Compiling a bit of feedback I've had regarding the Animist with my experience so far. I'll be breaking it down into sections, and including aspects of the new class I really like in addition to criticisms, mentions of typos, and suggestions.
Overall, I love the Animist's different take on spellcasting, and feel bringing in spell lists from otherworldly apparitions is a great way of building upon the more limited divine spell list.
Overall, I feel the Animist is currently implemented in a way that adds a lot of unnecessary complication to the class, making it too versatile and too powerful in the process while also muddying its identity. Really, an Animist who can build into channelling a spirit of battle or a spirit of healing is fine, as is one who commits their build to a bit of both. An Animist who can accumulate up to four roles at a time, without any feat investment, while being able to switch between them at-will every turn (despite having fairly heavy action taxes otherwise) I think is just too good, and more importantly, too complicated.
It is a known fact that players are notoriously effective at pointing out problems in game design, but infamously bad at giving workable solutions. I would take all of the following suggestions with a particularly large gain of salt as a result, as all of these are merely my opinions without much backing of yet in playtesting experience:
Effectively, I think the Animist could be streamlined significantly to have a much clearer role definition based on their apparition, which could still produce a highly powerful and versatile class. A player certainly should have the option to go for additional roles, but in my opinion shouldn't be given those extra roles without build investment. In exchange, though, I'd also want the Animist to have their actions collide less, so that they can keep up their vessel spells, cast spells or Strike normally, and still have room to do things like use skill actions, spellshape actions, or move around on their turn.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks.
I hate it.
Your recommendations means that I, as a 1e Medium, still couldn't exist in PF2.
My entire schtick was switching things up every morning. I could be a Cleric type one day, a Wizard type the next, and a Fighter the day after that.
Yes, it was a brutally complicated process. It involved recalculating all of my skill bonuses, My attack bonuses sometimes, and my spell list. I often had to change up my equipment too.
And my biggest problem as a 1e Medium was that no matter what I picked, I was still quite a bit less powerful at whatever I was doing for the day than a character dedicated to that role. I couldn't Cleric nearly as well as a Cleric. I couldn't Wizard nearly as good as a Wizard, and I couldn't Fighter as good as a Fighter.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks.
I hate it.
Your recommendations means that I, as a 1e Medium, still couldn't exist in PF2.
My entire schtick was switching things up every morning. I could be a Cleric type one day, a Wizard type the next, and a Fighter the day after that.
Alright, let's take this one step at a time: for starters, I don't think we're at odds here, and I don't intend to lock you out of your character fantasy:
Really, an Animist who can build into channelling a spirit of battle or a spirit of healing is fine, as is one who commits their build to a bit of both. An Animist who can accumulate up to four roles at a time, without any feat investment, while being able to switch between them at-will every turn (despite having fairly heavy action taxes otherwise) I think is just too good, and more importantly, too complicated.
...
There ought to then be feats allowing an Animist to opt into additional apparitions, in a style similar to Multifarious Muse.
...
A player certainly should have the option to go for additional roles, but in my opinion shouldn't be given those extra roles without build investment.
Emphasis added. I think it could be perfectly fine for an Animist to opt into a more complex and versatile build where they can accumulate more apparitions, or even swap them out entirely. I just don't think that ought to be the default.
Yes, it was a brutally complicated process. It involved recalculating all of my skill bonuses, My attack bonuses sometimes, and my spell list. I often had to change up my equipment too.
This I think is why trying to replicate the 1e Medium in complexity shouldn't be the default (though as per the above, it should certainly be a build option available to the player). While 2e certainly does have crunch, it is nowhere near as crunchy or complicated as 1e when it comes to refactoring one's entire build on a daily basis. Expecting that much complexity by default I think risks getting in the way of a class that, in my opinion, does not need to be terribly complicated to deliver its core theme or gameplay.
And my biggest problem as a 1e Medium was that no matter what I picked, I was still quite a bit less powerful at whatever I was doing for the day than a character dedicated to that role. I couldn't Cleric nearly as well as a Cleric. I couldn't Wizard nearly as good as a Wizard, and I couldn't Fighter as good as a Fighter.
I would not expect 2e to change this. If you were able to be as good as the Fighter or the Druid at what they do, while being able to change from one to the other from one day to the next (or in the playtest Animist's case, once every 10 minutes or even with just an action), your character would be overtuned, and 2e aims for balance. The more versatility a character has, the less raw power they ought to have in exchange: if your 1e Medium were made available through feat options, this tradeoff would come from committing class feats to achieve the flexibility you want, which judging by the example of the Kineticist and their improved reflow feats I think can easily feel like a fair exchange.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This reminds me a lot of the discussion about why Witch is bad. They get to pick a tradition for their spellcasting, so because of that versatility, they deserve to be less powerful overall. Even though any particular character, once that choice of tradition is made, doesn't have any additional versatility than any other character does.
Versatility is only powerful if you can pick in the moment which option to use. The 1 action switch for Channeler is pretty good because of that. A 10 minute switch for Sage is still nice. But in both cases, you can still only switch to one that you have already chosen at the beginning of the day. Having versatility that is not available for the entire rest of the day isn't doing any good and shouldn't be counted in the power budget.
Witch2.4 is also a generalist type of character. They can be built to resemble a lot of other classes. Occult Witch looks like a Bard. Arcane Witch looks like a Wizard. Divine Witch looks like a Cleric. Primal Witch looks like a Druid.
And in all of those cases, the Witch was less powerful than the other classes.
And everyone hates the Witch class as a result. Enough so that Witch is getting reworked in the Remaster.
I really don't think that houseruling that the Witch could change their Patron every morning would make the Witch2.4 a better liked class. Because they would still be less powerful than any of the other classes that they resemble.
This reminds me a lot of the discussion about why Witch is bad. They get to pick a tradition for their spellcasting, so because of that versatility, they deserve to be less powerful overall. Even though any particular character, once that choice of tradition is made, doesn't have any additional versatility than any other character does.
