Justification about Cantripis


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 216 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Sandal Fury wrote:
When I was making my fighter, I almost took the Dragon Spit feat. I just thought it would be pretty cool and fun to be a fire-breathing samurai. Thank goodness I picked something else, or I'd be stuck with a useless feat, barring retraining. The more I play this game, the more it feels like "fun" doesn't seem to factor into the equation.

They did just boost innate cantrips, FTR.

Your proficiency increases to expert at level 12 now, unless you'd get there faster via a spell casting class. p299 of the player core


One neat thing is that the tengu feather fan is a lot more viable without the need for charisma to damage. You can go ahead and strength or dex cast electric arc without worry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sandal Fury wrote:


I've experienced this firsthand; through some DM homebrew, my fighter unexpectedly learned a cool focus spell. However, unbeknownst to either of us at the time, it turns out it wasn't cool. It was bad. Since I had no way to improve my spellcasting proficiency, this spell ended up having an attack bonus 10 or 11 points behind just swinging a sword (which is to say, it was useless). I haven't used it since.

If the GM used Homebrew to give you a focus spell, they can use homebrew to make it better. That is not on the system, but the GM. As for official ways to get spells, architypes give you master, which is -6 for a fighter/gunslinger (not great, but depending on circumstances could be a good backup option) to -4 (a weak save or powerful effect can reasonably make up for that) with many levels before lvl 20 having a smaller gap. The problem would be innate offensive spells on classes without spell progression, which for the most part are just cantrips. In these situations, I will not say that their great, but as a hands free backup weapon its not bad. There are better ancestry feats, but there are also much, much worse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Riddlyn wrote:
Not every option is supposed to be optimal for every build. There are distinct tradeoffs and that is perfectly viable. Now if your fighter had taken a magical dedication then he would have a proficiency in magic and it would have gotten better

Why should a player have to jump through that many hoops to make a Fire Breathing Samurai that has the fire breath as usuable feature?


8 people marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:
Riddlyn wrote:
Not every option is supposed to be optimal for every build. There are distinct tradeoffs and that is perfectly viable. Now if your fighter had taken a magical dedication then he would have a proficiency in magic and it would have gotten better
Why should a player have to jump through that many hoops to make a Fire Breathing Samurai that has the fire breath as usuable feature?

Because every option isn't optimal for every build. Not every option should be optimal for every build. If it's that important for you to have then jump. If it's just something cool to do occasionally then it does.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

“Fire breathing samurai” doesn’t really scream fighter with an innate cantrip to me, at least not past low levels where a cantrip would be 1 accuracy point off a full casters. It sounds like either a barbarian, or a martial who has picked up dragon related focus spells. In PF2, you have to keep building up your character’s shtick, first level ancestry feats really shouldn’t be the character defining element for a character’s whole career.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
first level ancestry feats really shouldn’t be the character defining element for a character’s whole career.

If its a combat related shtick then I pretty much agree with you.

But from a roleplaying perspective I've built characters around things like Gnome Burrow Elocutionist (admittedly, until remaster that took 2 feats), Sprite Corgi familiar, Halfling Distracting Shadows (again, admittedly I'd take the level 13 feat if the character gets to that level).

Some level 1 ancestry feats are VERY cool from a roleplaying perspective.


Unicore wrote:
“Fire breathing samurai” doesn’t really scream fighter with an innate cantrip to me, at least not past low levels where a cantrip would be 1 accuracy point off a full casters. It sounds like either a barbarian, or a martial who has picked up dragon related focus spells. In PF2, you have to keep building up your character’s shtick, first level ancestry feats really shouldn’t be the character defining element for a character’s whole career.

I think Samurai in general does fit with Fighter given the whole armored, skilled with multiple weapons, and how they are the standard by which other warriors in their region are compared. Them breathing fire as a key gimmick that's meant to be useful from when it comes online to the end of the campaign shouldn't be overly costly as it's a narrow ability with little utility that the character couldn't accomplish in other, less stylish, ways. I think the power of a thing should be reflected in how easy/hard it is to add to a character.


