Contributor
|
I don't know which season you're talking about that has lots of DR adamantine showing up. and level's 1-5 the occultist isn't bypassing that yet either anyways. It's possible that I just haven't hit the right scenarios, but my experience has been as I've said. infrequent DR adamantine and no huge DR values earlyWait the season where Damage Reduction comes up every other scenario and in 1-5's is when you want to make that claim?
To me, DR adamantine hasn't shown up all that often. It on Golems and stoneskin and earth kineticists and I'm not sure what else reliably has DR adamntine. So yes you'll bypass it and I wont, but this comes into play maybe once in a character's career? And the bard can just buy an adamantine weapon (for some reason it's super popular in my local lodge cause a few people love adamantine and so even shardra like shamans have adamantine weapons)
"Every other scenario" is definitely an exaggeration, but I believe that there were a few enemies with the hardness special quality in Season 6. ^_^
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thomas, the you're making my point for me. The base Occultist is strong and this archetype does nothing but improve it. It trades absolutely nothing of note at level 1 for the equivalent of two additional spells known and two bonuses feats (via Extra Focus Power).
It's trading away AC and better weapons. Yes those don't matter much to a caster, this is the caster archetype afterall. It's like the fighter archetypes that trade away armor training for more offensive abilities. DUH it'll seem like a good deal to those wanting to build a damage character that doesn't care as much for defense. archetypes are supposed to move a class from being a generalist to more of a specialist at one aspect of the class. If the SS had to be a worse caster than the base to be a caster archetype I feel it'd have failed at it's job, not succeeded.
If you put any points in Charisma, you're also getting bonus Mental Focus. You'll get pretty sizeable bonuses to two other skills and eventually more spells per day when your base class was already offsetting some of your lack of spells per day. And you'll never have to choose between implements. Legitimately, why wouldn't you want to take this if you're not building an Occultist who fights?
For the ability to wear armor. But yes, this is a good archetype for a caster build. It's like saying, "Legitimately, why wouldn't you want to take Urban barbarian if you're building an Barbarian who fights via dex?" OR
"Legitimately, why wouldn't you want to take Arcane Duelist Bard if you're building a bard that fights more and skills less" OR"Legitimately, why wouldn't you want to take Scaled fist Monk if you're building an charismatic monk?"
The point OF a casting archetype IS TO BE chosen for a caster build.
If you have an archetype that is more penalizing that benificial for a build idea it's a bad archetype, like how most say that base fighter is a better archer than the archer archetype, that the ragechemist makes for a less survivable melee monster, etc.
The Battle Host, in contrast, trades away casting power for martial power by limiting implements known. Fewer spells known, access to fewer focus powers, in exchange for a few combat feats / thematic powers. There's no way to get that back. It's a strong archetype in that it makes the Occultist more narrow than the base, but better at one thing. This archetype does very little of that with only token head nods to removing weapon proficiency and armor proficiency. If we're going to say that health and BAB differences between an Silksworn and an Arcanist aren't a big deal, then I think we can both agree these "tradeoffs" a Silksworn makes aren't really that at all either. For this to make any sense, the Silksworn would have had to remove some implement options somehow -- maybe no resonant powers. But I don't blame them for not trying to do a campaign clarification to fix this archetype as published. You'd have to rewrite it. There's no one thing wrong with it -- it's just a straight upgrade.
For a caster no. If you make the silksworn a D6 half-bab archetype the class would play the same with a caster build, but that's also the point, the fact that those are higher still doesn't influence the class. It should be a pretty straight upgrade for a caster build. WHOLE POINT OF ARCHETYPES! What it does successfully do is make it harder to be a fighter with this archetype, you have to make considerable restrictions and choices to try and trade back the casting power you gained to be a good fighter again. Thus it's not a straight upgrade for the class. It's better at one aspect of the class at the downplay of other aspects.