Versatility is only powerful if you can pick in the moment which option to use. The 1 action switch for Channeler is pretty good because of that. A 10 minute switch for Sage is still nice. But in both cases, you can still only switch to one that you have already chosen at the beginning of the day. Having versatility that is not available for the entire rest of the day isn't doing any good and shouldn't be counted in the power budget.
Witch2.4 is also a generalist type of character. They can be built to resemble a lot of other classes. Occult Witch looks like a Bard. Arcane Witch looks like a Wizard. Divine Witch looks like a Cleric. Primal Witch looks like a Druid.
And in all of those cases, the Witch was less powerful than the other classes.
And everyone hates the Witch class as a result. Enough so that Witch is getting reworked in the Remaster.
I really don't think that houseruling that the Witch could change their Patron every morning would make the Witch2.4 a better liked class. Because they would still be less powerful than any of the other classes that they resemble.
The issue with the Witch is that the class, pre-remaster at least, is half-baked and undertuned. I do think the tradeoff of versatility versus power applies, it's just that in the Witch's case it absolutely does not justify the class falling so short at their key intended strengths, all while just lacking a lot of the power afforded to other classes with the same base stats. Sorcerers in particular are solid evidence that a class can opt into any spellcasting tradition, make tradeoffs for it, and still feel like a strong, satisfying class nonetheless.
Similarly, with the Animist, there is a massive difference in versatility between sticking to an apparition, and being able to change to whichever apparition is best-suited for the current day, a difference further compounded by being able to choose multiple apparitions at a time. I don't think that should justify diluting the core class, because that would lead to an issue similar to the Alchemist where they'll feel pulled in too many directions at once to feel great at any one thing. I do however think that justifies allowing the class to specialize a bit better by default, and therefore have some more concentrated power (not that its power isn't concentrated now either), to then let the player commit class feats to increasing amounts of flexibility. This would be much like how the Kineticist can choose to concentrate their power into a single element, or spread themselves out over multiple elements, as well as reflow their impulses more quickly.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you can disagree with me. That's fine.
But I am not going to be satisfied if I get to only be less powerful than other characters. It doesn't matter if I get to choose which character to be less powerful than each day. That still isn't a fun choice to make.
That is also going to make Animist feel like it is undertuned and half-baked. Just like current Witch.
Also consider that this is the same type of thing that Prepared spellcasting has to deal with. Sure, if a Cleric or a Druid knows what they are going to encounter during the coming day, they can adjust their spell selection to target that exactly and feel awesome. But if they don't know what to expect for the day, they have to pick generally useful spells. They have to be reasonably good at handling anything and if they choose a niche use spell, then that isn't nearly as likely going to help them.
Animist can end up being similar.
Attuning to Steward of Stone and Fire is great if you know that you are going to be doing a bunch of combat with groups of enemies. But if you are doing terrain skill challenges and solo enemy combats, Stalker in Darkened Boughs or Witness to Ancient Battles would have been a better choice. But if you don't know which you are going to encounter later in the day and you only get to choose two of them - deciding which ones to choose and which ones to not have access to for the entire day becomes a very meaningful and challenging choice.
And making it such that it doesn't matter which ones you choose because none of them will make you as effective a any of the other characters in the party just feels bad.
Well, you can disagree with me. That's fine.
But I am not going to be satisfied if I get to only be less powerful than other characters. It doesn't matter if I get to choose which character to be less powerful than each day. That still isn't a fun choice to make.
That is also going to make Animist feel like it is undertuned and half-baked. Just like current Witch.
This is a false dichotomy. A character doesn't have be either as strong as everyone else while also more flexible, or undertuned and half-baked. Again, the Sorcerer is a good example of a balanced class that can choose their spellcasting tradition, as is the Summoner. The bulk of the Animist's spellcasting is still divine, and they don't opt into an entire other tradition's spell list, so there's certainly no reason to not let them have more concentrated power... assuming they actually do specialize a little somewhere by default, instead of being able to reconstruct their cross-tradition spell repertoire on a daily basis in addition to their prepared spellcasting.
Also consider that this is the same type of thing that Prepared spellcasting has to deal with. Sure, if a Cleric or a Druid knows what they are going to encounter during the coming day, they can adjust their spell selection to target that exactly and feel awesome. But if they don't know what to expect for the day, they have to pick generally useful spells. They have to be reasonably good at handling anything and if they choose a niche use spell, then that isn't nearly as likely going to help them.
Animist can end up being similar.
So it would be bad for the Animist to engage in the same basic gameplay of prepared spellcasting as any other prepared spellcaster? Why?
Attuning to Steward of Stone and Fire is great if you know that you are going to be doing a bunch of combat with groups of enemies. But if you are doing terrain skill challenges and solo enemy combats, Stalker in Darkened Boughs or Witness to Ancient Battles would have been a better choice. But if you don't know which you are going to encounter later in the day and you only get to choose two of them - deciding which ones to choose and which ones to not have access to for the entire day becomes a very meaningful and challenging choice.
And making it such that it doesn't matter which ones you choose because none of them will make you as effective a any of the other characters in the party just feels bad.
I feel this fundamentally misunderstands what it means to specialize. The more specialized and inflexible you are, the better you get to be at what you do, because there will be more occasions where your specialization won't be perfectly-suited to the occasion. By contrast, the more flexible and versatile you are, the less you get to do of everything, because if you got to do as well as the specialist each time, you'd get to consistently overshadow most of the rest of the party at any given time, and then we're back to 1e and D&D 3.5e/5e, where the casters can do everything better than everyone else. You can disagree with this philosophy if you like, but this is one of the foundational balancing principles of 2e. If you want your Animist to be so flexible that they can equip just the right spells for the occasion every day, then be prepared for their power to end up severely curtailed. If you want your Animist to be able to take a role where they can at least somewhat compete with an equivalent specialist, then there needs to be some cost in flexibility. There is likely to be a happy medium where you get to have your flexibility if you want it, but I would say that that is something that ought to be opted into via class feats, as it is otherwise extremely difficult to opt out of more versatility.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would limit the Animist to one single apparition, and prevent the class from switching apparitions as a baseline. This would allow apparitions to work as proper subclasses, and help flesh out the class's identity while cutting out excess power. There ought to then be feats allowing an Animist to opt into additional apparitions, in a style similar to Multifarious Muse.
