| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok so this whole debate has gotten me interested enough that I cracked out the ole excel.
I propose running each class through a simple scenario:
The contestant starts 25 ft. away from Dummy 1, Dummy 2 is 35ft. away, Dummy 3 is 50 ft. away. The contestant must hit dummy 1 on round 1, dummy 2 on round 2, dummy 3 on round 3. At the end of round 2, dummy 3 moves next to dummy 2. For melee, Dummies are considered flat-footed to represent the melee flanking advantage.
There are many ways that we could do this differently, but I feel this represents a fairly standard scenario. Open a door, roll ini, move in to flank, hit, move in to second target, hit, then its a big melee so you don't have to move.
Without further, ado, here are our contestants:
Michael McMasters, the Melee Magus
On Round 1, He strides to dummy 1 and spellstrikes with gouging claw
On Round 2, he arcane cascades*, dimensional assaults to Dummy 2, then strikes. 1 handed or 2 handed doesn't really matter here, I calced it using 2hands.
On Round 3, he unleashes his most brutal combo and true strikes+Fire ray(gouging claw at 1).
Here is his damage values:
1: 60.025 5:119.85 10: 155.4 15: 240.725 20: 300.9
*Notes: its debatable if he can arcane cascade as first action, couldn't find evidence one way or another so lets say yes as he's the underdog here.
Roger Murdock, the Ranged Magus
RM is a shortbow specialist with no STR, as has been debated here.
On round 1, he opens strong and true strike+Fire Ray(gouging claw at 1).*
On round 2, he refreshes and true strike+gouging claw
On round 3, he refreshes and true strike+gouging claw
Here is his damage using EDV
1:40 5:94.4 10:122.5 15:206.45 20:262.5
*Notes: its debatable if you should open with true strike or not. A better rotation IMO would be to Spellstrike+Shooting Star, then True Strike+Fire ray on round 2, but that costs 2 focus points. I can recalc if people prefer this way.
Marcy Farelgen, the Melee Fighter
On Round 1, She strides to dummy 1 and Power Attacks
On Round 2, She strides to dummy 2 and Power Attacks
On Round 3, She unleashes her most brutal combo and Power Attacks+strike
Here is her damage values:
1:90 5:132.7 10:171.3 15:226.25 20:375.3
Notes*: At level 20, Weapon supremacy comes online and is just bonkers good since we don't have a party member buffing us RN.
Roxanne Farelgen, the Ranged Fighter
On Round 1, She enters point blank shot* and shoots twice
On Round 2, She strikes and then double shots Dummy 2**
On Round 3, She strikes and then double shots Dummy 3**
Here is her damage values:
1:72.625 5:97.1 10:118.9 15:208.375 20:315
Notes*: At 16 this becomes multishot stance
Notes**: At level 1 she just shoots three times, at level 20 she uses triple shot instead after her strike, and double shots on 1st round.
Here is the TLDR:
Level
Class 1 5 10 15 20
Melee Magus 60.025 119.85 155.4 240.725 300.9
Ranged Magus 40 94.4 122.5 206.45 262.5
Melee Fighter 90 132.7 171.3 226.25 375.3
Ranged Fighter 72.625 97.1 118.9 208.375 315
Here is my detailed math
I found this to be an interesting exercise. We could modify the scenario one way or another, like triggering AoO with reach weapons, or adding a bend in a corridor to force the archers to relocate, but I wanted to keep it simple and ''reality adjacent''
Conclusions to be taken here are:
1: Melee>Range in terms of damage. The spread between both builds seems to be somewhat comparable, with a difference of a few percentage points maybe. This is adequate as melee is more dangerous but offers most damage. Even having to move twice is not a deterrent to that extra damage.
2: Fighter fight good. She's the fighter, she fights good. Fighter reigns supreme!
3: Ranged magus is kind of equal to ranged fighter for a lot of time, except at 1 and 20.
Feel free to comment or ask me for permutations, its all saved in excel.
Nice. I believe they did clarify that arcane cascade can't be done that way though unfortunately.
Can you get me a source on this? I couldn't find it.
Ultimately it changes very little as round 2 then just becomes dimensional assault, arcane cascade, strike.
