Transformation spell plz?

[pauljathome]

Abyssalwyrm wrote:

make spellcaster be better than martials in melee. Just equal, and just temporary. Can be done multiple ways:

Many of us think this goal is a very BAD one. Spellcasters still have lots of advantages outside of melee, if they are equal, even on a temporary basis, then they're just TOO powerful.

Encounter A - hitting people in melee is a good option
Spellcaster is equal

Encounter B - AoE and control is REALLY important
Spellcaster wins hugely

Encounter C - Its all about utility (fly, teleport, water breathing, etc etc etc)
Spellcaster is often the ONLY one even able to contribute, other times they are just by far the best solution

[Old_Man_Robot]

Cyouni wrote:

should be restored to their days of glory.

I think this sentiment is always a large part of the problem. Too much previous edition baggage.

Editions are self-contained, if something doesn't work or stand up within its current edition, previous editions have literally no bearing on that.

Constantly using previous editions to justify why areas that need improvement in the current one shouldn't get them, is really just vitriol.

[NemoNoName]

Unicore wrote:

I think Dragon claws are better than the wildmorph focus spell given to wild order druids as their default focus spell by a wide margin. Wild shape is more fun, but really only in a utility sense at both low levels and high levels, unless you sink feats into it.

I disagree strongly on this point. For several reasons; it is much easier to build a Druid that can stand in melee (without being better than a proper martial) since they start with Armour proficiency and higher hit points.

And while yes, you want to get those extra feats to upgrade Wild Claws feature, those extra feats bring you more than upgrade to Wild Claws and thus are much more worthwhile investment.

Unicore wrote:

If you love lay on hands,

I hate it, I think it makes the game worse and less interesting.

Unicore wrote:

you can pick it up as a sorcerer at level 2 with the Blessed One archetype AND get an extra focus point to boot. Continuing to get more new add on options takes care of the "Now I am stuck with this" aspect of this debate instantly.

Again, this doesn't resolve the problem of having Dragon Claws. This is just a forced fix for a problem that shouldn't exist.

[Old_Man_Robot]

pauljathome wrote:

Abyssalwyrm wrote:

make spellcaster be better than martials in melee. Just equal, and just temporary. Can be done multiple ways:

Many of us think this goal is a very BAD one. Spellcasters still have lots of advantages outside of melee, if they are equal, even on a temporary basis, then they're just TOO powerful.

Encounter A - hitting people in melee is a good option
Spellcaster is equal

Encounter B - AoE and control is REALLY important
Spellcaster wins hugely

Encounter C - Its all about utility (fly, teleport, water breathing, etc etc etc)
Spellcaster is often the ONLY one even able to contribute, other times they are just by far the best solution

These aren't binaries!

Currently, it's much easier and often more beneficial for a martial character to splash into casting than vice versa.

A lot of the things you've mentioned have already been democratized in the system massively. This is a good thing overall, but it squeezes the supposed balance you are referencing.

Skill feats overall have moved a lot of utility away from casters and into anyone hands.

AOE options are not wholly in the domain of casters anymore and neither is control. The rise in power of skill feats and how they intersect with martial classes really powers them up massively. For example, I'd say an intimidation focused barbarian is one of the stronger options for general battlefield control right now.

Also, martial doesn't equal melee.

[Guntermench]

As has been noted previously in this thread, martials have to spend up to 5 feats to get access to about 40-60% of caster spellcasting, and they get this extremely slowly.

Casters, on the other hand, spend no feats to get about 60-90% effectiveness in martial endeavors. They're equal proficiency from 1-4, then a step behind from 5-20. They have to spend 2 or 3 feats at most to boost their damage.

Not sure I agree with the "easier" part given the feat cost to have more than a pittance of spellcasting, and man do they get that spellcasting slowly. I've also seen a lot more complaining (this I do agree with) that spellcasters don't have as many interesting feats as martials. Most levels of martial classes have a couple of choices that are good even before considering archetype feats for spellcasting.

AoE is also effectively nonexistent for martials below level 14, outside a handful of feats that let you attack a second target at the same time - mostly limited to adjacent ones.

[pauljathome]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Currently, it's much easier and often more beneficial for a martial character to splash into casting than vice versa.

I don't think that is true in general.

Martials can pretty much only dabble in spellcasting until about level 12 or so (when they get expert spellcasting). Before that they get a cantrip and 0-4 spells. And the ability to use low level wands and scrolls.

I don't want to understate it. That can provide considerable versatility and be a good investment of the feats, money, and stat points. It is very definitely competitive with other options the character could take. But only competitive. Most martials are giving up on some pretty choice options in order to dabble.

The cost for a spell caster splashing into martial is extremely variable. For example, a wizard who wants to use a bow gets a useful third action (bow attack) for the cost of a few pretty crappy feats. His dexterity was already very likely close to maximized anyway. A druid or warpriest gets it almost for free from their class chassis.

A sorcerer who wants to go into melee has to invest more resources to be effective. But not a prohibitive number of resources. And, of course, they're a better straight caster than a druid or warpriest is to compensate for that.