This is the worst possible suggestion. Basically destroy the entire design goal of the class. Might as well suggest Rogues stop having sneak attack or extra skill increases.
Effectively, I think the Animist could be streamlined
The game has enough generic 3-slot spellcasters. "Streamlining" away the entire design conceit of the class would be awful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it would be bad for the Animist to engage in the same basic gameplay of prepared spellcasting as any other prepared spellcaster? Why?
No. I very much like how Animist has to choose their Apparitions at the beginning of the day and hope that they chose wisely.
What I am pointing out is that it feels like people who are saying Animist is too powerful are thinking that no matter what comes up during the day that the Animist is somehow going to have always correctly chosen the right Apparition for the job.
By contrast, the more flexible and versatile you are, the less you get to do of everything, because if you got to do as well as the specialist each time, you'd get to consistently overshadow most of the rest of the party at any given time,
Again, you are using words like 'overshadow' and 'most of the party'.
I am advocating for equal power - not more power.
And a few select things per day - not all powers of all classes combined every day.
I would probably be happy if the number of attuned Apparitions stayed at 2 for the full level range.
-----
And I will be happy to leave that meaning of 'specialized' back in 1e. Thanks.
This is the worst possible suggestion. Basically destroy the entire design goal of the class. Might as well suggest Rogues stop having sneak attack or extra skill increases.
The game has enough generic 3-slot spellcasters. "Streamlining" away the entire design conceit of the class would be awful.
I don't particularly believe the point of the Animist is to be able to build an entirely new spell list every day, and if that is truly the intent, then I'd say we best all get ready for the class to receive severe nerfs to their power as a result. Simply being able to use slots for both prepared and spontaneous spellcasting is a massive difference over other casters, let alone having either half of their spellcasting come from different traditions. I'd much rather focus on that, rather than have an indistinct mess of a class with three to five subclasses at a time that swaps between them each day.
No. I very much like how Animist has to choose their Apparitions at the beginning of the day and hope that they chose wisely.
What I am pointing out is that it feels like people who are saying Animist is too powerful are thinking that no matter what comes up during the day that the Animist is somehow going to have always correctly chosen the right Apparition for the job.
When you can end up having two-thirds of the apparition roster at a time, for a total repertoire of thirty-six spells across all traditions, it's going to be pretty difficult not to have the right apparition for the job. Even with just the starting two, pulling from their spell list in addition to your divine spells constitutes exceptional amounts of versatility. In fact, even just one apparition spell list on top of divine spells would already be about as versatile as a divine caster currently gets, so I'm not seeing the supposed lack of versatility from committing to an apparition here.
Again, you are using words like 'overshadow' and 'most of the party'.
I am advocating for equal power - not more power.
And a few select things per day - not all powers of all classes combined every day.
I would probably be happy if the number of attuned Apparitions stayed at 2 for the full level range.
And what exactly do you mean by "equal power"? Because as pointed out already, being on "equal power" with a specialist while also having more flexibility does not in fact constitute equal power. "Equal power" on an exceptionally versatile class means having much more limited power at any given thing than a corresponding specialist class. Regardless of which form the Animist ultimately takes, the class won't and shouldn't equal the Fighter in consistent single-target damage output, for example, because the latter class specializes in that whereas the Animist is a flexible spellcaster who gets to cast spells from multiple traditions.
And I will be happy to leave that meaning of 'specialized' back in 1e. Thanks.
Too late, it's already a part of 2e. There is an inherent tradeoff between flexibility and concentrated, at-will power; it's baked into the game's very bones. If you want the Animist to have exceptional versatility even by caster standards, but aren't prepared to accept the tradeoffs that will inevitably entail, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.
I really like the aspect of the spells having to be sustained, with a unique effect upon being sustained. It makes them feel like something unique. Juggling your actions around your vessel spells seems like a core part of the combat experience for the animist, which I think is something rather iconic.
I do agree, at least up to a point. I like that vessel spells are all sustained, and I think it's good that they're quite powerful (within reason), because that gives a strong incentive to work around their action cost to keep their benefit. The problem, in my opinion, happens when sustaining them each turn is basically a given, at which point you either spend the rest of your turn casting a spell, or drop a huge amount of your effectiveness just to move or do other basic stuff. This is why Sustaining Dance is a bit of a must-have at the moment, and why the spellshape feats are really difficult to fit into the class right now.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't particularly believe the point of the Animist is to be able to build an entirely new spell list every day
It's literally one of their core mechanics.
I'd much rather focus on that, rather than have an indistinct mess of a class with three to five subclasses at a time that swaps between them each day.
Well hopefully they come out with the class you want someday. But let's not ruin the animist in the process.
It's literally one of their core mechanics.
So was burn on the Kineticist.
Well hopefully they come out with the class you want someday. But let's not ruin the animist in the process.
What I'm very gently trying to point out to you is that Paizo is going to "ruin" the Animist regardless, at least in your eyes. As currently implemented, the class is far too strong for how versatile it is, and even its versatility on its own is an issue. The developers can either nerf the class's power, nerf the class's versatility, or do both, and I get the feeling both are likely to happen. Right now, you are expecting what is arguably the most versatile class in the game to somehow not suffer the same fate as the Alchemist, a class that is also severely diluted as a result of its own versatility and difficulty. You can dream on if you like, but I'd much rather provide workable feedback based on my observations, if only through the critique rather than the suggestions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And my biggest problem as a 1e Medium was that no matter what I picked, I was still quite a bit less powerful at whatever I was doing for the day than a character dedicated to that role. I couldn't Cleric nearly as well as a Cleric. I couldn't Wizard nearly as good as a Wizard, and I couldn't Fighter as good as a Fighter.
Do you really expect to become better at someone that's fully dedicated to something while you can literally change everyday?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do people keep saying 'better'?
Is it really too much to ask to just not be worse?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do people keep saying 'better'?
Is it really too much to ask to just not be worse?