Ok so this whole debate has gotten me interested enough that I cracked out the ole excel.
I propose running each class through a simple scenario:
The contestant starts 25 ft. away from Dummy 1, Dummy 2 is 35ft. away, Dummy 3 is 50 ft. away. The contestant must hit dummy 1 on round 1, dummy 2 on round 2, dummy 3 on round 3. At the end of round 2, dummy 3 moves next to dummy 2. For melee, Dummies are considered flat-footed to represent the melee flanking advantage.
There are many ways that we could do this differently, but I feel this represents a fairly standard scenario. Open a door, roll ini, move in to flank, hit, move in to second target, hit, then its a big melee so you don't have to move.
Without further, ado, here are our contestants:
What changes if the battle is started at a 35 ft. distance instead of 25 ft. without any other changes to the scenario?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1: power attack: I know, I actually tested that through. At level 1 it's better to power attack rather than attack another time. Later on if you furious focus it's better to power attack and attack if you have 3 actions.
2: indeed, I will correct that by using shocking grasp instead, and will switch the Ranged magus to shocking grasp for nova and conflux spell on round 1.
3:let's say when you attack the dummy after striding ? So no FF on dummy 3.
4: (on the scenario itself so I ate your dices comment too) modeling is tricky, and like I said this scenario can change by a lot. Yes we could have fights where ennemis start further or with different terrain, or flying ennemies even ! But the point was to find a just middle ground for the debate. Because yes these things happen and are a hindrance to melee, but the reverse can be just as true.
What if there's a bend in a corridor? What if you've just opened the door and there's ennemies on both sides of it that you can't see? What if you get ambushed in a 3*3 room? These are incredibly common in published content, even more so than conditions that disable melee I'd say. Dungeons are popular and they do not favor range as much as melee.
So I feel this is an acceptable middle ground between both scenarios, with a shift one side or another just having predictable results.
5: on magus longsword build: why would you go longsword though? I feel like that's be more of a targe build and thatd be a comparison better done to shield fight and champion
What changes if the battle is started at a 35 ft. distance instead of 25 ft. without any other changes to the scenario?Ok so this whole debate has gotten me interested enough that I cracked out the ole excel.
I propose running each class through a simple scenario:
The contestant starts 25 ft. away from Dummy 1, Dummy 2 is 35ft. away, Dummy 3 is 50 ft. away. The contestant must hit dummy 1 on round 1, dummy 2 on round 2, dummy 3 on round 3. At the end of round 2, dummy 3 moves next to dummy 2. For melee, Dummies are considered flat-footed to represent the melee flanking advantage.
There are many ways that we could do this differently, but I feel this represents a fairly standard scenario. Open a door, roll ini, move in to flank, hit, move in to second target, hit, then its a big melee so you don't have to move.
Without further, ado, here are our contestants:
Sudden Charge Fighters become even better as they can spend 2 actions to get there and then make a second attack.
Meanwhile, the melee magus has to spend 2 moves getting there and thus can't spellstrike.
Also it depends on how you build, many melee builds take fleet, nimble elf is a thing, boots of striding are an item etc. Etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What changes if the battle is started at a 35 ft. distance instead of 25 ft. without any other changes to the scenario?Sudden Charge Fighters become even better as they can spend 2 actions to get there and then make a second attack.
Meanwhile, the melee magus has to spend 2 moves getting there and thus can't spellstrike.
Not to mention everyone is rocking longstrider wands and an item bonus to speed at minimum. Maybe even fleet and an ancestry boost to go with it. Sudden charge has disgusting range on it.
Oh forgot:
I can definitely model this over 5 rounds, I'd just need to know what the scenario is?
Two more dummies?
A cluster f+*&?
Go back to dummies 2 and 3?
Well its more that if you're striding you'll often stride to a flanking position.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like that warpriest didn't show up in anyone's tier list XD
Warpriest follows the same condition of alchemist for me.
They are good in shor low level adventures limited to levels 1-4. After this their terrible progression takes then down from any tier list.
The only thing worse is Barbarian's Superstition Instinct.. I still didn't find nothing worse than this.
I like that warpriest didn't show up in anyone's tier list XDI would rate cleric S, warpriest A. Warpriest isn't a martial really, but it is still a cleric with an insane amount of top level heals.
