Animist Playtest: Critique, Typos, and Suggestions

[Michael Sayre]

Unicore wrote:

I am curious if the extra apparitions will be ones that duplicate existing roles covered by apparitions, or only offer very new, mechanically different rolls. Like, Stone and Fire is an AoE blaster apparition. Does that mean we won't get any other blasty apparitions? Or will we get blasty apparitions that do lightning and cold damage or other combos?

Apparitions are designed to be near-infinitely expandable thematically (though of course, things like number of viable lores and number of published spells do put practical limitations on that), so page space is going to have a bigger say than anything else, really.

The playtest apparitions are testing specific functions; you don't need to test multiple blasting apparitions or multiple healing apparitions, you just need enough apparitions that cover the specific dynamics you want to test. I'd expect new post-playtest apparitions to have a combination of new and variant functions, covering things that we knew we wanted to put in but didn't need to test and things that were popular enough that we expect a variant or two to be well-received.

And maybe one or two things that are cool but weird in a way that didn't need to be playtested but could confuse the important playtest data we're looking to get by diluting the playtest experience with somewhat more frivolous options.

[shroudb]

Chani Loasa wrote:

shroudb wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

As another approach to this concept: Thaumaturge. Specifically, Amulet Implement.

Amulet Implement has a reaction that is very similar to the Good Champion's reactions.

A Champion reaction adds resist all with a value of 2 + character level to an ally. Each type of champion adds a different rider effect as well.

But this damage reduction ability is one of the defining features of the Champion class.

And Amulet Thaumaturge also gets a reaction ability that adds resist all to a target. Their reaction doesn't have the rider effect, but it can instead be used to protect themselves in addition to allies.

But most notably, the resist all that the Amulet adds is the same value as the Champion's.

It isn't better than what a Champion gets. It also isn't worse.

The fact that you can only use amulet against a single enemy that you have preselected on your turn actually makes it so much worse.

I play a level 5 thaum in kingmaker alongside a liberator.

Seeing how little I get to use amulet, I sat down and counted the last 3 sessions of my amulet reaction vs his liberating reaction.

In 3 sessions I used mine twice, he used his 10 times.

I also play an Amulet Thaumaturge. In the last four battles, I have used the reaction nearly every round.

Yes, it requires a setup action and choosing a single target. That doesn't make it worse than the Champion's reaction - especially not numerically - just different.

What other implements do you use? What reaction are you using instead of Amulet's Abeyance? Or is the problem your positioning and Amulet target selection that causes none of your allies within 15 feet to get attacked by the enemy that you targeted? Though that could be caused either by your target choices and positioning, or by the GM playing the enemies with exceptional strategy to cause them to rarely have your Amulet target attack you or an ally of yours that would let you use your class feature.

Or perhaps has...

it was neither. (for reference, my second implement is lantern, and i don't have any other reaction except amulet).

it was simply the fact that in most of the battles, that we were facing 2-4 enemies, the chance that the enemy I mark makes it out alive to get a second turn, and that in his second turn it hits something, is extremely smaller than "any of the 2-4 targets hits something".

---

only being able to trigger it off a tiny portion of the enemies each round is what's making it distinctively worse than champion.

---

i'll give you an example from our last two battles:

1st battle, 3 shadows

2 of the shadows go first and have their turn, i play after them and i mark the 3rd one that still haven't got it's turn. I also hit it for something like 14 damage after resistance/weaknesses.
champion goes after me, goes around the wounded shadow, flanks and crits it dead.
psychic crits with amped tp and one shots another shadow.
rogue deals some damage to the 3rd one.

3rd shadow goes and attacks, my reaction is useless since it's not my marked target.

shadow does some damage, champion uses reaction, we clean up the last shadow.

2nd battle, 2 gibbering mouthers.
After i finally manage to make the save vs the confusion (1st round i rolled a 2, hero pointed to 5, 2nd round rolled a 4 heropointed to a 9 which was enough), i mark one of the mouthers. and start attacking it.
the one i marked tries to engulf (i make the save) and spits on me missing.
the one i didn't mark spits at the rogue and hits, i can't use my reaction since it's not the one i marked.
in the whole fight, after i made my save against the confusion (which was round 2 i think), i didn't get to use my reaction once (next round we ganged and killed the mouther i had marked since it was the most damaged one, and then i marked and we finished off the second one).

p.s. and that's a good thing, similar to how the AoO reaction from weapon implement is also limited and etc.

They do work greatly vs bosses, since those stick around for a few rounds, but are absolutely terrible vs any sort of normal encounter where there are multiple targets.

those reactions are very limited compared to their "true" counterparts to maintain balance. "True" reactions work vs every circumstance, thaum reactions work mostly vs bosses only.

[breithauptclan]

I think this also illustrates what I am meaning too.

I consider Thaumaturge Amulet and Champion Reaction to be equivalent in power.

They are different in their usage. The Champion reaction is easier to use and gives additional effect. The Amulet reaction is trickier to use but you can use it to protect yourself.

But when it does do something, the something that it does is equivalent.

That is all that I am asking for with Animist too. When Animist puts daily class power into doing something - whether that is martial melee fighting, blasting AoE damage, or debuffing enemies - then it should have equivalent power. Even if it is trickier to use, such as costing an action each round in sustaining. But when it works, it should work as well as. Not better, but also not worse.

Very much like the Thaumaturge Weapon reaction or Amulet reaction. Or Kineticist's blasting damage vs Druid's blasting damage.

Imagine how that would have been recieved - if Kineticist was released as the new elemental AoE blasting damage dealer, but all of their abilities had to be strictly less than what a Druid could do. Because Druid exists and has damage dealing renewable focus spells and we wouldn't want Kineticist to outshine them.

[pixierose]

I will also say that while the Thaumaturge Amulet starts weaker, if you choose to upgrade it, I say it becomes equivalent but different to the Champion reaction in Capabilities

[Teridax]

breithauptclan wrote:

Personality quirk.

The only other people I have seen doing that on anything close to a regular basis are Ravingdork and Hmm.

The point isn't to hide identity. If I am making statements from my experience as playing of a particular character, why shouldn't I make those statements from the point of view of that character?

You certainly had no issue talking about your Thaumaturge experience on your main account when arguing about it, so "personality quirk" just doesn't sound appropriate for this context. Perhaps the intent isn't to hide identity, but it sure comes across as an attempt.

breithauptclan wrote:

The Champion reaction is easier to use and gives additional effect.

...

But when it does do something, the something that it does is equivalent.

Emphasis added. You are contradicting yourself, as by your own indications and even in the context where you ignore all of the Champion's major advantages, what it does isn't equivalent. The Champion's reaction provides an equal amount of resistance, but does something extra on top. What it does is therefore better.

breithauptclan wrote:

That is all that I am asking for with Animist too. When Animist puts daily class power into doing something - whether that is martial melee fighting, blasting AoE damage, or debuffing enemies - then it should have equivalent power.

