a spell slot.

Do you have any quote that innate spells ignore components Draco18s?

I think he's going by the fact that each spellcasting class explicitly grants you the ability to satisfy spell component requirements, while innate spells do not. Since you cannot supply the spell's components, but still can cast the spell, the only consistent reading is that the spell must not have component requirements.


FedoraFerret wrote:
Strill wrote:
You only have enough skill increases to max out 3 skills. Are you assuming that everyone is just gonna max out Craft? Spending one skill feat to bring a lore skill to legendary is a much, much, much smaller cost than investing your skill ranks to bring Craft to legendary.
No, I'm assuming that boosting the rank of a lore skill is highly situational and subjective. If you have a lot of downtime, sure, you're increasing the likelihood of a critical success which is more money in your pocket. That puts it in the same category as Legendary Professional and Legendary Performer, which are also two star because it's campaign dependent. Or, as Castilliano said, there's plenty of situations where Sailing Lore or Mountain Lore or [City] Lore would be really helpful, but those are all, again, campaign dependent, and honestly I would consider something along the lines of Untrained Improvisation or another "level to untrained" feat a more generally valuable use of your feats, because that's a lot of Lores you can roll at a decent bonus instead of just the one at a...

So you don't value Additional Lore because you assume there won't be any downtime opportunities? Where is this assumption coming from?


FedoraFerret wrote:
Strill wrote:
You're underestimating Additional Lore. For a skill feat, it can make a huge impact on your ability to generate money, and it's great flavorwise too. Did you miss the part where the lore skill's proficiency advances automatically?
I did not. I don't consider spending a feat on a bump to your Earn Income checks worth more than two stars, particularly not when Crafting is a more broadly useful skill for investment and will do the same.

You only have enough skill increases to max out 3 skills. Are you assuming that everyone is just gonna max out Craft? Spending one skill feat to bring a lore skill to legendary is a much, much, much smaller cost than investing your skill ranks to bring Craft to legendary.


I noticed a strong combo with Aggressive Block + Flinging Shove. If there's an opponent within 10 feet of a precipice, you intentionally provoke an attack of opportunity from them, then when they hit you, you shield block, and Aggressive Block, to automatically succeed at pushing them over the edge. Because they just used their reaction, they won't have a reaction free to grab the ledge, and will fall all the way down.

However, this hinges on you being hit. Is there any way to ensure that your opponent lands their hit? Can you choose to drop your guard and take a hit?


You forgot that Lunging Stance stacks with reach, for a potential 15ft attack of opportunity range. (higher if you get Enlarge cast on yourself).


You're underestimating Additional Lore. For a skill feat, it can make a huge impact on your ability to generate money, and it's great flavorwise too. Did you miss the part where the lore skill's proficiency advances automatically?

Also, you're seriously underrating Battle Medicine. Did you miss the part where it's a 1-action heal that you can use on yourself, in combat, even with your hands full? It's basically a mini version of Untwisting Iron Buffer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
Is there are reason you went with human instead of elf for bows? Instead of using your human ancestry feat for 1/2 weapon training, you could instead use your elven ancestry feat to get Elven Weapon Familiarity for shortbows (and more) from level 1. It also gives you access to Elven Weapon Elegance at 5. Not to mention elves get their ancestry bonuses to Int and Dex natively.

Nope, just the first thing I thought of. You're right, Elf does work better.


Squiggit wrote:

Bidi is half right. Hunted Shot is two actions whenever you're targeting a new enemy (and then one action until the target is out of the fight), since you need to Hunt before you can use it.

Does your chart, Strill, take into account Hunting at all, or do you just assume pre-fight Hunting for whatever enemy they're facing?

It does not include hunting, stances, or drawing weapons.


SuperBidi wrote:
Strill wrote:
The key feature of this build is the Ranger dedication + Hunted Shot.

Lol?

