Well, if you're going to bring Bard into it, their "cantrips" win hands down.
Inspire Courage at L1 - 1A, 60' emanation, +1 status bonus to attack rolls, damage rolls, and saves against fear
Bless L1 - 2A, 5' emanation, +1 status bonus to attack rolls (sustain to increase AoE 5'/round)
Comparison: NA Bard is uber
Not going to go any deeper, or I'll derail my own thread. Points given though.
[Focus Spells are balanced to be at least a level behind a full spell-caster's top spells. The exception is Animal Form via Druid Wild Shape which is a Full Spell (not a Focus Spell) granted by feat to act as a Focus Spell.
Yeah, but... So what? Is this spell not fitting the normal paradigm causing significant balance concerns? If not, then maybe that's why it is the exception to the normal paradigm. Wild Shape druids aren't breaking anyone's game, and I've yet to see a compelling case the wild shape fighter is either.
You can argue Animal Form isn't that good. I like that debate. You can argue it's over or under powered depending on the extremely vague battle form guidelines. You can take this a lot of different directions. Still, at the end of the day, it violates the balance between Focus and Full spells.Nope you are being too picky. You are not valuing that WildShape requires a lot of ongoing feat investment to maintain that balance and other Focus spells do not. The balance is clearly in the same range. I don't need or want 100.00% balance. Arguing about the finer detail of balance is a waste of time. Near enough is good enough. Certainly we are inside +/- a few percent here.
Is the argument that, "Requiring feat investment means it's okay to increase the power of a spell?" Metamagic can do this in ways, not flat out damage or "power," but sort of. So I guess that's a precedent, but I don't think I agree more feats mean more power in this situation. Feats are widely accepted to increase options in a scenarios without imbalancing power, so I think this is a stretch.
Top spell slots are the most expensive class feature in P2. Wizards get a couple more top spell slots, and for that (compared to Bard), they lose simple weapon proficiency, lose armor, lose skills, and have the worst saves in the game. They also miss out on super support cantrips. How is it that not only does Druid archetype give any class an unlimited per day (one per 10 minutes) top spell slot, it also gives any martial a +2 status bonus that the full spell-casting Druid can't use?
I don't think you need to qualify how good Animal Form is to see that. That's the main argument coming back, so let's look at some factors to see how good the option is and just how expensive the feats are. Speaking of expense, let's also compare the gold cost.
First, if you have free archetype, throw the "it has a high feat cost" argument out the window. So let's go with no FA. This comes online at L4:
Fighter 4 w/Druid archetype L2 and Wild Shape L4 using Animal Form and +1 handwraps (35gp):
Can start with battle form usable feats like Power Attack, Exacting Strike, and Sudden Charge.
+15 attack (+4str, +4 expert, +4 level, +1 handwraps, +2 status), AC 20,
Movement possibilities up to 50', 20' climb, 25' swim, Dmg options 2d8, 2d6, 1d0 agile, all +1 dmg. Can also get 15' reach, nice with AoO. Choosing canine for example, you could Sudden Charge 80' and attack twice at 2d8+1 dmg. Thanks to your status bonus, you're hitting and critting more often for comparable damage to a Fighter wielding a 1-handed weapon, plus you gained 2x or more speed, a climb speed, a swim speed, or 15' of reach. You choose depending on what you need. On top of that you got 5 temporary HP and Low-light vision and imprecise scent 30 feet.
Fighter 4 w/Fighter Feats, +1 striking greatsword (100gp):
+13 attack, AC 22 in heavy armor, Move 20'. You do more damage but are much slower. AC is higher, but no temp HP, no improved senses. You need feats to keep up with speed, but if you get fleet, you miss out on toughness or improved initiative. It also cost you 65 more gold. You get fighter feats at L2 and L4 which is cool, but the archetype got 2 cantrips (electric arc and guidance? not bad) and the ability to cast a top spell slot auto-scaling every 10 minutes - and that can be alternatively be used for Pest Form for 10 minutes, not just Animal Form.
