The same for three actions, but without the -4 to the target's save would be more in line. Ideally though, I'd suggest the version of spell strike I posted in my previous reply.
Spell Strike [two-action];
Effect
You siphon the destructive energies of your spell through a melee attack and into your foe. Make a melee Strike and add 1d8 damage to the Strike’s damage per level of the spell expended. This damage shares the elemental trait of the expended spell. The spell is expended with no effect if your Strike fails or hits a creature that isn’t damaged by that energy type.
Enhanced Spell Strike;
Effect
Increase the damage of your spell strike to 1d10 damage per level of the spell expended.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While this strays into "what is a Gish?" territory, I've been kicking around an idea of a Gnome Swashbuckler who gets their magic purely through ancestry feats.
Pick Braggart or Fencer so you already want high CHA, and through ancestry feats and a heritage you can get:
-2 cantrips (1 primal, 1 anything)
-illusory disguise, item facade, or ventriloquism once per day
- faerie fire 1/day
- invisibility 1/day.
I'm not sure this is enough to qualify as a gish, but there's always room for a bard or sorcerer (or oracle) dedication.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure the action economy enhancement is that strong, but the -4 to saves definitely is.
I'd probably adjust the quoted version to 'counts as two strikes for the MAP' and 'If the strike is a critical hit, the target gets -2 status penalty to their save.'
Still strong, and probably a level 12-16 feat and not a level 2 feat.
The same for three actions, but without the -4 to the target's save would be more in line. Ideally though, I'd suggest the version of spell strike I posted in my previous reply.
Spell Strike [two-action];
Effect
You siphon the destructive energies of your spell through a melee attack and into your foe. Make a melee Strike and add 1d8 damage to the Strike’s damage per level of the spell expended. This damage shares the elemental trait of the expended spell. The spell is expended with no effect if your Strike fails or hits a creature that isn’t damaged by that energy type.Enhanced Spell Strike;
Effect
Increase the damage of your spell strike to 1d10 damage per level of the spell expended.
Eh but that's less fun than casting the actual spell. It's essentially just buffed Bespell Weapon.
With Spell Strike you could do some fun things like hit somebody with a Strike + Phantasmal Killer or Vampiric Touch etc.
Just making the spells convert to damage is less interesting.
The same for three actions, but without the -4 to the target's save would be more in line. Ideally though, I'd suggest the version of spell strike I posted in my previous reply.
Spell Strike [two-action];
Effect
You siphon the destructive energies of your spell through a melee attack and into your foe. Make a melee Strike and add 1d8 damage to the Strike’s damage per level of the spell expended. This damage shares the elemental trait of the expended spell. The spell is expended with no effect if your Strike fails or hits a creature that isn’t damaged by that energy type.Enhanced Spell Strike;
Effect
Increase the damage of your spell strike to 1d10 damage per level of the spell expended.Eh but that's less fun than casting the actual spell. It's essentially just buffed Bespell Weapon.
With Spell Strike you could do some fun things like hit somebody with a Strike + Phantasmal Killer or Vampiric Touch etc.
Just making the spells convert to damage is less interesting.
This is exactly what Channeled Smite does, except it has the added versatility of letting you pick the type of elemental damage it does.
It's a powerful ability within the standards of the action economy and resource costs.
The same for three actions, but without the -4 to the target's save would be more in line. Ideally though, I'd suggest the version of spell strike I posted in my previous reply.
Spell Strike [two-action];
Effect
You siphon the destructive energies of your spell through a melee attack and into your foe. Make a melee Strike and add 1d8 damage to the Strike’s damage per level of the spell expended. This damage shares the elemental trait of the expended spell. The spell is expended with no effect if your Strike fails or hits a creature that isn’t damaged by that energy type.Enhanced Spell Strike;
Effect
Increase the damage of your spell strike to 1d10 damage per level of the spell expended.Eh but that's less fun than casting the actual spell. It's essentially just buffed Bespell Weapon.
With Spell Strike you could do some fun things like hit somebody with a Strike + Phantasmal Killer or Vampiric Touch etc.
Just making the spells convert to damage is less interesting.
This is exactly what Channeled Smite does, except it has the added versatility of letting you pick the type of elemental damage it does.
It's a powerful ability within the standards of the action economy and resource costs.
Yes and if I wanted to just add damage i'd just play a Cleric and Channel Smite.
It's more interesting to me to have the spell actually applied instead of just changing the damage type of Channel Smite. Currently, looking at the damage comparisons now -4 is probably too strong a penalty.
