|
Let’s not forget that, thanks to Studious Capacity, bards eventually become effectively 4 slot casters as well!Studious Capacity only gives you one extra spell per day, and not even of your highest level. So, far from being a 4 slot caster.
Oh! I was reading it wrong, I was reading it as “once per day per missing level”
That’s much less insane.
Yes, this feat is badly written. It would have been so much easier to say that you can cast one extra spell per day...
In my opinion, Bards should have 1/2 spells per spell level. Giving them full 3-slot casting in top of compositions is just too much. And it would really make the difference between the composition-focused Bard and the spell-focused Occult Sorcerer. Also, people like Bards for their composition more than their spells.
1/2 spells a day, or even the same number of spells per day with whatever the magus and summoner get would probably have made the bard feel a lot more like the classical bard than this new full caster with amazing at-will support abilities, perhaps even with an eventual weapon proficiency boost at level 19, but with no damage boosting mechanic beyond regular weapon specialization. But I kind of think the point is moot now.
The sorcerer has some weird niche feats that can make for some pretty interesting and unique builds. Talking about "occult" sorcerer instead of specific bloodlines really doesn't make much sense to me because there is such a big difference between every sorcerer based on bloodline, much more so than spell list.
In the occult bloodlines, the biggest problem that the aberrant bloodline has is that it desperately needs a way to get more hit points. You could have an interesting caster centric party using the spell relay feat, but you just can't get the staying power without doing something really weird like MCing into Barbarian and doing everything possible to boost your HP and resistances.
The Hag bloodline has some interesting and decently powerful features, but are competing against dirge of doom, which is a tough ability to compete against, but it has powerful will debuffing options and ways to get really nasty with them, they might be the best dominator in the game. I would rather play a hag sorcerer than a witch although the two together could be fun.
The shadow bloodline's problem isn't the bard, but that a harm cleric with the darkness domain is going to be doing a lot cooler and meaner things with shadows, especially once they hit 8th level and pick up the shadow dancer archetype.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not sure why they went the full caster or no caster route at the start either. Yes it did pretty much make the Bard "the best" because they kept their great support abilities while having full casting.
I have a feeling they mainly did it because that is what 5e did with the Bard and it "worked". Honestly I probably would never have touched the Bard if it was 6th level casting like 1e. So maybe it was the right decision to make them a full caster.
I think 6th level casting worked in PF1 because you could "spam" buffs with all your spell slots and basically become a better Martial of course unless your spells wear out.
Even weirder to me now is they are creating two half caster's now. Which I originally thought was against their design philosophy. I guess they wanted the core rulebook to be "simple".
I 100% am not a fan of the new half casters from the playtest that have 4 spell slots all game. Seems like they will be super strong for low adventuring days and feel weak at 4+ encounters, even worse than normal casters. The design seems very "nova/bursty"
I think I would have actually preferred slightly modified dedication progression.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even weirder to me now is they are creating two half caster's now. Which I originally thought was against their design philosophy. I guess they wanted the core rulebook to be "simple".
I 100% am not a fan of the new half casters from the playtest that have 4 spell slots all game. Seems like they will be super strong for low adventuring days and feel weak at 4+ encounters, even worse than normal casters. The design seems very "nova/bursty"
I think I would have actually preferred slightly modified dedication progression.
Yeah I feel the same way. Also mind that all casters lost "Stat to Bonus Spells" in the transition and the base number went down by 1.
PF1 wizards had 4 spells of each level, plus 1 for school, plus bonus for high INT.
PF2 wizards get 3 spells of each level, plus 1 for school.
The justification was that a bunch of spells got merged together so you didn't need Invisibility, Invisibility Sphere, and Mass Invisibility any more, but that's a spells known problem (which didn't change) not a spells prepared problem.
Or maybe it was justified because lower level slots have improved DCs, but I'm not convinced due to the updated math on how often enemies succeed and how many enemies you face at one time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason they did the "all or nothing" casting thing was that in PF1 the bespoke lists got out of hand, since you would get things like:
School: Divination.
Level: adept 0, arcanist 0, bard 0, cleric 0, druid 0, hunter 0, inquisitor 0, magus 0, medium 0, mesmerist 0, occultist 0, oracle 0, psychic 0, shaman 0, skald 0, sorcerer 0, spiritualist 0, summoner 0, summoner (unchained) 0, warpriest 0, witch 0, wizard 0
So I get "there's only going to be four lists ever" is a good thing, and then we can give people varying degrees of access to each list, but the easiest ones to figure out are "no access" and "complete access" and the Bard was sufficiently iconic to require being in the core book.