A fighter with a cantrip doesn't seem like much of a fire breather. Generally if you're trying to evoke a concept you're going to pick the best set of mechanics to mimic that concept, not to try to cram that concept into an arbitrary mechanical box.

Like there's a reason that the Dragon Disciple archetype requires barbarian or sorcerer- so you'll have a class DC that applies to your dragon's breath focus spell. The edge case here is if you're a kobold who doesn't pick a class that helps.


Class DC does not apply to the dragon disciple's dragon's breath focus spell, it is still the sorcerer focus spell so it's a charisma arcane spell


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

A fighter with a cantrip doesn't seem like much of a fire breather. Generally if you're trying to evoke a concept you're going to pick the best set of mechanics to mimic that concept, not to try to cram that concept into an arbitrary mechanical box.

Like there's a reason that the Dragon Disciple archetype requires barbarian or sorcerer- so you'll have a class DC that applies to your dragon's breath focus spell. The edge case here is if you're a kobold who doesn't pick a class that helps.

You're referencing an access line for Dragon Disciple, not a requirement/prerequisite. Dragons Breath works fine with GM permission to take an uncommon fear, assumibg you can rule around the lack of DC rules. Other options:

-Monk with ki blast and elemental strike
-Dragon barbarian, maybe reflavoring rage as a zen state of focus
-Laughing Shadow Magus. Using a heightened version of the fire breath spell won't be incredible for range and AoE but it still does fireball level base damage. Cast + regular strike is a beefy turn, and dimensional assault helps you with the awkward positioning.


A pyrokineticist who uses the feat to let you turn your blasts into weapons. Come at the fire breathing thing from the otherside.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:
Riddlyn wrote:
Not every option is supposed to be optimal for every build. There are distinct tradeoffs and that is perfectly viable. Now if your fighter had taken a magical dedication then he would have a proficiency in magic and it would have gotten better
Why should a player have to jump through that many hoops to make a Fire Breathing Samurai that has the fire breath as usuable feature?

Because that is part of the balance tradeoff.

A martial character that gets a cantrip is going to have to either pay a few specific feats and other build options to get reasonable proficiency at using the cantrip, or just be worse at using it than a character that does pay those costs.

Similarly, a spellcaster character that picks up a samurai sword needs to either pay a few specific feats and other build options to get reasonable proficiency at using the sword, or just be worse at using it than a character that does pay those costs.

If you want to be a sword wielding, cantrip slinging character - with just the built-in class features - you should play Magus.


Finoan wrote:
[snip]

I think the way to expound on this is something like:

"The power of player options ought be aligned with the investment placed within and adjacent them."

In the case of Dragon Spit and other innate cantrips, CHA is only the fallback default stat. If your character has any investment in spellcasting, it uses that proficiency instead.

In other words, even that Ancestry Feat has that investment idea baked into the design. If you are a spellcaster by any means, it gets mechanically better.

--------------------------------------

This is mandatory for a solid system. Everything is comparative. If you do not reward/incentivize specialization, then you are punishing specialization while also encouraging generalization.

Asking for a single Ancestry Feat to become a superior combat option to the class' entire feature set, which would be why a Samurai throws a Dragon Spit, is asking for the game to break its own design.

Cantrips can always be useful and thematic out of combat. Even if a seasoned Samurai has the blood of dragons that enables a cantrip, it doesn't even break RP for that martial to know that it may not be wise to Spit in a fight to the death.

---------------------------------------

One of the best places for homebrew is for off-book player investment to be rewarded mechanically. Whether that means giving a martial scaling spellcasting prof for side-questing to enhance their dragon blood, or something else.