Point of this archetype is to last all day via spells and powers like full casters. This successfully accomplishes that vision as an archetype.
basically all the things you're comparing it to an arcanist are able to be mimicked by the base class. Thus this archetype isn't changing it's relative power to those other classes. Yes it's a bit better at some stuff and worse than some stuff, more options, less armor, basically as you pointed out in your build, you had so many schools that you were just picking one to pick one. Getting 23 spells instead of 14 doesn't matter much when 14 successfully does the job, and 23 still does the job. Job is still done, all that was gained was having a slightly better back-up option.
|
|
"Every other scenario" is definitely an exaggeration, but I believe that there were a few enemies with the hardness special quality in Season 6. ^_^I don't know which season you're talking about that has lots of DR adamantine showing up. and level's 1-5 the occultist isn't bypassing that yet either anyways. It's possible that I just haven't hit the right scenarios, but my experience has been as I've said. infrequent DR adamantine and no huge DR values earlyWait the season where Damage Reduction comes up every other scenario and in 1-5's is when you want to make that claim?
To me, DR adamantine hasn't shown up all that often. It on Golems and stoneskin and earth kineticists and I'm not sure what else reliably has DR adamntine. So yes you'll bypass it and I wont, but this comes into play maybe once in a character's career? And the bard can just buy an adamantine weapon (for some reason it's super popular in my local lodge cause a few people love adamantine and so even shardra like shamans have adamantine weapons)
Bypassing Adamantine DR does nothing for hardness. Thus they'd both struggle against hardness unless they had actual adamantine weapons.
|
Contributor
|
Bypassing Adamantine DR does nothing for hardness. Thus they'd both struggle against hardness unless they had actual adamantine weapons."Every other scenario" is definitely an exaggeration, but I believe that there were a few enemies with the hardness special quality in Season 6. ^_^I don't know which season you're talking about that has lots of DR adamantine showing up. and level's 1-5 the occultist isn't bypassing that yet either anyways. It's possible that I just haven't hit the right scenarios, but my experience has been as I've said. infrequent DR adamantine and no huge DR values earlyWait the season where Damage Reduction comes up every other scenario and in 1-5's is when you want to make that claim?
To me, DR adamantine hasn't shown up all that often. It on Golems and stoneskin and earth kineticists and I'm not sure what else reliably has DR adamntine. So yes you'll bypass it and I wont, but this comes into play maybe once in a character's career? And the bard can just buy an adamantine weapon (for some reason it's super popular in my local lodge cause a few people love adamantine and so even shardra like shamans have adamantine weapons)
Also very true. It might have caused some confusion, though.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’d like to throw my hat in here as being another player with a Silksworn character concept that I was really excited about, who felt a little bit crushed when I found out they were illegal in PFS. Having gone through this thread, I’d like to humbly suggest the following be added to the archetype for its use in organized play:
“Physical Frailty
“A Silksworn gains 1 fewer hit point for every Occultist level they gain, and the bonus they gain to their Fortitude save is 2 lower than normal for an Occultist. If the Silksworn wears any armor or shield, they are unable to use any Occultist spells, spell-like abilities, or activated supernatural abilities for as long as they wear that item.”
Not sure that it would solve all of the balance issues noted in this thread, but IMO it would significantly reduce the archetype’s usefulness as a 1- or 2-level dip (one less hp/level, no immediate boost to Fort, only non-armored characters would be able to use the SLAs and spells), and would significantly reduce their capacity to be tweaked towards an armored gish or archer combatant, making it much more of a dedicated spellcasting archetype while also keeping the d6 casters from getting jealous.
I’m not a game designer, nor am I anything close to an experienced min-maxer or possessing full system-mastery, but… I really want to play this archetype. I’d take being more fragile, if that would solve whatever the dev's have an issue with.
(As an aside, big kudos to everyone in this thread for being so civil and constructive, and to Isabelle for making such a compelling archetype!)
|
|
Derp, forgot the other bit. You'd also need to include BigNorseWolf's suggested replacement for the 12th level power, "the occultist instead gains conceal spell as a feat without meeting the prerequisites."
(I've never played higher than 5-9 tier, so I defer to others' judgement on what's needed to balance higher levels of play.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Suggesting custom changes to classes for PFS pretty much never works. The intent was not to custom-change ATs for society. You're better off (if you really want the class) to explain how as-written it will work into the campaign.
Except via campaign clarifications they have brought in classes but altered them a bit to make them good for PFS. Making some powers usable less often or replacing stuff. And not just banned stuff like crafting. So the precedent is set that it's possible.
|
Suggesting custom changes to classes for PFS pretty much never works. The intent was not to custom-change ATs for society. You're better off (if you really want the class) to explain how as-written it will work into the campaign.