The trade offs aren't all negatives on the archetype Fighter's side. It's not going to win the most powerful martial build in P2, but it steps on a primal caster's top spell slot niche.
To the contrary, as your level increases, you automatically unlock more Animal Form powers:
L5 - 10 temp HP, +5 dmg
L7 - 15 temp HP, +9 dmg, L, 10' reach
L9 - 20 temp HP, double dmg dice +7 dmg, Huge, 15' reach - Now this is interesting, because at L9, the greatsword Fighter might have three dice (3d12 avg is 19.5). The archetype battle form has four (4d8 avg is 18). The cost of a +2 striking greatsword is 2,000gp, and it's an L12 item, compared to plain +2 handwraps at 935GP, L10. So really, the greatsword fighter is more likely to have 2d12 at L9 (13) vs. the archetype's 4d8 (18) and +2 status bonus.
These numbers can go all over the place depending on what scenario you build, so I reiterate and retreat to my starting argument: This is an unlimited use top spell slot ability granted to non full spell-casters. That's not fair to Paizo's own balance limits on Focus Spells.
You don't have expert proficiency in animal form as a fighter as I'm sure has been stated a dozen times. You also only lose 5 speed because you have the required str to use plate. Couple that with human form being able to stack a status bonus from an ally and higher EHP from AC and animal form quickly loses any purpose.
Maybe at levels 9-10 with the early dice bump it might be worth it, but level 10 is also the last level where it's potentially worth using for any class that isn't the druid itself.
This is aside from the most obvious flaw with wild shape, losing two actions to set it up. Transform+stride is a dead turn. Even if you're in range of an enemy and strike instead, you provoke a potential AoO and only get the 1 strike and leave yourself in enemy reach. Everyone else gets minimum 1 strike if not starting in melee and 2 if they are. Non-monks with druid MC will never make up that damage deficit.
I wonder if you'd have a problem if battleforms were purely from feats instead of being based on spells. Battleform spells are rarely, if ever, worth casting with your spell slots so if they had relegated the entire thing to druid feats and not printed any as spells, nothing would be different.
You don't have expert proficiency in animal form as a fighter as I'm sure has been stated a dozen times.
You do with the Martial Artist dedication. So it costs you four out of your seven fighter feats by level 10.
I'm guessing Fighter'll be getting the Gunslinger proficiency treatment next errata so that they can't do this (though it'll makes switchhitting with them pretty crap, same as Gunslinger) but who knows, maybe paizo just did that so you couldn't build a Gunslinger and completely ignore guns/xbows by archetyping.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
These numbers can go all over the place depending on what scenario you build, so I reiterate and retreat to my starting argument: This is an unlimited use top spell slot ability granted to non full spell-casters. That's not fair to Paizo's own balance limits on Focus Spells.
There's no official rule that a Focus Spell has to be worse than an actual spell slot, it's just a rule of thumb.
Battle Form spells have one use: Golems and Will-o'-wisps. That's it. You cast them when you are in a situation where magic won't help you. But the Wild Shape Druid is a common trope, so, if you want a Wild Shape Druid to exist, you have 2 solutions:
- Release Wild Shape at a worst or equivalent state than Battle Form spells. It will become a niche class feature used once per day roughly.
- Release Wild Shape at an efficiency that is above the Battle Form spells. It becomes a defining class feature you can use often.
Paizo made the second choice, and I understand why. But you can prefer the first one, to each their own.
These numbers can go all over the place depending on what scenario you build, so I reiterate and retreat to my starting argument: This is an unlimited use top spell slot ability granted to non full spell-casters. That's not fair to Paizo's own balance limits on Focus Spells.There's no official rule that a Focus Spell has to be worse than an actual spell slot, it's just a rule of thumb.
That doesn't feel like an honest assessment of the ruleset. Paizo didn't pull the curtains open on the backend calculations and call them rules, but they definitely developed by them, and we can infer with some precision what they were.
People have already come up with a measurement system for weapon traits and die sizes that equates very well what Paizo must have used to balance weapons. To pretend the same thing doesn't exist for Focus Spells vs. Full spells is ignoring all the same data, just on spells.
