| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Earlier i talked about how battleform spells just not good enough, especially for classes like sorcerer or wizard, due to their low unarmed proficiency. It's just impossible to effectively compete in melee combat with classes like fighter, monk and barbarian. Those can easily both out-damage you in melee combat, and out-tank you.
This however can be change with re-implemintation of old spell (tenser's) transformation.
As i can see this spell in second edition Pathfinder, spell would simply temporarily give you master proficiency with all martial and simple weapon, and unarmed attacks. And as heightened (lets say as level 8) - legendary proficiency.
Other bonuses also will be welcomed, like upped fortitude save, and maybe slightly improved armor via status bonus. But main request still lies in improved attack bonus. And yes, IMO it have to be specifically improved proficiency bonus. Otherwise we again will stuck with situation where multi-classed fighter will get themselves both legendary proficiency in weapons, AND status bonus from spell(s), AND item bonus from items. While sorcerers/wizards in the end still get lower attack bonus due to stacking limitation.
P.S. Oh and yes. As of before, spell should prevent any further spellcasting during spell effect. 1 minute duration for the spell is perfectly fine.
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters can't compete with martials in melee prowess/ average damage per round. Full stop. That's part of the design impetus of this edition. You're not gonna see any spell give a caster anything near equitable melee prowess compared to a martial, you'll always be a couple points behind in to hit and ac. Imo that's fine bc you have versatility. You can contribute in melee damage absolutely, but if you wanna see big numbers you gotta hope enemies have unlucky saves on your aoes. Enemy saves and their frequency might be a whole 'nother can of worms, but the the battleform stuff I completely agree with. Not even an expendable resource should give you the opportunity to do the barbs or monks thing with their level of competence.
|
| 20 people marked this as a favorite. |
Earlier i talked about how battleform spells just not good enough, especially for classes like sorcerer or wizard, due to their low unarmed proficiency.
This shouldn't really matter. When you're casting battleform spells heightened to your highest level slots, you get a to-hit modifier of about the same height as a martial of that level. It doesn't matter what your proficiency is.
Now, if you're trying to get there with "discount" spell slots, yeah, that's not going to work and really, it shouldn't.
It's just impossible to effectively compete in melee combat with classes like fighter, monk and barbarian. Those can easily both out-damage you in melee combat, and out-tank you.
\
They don't get to out-wizard you do they?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This shouldn't really matter. When you're casting battleform spells heightened to your highest level slots, you get a to-hit modifier of about the same height as a martial of that level. It doesn't matter what your proficiency is.
Now, if you're trying to get there with "discount" spell slots, yeah, that's not going to work and really, it shouldn't.
Yeah pretty much, per example a lvl 11 Martial with a +2 weapon have +22 to hit, a caster using Dragon Form will also have +22.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters can't compete with martials in melee prowess/ average damage per round. Full stop. That's part of the design impetus of this edition. You're not gonna see any spell give a caster anything near equitable melee prowess compared to a martial
Yup.
Why do people want to play martial characters like Fighter, Monk, and Barbarian? So that they can be really cool while hitting things.
Why would anyone play those if playing a Wizard means that you can be really cool while hitting things + have full spellcasting also?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah pretty much, per example a lvl 11 Martial with a +2 weapon have +22 to hit, a caster using Dragon Form will also have +22.This shouldn't really matter. When you're casting battleform spells heightened to your highest level slots, you get a to-hit modifier of about the same height as a martial of that level. It doesn't matter what your proficiency is.
Now, if you're trying to get there with "discount" spell slots, yeah, that's not going to work and really, it shouldn't.
I'm playing a druid in Extinction Curse and I think the current rules are working just fine.
Sometimes I transform into a battle form and can do reasonable damage all for the cost of a focus spell. I contribute but definitely do significantly less than the martials.
Other times I lob AoE spells, I let the party air walk past encounters, I throw various utility spells, I heal, etc etc etc.
If you look at my total contribution to the party it's a whole lot more than just my damage output, decent though that is.