Yes, actually. If you want to be more versatile than a specialist, you are going to have to accept that you'll have to be worse than the specialist at what that specialist does, by a measure proportionate to your advantage in versatility. Asking to "not be worse" than the specialist at their specialty while also having more flexibility does not constitute "equal power", it just means you're straight-up better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, actually. If you want to be more versatile than a specialist, you are going to have to accept that you'll have to be worse than the specialist at what that specialist does, by a measure proportionate to your advantage in versatility. Asking to "not be worse" than the specialist at their specialty while also having more flexibility does not constitute "equal power", it just means you're straight-up better.Why do people keep saying 'better'?
Is it really too much to ask to just not be worse?
Then what you are saying is that Animist simply cannot exist.
Being flexible is the entire point.
And being worse is not any fun to play.
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.
This is an untruthful claim on a number of levels. One need only look at the Redeemer's reaction to see that in addition to the damage reduction, the reaction enfeebles the opponent, something the amulet doesn't do. The Redeemer's reaction also gives the option to leave the ally entirely unharmed, an option also not present in the Amulet's Abeyance reaction.
On a broader level, the moment we stop looking at those features in a vacuum, we also do get to see that the Thaumaturge does pay a price for their versatility: for one, they're behind Strength/Dex martials in their attack modifier, but they've also got below-average Hit Points for a martial at 8 + Con / level. They certainly get a lot of choice through their implements, which often do amazing things (if not quite as amazing as the things they copy), but they also lack things like the Champion's incredible defenses and divine allies, or the Fighter's exceptional attack proficiency. It is therefore very clear that they pay a price for their versatility. Incidentally, the Thaumaturge's popularity shows that, contrary to what appears to be popular belief around these parts, making appropriate tradeoffs between versatility and raw power does not inevitably lead to a weak or unsatisfying class, quite the opposite.
Having to sacrifice 1/3 of your actions to be on par with another class for a single turn sounds overall worse to me.
Except you still have a whole arsenal of spells at your disposal that that other class doesn't have, on top of that effect which single-handedly puts you close to that specialist (and sometimes better). Not only that, but you effectively get to become an entirely different class next encounter, or on the fly with the Channeler. I would say that is not an appropriate tradeoff for the flexibility you get.
Then what you are saying is that Animist simply cannot exist.
Being flexible is the entire point.
And being worse is not any fun to play.
The Animist certainly cannot exist in PF2e as you desire it to without significantly harming the game's balance, yes. If you're not prepared to make appropriate tradeoffs for the flexibility you desire, then you are inevitably going to be disappointed with 2e's offering of flexible classes, which are nonetheless well-loved by many others. If you want to be the most versatile character around while also matching or exceeding specialist classes at their specialty, 1e is right there for you to fill your boots.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course it can exist. There are plenty of players who don't insist on being best at everything they do. They are satisfied with improving in one character aspect at the expense of another character aspectThen what you are saying is that Animist simply cannot exist.
Being flexible is the entire point.
And being worse is not any fun to play.
Oh, you are preaching to the choir there. I'm one of the ones currently playing Witch and Swashbuckler characters.
Doesn't mean it doesn't feel bad knowing that your character would be better if it was a different class.
The combination of prepared and spontaneous spellcasting I think makes the class's spell usage feel markedly different from that of other classes.
I'm one of the few that disliked this strange spellcasting types merge.
While a lot of people see the glass half full here. With the ability to mix access to all divine common spells of a divine prepared spellcaster with a spontaneous apparition spellcaster.
I see it as a glass half empty, where I only have half the spell slots to use for each, preventing me from casting more than 2 divine spells or more than 2 apparition spells per spell rank.
For me it would be much better if either it was all spontaneous, with the apparition and a repertoire of divine spells both having access to all the slots or everything prepared with the apparition being able to convert the prepared slots to use their spells.
Extra Lore skills I think help add to the character's feeling of otherworldly knowledge in a manner few other classes access as easily.
IMO these lores a interesting and super thematic but also situational as many other normal Lores (non-bardic or thaumaturge lores). I see little use for them in most cases.
Sustaining Dance feels like an excellent action compressor for any kind of class heavy on sustained spells, in addition to feeling thematically appropriate for the Animist.
I agree yet I still think we can get a bit more. Maybe something like a cackle sacrificing the apparition to make it more thematic (and save some focus points). Because due all the focus being sustainable this also limits 3-action spells too much. But I understand now that Effortless Concentration could be too much (and too late) for this class.
Being able to swap apparitions on a daily basis feels too versatile and too complicated: because each apparition looks to give the Animist a more defined role, being able to stack multiple at a time from the get-go and swap around every day lets the class be a bit too good at specializing into something new on a day-to-day basis. It also muddies the Animist's thematic and mechanical expression, as the class can do almost anything, be almost anything from one day to the next. It also means having to construct a new spell repertoire every day, which adds to the complication of what I find to be an exceptionally complex class already.
I disagree. Without such flexibility the class looses its identity both thematically and mechanically. The idea that you get a flexibility based in what apparition are attuned in that day is what makes the class unique and isn't hard to keep. In VTT like foundry this probably can be automated or you can simple copy and past the apparition stat block into an accessible note. For RTT you can put each apparition in a stat block card.
Several of the focus spells are way too strong. Particular note goes to Garden of Healing, which can be used out of combat to heal every party member 25 HP on average per spell rank every 10 minutes, more than a critical success on Treat Wounds for each individual. Compare Discomforting/Discomfiting Whispers to Ill Omen, a 1st-rank slot spell, and save for range the former spell blows the latter out of the water almost entirely.
With the exception of Bile I think there's a overvalue in the efficiency of many animist's focus spells.
Garden of Healing is pretty trick due the risk of unfriendly healing. It's almost impossible to use it in a encounter to heal flanked ally without heal some enemy and it also requires that you and the party members to move constantly to get benefit of it what can cost you some more actions and out-of-combat healing speed are overvalued in general once there are so many sources of unlimited healing that this is just the most faster one. Most healing focus spells like Life Boost and Lay on Hands are more easier to use in battle without the constant action cost.Despite this, the current implementation of these spells as sustained feels fairly clunky, as the Animist ends up feeling slowed over an entire counter as they output an amount of persistent power so vast as to be mandatory. In the case of River Carving Mountains, having to spend an additional action to Stride leaves the class with a constant dangling third action that can't really be used for spellcasting. Sustaining Dance feels like an essential feat to get more out of an Animist's turns.