Hunted Shot is 2 actions, so it doesn't cumulate with a 2-action spell.
Make the same chart with just one shot, and it's what you can get out of your Wizard. Which shouldn't be that bad, but a bit more in line.

You're thinking of Double Shot. Hunted Shot is one action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

People have been complaining about caster weapon attacks being too weak to bother with, and I think that's an idea that constrains your thinking if you don't challenge it. Sure, casters aren't as synergistic with weapons as other classes, but that doesn't mean they don't make a difference.

I've had my eye on Hunted Shot as a good 3rd action for caster Gishes, so I decided to spec out a Bow Wizard build, and see how it comes out overall versus a Bow Fighter. tl;dr, it comes out very well.

The key feature of this build is the Ranger dedication + Hunted Shot. The game plan is cast a saving-throw spell such as Electric Arc for two actions, and throw out a Hunted Shot on the strongest enemy with your third action in order to maximize action economy.

The Bow Wizard gets shortbow proficiency from taking the Weapon Proficiency Feat twice. Once from Versatile Heritage, and then again from the General Training Human ancestry feat. Later at level 12 he'll retrain in order to take a Fighter Dedication and get Diverse Weapon Expert for Expert proficiency.

For comparison, I also mapped out the DPR of a Multishot Fighter, who goes down the Double Shot->Triple Shot->Multishot Stance feat line.

Assumptions:
* Bow Wizard starts out with 18 INT and 16 DEX, and raises both at every opportunity.
* Bow Wizard is aiming for a +3 Greater Striking, Flaming, Corrosive, Frost shortbow. He obtains each rune as soon as he reaches its level.
* Bow Fighter is aiming for the same runes, but he wants a longbow.
* Both characters are targeting equal-level enemies of median AC, and targeting the Median save. This means the Wizard will perform better than shown here if they target a weak save. Monster stats used.
* Persistent damage hits for 1 round
* Non-damaging critical effects are ignored
* Enemies are not flat-footed.

Here's the damage you can expect at-will
Here's the damage you can expect, using your strongest blast spells

-------------------------------------------------

In terms of at-will damage, the Fighter and Wizard are neck-and-neck most levels if you count the damage to both Electric Arc targets. Against just one target though, the Wizard definitely falls behind.

If the Wizard decides to use a max-level blast though, they can easily exceed the Fighter in single-target damage, at least for that round.

Now of course, if you wanted to be using only weapon attacks, that's just not going to be very effective. I think one possible compromise within the current system, in order for casters to feel more weapon themed without upending how everything is structured, is to add weapon-themed saving-throw cantrips. I'd imagine something like a cantrip version of Weapon Storm, where the spell's damage is based on your weapon's damage. This lets you incorporate your weapon into your fighting style, without it feeling like you're just a wannabe Fighter.

Personally, I think the build overall looks pretty viable. It's a shame that there are next to no spells that augment a bow-user offensively. The only ones I can see are Magic Weapon, Bless, Heroism, and Haste.

--------------------------------------------------

Human Wizard 4

Str 10
Dex 16
Con 12
Int 18
Wis 12
Cha 10

General Feats: (Weapon Proficiency) x2
Ancestry feats: General Training
Class feats: Ranger Dedication, Hunted Shot
Arcane Thesis: Spell Blending

Armor: Explorer's Clothing

Weapons: +1 Striking Shortbow

Cantrips: Electric Arc, Chill Touch


Unicore wrote:
plus concealment allows you to spend 1 action to gain the hidden condition, which is a lot more powerful than raise shield.

Not necessarily. If your opponent has a 40% chance to hit you, Raise Shield will lower their chance to hit to 30%. Concealment, on the other hand, would lower it to only 32%.


Martialmasters wrote:
Strill wrote:
Ruzza wrote:

You said

Strill wrote:
Martialmasters is the only one who's saying that gishes are harmful to the game.

And the OP has been clear and has repeated several times that this thread isn't an argument about what a gish is, but is looking for builds.