I collaborated w/ my GM on my Alchemist starting with Skull Creeper to be the hook for a Living Vessel at L2, and there's been a few bonus homebrew Feats added due to RP stuff. Namely, a Plague Additive for bombs which makes the idea of spending an extra action on Quick Alchemy a lot more combat viable. Both helping the lacking mechanics of the game a bit, while being super cool and thematic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The only way CHA stops being the stat for innate spells is if you take the psychic feat that turns it into int, having spellcaster investment does not change that stat it just gives you a proficiency in the tradition (or now in the remaster just gives you proficiency in spells in general but the stat still stays the same)


Karneios wrote:
The only way CHA stops being the stat for innate spells is if you take the psychic feat that turns it into int, having spellcaster investment does not change that stat it just gives you a proficiency in the tradition (or now in the remaster just gives you proficiency in spells in general but the stat still stays the same)

Dang it, thank you for the correction.

I really dislike being unable to at least delete old posts outright.

Allowing that CHA --> X with a General or Skill Feat is hopefully something that is being considered, very constricting to lock innate spells to a single stat like that.


Trip.H wrote:
Allowing that CHA --> X with a General or Skill Feat is hopefully something that is being considered, very constricting to lock innate spells to a single stat like that.

Yeah, almost as limiting as that weapons are primarily STR to attack. At least there if you limit yourself to low die size you can get one with Finesse to use DEX. So that is an alternative.


Karneios wrote:
The only way CHA stops being the stat for innate spells is if you take the psychic feat that turns it into int, having spellcaster investment does not change that stat it just gives you a proficiency in the tradition (or now in the remaster just gives you proficiency in spells in general but the stat still stays the same)

Tengu feather fan can also change the DC to potentially any other stat


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Farien wrote:
Trip.H wrote:
Allowing that CHA --> X with a General or Skill Feat is hopefully something that is being considered, very constricting to lock innate spells to a single stat like that.
Yeah, almost as limiting as that weapons are primarily STR to attack. At least there if you limit yourself to low die size you can get one with Finesse to use DEX. So that is an alternative.

I think the alternative for using cha as a casting stat is to get spells through an archetype instead of an ancestry.

I wouldn't hate it if ancestries had a bit more flexibility, at least tied to their booster mental stat. So elves could use intelligence, dwarves wisdom, etc.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Riddlyn wrote:
3-Body Problem wrote:
Riddlyn wrote:
Not every option is supposed to be optimal for every build. There are distinct tradeoffs and that is perfectly viable. Now if your fighter had taken a magical dedication then he would have a proficiency in magic and it would have gotten better
Why should a player have to jump through that many hoops to make a Fire Breathing Samurai that has the fire breath as usuable feature?
Because every option isn't optimal for every build. Not every option should be optimal for every build. If it's that important for you to have then jump. If it's just something cool to do occasionally then it does.

That feels dangerously close to "You deserve to be bad for wanting to do something different."

Aren't we supposed to be against the whole 'badwrongfun' thing?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Riddlyn wrote:
3-Body Problem wrote:
Riddlyn wrote:
Not every option is supposed to be optimal for every build. There are distinct tradeoffs and that is perfectly viable. Now if your fighter had taken a magical dedication then he would have a proficiency in magic and it would have gotten better
Why should a player have to jump through that many hoops to make a Fire Breathing Samurai that has the fire breath as usuable feature?
Because every option isn't optimal for every build. Not every option should be optimal for every build. If it's that important for you to have then jump. If it's just something cool to do occasionally then it does.

That feels dangerously close to "You deserve to be bad for wanting to do something different."

Aren't we supposed to be against the whole 'badwrongfun' thing?

Not what I said. In this game if you want to be good at something outside of your class chassis you have to invest in it. Why should this be different from the rest of the game?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I would have liked innate casting to use any casting stat your best with.
Would have opened up more creative options at character creation.
Three choices for using innate spells instead of 1


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Riddlyn wrote:
Because every option isn't optimal for every build. Not every option should be optimal for every build. If it's that important for you to have then jump. If it's just something cool to do occasionally then it does.