Like during the playtest "how is the occult spell list" is a better thing to test, than "how does this specific unique spell progression work". I mean, the Secrets of Magic playtest were largely about "what kind of progression for the 'some, but not all' spellcasters works" and we didn't get anything close to consensus.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simplifying the lists made a huge amount of sense, not even going to try and argue against that one: I'm 100% on board.
It was the spells-per-day thing that changed. Sort of feels like full casters became two-thirds casters and half casters are now either bumped up to being "full" casters (two-thirds) or dropped down to one-quarter casters.
The 4-slot system absolutely does not work for the magus. For the summoner I think it was "fiiiine?" but other issues got in the way of being able to evaluate it (action limits basically leaving little time to even attempt a spell, so the lack of slots was not an issue).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason they did the "all or nothing" casting thing was that in PF1 the bespoke lists got out of hand, since you would get things like:
Detect Magic
School: Divination.
Level: adept 0, arcanist 0, bard 0, cleric 0, druid 0, hunter 0, inquisitor 0, magus 0, medium 0, mesmerist 0, occultist 0, oracle 0, psychic 0, shaman 0, skald 0, sorcerer 0, spiritualist 0, summoner 0, summoner (unchained) 0, warpriest 0, witch 0, wizard 0
If that is the case, IMO they failed badly.
True Strike Spell 1
Traditions: arcane, occult
Bloodline: draconic
Deities: Achaekek, Cernunnos, Dammerich, Eiseth, Erastil, Falayna, General Susumu, Gorum, Iomedae, Otolmens, Ragathiel, Raumya, Sekhmet, Shizuru, Yaezhing
Patron Theme: fate
So 19 from 22 doesn't seem like a big reduction on specific class options.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m shocked they dropped 6th level casters as well.
By the end of PF1, it really felt like they had hit an amazing creative stride with the 2/3rd BAB - 6th level casting template. Some of the most interesting and fun classes for in there, and it seemed to be the perfect fit for them to leverage really cool ideas into a shell that made a good “all-rounder with a twist” framework.
When Starfinder launched with only 6th level casters, I was happy that they seemed to be leaning into that creative groove.
Long noodly arms......I rest my case
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason they did the "all or nothing" casting thing was that in PF1 the bespoke lists got out of hand, since you would get things like:
Detect Magic
School: Divination.
Level: adept 0, arcanist 0, bard 0, cleric 0, druid 0, hunter 0, inquisitor 0, magus 0, medium 0, mesmerist 0, occultist 0, oracle 0, psychic 0, shaman 0, skald 0, sorcerer 0, spiritualist 0, summoner 0, summoner (unchained) 0, warpriest 0, witch 0, wizard 0If that is the case, IMO they failed badly.
True Strike Spell 1
Traditions: arcane, occult
Bloodline: draconic
Deities: Achaekek, Cernunnos, Dammerich, Eiseth, Erastil, Falayna, General Susumu, Gorum, Iomedae, Otolmens, Ragathiel, Raumya, Sekhmet, Shizuru, Yaezhing
Patron Theme: fateSo 19 from 22 doesn't seem like a big reduction on specific class options.
True, but that's from AoN. The printed books don't include the list of deities that grant the spell.
Having only four spell lists instead of one for each spellcasting class saves even more space.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
True, but that's from AoN.
The official online resource for PF2, yeah.
The printed books don't include the list of deities that grant the spell.
And? Did PF1's core book list all the spell lists either? No it lists: DETECT MAGIC, bard 0, cleric 0, druid 0, sorcerer/wizard 0
Having only four spell lists instead of one for each spellcasting class saves even more space.
No it doesn't: it just moves the space to the classes that get it 'special'. If you put all the options in one place to easily see them, it takes up the same amount of space so hiding that inside the classes isn't a plus: it just makes finding such options harder if you only use the books.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's written in AoN doesn't change how the rulebooks are formatted. The designers and editors at paizo make decisions based on what works for a printed book (like when they moved Relics to GMG becasue they ran out of space). Blake Davis and his team make decisions based on what works for an SRD, like the decision to include deities in spell descriptions.
