The rulebook clearly, plainly, explicitly states that you cannot cast spells in a battle form. Page 301: "Unless otherwise noted, the battle form prevents you from casting spells, speaking, and using most manipulate actions that require hands."
It also clearly, plainly, explicitly, and separately says that you can't speak. Why can't you speak? Because the rules say so. Full stop, no reason given, tough luck.
Yes but why do the rules say so? You can speculate and argue and kibitz all you want; you can house-rule it for your group to be different. You can't change the fact that this is what the rulebook plainly says and that many groups abide by that.
This horse is dead, deceased, bereft of life. It is an ex-horse. We fellow players can't answer your questions; you'll have to ask the designers.
It doesn't change that it is a rule that is not internally consistent with the game world. The fact I can't speak Draconic that all dragons speak while in Dragon form is ridiculous.
The fact that I can't speak Ignan while in fire form is ridiculous.
The fact that I can't communicate with other party members while in a battle form is ridiculous.
Yes. I can't ask the designers and I doubt they could give me a good response anyway. I would not be surprised if half of them in their individual games allow dragons to speak and righteous might clerics to speak because likely the decision on that polymorph tag was made by someone on top of the design chain and not by group discussion. Just a catchall to clamp down on polymorph spells.
The rulebook clearly, plainly, explicitly states that you cannot cast spells in a battle form. Page 301: "Unless otherwise noted, the battle form prevents you from casting spells, speaking, and using most manipulate actions that require hands."
It also clearly, plainly, explicitly, and separately says that you can't speak. Why can't you speak? Because the rules say so. Full stop, no reason given, tough luck.
Yes but why do the rules say so? You can speculate and argue and kibitz all you want; you can house-rule it for your group to be different. You can't change the fact that this is what the rulebook plainly says and that many groups abide by that.
This horse is dead, deceased, bereft of life. It is an ex-horse. We fellow players can't answer your questions; you'll have to ask the designers.
It doesn't change that it is a rule that is not internally consistent with the game world. The fact I can't speak Draconic that all dragons speak while in Dragon form is ridiculous.
The fact that I can't speak Ignan while in fire form is ridiculous.
The fact that I can't communicate with other party members while in a battle form is ridiculous.
Yes. I can't ask the designers and I doubt they could give me a good response anyway. I would not be surprised if half of them in their individual games allow dragons to speak and righteous might clerics to speak because likely the decision on that polymorph tag was made by someone on top of the design chain and not by group discussion. Just a catchall to clamp down on polymorph spells.
Pretty much, yeah. Someone upthread mentioned that it was likely future proofing, and I assume that is the correct explanation. Just because right now they might not have any overpowered interactions with speech or casting, doesn't mean that might not happen at some point. It may never come up in fact. There was a PF1 rule that two archetypes COULD convert the same class ability, if one was specifically indicated to do so. I don't think any published archetypes ever used that rule, but it was there in potential because they do try to cover themselves.
You're also likely correct about a houserule allowing speech when it makes sense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This was an interesting thread for a while.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Taking hits is part of tanking. As is holding the attention of the creatures your group is fighting meaning doing enough damage to be a meaningful threat that they don't bypass you and head for the other party members. If a champion did not have Champion's Reaction, most enemies would ignore them to kill more dangerous threats.
The barbarian on the other hand does enough damage to be the main threat on the target and is hard to ignore.
Are you perchance confusing the wholly separate issues of tanking and aggro?
When somebody discusses tanking they mean the ability to soak incoming attacks. Whether they do so by not getting hit, actively parrying, or just eating the damage (having lots of hit points or lots of healing) is immaterial.
It's useful to discuss aggro, the ability to attract monster attention separate from this.
You're correct that in isolation a hypothetical character that deals no damage but has infinite AC or hp is worthless, because the monsters simply ignore him...
...but that presumes a GMing style that you simply can't take for granted. Yes, a GM can decide to treat avoidance tanks and soaking tanks differently. Yes, it's possible for a GM to basically ruin a Champion by deciding that monsters ignore him, massively nerfing the value of AC. But that's a really bad idea!
There is no aggro mechanisms in pen-and-paper rpgs, so, yes, a GM COULD play like that. Nobody could say you're breaking any CRB rule.
But in reality PF2 and other D&D games depend quite heavily on the Games Master playing his monsters to increase player enjoyment more than to increase encounter difficulty.