That feels dangerously close to "You deserve to be bad for wanting to do something different."

Aren't we supposed to be against the whole 'badwrongfun' thing?

Several posters have offered a couple different mechanical methods to build the fire-breathing samurai. It can be done. Strap laminated armor and a katana on a Dragon Barbarian or Magus, and you can build this. The rpg can deliver it. What the rpg can't deliver is the mechanics if a player insists that it must be the fighter class, the firebreathing must be from a cantrip, and the fighter-using-cantrip must achieve a fairly high level of proficiency and damage at the fire breathing.

In a class-based rpg system, not every class can arrive at the same final capabilities. So some mental flexibility may be needed; one may need to give up a wanted class label to arrive at the wanted class mechanics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluemagetim wrote:

I would have liked innate casting to use any casting stat your best with.

Would have opened up more creative options at character creation.
Three choices for using innate spells instead of 1

I wish it was this way too


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

But lets say your build is a smart gnome fighter and your going to pick up wizard dedication later. At level 1 you might have wanted to have a cantrip so you can already feel like the character you want to play. But it wont feel good because you will need int when you start getting spells from wizard basic spellcasting and probably cant afford to be good at cha just for a cantrip you got at level 1.
Its a character design limitation that seems to have more plausible ways to have done it.
For me its too basic a thing to be so resource intensive to make work.
And I am not saying Paizo must change it because i dont like this. But I am saying I dont like this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Riddlyn wrote:
Bluemagetim wrote:

I would have liked innate casting to use any casting stat your best with.

Would have opened up more creative options at character creation.
Three choices for using innate spells instead of 1
I wish it was this way too

Yup. I know it might add a tiny bit of complexity but I like it


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calliope5431 wrote:
Riddlyn wrote:
Bluemagetim wrote:

I would have liked innate casting to use any casting stat your best with.

Would have opened up more creative options at character creation.
Three choices for using innate spells instead of 1
I wish it was this way too
Yup. I know it might add a tiny bit of complexity but I like it

Maybe, or let casters use their casting stat. And on that example he gave when he took the wizard dedication it would have spellcasting and keep it effective as the rest of their cantrips


Easl wrote:
Several posters have offered a couple different mechanical methods to build the fire-breathing samurai. It can be done. Strap laminated armor and a katana on a Dragon Barbarian or Magus, and you can build this. The rpg can deliver it. What the rpg can't deliver is the mechanics if a player insists that it must be the fighter class, the firebreathing must be from a cantrip, and the fighter-using-cantrip must achieve a fairly high level of proficiency and damage at the fire breathing.

The question is the cost versus efficiency. There's no reason why a single scaling first rank spell, in this case Burning Hands, should cost more than a feat. What would be broken about a Fighter, or anybody for that matter, spending a feat to get a single rank 1 spell that heightens like a focus spell and can be cast with a focus point? It'll be weaker than a proper focus spell and might not even be worth two actions to cast in most combats.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:
Easl wrote:
Several posters have offered a couple different mechanical methods to build the fire-breathing samurai. It can be done. Strap laminated armor and a katana on a Dragon Barbarian or Magus, and you can build this. The rpg can deliver it. What the rpg can't deliver is the mechanics if a player insists that it must be the fighter class, the firebreathing must be from a cantrip, and the fighter-using-cantrip must achieve a fairly high level of proficiency and damage at the fire breathing.
The question is the cost versus efficiency. There's no reason why a single scaling first rank spell, in this case Burning Hands, should cost more than a feat. What would be broken about a Fighter, or anybody for that matter, spending a feat to get a single rank 1 spell that heightens like a focus spell and can be cast with a focus point? It'll be weaker than a proper focus spell and might not even be worth two actions to cast in most combats.

IIRC slot spells are usually stronger than focus spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:
The question is the cost versus efficiency. There's no reason why a single scaling first rank spell, in this case Burning Hands, should cost more than a feat.