If I could outdamage a martial we'd be back to the problem where by mid to high levels casters just totally out classed martials.
That said, I'd like to some time see a Shifter martial class (or archetype). Of course, before they did that Paizo will pretty much have to solve all the current questions on how wild shape actually works. Otherwise the Shifter would be significantly more powerful at some tables than others.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Giving legendary weapon proficiency would be like PF1's Transformation spell giving Fighter's Weapon Specialization. PF2 gets rid of most "do a class's job better than it" spells, with good reason.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Morph/Polymorph spells don't do a whole lot, they're about on-par with Summon spells at the moment. I won't say they need to be stronger, but the simple fact of the matter is that there is no "capstone" Morph/Polymorph spell that gives an absolute freedom of transformation for a minute, or a restricted transformation for an hour, or a 24 hour transformation of an even further restricted form, is a bit of a bummer.
After all, 10th level spells should be capable of a lot, and a powerful/lengthy battle form shouldn't be out of the realm of possibility. I guess technically Wish can do this, but it doesn't offer the same amount of potential versatility than this hypothetical spell could offer.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Morph/Polymorph spells don't do a whole lot, they're about on-par with Summon spells at the moment. I won't say they need to be stronger, but the simple fact of the matter is that there is no "capstone" Morph/Polymorph spell that gives an absolute freedom of transformation for a minute, or a restricted transformation for an hour, or a 24 hour transformation of an even further restricted form, is a bit of a bummer.
After all, 10th level spells should be capable of a lot, and a powerful/lengthy battle form shouldn't be out of the realm of possibility. I guess technically Wish can do this, but it doesn't offer the same amount of potential versatility than this hypothetical spell could offer.
Uh, Form Control and Perfect form control exist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, Form Control and Perfect form control exist.The Morph/Polymorph spells don't do a whole lot, they're about on-par with Summon spells at the moment. I won't say they need to be stronger, but the simple fact of the matter is that there is no "capstone" Morph/Polymorph spell that gives an absolute freedom of transformation for a minute, or a restricted transformation for an hour, or a 24 hour transformation of an even further restricted form, is a bit of a bummer.
After all, 10th level spells should be capable of a lot, and a powerful/lengthy battle form shouldn't be out of the realm of possibility. I guess technically Wish can do this, but it doesn't offer the same amount of potential versatility than this hypothetical spell could offer.
For a Transmuter Wizard, is what I believe he's talking about.
However for the "Absolute freedom of transformation for a minute." spell is pretty close to 9th level Shapechange. You still have to know all the lower level spells for Shapechange, but if you're going to use that spell, odds are you already do.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
My issue with transformation in Pathfinder 2E is that the options are restrictive and boring.
1. Almost none of them give you any neat special abilities.
2. You have limited ability to customize their appearance.
3. The duration is too short for disguise, social encounters, or just roleplaying.
4. There are almost no options beyond baleful polymorph for transforming other creatures.
5. Transformation forms are level gated and have planned obsolescence. You can't transform into an animal larger than a house cat until level 3. Then after level 9, turning into an animal becomes a liability because animal form doesn't heighten beyond level 5.
6. Battle form rules have some very unfortunate rules issues.
All of this denies or makes difficult to realize many fantasy character concepts.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My issue with transformation in Pathfinder 2E is that the options are restrictive and boring.
1. Almost none of them give you any neat special abilities.
2. You have limited ability to customize their appearance.
3. The duration is too short for disguise, social encounters, or just roleplaying.
4. There are almost no options beyond baleful polymorph for transforming other creatures.
5. Transformation forms are level gated and have planned obsolescence. You can't transform into an animal larger than a house cat until level 3. Then after level 9, turning into an animal becomes a liability because animal form doesn't heighten beyond level 5.
6. Battle form rules have some very unfortunate rules issues.
All of this denies or makes difficult to realize many fantasy character concepts.
Well, this is all because shapeshifting was just too powerful for balanced play and has been on a steady downward path since D&D3.0 was launched (remember, the 'D' in CoDzilla was a wildshaped Druid).
