Transformation spell plz?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 716 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Alfa/Polaris wrote:
I totally agree that battleforms, picked up judiciously, work fine mathematically. I totally disagree that the weird, arbitrary, restrictive thematics of those options are something to just be content with. I can't think of a good mechanical reason to keep Animal Form from scaling, and the possible thematic reasons step on some perfectly reasonable fantasies to no benefit that I can see.

I don't think it's unreasonable for forms to have more level scaling for battle form spells. There are two mechanical effects of that change to consider though.

First is an effective buff to lower level Druid Form feats. The second is a buff to spontaneous casters who could then get with one signature spell scaling benefits through all levels.

A clunky way to circumvent that effect would be to create a series of higher level animal form spells to scale into higher levels, and likewise to create another Dragon Form spell that fits into the levels different from the original.

Whether it would be necessary to circumvent this buff at all is another matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
EKruze wrote:
Alfa/Polaris wrote:
I totally agree that battleforms, picked up judiciously, work fine mathematically. I totally disagree that the weird, arbitrary, restrictive thematics of those options are something to just be content with. I can't think of a good mechanical reason to keep Animal Form from scaling, and the possible thematic reasons step on some perfectly reasonable fantasies to no benefit that I can see.

I don't think it's unreasonable for forms to have more level scaling for battle form spells. There are two mechanical effects of that change to consider though.

First is an effective buff to lower level Druid Form feats. The second is a buff to spontaneous casters who could then get with one signature spell scaling benefits through all levels.

A clunky way to circumvent that effect would be to create a series of higher level animal form spells to scale into higher levels, and likewise to create another Dragon Form spell that fits into the levels different from the original.

Whether it would be necessary to circumvent this buff at all is another matter.

That sound like a more plausible fix, though. Makijg new spells seems a lot easier than adding all this to existing spells. I doubt the CRB would even have the space for it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Abyssalwyrm wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Regarding (formerly known as Tenser's) Transformation in particular, I think Righteous Might is a more appropriate model than most of the arcane/primal polymorph spells. Just polish off some of that god-stink, and inter-/extrapolate 7th, 9th, and 10th level versions of it.

I disagree, just fix all the transformation spells to grant a to hit bonus*, that scales all the way up to level 10 spells, and keeps them close but definitely behind a non-fighter martial of the same level.

*And probably some other statistics too

Thing is with Rightouse Might, it's still flagged as full polymorph effect, not just morph. And more importantly a battleform. So even though spell technically lets you use your own weapon, since it's a battleform - you cannot benefit from item bonus from your weapons. So Similarly to "form" spells, if you try to use lower level ones, on high level, you still underpowered even compared to non-polymorphed yourself.

That's fine and working as intended in my opinion.

My biggest concern is focus spells (like Dragon Claws) would should be able to maintain viability and auto-heighten. I think it's fair for your lower level spell slots to fall out of offensive usefulness for something like this.

The main things I want to fix are focus spells remaining relevant throughout a characters entire existence, and not being forced to take a new form spell even if you wanted to focus your RP around transforming into a specific kind of character. As long as you continue to heighten a spell (the spells need to be able to be heightened up to 10) then it should continue to scale and keep you relevant.

Captain Morgan wrote:
EKruze wrote:
Alfa/Polaris wrote:
I totally agree that battleforms, picked up judiciously, work fine mathematically. I totally disagree that the weird, arbitrary, restrictive thematics of those options are something to just be content with. I can't think of a good mechanical reason to keep Animal Form from scaling, and the possible thematic reasons step on some perfectly reasonable fantasies to no benefit that I can see.

I don't think it's unreasonable for forms to have more level scaling for battle form spells. There are two mechanical effects of that change to consider though.

First is an effective buff to lower level Druid Form feats. The second is a buff to spontaneous casters who could then get with one signature spell scaling benefits through all levels.

A clunky way to circumvent that effect would be to create a series of higher level animal form spells to scale into higher levels, and likewise to create another Dragon Form spell that fits into the levels different from the original.