And? Did PF1's core book list all the spell lists either?
Pages 224-239. And the page count grew every time a class with a unique list was released.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's written in AoN doesn't change how the rulebooks are formatted.
And? If you aren't looking on AoN, you aren't seeing 22 spell lists for detect magic either so... What is your point?
The designers and editors at paizo make decisions based on what works for a printed book (like when they moved Relics to GMG becasue they ran out of space). Blake Davis and his team make decisions based on what works for an SRD, like the decision to include deities in spell descriptions.
And? Again, detect magic isn't presented like that in the book either...
Pages 224-239. And the page count grew every time a class with a unique list was released.
You made my point: 224-239 DIDN'T GROW in the least as new spell lists didn't alter the core book. You don't see summoner listed under it in the core book or any other spell lists from future books.
New spells had to list what spell lists it went under but that didn't retroactively go back and add anything to earlier books. And even if we look at the later spells, most times there isn't even any difference in page count and would change even if you reduced it to the lists in PF2 as the line for school was the same one with spell lists so in inevitable went to a second line but rarely went to a 3rd even in the last PF1 books.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason they did the "all or nothing" casting thing was that in PF1 the bespoke lists got out of hand, since you would get things like:
Detect Magic
School: Divination.
Level: adept 0, arcanist 0, bard 0, cleric 0, druid 0, hunter 0, inquisitor 0, magus 0, medium 0, mesmerist 0, occultist 0, oracle 0, psychic 0, shaman 0, skald 0, sorcerer 0, spiritualist 0, summoner 0, summoner (unchained) 0, warpriest 0, witch 0, wizard 0If that is the case, IMO they failed badly.
True Strike Spell 1
Traditions: arcane, occult
Bloodline: draconic
Deities: Achaekek, Cernunnos, Dammerich, Eiseth, Erastil, Falayna, General Susumu, Gorum, Iomedae, Otolmens, Ragathiel, Raumya, Sekhmet, Shizuru, Yaezhing
Patron Theme: fateSo 19 from 22 doesn't seem like a big reduction on specific class options.
The big difference is that if you learn the occult spell list, then you know the occult spell list for bards, sorcerers, witches, summoners, occult class A, occult class B, etc.
The primary overhead was not so much in the "the blocks for spells got to big" but more in the "okay, I'm playing a [class], what spells does this class get?" Now you just have to familiarize yourself with the four lists, and in case your bloodline or deity gives you extra spells (all three of them) you can look those up specifically.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The big difference is that if you learn the occult spell list, then you know the occult spell list for bards, sorcerers, witches, summoners, occult class A, occult class B, etc.
That just isn't true. You play a sorcerer, you might have spells that aren't on the occult list but are for you. As such, it just a different way to do a specific list.
The primary overhead was not so much in the "the blocks for spells got to big" but more in the "okay, I'm playing a [class], what spells does this class get?"
I can't say I see a difference in 'overhead' between then and now.
Now you just have to familiarize yourself with the four lists, and in case your bloodline or deity gives you extra spells (all three of them) you can look those up specifically.
I really don't see the difference. If you're looking online, you skim over the list and click on the spells that you don't remember. If you're using books, you STILL have to look through each and every book with spells in it and see what spells are on each list. In either case you're going to recall what spells you are interested in no matter how you do the lists and you're going to have to look up spells outside of that... IMO, it's a sidegrade.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like during the playtest "how is the occult spell list" is a better thing to test, than "how does this specific unique spell progression work".
"How is X spell list" isn't a question you can answer in a vacuum, because the spell list exists in the context of the classes that can use them and that's kind of been a bit of a problem.
Clerics are a pretty solid class, while from my experience (both in home games and looking at forums/reddit/other sites), Divine Sorcerers and Witches have been more poorly received. In large part because the Cleric class is specifically built to complement the Divine Spell list (or, perhaps the other way around) in a way that the flexible list casters aren't and it ends up showing in practice.
So while it definitely saves on wordcount in the books (which is probably the main reason it exists), I think it's a bit much to call it just objectively and wholly beneficial.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would really love to have imput from people actually playing bards, and how much they like their character.
Because we have a bard in two of our tables, and both are ok with their character but nowhere near as "godlike" as the forum make it to be.
