Right now, here's what I'm seeing:
I may be missing something pretty obvious here, but wouldn't it just be simpler to key spellcasting to class DC in the same way as the Kineticist, and have the class DC of spellcasters scale up to their usual amounts? It feels like it would simplify things a fair bit, particularly when it comes to casters who can also apply critical specialization. At worst, it would allow martial classes to start with one or two extra proficiency bumps when taking a spellcasting archetype, but if spellcasters can opt into entirely different traditions while still keeping their legendary proficiency, having just a sliver of that power at a -2 to spell attacks and DCs may not infringe upon the post-remaster state of niche protection either.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problems you outlined are the reasons. Making it harder to use thinks like crit spec as a caster or vice versa is the main effect of keeping them split... so it seems like that must be a difficulty Paizo values.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty sure it has to do with Attributes more than Proficiency. And multiclassing.
This would make sense. There are a few classes like the Champion, Magus, Monk, and Ranger (and now the Exemplar) whose spellcasting stat can differ from their class DC, though in pretty much all of these cases I don't think it would be harmful if they just used their current class DC anyway, outside of slight weirdness tied to casting spells with a physical attribute.
I think the problems you outlined are the reasons. Making it harder to use thinks like crit spec as a caster or vice versa is the main effect of keeping them split... so it seems like that must be a difficulty Paizo values.
As pointed out in the outline, casters that use crit spec frequently have it keyed to their spell DC anyway. Just look at the Cleric.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
While casters having worse critical specialization DCs is a consequence of the split, so is martials having lower spell DCs. There is a perception in parts of the player base that martials dipping into casters is already way better than the reverse, so there is probably some reluctance to make martials even better casters. The new unified spell proficiency now makes casters significantly better at multiclassing into other casters.
While casters having worse critical specialization DCs is a consequence of the split, so is martials having lower spell DCs. There is a perception in parts of the player base that martials dipping into casters is already way better than the reverse, so there is probably some reluctance to make martials even better casters. The new unified spell proficiency now makes casters significantly better at multiclassing into other casters.
This is fair. If the intent is to let casters multiclass into one another more easily while keeping martials relatively walled-out, then that definitely achieves its goal. I personally question whether it'll be a good thing to let a caster become legendary at every tradition, let alone leave martial multiclassing much more restricted, but I'm also keen to see how that turns out in practice.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just wish Kineticist got some casting DC by default for casting archetypes with this change...
Impulses are just spells with a different name. It would be fun to pick up some offensive spells with Kineticist.
Not giving martials spell scaling DC by default just limited spellcasting archetype options. I understand why they might want that. Luckily there are a few like Monk/Champion that still, as long as nothing changes with them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just wish Kineticist got some casting DC by default for casting archetypes with this change...
Impulses are just spells with a different name. It would be fun to pick up some offensive spells with Kineticist.
Spells two ranks below the standard spellcasting rank for your level - already aren't combat offensive spells. No matter how accurate you are with them.
A level 5 Water Kineticist that can throw out 2d8 cold damage with one action, or 2d8+4 cold damage with two actions isn't likely to look favorably on a single spell slot of rank 1 Snowball that does 2d4 cold damage for two actions. They would be more inclined to cast Mud Pit instead no matter what their accuracy with these spells are.
|
|
I just wish Kineticist got some casting DC by default for casting archetypes with this change...
Impulses are just spells with a different name. It would be fun to pick up some offensive spells with Kineticist.
Spells two ranks below the standard spellcasting rank for your level - already aren't combat offensive spells. No matter how accurate you are with them.
A level 5 Water Kineticist that can throw out 2d8 cold damage with one action, or 2d8+4 cold damage with two actions isn't likely to look favorably on a single spell slot of rank 1 Snowball that does 2d4 cold damage for two actions. They would be more inclined to cast Mud Pit instead no matter what their accuracy with these spells are.
