I think it is a viable alternative to lingering composition.
I'm slowly digesting all the remaster stuff. Just noticed the buff to martial performance. Looks fun. Is it a meaningful change in its gameplay or is it just redundant with lingering composition?
I've made a few "dummy characters" to use it, and while on paper it looks neat, in practice it's actually very weaksauce.
For starters, its ability to function requires that you successfully hit with a Strike. So, you have to, at the very least, succeed at a check whose difficulty varies based on what you are attacking. Against lower level enemies, it shouldn't be much of an issue. Against higher level enemies, being in such a position in the first place might as well be a death sentence, and it affects your ability to succeed, which is the bare minimum requirement to triggering the effect. And if you miss? You wasted an action that could have been spent either casting a spell (which is what you're known for) or doing some other effect (such as Demoralize or Bon Mot). It's basically a rebranded version of the Swashbuckler problem.
Also, given that you won't have a maximized physical stat (16 at best, more realistically it's a 14, and probably isn't in Strength, since you don't innately get Heavy Armor, limiting you to Finesse-based weapons), and that other martials will likely get access to the +1's/Striking Runes before you, you'll be behind significantly in fights where it matters, and the Courageous Anthem isn't a self-only buff (which isn't a bad thing, but doesn't help in making you putting you at martial accuracy). And since this ability requires you to succeed at these checks to do so, the further behind you are, the less likely you are to make these work.
There is also the issue of being in a position to do so without putting yourself at risk depending on your weapon of choice. If you're using a typical weapon, you need high Strength, but this comes at a cost of Charisma (not worth compromising as a full caster), Dexterity (bad reflex Saves and AC makes you an even bigger target to smash), Wisdom (when the bad guys can get their own source of Courageous Anthem or whatever spells they want due to failing a Charm Person/Dominate, or can remove that threat entirely with a well-placed Fear spell or something, or you're applying your buffs way too late in combat), or Constitution (failing Fortitude saves and having less HP on an already low HP class is a bad idea). And if you cast spells in melee, you better hope they don't have a Reactive Strike.
Reach weapons help with this some, but they are quite limited, and only serves as a minor crutch for these issues; they can still easily present themselves in fights with larger foes. Anything Large or larger still poses this problem. Finesse weapons also help with the attribute issue, but it does come at a damage cost, which is an issue for Martial Performance, as it does require you to damage an enemy with a Strike; less damage against a foe with resistances means it is less likely to work against such a foe. It's even worse for projectile/ranged weapons like Shortbows, where you don't even get any semblance of Strength to damage.
Comparing that to the simplicity and effectiveness of Lingering Composition, it's no contest; you spend a Free Action and a Focus Point, to make a Performance check, and if you succeed, Courageous Anthem lasts for 3 rounds (which is basically an entire combat), or 4 rounds on a Critical (which is basically a boss fight encounter), and if you roll bad, you don't waste the Focus Point, still leaving you with even less action investment than if you just missed with a Strike via Martial Performance (1 free action + 1 action + 1 focus point versus 2 actions). The former lets you cast an actual spell on top of it all (such as Haste, Slow, Synesthesia, etc). The latter does not until the following round (which you could do with the other set-up anyway).
Really, the only benefit to Martial Performance is that it works with things like the Fortissimo focus spell, meaning you can extend such a boosted effect for two rounds instead of just one, but it's honestly a more significant action tax in the long run of an encounter compared to the Lingering Composition Focus Spell (which doesn't take an action), and is much easier to succeed the check on compared to an attack roll.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems pretty good with a bow and fortissimo composition. A little weird that the performance check DC would be related to your allies will DCs though. I don't like that your allies having better stats makes your job harder.
Getting a crit and applying +3 to 2 rounds sounds like a lot of fun though.
Lots of stuff regarding spellcasting-centric Bard builds.
Remember, this is a question about Warrior Muse Bards. The ones that are going to be built for a more martial style of play. Basically, PF2's equivalent to Skald.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... the things I perceive.
- the option of using a ranged weapon is very much there.
- It's... kind of a freebie? Like, you fire off the composition, you take your shot, and if it hits, great - you've got another round. If it doesn't, then that's a bit sad, but it's not that big a deal.
- This works that much better with martials who are just dipping bard.
- It *stacks* with lingering composition. If you manage to land any strikes at all while the composition is lingering, then you effectively just upgraded that lingering roll to a crit. That's not terrible.
- You know, sometimes you're going to *fail* that lingering composition roll. This feat helps you out there, too.
So the only real downside on it is if you weren't already planning on making strikes... and if you weren't already planning on making strikes, then you really ought to be picking a different muse.