Just don't try to run around hitting things.
It's a little off topic but for the curious, caster (doesn't include summoner or magus) tiering looks something like
S+: bard(maestro, enigma with multifarious muse for maestro)
S: bard (other), cleric(cloistered,heal)
A: Everything not above or below
B: wizard(staff,meta,familiar), cleric(cloistered,harm)
C: cleric(war,harm), sorc(divine), oracle(the good mysteries)
D: oracle(the bad mysteries)
And yeah, warpriest is just a cleric that permanently trades lategame casting proficiency to have a less awful early game with medium armor, faster weapon progression and better fort progression. Once you get past the early game and it fails to scale weapons and armor, it crumbles as a martial.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Warpriest doesn't qualify as a 'martial' its a full caster for whom swinging a weapon is a viable third action option, and who has better armor than the cloistered cleric.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Warpriest doesn't qualify as a 'martial' its a full caster for whom swinging a weapon is a viable third action option, and who has better armor than the cloistered cleric.
I mean, ish. The warpriest is a decent substitute frontliner at the right levels when it has similar proficiency to true martials. It'll never be as good at dealing damage as most of them, but it has other things it brings to the table.
What's kind of strange, and what tends to throw people off in games, is how Paizo chooses those level ranges.
Like a level 4 Warpriest has the same accuracy as most martials... and a level 7 Warpriest does too... but not a level 6 Warpriest.
What's so uniquely powerful about a Warpriest at level 6 that isn't true at level 7? Who knows.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Warpriest doesn't qualify as a 'martial' its a full caster for whom swinging a weapon is a viable third action option, and who has better armor than the cloistered cleric.I mean, ish. The warpriest is a decent substitute frontliner at the right levels when it has similar proficiency to true martials. It'll never be as good at dealing damage as most of them, but it has other things it brings to the table.
What's kind of strange, and what tends to throw people off in games, is how Paizo chooses those level ranges.
Like a level 4 Warpriest has the same accuracy as most martials... and a level 7 Warpriest does too... but not a level 6 Warpriest.
What's so uniquely powerful about a Warpriest at level 6 that isn't true at level 7? Who knows.
You fall a bit more behind due to your key stat not being the stat you swing a weapon with-- so when a normal martial is at 18 with a +4, you're at 16 with a +3, you actively catch up at 5, due to half-increase-after-18 making a 19 identical to an 18, before falling back behind at 10 when you're at 19 and they're at 20. If being additionally behind proper martials in that way was an intentional design choice, then it stands to reason that the early prof rank for martials vs. you is intended to accomplish that-- which, notably, when you do get expert at 7 the normal martials get weapon specialization (which you don't ever get.)
So I think the idea is that the Warpriest is allowed to 'catch up' to expert when normal martials get ahead of that point, via the base damage increase.
Interestingly, its been pointed out that Warpriest probably lost out a little on the switch of prof ranks from +1 to +2, due to the way their spells and action costs and MAP work, the subclass still works, but its play style is less flexible because its more behind in accuracy than it was originally meant to be.
You fall a bit more behind due to your key stat not being the stat you swing a weapon with-- so when a normal martial is at 18 with a +4, you're at 16 with a +3, you actively catch up at 5, due to half-increase-after-18 making a 19 identical to an 18, before falling back behind at 10 when you're at 19 and they're at 20. If being additionally behind proper martials in that way was an intentional design choice, then it stands to reason that the early prof rank for martials vs. you is intended to accomplish that-- which, notably, when you do get expert at 7 the normal martials get weapon specialization (which you don't ever get.)
In partys that don't benefit from a bard the warpriests can use Bless/Bane to compensate their lack o key stat. Also harm clerics can use their font to complement their 3º action in lower levels.
That's why I said the war priests are pretty good for low level (1-4) adventures. But after this levels it's just a fall to mediocrity.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Warpriest follows the same condition of alchemist for me.
They are good in shor low level adventures limited to levels 1-4. After this their terrible progression takes then down from any tier list.
The only thing worse is Barbarian's Superstition Instinct.. I still didn't find nothing worse than this.