Here I agree wit you. IMO the class forces to much your action economy to keep the effectiveness so it deserve some more abilities to help the action economy while sustain. Also Sustaining Dance is so effective to the class that it becomes a must have feat. In this case could be better to make it a class feature.
Multiple apparitions and 2 Focus Points from lelvel 1 don't feel justified given that a single vessel spell can last the entire encounter, and each apparition functions like a fully-fledged subclass.
I disagree here too. Each apparition gives you a different focus spell, especially for channeler this really means that you have more that one focus spell what justifies the focus points.
The concept of a primary apparition just means the Animist can access only one focus spell at a time (unless you're a Channeler) for the vast majority of their leveling, and not much more. This adds more information overhead for what appears to be not that much payoff.
Wandering feats are made to accommodate switching apparitions every day, both of which make for a character whose core build decisions can change way too quickly as I feel it, and require a lot of rebuilding each day. This I think adds to the class's overcomplication.
Prepared vs. spontaneous spell slots as implemented add a lot of additional complexity to the class while also injecting a degree of confusion: is the class a prepared or spontaneous caster for the purpose of effects like staves or the Flexible Spellcaster feat? Why do the class's spell slots spike at level 10, and why do they lack an extra 9th-rank spell slot at level 20?
Overall, I feel the Animist is currently implemented in a way that adds a lot of unnecessary complication to the class, making it too versatile and too powerful in the process while also muddying its identity. Really, an Animist who can build into channelling a spirit of battle or a spirit of healing is fine, as is one who commits their build to a bit of both. An Animist who can accumulate up to four roles at a time, without any feat investment, while being able to switch between them at-will every turn (despite having fairly heavy action taxes otherwise) I think is just too good, and more importantly, too complicated.
I agree that the current class is overwhelmed with too much complex mechanics to keep tracking some of them without too much reason. But I don't like them to be simplified at cost of lose flexibility. They can be simplified without being nerfed.
I would limit the Animist to one single apparition, and prevent the class from switching apparitions as a baseline. This would allow apparitions to work as proper subclasses, and help flesh out the class's identity while cutting out excess power. There ought to then be feats allowing an Animist to opt into additional apparitions, in a style similar to Multifarious Muse.
I just disagree. This will kill the class flexibility and identity.
I would reimplement the Animist as a standard 3-slot prepared caster, and instead allow apparitions to override the class's spell slots by using any prepared spell slot to cast an apparition spell as a spontaneous spell. This would streamline the class's spellcasting a fair amount (the class would unambiguously be a prepared caster) while also letting an Animist use spontaneous casting to "clean up" prepared slots that aren't appropriate for a given situation, which would be very strong in its own right. A less powerful alternative could be to let the Animist leave certain spell slots intentionally unprepared, which would turn them into spontaneous spell slots for their apparition, which would offer less overall versatility but still give the Animist agency over how many slots to devote to divine versus apparition spells.
I agree with you here as I explained in the beginning. But I still prefere and I think that become full spontaneous is more simple yet I'm fine with the fully prepared with a convert spell like mechanic too.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Animist certainly cannot exist in PF2e as you desire it to without significantly harming the game's balance, yes.
Of course it can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, actually. If you want to be more versatile than a specialist, you are going to have to accept that you'll have to be worse than the specialist at what that specialist does, by a measure proportionate to your advantage in versatility. Asking to "not be worse" than the specialist at their specialty while also having more flexibility does not constitute "equal power", it just means you're straight-up better.Why do people keep saying 'better'?
Is it really too much to ask to just not be worse?
Then what you are saying is that Animist simply cannot exist.
Being flexible is the entire point.
And being worse is not any fun to play.
You are making it sound as if the animist was significantly worse than the classes it tries to imitate. Darkened Forest Form is literally Wild Shape but with a +1 instead of a +2 (there was a post on the subreddit showing that DFF was better at almost every level btw), Embodiment of Battle literally turns you into a Fighter that just happens to have two actions per turn, Garden of Healing has less "burst" healing than a cleric but due to the fact that you can sustain it it actually ends up healing way more (or at least way more with less uses). Let's take into account that you can literally change in and out of this with a single action or by refocusing btw.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that I am not speaking about the Animist's current abilities, but of the proposed changes that Teridax gave in the initial post. The one that strips Animist of most of the features that makes an Animist actually feel like an Animist.
And you cannot literally change in and out of Garden of Healing with a single action or a refocus if you didn't attune to Custodian of Groves and Gardens that morning.
And you cannot literally change in and out of Garden of Healing with a single action or a refocus if you didn't attune to Custodian of Groves and Gardens that morning.
You can if you are channeler, which at least as per the playtest rules is the one that you will likely be going to play as I don't see much reason to play sage honestly.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And you cannot literally change in and out of Garden of Healing with a single action or a refocus if you didn't attune to Custodian of Groves and Gardens that morning.You can if you are channeler, which at least as per the playtest rules is the one that you will likely be going to play as I don't see much reason to play sage honestly.
No you can't, Apparition's Whirl only let's you switch which of the Apparitions you attuned to that morning is your primary one (thus letting you use it's vessel spell). If you didn't attune to the Custodian of Groves and Gardens as one of your 2 (or 3/4 at higher levels) during daily prep, then you cannot use Garden of Healing.
Of course it can.
As pointed out, it can indeed... at the cost of the rest of the game's balance. You and Lanni appear to be advocating for a class that can match specialists at their specialty while also being one of the most versatile classes in the game by far, which is just not how 2e works. Asking to inflict significant long-term harm to the balance of a game that has worked very hard to establish balance across its character options is not, in my opinion, sound feedback.
For me it would be much better if either it was all spontaneous, with the apparition and a repertoire of divine spells both having access to all the slots or everything prepared with the apparition being able to convert the prepared slots to use their spells.
