The Psychic Feels Weak and Boring

[Verdyn]

The design of the Psychic seems doomed to create boring patterns of play, here's why:

1) The class trades a spell slot per level for a bunch of lackluster class features and objectively weak class feats.

2) The limited spell slots per day and the limited selection of spells known will force this class into only ever picking the best spells as the cost for carrying an inefficient spell is exceedingly high.

3) The amps, and the very limited selection of cantrips they buff, are currently not worth the spell slot per level you pay to access them.

4) If you buff the amps and/or the cantrips you create a class that will often feel locked into a cycle of using cantrips and unleashing battle after battle with extremely limited flexibility.

5) They struggle to replace the classes they compete with being objectively worse than the Bard at all levels while being worse than the Witch and Sorcerer once those classes gain access to second-level spells and staying at a disadvantage thereafter.

6) Even if the above wasn't true the class is then saddled with the need to jump through hoops to Unleash and even after doing all of that they're stuck with a buff with downsides that still don't make their cantrips and amps good.

The disclaimer for all of this is that it's first look white room analysis coming from somebody who doesn't particularly like PF2 from a ground-up design standpoint.

[Squiggit]

Isn't 4 the whole point?

The cantrips are clearly undertuned but 'stronger at-will options and less spellcasting' is clearly the design direction for the class.

That said, again, undeniable that some of these features are undertuned (pretty significantly in terms of some of the unique cantrips too).

[Verdyn]

Squiggit wrote:

Isn't 4 the whole point?

The cantrips are clearly undertuned but 'stronger at-will options and less spellcasting' is clearly the design direction for the class.

That said, again, undeniable that some of these features are undertuned (pretty significantly in terms of some of the unique cantrips too).

If the goal is to do that then this first draft has missed the mark. Thus far they've managed to make a worse version of 5e's Warlock with slightly more utility and a lot more fiddly bits to obscure just how weak and hard to use that utility actually is.

[WWHsmackdown]

Looks like a fun class. Number tuning is what playtesting is for. Glad that Verdyn's profile pic is still extremely apt.

[Verdyn]

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Looks like a fun class. Number tuning is what playtesting is for. Glad that Verdyn's profile pic is still extremely apt.

My calling the class boring in the title is due to feeling that it naturally falls into a narrow action loop in a way most other PF2 classes don't. It has a bunch of stuff I'd classify as neat but worthless that will likely fool people into thinking it does more than it will in actual play. Or I'm wrong, but that's the reason I put the disclaimer at the bottom of my post.

As for my avatar, I'm aware that I'm brash and abrasive and I'm glad I have an image that suits my posting style perfectly. Think of it as my warning label.

[WWHsmackdown]

Verdyn wrote:

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Looks like a fun class. Number tuning is what playtesting is for. Glad that Verdyn's profile pic is still extremely apt.

My calling the class boring in the title is due to feeling that it naturally falls into a narrow action loop in a way most other PF2 classes don't. It has a bunch of stuff I'd classify as neat but worthless that will likely fool people into thinking it does more than it will in actual play. Or I'm wrong, but that's the reason I put the disclaimer at the bottom of my post.

As for my avatar, I'm aware that I'm brash and abrasive and I'm glad I have an image that suits my posting style perfectly. Think of it as my warning label.

It's just a lot of passionate negative energy that you contribute to something you don't even play. It boggles the mind.

[Verdyn]

WWHsmackdown wrote:

It's just a lot of passionate negative energy that you contribute to something you don't even play. It boggles the mind.

I'm always passionate. As for why this outlet... I have a boring job that leaves me with a lot of on-the-clock time in front of a PC. 5e isn't worth discussing, and most other RPG forums are closed down or inactive so I'm here. I wish I enjoyed PF2 as much as you do so I could be a poster full of passionate positive energy instead.

The bottom line is that I don't actually hate Paizo or their staff and I certainly don't dislike any of the posters here. While I may stir the pot more than you'd like I'm just here to enjoy some discussion and see if I can't get a few people to show me why I'm wrong to dislike PF2 the way I do.

[WWHsmackdown]

Verdyn wrote:

WWHsmackdown wrote:

It's just a lot of passionate negative energy that you contribute to something you don't even play. It boggles the mind.

I'm always passionate. As for why this outlet... I have a boring job that leaves me with a lot of on-the-clock time in front of a PC. 5e isn't worth discussing, and most other RPG forums are closed down or inactive so I'm here. I wish I enjoyed PF2 as much as you do so I could be a poster full of passionate positive energy instead.