Oh, I meant offensive as in debuffs, stuff like level 3 fears and focus spells that have Debuffs. Right now I am drawing a blank of any focus spells with a debuffs I would ever want to cast on a Kineticist.
Spells two ranks below the standard spellcasting rank for your level - already aren't combat offensive spells. No matter how accurate you are with them.
Cantrips and focus spells are... but not generally at a level that can compete with what the Kineticist already has.
Pretty sure it has to do with Attributes more than Proficiency. And multiclassing.This would make sense. There are a few classes like the Champion, Magus, Monk, and Ranger (and now the Exemplar) whose spellcasting stat can differ from their class DC, though in pretty much all of these cases I don't think it would be harmful if they just used their current class DC anyway, outside of slight weirdness tied to casting spells with a physical attribute.
In general, martials' key abilities are physical (STR, DEX, CON), while casters' key abilities are mental (INT, WIS, CHA). The Magus is sort of unique in that it has both a physical key ability score and a mental one. Although I don't think the rules call the mental score a "key" one, it really is. I note that at present the Magus doesn't have a class DC. This may be because all the abilities for which one would need a DC involve the spellcasting aspect of the class.
Other than the Magus, the other four classes are martials who only get Focus spells - no spell slots.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would it be an equivalent statement to suggest that weapon proficiency should be merged with Class DC?
Combining the 2 would be a big boon for the Magus as it has a class feat that gives crit specialization but no class dc for it to go off of
Which feat is that? I can't seem to find it.
Combining the 2 would be a big boon for the Magus as it has a class feat that gives crit specialization but no class dc for it to go off ofWhich feat is that? I can't seem to find it.
Student of the Staff sort-of does that. But only for the Club weapon group and specifically with staff weapons.
But the Club weapon critical specialization doesn't use Class DC.
Would it be an equivalent statement to suggest that weapon proficiency should be merged with Class DC?
Not at all, at least not in 2e. Martial attack proficiency scales at completely different breakpoints from class DC (levels 5 and 13 as opposed to 11 and 19), and monster AC scales at the same breakpoints as for martial attacks, with saves scaling at the level of caster spell DCs. Keying weapon proficiency to class DC, and consequently delaying their proficiency increases by six levels, would have disastrous consequences on the accuracy of martial classes, whereas having martial class DC scale at the same levels as current martial weapon proficiency breakpoints would make martials even stronger against monster saving throws than casters at several levels.
I'm still failing to see the distinction between the two proposals.
Class DC and Spellcasting DC also increase at different levels. For example, Rogue gets Expert Class DC at level 11. Witch gets Expert Spellcasting DC at level 7.
Weapon proficiency, Spell proficiency, and Class ability proficiency are three different proficiencies. No two of them should be combined. Nor should one be used for an effect where a different one is expected.
I'm still failing to see the distinction between the two proposals.
Class DC and Spellcasting DC also increase at different levels. For example, Rogue gets Expert Class DC at level 11. Witch gets Expert Spellcasting DC at level 7.
Weapon proficiency, Spell proficiency, and Class ability proficiency are three different proficiencies. No two of them should be combined. Nor should one be used for an effect where a different one is expected.
Class DC and spellcasting DC target the same defenses, and in fact scale at similar breakpoints. Merging them would not break the game's math. Weapon attacks do not, and making martial attack proficiency scale on the same levels as class or spell DCs would in fact break the game's math. There is no sense in conflating attacks with DCs here, and while there are certainly valid reasons to separate spell DC from class DC to prevent martials from multiclassing too well into spellcasting archetypes, as another user pointed out, class DCs do very little, and what little they do is often given to spell DCs anyway.
Didn't we do this analysis already?
There's a few problems wiht this analysis. Primarily, you're comparing focus spells (which cost you a feat for something that you can use, in effect, once per fight) with impulses (which cost you a feat for something that you can do any time you want as logn as you're willing to pony up the actions for it).