Edit: Martialmasters has even said that you're not at all representing what he is saying.

And I've been pointing out that his own points contradict themselves. He says Gishes can't nova, and never perform above martial baseline, even when buffed, and then gives an example of all the nova and buff spells he uses, like Haste, Blur, and fireball.

If I'm misrepresenting him, then it's only because he's misrepresenting me.

First you complain about 2e not supporting his gishes because they don't support your idea of gishes. Burning spells to Nova and surpass martial limitations in bursts.

When did I ever say that 2e doesn't support gishes? Are you confusing me with someone else? Zapp was arguing that, but I criticized him, because I can't see what a system that supports gishes could possibly look like under his standards.

2E absolutely does support gishes.

Quote:

I disagreed that this in itself is a Gish but merely a way to build one.

You then take a left turn out of some misreading I assume and then state I said 2e doesn't have gishes.

Now your saying... Yet again... something different. I... Yet again. Never said a Gish cannot do these things.

Just that doing those things is not the requirement to be a Gish itself.

Honestly you are all over the place to the point where it's hard to follow. Slow down and make sure you didn't misread here jumping to your next ... misread

You said this earlier. What did you mean by it? From what I see, you're saying it's wrong for casters to be able to match or exceed a martial through self-buffs.

"i think there is a base issue between you and I on how the game can be enjoyed.

I asked to post your best gish

not break the game

not exceed what martial characters can do innately by self augmenting with caster multiclass"


Ruzza wrote:

You said

Strill wrote:
Martialmasters is the only one who's saying that gishes are harmful to the game.

And the OP has been clear and has repeated several times that this thread isn't an argument about what a gish is, but is looking for builds.

Edit: Martialmasters has even said that you're not at all representing what he is saying.

And I've been pointing out that his own points contradict themselves. He says Gishes can't nova, and never perform above martial baseline, even when buffed, and then gives an example of all the nova and buff spells he uses, like Haste, Blur, and fireball.

If I'm misrepresenting him, then it's only because he's misrepresenting me.


Squiggit wrote:
Strill, what are you trying to gain by intentionally misconstruing the OP's position? You know that's not what they said, I just don't get why you think this helps you or makes the thread better.

I said that gishes, by casting spells, achieve a level of performance which exceeds martials, for however long their spells last. The OP repeatedly disagreed with me on that point, so I have to assume he believes that that statement is false. If you think that's misconstruing his position, then I don't know what to tell you.


Martialmasters wrote:

This reply of yours is telling.

Because at no point did I ever say worse.

Ok, you said that a gish should not exceed a pure martial through self-augmenting. That means they either perform as good, or worse, when self-augmenting, and conversely that they perform that much worse worse when not self-augmenting. I'll take it from what you've said here, that you think a gish who self-augments should perform exactly as well as a pure martial.

Quote:

I took utility and buff spells. Things like haste. Mirror image. True strike. Etc.

I can fob+electric Arc for maximum conservation when I don't want to move.

Dirge of doom+true strike+fob

Can buff other characters

Etc

No it doesn't Nova like 1e. Rather it is a self sufficient martial base with already good action economy with multiple buff and utilities options that can help yourself or the group.

So you are able to cast haste, mirror image, and true strike, but somehow your baseline level of performance is so poor, that even with all these spells, you still perform exactly as effectively as a pure martial? In other words, the two martial feats you gave up would have been so impactful, that they're worth all the benefits of those spells? I don't see how that's even possible.


Lawful Neutral is Judge Dredd.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nicholas storm wrote:

After looking at different builds I sort of came to the conclusion - that an effective melee based on a mage doesn't really exist in this game. At max level, a caster will be at best -5 to hit vs a fighter. Stack on that you are -4HP per level, it makes being in melee dangerous.

One could say that with heroism, he would be -2 to hit vs a fighter, but really why should you waste casting it on yourself when casting it on the fighter has so much more effect.