There are ten such instances of Archetype changes listed in the campaign clarifications, most of which are done because of other rules oddities in PFS, not to "nerf" the class to allow it into society play.
My original comment still stands.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And my response still stands! :D
classes have been altered to be made legal, that's all that is required to hope that this class could be altered to be made legal. Unless we get PFS leadership telling us that they wont alter a class in X manner to make it legal, they'll just alter it in Y manner to make it legal, we wont know if it's something they'll consider or not.
Many (me included) have been arguing that as is is fine. But in the off-chance that alterations ARE on the table they have been proposed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Saw this class just moment ago and as it was good (not overpowered) I knew it would be banned in society.
Terrible tendency to ban anything remotely good from new books meaning players will just keep playing what's old. They never ban options that are steamy piles of sh**.
|
Saw this class just moment ago and as it was good (not overpowered) I knew it would be banned in society.
Terrible tendency to ban anything remotely good from new books meaning players will just keep playing what's old. They never ban options that are steamy piles of sh**.
That's not entirely fair. As much as I disagree in this case, there are some valid archetypes that should be banned or rather.. not allowed.
Best example coming to mind.. the Brute Vigalante archetype.. cause .. well who wants the big bulky (low will save) guy to take a hit and pull on his purple pants and kill the party in a roid rage event?
WHo knows.. maybe they (the powers that be) might reconsider or have it as a boon. Trust me I really wish that was the case as I had a Ratfolk Silksworn already planned out with the AR got updated.. all the way to 12+
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Saw this class just moment ago and as it was good (not overpowered) I knew it would be banned in society.
Terrible tendency to ban anything remotely good from new books meaning players will just keep playing what's old. They never ban options that are steamy piles of sh**.
That's not entirely fair. As much as I disagree in this case, there are some valid archetypes that should be banned or rather.. not allowed.
Best example coming to mind.. the Brute Vigalante archetype.. cause .. well who wants the big bulky (low will save) guy to take a hit and pull on his purple pants and kill the party in a roid rage event?
WHo knows.. maybe they (the powers that be) might reconsider or have it as a boon. Trust me I really wish that was the case as I had a Ratfolk Silksworn already planned out with the AR got updated.. all the way to 12+
My favorite is the archetype that forces you to roll a d32. Im not sure what Paizo was thinking having an archetype that forces you roll that dice.
EDIT:Isn't the Brute a common ability? I want to say that there are quite a few archetypes that have the confusion/rage mechanic that are banned.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jumping into this one late. And it's a very long thread, so I didn't read the whole thing. I just looked at this archetype for the first time, and read the first page of comments here, and I disagree with the common opinion that this archetype isn't over-powered. Some of what I'm about to say may have already been said, but I'm not about to read over 200 posts at once.
Warning: Wall of text ahead.
First, let's state the obvious: The classes in Occult Adventures aren't particularly well balanced. Medium is flavorful and fun, but unfortunately under-powered. Occultist is very powerful and flexible. That's without archetypes.
But the occultist is mostly designed to be a martial class with magic boosts, like most 3/4 BAB classes. It's very easy to do a front line or archery focused occultist. Designing a build that focuses on anything other than weapon use is more difficult, but still possible. That's where the Silksworn archetype is great, obviously.
But before we talk about the archetype, I'll mention that I've actually done a casting focused occultist without that archetype. She has no weapons other than a cooking knife (dagger) that's only been used with profession: chef so far. She has no armor other than a wand of Mage Armor and a "fancy serving platter" (buckler) that she wears on her arm. This PC is a pure skill/casting build, with no martial ability at all.
We all know that 9 level casters are always superior to other casters, so how did I make a worthwhile caster build with only 6 level casting? Focus powers! Those are the extra magic that occultists get that makes up for having less spellcasting than full casters.
Obviously, at high levels, 9 level casters will always be superior to ANY other class. But at the low-mid levels where 99% of PFS play takes place, being a level or two behind on getting 2nd or 3rd level spells isn't a big deal, if you have enough other magic to make up for it.
At levels 1-5, a pure casting occultist has similar spell progression to a sorcerer, but with more focus powers to give you something to do when you don't have enough spells per day to keep casting constantly. At levels 6-11, your spellcasting will start to fall behind, but the focus powers get better, and you've got lots of flexibility. I'd say that through around level 8 or 9, the focus powers make up for the slightly weaker spellcasting enough that a pure casting, non-archetype occultist can keep up with a sorcerer or wizard for overall power. And that's most of the career of most Society PCs.
