| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whether one loves, hates, or is indifferent to the classes that have been released since the CRB one cannot deny that each of them has some level of action tax built into their chassis. Panache, Reload, DaS, Spellstrike, etc. every post-CRB class has to spend actions, often multiple times per battle, just to fulfill the fantasy the class presents. This added complexity and limiting action economy doesn't buy these classes power as universally none of them even approach the Fighter, Bard, or Druid and many of them are below average by a fair margin.
I'm not concerned about power level, I've said my piece on that before, what I am concerned about is how Paizo has taken a free-flowing class like the Swashbuckler which should play with as much fluidity as a Monk and locked it into a cycle of generate Panache, use a finisher, repeat. Even classes that use their actions for more interesting things like a Thaumaturge often have scenarios where their unique action is less useful than simply moving in and making a strike. I don't think this is an ideal state for these classes.
I'm primarily interested in two things:
1) Discussion around how these class fantasies could be realized without the action tax.
2) If there are post-release bandaids in the form of items or class feats that could solve what I see as an issue in class design.
I would be interested in opinions on if these classes can do everything they do now minus the action tax without being broken and what numbers might need to change to make that happen, but I fear that would devolve quickly and drown out what I'm actually interested in.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whether one loves, hates, or is indifferent to the classes that have been released since the CRB one cannot deny that each of them has some level of action tax built into their chassis.
Panache, Reload, DaS, Spellstrike, etc. every post-CRB class has to spend actions, often multiple times per battle, just to fulfill the fantasy the class presents.
...and locked it into a cycle of generate Panache, use a finisher, repeat.
I think one can deny that. Rangers and barbarians had similar action costs built into core, albeit without the failure chance. So does any class with a stance. Meanwhile, DaS works as a free action pretty frequently in my experience. Panache actions can gain benefits inherently (positioning for tumble, penalties for other actions.) Spellstrike is the same action cost as casting a spell; it only starts to to feel like a tax to recharge without confluence spells. Inventors can prebuff Overdrive. And Ways are all basically about giving your Reload benefits instead of being a dead action.
What you're labeling as taxes is a large part of what makes these classes feel different from each other. Removing them all just feels like it would homogenize the game a bit, wouldn't it? If anything, I think I'd prefer a single build be able to net more variety of ways they can leverage those actions. Like,Swashbucklers being able to generate panache with more than one style.
Psychic and Oracle also don't really have a tax. You can argue witches do, but by that standard so do bards.
Also, I don't think Swashbucklers are as locked into finisher spamming as people act. There's a lot of ways you can leverage maintaining panache in different contexts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rangers
Rangers are the most action-locked CRB class and people complain about that reasonably often.
barbarians had similar action costs built into core, albeit without the failure chance. So does any class with a stance.
I wouldn't say that a single action at the start of a battle is comparable to the loops that post-CRB classes are stuck with.
What you're labeling as taxes is a large part of what makes these classes feel different from each other. Removing them all just feels like it would homogenize the game a bit, wouldn't it?
If entering a rage was a free action would a Barbarian feel too much like a Fighter? I don't feel that it would.
Like, Swashbucklers being able to generate panache with more than one style.
I would prefer it if Swashbucklers were incentivized to take flashy actions but if each action granted a unique bonus so you didn't have the rigid tumble + subclass skill ways to gain panache. I'd also give them dex to damage base, make finishers use focus, and tweak their numbers from there until they fit.
Psychic and Oracle also don't really have a tax. You can argue witches do, but by that standard so do bards.
The casters don't tend to suffer as badly but the Witch's familiar and hex focus is a tax. It should also be said that Oracle, Psychic, and Thaumaturge are my picks for the three best-designed post-CRB classes.
Rangers are quite performant.
They work depends their edge, and they use 2 actions to perform 2 strikes ( Prey + hunted shot or twin takedown).
They also have a per that shares their edge and by lvl 6 moves on its own.
The ranger is pretty performant and versatile imo.
To me, the ones which have issues are:
- Alchemist ( chirurgeon and toxicologist need some enhancing feature to properly manage their actions).
- swashbuckler ( a total failure in terms of routine and mechanics)
- anybody using alchemical ammunitions ( 1 action to activate, 1 to reload, 1 to shot is probably the worst thing I have ever seen in this 2e ).
- investigator ( some melee issue. If they roll bad on their devise a stratagem and they don't have another melee target, they can't attack anymore).
I think you may have missed the point of the thread.
It isn't about the power of any given class, we've had more than enough threads about that, it's about trying to remove as many 'action taxes' as possible. I focused on the post-CRB classes as they tend to suffer from them more than core classes and the ranger came up as a core class that also has an action that must be applied per target to get their best damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll largely echo the good Captain above - I think that you are using the term "action tax" too loosely. It should really be reserved for actions that have no further benefit apart from getting you vaguely to the "acceptable" level of effectiveness for your role and level. For example, I would absolutely place Overdrive, Dual-Weapon Reload, the standard "Recharge Spellstrike" action and standard reload into that category. I'm probably missing some stuff, but there aren't too many feats/features like this, at least comparatively.
Pretty much everything else actually does more than that and - quite importantly - also serves to differentiate classes, as Captain already pointed out. Hunt Prey - whose actual negative impact on your action is incredibly overstated imo - gives some decent passive benefits and "unlocks" many abilities that are very powerful right from your earliest levels. DaS is also like a partial true strike and allows you to focus more on INT. Panache-enabling actions granting additional benefits. Spellstrike! Exploit Vulnerability is, in most in-combat cases, a massively better Recall Knowledge. Special reloads are kind of a mixed bag, but that is mostly a power issue.
The problem with many classes having more involved action economies isn't really that you need more actions. It's power and reliability. For example, the problem with the gunslinger isn't that you have to reload. It's that the end result is basically always significantly inferior to something a fighter or ranger can pull off with less effort and fewer constraints. Similarly, I don't think the gameplay loop of the swashbuckler is bad. The problem is that the real goodies are locked behind panache and getting panache is often very difficult when it matters most. It gets better with level, as skills simply scale incredibly well, but that takes very long.