The only spells that close the gap are transformation spells - they can get a caster close to a fighter, but then you can't cast spells while transformed.

that's not to say you can't get a useful character, just that in all probability you are better off casting than attacking.

Why are you comparing casters to fighters, when getting +2 to hit is the fighter's special exclusive ability? Does that mean that Barbarians and Rogues and Rangers and Monks are all crap because they're at -2 to hit vs a fighter?

I just don't understand what you're expecting. If there are powerful buff spells in the game, you'll say they're better off used on the fighter, so you can't use them on yourself. If there aren't powerful buff spells, you'll say that all the gish spells were removed. What situation could there possibly be that would satisfy you? One where casters have special caster-only buff spells? Oh wait, that's literally what transformation spells are for. What are you looking for?


Temperans wrote:
Yes but they are saying to make 1 action electric arc an attack cantrip, which means needing to roll to hit. Which also means creatures have to chance to avoid electric arc damage.

There are plenty of spells with the Attack trait, which do not require attack rolls, and some without the Attack trait, which do require attack rolls.


Gloom wrote:
Strill wrote:
Ruzza wrote:
Hey, man, Martialmasters has made it abundantly clear that they were looking for gish builds from people, not a crusade against it. If you feel that strongly that gishes are somehow harmful to the game, go make a thread instead of attacking the OP's.
Martialmasters is the only one who's saying that gishes are harmful to the game.

You're saying, or at least it reads that way to me that a gish that doesn't surpass what a melee is capable of on their own through the use of spells is useless..

I happen to disagree with that pretty heavily and I'm sure Martialmasters does as well.

Gish is a play style ... not a min-maxing exercise.

I love the fact that adding spells to a martial character allows you additional versatility and potential large bits of damage when enemies are clustered for a well placed AoE spell.

You're contradicting yourself all over the place. First you say that gishes shouldn't expect to surpass martials, then you give an example of a gish surpassing a martial by using AoE, and say that's good.


Martialmasters wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Strill wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
My problem with this suggestion is that it kind of 'solves' action economy too much.
I agreed with your broader point as well, but I think this is key concept. Pushing for 100% balance everywhere, "solving" issues as it were, actually doesn't lead to interesting game. The small imbalances and assymetries are perfect foundations to build other mechanics upon, since the preceding "weakness" helps moderate the new mechanic from being too powerful. If everything was tightly locked down in balance, there would be less freedom to expand and innovate.
What weakness? If cantrips were 1-action flourish moves, I'd take them on every martial, because a 1-action Electric Arc beats the crap out of any other 3rd action I can think of.
How so? Your still at minus 10 since they are not agile.
electric arc doesn't use MAP because the enemy must save, so if it were 1 action, you can attack twice and force a save out of 2 opponents.

if used as a flourish it gains the attack trait

/fix?

MAP doesn't effect your Save DC, so it at the very least needs special wording to how it effects your DC.
if it gains the attack trait it is subject to map no? so suddenly youd need to roll to hit and do the reflex save

Yes, it's subject to MAP, but MAP only affects attack rolls. It has no effect on saving throws.


Ruzza wrote:
Hey, man, Martialmasters has made it abundantly clear that they were looking for gish builds from people, not a crusade against it. If you feel that strongly that gishes are somehow harmful to the game, go make a thread instead of attacking the OP's.

Martialmasters is the only one who's saying that gishes are harmful to the game.


Bandw2 wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:

I brought this up in a previous thread, but I've seen it creeping into discussions both on here as well as on the Facebook Group for PF2. Basically, DPR as a metric for character effectiveness often leads to people misevaluating the effectiveness of their character because they're used to how things worked in PF1.