Whether it would be necessary to circumvent this buff at all is another matter.

That would be a fair compromise, though one I don't think it necessary.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think a large majority of issues I see expressed from people about PF2 an more resolve back to wanting symmetry and parallelism in every aspect of the game. Having spent a couple of years doing game design, I discovered that symmetry is easy to accomplish numerically, but difficult to make rich enough for options to feel unique and interesting.

The design of PF2 is doing a very intricate dance around balance, symmetry and uniqueness of options.

Could every spell have been designed with 3 variable actions and heighten uniquely at every level? of course they could have, but then making new unique higher level spells becomes more and more difficult if they have to compete with what every other spell in the game. The developers probably weighed this option early on and decided a system that parallel in its design isn’t the system that helped all the adventure designers tell the stories about Golarion that they wanted to tell.

With the 2nd level animal form spell for example, even at level 20, a Druid could cast it, still gain a benefit (especially if they have invested nothing in equipment for melee combat, or movement types), just like a level 3 fireball might be a useful way to trigger some serious weaknesses against AoE and Fire. But you are supposed to want to go out and get new shiner stuff in PF2, not just use the same spells you were using 10 levels ago. I think it is very reasonable to expect new options that let you turn into higher level animals ;although we have that with many of the form spells already, especially with Dinos being animals and purple worms and sea serpents being them as well.

I think the decision not to have one spell you can learn at 3rd level be the only form spell you will ever need wasn’t an accident but a deliberate and carefully considered choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
The main things I want to fix are focus spells remaining relevant throughout a characters entire existence, and not being forced to take a new form spell even if you wanted to focus your RP around transforming into a specific kind of character. As long as you continue to heighten a spell (the spells need to be able to be heightened up to 10) then it should continue to scale and keep you relevant.

Thing is, I don't think those are meant to compare to cantrips or spells cast from spell slots. They're strictly better than a Sorcerer's other melee options, simple weapons and regular unarmed attacks. They give you a flavourful alternative to using simple weapons that do have a scaling mechanical benefit. They also allow you to still be a full caster because they're are Morph, not Polymorph. They can't keep up with martial proficiency or damage because of that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:


The design of PF2 is doing a very intricate dance around balance, symmetry and uniqueness of options.

I think this is a big part of it. The uniqueness while it makes the existing options can cause people who's preferred options being well supported feeling slighted because so much thematics are baked into a lot of the options it's frustrating when something matches the mechanics you want for your character but are thematically inappropriate. So yes a transmuter can work mechanically but some folks may want to focus on specific creatures or types of creatures and to them it's not satisfying.

For focus spells I also agree they're fine for a fallback but if you want to focus on them there aren't satisfying options


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
wegrata wrote:
Unicore wrote:


The design of PF2 is doing a very intricate dance around balance, symmetry and uniqueness of options.

I think this is a big part of it. The uniqueness while it makes the existing options can cause people who's preferred options being well supported feeling slighted because so much thematics are baked into a lot of the options it's frustrating when something matches the mechanics you want for your character but are thematically inappropriate. So yes a transmuter can work mechanically but some folks may want to focus on specific creatures or types of creatures and to them it's not satisfying.

For focus spells I also agree they're fine for a fallback but if you want to focus on them there aren't satisfying options

I agree that it is easy to get frustrated when your own vision for your character doesn't seem to match what the game system is designed to do, but it is not a deception on the part of the developers to say, "We have created this game to tell the stories we want to tell," and then make the system work that way.