Now look at Silksworn compared to base occultist: More focus powers, because you get a base focus power with each implement, and two extra implements right from level 1. More resonant powers, because of the greater number of implements. More mental focus points, because of the cha bonus, so they'll be able to use those things more often and more effectively than a non-archetype occultist. And let's face it: Silksworns will dump str down to 7 and don't need dex, con, or wis above 12, so they can easily afford to put almost all of their 20 build points into int and cha.
In my opinion, a non-archetype caster occultist is probably better than most full 9 level casters from levels 1-5, starts to fall behind at levels 6-9, but is close enough to still be a decent PC, and then falls a little further behind at levels 10+, eventually reaching truly sub-par at probably 12-13+. Silksworn makes them significantly better at casting by giving more spells known, more focus powers, and more uses of focus powers right from level 1. They'll still fall behind in power level compared to a 9 level caster at 10+, but by then, their PFS career is just about over.
So really, the archetype is probably balanced overall, being slightly overpowered at low levels, and underpowered at high levels. But since almost all PFS play takes place at the levels where the archetype is overpowered, I can see why they were banned.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The counter to that is
Getting a few extra powers, while giving you flexibility power, isn't actually doing anything better than the original, your powers aren't stronger than other or whatnot.
So the archetype that trades away martial stuff (and all that flexibility) gets more caster flexibility.
Also that your 4 and 5th implements are less important than your 2nd and 3rd. If we assume that the most oftenly used powers (and implements) are grabbed first and that the less often powers (and implements) used are gained later, then gaining your 4 and 5th implements a little sooner isn't really increasing flexibility that much, since they are the options you'll be using the least.
So the real test should be, Is it better than the original at everything? Is it better at doing something than everything else, like is it better than any 9th caster at most it's roles?
So while being a better caster than the original and being not overshadowed by 9th level. Do you feel that they are clearly the best choice?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait... what?
Are you trying to tell me that getting a +2 con score and/or +1 to all saving throws at level 1 isn't a straight upgrade, because other occultists will eventually get that at later levels anyway? That doesn't make any sense at all. The Silksworn gets so many implement schools at level 1 that they're more likely to take transmutation and/or abjuration, which get those things as resonant powers, at an earlier level than other casting focused occultists.
And it's not just casting flexibility during combat. Remember, when an occultist takes an implement, every spell in that occultist implement school gets added to their spell list, so that opens up a whole lot of wands and scrolls that they wouldn't be able to use otherwise. That's a ton of buffs they could cast right before a fight, if you know it's coming. Or utility spells outside of combat. Other occultists would have to UMD those, which isn't reliable at low levels.
And since when is flexibility in the powers you could use NOT considered an upgrade? It may not be as big a straight up power boost as the +2 con score, but it's still an advantage. My own casting focused occultist without this archetype has the enchantment implement, which is useless when we go up against enemies without minds. Don't you think it would be useful for me to also have transmutation in those circumstances, so I could use the base focus power to buff an ally's weapon? Silksworn would have that extra implement, and the extra focus points necessary to use it, that I don't have.
And one thing that I didn't mention earlier is that occultists get 4+int skill ranks per level, with a larger list of class skills than any other int based casters. One that focuses on casting will have a very high int, making them among the best skill classes in the game, on top of all that casting.
Why would the test be whether it's better at everything than the original? This is an archetype that intentionally gives up all martial ability in order to make wizards and clerics jealous of its magical ability. It doesn't want to use weapons, so who cares that it's worse with weapons than other occultists?
At low levels, it succeeds at outclassing other casters. At high levels, the 9 level casters obviously pull away. But at the levels where 90% of PFS play takes place, it's a very good casting class, with this archetype arguably making it the absolute best pure caster in the game from levels 1-4.
I'm not saying it's so stupidly overpowered that it absolutely had to be banned in PFS. But it is definitely a power creep archetype, for casting focused occultists. That's enough that I can understand leaving it out.
|
|
So how is it outclassing every other caster at levels 1-4?