To bring up a concrete example, this came up in the context of "building the best barbarian", where someone stated that they'd go Giant Instinct, because it did the most damage/had the highest DPR. But let's take a closer look:

well, here's the issue with offense versus defensive builds.

offensive builds will get attacked less, because enemies will die sooner. defensive builds will get attacked more because it'll take longer to end the fight. (not even going into enemy's potentially ignoring you to attack squishier targets)

one of my player's is a giant instinct barbarian (it's his first time playing TTRPGs he just liked having a big sword) and the rage damage moves his attacks into territory where he can 1-shot potentials level+2 enemies currently, because he almost did just that, and only needed to roll higher on his damage to have done it.

instead he rolled low and got crit himself and so had to retreat. with animal instinct he'd still have been crit (natural 20) but would have had no chance of ever 1-shotting that particular enemy and saving his HP. it only had 3 hp left, and so was cleaned up with a cantrip from the cleric in the group.

Alpha strike is a very important thing to keep in mind in all forms of combat, because it, in general gives your enemy's less chance to roll the dice against you.

with a build that relies on high AC, you're less likely to take a hit, but the maximum overall damage you can take in combat is higher than a purely offensive build, even if the average is possibly lower(that the offensive build).

That's true in a 1v1 fight, but not true in group fights.

In a group fight, you can have one character specialize in defense, at a small cost to the group's damage. If the party can then control the enemies' movement enough to keep them engaged with the party tank, you dramatically improve party survivability at a small cost to party damage.


Martialmasters wrote:
Zapp wrote:

The idea of "Caster gish" might sounds neat, but doesn't work in practice - if you have serious spells you will not want to do martial combat much less enter melee. Specifically, each round you wish to hit things with a weapon carries the considerable opportunity cost of not casting a spell.

...

i think there is a base issue between you and I on how the game can be enjoyed.

I asked to post your best gish

not break the game

not exceed what martial characters can do innately by self augmenting with caster multiclass

nor to enter a debate on what we believe a gish is (wich is for me, not in direct agreement with your feelings on the matter)

plus i agree with an above poster, monk/ranger seem to be at this moment the best gish characters right now, barbarian is always difficult to make work, and fighters now having those press abilities and 2 action abilities just makes it clunky. currently working on a way of the mountain yodeling bard multiclass.

You're suggesting that buffs should cause you to perform worse than how a martial performs all the time? And that's your idea of a Gish? Why would you ever bother with buffs at all if you can't even briefly exceed a martial's baseline performance? The whole point of spell slots is that they let you nova. You dump a bunch of them on an encounter to make it easier, but you have to be careful that you won't run out of slots for the next encounter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:

And because you can't cast spells all day long, your magic-augmented fighting power must exceed that of an optimized "plain" fighter. Quite considerably, I might add. (The idea, of course, is to choose short bursts of ahead-of-curve power and then... end the day, avoiding the drawback).

But I don't see any way to use magic in this way in Pathfinder 2. The game is far too locked down for that. What you would want to see are spells that increase your melee attack bonus, your melee damage and your armor class. Above and beyond what the base class chassi gives you!

Decisive, game-changing spells such as Shield, granting you a whopping +5 AC bonus for one round, that form the basis of Eldritch Knights in 5th Edition. Maybe Offensive Prescience for old psychic warriors. (It's been too long since...

What's stopping you from buffing up as a caster? You have spells like Bless, Heroism, Fire Shield, or Enlarge for damage. What about Barkskin, Stoneskin, Blur, Blink, and Resist Energy for defense? And of course you can't pretend that Haste doesn't boost your damage. Why does it have to be +Atk and +AC that are all that matters?

I think you're underestimating the buffs that are already in the game. I personally think it's telling that Enlarge At-will costs Barbarians a class feat, and is restricted to one Instinct, but you can easily get a use of it with just a 2nd-level spell.