The character who wants to study magic to discover how to turn into a bear feels like a transmuter, but it is not really a level 1 to level 20 character idea: There is only so much power that turning into a bear is going to give you in the world of Golarion. You can play this character, and you will continue to get more powerful as you level up and in a vacuum, or a campaign designed around your character, you will be perfectly fine. However, PF2 is a system designed around telling stories about multiple PCs working together to accomplish challenges and everyone else in your party is going to get more powerful than you are if you fixate on being a wizard who only turns into a bear. But in Golarion, a level 18 bear is probably going to get destroyed by a level 18 purple worm or sea serpent. Just like you can only boost monsters with the elite template so many times before they just won't be a challenge any more, the same thing happens with spells.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As for focus spells, especial 1st level focus spells, I think they also fit the bill of being intended to be stop gap measures for most characters, with options to build around if you really want to use them. By the time a monk or a barbarian is using dragon claws regularly, the sorcerer is two levels away from being able to cast dragon breath with their focus points.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:
Claxon wrote:
The main things I want to fix are focus spells remaining relevant throughout a characters entire existence, and not being forced to take a new form spell even if you wanted to focus your RP around transforming into a specific kind of character. As long as you continue to heighten a spell (the spells need to be able to be heightened up to 10) then it should continue to scale and keep you relevant.
Thing is, I don't think those are meant to compare to cantrips or spells cast from spell slots. They're strictly better than a Sorcerer's other melee options, simple weapons and regular unarmed attacks. They give you a flavourful alternative to using simple weapons that do have a scaling mechanical benefit. They also allow you to still be a full caster because they're are Morph, not Polymorph. They can't keep up with martial proficiency or damage because of that.

I'm not saying they need to be as good as transformation/battle spells. But they need to be better then they are.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why? They're already better than the weapons sorcerers have access to.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
wegrata wrote:
Unicore wrote:


The design of PF2 is doing a very intricate dance around balance, symmetry and uniqueness of options.

I think this is a big part of it. The uniqueness while it makes the existing options can cause people who's preferred options being well supported feeling slighted because so much thematics are baked into a lot of the options it's frustrating when something matches the mechanics you want for your character but are thematically inappropriate. So yes a transmuter can work mechanically but some folks may want to focus on specific creatures or types of creatures and to them it's not satisfying.

For focus spells I also agree they're fine for a fallback but if you want to focus on them there aren't satisfying options

I agree that it is easy to get frustrated when your own vision for your character doesn't seem to match what the game system is designed to do, but it is not a deception on the part of the developers to say, "We have created this game to tell the stories we want to tell," and then make the system work that way.

The character who wants to study magic to discover how to turn into a bear feels like a transmuter, but it is not really a level 1 to level 20 character idea: There is only so much power that turning into a bear is going to give you in the world of Golarion. You can play this character, and you will continue to get more powerful as you level up and in a vacuum, or a campaign designed around your character, you will be perfectly fine. However, PF2 is a system designed around telling stories about multiple PCs working together to accomplish challenges and everyone else in your party is going to get more powerful than you are if you fixate on being a wizard who only turns into a bear. But in Golarion, a level 18 bear is probably going to get destroyed by a level 18 purple worm or sea serpent. Just like you can only boost monsters with the elite template so many times before they just won't be a challenge any more, the same thing...

I don't believe I ever said anywhere they were dishonest, my apologies if it was implied. People are here talking about things that frustrate them about the game and that a totally reasonable thing to do on a forum for the game run by the company that makes it.

To you that character may not seem like a transmuter but to other it does, especially if there was more support for it.

Why wouldn't a wizard have figured out how to turn into a bear with the elite template, or one with some other magical modification even though it's still a bear. There are tons of ways to make that concept worm with that constrain.

For focus spells people want to regularly use things that are unique to them and they're forced to take. If there were options besides just claws for bloodlines I'd 100% be with you but it's a forced ability so it should be generally useful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ive said before in this thread that increasing proficiencies through feats is a slippery slope, and reading through a lot of comments only cements that thought for me. Posters range from spells like dragon claws are fine, to casting dragon claws should make me equivalent to a martial. So even if there was an archetype that bumped proficiency, it wouldn't be enough for some people. It would be my claws don't do enough damage, my ac is too low, I don't enough HP, I don't have feats to do cool stuff with my claws.