You're also missing the effects of the Gate Attenuator. You're comparing the damage on spells that do nothing but damage to the damage on impulses that in many cases have other features as well (liek creating difficult terrain, pushing or whatever). Some kineticists will also be investing in impulse junctions and the like. (Admittedly, some will not.)
I'm not going to say they're worthless. They're not. I will say that they're not worth buying. If you're buying a focus spell as a kineticist, it should be doing something that you cant' get easily through impulses.
It's damaging cantrips that basically can't compete at all for kineticists (while still being potentially quite useful for certain martials, if they can get their stat+proficiency up high enough).
Still, it's a legit nit. I conflated the two, and that resulting in the actual statement that I made being incorrect. I acknowledge, and apologize for my imprecision.
as another user pointed out, class DCs do very little, and what little they do is often given to spell DCs anyway.
Class DC is pretty important for certain non-spellcasting archetypes.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am confused why everyone is talking about damage. IF Kineticist had spell DC you could pick up utility debuffs spells like level 3 fear and similar spells. Oddly I am drawing a blank on good debuffs focus spells, there must be some...
On a side note there are plenty of good focus spells to pick up on Kineticist and every character! Just not offensive ones.
Class DC is pretty important for certain non-spellcasting archetypes.
Which ones? Genuine question here, I don't doubt that there are some archetypes that make use of class DC, I just haven't seen many instances of class DC being used much at all outside of crit spec, the Kineticist, and a handful of effects on the Rogue or Alchemist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Inventor and Thaumaturge also make quite a bit of use of class DC. chronoskimmer and Exorcist does as well but that is class or spell dc.
The Inventor and Thaumaturge also make quite a bit of use of class DC. chronoskimmer and Exorcist does as well but that is class or spell dc.
I would say both classes are relatively well-suited to opt into spells, though. The Thaumaturge already does this with Scroll Thaumaturgy and Scroll Esoterica, whereas the Inventor is one of the martial classes best-specialized already in AoE and utility.
Most martial classes have some feats that reference Class DC. Rogue: Twin Distraction, Fighter: Dazing Blow, Reflecting Riposte, Swashbuckler: Lethal Finisher, Vivacious Afterimage, Stunning Finisher.
Also, several of the weapon Critical Specialization effects use Class DC. Brawling, Firearm, and Sling.
Most martial classes have some feats that reference Class DC. Rogue: Twin Distraction, Fighter: Dazing Blow, Reflecting Riposte, Swashbuckler: Lethal Finisher, Vivacious Afterimage, Stunning Finisher.
Also, several of the weapon Critical Specialization effects use Class DC. Brawling, Firearm, and Sling.
I feel that confirms the above -- class DC is rarely used and easily able to avoid entirely, and when it does apply it's mainly to apply conditions or AoE, effects that fall more towards caster territory. As for crit spec, not only does it once again affect only a small subset, casters that do rely on crit spec often have it tied to their spell save DC anyway, as with the Cleric.
I feel that confirms the above -- class DC is rarely used and easily able to avoid entirely, and when it does apply it's mainly to apply conditions or AoE, effects that fall more towards caster territory. As for crit spec, not only does it once again affect only a small subset, casters that do rely on crit spec often have it tied to their spell save DC anyway, as with the Cleric.Most martial classes have some feats that reference Class DC. Rogue: Twin Distraction, Fighter: Dazing Blow, Reflecting Riposte, Swashbuckler: Lethal Finisher, Vivacious Afterimage, Stunning Finisher.
Also, several of the weapon Critical Specialization effects use Class DC. Brawling, Firearm, and Sling.
'Rarely used' is not equal to 'never used'. Merging Class DC with something else means that Class DC won't be available. There are things that use Class DC. If Class DC goes away and we use either Attack DC or Spell DC instead, then those things that used to use Class DC are either going to be buffed or nerfed and it is going to be very imbalanced and unpredictable of which it is since it will be different for different classes and archetypes.