Sure, they feel like they contribute a lot through their cantrips, and both inspire courage and dirge of doom are very useful. But the three slots really hurt them, especially in the APs where you can get a lot of fights back to back. They very quickly have to resort to cantrips (one of them took adaptative cantrip for electric arc, but still) or skill feats.
Meanwhile, I'm a wizard (Harry) in one of those games and a draconic sorcerer in the other one, and I feel like I always have something to do with my turn.
I know I may sound tedious because in every thread I contribute, I emphasize the importance of spell slots, not only for spell attrition but also for spell selection (I know the bard can get a grimoire but then so can the sorcerer, and that's still nowhere near 1 more choice per level).
In the first fight of the day, the bard is arguably a beast. He can first turn inspire courage or dirge (with focus to linger) AND throw a top spell to turn the tide of the game. There's little a wizard or sorcerer can do to top that, no 1-action will be as potent as a bard cantrip. My sorcerer usually uses Bon Mot and my wizard Recall Knowledge, and that's powerful in its own way, but nowhere near a flat +1 or -1.
However, as the fights drag on (and i'm not speaking about 5 fights a day, even 3 is enough), their turn starts to get less powerful. While I can still fling a fireball or a heightened slow, they're all out of their top two levels and they have to resort either to cantrips or less powerful spells.
Not only that but lingering composition, though powerful, isn't eternal. If the fight isn't finished in two or three rounds, our bard has to sustain his song throughout the fight, effectively becoming slowed 1, which has its own problems when monsters move around and you have to follow them.
So, TLDR, I'm not saying bard is a bad class, it's an awesome class loaded with a great chassis, great spell list, great cantrips. I'm just wondering how you see them in actual play because, IN MY TABLES and FROM MY EXPERIENCE (which is arguably limited), they lose steam quicker than other characters, and the tradeoff seems ok for me.
The advantage of having haste be a 3rd level spell, and a scroll of haste to be a 5th level item, and for the player to worry about if they can cast it rather than the system to figure out where it belongs is a very well designed feature of PF2 and break from PF1. Detect magic is always a 0th level spell. It is not the best one to look at for understanding why having spells compare first and always to each other, and spell level be consistent there is such a great feature of the game.
Plus the deity and bloodline additions are just a kindness of AoN to let you see different ways to pick up spells. Access comes through the specific class features that allow it. Clerics are a great class because the deity mechanic lets the divine list be incredibly focused around general divine things, while the deity selections makes for defining what kind of caster that deity's clerics are.
Also, people vastly underestimate how incredibly powerful having access to the harm spell is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's written in AoN doesn't change how the rulebooks are formatted.And? If you aren't looking on AoN, you aren't seeing 22 spell lists for detect magic either so... What is your point?
The designers and editors at paizo make decisions based on what works for a printed book (like when they moved Relics to GMG becasue they ran out of space). Blake Davis and his team make decisions based on what works for an SRD, like the decision to include deities in spell descriptions.And? Again, detect magic isn't presented like that in the book either...
If you release a class in one book and a spell in another one, you can give the spell to the class without putting external links to another book.
Also, you don't have pages of spell lists to learn if you want to know what spell a particular class has. You have just 4 spell lists to learn at most.The 4 spell list is also a very good idea in my opinion. PF1 books were filled with spell lists.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you release a class in one book and a spell in another one, you can give the spell to the class without putting external links to another book.
This doesn't make sense to me. You have to link it in one way or another: just because the list of spell lists is smaller doesn't mean it's not connected to the class. What is the difference between Summoner 1 and Occult 1 in this? I don't see it. It requires the same work in both cases, so IMO no improvement.
Also, you don't have pages of spell lists to learn if you want to know what spell a particular class has. You have just 4 spell lists to learn at most.
I don't see this as an issue to be honest. No one is going to recall each and every spell by level and list especially when new books add more and more in. So you're going to have to reference the lists: knowing the spells is more important than knowing the lists as you can skim a list and if you know the spells it's not very tough to get an idea of a list with a glance. Are you telling me, everyone that plays casters memorizes each and every spell of their lists without looking at those lists?
The 4 spell list is also a very good idea in my opinion. PF1 books were filled with spell lists.
I don't see an improvement. Filled with spell lists IMO means that the lists fits the class while 4 lists means that the class has to fit the list and change itself if it wants/needs spells outside of that. IMO that's a matter of taste, not one being objectively better or worse.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Filled with spell lists IMO means that the lists fits the class while 4 lists means that the class has to fit the list and change itself if it wants/needs spells outside of that.