There are only five 1-action spells currently; three of which can potentially do damage; two of which are Heal/Harm. This means that this becomes nearly an exclusive 2-action ability. The thing Channel Smite does that this doesn’t is it allows the user to bypass the target making a save for the damage.
Making it count for 2 attacks doesn’t seem needed, and would actually kill any use of 1-action spells with it.
The -4 can become a balance issue. If we assume this ability gets placed on a Warpriest type kit (Expert Weapons/Master Spells) then the -4 just turns into a small buff above Legendary casters. If it ends up being the inverse (Master Weapons/Expert Spells) than the -4 bumps it up to legendary caster range; this comes after actually hitting the target though, which on a miss ends up just being a wasted spell; and can only be used with melee weapons and not ranged weapons. So up close and personal, risk wasting a spell, with either lower attack or spell save for a bump in a spell save? Sounds pretty fair honestly.
The biggest issue i see around balancing this is how easily other classes could get access to it; if they even should get access to it.
If the action economy is so fragile that bending it would break the game then we’d already be doomed.
There are only five 1-action spells currently; three of which can potentially do damage; two of which are Heal/Harm. This means that this becomes nearly an exclusive 2-action ability. The thing Channel Smite does that this doesn’t is it allows the user to bypass the target making a save for the damage.
Making it count for 2 attacks doesn’t seem needed, and would actually kill any use of 1-action spells with it.
The -4 can become a balance issue. If we assume this ability gets placed on a Warpriest type kit (Expert Weapons/Master Spells) then the -4 just turns into a small buff above Legendary casters. If it ends up being the inverse (Master Weapons/Expert Spells) than the -4 bumps it up to legendary caster range; this comes after actually hitting the target, which on a miss ends up being a wasted spell.
The biggest issue i see around balancing this is how easily other classes could get access to it; if they even should get access to it.
If the action economy is so fragile that bending it would break the game then we’d already be doomed.
Could potentially lock it in as a class feature like Hunter's Edge is for Rangers so it isn't available through a dedication.
Then add different paths that alter the functionality. Maybe one just converts spells to raw damage like Channel Smite while another path is about delivering the actual spells through attacks, but limiting the spells to certain schools.
100%, it would be something no-one not of the class could ever get, even with multi-classing. Hunter's Edge benefits being an appropriate example.
Check out this thread from August.
I suggested a necromancer gish in that thread, here's a rough mock up at level 8.
Ancestry Feats: Armor Training x2 (heritage and general training), Toughness (general training).
Class Feats: Fighter Dedication, Fighter's Resiliency, Opportunist, Bespell Weapon
Gear: +1 Shifting Striking Staff of Divination, +1 Resilient Full Plate
Spell Attack +16, DC 26
Staff Attack +15
AC 27 (10+8level+2trained+7armor)
HP 81 (8*(6+2+1)+9)
Spells prepared:
Cantrips: Detect Magic, Read Aura, Ray of Frost, Shield, Light
1: Ray of Enfeeblement*, Jump, True Strike, Fear
2: False Life*, Enlarge, Blur, [Traded for 2 more staff charges]
3: Vampiric Touch*, Fear, Slow, Haste
4: Vampiric Touch*, False Life, Fly, Phantasmal Killer
Focus Spell: Call of the Grave +16
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
DPR is an overrated metric and should not be the only or even primary indicator of balance.
Saying DPR is irrelevant when specifically trying to measure the value of feats that exist to attempt to increase the damage you do and little else is kind of a silly take.
It's a question of whether or not the returns ever match up to the investment. Whether or not it's worth specializing. Because if a character spends a significant number of feats trying to get better at something but they're still better off just using their normal options instead, that's kind of a problem and shows the investment isn't worthwhile. Yes, even if it's about damage.
I'd point out the spell strike ability being discussed is for a non-player creature, and in book 6 of an AP, so probably near max level. So think of it like an ability you get as a class feature that you've enhanced with several class feats. For example, compare to Hunter's Edge with every feat that improves Hunter's Edge.
I'd point out the spell strike ability being discussed is for a non-player creature, and in book 6 of an AP, so probably near max level. So think of it like an ability you get as a class feature that you've enhanced with several class feats. For example, compare to Hunter's Edge with every feat that improves Hunter's Edge.
Yea I mostly just posted it as a possible glimpse into how a Spell-Strike like ability could work, certainly powerful if just taking the ability as is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
DPR is an overrated metric and should not be the only or even primary indicator of balance.Saying DPR is irrelevant when specifically trying to measure the value of feats that exist to attempt to increase the damage you do and little else is kind of a silly take.