One of the basic issues was the open-ended nature of shapeshifting spells: The more creatures that were published, the more likely something abusive would become available to these casters (Such as the Choker's Quickness ability that allowed you to essentially double your spell casting per round if you took the right feat).
I once played a elf sorceress variant in the "World's Largest Dungeon" campaign and I rarely did anything without using Alter Self into a Troglodyte form for the (frankly obscene) Natural Armor buff: I'm still a little annoyed I never got to mix the Arcane Strike feat + Polymorph (Hydra) for a dozen attack at my best attack bonus, each getting a magical bonus to hit and d4s to damage equal to the level of a sacrificed spell slot (sacrificing a level 4 slot would give me +4 to hit and +4d4 damage on all my natural attacks).
Basically, every time 'shifters' are given something nice, it tends to break the game.
|
|
My issue with transformation in Pathfinder 2E is that the options are restrictive and boring.
1. Almost none of them give you any neat special abilities.
2. You have limited ability to customize their appearance.
3. The duration is too short for disguise, social encounters, or just roleplaying.
4. There are almost no options beyond baleful polymorph for transforming other creatures.
5. Transformation forms are level gated and have planned obsolescence. You can't transform into an animal larger than a house cat until level 3. Then after level 9, turning into an animal becomes a liability because animal form doesn't heighten beyond level 5.
6. Battle form rules have some very unfortunate rules issues.
All of this denies or makes difficult to realize many fantasy character concepts.
Nonsense. Pest Form, Form Control, dragon breath weapons, flight, burrow speed, scent etc. Using your own attack modifier largely addresses the planned obsolescence
Yeah, its somewhat limited. But only somewhat.
The rules issues are largely solvable by chatting to the GM
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's just impossible to effectively compete in melee combat with classes like fighter, monk and barbarian. Those can easily both out-damage you in melee combat, and out-tank you.\
They don't get to out-wizard you do they?
This^^
Being good at melee and tanking is what these classes are for. If you gave caster's a spell to temporarily do melee as well as a fighter, what do fighters get in return? A feat that let's them cast spells as effectively as a full caster?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Battle forms work reasonably well for a Druid, since they have some internal synergy and Wild Shape is generally just a really good option.
The scaling is definitely awkward though and it can be a problem, especially for other classes that don't get the internal benefits druids get.
Size can also be an issue, since your scaling is tied to your size, it means if you're fighting in a small space at high level you might not be able to properly benefit from your shapeshifting.
The spells would probably be better off if they had a more fluid heightening progression and it'd be nice for non-druids to get some synergistic feats for sure though.
|
|
My issue with transformation in Pathfinder 2E is that the options are restrictive and boring.
1. Almost none of them give you any neat special abilities.
I think the main design philosophy was to keep the numbers in line with conventional martials. Right now, if your druid multiclassed into a martial class he could take various feats to get interesting stunts, as long as those don't try to do an end run around the raw numbers of the spell. Monk dedication to pick up flurry for example is legit.
So with that in mind, I think it would be okay to publish an archetype that's focused around buying cool stunt feats for shapechangers.
2. You have limited ability to customize their appearance.
PFS can be a bit more conservative, but for a home campaign I think some reskinning shouldn't be problematic? If you want your bird form to have blue or yellow feathers, that doesn't really step on mechanical toes.
3. The duration is too short for disguise, social encounters, or just roleplaying.
I agree, I think once again a pack of class/archetype feats for opening up "spy", "scout" and even "long distance travel" forms could be done in the future.
4. There are almost no options beyond baleful polymorph for transforming other creatures.
This would require rather careful writing. What you definitely wouldn't want is for example an evil druid boss (L11) to turn his L7 flunkies into beasts with the combat stats of a L11 critter.
5. Transformation forms are level gated and have planned obsolescence. You can't transform into an animal larger than a house cat until level 3. Then after level 9, turning into an animal becomes a liability because animal form doesn't heighten beyond level 5.