To make my long ramble short - I don't think the actions or complex action economies in general are the problem. If they feel powerful and useful - if they are worth the effort - they are fun. The problems only appear when you feel like you are going to a lot of effort for a lesser result. That is why the magus succeeded while classes like the gunslinger, swashbuckler or inventor have received a rather mixed reception.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that Pathfinder classes have iconic actions (or two-action activities or a reaction) that help define the classes.
Alchemist: Quick Alchemy and Strike by throwing an alchemical bomb
Barbarian: Rage
Bard: Cast a Composition Spell
Champion: Champion's Reaction
Cleric: Cast a Divine Spell
Druid: Cast a Primal Spell and Command an Animal or Cast Wild Shape
Fighter: Strike and Attack of Opportunity
Gunslinger: Reload
Inventor: Explode and Overdrive
Investigator: Devise a Strategem
Magus: Spellstrike
Monk: Flurry of Blows and Strike with an unarmed attack
Oracle: Cast a Revelation spell, increasing the effects of their oracular curse.
Psychic: Cast a Psi Cantrip and amping it.
Ranger: Hunt Prey
Rogue: Striking for a Sneak Attack, Debilitating Strike, and Sneak
Sorcerer: Cast a Bloodline Spell
Summoner: Manifest an Eidolon and Act Together
Swashbuckler: Tumble Through and a Swashbuckler's Stype action to gain panache and a Finisher action
Thaumaturge: Exploit Weakness
Witch: Cast a Hex Spell
Wizard: Cast an Arcane Spell
The rogue does not quite fit this list. Their iconic abilities are Sneak Attack and lots of trained skills, and though those use actions to use, they are not actions. Likewise, for the fighter, their iconic Strike is an action that all martial characters take, and their Strike is iconic only because they are especially good at it. The summoner's iconic characteristics are having an eidolon and sharing actions with it. Manifest an Eidolon is representative of that but seldom used. Act Together mitigates the inconvenience of sharing actions. Witches have an iconic familiar and wizards have an iconic spellbook, and those are not actions. Nevertheless, most classes have an iconic action.
And many of those iconic actions are action taxes. The barbarian has to pause to rage when they would prefer to immediately charge into battle. The bard has to sing Inspire Courage every turn. The investigator uses Devise a Strategem to prepare for an effective Strike, but preparation is a tax. Hunt Prey and Exploit Weakness look like the ranger and thaumaturge are lost in thought for a moment.
Cast a Spell would be considered an action tax because it typically costs two actions, except that the damage and range from Cast a Spell is worth two actions. The Gunslinger's Reload action would be worth the two actions of Reload and Strike with the loaded firearm if firearms dealt as much damage as a high-slot spell, but they don't.
I think that the reason those iconic actions that are action taxes are more common among the non-core classes is because designing a new action that is not an action tax is easier when the characteristics of the action can be built into the system. That was easier in the Core Rulebook. For example, a monk's Flurry of Blows is an action advantage, but it required a class that specialized in weaker attacks (unarmed) and the Flourish trait. The Finisher trait was invented for the Swashbuckler, but it was tied to the action tax of gaining panache because the system had no better way of establishing the cost of a finisher action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In practice Rangers don't suffer too much about "action tax" due Hunted Shot and Twin Takedown action compression feats.
But I believe that OP have a point. We have a good amount of martial classes with base mechanics that depends from extra action consumption after CRB. But I don't consider their abilities as action taxes instead they are an alternative way to split the action cost of stronger abilities.
For example SpellStrike is a 2-action that requires to be Recharged with a extra 1-action after it be used but if we compare with Eldritch Archer's Eldritch Shot we will see that Recharge is basically a way to split the SpellStrike actions instead of force it to be a 3-action move like Eldritch Shot is.
So I don't have much problem with these actions DaS for example is a way more versatile and stronger version of a "Power Attack" if we think exclusively about the Strategic Strike additional damage that instead of be a 2-action Strike activity like Power Attack is, it's a 1-action move the improves the next Strike. While many people see DaS as a "action tax" I see it as an opportunity to increase the power and precision of next Strike without being locked by a 2-action activity, including curiously because of how DaS work is possible combo it with 2-action move like Power Attack making it even more stronger!
So I don't see any problem with this design choice of add a class 1-action activity that allows a stronger activity to happen or that next activity being improved. My only problem is with Panache that it's design requires checks and extra failures risks to work where other similar 1-action activities that improves Strike (like DaS) or allows some specific ativity to work (like SpellStrike) don't need.
Including the playtest of next class, the Kineticist, will have such thing. But in the case of Kineticist this was considered a real Action Tax due the fact that it's basically was needing to do it after every overflow or you will loose basically all your class abilities. But I hope that the designer noticed this and will fix in the final release.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you’ve made your statement too broad and opened yourself up to easy rebuttal.
There is a trend in post CRB classes towards muddied up action economy to achieve comparable or weaker results next to core classes.
Obvious examples include the thaumaturge, magus and summoner.
Having actions needed to get your ball rolling isn’t a new idea, bards and barbs for example have those “taxes” they’re not really a problem.
The problem with the post CRB classes that are hampered by this is they’re overly complex (summoner) or overly fiddly for relatively little gain in exchange for not really matching simpler classes.
Summoner has 4 actions to play with because of act together and their real pain point is in the AoE disadvantage and how feat locked they are without free archetype.
Magus has awful econ, but at least they reward you for fixing it (with a mount, haste, being ranged, etc) with the highest damage in the game paired with some solid spell utility. That's just system mastery though.
Even thaumaturge has its niche and while it suffers along with ranger in combats against groups, it has some tools to mitigate that. Just build into them.
