Hi folks. Just saw a post on another thread that got me thinking. Figured it was better to start a new thread than hijack someone else's.
I expect there will be some strong opinions on this one way or the other, but here's the fat to chew:
When building a character (most specifically a caster), which classes work better as a generalist, and which are better built as specialists? The obvious breakdown might just be prepared vs. spontaneous, but the specific post that started this though for me suggested that a cleric is better as a specialist. I'm curious as to others thoughts, ideas, or experiences.
A few caveats:
1. It depends on your party make up. I DM for a group with an Oracle, a cleric and a wizard in it and the Oracle and Cleric synergise really well allowing the cleric to cover weaknesses while the Oracle can spam frequently needed spells. I would say this spontaneous/prepared caster synergy also applies to arcane casters.
2. It depends on your level. The higher level the more 'spare' resources you have to focus on various aspects of the spellcaster's potential role.
3. It depends on the game you play, divination, illusion and enchantment spells can suffer because of the DM not granting appropriate opportunities for their use. The more you potentially need to cover, the more you are likely to consider less commonly used spells/skills.
4. It depends on the rules you are using. One of the best favoured class bonuses for spontaneous casters is the human favoured class bonus (extra spells known). Why? Because it greatly enhances a caster's versatility. Not all DM's allow unlimited source-book materials.
Now, to answer, I tend to build a caster who is good at one thing, expert level good, but when I can't do that I still cover some of the other options like buffing, knowledges, etc. This is so I can still contribute. I prefer spontaneous casters (see favoured class bonus comment) but my starting point is 'What are the other casters able to do?' and I work from there. So, to answer your question, I build specialists who synergise with their party and can generalise (eventually) regardless of class - they all can do it (although prepared casters tend to be more versatile for the obscure options, at the cost of not being able to spam spells).
Prepared spellcasters can switch up what they're able to do more than spontaneous, obviously. If your prepared spellcaster is caught in a situation they really didn't expect they may have to try to figure out how to use a metaphorical hammer as a chisel though. They tend to be specialists who can shift their specialty a bit given sufficient warning.
Spontaneous spellcasters should know that they can't shift their specialties in less than a couple of levels, maybe more. Some lean into that and try to swing a hammer that's big enough to handle any nail, and nothing else. Some try to have enough general abilities (wide range of spells known, or widely applicable spells) that they can handle whatever situation they run into.
Non-spellcasters need to be specialists in some part of combat to be any good, sometimes extreme specialists. They can have the skills and items to have other tricks out of combat, but many don't bother.
Those are some wide generalisations but it's a wide topic you're thinking about. If you want to narrow it down to clerics or something I can get more specific.
Appreciate the insights so far, but I may have phrased my question/topic poorly. I have a good grasp on the game mechanics and skills you all have referred to. I'm more interested in looking at each class, and seeing folks opinions and reasons of why a specific class is better as a specialist or generalist. I tend to build my characters much the same way strayshift mentioned.
Instead, let's use Sorcerer as a qucik example. I get that archetypes may change the answer, but in general, does the Sorcerer class build better as a specialist or a generalist? I think conventional wisdom would say "specialist", but maybe someone has a differing view.
Same question for any casting class: Does a (insert class) build better as specialist or generalist?
I'm open to discussing non-casters too, if someone feels they have an example pertinent to the topic.
I think pretty much every character in pathfinder should have a specialty. Generally if you aren’t built to do a specific thing, you’ll be very ineffective at it.
That said, i’d say Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/ and sort of Rogue are more able to also do lots of non-specialty things (generalists) than other core classes. Outside core, shaman. Unarchetyped Alchemist.
For specialists, i see most classes as pretty limited to focus on one specialty: barbarians, paladins, even full casters on the spontaneous side (though they might have a few go-to game plans instead of one), and certainly gunslingers/swashbucklers/kineticists/etc.
Lelomenia wrote: I think pretty much every character in pathfinder should have a specialty. Generally if you aren’t built to do a specific thing, you’ll be very ineffective at it.
That said, i’d say Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/ and sort of Rogue are more able to also do lots of non-specialty things (generalists) than other core classes. Outside core, shaman. Unarchetyped Alchemist.
For specialists, i see most classes as pretty limited to focus on one specialty: barbarians, paladins, even full casters on the spontaneous side (though they might have a few go-to game plans instead of one), and certainly gunslingers/swashbucklers/kineticists/etc.