The whole idea of a "tank" in D&D relies on the Games Master adhering to an unwritten social contract or gentleman's agreement of actually letting the tank benefit from his defensive abilities. There is nothing in the game balance to suggest that the defense of "lots of hp" (letting monsters believe they're accomplishing something when they really aren't) is...
In 40 years of both playing and DMing, I've never had a DM, nor a player, expect any sort of agreement. The agreement has always been 'play the monsters / npcs as they would, in character, behave.'
Aggro mechanics are a recent thought addition (stemming from the popularity of MMOs) to D&D and derivitives, but has rarely been actually intended to be included in the game.
Even the term 'tank' wasn't used in D&D until after the popularity of MMOs, and at that time, people started looking at building characters to fit that concept.
Do 'aggro mechanics' exist in Pathfinder. No, not really. And they shouldn't.
An NPC behaves how the NPC would, in world, behave. Not treated as a game sprite, but as a character in it's own right.
If you want to be a tank, you need two things. The ability to keep the enemies focused on you in one of various ways, AND the ability to withstand the damage incurred from those enemies.
If you can keep them focused on you through sheer damage ability, that is fine. If you can keep them focused on you because they can't get past you, that works as well. And if you can penalize them for attacking anyone else to the point where attacking you is the most appropriate action, that's also fine.
But standing there expecting the DM to have them attack you just because everyone else is squishier is never something you should expect.
I no longer agree with Zapp on casters as a whole as I find the druid and bard both highly effective and fun to play, because both classes make casting more of an opportunistic endeavor that can be used when it is highly effective while relying on other effective abilities and powers during fights when spells aren't as effective such as single target BBEGs.
But for a wizards and sorcerers casting is life. It's what they do. They don't really have any other powers to make up for casting. Wizard focus spells aren't great. No cool class cantrips to break up the monotony of spell list cantrips. No feats that boost them outside of casting. Sorcerer has slightly better focus spells, but still heavily relies on casting to be effective. It can be painful in the hardest fights because neither the wizard nor sorcerer are better at casting in terms of DCs and spell attacks than other casters with more diverse abilities.
I still have to try to make a wizard and sorcerer work, but after playing a bard and druid I don't know if I want to put myself through that pain. The druid has something interesting to do with their actions across all levels and then gets much of the good blasting power of the sorcerer and wizard at higher level with more hit points, better armor, better weapons, and an all around better chassis that adds much more to a group. Bard gets far superior buffing along with most of the powerful debuffs, good illusion and mental damage, and very good abilities he can use very often.
I'm going to bite the bullet and play a wizard. I feel like they can be powerful, but I know they will be painful for quite a few levels in ways the bard, druid, witch, and cleric are not.
We'll see in time.
But boy I think the wizard or sorcerer could use some abilities that make them better at something like School Spell DCs being higher or using cantrips better than anyone else or something to make them standout in the caster group for other than extra spell slots.
I don't understand putting the witch below the wizard. The witch's focus cantrips aren't really worth using in combat, and they both can get a familiar with scaling powers. Outside of the rare focus 5, the focus powers aren't that much better than the wizards, and the wizard gets a whole additional spell each spell level and arcane bond.
Personally I have bard and cleric at the top of casters. Wizards and sorcerers are the weakest at low levels (excluding the witch), but they scale in power the most because of their power coming from spell slots.
I don't understand putting the witch below the wizard. The witch's focus cantrips aren't really worth using in combat, and they both can get a familiar with scaling powers. Outside of the rare focus 5, the focus powers aren't that much better than the wizards, and the wizard gets a whole additional spell each spell level and arcane bond.
Personally I have bard and cleric at the top of casters. Wizards and sorcerers are the weakest at low levels (excluding the witch), but they scale in power the most because of their power coming from spell slots.
I rate the witch because playing with one right now they seem very versatile and interesting in a group. The Evil Eye hex cantrip has been useful, is 1 action, and can be attempted once per target. The occult spell list allows healing, powerful debuffing starting at 5th level, and the curse of death is another decent curse hex. Needle of Vengeance is pretty nice as well with a basic will save required, so usually doing at least half damage even on a success. It adds up with multiple attacks punishing a creature for attacking a particular person. The free familiar has been useful in many non-combat scenarios.
Witch has been a very odd addition to the group. They don't have hard hitting AoE or get noticed for their ability to attack, but their debuffing and 1 action cantrips and hexes allow for some flexibility in action use.