I can agree somewhat with this, mainly because I just find the current "2+X" situation of mixed slots a bit overly complicated. Personally, I'd like to see the Animist use a 3-slot prepared caster framework but then be able to use any prepared slot as a spontaneous slot for their animist spells, which I think would provide the best of both worlds (though it'd certainly be quite strong).
I disagree. Without such flexibility the class looses its identity both thematically and mechanically. The idea that you get a flexibility based in what apparition are attuned in that day is what makes the class unique and isn't hard to keep. In VTT like foundry this probably can be automated or you can simple copy and past the apparition stat block into an accessible note. For RTT you can put each apparition in a stat block card.
I do think it is harder to keep than you realize, as keeping that degree of flexibility is likely to entail a severe loss in raw power. Also, if you are expecting people to rely on a VTT to avoid tangling with a cumbersome feature, the feature is cumbersome.
Garden of Healing is pretty trick due the risk of unfriendly healing. It's almost impossible to use it in a encounter to heal flanked ally without heal some enemy and it also requires that you and the party members to move constantly to get benefit of it what can cost you some more actions and out-of-combat healing speed are overvalued in general once there are so many sources of unlimited healing that this is just the most faster one. Most healing focus spells like Life Boost and Lay on Hands are more easier to use in battle without the constant action cost.
None of this matters out of combat, where you can heal 100 HP on average to a 4-person party at level 1 every 10 minutes, while still having another option to use in combat if you're really worried about getting flanked. That spell in particular is incredibly easy to abuse out of combat, is the issue, on top of being strong in combat if your party sticks close and you move.
I disagree here too. Each apparition gives you a different focus spell, especially for channeler this really means that you have more that one focus spell what justifies the focus points.
Right, but with the way those focus spells are implemented, you're realistically only going to be using one of them at a time, and use that second Focus Point only if you really needed to stop sustaining the effect for whichever reason. Each focus spell also individually makes you competitive with the classes they emulate, so in my opinion that degree of extra versatility and resources are superfluous.
But I don't like them to be simplified at cost of lose flexibility. They can be simplified without being nerfed.
How? At the end of the day, what you and a bunch of people here don't appear to realize is that power inevitably comes at a price: if you really want your ultra-versatile class who can imitate a Cleric, a Druid, and a Fighter all within the same day, your class is inevitably going to have their power limited so that they can't keep up with any of those classes, or only do so in extremely limited amounts. This fact should normally be obvious in a game that has taken great pains over the years to stress its balance and niche protection, yet for some reason some players are still genuinely mad about the idea of not having their cake and eating it too.
While my suggestions are perhaps not the way to go, I'm at least trying to propose some kind of compromise here that would allow everyone to opt into what they want: if you really want an Animist who can stack multiple subclasses and swap them around (and let's be real, the apparitions are the actual subclasses), then I think you should absolutely have that option... if you opt into the feats that enable that build. That way, you'd be paying an appropriate price for that flexibility. Meanwhile, players like myself who don't care for swapping out multiple apparitions each day could also enjoy the Animist the way we like it, so unlike what some players here are demanding, there would be room for coexistence.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, actually. If you want to be more versatile than a specialist, you are going to have to accept that you'll have to be worse than the specialist at what that specialist does, by a measure proportionate to your advantage in versatility. Asking to "not be worse" than the specialist at their specialty while also having more flexibility does not constitute "equal power", it just means you're straight-up better.Why do people keep saying 'better'?
Is it really too much to ask to just not be worse?
Then what you are saying is that Animist simply cannot exist.
Being flexible is the entire point.
And being worse is not any fun to play.
If CLASS-A can do A, B, and C, whereas CLASS-B can do A, B, C, D and E just as well as CLASS-A, then a certain contingent of the player base will be hard pressed to play CLASS-A because CLASS-B exists.
I don't think the Animist wholly displaces another class to quite that degree, but it sort of feels like you're saying that such a situation as I described is fine.
I think a lot of people would disagree.
Jack of All Trades characters can and should exist. It's when they start becoming the master of too many things that it becomes a problem.
Like the Starfinder Operative being a better mechanic than the Mechanic.
Besides, having a "lower than maximum possible" bonus does not make one bad or weak.
Yeah, my Thaumaturge with Diverse Lore succeeds at Recall Knowledge more often than the rest of the party. But not on every check. And when he fails, the Cleric has Religion, the Ranger has Nature, ect.
Having a very flexible class that can be the best at some things and a reliable secondary at a lot of things is valuable.
As long as a good ratio between those two is kept.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Asking to inflict significant long-term harm to the balance of a game
No one has asked for that.
No one has asked for that.
And yet that is effectively what you and Lanni are asking for. As now several people have pointed out, asking for a character to be more versatile than specialist classes, while also matching those specialists at what they do, is harmful to the game's balance. There is little reason to play a more specialized character when someone else can do what they do best just as well and still do more on top. Even a character that is slightly behind specialists, but still gets to cover many more things by virtue of their flexibility, is likely to cause this problem. Asking for one such character and refusing to accept any tradeoffs for either their versatility or their power is asking to harm the game.
I appreciate that you're not intentionally asking for a worse game, but by the same token, I'm not saying what I'm saying here just because I'm a killjoy who wants to take away your fun. I want the Animist to be a fun class too, but I'm also being mindful of 2e's balancing framework here: depending on what the playerbase wants, the Animist could be an extremely versatile class or a class with plentiful access to extremely powerful effects, but not both. Given how classes have historically received severe limitations to accommodate exceptional amounts of versatility, my fear is that if the Animist is set to be balanced around being the game's most flexible spellcaster, that is likely to entail proportionately severe limitations, to such an extent that the class may be doomed to dissatisfy. By contrast, implementing a framework where the Animist gets a simpler base chassis, but still gives players the option to opt into a more complex and versatile build that stacks and switches apparitions, has a much higher chance of making more people happy in my opinion. I can't really speak for anyone else here, but it would certainly make me happier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem in nerf is the risk to make the class to be mediocre in the name of versatility (we already get wizards).