With a few minor nits, I think full martial, martial dabbling as spellcaster, spellcaster dabbling as martial, full spellcaster are ALL viable characters and are approximately balanced. The differences in player ability, party composition and campaign style greatly outweigh any mechanical differences between the characters in the abstract.

But one thing that is true for pretty much ALL characters is that the character has to be built as a whole. If you're planning some form of spell casting/weapon using character you need to decide what contributions it is going to make to the party under what circumstances and prioritize those. You need to realistically look at what you can and can not do. Take options to shore up your weaknesses and maximize your strengths. A character (especially a Gish who is trying to do two or more quite different things) is complicated to build well. Its a LOT more than taking dragon claws or wild shape or Wizard archetype. It seems to me that at least some of the people on this thread want way, way too much from a single spell.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Unicore wrote:

I think Dragon claws are better than the wildmorph focus spell given to wild order druids as their default focus spell by a wide margin. Wild shape is more fun, but really only in a utility sense at both low levels and high levels, unless you sink feats into it.

Focus spells that create lasting effects are pretty tame on the "instant power" meter in PF2. That doesn't make them bad, but it is clear that a significant chunk of power budget is consumed by any focus spell that gives you things to do over multiple rounds of combat. It is that way across classes, and has been that way in playtest classes too. It really seems like changing that would be a very large shift in system balance and have to happen in a massive Errata of multiple classes and focus spells.

I think a feat that let you swap out your starting bloodline focus spell for a specific alternative might be possible, but at that point, why not just take a feat that grants you a new focus spell so you still have the extra focus point, and a little more versatility?

If you love lay on hands, you can pick it up as a sorcerer at level 2 with the Blessed One archetype AND get an extra focus point to boot. Continuing to get more new add on options takes care of the "Now I am stuck with this" aspect of this debate instantly.

"Hey, if you don't like the focus spell, just take a dedication that gives you a better, more functioning focus spell, and not use the focus spell you were given." This is basically a cop-out answer saying you can't justify the validity of the focus spell being granted based on what the expectations of the class choice is. And it requires burning class feats and opting out of other valid options to compensate for it.

Is it a valid and viable choice? Sure. But that doesn't do much to demonstrate what makes the focus spell in question good and valuable to the sorcerer's kit, other than, in this case, providing a starter Focus Point to expand upon it. But any bloodline could do this, and still provide more, better options for said Sorcerer to utilize in an encounter.

[Cyouni]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

should be restored to their days of glory.

I think this sentiment is always a large part of the problem. Too much previous edition baggage.

Editions are self-contained, if something doesn't work or stand up within its current edition, previous editions have literally no bearing on that.

Constantly using previous editions to justify why areas that need improvement in the current one shouldn't get them, is really just vitriol.

Yes, but that's only if they actually need improvement.

You haven't actually shown why that's the case.

Casters are still far more likely to be useful if a situation goes badly than martials. And I'm saying this while playing a martial that can consistently increase an ally's attack roll/skill check by 3, or effectively give an enemy -3/-4 to hit against him, at level 10.

Even the druid is doing fine, and he's playing the most unoptimized character at the table by far - a martial weapon wielder that only has prepared utility spells and has a savage animal companion. The other caster is a Staff Nexus abjuration wizard/medic with 18 Str, and I'd say he has outperformed me most days at the table (though my bad luck has certainly not helped - I think it recent sessions, I've been knocked to dying more often than not).

You'll notice that both these casters are ones that this forum would complain about being suboptimal. And yet I can point to multiple occasions in which these suboptimal casters were MVP, literally saving the party with the spells they'd prepped.

[Guntermench]

Temperans wrote:

The Rot Grub wrote:

Just tuning in. The original post has very few people agreeing with it... and yet we are now on post #707? How did it go on this long?

The thread has also gone a lot into what the cost for different archetypes is. Along how trying to keep up with proficiencies can be quite an ordeal.

For example. Someone said that Martial MC Caster only get 40-60%. But that ignores the fact that low level buff spells are highly beneficial to martials. Most of those spells tend to be single target (aka just the martial) or are straight number buffs.

But then they also say Caster MC Martial get so much more. But ignore the fact that it takes a caster at least 7 out of 10 class feats just trying to get similar but worse HP, saves, AC, and weapons. While getting no actual martial feats.

So the Martial MC Caster gets Master spellcasting and 8th level spells (casters get it at 15th level). While casters have no way of getting martial feats past level 10 without doing even more archetypes (aka use all 10 of their class feats).

So you have 5 feats for a spellcasting that auto scales with 5 feats to spare to get other stuff and full access to wands and scrolls. VS 7-10 feats to get to below the starting point for a martial. Which would you say is more efficient, and in the context of polymorphs should those spells not scale so that when used at the highest spell slot their effect always rival a martial character?

Quote on the 7-10? I've said they spend 0 to stay about 60ish percent effective in martial offense vs 4 or 5 to get to 60% effective spellcasting. I guess 2 if they want proficiency in all weapons, plus 1 to get medium armor puts them at 3 feats to get closer, and last I checked 3 is less than 5.

[Raychael Allor]

Locking for moderation.