Action taxes get a lot of heat, but it's mostly just gunslinger, swashbuckler and investigator that get the heat for that. Magi have the easiest time mitigating it and actually rewards you for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It should also be said that Oracle, Psychic, and Thaumaturge are my picks for the three best-designed post-CRB classes.
I'm in agreement with you for 2/3. I'd swap out Oracle for Magus though.
See my post here for issues with Oracle. (Mostly about how their chassis is unreasonably bad, but there's also a serious issue with managing their focus points)
The Summoner is a real mixed bag. Probably one of the weaker post-CRB classes. It's actions look good on paper, but don't give you that punch in play.
I'm trying some of the tricks recommended by Super Bidi and they help a bit, but they have real low damage.
I'm level 11 with a dual class wizard/summmoner and my standard play looks something like this:
1. Bone Feather: Ranged attack with a 2d4+4 unarmed ranged attack with 30 foot range. This is vastly inferior to a bow. I have not stacked on energy runes yet which will enhance the damage, but bows still do a lot more. Bows in the hands of anyone do more damage.
If I spend the action tax Boost Damage, I'd do 2d4+8. That comes closer to a 2d8+3 of bow damage with less range in the hands of a weak bow user.
2. I'm at expert casting which is on par with other casters of similar level with far fewer spell slots.
3. I can sustain spells easier than regular casters with the extra action. It makes sustain spells cast by my wizard easier to maintain.
4. I can't really act as a tank as a summoner. You don't have much damage mitigation or AC booster like a shield and your AC lags armored classes. You really have to make sure the summoner stays away from the damage or you're double dipping on damage if some monster decides to target you while you're eidolon is getting smashed on too.
5. I feel like if summons were better, the summoner would be better. But they are not great right now. I took Master Summoner for the extra summon slots, but summons are so poor that it feels like you're weakening yourself by casting a summon into battle against anything but mooks.
6. When you play in a group with dedicated martials, you feel like a fifth wheel not doing a whole lot as they rip everything apart. And you're not a good enough casters with enough spell variability to do much either. Summoner is one of those classes that tends to feel worse as you level up and you feel more and more the limitations on the class while most other class are getting noticeably stronger.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
. Rangers and barbarians had similar action costs built into core, albeit without the failure chance.
Barbarians spend one action per combat, that's pretty significantly different than what Swashbucklers or Investigators are doing.
I think that you are using the term "action tax" too loosely. It should really be reserved for actions that have no further benefit apart from getting you vaguely to the "acceptable" level of effectiveness for your role and level.
Sort of disagree. The problem isn't just the actions themselves but the way they fundamentally define how you play (or more accurately, don't play, since many of these mechanics are just enablers) the class.
A major selling point of PF2 is the fluidity of the action economy system, and some classes break that paradigm and end up extremely rigid as a result.
For example, I would absolutely place Overdrive, Dual-Weapon Reload, the standard "Recharge Spellstrike" action and standard reload into that category. I'm probably missing some stuff, but there aren't too many feats/features like this, at least comparatively.
Pretty much everything else actually does more than that and - quite importantly - also serves to differentiate classes, as Captain already pointed out. Hunt Prey - whose actual negative impact on your action is incredibly overstated imo - gives some decent passive benefits and "unlocks" many abilities that are very powerful right from your earliest levels. DaS is also like a partial true strike and allows you to focus more on INT. Panache-enabling actions granting additional benefits.
I struggle to see the distinctions you're drawing here to some extent. Like, I agree that Recharge contributes to a stale gameplay loop, but I struggle to see how Overdrive, something I can use once per combat and then forget about, is more fundamentally burdensome or problematic than having to re-apply Hunt every time a target dies or use DaS every turn.
Personally I agree that Hunt isn't too bad, but it's clearly more burdensome than Overdrive or Rage.
DaS on the other hand is awful, and how lenient your GMs are regarding free action Devise can completely make or break the investigator (as much as anything can 'make' the Investigator, it's horrible for a whole bunch of other reasons).
The problem with many classes having more involved action economies isn't really that you need more actions. It's power and reliability. For example, the problem with the gunslinger isn't that you have to reload. It's that the end result is basically always significantly inferior to something a fighter or ranger can pull off with less effort and fewer constraints.
To some extent I think this is a difference without distinction. Either way you're spending extra actions just to catch up. The actions not being interesting or the actions economy itself being burdensome are just different ways of restating the same problem.
Plus, focusing purely on performance misses part of the problem. Starlit Span Magi are mechanically exceptional, but they also have one of the worst action economy loops in the entire game. The simple fact that they do a lot of damage doesn't change that.
Similarly, I don't think the gameplay loop of the swashbuckler is bad. The problem is that the real goodies are locked behind panache and getting panache is often very difficult when it matters most. It gets better with level, as skills simply scale incredibly well, but that takes very long.
That's part of the problem, but another component of it is the rigidity of mechanics. You only have a couple ways to generate panache and they often aren't always easily repeatable or good uses of actions on their own. So you end up often having one action frozen simply to make sure your other action can be used correctly, the class' dynamism is degraded because tumbling in place so you can add more dice to your next attack is simply the correct option.
The fact that Swashbucklers have other glaring mechanical problems is also bad, but they aren't the totality of the class' problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that you are using the term "action tax" too loosely. It should really be reserved for actions that have no further benefit apart from getting you vaguely to the "acceptable" level of effectiveness for your role and level.Sort of disagree. The problem isn't just the actions themselves but the way they fundamentally define how you play (or more accurately, don't play, since many of these mechanics are just enablers) the class.
A major selling point of PF2 is the fluidity of the action economy system, and some classes break that paradigm and end up extremely rigid as a result.
Fair point.
For example, I would absolutely place Overdrive, Dual-Weapon Reload, the standard "Recharge Spellstrike" action and standard reload into that category. I'm probably missing some stuff, but there aren't too many feats/features like this, at least comparatively.