And how is it outclassing every other caster at levels 5-9?
like you say that they do but I'm not seeing your evidence for it.
if the implement is their 4th choice are they really going to be putting in lots of mental focus into it? Like if they are getting transmutation as their 4th choice school really having an extra 3 MF they want to throw into that? Like it seems the better choice would be to PT buy a slightly lower cha to have a higher con starting than to have a 12 con and pump int and CHA and then spend 3 mental focus to get con to 14.
Like you see all this potential, but don't actually look at a build for it to see that it's not going to be that much better. Sure it can use more wands, Wizards and witches can use lots of wands too, is the fact that the silksworn can somehow making it so much stronger that what people could already do? Does it having enough MF to cast an extra energy blast a day cause it to be too op?
|
|
As I mentioned a few pages ago, when I took an existing character of mine and just added the archetype, the amount of things I needed to change to make it function better overall was fairly minimal - a minor set of attribute changes, swapping out armor for Mage Armor, etc. This is saying a lot given that the character is an archer, which is relatively off-flavor for the archetype.
I'm happy to make a support Silksworn if it ever becomes legal as I think it's one of the few "true supports" I could see myself playing, but the reality is that it's still pretty good at the core competencies of the base class and can reasonably perform those duties as written.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So how is it outclassing every other caster at levels 1-4?
They get as many 1st level spells as a wizard or cleric. But they also get 6 different focus powers, usable 9 or 10 times per day, which are almost all improved versions of level 1 spells. And that's on top of the resonant powers, which are things that are other classes get.
So quick sample build off the top of my head - probably not the best possible, and I'm probably over min/maxing it just to make my point, but here it is.
Half-elf Silksworn Occultist
Str: 7 (-4)
Dex: 10 (0)
Con: 12 (2)
Int: 20 (17, +2 racial)
Wis: 10 (0)
Cha: 14 (5)
Favored class bonus: Always use the elf racial to add 1/2 point of mental focus.
Feats:
1: Extra Mental Focus
3+ Probably Extra Focus Power almost every time. Consider the occasional Spell Focus or Spell Penetration.
Notice I didn't even pick implements - it works with any of them, depending on what you want to focus on.
So think about that sample build at level 2: It'll have 5 1st level spells known, castable 4 times per day, along with 5 cantrips.
More importantly, it'll have 10 points of mental focus at level 2, which is enough to activate the resonant powers on probably 3 or 4 of your 5 implements, which is a lot of "always on" bonuses.
And you'll have 5 base focus powers, plus one focus power chosen at level 1. That's the equivalent of 10 extra castings per day of 6 different known "spells", most of which are actually improved versions of level 1 spells. Heck, the illusion base power is a level 2 spell (Minor Image). Don't you think a wizard or cleric would love to have the equivalent of 14 castings of level 1 spells (or better) per day at 2nd level?
And just as an added bonus, that build also gets 9 skill ranks per level, with plenty of class skills that go great with their good int and cha, to make them an awesome skill monkey.
I never said they outclassed other casters past level 4. But at low level, their focus powers and resonant powers are better than the class abilities of other pure casting classes, and this archetype gives them more variety and more uses per day of those. So when it comes to just using magic, they're amazing at it from levels 1-4. And not half bad even after that.
|
|
uhh full casters like wizards are known for having a slow start
saying something is better at lvl 1 is no news
That's part of my point, though. It's a pure caster without the slow start. That makes it a straight upgrade for playing a pure caster.
all this variety of focus powers you say this guy has? mostly just duplicates the extremely limited spell selection they have
a lot of them are also seriously less effective when the target is your HD or higher, basically every opponent that matters in PFS
I'll agree on the enchantment and necromancer powers, which are the weakest of the bunch. But the transmutation power is the equivalent of Magic Weapon (level 1 spell), except that it gets better later. The conjuration power is Summon Monster 1, but standard action to cast and lasts 10 rounds and upgrades later. Illusion is Minor Image, which is a level 2 spell.
And those are just the base focus powers. The non-base powers that you select have plenty of better options.
Jumping into this one late. And it's a very long thread, so I didn't read the whole thing. I just looked at this archetype for the first time, and read the first page of comments here, and I disagree with the common opinion that this archetype isn't over-powered. Some of what I'm about to say may have already been said, but I'm not about to read over 200 posts at once.
Warning: Wall of text ahead.