The bottom line is that I don't actually hate Paizo or their staff and I certainly don't dislike any of the posters here. While I may stir the pot more than you'd like I'm just here to enjoy some discussion and see if I can't get a few people to show me why I'm wrong to dislike PF2 the way I do.

You can't be wrong about an opinion. It's an opinion. And if it's just discussion you're looking for you'll definitely get plenty of it stirring pots. Godspeed, soldier!

[Arachnofiend]

I wouldn't call it boring but it is absolutely weak. I don't understand why the amped cantrips are so much worse than existing focus spells. If anything they should be strictly better given that you are giving up a whole spell slot vs. the Druid to have these things.

[YuriP]

I imagine that the autor made them weak because of unleash. But even with the unleash doubling or tripling their usage the problem is that this come as a trade of that's class cast has at last 50% less spellslots than any other spellcaster. So in the end it's fells like that this trade isn't fair.

[cheezeofjustice]

YuriP wrote:

I imagine that the author made them weak because of unleash. But even with the unleash doubling or tripling their usage the problem is that this come as a trade of that's class cast has at last 50% less spellslots than any other spellcaster. So in the end it's fells like that this trade isn't fair.

2 instead of three isn't 50%.

I do agree there are problems with power and variety though. I also agree the power is conservative because the Unleash. It's pretty clear they are shooting a little low to see how much raw power the Unleashes give and with feedback they can precisely nudge it upwards.

Some Amps definitely need a nudge in power if not more, and I feel like if the class is going to be about spamming cantrips they need at least two options worth using per. Currently psychics are just going to be doing the same one over and over.

And the gap in power is a little uneven between types. I mean, Telekinetic Rend is actually hella powerful at 5th level when compared to the similar 5th level spell Lightning Storm. Especially in the base Unleash. TP amp also seems a little weak, but given how short a lot of battles can be, that's basically free amps from the third turn until the end. Every fight. I'd say it's near-ish to the power a nearly infinite option should be. Could maybe stand a little extra nudge but it's not HUGELY behind similar spells at its matching level if you are in base Unleash.

Yet, other types don't really seem to get as close to the mark as that and the Unleash drawbacks could maybe stand to be a little lower.

[rayous brightblade]

cheezeofjustice wrote:

2 instead of three isn't 50%.

I believe he is comparing to pure spellcasters sorcerer and wizard who get 4 spells per day (wizards chart shows 3 but their school gives 1 more)

The ones who get 3 get significant other benefits,
bard has better proficiencies/saves, more hp, and very powerful cantrip abilities.
Witches are supposed to have more powerful cantrips and focus spells (though IMO they tend to be weak overall)
Druid gets better hp, proficiencies/saves, and much more powerful feat chains tied to their orders.
Oracle gets better armor and hp, automatic increases in focus points and more powerful focus powers plus curse which may be beneficial or negative (cosmos resist all physical up to 12 is pretty darn good)
Cleric has better proficiencies/saves, more hp, and divine font which is usually 3-5 extra spells of your highest level.

The Psychic does not get better proficiencies/saves/hp so it's bonus stuff has to be twice as good as bard/witch/druid/oracle. Please note they also know less spells than sorcerers due to how spontaneous casters get spells into their repertoire.

cheezeofjustice wrote:

And the gap in power is a little uneven between types. I mean, Telekinetic Rend is actually hella powerful at 5th level when compared to the similar 5th level spell Lightning Storm. Especially in the base Unleash.

Base unleash only works on spells from spell slots. Also at 5th level its 2 5 ft bursts within 30 ft of 6d6 total damage (average 21) vs 1 5 ft burst within 120 ft for 4d12 (average 26) which can be repeated every round for 1 minute (so up to 260 damage average on 1 target). It never works out that way but on paper lightning storm is much more powerful.

Edit: But if we are talking 5th level spells, why do you use lightning storm as your example when cone of cold is from the same spell list and level. It is 12d6 in a 60 ft cone vs 6d6 in 2 5ft bursts within 30 ft. So twice the damage and most likely twice the targets.

cheezeofjustice wrote:

basically free amps from the third turn until the end. Every fight.

This presumes that each fight lasts until round 3 (i have had many fights that don't) and also precludes the opportunity cost of using the cantrips over your spell slot spells. You only have 3 actions per round, you could use tk rend at level 5 to do 2 5ft bursts for 4d6 damage but that means your not casting heroism/haste on your melee damage dealer or controlling the field with Oneiric Mire. Or choosing to be a sorcerer and firballing the field for more damage with your extra 2 spells of that level :P

If you don't use 2 focus points in the first 2 rounds then the amp bonus of the unleash doesn't actually matter. Its why Message and Mental scan are so good as they are 1 action so they don't screw over any other spell you want to use.