IMO if the designers just fix the excessive clunkness of the spell slots and give some more sustain compression features (that can come with some additional cost like Cackle does with focus points) is enough for the class.
The problem in nerf is the risk to make the class to be mediocre in the name of versatility (we already get wizards).
IMO if the designers just fix the excessive clunkness of the spell slots and give some more sustain compression features (that can come with some additional cost like Cackle does with focus points) is enough for the class.
That's not a problem you can escape. The more your class gets to do, the less good they're inevitably going to have to be at each individual thing they do. If your super-versatile class also gets to be super-strong at most of the things they do, what you have is an overtuned class. FWIW, I don't think the Wizard is a mediocre class by any stretch; they just pay an appropriate price for their immense versatility. I take it that's not a price you'd be willing to pay for the Animist's own, potentially even greater flexibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If CLASS-A can do A, B, and C, whereas CLASS-B can do A, B, C, D and E just as well as CLASS-A, then a certain contingent of the player base will be hard pressed to play CLASS-A because CLASS-B exists.
That is a good way of describing things.
No class does just A. That is PF1 style of specializing.
So, say class B does B, c, and G - it does B and G well, and c as a secondary.
and class C does C, D, and g - it does C and D well and does g as a secondary.
So making class A that does a, b, and c one day; and b, c, and g the next... That isn't fun to play. Getting secondary levels of power only is like a Witch2.4 that could switch their Patron each day.
Also making class A that does A and B, or do B and G, but can't switch out what it does after being created... That isn't an Animist. That is more like Thaumaturge.
What I am wanting is a class A that is able to do B, c, and e one day; and C, a, and g the next.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No you can't, Apparition's Whirl only let's you switch which of the Apparitions you attuned to that morning is your primary one (thus letting you use it's vessel spell). If you didn't attune to the Custodian of Groves and Gardens as one of your 2 (or 3/4 at higher levels) during daily prep, then you cannot use Garden of Healing.And you cannot literally change in and out of Garden of Healing with a single action or a refocus if you didn't attune to Custodian of Groves and Gardens that morning.You can if you are channeler, which at least as per the playtest rules is the one that you will likely be going to play as I don't see much reason to play sage honestly.
Yes. Make sure that you fully understand the class as it currently is and how it is planned to be before requesting changes.
Currently you can only ever get the Apparitions that you attune to at the beginning of the day. Even Channeler doesn't get access later in the day to an Apparition that they didn't choose that morning.
Also, we currently only have a few Apparitions to choose from. So at highest levels an Animist can end up having access to nearly all of them. That will change on release. We already have confirmation that there will be a larger number of Apparitions available on release.
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 your group forgotten that both the attacker and the protected ally have to be within 15 feet of the Champion, while only the protected ally has to be within 15 feet of the Amulet Thaumaturge. Because that is also a difference.
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?
On the one hand, I want lots and lots of apparation options, and if you have two that overlap (or 3 or eventually 4) then you are losing out on flexibility, but then some of the feats that feel powerful, but are currently fairly limited, suddenly become a lot more powerful. Like if there is a blasty ghost apparition that does big single target void damage every round, that could be a problem with either the SPIRITUAL SPELLSHAPE STANCE feat or the CARDINAL GUARDIANS feat or even the level 1 CHANNELER’S STANCE since that only boosts energy damage.
Like I want more features to interact with these feats because some of them are limited to almost only 1 spell or a super tight group of spells, but if they work with almost everything an animist can do, they are going to be very powerful options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the entire pure caster classes pay too much for versatility.
But also look at Kineticist, it can change it's impulse feats--once per rest, but basically can retool their build with no cost with downtime and there's not much they pay for it.
Hell, they have feats that can make it available per ten minutes. What each primary appariton does is basically just give you access to the vessel spell anyways.
And I have to agree with the above poster, if you can retool each day but you'll always be middling at the chosen role at best then it's not even worth it to play the class
You are making it sound as if Kineticists can do this right from 1st level, when in fact at the earliest this becomes available is 11th level (and they can only change one of their impulses per rest, or by spending 10 minutes if they actually select Rapid Reattunement at 14th level).
That is a good way of describing things.
No class does just A. That is PF1 style of specializing.
So, say class B does B, c, and G - it does B and G well, and c as a secondary.
and class C does C, D, and g - it does C and D well and does g as a secondary.So making class A that does a, b, and c one day; and b, c, and g the next... That isn't fun to play. Getting secondary levels of power only is like a Witch2.4 that could switch their Patron each day.
Also making class A that does A and B, or do B and G, but can't switch out what it does after being created... That isn't an Animist. That is more like Thaumaturge.
What I am wanting is a class A that is able to do B, c, and e one day; and C, a, and g the next.
This is still trying to rationalize away the same basic problem: if you want a flexible class to do just as much as a specialist on any given day, but then be able to switch specialties every day, why play the specialist?
To take the above: let's say your typical specialist class does A, B, and C really well. Let's introduce your flexible class: if they can do A, B, and C just as well on one day, but then B, C, and D equally well instead on the next day, why pay a specialist focused on A, B, and C when your flexible class can do that and more? Why play a class that specializes in B, C, and D? If your flexible class could perhaps do A and B one day, no more, but then C and D another day, E and F on another, and so on, then your class's third strength here would be the flexibility to switch, even if you wouldn't be quite as good as the specialist each time. Despite this, that is not a strength you appear willing to acknowledge, nor a tradeoff you appear willing to make. Why is that?
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.
Side note, but why do people use their RP aliases on these forums to argue in discussions where they've already posted using their main profile? I've seen this done several times before, and I don't understand why people do this when it's easy to click on a name and see that they're an alias.