If the Animist can have power equivalent to a melee martial, an AoE blaster, and a specialized debuffer, why play any of the classes that specialize at those things? There's this pretense that the Thaumaturge can accomplish the function of multiple other classes simultaneously, but as demonstrated already, that is simply not the case, and if it were then we'd have far fewer people going for classes like the Champion if the Thaumaturge could just do what they do and more. The Thaumaturge is also a martial class, whereas the Animist always brings divine prepared casting to the table on top of whatever roles their apparitions let them fill: no matter what, they are always going to be a versatile class, and so shouldn't be allowed to match even one specialist at their specialty, let alone several at a time. By asking for the Animist to do so, you are asking to invalidate the existence of those more specialized classes.

breithauptclan wrote:

Imagine how that would have been recieved - if Kineticist was released as the new elemental AoE blasting damage dealer, but all of their abilities had to be strictly less than what a Druid could do. Because Druid exists and has damage dealing renewable focus spells and we wouldn't want Kineticist to outshine them.

The Kineticist's effects do in fact not scale quite as well as the peak of a Druid's power -- you can cast Earthquake at-will, for example, but at 20th level the effect is still that of an 8th-rank spell while also requiring additional setup. The same goes for wall spells, which are generally less strong and need to be sustained. There seems to be this idea among a couple of people that the Kineticist is somehow more flexible than a spellcaster while having more raw power, but that's just not true: the Kineticist has far fewer impulses than a Druid has spells they can prepare, and even with the reflow elements feature, the Druid is more flexible by default, with the Kineticist needing to invest some pretty high-level feats to reflow faster. The Kineticist is further specialized by needing to spec into an element, and paying a price for the versatility of choosing more. The Druid, by contrast, accesses the entire primal list and its variety of different effects, from healing to blasting to summoning. The Kineticist is certainly a versatile class, but remains immensely less versatile than a caster like the Druid -- or the Animist, for that matter. Even without a single apparition, the Animist would have more flexibility over which effects to prepare every day than the Kineticist, and with its current apparition implementation ends up arguably becoming the most versatile caster in the game. That in my opinion is not compatible with also wanting to match specialists at their specialty.

[John R.]

Does the Champion have an ability that mirrors the adept and paragon benefits of the amulet implement (specifically lingering resistance to all damage)?

[breithauptclan]

Teridax wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

Personality quirk.

The only other people I have seen doing that on anything close to a regular basis are Ravingdork and Hmm.

The point isn't to hide identity. If I am making statements from my experience as playing of a particular character, why shouldn't I make those statements from the point of view of that character?

You certainly had no issue talking about your Thaumaturge experience on your main account when arguing about it, so "personality quirk" just doesn't sound appropriate for this context. Perhaps the intent isn't to hide identity, but it sure comes across as an attempt.

Well, I can't prevent you from attributing malice where none was intended. So... have fun with that, I guess.

But in the almost two years that I have been doing it, you are the first who has ever complained about it.

[shroudb]

breithauptclan wrote:

I think this also illustrates what I am meaning too.

I consider Thaumaturge Amulet and Champion Reaction to be equivalent in power.

They are different in their usage. The Champion reaction is easier to use and gives additional effect. The Amulet reaction is trickier to use but you can use it to protect yourself.

But when it does do something, the something that it does is equivalent.

That is all that I am asking for with Animist too. When Animist puts daily class power into doing something - whether that is martial melee fighting, blasting AoE damage, or debuffing enemies - then it should have equivalent power. Even if it is trickier to use, such as costing an action each round in sustaining. But when it works, it should work as well as. Not better, but also not worse.

Very much like the Thaumaturge Weapon reaction or Amulet reaction. Or Kineticist's blasting damage vs Druid's blasting damage.

Imagine how that would have been recieved - if Kineticist was released as the new elemental AoE blasting damage dealer, but all of their abilities had to be strictly less than what a Druid could do. Because Druid exists and has damage dealing renewable focus spells and we wouldn't want Kineticist to outshine them.

the bolded part is not the same though?

you are not asking for "powers that reach the same heights but with limitations"

you are asking for "powers that reach the same height if i choose them for the day".

In that sense, using the same thaum example, since thaum doesnt even get to change his implements, it would be exactly like "make amulet apply to all targets and not only your marked targets"

i.e.
the thaum choice "amulet" for his build should be applied equally as the champion main thing.
similar to how animist's choice of "spirit" provides equal power to other classes' main things.
and even then animist still has the advantage since he can switch spirits, while thaum can't switch implements.

---

i wouldn't mind if, as an example, you got a power that let you do a cool thing for a round. But the way vessel spells are design, they last the whole combat. So, if they make you equal, then you are equal for the full combat.

which should not be happenning given that you can freely switch around powers and roles.

----

let me give you an example to make more clear what i mean:

let us say that they change vessel spells to all be 10ft burst and that you CANNOT change the area once cast (basically, sustain just repeats the effect in the original area).

Basically you deploy your spirit there, and your spirit breaks stuff, or the spirit heals stuff, or the spirit empowers your attacks while you are in that area, or debuffs attacks while creatures are in there, and etc.

That I would easily be down for.

First of all, it passes the thematics test imo. "It makes sense" for them to behave like this (if flavoured approprietly).

Second of all, it reaches the same "power" that you ask, but with a usage limitation: you are constrained in where you are positioned/where the enemies are positioned.

Thirdly, it promotes teamplay more. Your allies now can try to grab/trip/block enemies in that area if it's a debuff, hold their ground if they are a buff, and etc.

[Squiggit]

shroudb wrote:

So, if they make you equal, then you are equal for the full combat.

which should not be happenning given that you can freely switch around powers and roles.

I want to interrogate this a bit. Is equality actually bad here?

Like, the obvious alternative here is a class that's worse in one combat because it gets to be worse in a different way in the next combat... but if you're worse all the time then that versatility doesn't actually matter.

That design paradigm is explicitly why the PF1 Medium was a failed class: because it turns out being a bad wizard who can sometimes be a bad cleric instead isn't nearly as useful as just bringing someone actually good to the party instead.

That's not to say there's no room to change the Animist, there's plenty of contentious or iffy stuff, but the design paradigm of being inferior but having modular flexibility simply doesn't work.

[shroudb]

Squiggit wrote:

shroudb wrote:

So, if they make you equal, then you are equal for the full combat.

which should not be happenning given that you can freely switch around powers and roles.

I want to interrogate this a bit. Is equality actually bad here?

Like, the obvious alternative here is a class that's worse in one combat because it gets to be worse in a different way in the next combat... but if you're worse all the time then that versatility doesn't actually matter.

That design paradigm is explicitly why the PF1 Medium was a failed class: because it turns out being a bad wizard who can sometimes be a bad cleric instead isn't nearly as useful as just bringing someone actually good to the party instead.

That's not to say there's no room to change the Animist, there's plenty of contentious or iffy stuff, but the design paradigm of being inferior but having modular flexibility simply doesn't work.

then that returns to the old question of if class A can do X or can also switch to doing Y or Z, why play class B that only does X?

As I said in my earlier post, i think that this is mostly a question of "amount of difference".

No one would want to play a class that is significantly worse at what is trying to do, I'm not arguing that. But if you are somewhat weaker than, let say an average martial in attack damage (but still within the frame of pf2 balance), but could stop in the middle of the fight and throw a couple big heals (even if not as big or as many as a cleric), and then switch to some area damage (but not as much as a dedicated blaster) then your total contribution to the fight would be equal.

But what you won't be doing, is outshining, or even matching, the martial that his whole deal is dealing said attack damage.

And then next time, when you leave the wilds and go into a city, and switch your spirits around, and suddenly you can help with other stuff, while you won't be matching the rogue, you are still contributing to the party more than, again, the character that simply can't switch and do so.