Pretty much everything else actually does more than that and - quite importantly - also serves to differentiate classes, as Captain already pointed out. Hunt Prey - whose actual negative impact on your action is incredibly overstated imo - gives some decent passive benefits and "unlocks" many abilities that are very powerful right from your earliest levels. DaS is also like a partial true strike and allows you to focus more on INT. Panache-enabling actions granting additional benefits.
I struggle to see the distinctions you're drawing here to some extent. Like, I agree that Recharge contributes to a stale gameplay loop, but I struggle to see how Overdrive, something I can use once per combat and then forget about, is more fundamentally burdensome or problematic than having to re-apply Hunt every time a target dies or use DaS every turn.
Personally I agree that Hunt isn't too bad, but it's clearly more burdensome than Overdrive or Rage.
DaS on the other hand is awful, and how lenient your GMs are regarding free action Devise can completely make or break the investigator (as much as anything can 'make' the Investigator, it's horrible for a whole bunch of other reasons).
In my eyes, the distinction is in how much and what it actually does. Apart from adding minor flavour, all Overdrive does is turn you from a third-rate martial into a second-rate martial by adding some okay-ish damage. And even that has a significant chance of failure or even not working at all for the entire encounter. It is neither interesting nor powerful, it doesn't even have much in the way of interesting effects riffing off it, as far as I can tell. It purely serves to make you not suck. Hunt Prey isn't that much more interesting and can clog up your actions more, but at least it does something more than just add +X, especially on the flavour combined with mechanics front. DaS is very interesting, it's just weak. If anything, DaS has the opposite problem - it has far too much riding on it, leaving little of the class when it fails.
The problem with many classes having more involved action economies isn't really that you need more actions. It's power and reliability. For example, the problem with the gunslinger isn't that you have to reload. It's that the end result is basically always significantly inferior to something a fighter or ranger can pull off with less effort and fewer constraints.To some extent I think this is a difference without distinction. Either way you're spending extra actions just to catch up. The actions not being interesting or the actions economy itself being burdensome are just different ways of restating the same problem.
Plus, focusing purely on performance misses part of the problem. Starlit Span Magi are mechanically exceptional, but they also have one of the worst action economy loops in the entire game. The simple fact that they do a lot of damage doesn't change that.
I think there is still enough of a difference left, though absolutely fair point on starlit span. If an action is both powerful and interesting, then it simply often doesn't feel like a burden. You are not just catching up, but doing something more. I think Rage is a fairly good example, at least for many instincts.
Similarly, I don't think the gameplay loop of the swashbuckler is bad. The problem is that the real goodies are locked behind panache and getting panache is often very difficult when it matters most. It gets better with level, as skills simply scale incredibly well, but that takes very long.That's part of the problem, but another component of it is the rigidity of mechanics. You only have a couple ways to generate panache and they often aren't always easily repeatable or good uses of actions on their own. So you end up often having one action frozen simply to make sure your other action can be used correctly, the class' dynamism is degraded because tumbling in place so you can add more dice to your next attack is simply the correct option.
The fact that Swashbucklers have other glaring mechanical problems is also bad, but they aren't the totality of the class' problems.
One avenue that should be explored in this regard is simply enlarging the base pool of skills/actions that can trigger things like panache. The gunslinger has the same problem - the pistolero basically has a non-repeatable special reload and vanguard can only shove and nothing else. Adding things like Bon Mot via Diplomacy to Raconteur's Reload or the option to Trip to Clear a Path would do a lot. Sorry about always bringing the gunslinger into this, but it just the class I know the best ^^
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I do not think that Spellstrike recharge should be removed because as others have said, the actual intent as stated by the devs was more just that they feel Spellstrike balance wise really can't get away with being a 2 action thing, and in fact back in the playtest it was actually just a 3 action activity like how Beastgunner and Arcane Archer works, but was changed to the "2 actions plus one more action" because people said it felt too ridged.
With that said, I do think that there should be more options/feats to "cheat" the recharge by doing something else with the same action outside of just using the conflux spells, meaning that the recharging doesn't feel as much like a dead action. They don't even need to be anything that powerful, just something that lets you feel like your character is doing something with that action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agree.
Currently we have Returning rune for throw weapons and Insight Coffee for DaS and Shadow Signet for Attack Spells.
I know that many people don't like these item solutions because the look-like a bandaid and they may not always address the main complain for many. But they are good way to help to solve o mitigate the problem.
One avenue that should be explored in this regard is simply enlarging the base pool of skills/actions that can trigger things like panache. The gunslinger has the same problem - the pistolero basically has a non-repeatable special reload and vanguard can only shove and nothing else. Adding things like Bon Mot via Diplomacy to Raconteur's Reload or the option to Trip to Clear a Path would do a lot. Sorry about always bringing the gunslinger into this, but it just the class I know the best ^^
I really like this idea. That would add a lot of potential variation to the gunslinger "loops".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is one nice thing about the fighter. Because their basic functionality is so good, their feats can largely just supply you with new actions you can string together, and that you don't necessarily need to use every turn. Would be cool it more classes got to do stuff like that.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is one nice thing about the fighter. Because their basic functionality is so good, their feats can largely just supply you with new actions you can string together, and that you don't necessarily need to use every turn. Would be cool it more classes got to do stuff like that.
TBH back when the game launched thought the unique actions Fighters and Barbarians got would be a new standard for the game and something that would get iterated upon with future developments.
Feels like such a miss that they didn't lean into that at all with the Magus or Thaumaturge or Investigator or that they didn't push into that space even harder with classes like Inventor.
At least the Kineticist seems to be coming out with a lot of custom actions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agree.
Currently we have Returning rune for throw weapons and Insight Coffee for DaS and Shadow Signet for Attack Spells.
I know that many people don't like these item solutions because the look-like a bandaid and they may not always address the main complain for many. But they are good way to help to solve o mitigate the problem.
Paizo have been using new equipment as patches.
I think you can now add spellhearts to this list as a patch to level casters a little and also improve the base resource free round of cantrip plus ranged strike.
Better Shields, including non metalic options
I also struggle to see Instinct Crown as anything else than an attempt to rebalance the barbarian instincts.