Now, there's an entirely different question of "if I have this already, do I really need lingering composition?". The answer to that is going to depend on a lot of things - among them how much you value the feat you might save by not taking lingering, and/or how much you value the focus point you might save by not casting it.
Lots of stuff regarding spellcasting-centric Bard builds.Remember, this is a question about Warrior Muse Bards. The ones that are going to be built for a more martial style of play. Basically, PF2's equivalent to Skald.
Alreary know that, which doesn't change my response; Warrior Muse Bards don't get extra HP or proficiencies or attributes for being Warrior Muse Bards, which are things that are necessary to being a martial-type character. D8/Light Armor isn't going to last very long without ancillary survivability options (of which the Warrior Muse Bard doesn't innately get).
Really, they are like a Magus and a Swashbuckler mixed together, in probably the worst way possible IMO. They have the triggering spellcasting with D8 HP (Magus), mixed with a skill-based action cost effect that is more unreliable than existing options without much gain and being restricted in their weapons and armor (Swashbuckler).
And having ran a couple of these characters in practice (and having seen a successful "Warrior Muse" Bard), I find that I was better off sticking to the Lingering Composition and supplementing my attacks with spellcasting than the other way around, since it was both more reliable and more effective.
Seems pretty good with a bow and fortissimo composition. A little weird that the performance check DC would be related to your allies will DCs though. I don't like that your allies having better stats makes your job harder.
Getting a crit and applying +3 to 2 rounds sounds like a lot of fun though.
That is an interesting change, since last I checked, it was based off of a Standard/Hard Class DC for the highest affected character's level. Nor does it make sense since it means that if you somehow don't impress the most powerful person there that you also don't impress the less powerful people. But until it is Errata'd, I can assume it was a deliberate change.
The thing is that you need to both critically succeed a high Will DC with a Performance check, expend a focus point, while also dealing damage with a (presumably) successful Strike. It is great when it works. It is a bummer when it doesn't. The math is more against you here than if you simply used Lingering Composition. Less yields, yes, but also less chances of success.
So... the things I perceive.
- the option of using a ranged weapon is very much there.
- It's... kind of a freebie? Like, you fire off the composition, you take your shot, and if it hits, great - you've got another round. If it doesn't, then that's a bit sad, but it's not that big a deal.
- This works that much better with martials who are just dipping bard.
- It *stacks* with lingering composition. If you manage to land any strikes at all while the composition is lingering, then you effectively just upgraded that lingering roll to a crit. That's not terrible.
- You know, sometimes you're going to *fail* that lingering composition roll. This feat helps you out there, too.So the only real downside on it is if you weren't already planning on making strikes... and if you weren't already planning on making strikes, then you really ought to be picking a different muse.
Now, there's an entirely different question of "if I have this already, do I really need lingering composition?". The answer to that is going to depend on a lot of things - among them how much you value the feat you might save by not taking lingering, and/or how much you value the focus point you might save by not casting it.
Never said you couldn't use a range weapon. It is probably the safest and most consistent option for you. All I am saying is that against high resistance enemies it will also be the weapon most likely to not deal any damage as a result.
It is a freebie depending on your perspective. If you start with it, then yes. But if you have to compare it with similar existing options, then it is honestly a matter of what you want to invest in (first), and what it does if you do so.
The issue with missing a Strike is that now I cannot supplement my next turn, or my current turn with a spell, either a buff, debuff, heal, or occasional damaging effect, because that is a wasted action that could have been used with another action to cast a spell. Even a Cantrip would be helpful. Lingering Composition doesn't have the issue of wasting either focus spells (which should be a real concern in my opinion) or actions, meaning from an optimized resources standpoint, it is better. Now, it is less painful if you are Hasted, but you need to buff with that first, and it's not going to always go on you until around 13th level.
It does, but then you are planning more for a late game approach, which this is better for; and given that you can just dip while selecting another Muse, starting out with it seems more terrible than just taking it later.
Sometimes failure does happen, but doing things and taking things to mitigate that failure is helpful (such as Assurance, though with the DC changes, it is probably less reliable now). It is far easier to succeed a Lingering Composition check than a Strike most of the time.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems pretty good with a bow and fortissimo composition. A little weird that the performance check DC would be related to your allies will DCs though. I don't like that your allies having better stats makes your job harder.
Getting a crit and applying +3 to 2 rounds sounds like a lot of fun though.
That is an interesting change, since last I checked, it was based off of a Standard/Hard Class DC for the highest affected character's level. Nor does it make sense since it means that if you somehow don't impress the most powerful person there that you also don't impress the less powerful people. But until it is Errata'd, I can assume it was a deliberate change.