Superstition Instinct is the worst. Not because its terrible, but because it interferes with the rest of the party by default. It has an anathema which is an excuse to be a pain for everyone else. I really don't understand why they did it. They could have allowed the concept in a much milder form.
For me they did it for the same reason that evil champions are mostly used. To allow use as NPCs.
Why? Is not a superstitious character a good roleplaying concept? It would not have been hard to make it workable.
Superstition Instinct is the worst. Not because its terrible, but because it interferes with the rest of the party by default. It has an anathema which is an excuse to be a pain for everyone else. I really don't understand why they did it. They could have allowed the concept in a much milder form.Warpriest follows the same condition of alchemist for me.
They are good in shor low level adventures limited to levels 1-4. After this their terrible progression takes then down from any tier list.
The only thing worse is Barbarian's Superstition Instinct.. I still didn't find nothing worse than this.
Yeah I revised it to "don't personally participate in the act of casting a spell/ritual" for my group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like these kind of discussions because they show how people see things very differently. I consider the Cleric as one of the worst caster. Once you get above level 4, you are just worse than any other caster as your main role is now a secondary role.
And Superstition Instinct is not that bad, actually. As long as you avoid playing one with a Bard in the party, you should be fine. Buffs are the rarity in PF2 and their impact is low. And even if healing is common, the Superstition Barbarian has the biggest hit point pool in the game, so you can just soak damage and never get healed (I say that from experience, my Barbarian has tanked things that would have put down anyone thanks to the size of his hp pool).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Superstition Instinct is the worst. Not because its terrible, but because it interferes with the rest of the party by default. It has an anathema which is an excuse to be a pain for everyone else. I really don't understand why they did it. They could have allowed the concept in a much milder form.
If I'm the GM and a player of mine wants to play a superstition Barb without talking to the rest of the group first, I would ask them to heavily reconsider it, honestly. It can lean into the "no fun to play with" territory easily for some people.
I like these kind of discussions because they show how people see things very differently. I consider the Cleric as one of the worst caster. Once you get above level 4, you are just worse than any other caster as your main role is now a secondary role.
Cleric is in a weird spot to me. It is really, really good when you are not coordinating at all with other players (playing with people you don't know, newer players or just people that don't care about tactics in general) and can brute force its way through bad tactics some times, but the better the PCs play, or the easier the GM wants to make the game, the least important what they can bring to the table is.
Like a year ago, my group and I made a tourney-like level 10 one-shot. We all played things we were not accustomed to and played really bad, to be honest. Even so we managed to overcome what should have been a TPK thanks to the raw healing power of a cleric PC. That said, in none of our long term campaigns I could see a cleric working better than any of the other casters we have used.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Superstition Instinct is the worst. Not because its terrible, but because it interferes with the rest of the party by default. It has an anathema which is an excuse to be a pain for everyone else. I really don't understand why they did it. They could have allowed the concept in a much milder form.If I'm the GM and a player of mine wants to play a superstition Barb without talking to the rest of the group first, I would ask them to heavily reconsider it, honestly.
Reconsider is maybe too strong, but clearly one shouldn't play a Superstition Barbarian unless the party can have one. You need a specific party composition for it to work fine, and in some party configurations it can even be awesome (Alchemist healer for example).
Cleric is in a weird spot to me. It is really, really good when you are not coordinating at all with other players (playing with people you don't know, newer players or just people that don't care about tactics in general) and can brute force its way through bad tactics some times, but the better the PCs play, or the easier the GM wants to make the game, the least important what they can bring to the table is.
I've tried to assess why, among my multiple parties in Abomination Vaults, the ones with a Cleric were always having tougher fights with the Cleric always saving the day. And when decomposing the action, I've understood: As the Cleric doesn't deal much damage, the monsters survive longer than they should, deal more damage that needs to be healed because now the party is taking too much damage to survive.
Playing a Cleric is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You are really bad when it comes to end the fight, so most fights get bad and as such your healing becomes mandatory.I play quite a few Divine spellcasters (Angelic Sorcerer, Tempest Oracle) and I cast Heal once in a while, to absorb damage spikes. Casting Heal more than once a day is a rarity.