But it isn't me that you need to convince of your ideas anyway. I don't write the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Class DC is pretty important for certain non-spellcasting archetypes.Which ones? Genuine question here, I don't doubt that there are some archetypes that make use of class DC, I just haven't seen many instances of class DC being used much at all outside of crit spec, the Kineticist, and a handful of effects on the Rogue or Alchemist.
Snarecrafter gets access to Powerful Snares at level 10, and might well have reason to care...
...but this is the point where I actually have to acknowledge that my assessment was incorrect. I went digging in the archetypes to find examples, and every single feat that I found that used Class DC, and that wasn't directly poached from a class feat from a martial class was "class DC or magic DC, whichever is higher".
So... it's pretty clear that Class DC from an archetype perspective is intended to be sort of like magic DC, but more limited, in that you specifically can't use it to cast spells. Those archetype feats that are specific to it are that way almost by chance.
Snarecrafter gets access to Powerful Snares at level 10, and might well have reason to care...
...but this is the point where I actually have to acknowledge that my assessment was incorrect. I went digging in the archetypes to find examples, and every single feat that I found that used Class DC, and that wasn't directly poached from a class feat from a martial class was "class DC or magic DC, whichever is higher".
So... it's pretty clear that Class DC from an archetype perspective is intended to be sort of like magic DC, but more limited, in that you specifically can't use it to cast spells. Those archetype feats that are specific to it are that way almost by chance.
I had a similar impression: looking at archetypes, the ones that mention class DC and not spell DC only do so because the archetype is purely martial in flavor, like the Snarecrafter. Anytime there's possible interaction with a caster, class and spell DC are used interchangeably, with only few exceptions that feel mainly like an oversight (e.g. the Magus's Arcane Fists feat). Looking at the Exemplar class in playtesting, their spell DC scales at the exact same rate as their class DC, so aside from the fact that they use a different modifier (which in my opinion makes the class a touch too MAD), they work near-identically.
'Rarely used' is not equal to 'never used'
The point isn't that class DC is never used, it's that class DC is basically just a stand-in for spell DC whenever a martial class needs a DC for something, and such occasions are not only vanishingly rare, but often do propose spell DC as an alternative when spellcasting gets involved.
Merging Class DC with something else means that Class DC won't be available. There are things that use Class DC. If Class DC goes away and we use either Attack DC or Spell DC instead, then those things that used to use Class DC are either going to be buffed or nerfed and it is going to be very imbalanced and unpredictable of which it is since it will be different for different classes and archetypes.
But it isn't me that you need to convince of your ideas anyway. I don't write the rules.
You don't seem to have quite understood my point: I am not suggesting to remove class DC, I was asking out loud why every class didn't just have a scaling class DC, with spellcasters having their class DC scale to legendary and defining both their spell DC and spell attack rolls. What would remain would be class DC, not spell DC. As it stands, I think Captain Morgan gave the best answer, which is that Paizo likely wants to deliberately make it more difficult for martial classes to multiclass into casters, even at a time when they are making it easier for caster to multiclass into other spellcasting traditions.
You don't seem to have quite understood my point: I am not suggesting to remove class DC, I was asking out loud why every class didn't just have a scaling class DC, with spellcasters having their class DC scale to legendary and defining both their spell DC and spell attack rolls. What would remain would be class DC, not spell DC.
That would be removing Class DC - at least for spellcasters. So that is what you are suggesting. That is the end result, no matter the semantics of how you want to phrase it.
It has already been confirmed that in the Remaster spellcasters are getting a Class DC proficiency. If it increases and at what rate is something that is going to be decided on a class by class basis - which is appropriate. That is what Class DC is for - determining how good the class is at their 'class things'.
Spellcasting is different than 'class things' and should rightly have a different proficiency track. Just like weapons are different from 'class things' and all the martials have a different track for weapon proficiency and 'class things'.