Martialmasters wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Strill wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
My problem with this suggestion is that it kind of 'solves' action economy too much.
I agreed with your broader point as well, but I think this is key concept. Pushing for 100% balance everywhere, "solving" issues as it were, actually doesn't lead to interesting game. The small imbalances and assymetries are perfect foundations to build other mechanics upon, since the preceding "weakness" helps moderate the new mechanic from being too powerful. If everything was tightly locked down in balance, there would be less freedom to expand and innovate.
What weakness? If cantrips were 1-action flourish moves, I'd take them on every martial, because a 1-action Electric Arc beats the crap out of any other 3rd action I can think of.
How so? Your still at minus 10 since they are not agile.
electric arc doesn't use MAP because the enemy must save, so if it were 1 action, you can attack twice and force a save out of 2 opponents.

if used as a flourish it gains the attack trait

/fix?

No, because MAP is irrelevant to Electric Arc. You just use it as your last action, and bypass the attack penalty.


Ruzza wrote:
At the OP's request, I'm not going to continue this derail. I disagree with your premise that gishes require the character to get an exchange of more power and that fighter feats provide more power than spellcasting.

Fighter feats aren't stronger than spellcasting. Fighter feats are stronger than caster feats.


Ruzza wrote:
Strill wrote:
Ruzza wrote:
But a gish can do what a martial can do. They're less limited by design. To say that a martial can use abilities all day doesn't stop a gish from using those same abilities all day, they just get that AND spellcasting.
If they're a gish, then they're sacrificing a bunch of class feats that they could be using on other things. Yes, they can technically do martial things and spellcasting, but they're missing out on a ton of martial stuff.
But in this edition you're gaining combat options as a martial, not combat power. Trading out options for options isn't degrading your power in any way. It's still a gish.

That's not true. Caster feats generally provide combat options, but martial feats absolutely do provide combat power. They give you more actions per turn. They give you passive perks that apply to the things you're already doing. They give you activities that give more actions than they cost. All of these raise your power. Just look at the Fighter.

Extra actions:
* Combat Reflexes
* Quick Shield Block
* Paragon's Guard
* Stance Savant

Passive Bonuses with no action cost:
* Aggressive Block / Flinging Shove
* Reflexive Shield
* Agile Grace
* Fearsome Brute

Improved action efficiency:
* Sudden Charge
* Quick Reversal
* Two-Weapon Flurry
* Whirlwind Strike
* Spring Attack

The first two categories don't cost you any additional actions, so they're just raw power. The third category are mutually exclusive with other options, but still give you more actions than they cost, so they give you raw power as long as you don't plan to use some other option.


Ruzza wrote:
But a gish can do what a martial can do. They're less limited by design. To say that a martial can use abilities all day doesn't stop a gish from using those same abilities all day, they just get that AND spellcasting.

If they're a gish, then they're sacrificing a bunch of class feats that they could be using on other things. Yes, they can technically do martial things and spellcasting, but they're missing out on a ton of martial stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
Strill wrote:
Of course it needs to be a power gain. If you go gish, your abilities are limited to spell slots. If you go straight fighter, your abilities are unlimited. That limitation should offer greater peak power in exchange.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. A fighter doesn't have unlimited abilities as compared to a gish. They can't fly, hurl fireballs, or haste themselves. Adding in a spellcasting counterpart confers to them those abilities that, like all spellcasters, have spell slots. You're adding versatility without increasing overall power.

Though it could, and should, be argued that more versatility is a form of power.

I mean limited in terms of how many times they can use it. A Fighter's abilities can be used all day. Spells cannot. If you're getting your abilities from spells, they should be more powerful than similar at-will abilities to compensate for the fact that they cost spell slots.


Bombs are weapons, so yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Zapp wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
That's not what gish is. Gish is, essentially, a Fighter/Arcane Caster with a focus on martial fighting augmented by magic. 3.5 Duskblade and PF1 Magus are prime examples of gishes.

Isn't that EXACTLY what I said??