Patching an existing spell in an existing book with extra heightening options is a bit difficult unfortunately :( I would like to see animals going all the way up too.
As an aside, I'm very excited to see the new "form" spells that'll be coming with SoM.
I think certain types like Fey or Cosmic might address some issues people have brought up in this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My issue with transformation in Pathfinder 2E is that the options are restrictive and boring.
1. Almost none of them give you any neat special abilities.
I sort of agree I do want to see more.
Many of the forms are quite bland. But there are some good options. You can turn into a bat and gain echo location, Or turn into a dragon and breathe fire/fly. High level is pretty good.
2. You have limited ability to customize their appearance.
? I think you do get to control the appearance though not to easily mimic anyone in particular. Then you would need the deception skill.
3. The duration is too short for disguise, social encounters, or just roleplaying.
The druid has some feats to help, unfortunately this is their domain.
4. There are almost no options beyond baleful polymorph for transforming other creatures.
Yeah but that can get you most of what you want. My problem is the incapacitation trait, but some people see that as an appropriate balance feature.
5. Transformation forms are level gated and have planned obsolescence. You can't transform into an animal larger than a house cat until level 3. Then after level 9, turning into an animal becomes a liability because animal form doesn't heighten beyond level 5.
Yes the limtis are a bit strange at times. I guess it looks like a feat tax to me. I would like to see some other animal types. Where is King Kong or even a simple horse?
It is frustrating that you are forced to be size large or larger most of the time. Another size medium option would be nice
6. Battle form rules have some very unfortunate rules issues.
That particular one clearly needs to be cleaned up.
Just ignore it, almost everyone does as it is clearly wrong. I'd be looking at athletics maneuvers if I was building a wildshaper.
All of this denies or makes difficult to realize many fantasy character concepts.
Yes there is more to do here......
|
|
Yes the limtis are a bit strange at times. I guess it looks like a feat tax to me. I would like to see some other animal types. Where is King Kong or even a simple horse?
King King is pretty much either a Huge Ape OR a reflavoured higher level monster (Green Man?) depending on where you see D&D vs fiction on the power scale. Horse is pretty much a reflavoured stag.
As to feat tax, I disagree. A druid literally needs ZERO feats to dabble in wild shape (just memorize the appropriate spells). If they spend about 1/2 their feats they can get just about everything they'll want (not quite all but close). Which seems fair to me for something as versatile as wild shape is.
At 1/2 their feats they can still either take a whole bunch of the other druid feats (eg, its possible to have a full animal companion and a full suite of wild shape feats) or to dabble in another archetype or two (Medic being one obvious choice with a fair bit of synergy).
Its definitely the case that right now druids totally dominate the wild shape space. I'd like to see
1) The various rules issues cleared up as a first and necessary step (literally impossible to balance step 2 otherwise)
2) Either a Shifter Class or (probably better although also probably harder to balance) a Shifter Archetype that lets you get various wild shape feats.
But right now you can make a pretty good wild shaper from a druid. If you want to go the subterfuge route a druid can afford a reasonable charisma, deception skills and be pretty decent at that. Dex and stealth and you can be a good scout. Etc. Its not perfect but its pretty decent. You definitely can't be ALL of a decent combatant, scout, shapechanging spy and spell caster at once like you could be in PF1 but I'm fine with that. You can be any 2 of those and that is good enough for me.
As an aside, I REALLY wish that the Magic Warrior archetype gave access to wild shape and NOT to animal form. That extra +2 to hit makes a huge difference and you could make a really cool character with it. But without that +2 you're just SO much better off multiclassing into druid instead.
Yes the limtis are a bit strange at times. I guess it looks like a feat tax to me. I would like to see some other animal types. Where is King Kong or even a simple horse?King King is pretty much either a Huge Ape OR a reflavoured higher level monster (Green Man?) depending on where you see D&D vs fiction on the power scale. Horse is pretty much a reflavoured stag.