On-topic, let's compare again the amulet's reaction versus the Champion's reaction:
So given this evidence, I fail to see how one could try to frame the Thaumaturge's amulet reaction as anything but a worse version of the Champion's reaction in good faith. The Champion's reaction is obviously better, and that's a good thing, because the Champion is a more specialized class. What this goes to show, however, is that a feature being less powerful than another does not automatically translate to it feeling substantially worse: if the Thaumaturge can access a portion of the Champion's strengths, the Fighter's strengths, and so on, have the raw power of each feature toned down to match the class's flexibility, and still feel like a fully-formed class with lots of strong abilities, I think that means the Animist could stand to have some of their power tuned down and still feel good at fulfilling the roles it can imitate, if not all of them at once.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are making it sound as if Kineticists can do this right from 1st level, when in fact at the earliest this becomes available is 11th level (and they can only change one of their impulses per rest, or by spending 10 minutes if they actually select Rapid Reattunement at 14th level).I think the entire pure caster classes pay too much for versatility.
But also look at Kineticist, it can change it's impulse feats--once per rest, but basically can retool their build with no cost with downtime and there's not much they pay for it.
Hell, they have feats that can make it available per ten minutes. What each primary appariton does is basically just give you access to the vessel spell anyways.
And I have to agree with the above poster, if you can retool each day but you'll always be middling at the chosen role at best then it's not even worth it to play the class
Which isn't any worse than the people saying that Animist is a 4-slot caster like Sorcerer even though they only get a 4th spell slot at level 10 and only for their rank-2 and lower spells.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It could be me but I feel like as is the Animist has some strong features that lets it compete with a specialist while still just lagging behind a tiny bit.
When compared to a martial character
-the actual rate of proficency is still that of a caster
-there key stat is wisdom, so they will have less accuracy than most Martials by default
- they have to rely on bonuses that martials would get even stronger from, and when those same martials are buffed
- the highest accuracy they *can* get
requires using all 3 actions, which in actual play is quite difficult, and with no actual way to get haste in-class means they have no way to relieve this themselves. Meanwhile martials often have accuracy savers and action savers, sometimes in the same ability. Which means dedicated Martials still are stronger and can better take advanatge of the action economy.
-Their AC will still be lower than most martials.
- if they get surprised, they might not even have access to the desire focus spell to make them compete with martials. The best case scenario is that they are a channeler and have to spend an additional action in their set up phase, while most martials either don't need a set up in turn 1 or it usually only takes 1 action to get into their desired state.
Which over all leads to a martial that is pretty effective but still has significant weak points, requires more set up than any other martial, and they have to give up some of their regular repitoires effectiveness in order to compete.
The animal shape one might fair better? I'm not entirely certain but that will come at the cast of being unable to use their spells while in that form.
For skill users, it will never be able to compete with the skill profiencies and capabilities of any of the dedicated skill users.
As a healer?
It will never compete with a heal font cleric or a life Oracle when it comes to in combat healing. And in combat healing is a bigger deal in 2e than other d20 games. In particular burst healing can quickly change the tide of a fight that looks like it has gone south. Life oracle(heck most oracles), Cleric, and even Divine sorcerers can use heal better than the animist thanks to either their full spontaneous casting or divine font means they can have other spells available and still do those big heals as needed. An Animist can catch up a bit if they pick up some feats(channelers stance and the one that adds heal and harm to their spell repitoire) but due to the split nature of the slots it is harder to utilize them. This isnt even including the remove spells/restoration( which i think are being combined in the remaster) that also often fall under the purview of healers. So if you want to be a dedicated healer it is very likely you will have to invest more of your prepared slots to do so. (And in fact the solution of making them a 3 slot caster that can turn any of their prepared slots into their apparation spells would make them a better healer than they are now thanks to that one feat)
Sure out of combat healing the Custodian excels, but unless their are timely or narrative constraints i find most parties just take the time to get to full or close to full anyways.
As for blasting,
bile only really excels in one specific scenario, when you have a lot of mooks, that don't convinently have your allies mixed in with them and they aren't spread out. Other blasting options are more easily manuverable and do good damage
I personally think in terms of the specialist vs. Versatility design space, animist does a pretty good job of giving players who want to be versatile(which is one of the core goals of the class) a way to be satisfingly versatile while still giving specialists a proper edge. An animist *does* have to work harder(mostly via action economy costs) to be decent or good at any of the roles it wishes to excel at but they are given the tools to do so.
As for clunkyness or complexity, i can see the argument that it is but I think there is also a part of the community that it will serve well. Some people like the more complex classes, especialliy whe the complexity helps provide an identity to the class, which it does. The Animist is an an attempt to follow through on the promises of classes like the Binder(3.5), the Medium, and the Shaman(both from pf1e) which often had this mechanic of calling upon otherworldy things from a day to day basis to give you flexibility. And the ability to commune with different spirits that can change what you are capable of to such an extent is a fun and flavorful concept. By trying to push it to be a 3 slot caster that only has one spirit, would be to move it to a wildly different mechanical and narrative place.
Edit: Sorry for any typos, it is harder to catch them on Mobile. I think I fixed all of them?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Side note, but why do people use their RP aliases on these forums to argue in discussions where they've already posted using their main profile? I've seen this done several times before, and I don't understand why people do this when it's easy to click on a name and see that they're an alias.
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?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Animist is an an attempt to follow through on the promises of classes like the Binder(3.5), the Medium, and the Shaman(both from pf1e) which often had this mechanic of calling upon otherworldy things from a day to day basis to give you flexibility. And the ability to commune with different spirits that can change what you are capable of to auch an extent is a fun and flavorful concept. By trying to push it to be a 3 slot caster that only has one spirit, wouls be to move it to a wildly different mechanical and narrative place.
^^^ THIS!!! ^^^
Yeah i can agree to that kind of limitation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casting bile 3 times is quite strong but I think the solution is more to just only let animist have 1 casting of a vessel spell active at a time rather than changing how apparitions as a whole work.As for blasting,
bile only really excels in one specific scenario, when you have a lot of mooks, that don't convinently have your allies mixed in with them and they aren't spread out. Other blasting options are more easily manuverable and do good damage
Like Hex and Composition spells. Which are also one-action focus spells that have mechanics to prevent themselves from being cast abusively.
I'm not entirely sure that preventing them from having two different spells running at the same time is necessary. I think Bile is the only one that really runs into this type of problem. And that can be fixed by having targets not be affected by the spell more than once per round no matter how many instances of it are going.