A reality of the system is that mechanics aren't always going to align with concepts. For those who want a dragon magic focused brawler, sorcerer might not be the best choice. Magus mechanically will likely be the best, or a martial with sorcerer multiclass. I've run into this sort of thing before where the mechanics don't match up with the concept I want (I hate dragons thematically, for instance as I feel they're overused and boring, but love all the tools they get) and it can be a let down. But more stuff is coming, making more concepts possible, and reflavoring can also help.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaulin wrote:

Ive said before in this thread that increasing proficiencies through feats is a slippery slope, and reading through a lot of comments only cements that thought for me. Posters range from spells like dragon claws are fine, to casting dragon claws should make me equivalent to a martial. So even if there was an archetype that bumped proficiency, it wouldn't be enough for some people. It would be my claws don't do enough damage, my ac is too low, I don't enough HP, I don't have feats to do cool stuff with my claws.

A reality of the system is that mechanics aren't always going to align with concepts. For those who want a dragon magic focused brawler, sorcerer might not be the best choice. Magus mechanically will likely be the best, or a martial with sorcerer multiclass. I've run into this sort of thing before where the mechanics don't match up with the concept I want (I hate dragons thematically, for instance as I feel they're overused and boring, but love all the tools they get) and it can be a let down. But more stuff is coming, making more concepts possible, and reflavoring can also help.

No arguments on any points, I think proficiency for feats is a mistake unless it's through an archtype that reduces utility.

I'd rather see more varied improvements for things that are unsatisfying in regards to accuracy, which appears to be the biggest issue.

I'd actually love seeing archtypes that give access to metamagic or wave casting with feats to buff these options.
Both could work but I together I think would be too big a sacrifice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:
Why? They're already better than the weapons sorcerers have access to.
wegrata wrote:
For focus spells people want to regularly use things that are unique to them and they're forced to take. If there were options besides just claws for bloodlines I'd 100% be with you but it's a forced ability so it should be generally useful.

Essentially as Wegrata notes, when you don't have a choice of the ability and the ability isn't useful beyond say level 5 then it's roughly the same as not giving an ability in the first place.

If a sorcerer is spending a focus point to cast their focus spell or spending a spell slot (of the highest level) then they should be rewarded with it being effective. Not necessarily as effective as a dedicated martial, but more effective than where they're currently at.

Saying that it's better than the weapons they have access to, while true, isn't helpful or relevant. It's still not a viable option to be used because the sorcerer is going to fall behind in being able to hit someone even when they focus 100% on using this focus spell (and I don't think they should have to in the first place).

If we target 2/3 points of attack behind martial characters it keeps the option useful and meaningful for sorcerers to use and want, without being too strong.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You retain full spellcasting while using them. By the basic game math they can't make you as good as a martial unless you give that up, at which point you may as well just be a martial that grabs them from a dedication anyway.

If you don't think them being a better option than every weapon a sorcerer baseline has access to is generally useful I don't know what else to say other than you and I have very different definitions of useful.


They already get 2 or 3 points behind martials (1 until level 5) to hit. 2 from one step lower proficiency, 1 from one less DEX or STR if you build for it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Dragon claws also do have some niche defensive benefits with the elemental resistance. But the thing for me is I don't really care about the claws past level 6. Dragon's Breath is such a good focus spell. The claws are really just a spare focus point you can pump into more breath attacks. It is a bit of a bummer levels 1-5, but at those early levels martial proficiency hasn't left you in the dust yet.

Edit: Actually, I do kind of wish they somehow added striking runes through heightening. I'd be fine with them as a back up weapon, but they fall behind the curve if you don't invest in some handwraps. ABP alleviates this, of course.


Guntermench wrote:
Why? They're already better than the weapons sorcerers have access to.

If I could combine my Dragon Claws or Glutton Jaw into a two-handed reach weapon with better damage die, as someone who is super squishy and tastes good with ketchup, I would much rather have that kind of fidelity and function, so I'm not in the martials' way of getting in range to poke things.