...if you want a Wild Shape Druid to exist, you have 2 solutions
There are more solutions. You can refrain from handing out a full spell as a focus spell to archetypes. You can refrain from handing out a full spell as a focus spell to archetypes with a status bonus. You can make it another mechanic that doesn't violate the level at which a full spell-caster's top spells are granted. This was a cheap solution. Paizo did an incredible job with the system overall. Here and there things slipped through the balance cracks and are getting errata'd. It's ok to point them out.
Battle Form spells have one use: Golems and Will-o'-wisps.
Technically wrong.
Golems are immune to spells and magical abilities. Magical abilities includes a strike from a Battle Form. These attacks are clearly magical - there is a rule that says Any Strikes specifically granted by a polymorph effect are magical.. But a normal Strike with a weapon with magical runes on it is not a magical effect even though the damage is magical.
For Will-o'-Wisps their immunity is defined as A will-o’-wisp is immune to all spells except faerie fire, glitterdust, magic missile, and maze. Which is only spells, not magical effects in general. So a Battle Form will actually work against them.
Both these examples are technically complex so most people don't get them right. It's further confused when many people just look at the highlight text Immunities magic and don't look down for the complete description of what that means.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These numbers can go all over the place depending on what scenario you build, so I reiterate and retreat to my starting argument: This is an unlimited use top spell slot ability granted to non full spell-casters. That's not fair to Paizo's own balance limits on Focus Spells.There's no official rule that a Focus Spell has to be worse than an actual spell slot, it's just a rule of thumb.
That doesn't feel like an honest assessment of the ruleset. Paizo didn't pull the curtains open on the backend calculations and call them rules, but they definitely developed by them, and we can infer with some precision what they were.
People have already come up with a measurement system for weapon traits and die sizes that equates very well what Paizo must have used to balance weapons. To pretend the same thing doesn't exist for Focus Spells vs. Full spells is ignoring all the same data, just on spells.
They do clearly have a formula for damage in spells as well.
I do agree that they had slotted spells in mind as a balance point for foucs spells. But its clear to me that they choose to bend it a few times. The game is not that perfectly tuned, just close enough. I mean compare the Wizard to the Arcane Witch, or the perhaps the Bard to the Occult Witch. The Witch has its features and good flavour its not terrible, but if you had to give it a numeric ranking for its abilities 90% of people are going to say it comes up short.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People have already come up with a measurement system for weapon traits and die sizes that equates very well what Paizo must have used to balance weapons. To pretend the same thing doesn't exist for Focus Spells vs. Full spells is ignoring all the same data, just on spells.
Yeah, but we also know there are a significant number of weapons and other game options that don't conform to those measurements either.
Here and there things slipped through the balance cracks and are getting errata'd. It's ok to point them out.
I mean you say that, but... there doesn't really seem to be much of a balance issue here. Wild Shape fulfills its purpose of making shapechanging druids more sustainable... and I mean, that's cool.
Fair enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Battle Form spells have one use: Golems and Will-o'-wisps.Technically wrong.
Golems are immune to spells and magical abilities. Magical abilities includes a strike from a Battle Form.
I see what you mean, but it also means that Golems are immune to Animal Barbarian and Mutagenist attacks, that if you take the Celestial Strikes feat with your Aasimar (or Fiendish Strike with your Tiefling, or just become a Ghost Eater, etc...) you can't Strike a golem anymore and so on. I'm pretty sure most GMs won't rule it that way and just consider that your Strikes are magical to bypass damage reduction and hit incorporeal creatures but that they don't become magical effects per se. I agree that from a strict RAW point of view it's the meaning, but I think RAI is on my side.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For comparisons of tempest surge vs other, do keep in mind that tempest surge inflicts clumsy 2, an effect that is very potent as it is one of 3 that gives a status penalty to AC, this increasing Crit chances by 2.
BIS focus spell IMO.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Battle Form spells have one use: Golems and Will-o'-wisps. That's it. You cast them when you are in a situation where magic won't help you.
I disagree with that, even from a purely mechanical point of view (they definitely have the "Its FUN to turn into a battleform and kick ass" thing going from them).