[Palodios]

The Argument of "why pick any class over animist if animist can do all the stuff" is easily answered with flavour and action economy.

Not everbody wants to play someone who communes with spirits even If they are very versatile of what they can do. A lot of their feats are flavoured around their connection with the spirit world. Yes those can potentially be reflavoured but at that point I reckon most would rather take the particular class because they provide more feats, more customization and more possibilities to do what an animist can do but more tailored to a certain flavor or playstyle.

Everything the Animist can do comes at the cost of less actions. They might be able to fight like a martial but only have two actions in doing so. Sure they could move with Sustaining Dance but the movement is still less than what for example a fighter could do with their turn. Same with Earth's Bile. Sure you can dance around in a circle with 3 instances of the spell running (which I do think is absolutely awesome and shouldn't be restricted away but maybe nerfed?) but you lose out on spells with perhaps more utility, the possibility to react to what is happening in combat without dropping your spell. You don't excel at everything but you shouldn't be weaker. You should be able to substitute a role thats missing in a party or complement one that is already their and perhaps needs help. While looking at everything the animist could potentially do It makes sense to remember at the things they can actually do at any given moment.

[shroudb]

Palodios wrote:

The Argument of "why pick any class over animist if animist can do all the stuff" is easily answered with flavour and action economy.

and that can be switched back around to "why worry about the power of animist at all then if the flavour is all that matters".

truth is, both power AND flavor matter about the same, as can be proven by your own words.

Palodios wrote:

Everything the Animist can do comes at the cost of less actions.

It's the opposite in fact. They get some of the stongest 1 action things you can do. That's not a negative that you "only" spend 1 action for them. That's a positive.

Even moreso when that action already comes with a bonus 0.5 action of movement from level 2+

Palodios wrote:

They might be able to fight like a martial but only have two actions in doing so. Sure they could move with Sustaining Dance but the movement is still less than what for example a fighter could do with their turn. Same with Earth's Bile. Sure you can dance around in a circle with 3 instances of the spell running (which I do think is absolutely awesome and shouldn't be restricted away but maybe nerfed?) but you lose out on spells with perhaps more utility, the possibility to react to what is happening in combat without dropping your spell. You don't excel at everything but you shouldn't be weaker. You should be able to substitute a role thats missing in a party or complement one that is already their and perhaps needs help. While looking at everything the animist could potentially do It makes sense to remember at the things they can actually do at any given moment.

no you don't?

you have even more resources because to do your damage you don't have to spend your spell slots since vessel spells (the good ones at least) by themselves can carry you the whole combat.

You only have to spend spells for emergencies, unlike all other casters that need to use their spells to be impactful.

---

sorry but no.

there are a lot of vessel spells that are simply quite overtuned imo.

[Teridax]

Squiggit wrote:

I want to interrogate this a bit. Is equality actually bad here?

Like, the obvious alternative here is a class that's worse in one combat because it gets to be worse in a different way in the next combat... but if you're worse all the time then that versatility doesn't actually matter.

Of course it matters. The whole point to being a specialist is that there will be occasions where you'll do great when your specialty comes into play, and occasions where you won't be so great, because they'll require contributions outside of your specialty. A class that can consistently do almost as well as a specialist on any given task, let alone equally well, is going to encounter the latter situation far less frequently, because that's what their versatility allows. Therefore, that flexible class will be far stronger, because unlike the specialist, they'll be much more consistent, especially if they can reconfigure themselves on a daily basis to adapt to the situation at hand.

Squiggit wrote:

That's not to say there's no room to change the Animist, there's plenty of contentious or iffy stuff, but the design paradigm of being inferior but having modular flexibility simply doesn't work.

This is a pretty damning indictment of the Animist as currently implemented. Extreme modular flexibility paired with extreme power doesn't work, because that makes for an overtuned class, but from what you're saying, extreme modular flexibility in exchange for appropriately limited or downtuned power is also doomed to disappoint. It sounds like the extreme modular flexibility could probably afford to be made less extreme if the intent is to avoid having the entire class feel consistently mediocre.

[Palodios]

I do agree that some are overtuned and some are undertuned. What I do not agree with is that the general concept of the class, being versatility, should be adjusted because It would make other classes "obsolete".

What I meant by utility is that If you cast earths bile, which locks you out of 3 action spells with the pay off of more damage. It also reduces your movement (with sustaining dance) If you cast a two action spell. What If you need your full movement to move out of an AoE? Additionally If you cast a two action spell which needs sustaining you are even more limited in what you can do. On paper the damage looks high, and I agree that It might still be too high in actual gameplay, but in an actual situation It isn't as Ideal as 2d4+1 (+Stance perhaps) every round for one focus point and limited movement for the rest of combat. In combat you always need to react and being restricted to two actions when most of your spells take two can make that a lot harder.

[Unicore]

The idea that animist as a whole is extremely powerful is a very questionable assumption. Only one ability is pushing the power curve at all (Earth’s bile) and that is only because of stacking 1 action AoE bursts. Dialing that down a little will be trivially easy. The garden of healing spell in combat requires a fair bit of work not to heal enemies in combat. Out of combat it might qualify as “extreme” but no class is “extremely powerful” for having an OP out of combat trick. Confusing whispers is cool, but you are a caster and you really have to move a lot to keep it where you need to be. Triggering AoOs with it is a terrible idea because then the enemy will just wail on you with their regular actions. Again it is cool but you didn’t gust mecome the party tank by casting it.

[Lanni Talimbi]

Yeah, I think people are getting way too caught up in the idea of flexibility of roles and not paying attention to how much actual flexibility that Animist actually has.

Quote:

The whole point to being a specialist is that there will be occasions where you'll do great when your specialty comes into play, and occasions where you won't be so great, because they'll require contributions outside of your specialty.

That still happens with Animist too. At earlier levels when you only have two or three Apparitions attuned to, your options for what to pretend to be are limited. If something comes up that doesn't fit those, you won't be any better at it than any other specialist that is looking to do something outside of their specialty.

And at higher levels, the range of challenges that characters are expected to be able to handle increases. So having more Apparitions and focus spells available doesn't really change that assessment. There are still situations that you won't be able to be a specialist at something as an Animist.

-----

Similarly,

Quote:

there are a lot of vessel spells that are simply quite overtuned imo.

That is not evidence that the class concept of having both versatility and equality needs to be removed.

[pixierose]

There is also the fact that its not like every adventuring day will be neatly divided into what you will need. There will be opportunity costs and such, you could very much come to a situation where you might have needed a different apparition.

[Teridax]

Lanni Talimbi wrote:

That still happens with Animist too. At earlier levels when you only have two or three Apparitions attuned to, your options for what to pretend to be are limited. If something comes up that doesn't fit those, you won't be any better at it than any other specialist that is looking to do something outside of their specialty.

But you will still have fewer of those situations, because you'll be able to fulfil multiple roles while also being a divine caster. People seem to be acting like the Animist isn't also a prepared caster, with all of the versatility that comes with it. It's not just that your apparitions will let you fulfil multiple roles at a time: even when neither role suits the current occasion, you still have divine magic to fall back on. If you play properly, it's going to be very difficult to find yourself in a situation where you won't have at least one or two helpful tools in your toolbox.

Lanni Talimbi wrote:

And at higher levels, the range of challenges that characters are expected to be able to handle increases. So having more Apparitions and focus spells available doesn't really change that assessment. There are still situations that you won't be able to be a specialist at something as an Animist.