What you're labeling as taxes is a large part of what makes these classes feel different from each other. Removing them all just feels like it would homogenize the game a bit, wouldn't it?
A key part of what makes PF2 interesting and balanced is the 3 action system. That is an inherent limit. The Multiple Attack Penalty is another.
If you can get options to completely remove game boundaries and penalties without any cost then the game becomes a very simple optimisation game. I want the classes to feel and play differently. Giving them a different cost basis in this framework is important.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you're labeling as taxes is a large part of what makes these classes feel different from each other. Removing them all just feels like it would homogenize the game a bit, wouldn't it?
Maybe, but homogenization isn't inherently bad (or good). Homogenization is only a problem when the things being homogenized actively makes the game better by existing. There's no virtue in being uniquely terrible, even if it's still unique.
If you can get options to completely remove game boundaries and penalties without any cost then the game becomes a very simple optimisation game.
This is completely backwards though.
Classes with strongly defined boundaries and action penalties are the ones with the simplest optimization routines.
So like, the magus's two main magical combat abilities; spellstrike and conflux spells, are both action compressors. Spellstrike gives you 3 acrions for the price of two, and base conflux spells all do three actions worth of stuff for the price of one action and a focus point. As long as you alternate between spellstriking and conflux spells, your action economy should only be slow while setting up cascade (and even then, you can afford to set it up second or third turn unless you're sparkling targe or twisting tree as like a filler action on your conflux spell turn) and after you run out of focus points.
Even without conflux spells, one action to get a two action activity that gives you functionally two MAPless attack; one of which being a two action attack; isn't terrible action economy.
People are just upset it's not the "make tons of attacks on a full attack" like the 1e magis is, but pf 2e just doesn't assume throwing out tons of attacks is a typical thing unless you specifically since your power budget into it, and for those that do (mostly flurry ranger and maybe monk come to mind), your attack spam is largely vanilla attacks; you just make a lot of them.
As for some other classes...
Swashbuckler has some good panache gaining actions; demoralize and one for all come to mind; that you'll want to take anyways; feint isn't half bad either. They definately do suffer from the issue that they can fail these rolls though, leaving you up the the whims of fate
Investigator's DAS is... very greedy for actions, especially for its payoff. Suspect of Opportunity comes in so late, and requires you to be in melee and being attacked. It needs a tune up
Thaumaturge I'd argue is worse than ranger since many of your abilities just don't work without an antithesis target. The powers are pretty cool though. I can live with them being a worse ranger combatwise though given their greater versatility
Gunslinger in my game does very well. Reload is definitely felt as a tax, but she's pretty consistent about making attacks that seriously hurt. I feel like risky reload and alchemical shot and the like should only misfire on a crit fail though; a dice roll on whether your action is an action compressor or an extra action tax isn't a super great design on a class thats pretty heavily balanced around reload weapons. I'm not sure though is this is because reload is bad, or that reload zero weapons are just really, really good
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So like, the magus's two main magical combat abilities; spellstrike and conflux spells, are both action compressors. Spellstrike gives you 3 acrions for the price of two, and base conflux spells all do three actions worth of stuff for the price of one action and a focus point. As long as you alternate between spellstriking and conflux spells, your action economy should only be slow while setting up cascade (and even then, you can afford to set it up second or third turn unless you're sparkling targe or twisting tree as like a filler action on your conflux spell turn) and after you run out of focus points.
Even without conflux spells, one action to get a two action activity that gives you functionally two MAPless attack; one of which being a two action attack; isn't terrible action economy.
People are just upset it's not the "make tons of attacks on a full attack" like the 1e magis is, but pf 2e just doesn't assume throwing out tons of attacks is a typical thing unless you specifically since your power budget into it, and for those that do (mostly flurry ranger and maybe monk come to mind), your attack spam is largely vanilla attacks; you just make a lot of them.
I don't think that's the issue people have with Spellstrike and the action costs on the Magus' abilities.
The issue is that you end up locked in a loop of Spellstrike one turn and recharge the next, with very little flexibility unless you forgo your unique class features that round and possibly the next. A Magus who isn't using their features is a terrible class and a melee Magus who does can still be shut down by a single AoO.
Swashbuckler has some good panache gaining actions; demoralize and one for all come to mind; that you'll want to take anyways; feint isn't half bad either. They definately do suffer from the issue that they can fail these rolls though, leaving you up the the whims of fate
They're also pretty locked to your subclass rather than allowing you to choose the means of panache generation that best fits the scene. You also tend to get locked into a loop because even with the benefits of panache if you're not using finishers you're basically a worse Rogue.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
A different way of thinking about this is-
There's really nothing I want more from a new class than "a different thing I appreciate spending actions on that's more interesting than Stride, Strike, or Cast A Spell"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People are just upset it's not the "make tons of attacks on a full attack" like the 1e magis is
Why put words in people's mouths when you can instead just read what they've actually said?
A different way of thinking about this is-
There's really nothing I want more from a new class than "a different thing I appreciate spending actions on that's more interesting than Stride, Strike, or Cast A Spell"
This, but also ideally the class itself should have a toolbox within the scope of that.
Fighters can somewhat do this. Inventors have a little of it, but a lot of newer classes have been leaning away from this design space.
Excited for the kineticist for that reason.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are people actually finding melee magus that repetitive in play? Because in my experience they're actually one of the most varied.
*It is actually really hard to get that loop going consistently. In group fights, you'll probably need to move to new targets often. Against enemies to last long enough to take multiple spell strikes, staying in melee with them is pretty dangerous.
*The magus actually has a lot of other things they can do with their actions. Conflux spells are the most obvious, but any of their spells can compete. They also have Arcane Cascade and a bunch of feats which add options. Sparkling Targe also really wants to be raising a shield, and the Shield spell or defensive feats remain options for many builds.
*I've heard people argue you do better damage with 3 strikes than a cantrip spell strike. That might only be true with two handed damage, though.