At level 1, Cleric is the best caster. After level 4, it's the worst, and I even take an Alchemist or a Witch over a Cleric every day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I even take an Alchemist or a Witch over a Cleric every day.
Agree with some caveats. I really like having an alchemist in the party level 7 onwards, but it is one of those classes that doesn't fit every group. If you have 2 handed, 2 weapon or sword and shield combatants in the party, or characters that have trouble finding actions to spare, the value of an alchemist starts to diminish as they have trouble starting combat with one item at hand or finding an action to even use it. I find Witch better than Cleric under the assumption that you have one of the patrons with a useful cantrip (Stoke the Heart is nuts, for example) or that you are getting an archetype. If I had to choose between a baseline Cleric and a baseline Wild Witch, I think I would take the Cleric.
I even take an Alchemist or a Witch over a Cleric every day.Agree with some caveats. I really like having an alchemist in the party level 7 onwards, but it is one of those classes that doesn't fit every group. If you have 2 handed, 2 weapon or sword and shield combatants in the party, or characters that have trouble finding actions to spare, the value of an alchemist starts to diminish as they have trouble starting combat with one item at hand or finding an action to even use it. I find Witch better than Cleric under the assumption that you have one of the patrons with a useful cantrip (Stoke the Heart is nuts, for example) or that you are getting an archetype. If I had to choose between a baseline Cleric and a baseline Wild Witch, I think I would take the Cleric.
Well, I got a bit carried away in my previous post. Thinking more about it, I think it depends on the party. But I just don't find the Cleric to be really in a better position, so closer to tier D than tier S for me.
I like these kind of discussions because they show how people see things very differently. I consider the Cleric as one of the worst caster. Once you get above level 4, you are just worse than any other caster as your main role is now a secondary role.Cleric is in a weird spot to me. It is really, really good when you are not coordinating at all with other players (playing with people you don't know, newer players or just people that don't care about tactics in general) and can brute force its way through bad tactics some times, but the better the PCs play, or the easier the GM wants to make the game, the least important what they can bring to the table is.
Like a year ago, my group and I made a tourney-like level 10 one-shot. We all played things we were not accustomed to and played really bad, to be honest. Even so we managed to overcome what should have been a TPK thanks to the raw healing power of a cleric PC. That said, in none of our long term campaigns I could see a cleric working better than any of the other casters we have used.
This is the primary reason cleric is rated S. By itself it can nearly remove the need for good tactics and together with good tactics it is the ultimate safety net. Undoing damage generally isn't as good as removing enemy actions directly but it's hard to argue with 2-4 extra spell slots dedicated to it with while preserving the rest of your best slots. If the gm runs an easier campaign, the cleric will remove almost all combat threat by itself.
The cleric also pretty naturally falls into dex/con/wis/cha letting it take bard dedication for lingering inspire courage/dirge of doom or swashbuckler for one for all (or both: bard 2, lingering 4, inspire 6, swash 9, 1fa 10 is a good build). Life oracle fills much the same niche but is punished by being a spontaneous divine and needing to spend multiple feats on divine access to build a respectable repertoire and not having font or channel succor to remove the burden of healing from its normal slots.
Other casters all need to compete directly with the bard for the slot of buffer/debuffer/controller and they don't win that fight which is why they all sit in A or lower.
Well, I got a bit carried away in my previous post. Thinking more about it, I think it depends on the party. But I just don't find the Cleric to be really in a better position, so closer to tier D than tier S for me.I even take an Alchemist or a Witch over a Cleric every day.Agree with some caveats. I really like having an alchemist in the party level 7 onwards, but it is one of those classes that doesn't fit every group. If you have 2 handed, 2 weapon or sword and shield combatants in the party, or characters that have trouble finding actions to spare, the value of an alchemist starts to diminish as they have trouble starting combat with one item at hand or finding an action to even use it. I find Witch better than Cleric under the assumption that you have one of the patrons with a useful cantrip (Stoke the Heart is nuts, for example) or that you are getting an archetype. If I had to choose between a baseline Cleric and a baseline Wild Witch, I think I would take the Cleric.
In general I'm also curious in knowing people's opinion in how "competitive" classes are since the difference between most decent builds is marginal compared to 1e or even D&D 5E. Honestly it is pretty hard to justify why something is stronger or weaker than other thing in this edition.