[Dubious Scholar]

cheezeofjustice wrote:

YuriP wrote:

I imagine that the author made them weak because of unleash. But even with the unleash doubling or tripling their usage the problem is that this come as a trade of that's class cast has at last 50% less spellslots than any other spellcaster. So in the end it's fells like that this trade isn't fair.

2 instead of three isn't 50%.

I do agree there are problems with power and variety though. I also agree the power is conservative because the Unleash. It's pretty clear they are shooting a little low to see how much raw power the Unleashes give and with feedback they can precisely nudge it upwards.

Some Amps definitely need a nudge in power if not more, and I feel like if the class is going to be about spamming cantrips they need at least two options worth using per. Currently psychics are just going to be doing the same one over and over.

And the gap in power is a little uneven between types. I mean, Telekinetic Rend is actually hella powerful at 5th level when compared to the similar 5th level spell Lightning Storm. Especially in the base Unleash. TP amp also seems a little weak, but given how short a lot of battles can be, that's basically free amps from the third turn until the end. Every fight. I'd say it's near-ish to the power a nearly infinite option should be. Could maybe stand a little extra nudge but it's not HUGELY behind similar spells at its matching level if you are in base Unleash.

Yet, other types don't really seem to get as close to the mark as that and the Unleash drawbacks could maybe stand to be a little lower.

Wizard and Sorcerer set the baseline of 4 slots per level. Other classes are trading that down to 3 for other sources of spells. Clerics get Divine Font, Bard and Witch have focus cantrips (the latter of course half of them are pathetically weak so...), etc.

[YuriP]

cheezeofjustice wrote:

YuriP wrote:

I imagine that the author made them weak because of unleash. But even with the unleash doubling or tripling their usage the problem is that this come as a trade of that's class cast has at last 50% less spellslots than any other spellcaster. So in the end it's fells like that this trade isn't fair.

2 instead of three isn't 50%.

Sorry I ignored the bard. Count as 33% fot it! :P

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Wizard and Sorcerer set the baseline of 4 slots per level. Other classes are trading that down to 3 for other sources of spells. Clerics get Divine Font, Bard and Witch have focus cantrips (the latter of course half of them are pathetically weak so...), etc.

So they have such trade off of the classes that have 3 spells slots instead of 4 is they gain some cool and strong benefit like good composition cantrips+focus spells improves then+armor or a Divine Font that allows the char to gain their cha bonus usage for 1 specific top level spell (heal or harm) a so on. That's why I don't fell good enought for a psychic with the base chassis of a light spellcaster like wizards/sorcerers sacrifice half of their spellslot just to receive amped versions of 3 "locked" cantrips that uses focus points and the main benefit is that they can use they a little more for "free" for 3-5 rounds, once per round, and also has drawbacks.

IMO the current psychic with 3 of it's cantrips locked as 3 specific psi cantrips + amps that uses focus points and an unleash that have drawbacks, is currently balanced for a class with 8 HP, some armor and 3 spellslots not for a no armor 6 HP light caster with only 2 spellslot per level.

So for a light caster that loses half of their spellslots I don't expect nothing less than an incredible power of if not at last put it in a bard chassis.

[Sporkedup]

Just toying around with things in my head right now.

Someone mentioned fighter-curved spellcasting proficiency (expert at 1, master at 5, legendary at 13). I kind of like that idea but I'm thinking it might take more balancing to make it fair.

This is probably a stupid suggestion, but aggressive accuracy proficiency as above, improved amping to damaging cantrips... and bounded casting? On paper that puts them a bit like the 5e warlock minus the short rest cycle (but that never actually works in 5e anyways). But functionally, a class with a few high level spells it can leverage to great use, as well as some powerful cantrips that both have a martial's chance to hit (sometimes better than!) and can deal competitive damage.

It sounds like people want this class to move back towards the mean with more spell slots since they don't like the power of the amps. I like the idea of going the other direction though and leaning more into making the psychic more reliable at the start of fights, very dangerous (though in greater danger) later in the fights, and able to a few times a day toss out a very scary occult spell or two?

They'd need something reasonably spicy at level 19 or so, as they will have lost their edge over all the other casters.

[WWHsmackdown]

I could do with fewer spell slots or the same so long as the amp stuff kicks harder.

[Sanityfaerie]

Another way to do something similar that doesn't require you to push the lvl 19 wouls be to have the amps give you that bonus to hit directly. Like, if you amp something, and it has a hitroll or a save, it gets a pertinent status bonus. When unleashed, it applies to all of your spells.