So, I love magic. I love magic to the point that I am unlikely to play any exclusively-martial class besides the gunslinger. However, there are some of them that I just plain don't understand some things about, or why we have them. I'll try to cover as much as I can.
Which spellcasting casters can get familiars? I know that wizards and witches start with them, while sorcerers, magi and alchemists have methods of getting them, and the Summoner has his eidolon so this becomes an irrelevant question for him. But what about the divine casters? Can they get a little magic-assisting critter to help them?
What is even the point of the Bard? Their role as a buffer can easily be taken by almost any other spellcaster, and a lot of them can do it better. Why do we still have these, besides tradition?
I can never spell that right, it feels like it should be sorcerOr. But besides some of the bloodlines, and getting Eschew Materials for free, why pick this when the wizard can have as many spells as he damn well pleases?
I am completely confused as to the pros and cons of getting a bonded object vs getting a familiar. How does the familiar help you? The rules and Treantmonk's guide aren't exactly that clear on the matter, so I remain perplexed.
Again, why do we have this? It's like a divine bard, so she has the same problems.
Much like the sorc, I'm not sure what the benefits of the witch vs. the wizard are.
Huh, I could have sworn I had more questions than that. Oh well, you get the idea.
|
It might have been easier if you'd split questions across multiple topics, now you'll probably get everything mixed up. Anyway, let's see how far I get helping you.
1) Familiars for divine casters. There's at least one Druid archetype (Blight) that can get a familiar. And there's the Eldritch Heritage feat, which gets you a level 1 Sorcerer bloodline power; the Arcane bloodline gets a familiar. This is a way for any character, caster or not, to get a familiar.
2) Bards grant slightly different bonus types than many other casters, so the bonuses stack. And with the Lingering Performance feat, they become pretty efficient at it.
In addition, bards get a huge amount of skill points, so they can take the job of skill monkey and do it better than the Rogue.
Bards are the king of Knowledge skills, and those help you figure out how to kill/survive weird monsters.
The bard spell list has some funky stuff on it that's quite good.
Bards are decent warriors; they can wear some armor, get a good weapon selection and can actually cast arcane spells in armor. And they've got enough BAB to play the game.
Bards have awesome archetypes like the Dirge Bard that can cast mind-affecting stuff on undead, and the Archaeologist who's better at trap-handling than most rogues.
3) Sorcerers are probably weaker than wizards, but also a very different play style. They've got a few mechanical benefits, like functioning decently even if the GM steals all your gear; useful in the cliched escape-from-prison scenario. The bloodline thing can be a great RP thing. Also, sorcerers are less hassle for beginning players. Just because they share the wizard spell list doesn't mean they're the same class, they're quite different.
4) Bonded objects are useful for giving you flexibility and maybe an easily enchanted object without taking the relevant crafting feat. But if you lose the bonded object (Sunder...) you're in trouble because spellcasting just got really hard.
There's no penalty to losing your familiar, not anymore. And familiars can be useful;
- scouting; tiny creatures get big bonuses to Stealth
- some bonuses to stats, like a +4 to Initiative, nothing to sneeze at
- some (mostly Improved) familiars can hold a wand and use Use Magic Device to cast spells. This is a way for a wizard to do more in a single round, by delegating some stuff to a wand-wielding familiar
- advice; familiars share your skill ranks and if you can communicate, they can help you with a lot of skill checks
5) Inquisitors are a bit weird. Basically it's a "Dirty Harry" kind of cleric; an agent of a religion who seeks out and destroys enemies of his faith, and in the process he can bend the rules a bit and use unorthodox means. I'm not a big fan of the name, but the class itself seems to work quite well.
6) The witch spell list is subtly but importantly different from the wizard list. It's got healing on it and lots of nasty debuffs; but not so much blasting. It's got a lot of battlefield control on it. The highest-rated hexes tend to be debuffing and Slumber. Basically the witch works by making enemies miserable, softening them up for the other PCs or putting them to sleep so their throats can be slit.
The witch spell list is a bit more indirect, a bit more manipulative than the wizard list, which has more direct spells. This is just a tendency though.
Witches are good against solo enemies, because they've got a lot of short-range 1-target powers. Wizards can do the crowd management better. Witches are in trouble against critters immune to mind-affecting stuff; wizards less so.
---
On the whole, you seem to be asking "why is this class here when that class already does that same thing?"
Because not everyone wants to do stuff the same way.
Because these were all powerful concepts that deserved their own class.
One benefit of sorcerers (and other spontaneous casters), is that if a key spell gets countered or dispelled (or you fail the concentration check vs damage), you will generally always be able to try again next turn. A prepared caster, however, may have only prepared one or two of that particular spell.