If I had to rank casters (and Alchemist), I think it would be something like:
S+: Cloistered Cleric (fully undead centered campaign)
S: Bard, Arcane Sorcerer (Spellbook + Crossblooded is amazing), Druid
A: Spell Blending Wizard, Cosmos Oracle
B: Other sorcerers, Substitution Wizard
C: Other Wizards (No universalist), Witches with a good focus cantrip, Alchemist lvl 7+
D: Cleric, Oracle (minus Cosmos, Ancestor and Lore)
E: Witches with a bad focus cantrip, Universalist Wizard, Lore Oracle
F: Early game Alchemist, Ancestor Oracle
Also people harp a lot on the divine spell list but it has a couple decent spells every level I find.
At low levels sound burst/sudden blight are probably the best blasty spells at level 2 with the added perk of targeting fort. Since a lot of low level encounters have you fight swarms/goblins/kobolds/thieves/gremlins targeting fort in a 10/20 ft burst is pretty good.
Inner radiance is also good for that Kamehameha vibe.
Then you've got agonising despair searing light/chilling darkness
At 4 you start getting some real good spells like the poltergeist one.
5 and up you get some strong options as you go on with divine wrath and flame strike, blade barrier, divine decree, spirit blast etc. Etc. Etc.
There's enough in there to be a perfectly respectable blasty cleric of you want to be.
I think part of the problem people have is that they don't realize Divine list is not strictly only divine spells. All divine casters can easily poach spells from other traditions (most of the time since level 1).Also people harp a lot on the divine spell list but it has a couple decent spells every level I find.
At low levels sound burst/sudden blight are probably the best blasty spells at level 2 with the added perk of targeting fort. Since a lot of low level encounters have you fight swarms/goblins/kobolds/thieves/gremlins targeting fort in a 10/20 ft burst is pretty good.
Inner radiance is also good for that Kamehameha vibe.
Then you've got agonising despair searing light/chilling darkness
At 4 you start getting some real good spells like the poltergeist one.
5 and up you get some strong options as you go on with divine wrath and flame strike, blade barrier, divine decree, spirit blast etc. Etc. Etc.
There's enough in there to be a perfectly respectable blasty cleric of you want to be.
Other casters all need to compete directly with the bard for the slot of buffer/debuffer/controller and they don't win that fight
Do they have to, though?
Bard is its own kind of good as it can perfectly do both the roles of buffer and debuffer alone, at the same time. That said, the other classes bring other things to the table such as more spells per day, better spell list via poaching, great focus spells or unique abilities like spell blending.
Bard is clearly the best for 3 martials + 1 caster groups, but other casters are close, equal or situationally even better for 2 martials + 2 casters groups.
To me your analysis also undersells how easy it is to get the same effects Bards get with their cantrips by other means. What use has Inspire Courage if your 2 melees are benefitting from Marshal Stance? Or what use has Dirge of Doom if your caster partner plans to sicken the enemies anyway?
If I had to rank casters (and Alchemist), I think it would be something like:
S+: Cloistered Cleric (fully undead centered campaign)
S: Bard, Arcane Sorcerer (Spellbook + Crossblooded is amazing), Druid
A: Spell Blending Wizard, Cosmos Oracle
B: Other sorcerers, Substitution Wizard
C: Other Wizards (No universalist), Witches with a good focus cantrip, Alchemist lvl 7+
D: Cleric, Oracle (minus Cosmos, Ancestor and Lore)
E: Witches with a bad focus cantrip, Universalist Wizard, Lore Oracle
F: Early game Alchemist, Ancestor Oracle
I'd rank casters very differently depending on level.
Before level 5, all healers are gods (Cleric is obviously at the top with Life Oracle). Bard is fine because of buffing. So it's more of a question of tradition: Divine and Primal at the top, then Occult, then Arcane.At mid level, it's more balanced, but that's the moment where the Bard starts to really shine.
At high level, you have god spellcasters, so it's Sorcerers and Wizards at the top.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By itself it can nearly remove the need for good tactics and together with good tactics it is the ultimate safety net.