First, let's state the obvious: The classes in Occult Adventures aren't particularly well balanced. Medium is flavorful and fun, but unfortunately under-powered. Occultist is very powerful and flexible. That's without archetypes.
But the occultist is mostly designed to be a martial class with magic boosts, like most 3/4 BAB classes.
No the Occultist is not powerful in the slightest. It's flavorful but anything but powerful.
You are right in that it's primary focus is martial. Most 2/3rd casters need to focus on that as there spells slots and DC saves can't compete with a full caster (the Silksworn was a clear attempt to remedy that).
Now 2/3rd casters who go martial all have something that helps. Magus spellstrikes, Bard/Skald sings, Inquisitor Judgement and Bane, Warpriest swift action buffs, Hunter aspects itself and animal + feats, Investigator has that strike.
What everything there has in common is some ability to boost it's martial prowess as part of a full attack. The occultist does not have this, there ability is a standard action. This is serious limitation given it's extremely short duration, anyone who has played the game will understand how limiting that is.
The occultist classes are overall under powered to varying degrees.
Spiritualist is a poor mans unchained summoner/Hunter.
Kineticist is extremely limited because Paizo are afraid of giving anything good at early levels, the 3.5 warlock had fun and useful at will powers, short range teleports, fog cloud, and it was never even considered a strong class. Witch hexes put Kineticists to shame and there is only a handful of them.
Mesmerist should have had more spell slots similar to the Silksworn.
Medium is just broken, people wanted the 3.5 Binder. Word is that's what they where aiming for but needed to drop for book room.
Psychic is fine, a Sorcerer clone with a different casting mechanic essentially.
|
|
yeah, in the DPR the occultist can't compete without Bane, and that's a standard action that is usually only possible in combat due to duration.
And I'm not seeing how having multiple uses of spells/focus powers that I'd never want to cast is somehow broken for an occultist.
casting magic weapon in a fight, while doable with focus powers, is still a really crummy spell to cast in a fight that isn't against a ghost or something with DR magic, especially if the weapon is already masterwork, cause then you're hardly adding anything.
I feel the class is balanced because 1 the extra powers you get are weaker than your first, and 2, you only have so many actions so you're doing your best action. Thus the only benefit is maybe having a niche solution to a niche problem that the normal occultists wouldn't have.
arcane full casters have in class stuff to make their spells better at lv1. And the sorcerer version has lots of spells per day too, and with bloodline powers can have a ranged touch shot that does 1d6+1 damage, that's basically a spell, OMG sorcerer has 8 SLA and 5 lv1 spells so that's 13 spells at level 1, SOO OP!!
You've failed to show to me how this archetype has gone over the top of all the other casters.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Now 2/3rd casters who go martial all have something that helps. Magus spellstrikes, Bard/Skald sings, Inquisitor Judgement and Bane, Warpriest swift action buffs, Hunter aspects itself and animal + feats, Investigator has that strike.What everything there has in common is some ability to boost it's martial prowess as part of a full attack. The occultist does not have this, there ability is a standard action. This is serious limitation given it's extremely short duration, anyone who has played the game will understand how limiting that is.
Ahhhhh..... Since when did bog standard Bards and Skalds have the ability to buff themselves as anything but a standard for the vast majority of their PFS career.
EDIT:Also, I find your claim that the time frame is anything but limiting in a game where combat is usually finished in two or three rounds. Which yes is a problem with the ability but not the same one your claiming.
I feel the class is balanced because 1 the extra powers you get are weaker than your first, and 2, you only have so many actions so you're doing your best action. Thus the only benefit is maybe having a niche solution to a niche problem that the normal occultists wouldn't have.arcane full casters have in class stuff to make their spells better at lv1. And the sorcerer version has lots of spells per day too, and with bloodline powers can have a ranged touch shot that does 1d6+1 damage, that's basically a spell, OMG sorcerer has 8 SLA and 5 lv1 spells so that's 13 spells at level 1, SOO OP!!
You've failed to show to me how this archetype has gone over the top of all the other casters.
I don't think you should be overly concerned with what's balanced. You could argue that until the cows come home.
Sorcerers suck at early levels and an unchained summoner will make either class look like chumps.