Huge is not enough. Needs a Gargantuan option
As an aside, I REALLY wish that the Magic Warrior archetype gave access to wild shape and NOT to animal form. That extra +2 to hit makes a huge difference and you could make a...
Yeah the +2 to hit is a bit broken. Magic Warrior only gets the one form so it is just not as flexible.
I guess the benefit is not having to take on Druid anathema restrictions like metal armour.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get why battleforms are templates but summons are not.
I have no real issue with battleforms they do their job well enough and ensure the caster doesn't outclass martials.
What I don't get is why summons are different. I would prefer both are templates or both are 'pick a monster of type X and CR = or less than double the spell level -2 or whatever. Would make life simpler. Summons as a template could be better than being flatly restricted and easier for the GM to plan for rather than 1 of a 100+ options.
Alternatively battleforms could pick a specific monster and enable to caster to get a few cool benefits or unique abilities even if damage was lower.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Build a Battle form like you can do with Eidolons....
:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casters can't compete with martials in melee prowess/ average damage per round. Full stop.
But they can...
Take a fighter (monk and even barbarian also will do), and pick "caster-class" dedication fit. Then 4 more feats, and you are nearly 2/3 efficient spellcaster.Basically what earlier was known as Eldrich Knight... although actually more powerful. earlier EKs could at best access to level-4 spells. With standard multiclassing you get get fighter with access to level-8 spells.
So option is kinda there, but it's still mainly fighter, who secondary specialize in magic. There was option in earlier edition(s) (including D&D) where spellcasters could do the same. Both with prestige classes and spells.
It's all mater of balancing, and tbh there is nothing against it. Spellcaster classes still won't be able to do lots of things that martial-classes can. Most importantly they won't ever get access to feats above level-10... which are generally most efficient feats. Nor having access to powerful class abilities (like ranger's Masterful Hunter).
Probably most sad example right now to show is Dragon Disciple archetype.
To pick it, you have to be either barbarian with dragon instinct, sorcerer with dragon bloodline, or been a kobold.
For barbarian this archetype kinda pointless. You already can transform into dragon via rage. And more importantly, unlike with archetype, you can practically do it limitless times per day (just have to have one minute rest after each rage).
For sorceress though it's just as pointless as Dragon Form spell. Base attack provided by spell could be higher than what your normal (especially if you have low strength and dexterity on your own). But it's sill nowhere as high as what martial classes can achieve at that level. And even if you up your own str/dex, you might get your own attack bonus higher, but still not high enough. Main reason - you stuck with merely "trained" in unarmed proficiency.
Sure, melee attacks not the only thing that spell provides. You also can benefit from ability to fly, having weak dragon breath, slight resistance to one element, and overall ability to look impressive (for very short time). Still, to make spell really viable - you will have to consistently try and utilize it's melee attacks. And with just "trained" proficiency in unarmed (or base attack bonus that spells provides) - you bound to keep missing... a lot. Even with first attack.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This shouldn't really matter. When you're casting battleform spells heightened to your highest level slots, you get a to-hit modifier of about the same height as a martial of that level. It doesn't matter what your proficiency is.
Let's take a look.
Dragonform, level-6 spell, which you can pick on been level 11 arcane or primal spellcaster. It provides you with attack bonus of +22.Now what martial classes can do on the same level. Pretty much all of them will have master proficiency with their weapon on that level. And they should have at least 18 in their primary stats (str or dex), more importantly, unlike for user's of battleforms, they CAN apply item bonuses to their attacks. AT level-11 they pretty much should have +2 weapons. So, 11+4+6+2=23. Now lets look what we will have on level 14. just one level before we will be able to get heightened version of dragon form. As dragon form user you still normally get +22 to attack. If you try to use your own as a sorcerer, you will get at most +20, druid wildshape, using his special status bonus can get it to +24.
while martial classes, even with +2 weapons (even though there are chance for that to acquire +3 weapon at this level) will get - 14+6+4+2=26, That's already a very sizable gap.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get why battleforms are templates but summons are not.