Bonus points if you go Cleric MCD and take the Deadly Simplicity feat to deal D10s with Longspears. Strangely, there are no Longspear deities, nor is there any language saying Longspears count as Spears for abilities and effects that affect Spears. But still...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gaulin wrote:
Posters range from spells like dragon claws are fine, to casting dragon claws should make me equivalent to a martial.

And sometimes both! ;P


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:


The character who wants to study magic to discover how to turn into a bear feels like a transmuter, but it is not really a level 1 to level 20 character idea: There is only so much power that turning into a bear is going to give you in the world of Golarion. You can play this character, and you will continue to get more powerful as you level up and in a vacuum, or a campaign designed around your character, you will be perfectly fine. However, PF2 is a system designed around telling stories about multiple PCs working together to accomplish challenges and everyone else in your party is going to get more powerful than you are if you fixate on being a wizard who only turns into a bear. But in Golarion, a level 18 bear is probably going to get destroyed by a level 18 purple worm or sea serpent.

Just not true. There is no game world reason that simple animals can't go all the way up. It is in the game already in different ways.

Have you seen animal barbarians. They get one simple animal all the way up. An animal companion bear goes all the way up - not really great at level 20 but it is still level 20.

I get that one feat that allowed the spell to scale all the way to level 20 would be too strong because of multi class characters.
It would be nice to get some more options. I assume they will come at some point.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't buy this "spell that scales would be too strong". There's already plenty of spells that scale. Most Cantrips scale - shield is super useful from 1 to 20 no issue. So having a few more spells that scale wouldn't really break the bank.
Not to mention that despite scaling in attack/damage/AC, Polymorph spells would still fall behind in other aspects and thus wouldn't really even dominate the base-higher level Polymorph spells. If you use Animal Form, you never get flying, or resistances to energy damage.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

On the note of "you can't give casters numbers equal to martials because then what do martials have" - well they have their specialised feats and abilities.

If it's true that giving casters same numbers as martials would make them equal, then Fighter would make all other martials irrelevant.

Martials get feats and abilities besides the "pure" proficiency numbers. This is what makes them great, not the mere number. Numbers are NECESSARY for a martial, but they are not the entirety of martial experience. Martials would still be able to be martially. And no, caster MC'ing to get Power Attack wouldn't break the bank either - by that time, martials should have way larger access to other feats that make them special than pure numbers.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

In before the thread is locked for being off-topic, bait, and generally full of awful takes mean to trigger "the opposing side" of the same argument that's been going on for 30 years over caster vs martial and niche protection.

Does anyone want to start a pointless Alignment bickering thread or maybe some lite edition warring next?


What if we fundamentally looked at changing transformation spells by giving them a new rule? My idea is that at their core they'd stay as they are now, they'd offer a couple of bonus feats while active, and have a duration measured in hours. In trade, they'd burn off an extra spell slot at each level when cast and can't be cast unless those slots, or one of higher level, are available to burn.

This gives these spells a larger impact when cast, but also a unique cost.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gortle wrote:
Unicore wrote:


The character who wants to study magic to discover how to turn into a bear feels like a transmuter, but it is not really a level 1 to level 20 character idea: There is only so much power that turning into a bear is going to give you in the world of Golarion. You can play this character, and you will continue to get more powerful as you level up and in a vacuum, or a campaign designed around your character, you will be perfectly fine. However, PF2 is a system designed around telling stories about multiple PCs working together to accomplish challenges and everyone else in your party is going to get more powerful than you are if you fixate on being a wizard who only turns into a bear. But in Golarion, a level 18 bear is probably going to get destroyed by a level 18 purple worm or sea serpent.

Just not true. There is no game world reason that simple animals can't go all the way up. It is in the game already in different ways.

Have you seen animal barbarians. They get one simple animal all the way up. An animal companion bear goes all the way up - not really great at level 20 but it is still level 20.

I get that one feat that allowed the spell to scale all the way to level 20 would be too strong because of multi class characters.
It would be nice to get some more options. I assume they will come at some point.