It already DOES cost just one feat. A barbarian feat. Dragons Rage Breath. What would be broken about you building your samurai using a Barbarian chassis?

And you can build it with a *zero* feat option: be a magus and take Breathe Fire (Arcane, level 1, remaster), heightened to whatever slots you currently have. What would be broken about you building your samurai using a Magus chassis?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another option you could use to build your guy: build a fighter with the Kobold ancestry, then take Kobold Breath.

If you don't want to play a scaly minidragon-looking PC, option "3a" is to do the above but ask your GM if you can reskin your PC to look human. Use the kobold ancestry package but call it 'dragon blooded' or something. Zero change needed to the PF2E mechanics, you just look as human as your concept demands.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluemagetim wrote:

I would have liked innate casting to use any casting stat your best with.

Would have opened up more creative options at character creation.
Three choices for using innate spells instead of 1

I don't like it - so I'll present the opposing side of this.

Why should a martial character dipping into ancestry-granted spells be given a perk that spellcasting characters dipping into ancestry-granted weapons aren't?

Specifically: Why should a martial character getting an innate cantrip be allowed to choose their best mental stat for their accuracy? A spellcasting character picking up weapon proficiency from an ancestry or general feat still has to use Strength for their accuracy. Or Dexterity if the weapon has finesse. They certainly can't use Constitution.

Oh, but a Wizard or Witch can use Intelligence for their spellcasting, so why can't an innate spell use Intelligence too?

Well, an Investigator can use Intelligence for attacking with weapons. That doesn't mean that this choice of attribute is generally available. Especially not to characters getting the ability to swing a sword from a general feat.


3-Body Problem wrote:
Easl wrote:
Several posters have offered a couple different mechanical methods to build the fire-breathing samurai. It can be done. Strap laminated armor and a katana on a Dragon Barbarian or Magus, and you can build this. The rpg can deliver it. What the rpg can't deliver is the mechanics if a player insists that it must be the fighter class, the firebreathing must be from a cantrip, and the fighter-using-cantrip must achieve a fairly high level of proficiency and damage at the fire breathing.
The question is the cost versus efficiency. There's no reason why a single scaling first rank spell, in this case Burning Hands, should cost more than a feat. What would be broken about a Fighter, or anybody for that matter, spending a feat to get a single rank 1 spell that heightens like a focus spell and can be cast with a focus point? It'll be weaker than a proper focus spell and might not even be worth two actions to cast in most combats.

It sounds like what you really want in this scenario is, mechanically speaking, a focus spell. So in your example, the best way to build the character you want in your example is probably psychic dedication. Paizo does seem to be wary of AoE focus spells being available without significant investment, though- The only rank 1 Aoe Focus spell that does more than splash damage that I could find while skimming is Telekinetic Rend (Okay, that's a psychic focus cantrip, but close enough)

As for the question of would a frat that lets you turn a 1st rank spell of your choice into a focus spell be balanced? My gut says no. Your specific example of burning hands/breathe fire arguably works, but that has more to do with the fact that most 1st rank direct damage spells are... not great. Fear, Sleep, Sure Strike, or Force Barrage as focus spells, though, would be very powerful in the hands of a spellcaster.


3-Body Problem wrote:
scaling first rank spell

Scaling 1st rank spell is a contradiction. A 1st rank spell is always a 1st rank spell. A scaling spell would be a cantrip or focus spell.

Squark wrote:
The only rank 1 Aoe Focus spell that does more than splash damage that I could find while skimming is Telekinetic Rend

I also see the Sorcerer Phoenix Bloodline spell Rejuvenating Flames. Getting it from the Sorcerer archetype would not be a level 1 feat though.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Finoan wrote:
Bluemagetim wrote:

I would have liked innate casting to use any casting stat your best with.