They are also
1) A very cost effective way to contribute to fights when you think that running out of spells is likely to be an issue
2) A very good way of scouting/moving around in some circumstances. Or of dealing with unusual terrains (climb and swim speed at low levels, fly speed, burrow etc at higher levels)
3) Moving VERY fast when convenient (deer at low speeds, dragon etc at higher levels)
4) A cheap way of getting pretty much the EXACT AoE you need (picking energy type and line or cone) for free (mainly dragon form but others can work as well)
5) With a reasonably permissive GM a free way to get an entire party past an obstacle (ferry party members as a dragon, climb a cliff with a rope, etc)
6) Ability to provide a flanking partner, hold a choke point, etc if necessary
and likely a lot more that I've forgotten
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Battle Form spells have one use: Golems and Will-o'-wisps.Technically wrong.
Golems are immune to spells and magical abilities.
I've never seen a GM disallow my battle form from hitting a golem. I'd be seriously peeved if a GM ever did that.
You're arguably right RAW (I'd say its yet another unclear thing) but I think a GM would have to be an absolutely anal asshat to rule that way at the table
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They are also
1) A very cost effective way to contribute to fights when you think that running out of spells is likely to be an issue
2) A very good way of scouting/moving around in some circumstances. Or of dealing with unusual terrains (climb and swim speed at low levels, fly speed, burrow etc at higher levels)
3) Moving VERY fast when convenient (deer at low speeds, dragon etc at higher levels)
4) A cheap way of getting pretty much the EXACT AoE you need (picking energy type and line or cone) for free (mainly dragon form but others can work as well)
5) With a reasonably permissive GM a free way to get an entire party past an obstacle (ferry party members as a dragon, climb a cliff with a rope, etc)
6) Ability to provide a flanking partner, hold a choke point, etc if necessary
My turn to disagree.
1) For a Battle Form to be interesting, you need to use one of your higher level spell slot. So it's not really cost effective.2/6) Summons have the same kind of advantage, and are in my opinion way more versatile and take blows instead of you.
3/5) Most special movement spells are lower level than Battle Forms ones, and you can cast them on anyone, not just on you.
4) It's super costly for a dragon breath. 4 actions for the equivalent of a weak AoE with 1d4 rounds to recharge isn't exactly stellar.
So, these are not really good use of your spell slots. I don't say that it can never be useful, but for me the main use of Battle Forms is to face enemies immune to your spells for one reason or the other (outside Wild Shape, off course).
|
|
My turn to disagree.
So, these are not really good use of your spell slots. I don't say that it can never be useful, but for me the main use of Battle Forms is to face enemies immune to your spells for one reason or the other (outside Wild Shape, off course).
I don't tend to memorize battle form spells a lot. But they can be GREAT things to have a scroll of.
Animal Form is incredibly versatile at low levels. Dragon form is incredibly versatile at mid to high levels. That versatility is more than worth the cost of a scroll.
Battle Form spells have one use: Golems and Will-o'-wisps.Technically wrong.
Golems are immune to spells and magical abilities.
I've never seen a GM disallow my battle form from hitting a golem. I'd be seriously peeved if a GM ever did that.
You're arguably right RAW (I'd say its yet another unclear thing) but I think a GM would have to be an absolutely
The distinction between a Strike being a non magical effect but doing magical damage with runes, is a weird rule that is right up there with Trip being a skill check and not an attack roll even though it has the Attack trait.
It really only makes a difference in a couple of special cases like golems and in an antimagic aura.
Both these things are real and were deliberately done by Paizo. Both caused problems but Paizo deliberately made errata to clear them up. Its part of the game.
Does your GM allow the Barbarian to hit an Incorporeal ghost as well? Just because its seems a bit harsh that Strength attacks fail but Finesse attacks work? Well as a GM I considered not applying it but the Barbarian had been crushing everything while the Rogue had been running into monster after monster with immunity to precision damage so I choose to let that rule stand.