I had a similar impression: looking at archetypes, the ones that mention class DC and not spell DC only do so because the archetype is purely martial in flavor, like the Snarecrafter.
Oh, it goes past even that. I found at least one archetype or two that had two different feats that used class DC one that they'd poached from a martial class, one that was original to the archetype. The poached feat (being word-for-word the same as its originating class feat) only allowed for Class DC, while the original feat allowed both. The Snarecrafter feat uses Class DC because it was a Ranger feat originally, and not for any other reason.
There is also the design problem. If we remove Class DC because 'well, it isn't used in very many things', then we are forever closing and locking the door on that design space. Then there can never be things that use Class DC in the future either.
You don't seem to have quite understood my point: I am not suggesting to remove class DC, I was asking out loud why every class didn't just have a scaling class DC, with spellcasters having their class DC scale to legendary and defining both their spell DC and spell attack rolls. What would remain would be class DC, not spell DC.That would be removing Class DC - at least for spellcasters. So that is what you are suggesting. That is the end result, no matter the semantics of how you want to phrase it.
It has already been confirmed that in the Remaster spellcasters are getting a Class DC proficiency. If it increases and at what rate is something that is going to be decided on a class by class basis - which is appropriate. That is what Class DC is for - determining how good the class is at their 'class things'.
Spellcasting is different than 'class things' and should rightly have a different proficiency track. Just like weapons are different from 'class things' and all the martials have a different track for weapon proficiency and 'class things'.
That would be removing Class DC - at least for spellcasters. So that is what you are suggesting. That is the end result, no matter the semantics of how you want to phrase it.
Please explain how the hypothetical notion of spellcasters having a class DC going up to legendary and keying to their spells, in the same way as a Kineticist's class DC keys to their impulses, in any way constitutes removing class DC.
It has already been confirmed that in the Remaster spellcasters are getting a Class DC proficiency. If it increases and at what rate is something that is going to be decided on a class by class basis - which is appropriate. That is what Class DC is for - determining how good the class is at their 'class things'.
I would invite you to read the opening post in this discussion:
Right now, here's what I'm seeing:
With the remaster, spellcasters are getting proficiency in effectively all spell attack rolls and spell DCs, rather than tradition-based spell proficiency. They are also all getting trained in class DC.
Spellcasters getting both class DC and spell DC in the remaster is what spurred the question behind this topic. Welcome to the point.
Spellcasting is different than 'class things' and should rightly have a different proficiency track.
As evidenced by Sanityfaerie's and my exchange, it really isn't. Class DC and spell DC are frequently used interchangeably (once more, look at the Cleric's crit spec getting keyed to spell DC), and scale at similar or equal level breakpoints, as shown most recently with the Exemplar and their spell and class DC. Class DC is merely how martial classes do spell-ish stuff without needing a spell DC, hence why they use it so rarely.
Screw it. I've been trying for the last twenty minutes to post a reasonable reply to this discussion. The thrice-damned software won't let me. So I'll just say that every class has a class DC, though spellcasters are currently untrained in it and don't need it because none of their abilities refer to it, and spellcasters also have a spellcasting DC in which they are trained and which they need because the ability modifier pertinent to their spellcasting may not be the same as their class key ability modifier. One could, I suppose, tie spellcasting DC and Class DC together for spellcasting classes but that wouldn't necessarily work for spellcasting archetypes. Also, keeping them separate allows for different proficiency progression. For example, give clerics a class DC, and the progression for it might be different for cloistered clerics and warpriests.
Screw it. I've been trying for the last twenty minutes to post a reasonable reply to this discussion. The thrice-damned software won't let me. So I'll just say that every class has a class DC, though spellcasters are currently untrained in it and don't need it because none of their abilities refer to it, and spellcasters also have a spellcasting DC in which they are trained and which they need because the ability modifier pertinent to their spellcasting may not be the same as their class key ability modifier. One could, I suppose, tie spellcasting DC and Class DC together for spellcasting classes but that wouldn't necessarily work for spellcasting archetypes. Also, keeping them separate allows for different proficiency progression. For example, give clerics a class DC, and the progression for it might be different for cloistered clerics and warpriests.