Those challenges do not require the party to fill out more roles at the time, so that argument is bunk. Being able to fill out four roles, plus divine casting, is way too much at that point.

Lanni Talimbi wrote:

That is not evidence that the class concept of having both versatility and equality needs to be removed.

Why wouldn't it be? You've been asked multiple times now to justify on balance terms how a class can match specialists in power while having more versatility, and so far your answer has been to refuse to acknowledge the power that comes with that versatility at all. In fact, it seems like a running theme among players currently defending the class's overtuned state (if nothing else, it's got just about the slots of a Wizard or Sorcerer with the survivability and other assets of a 3-slot caster) is that the class seems to be their ticket to playing a 1e caster in 2e, not just for its complexity, but for its sheer amount of excessive power. Behind the arguments given for what constitutes this class's defining features, it appears that the class being grossly overtuned is in fact the main attraction, at least to some.

[YuriP]

pixierose wrote:

There is also the fact that its not like every adventuring day will be neatly divided into what you will need. There will be opportunity costs and such, you could very much come to a situation where you might have needed a different apparition.

With more apparitions available maybe but currently the Animist is divided in 2 mains builds, the pseudo-martial caster build and the full caster build that limits the efficiency of their options:

Pseudo-martial caster build is the build focusing into use Discomfiting Whispers or Darkened Forest Form or Embodiment of Battle usually using the Sage subclass too to get Soul Synchronization. The main idea here is able to dump your Wiz to focus into Str and Con and go to the frontline to fight along martials and sometimes cast some spells apparition spells to heal or to get some buff. It's basically the same concept of Battle Oracles and Warpriests. You still can get some offensive spells but due your focused into fight along the frontline with high Str and low Wis this is dangerous or just weaker.

Caster build focusing into your offensive spell casting abilities using Earth’s Bile and Garden of Healing using the Channeler subclass. Note that I use AND instead of OR here because in this build you can change your primary apparition in the middle of your turn (like cast Garden of Healing then Apparition’s Whirl to change your primary apparition then cast Earth's Bile in the same turn). The main idea here is to focus the build into Wiz to improve your Spell DC/Attack to maximum and be able to use any of your spells at anytime, including your non-apparition spells that you can't use in Sage's Apparition’s Possession. In this build use Vessel Spells like Embodiment of Battle doesn't worth due you lack of investment into Str, Darkened Forest Form can be used sometimes after lvl 3 but Battle Forms prevents you to cast and due you not get Soul Synchronization its just a Slow 1 Wild Shape and Discomfiting Whispers requires that you stay into the frontline and to use spells into the frontline risks to take Attacks of Oportunity Reactive Strikes its something that usually don't worth the risk when you can cast from a safe distance.

That's why the current versatility of have many different apparition does work well in the realm of the efficiency. Including this whats make some apparition's dispersing feats like Apparition’s Quickening, Fly On Shadowed Wings and Spirit’s Sacrifice (yet this later is more useful vs death effects than you will really expect to go dying 4) worth.

[pauljathome]

YuriP wrote:

Pseudo-martial caster build is the build focusing into use Discomfiting Whispers or Darkened Forest Form or Embodiment of Battle usually using the Sage subclass too to get Soul Synchronization. The main idea here is able to dump your Wiz to focus into Str and Con

If you're going Darkened Forest Form there is absolutely no reason to not dump Str and you don't even need to concentrate that much on Dex leaving you lots of room for Wis and even Int and Cha so you at least have skills to contribute to the party.

Gnome shapeshifters rock, at least at lower levels when animal form is useful. Hopefully the released version will have more class feats to extend the range of shapes you can shift into.

Synchronized soul pretty much sucks. It just isn't worth the action economy cost.

Let's face it right now all Animists are going to be channellers. It's just way too good, even if you're planning on really soecializing

[Lanni Talimbi]

Teridax wrote:

Lanni Talimbi wrote:

That is not evidence that the class concept of having both versatility and equality needs to be removed.

Why wouldn't it be? You've been asked multiple times now to justify on balance terms how a class can match specialists in power while having more versatility, and so far your answer has been to refuse to acknowledge the power that comes with that versatility at all.

OK. I get understand that you don't like me as a person. Whatever.

But at the very least do me the courtesy of not misquoting me.

That statement was in response to the assertion from shroudb

shroudb wrote:

there are a lot of vessel spells that are simply quite overtuned imo.

The existence of overtuned focus spells does not mean that the concept of Animist cannot exist as both flexible and on-par with other classes.

And I have answered your request for justification several times too. Just because you don't agree with my answers and don't like what I say doesn't mean that I didn't say it.

[Lanni Talimbi]

pauljathome wrote:

YuriP wrote:

Pseudo-martial caster build is the build focusing into use Discomfiting Whispers or Darkened Forest Form or Embodiment of Battle usually using the Sage subclass too to get Soul Synchronization. The main idea here is able to dump your Wiz to focus into Str and Con

If you're going Darkened Forest Form there is absolutely no reason to not dump Str and you don't even need to concentrate that much on Dex leaving you lots of room for Wis and even Int and Cha so you at least have skills to contribute to the party.

That makes it sound like you are planning to always use the same Apparition.

If you build an Animist as though it was a specialist that only does one thing during its entire adventuring... well, I think you are going to be disappointed.

In this case with Stalker in Darkened Boughs and Darkened Forest Form, I think you would be better off as a Wild Order Druid. You will have the same weapon and armor proficiencies, the same key ability score, better saving throws, more spell slots that you have control over, the same or better shapeshifting forms to use that will allow you to not need Strength or as much Dexterity - and Wild Shape doesn't require sustaining, so your action usage on your attack routines won't suffer from being slowed.

The only thing that Animist has at that point is the ability to not try and pretend to be a Wild Order Druid. But at that point, you don't have the stats for it. You certainly aren't going to be wanting to use Witness to Ancient Battles and Embodiment of Battle after dumping your STR and DEX.

The flexibility of Animist does in fact come with a cost. Even if the result of a particular build choice is on-par with other characters.

And trying to build Animist as a specialist character is fighting against the mechanics and you are likely to be disappointed in the result.

[Teridax]

Lanni Talimbi wrote:

OK. I get understand that you don't like me as a person. Whatever.

But at the very least do me the courtesy of not misquoting me.

That statement was in response to the assertion from shroudb

shroudb wrote:

there are a lot of vessel spells that are simply quite overtuned imo.

The existence of overtuned focus spells does not mean that the concept of Animist cannot exist as both flexible and on-par with other classes.

And I have answered your request for justification several times too. Just because you don't agree with my answers and don't like what I say doesn't mean that I didn't say it.

This isn't about your caliber as a person, though, this is about the fact that you are insisting upon arguing off of a standard of balance that is antithetical to 2e, even after having it pointed out to you. I didn't even misquote you: the quote perfectly encapsulates your running theme of feeling entitled to a class that is both more versatile than specialists while being equally strong at what they do, something that is currently at risk with the Animist and their combination of hyper-versatility in role and largely ultra-powerful focus spells. You appear to be unironically demanding to have a 1e caster in 2e in not only design, but overall power level too, and what's worse, you don't even seem to be the only person advocating this either on this space. It honestly just boggles the mind that after more than four years since release, people are still rejecting 2e's most fundamental and successful points of design philosophy, and unironically wanting to revert back to 1e and its gross caster supremacism.