It's a question of whether or not the returns ever match up to the investment. Whether or not it's worth specializing. Because if a character spends a significant number of feats trying to get better at something but they're still better off just using their normal options instead, that's kind of a problem and shows the investment isn't worthwhile. Yes, even if it's about damage.
I said that DPR is an overrated metric that should not be the only or even primary indicator of balance.
I did not say that it was irrelevant.
Do I think that a Martial/Caster Gish should be doing as much or more damage than a pure martial or caster character? No. I do not.
Do I think that they should have more flexibility in their playstyle by allowing them to perform moderately well in those two areas? Yes I do.
When you Gish a Martial/Caster character you aim to get better performance in a straight fight than a Caster but more versatility in magical situations than a Martial.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You said
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.
A Gish is just a martial character with casting capability. That's it. Everything beyond that is merely how one likes to build a Gish.
Do archers count? Because I think a caster/ranger makes a decent magical archer. Elf or Half-Elf gets bow proficencies, you probably want a shortbow because there are lots of short-ish range spells. Ranger Dedication+Hunted Shot gives a decent martial third action after you cast a spell, some casters like wizards will have lots of monster ID skills for Monster Warden, getting master perception is pretty good for casters since you want your spells to go off quickly, and there are some other decent ranger feats to add some versatility.
A Gish is just a martial character with casting capability. That's it. Everything beyond that is merely how one likes to build a Gish.Do archers count? Because I think a caster/ranger makes a decent magical archer. Elf or Half-Elf gets bow proficencies, you probably want a shortbow because there are lots of short-ish range spells. Ranger Dedication+Hunted Shot gives a decent martial third action after you cast a spell, some casters like wizards will have lots of monster ID skills for Monster Warden, getting master perception is pretty good for casters since you want your spells to go off quickly, and there are some other decent ranger feats to add some versatility.
I don't see why they wouldn't count.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You said
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.
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
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.
I said that's not what a Gish is. Merely a way to build one. One not as well supported in 2e. Not in the way you could in 1e.
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.
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.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.
Nice selective quoting.
Your looking for 1e Nova Gish. IMO 2e doesn't support that as well no.
Rather you can give yourself those spell buffs that normally a caster would have to spend it's turn giving you. With monk you can give them to yourself and still attack.
Expansion of a martials utility and support via spells is what I aimed to do. It does have the benefit that you can attack twice then cast a damage cantrip. But that's only if your planning on face tanking.
Your being very obtuse and I wonder if it's on purpose like your trying to prove a point.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, what I want for a Gish is a person who can hold up in melee combat, but has magic to fall back on once their preferred way of fighting is not available.
Like I'll fence you one on one, but if you fly away I can do that too, or I can throw a fireball at a large group of people, or I can shoot lightning bolts instead of having to rely on a bow and arrow.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
Had a huge Post but you know what.
Title. Post your best Gish.
Got one? Post it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's about being an efficient blend of a martial warrior and arcane caster.
Ravingdork has build several interesting gish builds, this being one example.
Ah yes, my "battle oracle" build. Please allow me to elaborate on its capabilities:
Jensen is a bastard-sword wielding town guardswoman who, between her wizard spell slots and staff of divination, is capable of casting true strike numerous times per day. This unique capability grants her unparalleled accuracy on many of her most important attacks and allows for frequent use of her Bespell Weapon feat for even more damage while fishing for those oh so lethal critical hits (made far more common due to rerolls).
She also excels at disrupting opponents' actions and has a variety of additional tricks up her sleeve such as being able to boost her speed all day long, fly, turn invisible, use divine scrolls, and more.
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.
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?
You're thinking of Double Shot. Hunted Shot is one action.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.
Compare:
First round: Cast a spell, Hunt PreySecond round: Cast a spell, Hunted Shot
To:
First round: Cast a spell, Strike
Second round: Cast a spell, Strike
How many rounds does the enemy need to survive for Hunted Shot to be equivalent to just Strike? 3, 4?
Hunted Shot and Twin Strike cost one action to refund the cost of Hunt Prey. They will sometimes net you additional actions, but you can't reliably count on it, especially if your party knows how to focus fire.
Stances, on the other hand, can be used for a whole combat. You only need to activate them once. So, you can reliably get a benefit from them.
Hunt is something you have to reapply for each target, so if the party can down an enemy in three rounds that's a third of your Hunted Shot DPR gone and if the party can down an enemy in two rounds you're only getting off half as many Hunted Shots (and as Bidi pointed out you'd be better off just Striking normally).