Edit: This also applies to cases where you simply need multiple castings of a particular spell, but didn't know you would beforehand.
And there's the Eldritch Heritage feat, which gets you a level 1 Sorcerer bloodline power; the Arcane bloodline gets a familiar. This is a way for any character, caster or not, to get a familiar.
Hm... Now I'm curious as to how useful a familiar would be to a gunslinger.
On the subject of Sorc vs Wiz, how is the Oracle useful next to the Cleric? Leaving aside the Oracle's Curse.
|
|
I'm very impressed by the Oracle class. Clerics strike me as a lot of the same; few skill points so they'll mostly be putting those into the same old key skills; they know 90% the same spell list regardless of faith; meh.
Oracles have a curse, mystery (with revelations in varying sequence) and their own spell selection; LOTS of variety between oracles. An oracle of battle is very different from an oracle of life.
An oracle of battle is right there on the front lines with fighters; with good access to weapon feats, maneuvers, mobility. An oracle of life is better at healing than almost any cleric you can come up with. An oracle of nature is quite different again.
---
As for the gunslinger with familiar: I recommend the raven. It flies, it talks, and it shares your skills; take some Stealth and Perception (which you were going to do anyway) and you have an excellent scout.
Which spellcasting casters can get familiars? I know that wizards and witches start with them, while sorcerers, magi and alchemists have methods of getting them, and the Summoner has his eidolon so this becomes an irrelevant question for him. But what about the divine casters? Can they get a little magic-assisting critter to help them?
There are some domains that give familiars. You can also get the Arcane bloodline and receive a familiar by taking the Eldritch Heritage feat. The last one is good for any player.
What is even the point of the Bard? Their role as a buffer can easily be taken by almost any other spellcaster, and a lot of them can do it better. Why do we still have these, besides tradition?
Bards are jacks of all trades. Large number of skill points (skill monkey). They get Bardic Knowledge for knowledge checks. Lore Master and Jack of all trades only compounds on this.
Bards are 6th level casters that can wear armor, have medium BA, and a decent list of weapons they can use. Their spell list is great. Bards have great archetypes. And last but not least they have Bardic Performance... one of the best buffs in the game and unique to the class and one archtype for one other class. Few classes can be as good at buffing and still bring other things to the table. I dont care for them, but that doesn't meant they aren't very effective at what they do.... support others.
I can never spell that right, it feels like it should be sorcerOr. But besides some of the bloodlines, and getting Eschew Materials for free, why pick this when the wizard can have as many spells as he damn well pleases?
Well this is really a complex answer I will dumb down.
1. Sorcs are Iconic fantasy classes that alot of people enjoy.
2. You trade utility for being able to cast what you need when you need it. There is no wishing you had memorized two X spells instead of X and Y. You have at your disposal your entire known spell list. You trade in the ability to cast everything for the ability to cast a limited list whenever you want to. Its that simple.
3. They allow you to have a high CHA (charismatic) caster to RP with. For some, giving up a bit of power for the ability to play a hansom/pretty and suave character is a good trade off.
4. Some bloodlines give you abilities and RP that a wizard cant duplicate.
I am completely confused as to the pros and cons of getting a bonded object vs getting a familiar. How does the familiar help you? The rules and Treantmonk's guide aren't exactly that clear on the matter, so I remain perplexed.
1. There are several Iconic wizards that have their power tied to a specific item. Thats the main reason for this choice
2. A bonded object can be used once per day to cast any one spell that the wizard has in his spellbook and is capable of casting, even if the spell is not prepared. Thats pretty powerful.3. Familiars are just as powerful. You get a bonus to a skill or check. You get a free feat(Alertness). It has skill points and can use them for your benefit. Certain familiars can use wands and such. And again they are iconic to several wizards.
Ultimately there both solid. Its a choice the player needs to make based on what they want.
Again, why do we have this? It's like a divine bard, so she has the same problems.
Wow. They are not divine bards. They are beast. The Bane ability means they are great for damage. They have a decent to great spell list. They can be the out of combat healer and still deal damage. They have HUGE RP value based on what deity you choose. The judgements can really bring the pain. The only negative for them is they dont have a decent archer build/archtype.
Witch: Much like the sorc, I'm not sure what the benefits of the witch vs. the wizard are.
1. RP. So much flavor in this class. Just look at the Hexs. They alone should give you a reason to play them.
2. Speaking of Hexes... they never run out of things to do... even if they run out of spells.3. They have a unique spell list that gives you spells from the wizard and druid list. I personally like it.
4. Based on your Parton you can fulfill a lot of rolls.
5. Some of the most powerful and cool archtypes. Beast-bonded alone is so good it might be OP. You are basically immortal at 10th level as a Beast-bonded witch. Name another class that lives forever after level 10.