And the transmuter turning into a bear is still a level 20 character as well, they are just not getting a whole lot extra for doing so with a 5th level spell at level 20, but they are getting 15ft reach and not terrible damage for an attack that costs 0 gold compared to the small kingdom of a +3 greater striking weapon. I think a level 20 bear as a character is expected to be about on par with a level 20 bear animal companion. The transmuter also should have the ability to turn into a purple worm at this point. Those are the higher level simple animals available for now.


NemoNoName wrote:

On the note of "you can't give casters numbers equal to martials because then what do martials have" - well they have their specialised feats and abilities.

If it's true that giving casters same numbers as martials would make them equal, then Fighter would make all other martials irrelevant.

Martials get feats and abilities besides the "pure" proficiency numbers. This is what makes them great, not the mere number. Numbers are NECESSARY for a martial, but they are not the entirety of martial experience. Martials would still be able to be martially. And no, caster MC'ing to get Power Attack wouldn't break the bank either - by that time, martials should have way larger access to other feats that make them special than pure numbers.

Obviously Paizo weighs having full spellcasting as being more than enough to make up for only having Expert, and too much to also get Master.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Guntermench wrote:


If you don't think them being a better option than every weapon a sorcerer baseline has access to is generally useful I don't know what else to say other than you and I have very different definitions of useful.

How often do you use Eldritch Nails or Glutton's Jaws on your Sorcerers and Witches, then?


Cyouni wrote:


There is no attack action. There is only Striking.

I'v literally quoted core rule book...


Verdyn wrote:

What if we fundamentally looked at changing transformation spells by giving them a new rule? My idea is that at their core they'd stay as they are now, they'd offer a couple of bonus feats while active, and have a duration measured in hours. In trade, they'd burn off an extra spell slot at each level when cast and can't be cast unless those slots, or one of higher level, are available to burn.

This gives these spells a larger impact when cast, but also a unique cost.

I am ok having it just one minute duration by default. But more classes new specific specialization in specific spells.

It is really silly that dragon bloodline sorcerer gets simply dragonform as free extra spell, and nothing else. No extra duration, no extra bonus to attack, to not suck while in transformed into dragon.

And i am not even sure if i want or not for Paizo to reintroduce dragon mystery for oracles. It was good in first edition. But what if they decide again simply give you dragon form as extra spell and nothing else? That certainly will suck big times.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NemoNoName wrote:

I don't buy this "spell that scales would be too strong". There's already plenty of spells that scale. Most Cantrips scale - shield is super useful from 1 to 20 no issue. So having a few more spells that scale wouldn't really break the bank.

Not to mention that despite scaling in attack/damage/AC, Polymorph spells would still fall behind in other aspects and thus wouldn't really even dominate the base-higher level Polymorph spells. If you use Animal Form, you never get flying, or resistances to energy damage.

Agreed. I am sympathetic to the page space objection, but the simple solution to that is to not give as much as the spell levels. A flat scaling damage bonus instead of extra dice would save a fair bit of room, for instance. There's little difference mathematically between the average result of 4d6 and 1d6+10, but the former tops out far higher and feels more fun. Reserving extra dice for spells that start at a higher level seems like a good way to keep the higher spells more attractive to use while keeping the lower ones blandly relevant. Personally I wouldn't mind if the size/reach increases also got stripped out and reserved for higher level spells, so only numbers get boosted when cast from a higher level slot instead of new options being given, but I don't insist on that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Size/reach is neat, but it can be awkward given that since sizes and stat increases are tied together you can end up unable to properly leverage your form spells in small spaces.

In home games I've let our shapeshifters treat size increases as 'up to', but that's not how the mechanic is written.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the topic of Strikes and battle forms, it's just the way statblocks look like. If you look at a random creature like the Flytrap Leshy then it has a bunch of actions it can do like "flytrap mouth" instead of "Strike". They explain it in Reading Creature Statistics that it's just the name of the weapon they do strikes with.