And she MCed as a bard with inspire courage creating this very versatile buffing and debuffing character.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know we have moved on past the original golem busting examples, but I saw a really good way to do it last night: summon a monster with regeneration. My player dropped a troll in front of a stone golem. The troll scrabbled at the creature 6 levels above it in effectually. The stone golem reduced it to dying 2 in one round of attacks... But that was effectively stunning the golem for a round in terms of it hurting PCs. Then the troll regens and gets back up. The elemental sorcerer followed up with an earth spell, slowing the golem for 6 rounds. A smart enemy would have ignored the troll, but a golem will simply attack whoever is closest until they stop moving. The golem wound up so preoccupied with the troll that the rest of the party had time to take out all the other enemies and then pepper the golem from safety using range, reach, hit and run, and rays of Frost.
I no longer agree with Zapp on casters as a whole as I find the druid and bard both highly effective and fun to play, because both classes make casting more of an opportunistic endeavor that can be used when it is highly effective while relying on other effective abilities and powers during fights when spells aren't as effective such as single target BBEGs.
But for a wizards and sorcerers casting is life. It's what they do. They don't really have any other powers to make up for casting. Wizard focus spells aren't great. No cool class cantrips to break up the monotony of spell list cantrips. No feats that boost them outside of casting. Sorcerer has slightly better focus spells, but still heavily relies on casting to be effective. It can be painful in the hardest fights because neither the wizard nor sorcerer are better at casting in terms of DCs and spell attacks than other casters with more diverse abilities.
I still have to try to make a wizard and sorcerer work, but after playing a bard and druid I don't know if I want to put myself through that pain. The druid has something interesting to do with their actions across all levels and then gets much of the good blasting power of the sorcerer and wizard at higher level with more hit points, better armor, better weapons, and an all around better chassis that adds much more to a group. Bard gets far superior buffing along with most of the powerful debuffs, good illusion and mental damage, and very good abilities he can use very often.
I'm going to bite the bullet and play a wizard. I feel like they can be powerful, but I know they will be painful for quite a few levels in ways the bard, druid, witch, and cleric are not.
We'll see in time.
But boy I think the wizard or sorcerer could use some abilities that make them better at something like School Spell DCs being higher or using cantrips better than anyone else or something to make them standout in the caster group for other than extra spell slots.
I have less direct experience with wizards, but sorcerers are not to be underestimated. An extra spell slot each level is rather great for sustaining power output through a longer adventuring day, and they get things like Dangerous Sorcery and Bloodline Magic to boost that power a bit ahead of other casters. More spells known also means more tools in the box.
Also, it isn't just that their focus spells are better, it is that they don't need to spend time to specifically refocus. Age of Ashes has several instances where you basically need to rush between set pieces to save lives with little to no time to refocus and Treat Sounds between encounters. A sorcerer can regain their focus points while on the run, and can use those extra spell slots to patch up allies that took damage.
Also, they seem s little better at staying away from danger and not getting hit? This is probably pretty spell selection dependent, but I've found clerics and bards tend to wind up needing to get closer to the fray and therefore lose their extra hit points more often. Maybe divine and occult sorcerers would have that same problem, though I think the more spells known and the flexibility of spontaneous casting should help with keeping longer range options on hand.
Wizards... I don't have as much experience, but they have done well from what I've seen. They get even more spell slots than sorcerers when you factor in the bonded item on a specialist. Spell substitution gives them the most adaptible utility belt this side of the alchemist. With a little bit of information gathering they can tailor themselves to their next challenge like no other. Familiars got a big boost from the APG. And spell blending and staff nexus both let you focus on different ends of your spell level spectrum if you can figure out ways to cheese that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having seen a wizard in play for a little while now, I think I'm comfortable saying that I think they're the weakest caster in combat. I don't think they're weak, just the weakest. I think that's an important distinction to make.
That said, I've come to the conclusion that wizards are to casters what rogues/investigators are to martials. They sacrifice a bit of combat effectiveness for a lot of versatility in exploration.