Yes as a GM I often let a few rules slide in actual play because I forget, and sometimes for balance reasons I choose to ignore an immunity, and yeah sometimes I think that the actual rule seems too unnatural and just do what make sense to me instead. The question you need to answer as a GM is are you happy to have monsters with strong but weird immunites in the game? Paizo looks happy for that to be the case.
This is the rules forum we should be saying what the rules actually say first.
They are also
1) A very cost effective way to contribute to fights when you think that running out of spells is likely to be an issue
2) A very good way of scouting/moving around in some circumstances. Or of dealing with unusual terrains (climb and swim speed at low levels, fly speed, burrow etc at higher levels)
3) Moving VERY fast when convenient (deer at low speeds, dragon etc at higher levels)
4) A cheap way of getting pretty much the EXACT AoE you need (picking energy type and line or cone) for free (mainly dragon form but others can work as well)
5) With a reasonably permissive GM a free way to get an entire party past an obstacle (ferry party members as a dragon, climb a cliff with a rope, etc)
6) Ability to provide a flanking partner, hold a choke point, etc if necessaryMy turn to disagree.
1) For a Battle Form to be interesting, you need to use one of your higher level spell slot. So it's not really cost effective.
2/6) Summons have the same kind of advantage, and are in my opinion way more versatile and take blows instead of you.
3/5) Most special movement spells are lower level than Battle Forms ones, and you can cast them on anyone, not just on you.
4) It's super costly for a dragon breath. 4 actions for the equivalent of a weak AoE with 1d4 rounds to recharge isn't exactly stellar.So, these are not really good use of your spell slots. I don't say that it can never be useful, but for me the main use of Battle Forms is to face enemies immune to your spells for one reason or the other (outside Wild Shape, off course).
I do get SuperBidi's main point is that there are other ways to do everything you get with a Battle Form without taking on its disadvatages. But I don't see that as a net negative to Battle Form spells, rather its just the flexibility of the pathfinder game. I like the Battle Form flavourwise because its a great way to swap a out a tiny little geeky caster and turn into a raging monster. Its got significant mechanical benefits too. You can ignore Strength and to a certain extent Dexterity in favour of Constitution as a caster, because you have a melee form if you need it. It can solve multiple problems at once. Special senses, athletics, special movement, disguise, as well as melee attack. Some of the non primal Battle Forms have some very strong immunities and special attacks.
But its just an option, you don't have to take one. It is expensive requiring a top level spell slot.
|
|
Does your GM allow the Barbarian to hit an Incorporeal ghost as well?
Yes.
And by "your GM" I mean "every single GM I've ever had when facing an incorporeal ghost". Which is at least 6 (probably significantly more). Generally in PFS play.
I'm not saying that you're wrong, RAW. But I am pretty much saying that you're wrong in practice, at least in my experience.
You're paying one heck of a lot more attention to the minutia than any other GM I've ever seen or played under. I spend way too much time on these boards and this is the first hint that I've ever had that a strength based attack can't hit a ghost while a dex based attack can (on a quick read I certainly interpreted "strength based checks" as things like trip and shove because that is OBVIOUSLY the only vaguely sane interpretation of those words. Even if it is clearly wrong).
In practical terms my experience (across a reasonably large range of online GMs) says that these rules are absolutely being ignored a whole lot of the time.
Which is what I'd expect. You have to drill down pretty far to even realize that there is an issue. And the rules as written just seem flat out stupid and wrong to me when I do drill down. To expect people to pay that much attention to rules minutia that is also quite silly is totally unreasonable IMO.
Edit: Just wanted to reiterate I agree that you're right RAW. But I think this is one of the several cases where RAW are just so silly (and obscure) that they are being very, very widely ignored.