Exactly. That's why I find it so bad: it's kind of a dead weight that drag you down and then saves you. With other casters, you are just not dragged down.
Also, every spontaneous casters are excellent safety nets, as they can also heal for multiple rounds in a row.Also people harp a lot on the divine spell list but it has a couple decent spells every level I find.
The main issue of the Divine spell list is that it's extremely circumstancial. You have very few spells you can use widely, they are either creature dependent (against undeads and fiends) or alignement dependent. For a prepared caster, it's extremely hard to prepare a proper list because you need to know beforehand what you'll face. It's way better for spontaneous casters who can have Searing Light in their repertoire without actually having to lose one of their spell slots if there's no Undead or Fiend in the dungeon.
Other casters all need to compete directly with the bard for the slot of buffer/debuffer/controller and they don't win that fightDo they have to, though?
Bard is its own kind of good as it can perfectly do both the roles of buffer and debuffer alone, at the same time. That said, the other classes bring other things to the table such as more spells per day, better spell list via poaching, great focus spells or unique abilities like spell blending.
Bard is clearly the best for 3 martials + 1 caster groups, but other casters are close, equal or situationally even better for 2 martials + 2 casters groups.
To me your analysis also undersells how easy is to get the same effects Bards get by other means. What use has Inspire Courage if your 2 melees are benefitting from Mashal Stance? Or what use has Dirge of Doom if your caster partner plans to sicken the enemies anyway?
Yes they do. With utility as nerfed as it is and blasting not scaling well (and really only needing to be one spell of your choice to cover 99% of situations) the only worthwhile niche for casters is de/buffing and battlefield control.
Quick note: I made a mistake earlier. It's polymath bard that's good, not enigma. Always mix those up in my head.
Inspire costs no feats, starts working at level 1 and is a 30ft radius while marshal aura costs 2 feats, is subject to archetype rules, 10ft with an unlikely boost to 20 given martials won't start with cha above 14 and doesn't exist until level 4. Dirge has no save, is AoE, and the bard can benefit from the reduced saves the same round it is used. Both also have a likely duration of 3 rounds with lingering composition which is enough for most combats and costs no resources aside from the lingering composition focus point.
Occult sorcs bring 1 more spell per day and can even steal spells from other lists and steal bard's focus cantrips. Strong, and probably bard's closest competition, but comes online later, has an overall worse chassis and while it's busy getting bard cantrips, bard is getting one for all or something else to push it further, faster.
Spell Blend Wizard is good too even if it only has the arcane list instead of the occult list. There's something to be said about having that many high level slots. But, you still only get 3 actions per round and you can't afford cha if you want to keep your saves up so you lose access to bard cantrips and cha skill actions like bon mot or one for all.
There's something to be said for showing up strong at the end of the game when spells start to really shine, but when bard has been outperforming you for the last 14-15 levels does it really matter?
Oh forgot:
Level 3 fear
Level 5 command
Level 6 paralyse.
All of these are on the cleric spell list. If you're fighting something that's immune to those it's either:
A: a mindless undead, you good.
B: a golem: it's aight, it's immune to you in general, buff and summon.
Well then there's several general purpose spells that do great. I listed alignment spels sometimes because A: I think weakness to good is the most common weakness in the bestiary B: they often have debuff riders. C: Depending on your team composition, you can ignore friendly fire.
All of these in my opinion means that divine wrath and divine decree are pretty damn good to carry around. But you'll also want some others like poached spells (magic missile or fireball) blade barrier, agonising despair, sound burst, sudden blight, summon spells (summon celestial/fiend is pretty decent they often have very good effects and spells).
And hey, let's say you messed up and you're fighting a den of animals and you thought you were going to take down evil poachers so you have only alignment spells in your blasty slots ? Well then you have heal X time a day and probly heroism too?
Or just to cover that eventuality learn a battle form spell to go into melee with your buddies.
I think the cleric is a great caster and gets some good things going, but yeah once shit starts to hit the fan they'll spend a lot of their time healing their allies, because they can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By itself it can nearly remove the need for good tactics and together with good tactics it is the ultimate safety net.Exactly. That's why I find it so bad: it's kind of a dead weight that drag you down and then saves you. With other casters, you are just not dragged down.