[YuriP]

pauljathome wrote:

YuriP wrote:

Pseudo-martial caster build is the build focusing into use Discomfiting Whispers or Darkened Forest Form or Embodiment of Battle usually using the Sage subclass too to get Soul Synchronization. The main idea here is able to dump your Wiz to focus into Str and Con

If you're going Darkened Forest Form there is absolutely no reason to not dump Str and you don't even need to concentrate that much on Dex leaving you lots of room for Wis and even Int and Cha so you at least have skills to contribute to the party.

That's why I mentioned it again in the paragraph bellow. You can use it without the investment in Str in a more caster build but the Battle Forms prevents you to cast. Even if you try to stop the Sustain to able to cast again the form will end only in the end of your turn or you have to use an action to dismiss.

pauljathome wrote:

Synchronized soul pretty much sucks. It just isn't worth the action economy cost.

Let's face it right now all Animists are going to be channellers. It's just way too good, even if you're planning on really soecializing

Yes u got I point that I forgot here. Synchronized soul requires Apparition’s Possession that's duration is until your next round. This really breaks any Sage effectiveness.

[exequiel759]

Lanni Talimbi wrote:

pauljathome wrote:

YuriP wrote:

Pseudo-martial caster build is the build focusing into use Discomfiting Whispers or Darkened Forest Form or Embodiment of Battle usually using the Sage subclass too to get Soul Synchronization. The main idea here is able to dump your Wiz to focus into Str and Con

If you're going Darkened Forest Form there is absolutely no reason to not dump Str and you don't even need to concentrate that much on Dex leaving you lots of room for Wis and even Int and Cha so you at least have skills to contribute to the party.

That makes it sound like you are planning to always use the same Apparition.

If you build an Animist as though it was a specialist that only does one thing during its entire adventuring... well, I think you are going to be disappointed.

In this case with Stalker in Darkened Boughs and Darkened Forest Form, I think you would be better off as a Wild Order Druid. You will have the same weapon and armor proficiencies, the same key ability score, better saving throws, more spell slots that you have control over, the same or better shapeshifting forms to use that will allow you to not need Strength or as much Dexterity - and Wild Shape doesn't require sustaining, so your action usage on your attack routines won't suffer from being slowed.

The only thing that Animist has at that point is the ability to not try and pretend to be a Wild Order Druid. But at that point, you don't have the stats for it. You certainly aren't going to be wanting to use Witness to Ancient Battles and Embodiment of Battle after dumping your STR and DEX.

The flexibility of Animist does in fact come with a cost. Even if the result of a particular build choice is on-par with other characters.

And trying to build Animist as a specialist character is fighting against the mechanics and you are likely to be disappointed in the result.

I don't think I need to repeat what everyone here already told you, but I think it's also important to note that this is a playtest. If you somehow expect the Animist to be stronger on release you will be dissapointed, but I certainly expect it to be less clunky to play (as the class currently has a ton of action economy taxes but no way to optimize them that aren't Sustaining Dance which is pretty much a feat tax). I don't recall a single PF2e playtest that came out being good out of the box, they often had a ton of issues either in in how weak they were or how difficult it was to handle their action economy (remember when Magus had a tree action spellstrike?). This is the reason why Paizo does this playtests in the first place, to properly tune the class, but if you expect to have a class that can respec every single day to compete against those who are stuck to whatever they choose you will be dissapointed.

[John R.]

I feel like there are 4 degrees of specialization:

1 - Innately Incompetent. This class rarely if ever touches the field and if they do, they suck at it. Examples: Wizard going martial, Barbarian attempting spellcasting

2 - Dabbler. This class can make attempts at a specialization but has to work hard to achieve baseline results. Examples: Warrior Bard, Fighter w/ spellcasting multiclass

3 - Generalist/Secondary Specialization. This class can innately achieve respectable results in a specialization on a regular basis but isn't the go to source for that specialization. Examples: Investigator in martial combat, Thaumaturge using any of their implements.

4 - Specialist. This class will always be the best at this area. Examples: Fighter attack accuracy, Rogue/Investigator as skill monkeys, Sorcerers/Wizards as spellcasters (that's generally all they should ever be doing but they are great at it)

Of course, there are gray areas.

I think MOST (not all) people want the Animist to be able to hover in that area right around 2 and 3 for different roles from day to day, never stepping into the 4 area except for spellcasting, as they are a full spellcaster. I'm confident NOBODY wants them to be able to reach a tier 4 specialization in anything other than spellcasting. Vessel spells that enable that, even when only synergized with other options (even multiclassing) need to be reined in and possibly only be enabled in rare bursts and/or at a large resource expense.

I feel flexibility should remain (even needs to be) present, even if it's limited to 1 primary apparition per day (which I still think would be drastic and will not happen), but that flexibility should not enable the Animist to say, "I've just created massive redundancies in any party composition." I think the non-spellcasting specialization aspects of the apparitions should probably peak to be equal to or right below that of the power of adept level Thaumaturge implements. The Animist should be saying, "I can help fill a gap in this party on-the-spot ENOUGH so we can overcome an obstacle or help buffer a role in the party that needs a bit more presence for the current situation."

[shroudb]

Lanni Talimbi wrote:

That statement was in response to the assertion from shroudb

shroudb wrote:

there are a lot of vessel spells that are simply quite overtuned imo.

The existence of overtuned focus spells does not mean that the concept of Animist cannot exist as both flexible and on-par with other classes.

this has been answered numerous times, and it has yet to be refuted, why it shouldn't be.

you cannot simultaneously claim to be "on par" and also have the ability to switch to other things and be "on par" with those as well.

that would mean, in simple math, that you are stronger than the rest.

John R. wrote:

I feel like there are 4 degrees of specialization:

1 - Innately Incompetent. This class rarely if ever touches the field and if they do, they suck at it. Examples: Wizard going martial, Barbarian attempting spellcasting

2 - Dabbler. This class can make attempts at a specialization but has to work hard to achieve baseline results. Examples: Warrior Bard, Fighter w/ spellcasting multiclass

3 - Generalist/Secondary Specialization. This class can innately achieve respectable results in a specialization on a regular basis but isn't the go to source for that specialization. Examples: Investigator in martial combat, Thaumaturge using any of their implements.

4 - Specialist. This class will always be the best at this area. Examples: Fighter attack accuracy, Rogue/Investigator as skill monkeys, Sorcerers/Wizards as spellcasters (that's generally all they should ever be doing but they are great at it)

Of course, there are gray areas.

I think MOST (not all) people want the Animist to be able to hover in that area right around 2 and 3 for different roles from day to day, never stepping into the 4 area except for spellcasting, as they are a full spellcaster. I'm confident NOBODY wants them to be able to reach a tier 4 specialization in anything other than spellcasting. Vessel spells that enable that, even when only synergized with other options (even multiclassing) need to be reined in and possibly only be enabled in rare bursts and/or at a large resource expense.

I feel flexibility should remain (even needs to be) present, even if it's limited to 1 primary apparition per day (which I still think would be drastic and will not happen), but that flexibility should not enable the Animist to say, "I've just created massive redundancies in any party composition." I think the non-spellcasting specialization aspects of the apparitions should probably peak to be equal to or right below that of the power of adept level Thaumaturge implements. The Animist should be saying, "I can help fill a gap in this party...

unfortunately, many people has claimed that they shouldn't be on 2-3, but be at 3-4, or even straight up 4, in whatever they choose to specialize for the day.

hence the constant arguments.