I feel you; I'm very much looking forward to the site update that hopefully does away with BB code and all of the current forums' other foibles.
I think you make a valid point that there's a general reluctance to allow characters to cast spells with a physical stat, with the Kineticist beinng the one notable exception. I also agree that there's a chance for casters to play with varying spell and class DCs, though I get the feeling the Cleric's crit spec is still going to get hooked up to their spell DC.
I think you make a valid point that there's a general reluctance to allow characters to cast spells with a physical stat, with the Kineticist beinng the one notable exception.
Um. Impulses are not spells. :-)
I think you make a valid point that there's a general reluctance to allow characters to cast spells with a physical stat, with the Kineticist beinng the one notable exception.Um. Impulses are not spells. :-)
Um. Kinetic Activation lets you cast spells with your Con-based class DC. :-)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um. Kinetic Activation lets you cast spells with your Con-based class DC. :-)I think you make a valid point that there's a general reluctance to allow characters to cast spells with a physical stat, with the Kineticist beinng the one notable exception.Um. Impulses are not spells. :-)
No, it lets you activate magic items that would normally be activated via the Cast a Spell action. That is not the same as casting a spell directly.
That would be removing Class DC - at least for spellcasters. So that is what you are suggesting. That is the end result, no matter the semantics of how you want to phrase it.Please explain how the hypothetical notion of spellcasters having a class DC going up to legendary and keying to their spells, in the same way as a Kineticist's class DC keys to their impulses, in any way constitutes removing class DC.
Please explain how changing spellcasters to have a Class DC that is in all ways equal to their Spellcasting DC means that Class DC still exists as a meaningfully distinct value that needs to be tracked or referenced.
No, it lets you activate magic items that would normally be activated via the Cast a Spell action. That is not the same as casting a spell directly.
The feat explicitly says you can use scrolls and staves, the latter of which have you cast spells. You still end up using your Constitution for that fireball’s spell DC. It doesn’t get much more clear-cut than that.
Please explain how changing spellcasters to have a Class DC that is in all ways equal to their Spellcasting DC means that Class DC still exists as a meaningfully distinct value that needs to be tracked or referenced.
I don’t know, the fact that you’d have a value named “class DC” sounds like a pretty dead giveaway to me. You could certainly argue that spell DC would no longer exist, in which case congratulations on reading the title of this discussion, but arguing that I want to get rid of class DC when it’s the value that would remain I feel is a bit silly.
Class dc and spell dc being seperate allows for some of the balance expectations of the game. Some examples
-if they were one of the sames casters could get the dcs for their crit spec for a weapon they might have up to legendary.
-kinetecist whose paradigm is built on being thematic speciailist blasters(with some very specific utility) can now use their legendary dc to cast strong debuffs *and* have the all day blasting.
Both of these feel like they go against current design goals and balance points.
-if they were one of the sames casters could get the dcs for their crit spec for a weapon they might have up to legendary.
You mean like the Cleric?
-kinetecist whose paradigm is built on being thematic speciailist blasters(with some very specific utility) can now use their legendary dc to cast strong debuffs *and* have the all day blasting.
Which they can do with a 2nd-level feat. Generally, tradition-agnostic spell proficiency means any caster can access any other caster’s strengths at maximum effectiveness on rolls.
Both of these feel like they go against current design goals and balance points.
Both are in the game already.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-if they were one of the sames casters could get the dcs for their crit spec for a weapon they might have up to legendary.You mean like the Cleric?
What are you even talking about? Currently Cleric doesn't have any proficiency in Class DC. Warpriest specifically can use their Spellcasting DC for weapon critical specializations. Warpriest couldn't use their Spellcasting DC for other effects that ask for Class DC.