Interesting point. I think I'd generally agree. But, there was a post that posited that a Cleric is better built as a specialist. I'm wondering why, but I didn't want to derail that other thread.
Sysryke wrote: Lelomenia wrote: I think pretty much every character in pathfinder should have a specialty. Generally if you aren’t built to do a specific thing, you’ll be very ineffective at it.
That said, i’d say Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/ and sort of Rogue are more able to also do lots of non-specialty things (generalists) than other core classes. Outside core, shaman. Unarchetyped Alchemist.
For specialists, i see most classes as pretty limited to focus on one specialty: barbarians, paladins, even full casters on the spontaneous side (though they might have a few go-to game plans instead of one), and certainly gunslingers/swashbucklers/kineticists/etc.
Interesting point. I think I'd generally agree. But, there was a post that posited that a Cleric is better built as a specialist. I'm wondering why, but I didn't want to derail that other thread. i mean, if someone said “i’m building a cleric; not planning on specializing in anything, just looking to be a generalist.” I might respond “clerics are better if they specialize in something.” But clerics that specialize in something are still pretty good generalists, relative to most classes.
OK, the sorcerer. That's what I was thinking of with spontaneous spellcasters - some go all out as (e.g.) an ifrit blasting specialist with crossblooded for even less spells known, some make sure they have that racial favored class bonus for extra spells known and pick some very widely applicable spells like shadow conjuration. Both of those work, for a certain definition of 'work'.
Clerics do need to put their limited supply of feats and MAD tendencies towards something. A bad touch cleric should look different to a summoner or a healbot, and just selecting the most boring feats and getting a defensive set of ability scores doesn't make an especially effective character. But the ability to prepare a totally different selection of spells means the bad toucher can have a bunch of summons and buffs tomorrow, or the summoner can have all healing spells, or the healer can grab some nasty save or suck spells. Magda Luckbringer mentioned a few times that taking the iconic cleric in PFS (a generalist) and preparing a bunch of summon spells made her a solidly effective character.
Clerics are better at specializing because a lot of their spells are highly focused. Most of their offensive spell do a lot better vs opposed outsiders and undead than other targets. They also have a lot of buff and support spells so can easily focus on that. Last but not least they also have the absolute best spell list for healing. If you really look at the cleric’s spell list you will find that a lot of the spells are incredibly useful in the right circumstances, but kind of weak in all other cases.
That being said the fact they know their entire spell list gives them the flexibility to change their specialty as needed. If the cleric knows ahead of time what they are facing they often are able to prepare better than just about any other class in the game. When Pathfinder first came out their advantage was a lot less, but every new book increased the size of their spell list. So now they can usually find a spell to cover most circumstances. While a wizard could theoretically know every spell on their list from a practical stand point they cannot. Finding and scribing the spells into their spell books puts some limits that the cleric does not have to worry about.
The cleric also has less weakness then other classes. They get fast progression on the two most important saves, can wear medium armor and still cast. They have more HP than most arcane casters and higher BAB. Since WIS is their primary stat their Will save is going to be the highest in the party. Having less weakness means the cleric does not need to spend resources to cover them. This in turn means they can use those resources for other things.
And last but not least is that most of what the cleric would want to specialize is not that resource intense. This with not needing to devote resources to cover weaknesses often allows them to get their builds online in a relatively short time.
I would agree with most that spontaneous casters are better off specializing, but not SPECIFICALLY because they have a limited number of Known spells. Rather, its because any full caster that's also spontaneous usually gets some pretty significant powers that supplement those spell resources.
Those powers though, like Revelations or Bloodline Powers, are usually finite resources or have a niche use. Heck, even an Acidic Ray, along with having a limited number of uses/day, is a ranged Acid attack meaning that it fills specific niches.
So, with characters like this you're far more incentivized to specialize. A wizard could be a Universalist and live out their days just fine, until about 8th level when the math and defenses of avg monsters CR8 and above starts making their Save DCs less and less impactful.
However, a Sorcerer has to pick a Bloodline. Picking Aberrant for example gives you that Acidic Ray, then an extra 5' on melee Touch attacks. Well, if all the spells you choose are intended to keep you more than 30' from foes you've just wasted those first 2 powers.