Would have opened up more creative options at character creation.
Three choices for using innate spells instead of 1

I don't like it - so I'll present the opposing side of this.

Why should a martial character dipping into ancestry-granted spells be given a perk that spellcasting characters dipping into ancestry-granted weapons aren't?

Specifically: Why should a martial character getting an innate cantrip be allowed to choose their best mental stat for their accuracy? A spellcasting character picking up weapon proficiency from an ancestry or general feat still has to use Strength for their accuracy. Or Dexterity if the weapon has finesse. They certainly can't use Constitution.

Oh, but a Wizard or Witch can use Intelligence for their spellcasting, so why can't an innate spell use Intelligence too?

Well, an Investigator can use Intelligence for attacking with weapons. That doesn't mean that this choice of attribute is generally available. Especially not to characters getting the ability to swing a sword from a general feat.

I appreciate this point.

I think the answer for me is that weapons have 2 stats as options to work with. Elven ancestry provides finesse weapons for example.
Perhaps to be more consistent with that approach innate spell casting's stat could align with the theme of the magic used. This way there will at least be options out there that are not all Cha. I wouldn't mind making an elf to have an int based innate or a gnome to have a cha based innate or a nehpilim for a wis based innate, something like that. At least there would be more options available. And I wanted to add that Cha is my preferred casting stat so for my personal preference the game already aligns.


Finoan wrote:
Bluemagetim wrote:

I would have liked innate casting to use any casting stat your best with.

Would have opened up more creative options at character creation.
Three choices for using innate spells instead of 1

I don't like it - so I'll present the opposing side of this.

Why should a martial character dipping into ancestry-granted spells be given a perk that spellcasting characters dipping into ancestry-granted weapons aren't?

Specifically: Why should a martial character getting an innate cantrip be allowed to choose their best mental stat for their accuracy? A spellcasting character picking up weapon proficiency from an ancestry or general feat still has to use Strength for their accuracy. Or Dexterity if the weapon has finesse. They certainly can't use Constitution.

Oh, but a Wizard or Witch can use Intelligence for their spellcasting, so why can't an innate spell use Intelligence too?

Well, an Investigator can use Intelligence for attacking with weapons. That doesn't mean that this choice of attribute is generally available. Especially not to characters getting the ability to swing a sword from a general feat.

I do think it is fine that there is a single default innate spell stat.

I think it would be an appropriate budget v reward option to have a general Feat to enable innate spellcasting to work off of any mental stat.

On second thought, maybe the mental stat swap could be a skill Feat, while some from of innate spellcasting proficiency could be a General Feat, or perhaps a universal option for an Ancestry Feat. Completely useless for any spellcasting class, but it would allow for someone to choose to budget to keep their innate stuff up to snuff.

Right now, there is a divide between CHA casters that can get fully scaling cantrips in ways that no one else can. That kind of hard limitation is a bit bleh, in my opinion.

It means that the game both needs to balance innate spells for the optimal case when they'll be taken on a CHA caster, while being incredibly under-performing for anyone else.

There's also the issue that only foe-targeting spells need all this budgeting for improvement. Utility or ally-targeting innate spells/abilities do not need to scale their DC, further drawing a hard line between CHA casters and everyone else.

IMO letting players invest to bridge that gap a bit is a good thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluemagetim wrote:

I think the answer for me is that weapons have 2 stats as options to work with. Elven ancestry provides finesse weapons for example.

Perhaps to be more consistent with that approach innate spell casting's stat could align with the theme of the magic used.

Yeah. A bit of refinement on the analogy would be to say that when cast as an innate spell, certain tagged spells like Daze, Haunting Hymn, Chill Touch, and Disrupt Undead (ones that have a drawback such as lower damage, or niche use), can use Wisdom for their spell proficiency attribute (never Intelligence because reasons). That would better match the Finesse trait on weapons that do lower damage or have niche use being allowed to use Dexterity.