I know we have moved on past the original golem busting examples, but I saw a really good way to do it last night: summon a monster with regeneration. My player dropped a troll in front of a stone golem. The troll scrabbled at the creature 6 levels above it in effectually. The stone golem reduced it to dying 2 in one round of attacks... But that was effectively stunning the golem for a round in terms of it hurting PCs. Then the troll regens and gets back up. The elemental sorcerer followed up with an earth spell, slowing the golem for 6 rounds. A smart enemy would have ignored the troll, but a golem will simply attack whoever is closest until they stop moving. The golem wound up so preoccupied with the troll that the rest of the party had time to take out all the other enemies and then pepper the golem from safety using range, reach, hit and run, and rays of Frost....I no longer agree with Zapp on casters as a whole as I find the druid and bard both highly effective and fun to play, because both classes make casting more of an opportunistic endeavor that can be used when it is highly effective while relying on other effective abilities and powers during fights when spells aren't as effective such as single target BBEGs.
But for a wizards and sorcerers casting is life. It's what they do. They don't really have any other powers to make up for casting. Wizard focus spells aren't great. No cool class cantrips to break up the monotony of spell list cantrips. No feats that boost them outside of casting. Sorcerer has slightly better focus spells, but still heavily relies on casting to be effective. It can be painful in the hardest fights because neither the wizard nor sorcerer are better at casting in terms of DCs and spell attacks than other casters with more diverse abilities.
I still have to try to make a wizard and sorcerer work, but after playing a bard and druid I don't know if I want to put myself through that pain. The druid has something interesting to
The particular scenario we were in set the golems up for easy death with flight and ranged attacks. But as has been noted, it would have required a fly spell and the use of ray of frost for the same effect within the rules framework. Which the druid has access to both as does a wizard or arcane or primal sorcerer. So they could do the same.
The troll summons was cool too. Another great option to use with casters. Summon Giant is one of the better bang for the buck summons since giants seem to gain a little more offensive pop for having weak will saves and ACs.
Having seen a wizard in play for a little while now, I think I'm comfortable saying that I think they're the weakest caster in combat. I don't think they're weak, just the weakest. I think that's an important distinction to make.
That said, I've come to the conclusion that wizards are to casters what rogues/investigators are to martials. They sacrifice a bit of combat effectiveness for a lot of versatility in exploration.
I get what you're saying. Wizards aren't really weak in the absolute sense. They seem to lack the options of other classes when casting isn't real effective, which can be the case in a lot of the hardest fights given some creatures have high across the board ACs, saves, and/or resistances.
With a storm and wild shape druid, you can shift from direct damage to melee damage very easily. Tempest Surge gives you at least one big blast a battle. I had a critical fail on a Tempest Surge save the other day and nuked a monster 12d12 electricity for 91 points of damage with a clumsy 2 rider and 12 points of persistent electricity damage. These kinds of effective, low resource cost abilities are not possessed by the wizard early in the game. Though they get some that are interesting like Scroll Savant later on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The stone golem reduced it to dying 2 in one round of attacks... But that was effectively stunning the golem for a round in terms of it hurting PCs. Then the troll regens and gets back up.
Summoned creatures are banished if their HP is reduced to 0.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just Dropping in because I have info that feels relevant,
I made a poll a while back and asked people to rate the power of the classes they played from 1 to 10. These were the results (I will list the average score each class got followed by how many players reported playing these classes) - and remember this is pre-APG:
1. Fighter - 8.3 (40)
2. Champion - 7.5 (29)
3. Bard - 7.4 (27)
4. Barbarian - 7.3 (26)
5. Monk - 7.1 (20)
6. Rogue - 7 (39)
7. Cleric - 7 (31)
8. Ranger - 6.8 (23)
9. Druid - 6.6 (32)
10. Sorcerer - 5.9 (28)
11. Wizard - 4.6 (59)
12. Alchemist - 3.5 (27)
Obviously take this with a grain of salt because asking people to rank classes from 1 to 10 isn't the best way to measure effectiveness.
I think my biggest surprise was Druid ranking so low, as I consider Bard and Druid to be at the very least the most well designed casters - I think any good party needs a bard because they fill the "utility caster" role and have the most benefits beyond that (compared to an arcane sorcerer/witch or a wizard) - AMAZING buffing cantrips, more than serviceable spell list, and they can act as the face of the party. Druids on the other hand aren't as needed but they are very good "combat casters" and their subclasses and feats offer a lot of incredible options. I'd gladly play in a 4 man party whose casters are a bard and a druid, and I think that's one of the best 2 caster combos.
The stone golem reduced it to dying 2 in one round of attacks... But that was effectively stunning the golem for a round in terms of it hurting PCs. Then the troll regens and gets back up.Summoned creatures are banished if their HP is reduced to 0.
Just looked. That is still the rule. No fun with trolls.
More little rules that ruin fun tactics.