[John R.]

shroudb wrote:

unfortunately, many people has claimed that they shouldn't be on 2-3, but be at 3-4, or even straight up 4, in whatever they choose to specialize for the day.

hence the constant arguments.

Not saying you are wrong or right but can you list some specific examples so we could work the numbers and think of some solutions if necessary?

[Teridax]

John R. wrote:

I think MOST (not all) people want the Animist to be able to hover in that area right around 2 and 3 for different roles from day to day, never stepping into the 4 area except for spellcasting, as they are a full spellcaster. I'm confident NOBODY wants them to be able to reach a tier 4 specialization in anything other than spellcasting. Vessel spells that enable that, even when only synergized with other options (even multiclassing) need to be reined in and possibly only be enabled in rare bursts and/or at a large resource expense.

I completely agree with this, and if this is the target the Animist is meant to reach, I'm all for it. In my opinion, more versatile classes like the Thaumaturge or Kineticist feel amazing because they do a bunch of stuff around the 3 range you described, and as it turns out the 3 range is good enough to feel good at something, while still leaving room for more specialized classes. If the Animist's ability to dabble in other roles restricts itself to around that 3 range, then assuming the class doesn't go overboard and do that for too much at a time, the end result ought to be balanced and still feel good.

Unfortunately, that level of compromise is not something everyone in this discussion is prepared to make. Without pointing fingers, at least one person in this discussion has repeatedly insisted upon having the Animist be "flexible and on-par with other classes", with frequent mentions to equalling specialist classes at their specialty (they even frame this as "equality"). That's not really asking to be at a 3 relative to others, that's asking to be at a 4, potentially even multiple 4s. While they are certainly the most vocal in making those demands, they are also shadowed by this tiny coterie of people who keep favoriting their messages and sometimes pick arguments with dissenters, which to me suggests there are in fact several people feeling that exact same sense of entitlement. This is why discussion has, in my opinion, failed to advance meaningfully beyond the subject of the Animist's power level, because a few people really want their 1e caster in 2e, balance be damned, and are ready to argue about it a lot.

[John R.]

Teridax wrote:

Unfortunately, that level of compromise is not something everyone in this discussion is prepared to make. Without pointing fingers, at least one person in this discussion has repeatedly insisted upon having the Animist be "flexible and on-par with other classes", with frequent mentions to equalling specialist classes at their specialty (they even frame this as "equality"). That's not really asking to be at a 3 relative to others, that's asking to be at a 4, potentially even multiple 4s. While they are certainly the most vocal in making those demands, they are also shadowed by this tiny coterie of people who keep favoriting their messages and sometimes pick arguments with dissenters, which to me suggests there are in fact several people feeling that exact same sense of entitlement. This is why discussion has, in my opinion, failed to advance...

I think (and again, I may be wrong) this might be just a break down in communication. I personally believe "on-par" means average and nothing especially above. They want the capability of hitting about as often as say a Thaumaturge, they want to maybe gain up to master proficiency in a chosen non-lore skill day-to-day, they want to maybe survive or even block a solid crit and 1 hit and still have the chance to back off and not be completely taken out of a fight in that one round. I hope that is what they have meant by "on-par" and of course, those abilities should not be always on all at once and need to cost the appropriate resources and actions. I hope this has really just been a failure to communicate fully and properly and that that majority, if not all of us, want mostly the same things.

[shroudb]

John R. wrote:

shroudb wrote:

unfortunately, many people has claimed that they shouldn't be on 2-3, but be at 3-4, or even straight up 4, in whatever they choose to specialize for the day.

hence the constant arguments.

Not saying you are wrong or right but can you list some specific examples so we could work the numbers and think of some solutions if necessary?

i "think" that the vessel spells need some sort of usage limitation.

(since you mentioned thaum, that's exactly the type of limitation i'm talking about, while the top end of thaum reactions as an example reach normal class reactions, they are much more limited in usability because they only work vs 1 target at a time that you need to have preselected it)

this way the animist can have its powerful moments, but it can't be as reliable/easy to keep those up indefinately.

as an example i gave above, i wonder if simply making all the vessel spells fixed 10ft bursts that you deploy your spirit there, and they only work in that area.

so, as long as you are in said area, you get your bonuses, as long as enemies are in that area they get their penalties, and etc.

this gives the animist the same maximum output, but also gives some clear limitations: get forced out/do not contain nemeies, and you have to switch tactics/recast spell/etc.

---

i don't mind the versatility and flexibility of the class, but i find it simply too consistent.

the one vessel spell that i think would need more toning down with the above limitations would be Bile, simply because as a 1 action blast, it does too much damage.

[Teridax]

John R. wrote:

I think (and again, I may be wrong) this might be just a break down in communication. I personally believe "on-par" means average and nothing especially above. They want the capability of hitting about as often as say a Thaumaturge, they want to maybe gain up to master proficiency in a chosen non-lore skill day-to-day, they want to maybe survive or even block a solid crit and 1 hit and still have the chance to back off and not be completely taken out of a fight in that one round. I hope that is what they have meant by "on-par" and of course, those abilities should not be always on all at once and need to cost the appropriate resources and actions. I hope this has really just been a failure to communicate fully and properly and that that majority, if not all of us, want mostly the same things.

While I certainly do appreciate the optimism, I think conversation has advanced sufficiently for assumptions of good faith to have been disproven here. I and several other people have taken great pains to break down the topic, mention how more versatile classes make tradeoffs in flexibility, and how classes like the Thaumaturge show that you don't need to be top-tier at everything you do to feel like you're strong. Every time, the answer was a complete rejection of the facts, and an insistence upon having exactly as much power as the specialists. The person even explicitly outlined that they wanted exactly that, and anything less would be considered mediocre. They and people of their opinion have been given plenty of opportunity to clearly state exactly what they expect out of the Animist and communicate clearly, and what they've clearly communicated is a desire to match specialists in power while beating them in flexibility.

[Ed Reppert]

John R. wrote:

I personally believe "on-par" means average and nothing especially above.

"On par with" means "equal in importance or quality to"

[John R.]

Ed Reppert wrote:

John R. wrote:

I personally believe "on-par" means average and nothing especially above.

"On par with" means "equal in importance or quality to"

In the context of this game, that's really sort of a meaningless term then if applied to all classes at once. Lol.

[Ed Reppert]

So all characters are created equal, but some are more equal than others? :-)

[John R.]

shroudb wrote:

i "think" that the vessel spells need some sort of usage limitation.

(since you mentioned thaum, that's exactly the type of limitation i'm talking about, while the top end of thaum reactions as an example reach normal class reactions, they are much more limited in usability because they only work vs 1 target at a time that you need to have preselected it)

this way the animist can have its powerful moments, but it can't be as reliable/easy to keep those up indefinately.

as an example i gave above, i wonder if simply making all the vessel spells fixed 10ft bursts that you deploy your spirit there, and they only work in that area.

so, as long as you are in said area, you get your bonuses, as long as enemies are in that area they get their penalties, and etc.

this gives the animist the same maximum output, but also gives some clear limitations: get forced out/do not contain nemeies, and you have to switch tactics/recast spell/etc.