I do like the idea of having ancestries have an attribute that their innate spells key off of. That could be an interesting idea.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The multiclassing thing wasn't an issue for me. If you're multiclassing, you should have to work a bit to keep up on the damage. It's the price you pay for splitting your focus.


Finoan wrote:
I do like the idea of having ancestries have an attribute that their innate spells key off of. That could be an interesting idea.

It's a neat idea. As is the idea oflinking it to spell. But my cynical side says these hypothetical solutions would do nothing to address the folks making the complaint. The moment Paizo links Gnome to 'Int for spellcasting,' you're gonna get some regular poster on these fora complaining that they can't maximize their casting on their ranger Gnome with the Wisdom subspecialty, and why oh why Paizo didn't you allow that Wis option. And then someone else will respond that yeah Gnome is now a trap option because it makes players think they can be a fighter caster any way they want but it really locks them into one attribute. Sigh. The 'I want anything to do everything' vibe comes through sometimes. Or maybe I'm just being a bit harsh.

Personally, I can see it being linked to caster type or maybe tradition. So divine/clerical; use Wis. Spontaneous; use Cha. Prepared/Vancian; use Int. But that has exactly the same problems as your suggestion (it limits options, creates "types" which then become hard to build outside of/against), and like your suggetion it adds unnecessary complications, compared to the much simpler 'always use Cha' of the current setup..


3-Body Problem wrote:
The question is the cost versus efficiency. There's no reason why a single scaling first rank spell, in this case Burning Hands, should cost more than a feat. What would be broken about a Fighter, or anybody for that matter, spending a feat to get a single rank 1 spell that heightens like a focus spell and can be cast with a focus point? It'll be weaker than a proper focus spell and might not even be worth two actions to cast in most combats.

Breath Fire, rank 1 spell, 2 actions, deals 2d6 in 15 foot cone, basic Ref. H+1: +2d6.

Fire Ray, a rank 1 Focus spell, 2 action, 2d6 fire on successful spell attack roll. H+1: +2d6.

Rejuvenating Flame, rank 1 Focus spell, 1d4 fire 15 ft cone, basic ref. H+1: 1d4.

Slot spell is objectively better, AoE v. Single Target, and save instead of spell attack roll, or average damage of 7 instead of 2.5/rank.


Ched Greyfell wrote:
The multiclassing thing wasn't an issue for me. If you're multiclassing, you should have to work a bit to keep up on the damage. It's the price you pay for splitting your focus.

I think multiclassing was more of an afterthought regarding cantrip damage since unless you pick an archetype that uses your spellcasting ability, you lose accuracy anyway. It probably played a bigger role in going from tradition based spellcasting proficiency to just spellcasting proficiency.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I like the idea of multiclassing to be less of a power tradeoff for versatility and more of a trade off of expression of power.
i don't value versatility at all if the trade off leaves you with more options that don't meet the challenge.


Oh, I will add a fourth option for firebreathing samurai; custom mixed heritage (Player Core p82). So start with human, take 'versatile heritage', you get low-light vision and access to the kobold ancestry feats, use that to take fire breathing. Can then take any martial class you want to represent samurai. Badabing, badaboom.

Silver Crusade

Bluemagetim wrote:

I like the idea of multiclassing to be less of a power tradeoff for versatility and more of a trade off of expression of power.

i don't value versatility at all if the trade off leaves you with more options that don't meet the challenge.

I'm not sure that I understand.

Versatility IS power, pretty much by definition.

If character 1 is a Ftr with Ftr type stuff and character 2 is a Ftr with Ftr type stuff AND a not very good but not totally bad spell then character 2 should pay SOMETHING for that versatility, right?