The consensus of posts above is that some Focus Spells are more powerful than a top spell slot spell. You can compare for yourself whether or not this is true using the examples given.Tempest Surge at L3 = 1 target, range 30', 3d12 + on fail clumsy 2 and 1 pers. dmg (+1 heighten +1d12)
Lightning Bolt L3 = 4d12, 120' line (+1 heighten +1d12)
Comparison: Tempest Surge is clearly a level behind (dmg, range, area of effect)Updraft at L1 = 1 target, range 60', 2d6 + on fail prone (+1 heighten +2d6
Hydraulic Push L1 = 1 target, range 60', 3d6 + 5'shove or crit 6d6 +10'shove (+1 heighten +2d6)
Comparison: Updraft is a level behind (dmg)Crushing Ground at L1 = Same thing as updraft: riders +2d6
Comparison: Less than L1 Magic Missile, less than Shocking Grasp, less than Hydraulic Push. Same dmg as Burning Hands, but BH has an area of effect.Focus Spells are balanced to be at least a level behind...
You are taking examples that goes along your argument, without following dome of the rules you mentioned.
You are comparing Ligntning bolt, a lvl 3 spell to Tempest Surge, a lvl 1 Focus spell. In my example I specifically took Combustion instead which is a lvl 3 Focus spell. As most spells, higher lvl spells have a higher baseline than updated lower level spell.
Combustion at lvl 3 is 4d8 damage + 2d6 persistent damage, but single target. You will most of the time easily outdamage Lightning bolt, and lines really are not that great as an aoe effect.
Similarly, you're comparing Updraft with Hydraulic Push, a save spell vs a spell attack one. Spell attack are meant to do more damage as they are hit or miss.
And you compare Crushing ground with Mafic Missile (variable actions, auto hit), Shocking Grasp (melee) and burning hands (short cone)? While also disregarding the rider effects of the focus spells?
A reach Shocking Grasp or a 3 action Magic Missile does more damage, but that's not taking into account the riders, or the extra action the Focus spell user have. Honestly lvl 1 lack in 1 target save blast, which makes these Focus spells even more appealing.
Does your GM allow the Barbarian to hit an Incorporeal ghost as well?
Yes.
And by "your GM" I mean "every single GM I've ever had when facing an incorporeal ghost". Which is at least 6 (probably significantly more). Generally in PFS play.
I'm not saying that you're wrong, RAW. But I am pretty much saying that you're wrong in practice, at least in my experience.
You're paying one heck of a lot more attention to the minutia than any other GM I've ever seen or played under. I spend way too much time on these boards and this is the first hint that I've ever had that a strength based attack can't hit a ghost while a dex based attack can (on a quick read I certainly interpreted "strength based checks" as things like trip and shove because that is OBVIOUSLY the only vaguely sane interpretation of those words. Even if it is clearly wrong).
In practical terms my experience (across a reasonably large range of online GMs) says that these rules are absolutely being ignored a whole lot of the time.
Which is what I'd expect. You have to drill down pretty far to even realize that there is an issue. And the rules as written just seem flat out stupid and wrong to me when I do drill down. To expect people to pay that much attention to rules minutia that is also quite silly is totally unreasonable IMO.
Edit: Just wanted to reiterate I agree that you're right RAW. But I think this is one of the several cases where RAW are just so silly (and obscure) that they are being very, very widely ignored.
OK. I get that 90% of people miss this. but the rule is black and white. Its not complex or vague, its just a matter of reading the rules.
Likewise, a corporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against incorporeal creatures or objects. and we all know that checks are basically everything When success isn’t certain—whether you’re swinging a sword at a foul beast, attempting to leap across a chasm, or straining to remember the name of the earl’s second cousin at a soiree—you’ll attempt a check. Pathfinder has many types of checks, from skill checks to attack rolls to saving throwsTo be fair my barbarian has a PhD in Mathematics and sometimes pulls me up on rules even though its his first PF2 game. So that may have had something to do with it.
Paizo is quite happy for people to have different readings of the rules as long as they are having fun. So am I. They clearly do not want to go around telling people they are wrong. But Rules Forums are for those who want to know. Would I make a fuss of it in game as a player? Probably not, I'd just say "its actually a bit different if you look it up, but I'm happy to go with the way you are playing it today" and keep on going.
my barbarian has a PhD in MathematicsThat's quite a nice idea for a character.
Leibnitz, the Mathbarian: "What do you mean I have to use 5ft steps and can not go infinitesimal...?"