*True Strike is right there. I think I'd prefer to True Spellstrike every other round instead of trying to regular spell strike every round, at least if I'm spell striking with a slot.
*You've also got access to Haste. If you can prebuff, you're gonna have a lot of flexibility. (Honestly, Haste is about the only way I see spell striking every round actually working.)
From what I've seen, you're more likely to wind up with a turn routine like:
Turn 1: Stride, spell strike.
Turn 2: Conflux spell + some combination of move, Arcane Cascade, and strike.
Turn 3: True Strike Spell Strike
Turn 4: Recharge action + move and strike, spell, or something else.
Turn 1 might also just be Recall Knowledge + casting a spell if the enemy is especially far away, or something similar. It seems like you need to get 4 or 5 rounds into a fight before that action tax actually starts to become the optimal move, and that assumes you only have one focus point to spend.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not so much that you get into the rotation easily as melee magus. It's that not managing to get into the rotation means your performance is sub-par compared to good or average melee builds for other classes. From there, you need to get some good mileage out of your spells to make up the difference. Oh and the AoO risk on your spellstrike. That's always a fun one.
Or, play archer magus and do everything melee does more easily, from range and without either MADness or sentinel. In this, it is similar to the investigator and inventor, both of whom build and play better at range than in melee.
Are people actually finding melee magus that repetitive in play? Because in my experience they're actually one of the most varied.
*It is actually really hard to get that loop going consistently. In group fights, you'll probably need to move to new targets often. Against enemies to last long enough to take multiple spell strikes, staying in melee with them is pretty dangerous.
*The magus actually has a lot of other things they can do with their actions. Conflux spells are the most obvious, but any of their spells can compete. They also have Arcane Cascade and a bunch of feats which add options. Sparkling Targe also really wants to be raising a shield, and the Shield spell or defensive feats remain options for many builds.
*I've heard people argue you do better damage with 3 strikes than a cantrip spell strike. That might only be true with two handed damage, though.
*True Strike is right there. I think I'd prefer to True Spellstrike every other round instead of trying to regular spell strike every round, at least if I'm spell striking with a slot.
*You've also got access to Haste. If you can prebuff, you're gonna have a lot of flexibility. (Honestly, Haste is about the only way I see spell striking every round actually working.)
From what I've seen, you're more likely to wind up with a turn routine like:
Turn 1: Stride, spell strike.
Turn 2: Conflux spell + some combination of move, Arcane Cascade, and strike.
Turn 3: True Strike Spell Strike
Turn 4: Recharge action + move and strike, spell, or something else.Turn 1 might also just be Recall Knowledge + casting a spell if the enemy is especially far away, or something similar. It seems like you need to get 4 or 5 rounds into a fight before that action tax actually starts to become the optimal move, and that assumes you only have one focus point to spend.
It's just that a lot of people have the wrong perception that if you're not managing to do your maximum damage every round, you're being inefficient, which is why all kinds of inefficiency complaints appear here.
If we pay attention, a melee fighter with Powerful Attack and Furious Focus and a two-handed weapon, a very classic build focused on dealing damage. If you have to use an action to Stride, you've already killed off a good chunk of your character's efficiency. The Power Strike will only be worth it if the opponent has damage resistance, otherwise it will be better for you to do 2 Strikes anyway, or try a different strategy.
Unfortunately, many players create a lot of expectations for the perfect turn. And that puts a lot of pressure on the action economy. This is especially noticeable for players who came from PF1/D&D, where the fact that actions are divided into very specific limits (move, "default" action, bonus action...) made players get used to the idea to make the perfect turn every round. But that doesn't work that way in PF2, having 3-actions that you can use to do anything puts a lot more pressure on pre-planned tactics than most people realize and ends up frustrating a lot of people when they see your perfect combat plan, it doesn't work as well perfect as he would like.
That's why so many people end up valuing the Starlit Span, because it stays in a turret strategy making the perfect turn as much as possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Overall, I agree with your post, that's what I'd expect from a Dual Class Wizard-Summoner with the Wizard being the "main" class and the Summoner being a supplemental class.
1. Bone Feather: Ranged attack with a 2d4+4 unarmed ranged attack with 30 foot range. This is vastly inferior to a bow. I have not stacked on energy runes yet which will enhance the damage, but bows still do a lot more. Bows in the hands of anyone do more damage.
I don't know who you call "anyone" as this is higher than caster's damage with a bow (thanks to higher proficiency, Strength and Weapon Specialization). Compared to a Fighter bow attack, it's definitely far lower, but the main asset is that it's a "free" action. If the Eidolon makes 2 attacks, it deals the same damage a Fighter does with a single attack. Going Fighter instead of Summoner would not have increased your damage, in my opinion.
If I spend the action tax Boost Damage
You shouldn't. Boost Eidolon is not very interesting for a damage boost and it sinks one of your previous actions. It's a circumstantial ability.
4. I can't really act as a tank as a summoner.
The Summoner is not a tank. But it's a nice off tank. The Eidolon has average AC and the Summoner is a 10 hp class, it's quite something. One great asset of the Eidolon is that it "tanks" statuses. When you face enemies with strong status inflicting attacks but average damage, like Ghouls, it's a pleasure to tank with the Eidolon as you don't care much of it being Paralyzed (especially in a situation where the Eidolon is the sidekick). Same goes with Swallow Whole which is a joke to you.
You really have to make sure the summoner stays away from the damage or you're double dipping on damage if some monster decides to target you while you're eidolon is getting smashed on too.
With a ranged Eidolon, it shouldn't happen. The only case where I've taken double damage is when I've been forced to use the Eidolon as a tank (I play in a Westmarches campaign, so I'm sometimes the highest level character and as such I have to play it as a tank).
6. When you play in a group with dedicated martials, you feel like a fifth wheel not doing a whole lot as they rip everything apart. And you're not a good enough casters with enough spell variability to do much either. Summoner is one of those classes that tends to feel worse as you level up and you feel more and more the limitations on the class while most other class are getting...