That's an interesting idea for vessel spell implementation. Not a bad idea either. Has a totemist feel which feels appropriate to the class (unless I'm just being completely ignorant on that point).

An idea that sprung to mind to me was to add a mechanic that tied a particular and relevant spell to each vessel spell and allow the vessel spell to be cast for 0 actions so long as the spell tied to it was cast to benefit an ally. For example, heroism could be tied to embodiment of battle, so basically, if you give heroism to your party's Fighter, you can cast embodiment of battle for 0 actions (still spending the focus point and needing to sustain later). Sure, it might be overpowered in terms of action economy but it is also encouraging you to not chance overshadowing the primary striker at the same time. This might be something that should only be allowed once per encounter and possibly cost 2 focus points but I think it'd add something powerful and highly in favor of the party as a whole....though this might end up overshadowing the Bard...

shroudb wrote:

i don't mind the versatility and flexibility of the class, but i find it simply too consistent.

the one vessel spell that i think would need more toning down with the above limitations would be Bile, simply because as a 1 action blast, it does too much damage.

From what I've glanced over (cuz I don't have time to read every thing at the moment), it seems earth's bile is widely considered to be too strong and needs its damage cut back or at least limited to 1 active casting.

[John R.]

Ed Reppert wrote:

So all characters are created equal, but some are more equal than others? :-)

Yes

[Ed Reppert]

You know, generally speaking, if I'm in a fight, I'm not gonna hold back for fear of "overshadowing" the guy next to me. <shrug>

[John R.]

Ed Reppert wrote:

You know, generally speaking, if I'm in a fight, I'm not gonna hold back for fear of "overshadowing" the guy next to me. <shrug>

If the guy next to you is a Witch choosing to close in on an enemy to attack with their living hair, yes, overshadow that fool all you want.

If the guy next to you is a standard (not even optimized) Fighter, you have some issues with design if you are easily able to overshadow them without them being severely debuffed.

[pixierose]

Teridax wrote:

John R. wrote:

I think MOST (not all) people want the Animist to be able to hover in that area right around 2 and 3 for different roles from day to day, never stepping into the 4 area except for spellcasting, as they are a full spellcaster. I'm confident NOBODY wants them to be able to reach a tier 4 specialization in anything other than spellcasting. Vessel spells that enable that, even when only synergized with other options (even multiclassing) need to be reined in and possibly only be enabled in rare bursts and/or at a large resource expense.

I completely agree with this, and if this is the target the Animist is meant to reach, I'm all for it. In my opinion, more versatile classes like the Thaumaturge or Kineticist feel amazing because they do a bunch of stuff around the 3 range you described, and as it turns out the 3 range is good enough to feel good at something, while still leaving room for more specialized classes. If the Animist's ability to dabble in other roles restricts itself to around that 3 range, then assuming the class doesn't go overboard and do that for too much at a time, the end result ought to be balanced and still feel good.

Unfortunately, that level of compromise is not something everyone in this discussion is prepared to make. Without pointing fingers, at least one person in this discussion has repeatedly insisted upon having the Animist be "flexible and on-par with other classes", with frequent mentions to equalling specialist classes at their specialty (they even frame this as "equality"). That's not really asking to be at a 3 relative to others, that's asking to be at a 4, potentially even multiple 4s. While they are certainly the most vocal in making those demands, they are also shadowed by this tiny coterie of people who keep favoriting their messages and sometimes pick arguments with dissenters, which to me suggests there are in fact several people feeling that exact same sense of entitlement. This is why discussion has, in my opinion, failed to advance...

So this isn't an attack and instead me acting on good faith. But saying you are avoiding names, but then repeatedly going *Their is this one specific person, I won't say who but its one person* comes off as incredibly passive aggressive. I'm not saying that is intentional, but something to keep in mind. Especially when it's on a community board and its fairly easy to figure out who you are talking about.

I also thinking assuming their is some sort of group/coterie(which implies a level of intimate or exclusivity amongst a group.) of people applies a certain level of malice.

I find some of the behaviors, if filtered through a negative lenses can describe some of my behaviors. I have favorites people who I agreed with on some level, and I have disagreed with you here in some places. The people I agree with I know nothing about, beyond their opinions of this topic and i don't even fully agree with them I just lean a bit in their choices. And while I have put disagreements I wouldn't call those arguments. Now if I am not one of those people then so be it, but it can be hard to parse when you are being vague. From the start your language has been quite charged(at least thats how it reads to me, I can be wrong on your intention or how it is read by others). But it might be something to consider.

As for the animist itself, I think it can be adjusted here and there(and that includes some nerfs to things such as Bile.) but I think its close to its design goals and just needs fine tuning in various places. I think your insights, while I disagree with a good chunk are in fact useful.

I do wish you the best.

[breithauptclan]

pixierose wrote:

its fairly easy to figure out who you are talking about.

I know, right? LOL. I'm autistic and even I can read between the lines that well.

I have disagreed with pretty much everyone on these forums over something at some point or another. That includes the game devs. If people agree with what I post it is because they agree with what I post.

Anyway, that aside...

I find it interesting that people are holding up Thaumaturge as the gold standard of power level that is desired. Considering I was mentioning that myself yesterday. And yes, Thaumaturge levels of parity seems right to me. When you pick Amulet Implement you get a reaction that is about as powerful of damage reduction as Champion. It is a bit more fiddly to use, but it has the same power. It isn't weaker. When you pick Weapon Implement, you get a reaction that is similar to Reactive Strike from Fighter or other classes that can pick it up. Again it is a bit fiddly to use, but it isn't less powerful.

[Teridax]

pixierose wrote:

So this isn't an attack and instead me acting on good faith. But saying you are avoiding names, but then repeatedly going *Their is this one specific person, I won't say who but its one person* comes off as incredibly passive aggressive. I'm not saying that is intentional, but something to keep in mind. Especially when it's on a community board and its fairly easy to figure out who you are talking about.

This is fair. The intent was definitely not to be passive-aggressive, so much as to avoid just going "here is X and here's why their behavior has been especially harmful to productive discussion", though I suppose that it's easy to identify who's who if you're following the discussion already. More broadly, I can see where you're coming from, and I apologize for coming off more intense than is necessary for this kind of discussion.

pixierose wrote:

I also thinking assuming their is some sort of group/coterie(which implies a level of intimate or exclusivity amongst a group.) of people applies a certain level of malice.

To be clear, I'm not saying there's this conspiracy of people secretly plotting to constantly agree with one another or something equally silly. Rather, when you look at who's favoriting which posts, it's easy to see that there's a consistent degree of agreement from the same, small number of users when it comes to certain posts, specifically posts about wanting to have a caster that can match specialists in power while having all of that extra versatility. These people may not know each other, but to me the message is clear: for all the work Paizo has done to establish niche protection in 2e, as well as stress its importance and that of good balance, there is still a small contingent of people who yearn for a caster class that is just straight-up stronger than anything we have now. Given the waves of controversy around casters that have washed over the PF2e community since the game's early playtesting stages, I don't think that ought to come across as entirely surprising.