Quote:
It has nothing to do with "getting ahead of power curve", it's about being an efficient blend of a martial warrior and arcane caster.

a) why would you ever study arcane magics if you wouldn't get better results than a "plain" fighter? All I'm saying here is: previous editions gave magic-users "more" than non-magic users. There was a reason the plain fighter was considered among the least powerful/flexible characters. "Gishing out" was a popular method of escaping that. None of those expectations hold up in PF2.

b) if you roleplay that your gish is a less physical character (putting valuable points that could go into Str/Dex/Con into Intelligence instead), what do you gain for that? If all your magics do is put you back where you started, that is, not "ahead" on the power curve, all you have is a less physically powerful character who "only" complicates things by having to cast magics to match his "plain" fighter friends.

In short: there was a reason (besides "its fun") for gishes. Not sure there is now. Meaning if the game is so well balanced that all your complicated build shenanigans only allow you to retain the power level of a "plain" fighter, then all you've accomplished is a more complex path to the same result.

You might come from a previous edition of Pathfinder or Dungeons & Dragons and expect greater power in exchange for a more intricate and complex build, and...

... you would be well advised to adjust those expectations, is all I'm sayin'...

I think you are the only person who is coming in with this perception that gish needs to be a power gain. Everyone else seems to be happy with fun, viable and different.

In terms of what you do gain, versatility. Yeah your raw numbers aren't going to be better, but...

Of course it needs to be a power gain. If you go gish, your abilities are limited to spell slots. If you go straight fighter, your abilities are unlimited. That limitation should offer greater peak power in exchange.


Draco18s wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Not sure I understand the comparison that was done here... Sorcerer single target heal with angelic halo is better than cleric single target heal with Healing Hands.

The Sorcerer is expending a spell slot to do it. The Cleric isn't. The cleric is using their class feature free bonus extra on top of their spell slots double-plus-ultra Divine Font.

The Math.

The 2 HP per target doesn't make up for the 1+CHA free casts.

DOn't play semantic games. The cleric gets that in exchange for -1 spell slot per spell level.


Deriven Firelion wrote:
Narxiso wrote:
Well, you do know that focusing on intelligence on a bard also leaves other stats lower. Going for intelligence on a bard comes with a steeper opportunity cost than for a wizard. While it’s not impossible (and far more forgiving than most other systems) to have intelligence on a bard, that does leave a defensive stat lower. It’s impossible to be great at everything. Did you know that?

It does not come at a deeper opportunity cost. Not sure why you believe this.

You get four stats get +2 to +1...2/3rds of your stats. Do the math. No you don't have to be lacking. I am lvl 10. At lvl 10 I have raised Int, Con, Wis, Cha. I don't need dex because unless you're armor focused, it's best to just raise Con. I mostly stay out of battle.

Seriously? Is this all just one big elaborate joke? You're trying to lecture people that AC isn't important and can be ignored, because you just don't get into combat? We already told you that if the rest of your party can beat encounters without you, then your encounters are clearly way too easy. This just takes the cake though.


Lanathar wrote:
So in that case eschew materials might have some use?

Nope. It still requires a free hand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
That qualifies as a gish I would imagine? It gets higher level slots than the old magus and is much easier to play throughout and adventuring career than the old eldritch night

That's not true. Multiclass spell slots are great at level 12+, but you hardly get any from levels 1-11.


Quandary wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
My problem with this suggestion is that it kind of 'solves' action economy too much.
I agreed with your broader point as well, but I think this is key concept. Pushing for 100% balance everywhere, "solving" issues as it were, actually doesn't lead to interesting game. The small imbalances and assymetries are perfect foundations to build other mechanics upon, since the preceding "weakness" helps moderate the new mechanic from being too powerful. If everything was tightly locked down in balance, there would be less freedom to expand and innovate.

What weakness? If cantrips were 1-action flourish moves, I'd take them on every martial, because a 1-action Electric Arc beats the crap out of any other 3rd action I can think of.