I haven't played it at high level, but I have a very different experience as of now. First, my damage is equivalent to other martial's (Electric Arc + Eidolon attack is nice damage). Second, my spellcasting is extremely important to handle unexpected situations: I've been able to put back to green the martial that was taking too much damage a few times. It's nearly as if I had the Cleric's Healing Font, as it's the main use of my spell slots.
I've also found the Summoner to be extremely versatile. Every time the GM comes with a weird situation (and one of the GM in this Westmarches campaign loves weird terrain features and enemies acting on them), I have a solution to it.The Summoner is my new beloved class, far easier to play than the Alchemist and extremely efficient. It's the king of versatility in my opinion. I put it in the top tier (and if I remember well, Exocist was also putting it very high, so I'm not the only one to consider the class potent).
...
Spellstrike is 3 actions to do 3 actions. The only benefit is that you only roll once. Conflux spells are 1 action focus spells to get rid of the recharge mechanic that should never have been a thing. While cascade as written is useless due to how stances work, but also just an inferior form of what Magus should honestly be getting (the ability to get free property runes for a minute). The fact you are tied to the loop or else you immediately fall off is the entire issue, because Magus should be one of the classes least tied up to combat loops.
Spellstrike takes 2 actions. Two actions that requires a recharge; it's only two actions plus three actions if you never use conflux spells or the other in house recharge abilities (which, to be fair, I think is only quickened recharge and Magus's Analysis, one of which is 1/day, the other is inconsistent). Spellshot, which actually is 3 actions with no action compression, is generally considered to be OP on classes with really high base accuracy or other damage enhancing abilities, so idk what you expected from a class who's focus IS basically spellshot but with better action distribution and compression options.
Cascade isn't just free extra damage; for the twisting tree magus, it's what their staff powers are hidden in, it's where sparkling targe gets their abilities, etc. The damage is essentially more icing on the cake; though I would argue it would probably be better for the hybrid studies to just get their cool powers rather than lock them behind a stance. Runic impression is the property rune ability, that never went away.
You say, "oh people just miss full attacking with a magus", and that shows you don't understand the issue. The entire point of magus was that they had action compressors: Casting a spell and making an attack as part of the same action. Spending 3 actions to cast a spell and make an attack is not compressing actions; Conflux spells is selling a fix for a problem that they themselves created. "Oh but spell strike uses high level spells", another problem they themselves created since magus could had capped at 8th level and just gotten spells as normal.
"People miss full attacking with the magus" was lifted from another poster in the samurai thread; so no, I'm not actually putting words in people's mouth at all. Most other complaints boil down to "I want to spam spellstrike, but the action economy won't let me"; and that's just from a fundamental lack of understanding about 2e's balance mechanics. If Spellstrike was two actions no recharge, it would functionally be a horrendously overpowered power attack, but if it was just a 3 action activity, it would be almost impossible for a melee magus to use at all, so it got broken up so that if you could keep someone locked down, you can spam it, but if you cant, then you can still use it pretty often.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there's a problem with the magus it's in the ranged version, since Spellstrike is sort of designed as "an ability that you reliably use every turn" which is true for everybody else except the shooting star magus because they frequently don't need to move resulting in a lot of "turns that are just "recharge, spellstrike".
Supposedly this is balanced by how the Shooting Star magus gets basically nothing out of Arcane Cascade, but it feels like this puts pressure on every other kind of Magus to try to spellstrike constantly.
Just a wild idea - what if many of these weren't necessarily regular actions? Instead, say, they could also be used as a free action with the trigger "your turn begins" or something along those lines.
For DaS that isn't even a serious question, that's the only way it even halfway works, even if it is with more steps in practice; But what about the others? Rage, Hunt Prey, Overdrive and monk stances (only on the monk) are the ones I think this would be a real possibility for. Each have their own limitations and even downsides that make spending that extra action not seem like an absolute necessity. I personally think the fighter is exactly in the space it should be, but maybe the rest can use a bit of a lift to be able to really play around with the 3-action economy.
Thaumaturge shenanigans and panache actions are a lot more tricky. Not super broken, but a free Bon Mot or combat maneuver at the start of your turn sounds really spicy and fun.
For Reload and Arcane Cascade it just doesn't work due to mechanics, so those need a different solution.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
A different way of thinking about this is-
There's really nothing I want more from a new class than "a different thing I appreciate spending actions on that's more interesting than Stride, Strike, or Cast A Spell"
I feel this, but with some caveats.
A different thing I can do is very cool.
A different thing I have to do to keep up with other classes in my role is marginally less cool.
A different thing that I have to do to keep up with other classes in my role that I have a chance of failing with no cool/decent/interesting alternative when I DO fail is significantly less cool.
A different thing I have to do, but still didn't let me keep up with other classes in my role is uncool.
Many of the complaints in this thread seem to involve around around classes with the third and fourth case.
A different way of thinking about this is-
There's really nothing I want more from a new class than "a different thing I appreciate spending actions on that's more interesting than Stride, Strike, or Cast A Spell"
I feel this, but with some caveats.
A different thing I can do is very cool.
A different thing I have to do to keep up with other classes in my role is marginally less cool.
A different thing that I have to do to keep up with other classes in my role that I have a chance of failing with no cool/decent/interesting alternative when I DO fail is significantly less cool.
A different thing I have to do, but still didn't let me keep up with other classes in my role is uncool.Many of the complaints in this thread seem to involve around around classes with the third and fourth case.
True but a lot of it is a failure of imagination. Many people put Investigators in your 3rd category, but in fact that is the whole key to building a good Investigator is having a good plan B.
Swashbucklers largely do fit into that category though.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know who you call "anyone" as this is higher than caster's damage with a bow (thanks to higher proficiency, Strength and Weapon Specialization). Compared to a Fighter bow attack, it's definitely far lower, but the main asset is that it's a "free" action. If the Eidolon makes 2 attacks, it deals the same damage a Fighter does with a single attack. Going Fighter instead of Summoner would not have increased your damage, in my opinion.