As a pure caster the Silksworn will never amaze anyone beyond having really high bluff and diplomacy. It won't have high DC saves and all of the offensive implement abilities suck. But it would still be a fun class.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
I feel the class is balanced because 1 the extra powers you get are weaker than your first, and 2, you only have so many actions so you're doing your best action. Thus the only benefit is maybe having a niche solution to a niche problem that the normal occultists wouldn't have.arcane full casters have in class stuff to make their spells better at lv1. And the sorcerer version has lots of spells per day too, and with bloodline powers can have a ranged touch shot that does 1d6+1 damage, that's basically a spell, OMG sorcerer has 8 SLA and 5 lv1 spells so that's 13 spells at level 1, SOO OP!!
You've failed to show to me how this archetype has gone over the top of all the other casters.
I don't think you should be overly concerned with what's balanced. You could argue that until the cows come home.
Sorcerers suck at early levels and an unchained summoner will make either class look like chumps.
As a pure caster the Silksworn will never amaze anyone beyond having really high bluff and diplomacy. It won't have high DC saves and all of the offensive implement abilities suck. But it would still be a fun class.
Except Unchained Summoner is legitimately broken even after the fixes added to the class. Its not as broken as the game but you definitely shouldn't be able to do as much as you can with that class.
Now 2/3rd casters who go martial all have something that helps. Magus spellstrikes, Bard/Skald sings, Inquisitor Judgement and Bane, Warpriest swift action buffs, Hunter aspects itself and animal + feats, Investigator has that strike.What everything there has in common is some ability to boost it's martial prowess as part of a full attack. The occultist does not have this, there ability is a standard action. This is serious limitation given it's extremely short duration, anyone who has played the game will understand how limiting that is.
Ahhhhh..... Since when did bog standard Bards and Skalds have the ability to buff themselves as anything but a standard for the vast majority of their PFS career.
EDIT:
Also, I find your claim that the time frame is anything but limiting in a game where combat is usually finished in two or three rounds. Which yes is a problem with the ability but not the same one your claiming.
I thought someone would point that out but the balancing factor there is that they also affect the rest of the party at the same time so even if they can't get the benefit/full benefit in almost any party others will be taking advantage as well. Summons, animal companions, Edidolons, Druids and Monks get every party loves a Bard.
|
|
Now 2/3rd casters who go martial all have something that helps. Magus spellstrikes, Bard/Skald sings, Inquisitor Judgement and Bane, Warpriest swift action buffs, Hunter aspects itself and animal + feats, Investigator has that strike.What everything there has in common is some ability to boost it's martial prowess as part of a full attack. The occultist does not have this, there ability is a standard action. This is serious limitation given it's extremely short duration, anyone who has played the game will understand how limiting that is.
Ahhhhh..... Since when did bog standard Bards and Skalds have the ability to buff themselves as anything but a standard for the vast majority of their PFS career.
EDIT:
Also, I find your claim that the time frame is anything but limiting in a game where combat is usually finished in two or three rounds. Which yes is a problem with the ability but not the same one your claiming.
Bards and Skalds are doing party buffs, thus by helping themselves they are helping the party, thus their action is having immediate effect when any teammate attacks. Where as the occultist that bane's his weapon is only helping himself and can't see any benefit till often the next turn.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would an Occultist use bane on their own weapon, when the barbarian is standing right there?
Because the occultist has a 20 or 22 str, a greatsword, good armor and is planning to be up there with the barb.
The comment was that a martial focussed 3/4 bab class had attack boosters to help them do combat. That the occultist was primarily a martial character, and that the their steroid is their bane, and that without it they are lacking compared to other classes, but those other classes either do party wide buffs with their buffs, or get faster buffs.
|
|
Why would an Occultist use bane on their own weapon, when the barbarian is standing right there?
...or Ghost Touch...
...or Cyclonic......or Holy/Axiomatic/etc. ...
I had a standard Occultist with a dip into Investigator in a home game and yes, using Legacy Weapon on someone else's weapon was a very common tactic. It translates just fine into PFS play given that the ability is available at level 1.
|
|
Yeah, standard occultists are a 3/4 BAB melee class with magic buffs. And their biggest buffs are mostly standard actions, which are slow. They do have some swift action focus powers that they can use to buff themselves in battle, too, but those generally aren't as good as adding bane to your weapon.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Bards and Skalds are doing party buffs, thus by helping themselves they are helping the party, thus their action is having immediate effect when any teammate attacks. Where as the occultist that bane's his weapon is only helping himself and can't see any benefit till often the next turn.