Martialmasters wrote:

I fail to see that as an issue since triple attack is the best answer when you don't have to move. As for the Gish thing. I have the to witness a convincing Gish in 2e but I should have a thread in regards to that specifically.

I expect if we get any real gishes they will be out of the box type of things with their own mechanics to enforce the playstyle.

Since when is triple attack the best answer? What about demoralize, or raising a shield, using Battle Medicine, or or using many of the two-action martial feats? What about using a magic item, or commanding an animal companion, or sustaining a spell?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The human feat Haughty Obstinancy provides benefits against coercion, but player characters are already immune to coercion.


Can't you get use out of Bond Conservation by preparing long-duration buff spells, and using it to pre-buff before fights?


Lanathar wrote:

Well in my case i fully expect to be GMing so I have not been looking at every class option in detail

But I am not the one providing extensive criticism either. But perhaps I shouldn't be trying to defend it either without doing all the reading...

Is there a way of getting a second thesis?
Because I notice a lot of people saying Wizards are not good as they don't have extra things and they are not proposing a solution

A second thesis seems like a potential step. Indeed the comments completely ignore the thesis at all times (or discount it as not valuable)

That spell blending sounds very very useful at higher levels. And switching spells also seems great. I am not versed enough on improved familiars to judge.

I guess there is a question about whether those abilities are as strong as compositions and the like. But I reiterate that I don't think I have seen wizard complaint discussions acknowledge them at all. They don't mention arcane bond either. It the issue that these arguably don't scale?

Arcane Bond does scale. With the level 8 feat Bond Conservation, when you use Arcane Bond, you can use it again for free on the following action, but the next spell has to be at least 2 levels lower. You can chain this together to get oodles of bonus spell uses.

For example, if you cast a 9th-level spell, you can use Bond Conservation to cast a 7th-level spell again for free on the following turn, and then use it again to cast a 5th-level spell on the turn after that, and then a 3rd-level spell, and then a 1st-level spell.

If you're a Universalist Wizard, you get one use of Arcane Bond for every spell slot level, and each of those arcane bond uses can be used with the above technique, meaning you can do this over and over again to get huge piles of extra spell casts, all on top of the ordinary spell spell slots you already had. With this build you get way, way, way more spell uses than any other caster.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

You do understand that you get +2 to four stats every five levels? It is very easy to make a bard with high intelligence. It's not like PF1 where the wizard is clearly the most intelligent. He may be slightly more intelligent based on the bard focus.

I used intelligence as one of my better stats. I have an 18 intel compared to the wizard having a 20 at lvl 10 which we just hit. I have all the skills a wizard would have. I'm Craft focused, so am master in crafting.

And the bard starts with Performance and Occultisms plus 4 skills and intel modifier skills compared to the wizard having Arcana with 2 plus intel skills. A bard with a 14 intelligence starts with eight skills while wizard with an 18 intelligence starts with seven.

It's not easy at all to take INT as a Bard. If you took INT, it means that you didn't raise Charisoma, or one of the saving throw attributes.

Quote:
There's nothing other than spell versatility that the wizard is better at. Spell versatility used to be great when spells scaled by level, but with the new magic paradigm spell versatility isn't near as valuable considering only your highest level spell slots are useful due to things like the Incapacitate trait, the limits on summoned creatures, and the way you Heighten Spells.

Did you know that Wizards can sacrifice lower level spells to get more of those higher-level spells that you think are so all-important? Probably not if you wrote that paragraph.

C'mon man. If you know so little about the class as to write something like that, why are you here lecturing us like you're an expert?


Squiggit wrote:
Sorcerers are hit and miss based on their bloodline, because some of them give you reliable new actions and some of them... don't. Though even then comparing Tempest Surge and Elemental Toss feels pretty bad.

What do you mean? Tempest Surge does damage and a debuff for two actions, while Elemental Toss deals damage for one action. Why is one more or less reliable than the other?

1 to 50 of 255 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>