While I prefer the 4 traditions, I think this is a really good point about the limits of it, as I think they tend to add spells based on whether or not it fits with the theme of the "main" class instead of if it fits with the themes of the tradition itself.
It's not the worst thing in the world, but I'm curious how it will play out long term.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Filled with spell lists IMO means that the lists fits the class while 4 lists means that the class has to fit the list and change itself if it wants/needs spells outside of that.While I prefer the 4 traditions, I think this is a really good point about the limits of it, as I think they tend to add spells based on whether or not it fits with the theme of the "main" class instead of if it fits with the themes of the tradition itself.
It's not the worst thing in the world, but I'm curious how it will play out long term.
I don't know that I prefer one over the other. I just think it's easier to have the spells feel like they fit the class with custom lists: for instance if you want the Summoner to have access to all the summoning spells, you have to make a feat or class feature to do that while the other way you just add them to the list. Actually, you could even do a hybrid method where classes get one of the 4 lists but each then might add custom spells on top of it which means less to take in.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"How is X spell list" isn't a question you can answer in a vacuum, because the spell list exists in the context of the classes that can use them and that's kind of been a bit of a problem.
Clerics are a pretty solid class, while from my experience (both in home games and looking at forums/reddit/other sites), Divine Sorcerers and Witches have been more poorly received. In large part because the Cleric class is specifically built to complement the Divine Spell list (or, perhaps the other way around) in a way that the flexible list casters aren't and it ends up showing in practice.
So while it definitely saves on wordcount in the books (which is probably the main reason it exists), I think it's a bit much to call it just objectively and wholly beneficial.
I agree that flexible list casters lack focus. The witch class might have been better off as an INT-based prepared Occult caster, with various patrons granting appropriate spells from other traditions and more class feats and features focused on debuffing.
But the issue of flexible list casters is distinct from the question of whether or not 2E's spell traditons are better than 1E's class-specific spell lists.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, you could even do a hybrid method where classes get one of the 4 lists but each then might add custom spells on top of it which means less to take in.
I REALLY wish they'd done this for the Wizard and Witch classes. Especially wizards; schools would feel more meaningful and my eye would stop twitching every time I see animate dead (arcane).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the issue of flexible list casters is distinct from the question of whether or not 2E's spell traditons are better than 1E's class-specific spell lists.
I disagree, the two are interlinked because of how the spell lists are constructed, imo. The divine spell list and the cleric chassis work in tandem in the same way the occult spell list and the bard chassis do, which creates a ripple effect in how other casters play with those lists (for the worst). Especially for flexible list casters who have to be built more genericall by design.
I will say, by contrast, the arcane list sidesteps this issue to some extent because the Wizard itself is kind of generic.
TBH, this was a thing in PF1 too, where certain classes or archetypes would directly borrow someone else's spell list and would as a result sometimes feel awkward in play because they didn't have the mechanics the spell list was intended to be supported by.
Magical Child Vigilantes feeling weird because their kit didn't synergize with the Unchained Summoner list is pretty much the same thing as Sorcerers feeling weird because their kit doesn't synergize as well with the Cleric list in PF2. The only difference is we don't call it the Cleric list anymore.
|
|
But the issue of flexible list casters is distinct from the question of whether or not 2E's spell traditons are better than 1E's class-specific spell lists.I disagree, the two are interlinked because of how the spell lists are constructed, imo. The divine spell list and the cleric chassis work in tandem in the same way the occult spell list and the bard chassis do, which creates a ripple effect in how other casters play with those lists (for the worst). Especially for flexible list casters who have to be built more genericall by design.
I will say, by contrast, the arcane list sidesteps this issue to some extent because the Wizard itself is kind of generic.
TBH, this was a thing in PF1 too, where certain classes or archetypes would directly borrow someone else's spell list and would as a result sometimes feel awkward in play because they didn't have the mechanics the spell list was intended to be supported by.
Magical Child Vigilantes feeling weird because their kit didn't synergize with the Unchained Summoner list is pretty much the same thing as Sorcerers feeling weird because their kit doesn't synergize as well with the Cleric list in PF2. The only difference is we don't call it the Cleric list anymore.