Even 6 hit point caster will do 2d8 with a longbow for an average of 9 tom compared to 2d4+4 for an average of 8. They have longer range.
The Summoner is not a tank. But it's a nice off tank. The Eidolon has average AC and the Summoner is a 10 hp class, it's quite something. One great asset of the Eidolon is that it "tanks" statuses. When you face enemies with strong status inflicting attacks but average damage, like Ghouls, it's a pleasure to tank with the Eidolon as you don't care much of it being Paralyzed (especially in a situation where the Eidolon is the sidekick). Same goes with Swallow Whole which is a joke to you.
How is swallow whole a joke? It takes multiple actions to desummon and resummon the eidolon hammering your action economy. You can't leave the eidolon in the stomach taking damage as that's not great either.
How does it tank status bonuses? I don't even know what that means. If it takes a negative to hit, it's taking a negative to hit. Others will still be in there swinging if they are melee martials.
A summoner experiences the status bonus and paralysis and loses the eidolon, a part of their class and their action economy advantage.
With a ranged Eidolon, it shouldn't happen. The only case where I've taken double damage is when I've been forced to use the Eidolon as a tank (I play in a Westmarches campaign, so I'm sometimes the highest level character and as such I have to play it as a tank).
Yeah. Summoner tanking is painful. Ranged is much better.
I haven't played it at high level, but I have a very different experience as of now. First, my damage is equivalent to other martial's (Electric Arc + Eidolon attack is nice damage). Second, my spellcasting is extremely important to handle unexpected situations: I've been able to put back to green the martial that was taking too much damage a few times. It's nearly as if I had the Cleric's Healing Font, as it's the main use of my spell slots.
That's why I stated summoner is one of the few classes to get worse at you level because the d4 ranged damage gets comparatively worse with striking runes. If all you're doing is healing with your four slots, then they aren't much use doing anything else.
The Summoner is my new beloved class, far easier to play than the Alchemist and extremely efficient. It's the king of versatility in my opinion. I put it in the top tier (and if I remember well, Exocist was also putting it very high, so I'm not the only one to consider the class potent).
It's one of the few classes I've played that got worse the higher I leveled. Not sure why Exocist rates it high unless he is using it for a specific purpose like a no skill check knockdown setup character given it does get Weighty Impact which is a pretty good ability, especially with reach.
I've found the summoner a mixed bag. It does some interesting things, but also has some hard to deal with weaknesses. I'd still say it's more of a middle class that would be a lot better if summons were better. It's built really well to use summon spells with the action economy advantage earlier than most classes, but summons aren't that great. So it's hard to make the class shine unless you don't mind being a kind of lesser damage dealer, lesser caster, and a middling to weak at almost everything you try to do.
It's not the worst class I've played, but nowhere near the best.
I think what Super means is that if an eidolon gets paralyzed or confused or what have you, then the summoner can just take more actions. Yes, they will be losing power without their eidolon, but if a regular martial was paralyzed they would lose everything. Generally that works in reverse too; if the summoner is paralyzed the Eidolon can still take 3 actions. Though if the summoner is confused or controlled that advantage disappears.
It does actually make a difference. I've seen Eidolons get shut down completely and their summoner just shrug and act alone for a few rounds.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sort of weird that we went from action economy to complaining about ranged eidolon damage and "summoners don't summon enough" but it feels like at this point Deriven and Temperans will never miss an opportunity for that.
True but a lot of it is a failure of imagination. Many people put Investigators in your 3rd category, but in fact that is the whole key to building a good Investigator is having a good plan B.
Swashbucklers largely do fit into that category though.
There's no failure of imagination, just an acknowledgement of the failures of the class. Having a good plan B is important, but:
A) The Investigator has few tools internal to its class to enable it. Which means it fails to support its own design.
B) Your plan A isn't exactly great in the first place and your plan B is... well, a plan B.
So 'point 3' makes sense insofar as that you're struggling to keep up, have weird action economy, your action economy and your backups are rooting around in archetypes and ancestries for whatever you can find.
... The first part is really egregious from a design perspective, imo, because if that point of failure is so intrinsic to a class' design it should have some way to play around it as a feat or feature. Instead the Investigator just kind of falls flat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think what Super means is that if an eidolon gets paralyzed or confused or what have you, then the summoner can just take more actions. Yes, they will be losing power without their eidolon, but if a regular martial was paralyzed they would lose everything. Generally that works in reverse too; if the summoner is paralyzed the Eidolon can still take 3 actions. Though if the summoner is confused or controlled that advantage disappears.
It does actually make a difference. I've seen Eidolons get shut down completely and their summoner just shrug and act alone for a few rounds.
But the summoner actions are weak without the eidolon and vice versa.
I still feel the damage hammer hard if the eidolon is getting attacked.
If the eidolon or summoner are neutralized, they completely lose their action economy advantage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spellstrike has a certain rhythm to it that works fine. It has enough advantages and disadvantages that it is balanced. When you are recharging spellstrike, you are often spending a third action you would not use for much else advantageous. The combined hit rule based on master weapons proficiency with item bonuses makes the spellstrike more potent.
So a magus action economy looks something like this:
1. Move-Spellstrike
2. If creature is dead, move to next target, recharge, regular hit or if monster still alive, recharge-spellstrike.
Even if you are not spellstriking, you are still doing regular damage hits between the recharge. Spellstrike hits can do substantial damage as they are a three action attack in a two action ability.
And Spellstrike works well with haste as you can get an extra attack or move while recharging and setting up for the next spellstrike. Not many abilities work so well with haste, which was a bread and butter spell for the PF2 magus.
The magus class so far seems to work pretty well and has a play-style that seems fun and powerful. One of the better Post-CRB classes that has a balanced and useful action economy. You feel like you're getting bang for the buck with the uses of actions.