Strill is right in that Stances and such take actions too, but once per combat and once per foe are meaningful enough differences that it seems like a mistake to just lump them together and call it a wash.
The ranger does have the potential advantage of being able to preemptively Hunt if they're tracking the target though, so there is that.
Nop, second is at -5. Hunted Shot doesn't change the MAP.
After 3 rounds, you exchange an attack with no MAP against 2 at -5, which is roughly equivalent. You need the enemy to survive 4 rounds for Hunted Shot to be better than Strike. So, it's absolutely useless, considering that you need 2 feats for the move.
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.
Cool! If people aren't so big on Hunted Shot, you could always use level 4 for Bespell Weapon for another 1d6 damage with that third action attack. Throw out a spell (like Hideous Laughter, Blur, Burning Hands, or Grease) to help out, then get in 3d6 damage on that third attack without any MAP penalties. It seems a little more reliable than Hunted Shot and hoping the creature survives a round to take advantage of that.
I dont think it's fair to assume the ranger gish is going to need to hunt at the start of combat. Unless the players are caught off guard (and sometimes not even then) ranger players should have a target hinted before any fight begins.
It will very rarely happen. You must be tracking the prey. I don't know for you, but I'm not very often tracking things. So, most of the time, you don't start the fight with a prey.
I'm currently playing Plaguestone on PbP. So, I've just looked at all the encounters I've done so far. 4 surprise attacks, 1 was not totally a surprise but we hadn't had the chance to hear, see, or track the creature before the fight (and considering the creature, it's untrackable and hardly hearable), and 1 where the ranger could have had his prey.
So, we are not getting the same DMs. Surprise combat are far more than 50% of the fight I'm in.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think how well ranger hunting work is going to differ a lot depending on whether preemptive tracking works.
It could be that the GM thinks to include tracks, but it's Yet Another Thing To Learn. And if the party doesn't have a ranger in it (PFS doesn't have constant party composition) it might not be all that important either.
So I would say the prime responsibility is with the ranger player: when you go into possible hostile territory, remind the GM that you're keeping an eye out for tracks. (This may interact with your choice of exploration tactic.)
That switches the cognitive load from "did the GM think to include tracks" to "now that you ask, is it reasonable that there are tracks". Could be an improvement.
However, if the GM had his heart set on an ambush, they may not be too generous in giving away the surprise. Also, it'd be a thing with random encounters that the GM is rolling on the spot.
Also, from a logic point of view: if you're crossing a forest, and encounter a creature, you would only have had a chance to see the tracks if you were coming from the right direction. If the creature came from the North and you from the South, you wouldn't see the tracks before the creature.
I've run the first part of Plaguestone (the pcs have now gone seriously off rails) and of all of chapter one there are 3 fights (well 2 if the player interrupted my description) I would consider it not possible to hunt before hand, and one of them isn't really a fight ** spoiler omitted **
The boar
The striges
The bees
All surprise attacks.
The ghost can't be tracked and I'm not sure it can be heard.
Hallod can be easily tracked.
From personal experience, if you give hints about a fight to players, the rythm of the game goes down too much. And very often, players will find creative ways to trivialize the fight (sometimes not even much creative as soon as they get access to level 4+ spells).
Most of the DMs I play with tend to make surprise attacks out of most fights. And PFS adventures/APs consider most fights as surprise attacks.
The wolves yeah, initiative is called un the same paragraph as you hear them. Still a player who interrupted me before I started the fight on "you hear howls" could have hunted.
The boar will literally just keep chasing the villager until it gets bored or the pcs engage, loads of time to hunt.The stirges are a surprise if you dont detect them sure.
The bees are part of the map and dont engage unless you specifically got close , could have hunted there.
Maybe it's just a pbp think where the gm is trying to resolve as much as possible in a single post before passing the buck back to players? Have you asked them that you would like to hunt whenever there is an opportunity to do so?
For the wolves, you can't act when you hear the howling, it's a monster presentation. If you allow players to act during the monster presentations, you will finish most fights before having rolled initiative.
You can detect the striges? I didn't even got a check for that.
If you can detect the bees before they attack, then you don't need to hunt as you just trivialized the fight.
The boar won't keep chasing the villager as you roll initiative as soon as you see it and intervene (unless you play evil PCs, then you can watch).
So, maybe for the striges, for the others I highly disagree.
It's not a PbP thing. My experience is that acting before a combat start is the exception. And from personal experience as a DM, it's really desirable to forbid any precombat action to the players if you want your fights to be challenging.