If it was a problem in 1E, then it cannot be a problem caused by 2E spell traditions vs. class-based lists, can it? The problem caused by the lack of class abilities that synergize with spell lists.
If 1E sorcerers could choose the cleric or druid spell lists without having class features that take advantage of it, then that's a problem even without 2E spell traditions.
OTOH, spell traditions in 2E would work the same even if sorcerers and witches were locked in a single tradition.
The issues of flexible-list casters lacking focus is separate from 2E spell traditions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would really love to have imput from people actually playing bards, and how much they like their character.
Because we have a bard in two of our tables, and both are ok with their character but nowhere near as "godlike" as the forum make it to be.
Sure, they feel like they contribute a lot through their cantrips, and both inspire courage and dirge of doom are very useful. But the three slots really hurt them, especially in the APs where you can get a lot of fights back to back. They very quickly have to resort to cantrips (one of them took adaptative cantrip for electric arc, but still) or skill feats.
Meanwhile, I'm a wizard (Harry) in one of those games and a draconic sorcerer in the other one, and I feel like I always have something to do with my turn.
I know I may sound tedious because in every thread I contribute, I emphasize the importance of spell slots, not only for spell attrition but also for spell selection (I know the bard can get a grimoire but then so can the sorcerer, and that's still nowhere near 1 more choice per level).
In the first fight of the day, the bard is arguably a beast. He can first turn inspire courage or dirge (with focus to linger) AND throw a top spell to turn the tide of the game. There's little a wizard or sorcerer can do to top that, no 1-action will be as potent as a bard cantrip. My sorcerer usually uses Bon Mot and my wizard Recall Knowledge, and that's powerful in its own way, but nowhere near a flat +1 or -1.
However, as the fights drag on (and i'm not speaking about 5 fights a day, even 3 is enough), their turn starts to get less powerful. While I can still fling a fireball or a heightened slow, they're all out of their top two levels and they have to resort either to cantrips or less powerful spells.
Not only that but lingering composition, though powerful, isn't eternal. If the fight isn't finished in two or three rounds, our bard has to sustain his song throughout the fight, effectively becoming slowed 1, which has its own problems when...
I play in two 5 player groups at the moment, with one bard more of a full spellcaster and another one with a bit of martial prowess in them. The former is a bit weaker with a stricter rules interpretation, but has more flexibility with song types. The latter is more flexible with rules interpretation, but has many other things to do in combat, almost the same as I do as a Wizard in that group.
In both groups, we have avoided attacks and damage and both hit and crit solely because of the Bard doing their Inspire songs. And in rounds where they aren't doing that because they are pressured to do other things, or because rolls don't work out for Linger/Heroics, the results show that we miss or get crit because of lacking those bonuses. And needless to say, short of a Heroism spell being cast, no other focus abilities or spell slots can match that kind of power. Even from the same vein, a Witch's Nudge Fate, a Monk's Ki Strike, or even a Ranger's Gravity Weapon, do not compare. Synesthesia is a close second, which is also, surprise surprise, Occult exclusive, but is downplayed due to the simple fact that it can be nullified with saving throws, whereas the cantrips don't.
An Occult Sorcerer can certainly do things that a Bard can't, but those are build dependent. A stretchy-arm Sorcerer and a hag-like Sorcerer are mutually exclusive, build-wise. Between that and their bonus spell per level, they will never outpace the Bard's cantrips, and their powers fall apart fast in comparison to what the Bard's powers improve upon to make an unstoppable force.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it was a problem in 1E, then it cannot be a problem caused by 2E spell traditions vs. class-based lists, can it?
It can, because the source of the problem is still the same: A class borrowing someone else's spell list instead of having their own and having issues as a result.
It only feels different because Paizo changed the name of the spell lists. It's still ultimately the Bard, Cleric, Druid and Wizard spell lists though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it was a problem in 1E, then it cannot be a problem caused by 2E spell traditions vs. class-based lists, can it?It can, because the source of the problem is still the same: A class borrowing someone else's spell list instead of having their own and having issues as a result.
It only feels different because Paizo changed the name of the spell lists. It's still ultimately the Bard, Cleric, Druid and Wizard spell lists though.