So... an Aberrant Bloodline sorcerer is more incentivized to choose melee touch spells and hover anywhere between 10' to 30' from combat, from levels 1-3. Well, if you want to truly capitalize on those abilities, it would be very beneficial to ALSO 1. pump up your defenses and HP, since you'll be close to melee; 2. enhance Dex to add to those defenses and increase your accuracy with the Acidic Ray; 3. develop strategies to maintain the relevance of melee Touch attacks while working within the constraints of having a limited number of known spells (like feats to increase the damage or change the energy type of existing spells so you don't have to learn new ones)
The more specialized the class, the more specialized the character will likely need to be built. Also there's the math of the game, and also consumable resources, magic items and such will mitigate some of the incentive to specialize.
Players running casters with martial and spellcasting capabilities need to understand how they play together and will have to decide some level of specialization right off the line. Are they a martial type that sometimes uses spells, or are they a spellcaster who falls back on weapons and armor sometimes?
Beyond this though, I strongly feel it's the class abilities unique to the character that incentivize further specialization. Well, that and the math obviously.
Look at the Cleric, the Oracle and the Inquisitor. Cleric has some pretty generic class abilities and actually few spells/day. They also get no combat-enhancing class abilities so their spells have to fill that role. However, I think the key for success to a cleric isn't in spell choice or specialization, but in strategies. If the cleric doesn't specialize in summoning or longer buffs or bad touches or whatever, they can still cast the basic versions of all those spells but if they're doing so in melee they'll be destroyed by AoOs. The generic cleric needs to mitigate provoking as well as understand the rhythm and timing of combat.
The Oracle however is like the sorcerer. They HAVE to pick a Mystery and a Revelation, immediately limiting them to a suite of niche resources with finite uses. Some of these will be non-combat utilities, defenses, attacks and what have you. but these are meant to shore up the 3/4 BAB class in their use of either weapons or spells.
The Inquisitor is actually the easiest to see the specialization incentive with. Their Judgement is based on a weapon's attack; their Bane is based on a weapon's attack. Even their ability to Intimidate well or use Teamwork feats solo suggests a more martial focus already. So, if you build a generic Inquisitor that ignores their attack stat and focuses their spell choices as much on non-combat utilities as well as those designed for combat these generic choices will likely hinder you far sooner than, say, a universalist Wizard.
I remember reading an excellent (the best I've seen) summary on how to build a Cleric from one of the main posters on the GITP forums a few years ago.
The basic gist was:
To make an effective, enjoyable Cleric, imagine you're a completely different class and build towards that.
And in my experience that's absolutely correct.
To clarify further the GITP poster's rationale:
As a specialist cleric "mimicking" another class you aren't going to be as capable as that class (eg a trickery/stealth Cleric isn't going to be as good as a Rogue, a fireball Cleric isn't as good as a fireball Sorcerer, a Herald Caller isn't as good at summoning as the Summoner... etc)
HOWEVER, you will ALWAYS have the following in your locker as your back up trump card irrespective of which "mimic" you are:
- Very good healing, condition removal, party buffs, self buffs, general utility spells
- Access to SM and a useful selection of debuff spells
- One good save, one excellent save
- Good Perception skill
- Reasonable hp and weapon access (Eg a Cleric could always take +1 hp/level as their FCB and not impede themselves, and they would now in effect be a D10 HD 9th level prepared caster).
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
If someone told me I needed to build a generalist spellcaster my go to class would be an Arcanist. You combine the wizard huge spell list with the sorcerer’s ability to say ‘this is the spell for this situation and I am going to cast it repeatedly’. On top of that you have exploits that allow you to swap spells known, boost DC, and all sorts of other tricks.
Specialists of any type tend to do better in Pathfinder, but it can be overdone. It's not too difficult to build a specialist who is no longer challenged by level appropriate AP encounters.
I truly appreciate everyone's input so far. Feel like cleric, and to a slightly lesser degree, sorcerer, wizard, oracle, arcanist, and inquisitor have all been addressed. So what about other casters? Do you feel a Shaman is a better generalist or specialist? Same for psychic/psion? Bard, druid, alchemist, etc?
It seems the general concensus is that specializing is arguably better universaly. I think I tend to agree.
Obviously some classes provide features that make specializing easier, and leave more resources to spread back out.
So perhaps a differnet (better?) question is: does any class work better built as a generalist instead of a specialist?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
A wizard is best with a wide range of spells, but is strongest if they focus on those rather than aiming for eldritch knight/arcane archer/arcane trickster etc. Is a wizard with a dozen different tricks a generalist or a specialist?