Inquisitors and bards are crazy good at stacking effects. A mid-level bard or inquisitor can easily match a fighter for attack accuracy. Combined that with their ability to buff the rest of the party with the same actions and do a host of other valuable things on an adventure makes them amazingly versatile classes.
Well, now I'm making a Tiefling witch of plague, and I must know.
What determines how many feats the familiar has? I'm really not sure.
The witch himself is somewhat deformed, and has two left... everything, actually. It's like the left half of his body is normal, but on the right everything's flipped. Hell, both of his eyes are on the left side.
He wears a mask and cloak, has a greensting scorpion familiar, and focuses on summoning and enemy disruption. His statistic details are here.
Familiars get only as many feats as is listed in their stat block. They gain "effective hit dice" which is useful only for determining whether they are effected by sleep spells and similar effects. They don't actually gain hit dice and thus don't actually gain more feats.
Inquisitors and bards are crazy good at stacking effects. A mid-level bard or inquisitor can easily match a fighter for attack accuracy. Combined that with their ability to buff the rest of the party with the same actions and do a host of other valuable things on an adventure makes them amazingly versatile classes.
Bard?
Are there any opinions on the witch himself?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The witch is an interesting class, but it's "advanced". Actually it's more advanced in the sense of requiring more GM skill than more player skill. Player difficulty is comparable to a wizard. But the GM has to learn how to GM with a PC with a lot more SoD ability.
I'm not saying the class is OP. I don't think it is. But it requires the GM to learn new tricks, because if the GM doesn't adapt, then the witch will do bad stuff to your campaign. *cackle*
That said, the class itself? I like the flavour. Subtle magic focusing on weather, disease, conditions, mental states, vermin, curses; not like the fireball-chucking wizard. Witch magic is a bit edgier. It's also an interesting blend between arcane and divine magic, straddling the lines. A witch can heal or harm.
Are there any opinions on the witch himself?
The witch is a good debuff class. It is also decent at healing, and it has a few wizard spells. Some GM's dont like it, mostly due to the sleep and evil eye hexes. It is definitely not weak, but you do have to be careful because it does not have the defensive spells the sorcerer and wizard have.
Hey, it's this thread.
So... I've figured out that I prefer being a combat caster. I like a mage that can actually fight (alchemist and paladin), or direct something to fight. (druid and summoner)
Which brings me back to the bard; am I correct in assuming that the bard is exclusively a buffing and roleplaying class? If so, that just plain isn't my playstyle. I don't feel like I'm contributing if I don't at least do damage to something, and from what I can tell, the bard just can't do that.
The bard can do decent damage. The question is how much damage do you want to be able to do. If you just want to do enough to be a threat you can do it with a bard, but if you want damage dealing to be your main thing, then the bard is not the way to go.
Are "self-buffers" actually worth it though?
I mean, considering combat only lasts 3-5 rounds on average (a number set pulled out of thin air and personal experience) by the time you're done buffing yourself to "combat-ready" levels, isn't the fight already half-done or more?
Wouldn't you be much more valuable to the group by buffing the classes that jump right in, or using that cast to hinder the enemy from round 1 on?
(Thinking Combat Bards/Clerics mostly - Inquisitors and Paladins can usually get away with one buff and be fine, if even that much.)
I mean, if this were a game where Smiting Paladins, FE Rangers, Raging Barbs, etc didn't exist, and killing a foe actually took more than one or two turns, then I could see such characters working. But this isn't that game, and these "one-shot" classes exist all over the place. :\
Some self-buffs can be cast before combat. Some can be cast as swift actions. Some can be cast on the first round of combat where you're not actually in a position to get to the enemy so you move in closer and cast a spell on yourself and wait for them to attack you, after which you can full attack them.
Are "self-buffers" actually worth it though?
I mean, considering combat only lasts 3-5 rounds on average (a number set pulled out of thin air and personal experience) by the time you're done buffing yourself to "combat-ready" levels, isn't the fight already half-done or more?
Wouldn't you be much more valuable to the group by buffing the classes that jump right in, or using that cast to hinder the enemy from round 1 on?
(Thinking Combat Bards/Clerics mostly - Inquisitors and Paladins can usually get away with one buff and be fine, if even that much.)I mean, if this were a game where Smiting Paladins, FE Rangers, Raging Barbs, etc didn't exist, and killing a foe actually took more than one or two turns, then I could see such characters working. But this isn't that game, and these "one-shot" classes exist all over the place. :\
Crowd and battlefield control, along with buffs coming from your casters, coupled with the first turn being "free" thanks to the aforementioned control factors should have you combat ready. Most of the time, unless it's the BBEG you don't need all of the buffs.