Also, every spontaneous casters are excellent safety nets, as they can also heal for multiple rounds in a row.
I don't see that it drags you down though. Other casters can't save you in the early game, later on strong healing undoing damage may as well be removing enemy actions which is the most important thing to be doing and its heal slots being a swiss army knife of condition removal at 8+ removes a lot of random nonsense a gm might throw at you.
There's no risk of not having the heal/cleanse ready or opportunity cost of healing vs another spell. There's no scrambling to get a fight back under control after an unlucky crit hit, crit save or string of player misses turning the fight into a slog. Just steady, consistent value.
Edit: and its not like you aren't doing the usual buffing and such anyway. You can even prepare divine's niche stuff if it looks like that's what your day is going to be about.
Other casters all need to compete directly with the bard for the slot of buffer/debuffer/controller and they don't win that fightDo they have to, though?
Bard is its own kind of good as it can perfectly do both the roles of buffer and debuffer alone, at the same time. That said, the other classes bring other things to the table such as more spells per day, better spell list via poaching, great focus spells or unique abilities like spell blending.
Bard is clearly the best for 3 martials + 1 caster groups, but other casters are close, equal or situationally even better for 2 martials + 2 casters groups.
To me your analysis also undersells how easy is to get the same effects Bards get by other means. What use has Inspire Courage if your 2 melees are benefitting from Mashal Stance? Or what use has Dirge of Doom if your caster partner plans to sicken the enemies anyway?
Yes they do. With utility as nerfed as it is and blasting not scaling well (and really only needing to be one spell of your choice to cover 99% of situations) the only worthwhile niche for casters is de/buffing and battlefield control.
Quick note: I made a mistake earlier. It's polymath bard that's good, not enigma. Always mix those up in my head.
Inspire costs no feats, starts working at level 1 and is a 30ft radius while marshal aura costs 2 feats, is subject to archetype rules, 10ft with an unlikely boost to 20 given martials won't start with cha above 14 and doesn't exist until level 4. Dirge has no save, is AoE, and the bard can benefit from the reduced saves the same round it is used. Both also have a likely duration of 3 rounds with lingering composition which is enough for most combats and costs no resources aside from the lingering composition focus point.
Occult sorcs bring 1 more spell per day and can even steal spells from other lists and steal bard's focus cantrips. Strong, and probably bard's closest competition, but comes online later, has an overall worse chassis...
I'm not saying that you don't need buffs, debuffs and BC, just that other casters or even a martial can take care of that as well. A pair of Arcane and Divine casters can do the same and still do their thing on top, Don't see how that is different from having just a bard and another player doing their thing.
Other casters can't save you in the early game
I agree, Cleric is awesome at level 1-4.
later on strong healing undoing damage may as well be removing enemy actions which is the most important thing to be doing
Nope, it's wasted actions and spell slots. During most fights, you don't need a single point of healing. And even during fights where you need healing you'll need healing at later rounds.
Dragging the duration of fights artificially by being overly defensive is not good at all, especially if it costs you resources.Also, when you get to mid level, damage is not what will kill a character. When my parties reached these levels in Abomination Vaults, all the tough fights have been against enemies that were either separating the party (Swallow Whole for example), giving awful conditions that were crippling the PCs or just blocking healing (either by disabling the healers or having anti-healing abilities like Graveknights).
a swiss army knife of condition removal at 8+ removes a lot of random nonsense a gm might throw at you
Most of these conditions are pretty easily removed. You just have Remove Paralysis that can be nice. Removing conditions is not the be-all and end-all, parties without a Cleric don't struggle with them.
Edit: and its not like you aren't doing the usual buffing and such anyway. You can even prepare divine's niche stuff if it looks like that's what your day is going to be about.
But you are quite bad at it. As a prepared caster with 3 slots and a spell list with a lot of conditional spells you won't get the efficiency of the competition. Just by being a spontaneous caster with access to other spell lists the Oracle feels ten times better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is the number 1 rule in RPGs that the order of priorities is: Damage > debuffs > buffs > control > healing.
I've never heard this 'rule' before and it doesn't really make a lot of sense.
I would rank control a heck of a lot higher than second to last