The occult list really isn't the bard list though. Not in a direct PF1 to PF2 sense. The narrative of the bard in PF2 has changed as a result of getting the occult list more than the occult list developed to be the bard's spell list. The occult list is much closer to the PF1 witch list.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The occult list really isn't the bard list though. Not in a direct PF1 to PF2 sense. The narrative of the bard in PF2 has changed as a result of getting the occult list more than the occult list developed to be the bard's spell list. The occult list is much closer to the PF1 witch list.If it was a problem in 1E, then it cannot be a problem caused by 2E spell traditions vs. class-based lists, can it?It can, because the source of the problem is still the same: A class borrowing someone else's spell list instead of having their own and having issues as a result.
It only feels different because Paizo changed the name of the spell lists. It's still ultimately the Bard, Cleric, Druid and Wizard spell lists though.
The primal list is also very different than the druid list in 1E, though not as much as Bard/ Occult.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In both groups, we have avoided attacks and damage and both hit and crit solely because of the Bard doing their Inspire songs. And in rounds where they aren't doing that because they are pressured to do other things, or because rolls don't work out for Linger/Heroics, the results show that we miss or get crit because of lacking those bonuses.Bards are amazing. Indisputable.
But IC is +1, IHIC is usually +2.
Definitely big bonuses in PF2.
But IC will only turn a miss>hit or hit>crit on one die value each.
18/20 rolls won't change. Down to 16/20 for IH, still only happens 20% of the time.
Rolling those specific numbers regularly would be a real statistical anomaly.
When characters are attacking only once or twice in a turn with additional abilities or mechanics in play, it matters enough that it only affecting one or two die values is basically making entire turns matter more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The primal list is also very different than the druid list in 1E, though not as much as Bard/ Occult.
Only in the sense that a lot of spells that duplicated Sorcerer/Wizard spells were just handed over. If you look at the spells that are unique to the primal list, they are very much nature themed, even when they make little sense as far as "Material + Life". Spells that work on a creature's mind, like Speak with Animal, for example. Or, heck, Fear.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
they are very much nature themed, even when they make little sense as far as "Material + Life". Spells that work on a creature's mind, like Speak with Animal, for example. Or, heck, Fear.
Your Honour,
I would like to call the “Damn nature, you scary” meme to the stand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would really love to have imput from people actually playing bards, and how much they like their character.
Because we have a bard in two of our tables, and both are ok with their character but nowhere near as "godlike" as the forum make it to be.
Sure, they feel like they contribute a lot through their cantrips, and both inspire courage and dirge of doom are very useful. But the three slots really hurt them, especially in the APs where you can get a lot of fights back to back. They very quickly have to resort to cantrips (one of them took adaptative cantrip for electric arc, but still) or skill feats.
Meanwhile, I'm a wizard (Harry) in one of those games and a draconic sorcerer in the other one, and I feel like I always have something to do with my turn.
I know I may sound tedious because in every thread I contribute, I emphasize the importance of spell slots, not only for spell attrition but also for spell selection (I know the bard can get a grimoire but then so can the sorcerer, and that's still nowhere near 1 more choice per level).
In the first fight of the day, the bard is arguably a beast. He can first turn inspire courage or dirge (with focus to linger) AND throw a top spell to turn the tide of the game. There's little a wizard or sorcerer can do to top that, no 1-action will be as potent as a bard cantrip. My sorcerer usually uses Bon Mot and my wizard Recall Knowledge, and that's powerful in its own way, but nowhere near a flat +1 or -1.
However, as the fights drag on (and i'm not speaking about 5 fights a day, even 3 is enough), their turn starts to get less powerful. While I can still fling a fireball or a heightened slow, they're all out of their top two levels and they have to resort either to cantrips or less powerful spells.
Not only that but lingering composition, though powerful, isn't eternal. If the fight isn't finished in two or three rounds, our bard has to sustain his song throughout the fight, effectively becoming slowed 1, which has its own problems when...
I can give you my view as a bard. It's not very fun to be honest with you. Your cantrips are so good that people expect you to use them every round because they make their characters better. When you don't use them, they get unhappy.
Sure, you're probably the most powerful shifter of probabilities in the game and your feats are really effective for improving what you do, but it's not fun from a combat perspective because you're setting up others to take the glory.
My most powerful combination at the moment is to hit a creature with synesthesia followed by true target or combined with Inspire Heroics which when flanking is often an 8 point shift in attack probability for one round every fight.