So in battleforms they just list the 'weapons' that you are allowed to use.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:

You retain full spellcasting while using them. By the basic game math they can't make you as good as a martial unless you give that up, at which point you may as well just be a martial that grabs them from a dedication anyway.

If you don't think them being a better option than every weapon a sorcerer baseline has access to is generally useful I don't know what else to say other than you and I have very different definitions of useful.

It's not useful for the same reason you don't really see sorcerers ever using weapons unless they're absolutely desperate, even their attack cantrips are typically going to be a better option.

Guntermench wrote:
They already get 2 or 3 points behind martials (1 until level 5) to hit. 2 from one step lower proficiency, 1 from one less DEX or STR if you build for it.

This is only true assuming the player knows from the start they want to build for this.

I don't think that should be necessary. Spending focus points or actually spell slots should get them to near martial levels of attack bonus and damage (not the same but most of the way there).

At low level it works okay, as you level up it doesn't. Especially if you don't focus on pumping your dex/str at every possible opportunity.

You're correct that from levels 1 to 5 they're okay. The attack and damage are most of the way to martial levels like I'm talking about. The problem is once you go beyond that level range. I think focus spells should be viable from level 1 to 20. And I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that as the spell is heightened (auto-heightened in the case of focus spells) to expect it scale attack and damage in a way that keeps you close to martials.

Battleform spells put you at martial levels. I think these should put you a bit below that, but still close.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, one other issue with focus spells that give you weapons is that you also must invest a lot of gold into them, ABP solves that a bit but otherwise it's a lot of investment into something not that good in the first place.

In the Shattered Waves one shot I GM'd for a draconic sorcerer that used his claws to decent effect (I gave him handwraps for free though) but I can't imagine that keeping up. Making it a melee spell attack would probably feel better for those focus spells.

If you're using a 'limited' resource you'd want it to either have a situational high impact effect or an effect you can use without thinking with a decent effect that's better than doing something more conservative than casting a cantrip.


Squiggit wrote:
How often do you use Eldritch Nails or Glutton's Jaws on your Sorcerers and Witches, then?

Serious question: why are you even taking these options if you think they are bad?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Lucy_Valentine wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
How often do you use Eldritch Nails or Glutton's Jaws on your Sorcerers and Witches, then?
Serious question: why are you even taking these options if you think they are bad?

I don't anymore, but I've had players try to in other games and get incredibly frustrated when their characters routinely fail as a result.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:
There's little difference mathematically between the average result of 4d6 and 1d6+10, but the former tops out far higher and feels more fun.

Between the average results, sure, but in practice, 4d6 is much more "swingy."


Squiggit wrote:
I don't anymore, but I've had players try to in other games and get incredibly frustrated when their characters routinely fail as a result.

Well, it seems like you could:

a) advise them that they're not great options
b) point them in the direction of Retraining
c) alter the spells to work better

Seems to me like they could be spell attack rolls without wrecking anything.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lucy_Valentine wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
I don't anymore, but I've had players try to in other games and get incredibly frustrated when their characters routinely fail as a result.

Well, it seems like you could:

a) advise them that they're not great options
b) point them in the direction of Retraining
c) alter the spells to work better

Seems to me like they could be spell attack rolls without wrecking anything.

You can't retrain bloodlines generally, so at best such characters are stuck with a class feature they never want to use.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
Lucy_Valentine wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
How often do you use Eldritch Nails or Glutton's Jaws on your Sorcerers and Witches, then?
Serious question: why are you even taking these options if you think they are bad?
I don't anymore, but I've had players try to in other games and get incredibly frustrated when their characters routinely fail as a result.

Can you tell us what you mean by your players "Routinely fail as a result," because eldritch nails is a feat. You choose that because you want to cast hexes through your nails. It is a complicated build to make work, but you don't pick up the nails unless that is the build you are trying to make.