Now 2/3rd casters who go martial all have something that helps. Magus spellstrikes, Bard/Skald sings, Inquisitor Judgement and Bane, Warpriest swift action buffs, Hunter aspects itself and animal + feats, Investigator has that strike.What everything there has in common is some ability to boost it's martial prowess as part of a full attack. The occultist does not have this, there ability is a standard action. This is serious limitation given it's extremely short duration, anyone who has played the game will understand how limiting that is.
Ahhhhh..... Since when did bog standard Bards and Skalds have the ability to buff themselves as anything but a standard for the vast majority of their PFS career.
EDIT:
Also, I find your claim that the time frame is anything but limiting in a game where combat is usually finished in two or three rounds. Which yes is a problem with the ability but not the same one your claiming.
Bard's best party buffs involves them using enough actions that they can't attack and Skalds buffs are undesirable to the vast majority of the player base.
|
|
Bard's best party buffs involves them using enough actions that they can't attack and Skalds buffs are undesirable to the vast majority of the player base.Bards and Skalds are doing party buffs, thus by helping themselves they are helping the party, thus their action is having immediate effect when any teammate attacks. Where as the occultist that bane's his weapon is only helping himself and can't see any benefit till often the next turn.
Now 2/3rd casters who go martial all have something that helps. Magus spellstrikes, Bard/Skald sings, Inquisitor Judgement and Bane, Warpriest swift action buffs, Hunter aspects itself and animal + feats, Investigator has that strike.What everything there has in common is some ability to boost it's martial prowess as part of a full attack. The occultist does not have this, there ability is a standard action. This is serious limitation given it's extremely short duration, anyone who has played the game will understand how limiting that is.
Ahhhhh..... Since when did bog standard Bards and Skalds have the ability to buff themselves as anything but a standard for the vast majority of their PFS career.
EDIT:
Also, I find your claim that the time frame is anything but limiting in a game where combat is usually finished in two or three rounds. Which yes is a problem with the ability but not the same one your claiming.
So what's your point?
Are we just spouting off random stuff?Barbs best personal buff is a free action and the best wizard spells are control to the majority of the player base.
Why would an Occultist use bane on their own weapon, when the barbarian is standing right there?
If you have sufficient time to prepare (thanks, Mind Eye!), you can put it on both.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
No my point is that a really good Bard isn't necessarily going to have its bardic performance up. At least the base support for the class revolves around not having it up.Bard's best party buffs involves them using enough actions that they can't attack and Skalds buffs are undesirable to the vast majority of the player base.Bards and Skalds are doing party buffs, thus by helping themselves they are helping the party, thus their action is having immediate effect when any teammate attacks. Where as the occultist that bane's his weapon is only helping himself and can't see any benefit till often the next turn.
Now 2/3rd casters who go martial all have something that helps. Magus spellstrikes, Bard/Skald sings, Inquisitor Judgement and Bane, Warpriest swift action buffs, Hunter aspects itself and animal + feats, Investigator has that strike.What everything there has in common is some ability to boost it's martial prowess as part of a full attack. The occultist does not have this, there ability is a standard action. This is serious limitation given it's extremely short duration, anyone who has played the game will understand how limiting that is.
Ahhhhh..... Since when did bog standard Bards and Skalds have the ability to buff themselves as anything but a standard for the vast majority of their PFS career.
EDIT:
Also, I find your claim that the time frame is anything but limiting in a game where combat is usually finished in two or three rounds. Which yes is a problem with the ability but not the same one your claiming.So what's your point?
Are we just spouting off random stuff?
Barbs best personal buff is a free action and the best wizard spells are control to the majority of the player base.
And a Psychometrist Vigilante can even have this weapon empowering ability as a full BAB character (Avenger). I truly doubt the armorless Silksworn is more off balance than that.
Ehhhhh..... A silksworn is going to have better stats than the Avenger because it will have two different stat bonuses.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Stat bonuses don't get you to iterative attacks with your bane/holy weapon faster, though.
But then again you also don't get true Occultist progression either which is arguably more important than being able to swing around a sword more times. It took me a while to remember why I wasn't fond of that archetype. You get a few bonuses comparable to core Vigilante that are worst because they aren't passive and the cool abilities you can get in the Occultist are only available in seeker tier.