I have no real issue with battleforms they do their job well enough and ensure the caster doesn't outclass martials.
What I don't get is why summons are different. I would prefer both are templates or both are 'pick a monster of type X and CR = or less than double the spell level -2 or whatever. Would make life simpler. Summons as a template could be better than being flatly restricted and easier for the GM to plan for rather than 1 of a 100+ options.
Alternatively battleforms could pick a specific monster and enable to caster to get a few cool benefits or unique abilities even if damage was lower.
I have to agree with you on that. If battleforms need bit more rebalancing (like for instance also allowing you to use your own armor class, if it's better than provided, and more fluent attack bonus increase per level), summons in 2e are just hot garbage :\
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And it seem topic instantly deranged from having one extra spell, to discussion about battleforms again :)
Thing is, what i proposed not even that powerful. Sure, sorcerer temporarily can up his proficiency from +4 to +6, and maybe even +8, but as usual with older edition Transformation spells -not gonna be able to use any other magic during spell duration.
If that's not enough... well, i am ok with adding something like save for possible fatigue effect after the spell wears out.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is one of those which highlights one of the design shortfalls, at least in my opinion, that PF2 has currently given itself.
Right now any martial can multiclass/take archetypes and get themselves up to master casting and a decent assortment of spells.
Caster's can't multiclass/archetype up to master in certain weapon groups. Not even on a limited basis, using something like a stance based focus spell, or some other mechanic which limited the duration to be in line with the effective "uptime" of archetype spell slots.
Just one of several structural limitations that have been built into casters for this edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right now any martial can multiclass/take archetypes and get themselves up to master casting and a decent assortment of spells.
Caster's can't multiclass/archetype up to master in certain weapon groups. Not even on a limited basis, using something like a stance based focus spell, or some other mechanic which limited the duration to be in line with the effective "uptime" of archetype spell slots.
But the default highest proficiency in spellcasting is Legendary and the default highest proficiency in weapon attacks is Master, which makes the comparision a bit flawed. Martials with spellcasting archetypes will be -2 compared to real casters (except Warpriest :( ) and spellcasters with martial archetypes will have -2 compared to martials except Fighters.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the default highest proficiency in spellcasting is Legendary and the default highest proficiency in weapon attacks is Master, which makes the comparision a bit flawed. Martials with spellcasting archetypes will be -2 compared to real casters (except Warpriest :( ) and spellcasters with martial archetypes will have -2 compared to martials except Fighters.Right now any martial can multiclass/take archetypes and get themselves up to master casting and a decent assortment of spells.
Caster's can't multiclass/archetype up to master in certain weapon groups. Not even on a limited basis, using something like a stance based focus spell, or some other mechanic which limited the duration to be in line with the effective "uptime" of archetype spell slots.
If enemy defence scaling stop or cared about this design insight, I would agree. Too bad it doesn't. That additional -2 will always matter and can't be circumvented due to AC scaling assuming weapon runes are in play.
But the default highest proficiency in spellcasting is Legendary and the default highest proficiency in weapon attacks is Master, which makes the comparision a bit flawed. Martials with spellcasting archetypes will be -2 compared to real casters (except Warpriest :( ) and spellcasters with martial archetypes will have -2 compared to martials except Fighters.
Fighters get legendary proficiency in everything but exotic weapons.
Barbarians don't get legendary proficiency in weapons, but they can get +2 circumstance bonus to attacks (reckless abandon). Right now there still only two instances in game, that gives you circumstance bonus to attacks, second one is fighter's, with incredible aim feat... which is questionable usability, since it requires two action, for single shot, with no bonus damage.Actually, you know what... i am ok if Transformation will give +2 (+4 altered) circumstance bonus to attacks. As i said game is very lackluster on specifically circumstance type bonuses to attacks, so it's not like you have to worry about stacking.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Martials who multiclass get at most 8th level spells very late, at the cost of half their feats and one of their skill specializations, and their casting is still behind all other casters.