Glutton Jaws on the other hand is primarily an interesting reactionary 3rd action healing option for most demonic sorcerers, but you can pick spells to support setting yourself up to goad enemies into moving up next to, and then proving to be much much more difficult to kill than a sorcerer should be...but it only really works well when the whole team builds around that strategy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Lucy_Valentine wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
How often do you use Eldritch Nails or Glutton's Jaws on your Sorcerers and Witches, then?
Serious question: why are you even taking these options if you think they are bad?
I don't anymore, but I've had players try to in other games and get incredibly frustrated when their characters routinely fail as a result.

Can you tell us what you mean by your players "Routinely fail as a result," because eldritch nails is a feat. You choose that because you want to cast hexes through your nails. It is a complicated build to make work, but you don't pick up the nails unless that is the build you are trying to make.

Glutton Jaws on the other hand is primarily an interesting reactionary 3rd action healing option for most demonic sorcerers, but you can pick spells to support setting yourself up to goad enemies into moving up next to, and then proving to be much much more difficult to kill than a sorcerer should be...but it only really works well when the whole team builds around that strategy.

Is your defence of Eldritch Nails really that it is the only option that does what it does? That doesn't mean it's a good or well designed feat, that means that it being bad is even more of a problem because it is the ONLY option. Some options will be bad, it's inevitable that it happens.

I want to ask your perspective, what options do you think are bad or at all suboptimal? Because I've seen you defending options that some others think are below average and I'd be interested to see your standard for what below average is when it comes to character options. I ask this because it seems like you're saying these options are at least "playable", which is a poor measure in my opinion, because almost anything can be playable with the right amount of investment. Chained Rogues in 1st edition were playable, they were simply below average; which is a problem in and of itself to many people.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Let us not forget the Eldritch Nails also takes your entire PC out of commission EVERY time they adjust, add, or transfer Runes to/from their Nails for a bare minimum of one whole day, you can't just drop your hands off at the blacksmith/enchanter, you're stuck there as well accomplishing literally nothing as you get the worlds longest and most expensive manicure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:
...you're stuck there...accomplishing literally nothing as you get the worlds longest and most expensive manicure.

You can't rush art. XD


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Unicore wrote:


Can you tell us what you mean by your players "Routinely fail as a result,"

I mean that the first week PF2 came out we had a player maximize strength on his sorcerer, cast Glutton's Jaws, then proceed to miss a lot and go into dying a lot until he eventually decided that the best way to play his character was to just pretend he didn't have a focus spell and that strategy worked much better.

I've had trouble convincing him and his friends to even try PF2 again because it put them off so badly, because in his mind he was using the ability exactly as Paizo presented it and was punished for it and, in their words, they could just stick to PF1 if they wanted to have to dance around trap options. An extreme reaction, but a little bit understandable.

Quote:
Glutton Jaws on the other hand is primarily an interesting reactionary 3rd action healing option for most demonic sorcerers

I mean, it's more than that. It's an ability that requires significant investment in an attribute sorcerers normally don't value. It's also a forceful weapon, which suggests that you're intended to use it multiple times per round, not as an occasional third action. Now you and I both know that trying to do that doesn't work very well for sorcerers, but that [i]is/i] part of the ability's presentation, which is part of why it's problematic.

Quote:
eldritch nails is a feat. You choose that because you want to cast hexes through your nails. It is a complicated build to make work, but you don't pick up the nails unless that is the build you are trying to make.

Well yeah. The witch in question tried to make Nails the centerpiece of their build. Their character was an eldritch nails witch. It sucked.


I don't see anything that would prevent using Handwraps of Mighty Blows with the Nails.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
You can't retrain bloodlines generally, so at best such characters are stuck with a class feature they never want to use.

Okay, but that only matters in like, PFS or something. Squiggit is the GM, so they can decree that retraining is an option, or make it faster and cheaper, or pretend the character was never demon bloodline, or even make re-bloodlining a plot point.

Though, the point about treading around trap options is one I totally get. I don't like it myself.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I mean, yeah in my home games I can make changes and I absolutely do. Still going to talk about how I feel some of these options are sorely lacking as written though.

1 to 50 of 716 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Transformation spell plz? All Messageboards