The medium works as a generalist, but I've read people saying that they've found it works best when they focus on one spirit (champion).
Specialised bards, like the Cha 20 helpless-in-melee types you see sometimes probably are weaker than generalist bards.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
avr wrote: A wizard is best with a wide range of spells, but is strongest if they focus on those rather than aiming for eldritch knight/arcane archer/arcane trickster etc. Is a wizard with a dozen different tricks a generalist or a specialist?
The medium works as a generalist, but I've read people saying that they've found it works best when they focus on one spirit (champion).
Specialised bards, like the Cha 20 helpless-in-melee types you see sometimes probably are weaker than generalist bards.
There are some exceptions to the caster bard, my Kingmaker Court Bard was a charisma specialist and owned many battles with enchantment magic/buffs and many social situation to diplomancer level social skills/utility spells. There were many encounters where the will saves of significant enemies were buffed by the DM (which I had no problem with) but they still failed them by a fair margin. She was probably the most potent caster I mave played in combat and out.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Sysryke wrote: When building a character (most specifically a caster), which classes work better as a generalist, and which are better built as specialists? This completely depends on the definition. Is a Orc/Draconic crossblooded Sorc with all feats spend on making Fireball better a specialist if they have Glitterdust, Invisibility, and Fly among their spells known? They can do damage, they can debuff, they can scout, they can overcome environmental challenges... if you read it like that, it sounds like a generalist. The caster might even have just one damaging spell, which also doesn't sound like a damage focussed character. But if you look at other choices made (feats, archetype, bloodlines), they're all towards a single thing, which does look like a specialist.
I think that every character should have a certain level of specialization but should also have a certain level of generalization.
Lelomenia wrote: I think pretty much every character in pathfinder should have a specialty. Generally if you aren’t built to do a specific thing, you’ll be very ineffective at it. This is not true for casters. A caster who picks up Haste is awesome at buffing even if they have no other buff spells, haven't invested into buffing, and maybe don't even have casting as their main focus.
Indeed, that spellcasting allows this (by having no prereqs and having many spells not scale with an ability score) is literally the biggest reason for the martial/caster-disparity.
Strictly speaking… prepared spellcasters by the very nature of their design make for the best generalists… due to their versatility of being able to pick and choose whatever they might need at the start of every day, it is simply within their nature to be generalists…
Spontaneous casters on the otherhand are better off being specialists since their limited spells known greatly restricts their options for generalization… they can be generalists, but doing so will likely spread them too thin or runs a high risk of taking generalist utilities that are useful once if ever. They also have an advantage over prepared spellcasters in the specialist department as well. When a prepared caster specializes, they often prepare the same few spells multiple times to the point of having few of any utilitary spells or backups, or they prepare one or two of everything. Both situations often lead to prepared casters running into trouble. Spontaneous casters by nature need only learn their specialty spells and then they can learn a few extras for utility and backup purposes and always have more than enough castings of any spell at the start of each day.
In my opinion, the generalist at the first levels is better since with his versatility in the use of his spells allows you to adapt to almost all kinds of situations however at medium to high levels the specialist has more chances of success when its spells are more difficult to resist and depending on the type of character you created yourself (aoe, CC, domination, etc).
The hunter, the druid, the witch, the bloodrage and the sorcerer are for me specialist because allow their spells to be more difficult to resist by placing spell focus and greater spell focus in a school that helps them control the circumstance they face
hmmm... the base classes play with casting and spells per level (sorcerer-arcanist-wizard or oracle-cleric-druid-ecclesitheurge cleric archetype-shaman) focus/style(uc summoner, witch, alchemist, bard) and martial(magus, warpriest, skald, bloodrager)
For wizards it is petty simple; school specialist > universalist or thassilonian. I've seen some archetypes but mainly evokers, 2 hemothurges, maybe 2 mystic theurges then none after SLAs ruled out for early entry. Unfortunately to be effective in play (other than as a blaster) you really have to know your spells so the learning curve is a bit steep.
For clerics it depends on the group makeup and the campaign setting. Generalists are pretty adaptable and that is important for support.
For oracles I've mainly seen life oracles and battle oracles. I've seen folks play oracles or sorcerers as I presume they like CHA.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