I mean, there is a reason that quite a few martials pay the pretty small cost of an ancestry feat to get access to a single cantrip. Shield can really help without stat investment, some damage cantrip with stat investment can really help a martial at least for a significant portion of the characters career (its NICE to have Ray of Frost, for example, as a backup for a Dex dumping melee martial, even though the character would greatly prefer to be in melee)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

you sure that innate ray of frost cantrip is nice to have when you also have a cha of +0?
Having the cantrip makes you versatile but not powerful with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluemagetim wrote:

you sure that innate ray of frost cantrip is nice to have when you also have a cha of +0?

Having the cantrip makes you versatile but not powerful with it.

With the Remaster changes it means that only your accuracy suffers. Previously, both your accuracy and damage would be lowered.

Having the cantrip means that for 2 actions you can fire a shot at the annoying thing flying 45 feet in the air above the main battle. Without having to spend actions swapping to a ranged weapon that you may or may not have and may or may not be fully upgraded with level appropriate fundamental runes.

Which is about the same position that a spellcaster is in when they decide that they want to invest in having a shortbow available for 1 action attacks as a 3rd action. Lower accuracy, but the same damage as normal. As long as they pay the investment costs to get the proficiency and runes.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Thats true the changes make a big difference in damage of an offensive cantrip. Like you said though there is investment and set up to make the option a good one.
Im just saying versatility alone is not power.
A scoundrel rogue getting that ray of frost did pick up an accurate ability at least early on. If they dedicated into any spell caster class that would up their proficiency at higher levels. But lets say this rogue has a 10 int. Wizard would provide versatility but its not a powerful option. Sorcerer on the other hand provides powerful new options using their already high cha.
Versatility on its own is not power on its own. When the options gained dont meet the challenge. In the scoundrel wizard dedication example there will be wasted turns and slots if you attempt to use offensive options a with a low casting stat. The scoundrel sorcerer example will actually do well with those new options.
And now I want to make a scoundrel with a sorcerer dedication. See what you e done.


Bluemagetim wrote:
A scoundrel rogue getting that ray of frost did pick up an accurate ability at least early on. If they dedicated into any spell caster class that would up their proficiency at higher levels. But lets say this rogue has a 10 int. Wizard would provide versatility but its not a powerful option. Sorcerer on the other hand provides powerful new options using their already high cha.

Ray of Frost is on the Arcane and Primal list. Thus available to Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard archetypes. So your rogue could literally be built with ANY one of the three casting stats, and they will be able to select a casting archetype that uses their preferred stat to cast Ray of Frost.

Which gets back to one of my earlier points; the PF2E rpg

Versatility on its own is not power on its own. When the options gained dont meet the challenge. In the scoundrel wizard dedication example there will be wasted turns and slots if you attempt to use offensive options a with a low casting stat. The scoundrel sorcerer example will actually do well with those new options.
And now I want to make a scoundrel with a sorcerer dedication. See what you e done.


Bluemagetim wrote:
A scoundrel rogue getting that ray of frost did pick up an accurate ability at least early on. If they dedicated into any spell caster class that would up their proficiency at higher levels. But lets say this rogue has a 10 int. Wizard would provide versatility but its not a powerful option. Sorcerer on the other hand provides powerful new options using their already high cha.

Ray of Frost is on the Arcane and Primal list. Thus available to Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard archetypes. So your rogue could literally be built with ANY one of the three casting stats, and they will be able to select a casting archetype that uses their preferred stat to cast Ray of Frost.

Which gets back to one of my earlier points; the PF2E rpg allows you to create many more character concepts than you might first believe...IF you are willing to give up some preferred class label and instead build for mechanics. CHA Ray of Frost is doable. Heck, Wis ray of frost or Int ray of frost is too! But you are going to be frustrated if you insist on wizard archetype AND Cha, the same way you'll be frustrated if you insisted on taking sorcerer AND Wis or druid AND Int.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Oh the point of the cantrip was getting it at level 1 from a heritage as a non casting class.

No argument with your other points.

Also in another thread I think I realized why Cha gets the innate casting.
Aside from skills what does Cha do when its not KAS?

51 to 100 of 216 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Justification about Cantripis All Messageboards