Eventually at 18th level when you pick up Eternal Composition the bard will be able to Inspire Heroics, True Target, and Synesthesia all in the same round which will be absolutely sickening for a round of battle.
Eternal Composition at 18th level allows you to maintain one of your great cantrips, cast a spell, and more or do a spell attack every round. It's one of the best class feats a caster can get.
The bard is very powerful with lots of powerful builds, but I don't enjoy them that much honestly. I guess it's hard for me to picture bard power in play as that interesting. I try to picture it as a Eddie Van Halen with magic playing Led Zeppelin songs.
Bard is highly effective and powerful, but more about giving others the glory than yourself. And the bard tends to render high level single target enemies trivial. Once you land that synesthesia with true target/inspire heroics combo, it's usually game over for the enemy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
they are very much nature themed, even when they make little sense as far as "Material + Life". Spells that work on a creature's mind, like Speak with Animal, for example. Or, heck, Fear.
Your Honour,
I would like to call the “Damn nature, you scary” meme to the stand.
Memes aren't a very valid reason to justify spells being on a list when they probably shouldn't be.
Trying to break it down mathmatically has never made it that clear to me, but even in PF1 the bard was always most useful in a party that made as many attacks as possible, more so than the party that just makes single big attacks or attacks mostly with casters. Dirge of doom is nice for casters, but it is not significantly better enough to say that a 4 person party with a wizard and a cleric in it would be better with a bard than, say, a debuffing scoundrel rogue.
However, if you play in a lot of 5 or 6 person table PFS games, the value of the bard increases about 50%. So the idea that a bard is always the best character to add to a given party is not always going to be true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can give you my view as a bard. It's not very fun to be honest with you. Your cantrips are so good that people expect you to use them every round because they make their characters better. When you don't use them, they get unhappy.
Thanks for your candor, that's pretty consistent with what I see in my groups.
The bard is incredibly powerful, but his power relies on very specific action, notably inspire courage/dirge of doom and some broken spells like Synesthesia or True Target whenever there is a single target. It's a balance problem when a 5th level spell is more powerful than almost every 9th level option.
So bards are powerhouses, but also a bit tedious to play, because they won't have the luxury to use their incredible skills and charisma to Demoralize, Bon Mot, Create a Diversion, or look for the best spell in a given situation.
They're still chock-full of goodies and have great flavor, but the fact that some options are way better than others kinda hamstring them in one style of play.
I've said before and will say again that I'm glad Bards are explicitly built to be a support class, even moreso than most other casters. ~w~
FWIW, some people enjoy playing the bard where the majority if their time is providing bonuses to other people.
I know for me its very implementation-dependent for the support role (for example, I really liked 4E's warlord, but haven't really found something comparable since).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
FWIW, some people enjoy playing the bard where the majority if their time is providing bonuses to other people.
I know for me its very implementation-dependent for the support role (for example, I really liked 4E's warlord, but haven't really found something comparable since).
Personally, I like support characters, but IMO the PF2 Bard is too 'solved'. There are some really obviously amazing spells and some really obviously amazing third actions that end up dictating how many of their turns go.
I'm pretty sure the last three Bards I played with all had different muses, but they still all did mostly the same thing in combat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
and mechanics are not the only aspect of character building.
No one said they are.
This is still a copout answer because a player should never feel like they're being forced to choose between mechanically correct options and something that appeals to them. Having to compromise your character one way or the other is not a good thing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one said they are.
Reading this thread you’d certainly get that impression. Virtually every point being made to justify bards being better than other casters and there being no reason to play anything else is based on a comparison of game mechanics. All I’m saying is the power curve is not the only aspect to chose your class/build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When characters are attacking only once or twice in a turn with additional abilities or mechanics in play, it matters enough that it only affecting one or two die values is basically making entire turns matter more.Attacking once means IC will work 1/ten turns.
Your character will benefit ~1-2 times over an adventuring day at that rate.
Good, but this image of the group being utterly reliant on IC and falling into strings of misses the moment the bard does anything else is clearly fictitious.
The vast majority of checks, even under IH, simply be won't affected one way or the other.
This isn't a hypothetical, though. Actual gameplay that I have both participated in and witnessed has shown that, over the course of a round, with several checks being rolled, a few of those outcomes are going into our favor thanks to those buffs.
It is by no means fictitious when actual gameplay shows these things happening regularly.