Magus doesn't. They get neither Class DC proficiency or an ability to use their Spellcasting DC instead for anything. That is a bit of a problem that is going to be addressed in the Remaster.
Champion gets both Spellcasting DC and Class DC and it increases at the same time. But it also doesn't increase to Legendary like spellcaster's Casting DC does. It instead increases to Master like a martial character.
And from what I am seeing in the Animist playtest it is not going to increase Class DC and Casting DC at the same rate. So after the Remaster drops it probably won't increase at the same rate for all other classes. It may very well change for Champion even.
-kinetecist whose paradigm is built on being thematic speciailist blasters(with some very specific utility) can now use their legendary dc to cast strong debuffs *and* have the all day blasting.Which they can do with a 2nd-level feat. Generally, tradition-agnostic spell proficiency means any caster can access any other caster’s strengths at maximum effectiveness on rolls.
That also requires using a consumable or limited per day magic item. That is quite a bit different than having a Cleric suddenly able to have critical specialization effects of their weapons at maximum DC permanently, or having Swashbuckler use their Class DC for their archetype spellcasting proficiency.
Thaumaturge has a similar feat: Scroll Thaumaturgy. That doesn't mean that this is going to (or should) become a universal ability of all classes. Quite the contrary. Having these types of feats is a special ability of these particular classes.
-----
The two concepts of Class proficiency and Spellcasting proficiency are separate concepts. They are not going to be merged.
And I am not sure why you keep arguing with us about it as though we are somehow going to change that all by ourselves. You asked if there was some reason to not merge them that you were missing. There is. We explained it.
If you want to houserule it so that they are merged, you certainly can make the attempt to convince your friends to play it that way. Nothing wrong with that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, I can get the frustration. Class DC is a really poorly implemented mechanic that's underused in a lot of places (and the one class that uses it extensively essentially treats it like a spell DC).
It's kind of one of those things that creates an extra layer of book keeping and leads to some awkward edge cases (like all the problems the magus has) without necessarily feeling like it solves something unique.
It's kind of telling that a lot of the defenses of the status quo really have to dive into the fringes of the system to find real problems (i.e. fretting over a wizard jumping through a bunch of hoops to get crit spec).
Ultimately it's a mechanic that's not going anywhere, isn't really that big of a deal either way, but also feels a little bit like a failed concept because it doesn't accomplish much.
Ultimately it's a mechanic that's not going anywhere, isn't really that big of a deal either way, but also feels a little bit like a failed concept because it doesn't accomplish much.
I'm suspecting that it is going to be used more in the future.
Remaster is giving everyone at least Trained in Class DC.
And Soldier's first incarnation has them using Class DC pretty extensively. And they don't feel like a caster, even if their AoE is balanced using spell AoE and Kineticist AoE for comparison.
-if they were one of the sames casters could get the dcs for their crit spec for a weapon they might have up to legendary.You mean like the Cleric?
-kinetecist whose paradigm is built on being thematic speciailist blasters(with some very specific utility) can now use their legendary dc to cast strong debuffs *and* have the all day blasting.Which they can do with a 2nd-level feat. Generally, tradition-agnostic spell proficiency means any caster can access any other caster’s strengths at maximum effectiveness on rolls.
Both of these feel like they go against current design goals and balance points.Both are in the game already.
Kinetecist can't use that feat to cast Fear or slow, or most actual debuffs. that feats mostly lets them do more blasting spells. So you completely missed the point of my comment.
The war-priest is also an outlier in a game that mostly expected casters to not have/not to use a class DC.
I will also say I am not against merging the ideas for a hypothetical pf3e, but for 2e they are unique concepts that let them do different things.
I can't imagine the debates that would have happened if a Kinetecist could do all day blasting and then could also use archetype slots to throw out a Synthesia at level proficiency when the situation calls for it.