I'll also say that while the intent behind this behavior may not necessarily be malicious (I don't think anyone really goes to these forums just to make others unhappy), I do think there's been a fairly large amount of bad-faith argumentation going around, which is what I specifically tried to call out. Ideally, we should be having this discussion based on a common understanding of the game's framework and design philosophy, and should be thinking about what coheres with that framework in addition to what we want personally. I think we should also be looking beyond mere power levels, and see what can be done to just generally make the playtest material under discussion feel better to play, if we believe such opportunities exist (and they almost always do). This is why, for example, I tried drawing attention to the Animist's action economy or spell slot implementation, both of which I personally feel could be made more fun and less restrictive for the Animist. Instead, a whole bunch of people have been fixated on power level, demanding a 1e caster class in both complexity and overall supremacy even after multiple people have pointed out how inappropriate that would be in 2e. Incidentally, these same people don't seem at all willing to talk about commonly-mentioned QoL issues with the Animist, nor even that many specifics of the class at all, and I know for a fact that at least one of the major people demanding that kind of 1e caster hasn't playtested the class at all. To me, that doesn't make for productive discussion, it just makes noise.

breithauptclan wrote:

I find it interesting that people are holding up Thaumaturge as the gold standard of power level that is desired. Considering I was mentioning that myself yesterday. And yes, Thaumaturge levels of parity seems right to me. When you pick Amulet Implement you get a reaction that is about as powerful of damage reduction as Champion. It is a bit more fiddly to use, but it has the same power. It isn't weaker. When you pick Weapon Implement, you get a reaction that is similar to Reactive Strike from Fighter or other classes that can pick it up. Again it is a bit fiddly to use, but it isn't less powerful.

In light of what people have been mentioning regarding charged language, I'll try to be more neutral here: from what you're saying here, it feels like the reason behind your difference in perspective relative to others on the Thaumaturge is that you are discounting the factors that make the Thaumaturge's implements weaker than their originals. A mechanic being fiddlier to use is less powerful than a mechanic that can be used more readily, and a mechanic doing fewer things is less powerful than a mechanic that does those same things and more.

The reason why the Thaumaturge is seen as the gold standard for versatility here isn't because they get to be just as powerful as multiple other specialists at once (the statement ought to be self-evidently absurd), but because they get to capture a slightly lesser portion of multiple other classes's strengths, and still come out feeling like they can do what they do well (your framing of the Thaumaturge's implements is evidence of this, in my opinion). The Thaumaturge is proof positive that a class does not need to equal a specialist class in power to feel like they have good access to that specialist's strengths, which in the context of the Animist means that the class does not need to have top-tier healing, DPR, and so on to feel like each apparition lets them fill out their related role well. It is possible to have a class that feels versatile and good to play without having to dramatically overtune that class, which is why I feel we should all stop pretending otherwise.

[pauljathome]

Lanni Talimbi wrote:

That makes it sound like you are planning to always use the same Apparition.

Well, same 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 apparitions anyway. Dumping STR just makes one apparition useless. So yeah, I build the character planning on using one specific apparition for my melee purposes. But otherwise I'm still a channelling animist with lots of versatilty

Quote:

In this case with Stalker in Darkened Boughs and Darkened Forest Form, I think you would be better off as a Wild Order Druid.

I think that, at least at lowish levels where animal form is at play, Darkened Forest is quite comparable to wild shape. The status bonus to hit is automatic (and I hope the remastered druid moves to this model). More importantly, the flexibility of choosing your shape each round compensates for the sustain, especially when the move of dance is factored in.

At higher levels the wild shape druid is clearly better than the Playtest Stalker. But there is a significant chance that will change on release as more stalker feats are added

So druid vs animist comes down to which of the other class features you prefer. Which I personally think to be basically a wash (the biggest advantage the druid has is the primal list, the biggest advantage the animist has is sustaining Vile)

[Dancing Wind]

Teridax wrote:

Ideally, we should be having this discussion based on a common understanding of the game's framework and design philosophy,

"should" is always a verbal indicator that what follows is a fantasy, not observed reality. Expecting a large group of people from around the globe to have a "common understanding of the game's framework" is at odds with any reality I've ever observed.

Trying to get people to behave as if they all hold that 'common understanding' is going to be frustrating and ultimately futile. Because "there is still a small contingent of people who yearn for a caster class that is just straight-up stronger than anything we have now. is not going to change.

So you might find your participation on these boards less aggravating if you accepted that there's always going to be 'noise', and conversations aren't going to fit into your definition of "productive". Trying to get hundreds of posters to conform to your criteria for 'productive conversation' is going to add a lot of stress to your life.

"Take what you like and leave the rest" is a good skill to have.

[John R.]

To be fair to everyone, I am thinking Teridax did not mean for all of their criticisms and suggested changes to be a collective. What I mean by that is, I think their criticisms were things that should not ALL remain as is and that their suggestions were ideas that should maybe be implemented individually and not as a whole.

I think the negative responses were based on a misunderstanding that Teridax wanted to gut out a lot of what made the class unique and turn it into a slightly different Cleric.

Considering the nature of internet forums, again, there was a breakdown of communication (which is not uncommon in this format) and a lack of tone which can make initial comments come off more abrasive than intended and snowball into honest hurt feelings which were not intended. Plus, one's habits and experiences from other forums can transfer into this one with less than ideal outcomes (that goes for everyone).

I honestly first thought Teridax was either trolling or ignorant but I now believe that there was just a misunderstanding and they had already become defensive for understandable reasons as previous conversations developed and I think we are both on good (or at least neutral) terms despite prior disagreements and hope others can reach the same conclusion as well.

[Teridax]

Dancing Wind wrote:

"Take what you like and leave the rest" is a good skill to have.

It is also a fantasy, by the very same token you used to dismiss the very notion of meaningful discussion. If this were just one person being unreasonable, then sure, but as can be seen on this discussion, others on these forums, and a vast number of other discussions in other spaces, not only is this not an isolated case, it often dominates discussion. This is why moderation on the subreddit had to curtail exactly that sort of conversation to a megathread, so that it wouldn’t stifle discussion everywhere else on that space. “Suck it up and don’t do anything about it” is certainly easy to preach, but by its very nature it is not going to solve anything. It is also inappropriate in the context of playtest feedback, where it is in fact reasonable to expect awareness of the game’s basic design when giving feedback that is meant to be useful.

[Dancing Wind]

Teridax wrote:

It is also inappropriate in the context of playtest feedback, where it is in fact reasonable to expect awareness of the game’s basic design when giving feedback that is meant to be useful.

If each person gives their own feedback, and does not try to police how other people give feedback, I think the devs can figure out on their own what is 'useful' to them and what isn't.

We players don't need to issue instructions to other players about the criteria for 'useful' feedback or how not to inject 'noise' into the conversation.

[Teridax]

Dancing Wind wrote:

If each person gives their own feedback, and does not try to police how other people give feedback, I think the devs can figure out on their own what is 'useful' to them and what isn't.

We players don't need to issue instructions to other players about the criteria for 'useful' feedback or how not to inject 'noise' into the conversation.

Don’t you find it a bit self-defeating to tell others how to behave when the message is specifically to not do that? As it stands, I haven’t policed this person’s feedback; they’ve given theirs in other posts and I have no intentions of silencing them, not that I could if I wanted to. What they have done on this thread, however, is decry my own feedback on the grounds that I was denying them the 1e caster they so crave in 2e. I and others are allowed to make criticism of that attitude, particularly when it has proven disruptive to discussion. Worth noting as well that for all your efforts to police discussion here, you yourself have done nothing to give or discuss feedback in this conversation. You have, however, argued with that same person in the same way I did, so I’m not sure you can really claim the moral high ground either.