So the proposal is that a single spell should allow casters to get full martial effectiveness in melee?
|
|
Martials can archetype to get one below basically every full caster but Warpriest.Casters don't need to archetype to get one below basically every martial but Fighter.
I fail to see a problem.
Because you aren't looking at the problem functionally. The numbers are the issue, not a symmetrical design idea.
So the proposal is that a single spell should allow casters to get full martial effectiveness in melee?
Not from me anyhow. An archetype with something like a focus spell with conditions, with level dependant scaling, in order to mirror casting benefit archetypes, is what I would be looking at.
The goal would be to keep the relative "uptime" on par with the functionality gained from access to the cache of spell slots granted.
Perhaps just drop the focus spell aspect of it and have it be a straight x/times per day, for x rounds, with x benefits. All of which scale with additional feat and level selection.
|
|
The numbers are the issue. Why play anything but a caster if you can get full spellcasting benefits and full martial benefits?
A martial has to, as mentioned above, use half their class feats to still not get full spellcasting. It's not unreasonable for a full caster to just not ever get full martial capabilities.
If, like I (the person you are replying to) actually said, that martial upgrades work like an archetype which requires the same level of feat investment as a spellcasting archetype, would that be okay to you?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If, like I (the person you are replying to) actually said, that martial upgrades work like an archetype which requires the same level of feat investment as a spellcasting archetype, would that be okay to you?The numbers are the issue. Why play anything but a caster if you can get full spellcasting benefits and full martial benefits?
A martial has to, as mentioned above, use half their class feats to still not get full spellcasting. It's not unreasonable for a full caster to just not ever get full martial capabilities.
Well, considering a martial spellcasting base proficiency is almost always going to be 2 less than a full caster AND is tied to a stat that is almost certainly not maximized (very few martial builds permit an 18 mental stat at creation), the current 'shifting' spells seem much better for casters than caster archetypes are for a martial character.
Bringing shifting in line with archetyping would probably require the caster spending half their feats, one of their maxed-out skills while keeping the subpar proficiency and tying it to their actual strength score for attack rolls so they end up worse at melee than the current rules...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not particularly arguing for either side, but merely for insight: I think it's pretty clear that spells weigh in particularly heavy in the casters toolkits from the devs's perspectives.
With that perspective in mind, martials that spend their class feats to gain some magic would still be giving way more than a caster similarly spending their class feats in improving their martial options — Because most of the casters's humphf come from their spells while, in the martial's cases, it comes from their class feats.
So naturally, for any spellcaster to actually have a reliable martial capability, they'd need to cast a little less. Hence, the Magus! (and Summoner).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not particularly arguing for either side, but merely for insight: I think it's pretty clear that spells weigh in particularly heavy in the casters toolkits from the devs's perspectives.
With that perspective in mind, martials that spend their class feats to gain some magic would still be giving way more than a caster similarly spending their class feats in improving their martial options — Because most of the casters's humphf come from their spells, while in martial's cases, comes from class feats.
So naturally, for any spellcaster to actually have a reliable martial capability, they'd need to cast a little less. Hence, the Magus! (and Summoner).
My problem with this idea is the popularity of the Free Archetype variant of play. It seems to have become quite common, and, as far as I am aware, is coming built-in with the Strength of Thousands AP.
It allows a martial to offload all the downsides you mentioned, but gain all of the benefits.
There just isn't an equivalent for casters.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there was a class archetype for this that gave up Legendary spellcasting and a spell slot per level maybe.
As an aside, I utterly hate that legendary spellcasting as the default for all casters (and the math assumptions that go with it). It wrecks a lot of what would otherwise be some elegant design parallels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with this idea is the popularity of the Free Archetype variant of play. It seems to have become quite common, and, as far as I am aware, is coming built-in with the Strength of Thousands AP.It allows a martial to offload all the downsides you mentioned, but gain all of the benefits.
There just isn't an equivalent for casters.
I think Fighter Dedication can mirror more or less what any caster dedication can do to a martial okay-ish, to some relevant level ranges. But yeah, it doesn't quite feel like the same thing, I totally get your point.
And honestly, I don't super disagree with you. But in this particular instance, I don't think anyone is going to be designing around an optional rule, no matter how popular it is. :/
Not to argue what is or isn't cool or doable, though! I'm just extrapolating the devs's perspective here.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Earlier I talked about how combat feats are just not good enough, especially for classes like fighter or barbarian, due to their non-existent spellcasting proficiency. It's just impossible to effectively compete in spell duels with classes like sorcerer, witch, and wizard. Those can easily both out-cast you in spell duels, and outsmart you.
This however can be changed with the simple creation of a new feat.
The feat would simply temporarily give you master proficiency with a spell tradition of your choice, spell slots, and spells known. And at later levels (lets say as level 17) - legendary proficiency and 10th-level spells.
Other bonuses also will be welcomed, like upped Will save, and maybe slightly improved narrative control over the campaign. But the main request still lies in improved spellcasting capabilities. And yes, IMO it will have to be a specifically improved proficiency bonus. Otherwise we once again will be stuck with a situation in which multi-classed casters will get themselves both legendary proficiency in spells, AND a status bonus from feat(s), AND an item bonus from items. While fighters/barbarians in the end still get lower spell attack bonuses due to stacking limitations.
P.S. - Oh and yes. Of course the feat should prevent any further martial combat during its effect. One minute duration for the feat each day is perfectly fine.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there was a class archetype for this that gave up Legendary spellcasting and a spell slot per level maybe.As an aside, I utterly hate that legendary spellcasting as the default for all casters (and the math assumptions that go with it). It wrecks a lot of what would otherwise be some elegant design parallels.
I think NOT having everything parallel was part of the intent. Sometimes one class is ahead, and at other times another. The dis-parallel is supposed to break the feeling of always going up in lockstep.
(Although it mostly seems to be the same classes doing the sprinting.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there was a class archetype for this that gave up Legendary spellcasting and a spell slot per level maybe.As an aside, I utterly hate that legendary spellcasting as the default for all casters (and the math assumptions that go with it). It wrecks a lot of what would otherwise be some elegant design parallels.I think NOT having everything parallel was part of the intent. Sometimes one class is ahead, and at other times another. The dis-parallel is supposed to break the feeling of always going up in lockstep.
(Although it mostly seems to be the same classes doing the sprinting.)
Oh it’s definitely intentional, I just find it irksome, especially in threads like this. People are always trying to assign balancing along chassis lines, but there is exists a fundamental wonkiness to this approach.
I feel it just serves to obfuscate the design weighting and spawn threads like this.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Earlier i talked about how battleform spells just not good enough, especially for classes like sorcerer or wizard, due to their low unarmed proficiency. It's just impossible to effectively compete in melee combat with classes like fighter, monk and barbarian.
The short response here is that the wizard isn't supposed to be competitive. It is an option, but not supposed to be a universally good option.
Remember, basically all the spells give a flat attack bonus with a caveat that if you're unarmed attack were better you can use it instead.
That's basically only going to be a druid who focuses in transformation.
Which is fine, they have to put a lot of resources into make their attack roll higher than the flat provided bonus in the first place.
Simply put, your expectations of how good it should be are too high.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's worth noting when we talk about martials taking spellcaster dedications that it depends on what kind of spellcaster you're trying to be.
A martial who tries to cast a fireball is essentially getting triple tapped, because not only is their proficiency lower, but their spell is weaker by being 1-2 levels behind the curve on spells and they have significantly fewer slots to work with.
A martial who focuses on utility spells and buffs can ignore the proficiency issue and to some extent sidestep the spell level and spells/day issue too by relying on magic that doesn't need to scale or only needs to be used frugally.
This is something both the rules and this conversation don't account for very well.
That's basically only going to be a druid who focuses in transformation.
It's basically only going to be a druid because they're the only one who gets support. IMO if there's a problem here that's it, druids seem more or less the baseline for battle form usage and everyone else kind of flounders a bit.