The thing is that you need to both critically succeed a high Will DC with a Performance check, expend a focus point, while also dealing damage with a (presumably) successful Strike. It is great when it works. It is a bummer when it doesn't. The math is more against you here than if you simply used Lingering Composition. Less yields, yes, but also less chances of success.
When using fortissimo with courageous anthem, you've got a +2 to the strike you need to land on a success and +3 on a crit, so you're more likely to hit something than not unless it's a boss. I don't think the math really screws you over with the combo.
With Courageous Anthem going, a bard with 16 strength from levels 1-4 has the same to hit bonus as an unbuffed martial. At level 5 the martial pulls ahead, but your first strike is still more accurate than their -5 strike. Lack of durability is a problem but you can get medium and heavy armor through feats, and reach weapons with an attached banner are good mechanically and narratively. The ideal use of your turn will probably remain casting a top level slot + Courageous Anthem, but you shouldn't always plan for your ideal turn.
If you were going to resort to cantrips, your weapon probably hits harder, especially when you factor in flanking and item bonuses. If you need to reposition, demoralize, recall knowledge, or anything else you won't be be able to 2 action cast + 1 action composition, so you can decide if it is better to launch a 2 action spell or strike and keep the buff train rolling.
Melee casters will never be THAT good at melee, and should always remember their spells are their strongest contributions... But they have more options than regular casters or regular martials, and more options can always prove useful when the tactical situation calls for deviation from your standard routine.
Is anyone suggesting that they intend to take this feat without warrior muse? Nethys seems to be suggesting that warrior muse is a requirement here.
But, really, if you're talking about this feat and then complaining that it means that you have to make strikes, you're looking at it wrong. The point of this feat is that it's for bards who already want to make strikes. If you are not already a bard who wants this thing, then this feat is not for you. If you are already that kind of bard, then it's a nice little action efficiency booster on the martial strikes you were already going to make.
Seems pretty good with a bow and fortissimo composition. A little weird that the performance check DC would be related to your allies will DCs though. I don't like that your allies having better stats makes your job harder.
Getting a crit and applying +3 to 2 rounds sounds like a lot of fun though.
That is an interesting change, since last I checked, it was based off of a Standard/Hard Class DC for the highest affected character's level. Nor does it make sense since it means that if you somehow don't impress the most powerful person there that you also don't impress the less powerful people. But until it is Errata'd, I can assume it was a deliberate change.
The thing is that you need to both critically succeed a high Will DC with a Performance check, expend a focus point, while also dealing damage with a (presumably) successful Strike. It is great when it works. It is a bummer when it doesn't. The math is more against you here than if you simply used Lingering Composition. Less yields, yes, but also less chances of success.
When using fortissimo with courageous anthem, you've got a +2 to the strike you need to land on a success and +3 on a crit, so you're more likely to hit something than not unless it's a boss. I don't think the math really screws you over with the combo.
I don't know how much harder or easier it will be with the new DC calculations, but I do know that an optimized Bard will only critically succeed on 20% of those checks at the highest level, with it being only more difficult (on average) as levels get lower.
Just as well, it's less about the math and more about the probabilities of failing. Even if the odds of succeeding any of those checks are equal, the latter combo requires making two checks (meaning two potentially bad rolls), whereas the former requires only one, and isn't tied to action or MAP penalty, and it's not like Bards are spending their focus points on anything else innately.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is anyone suggesting that they intend to take this feat without warrior muse? Nethys seems to be suggesting that warrior muse is a requirement here.
But, really, if you're talking about this feat and then complaining that it means that you have to make strikes, you're looking at it wrong. The point of this feat is that it's for bards who already want to make strikes. If you are not already a bard who wants this thing, then this feat is not for you. If you are already that kind of bard, then it's a nice little action efficiency booster on the martial strikes you were already going to make.
Pointless distinction is pointless to make.
Bards making strikes isn't a problem. Basing your spellcasting/buffing efficiency on making strikes is where the problem is, since you can very easily have several rounds where you do nothing but apply a song, whiff, and move or do nothing with your third action, all because your strike rolls are garbage or you're up against a really high AC foe.
|
|
Seems pretty good with a bow and fortissimo composition. A little weird that the performance check DC would be related to your allies will DCs though. I don't like that your allies having better stats makes your job harder.
Getting a crit and applying +3 to 2 rounds sounds like a lot of fun though.
That is an interesting change, since last I checked, it was based off of a Standard/Hard Class DC for the highest affected character's level. Nor does it make sense since it means that if you somehow don't impress the most powerful person there that you also don't impress the less powerful people. But until it is Errata'd, I can assume it was a deliberate change.
The thing is that you need to both critically succeed a high Will DC with a Performance check, expend a focus point, while also dealing damage with a (presumably) successful Strike. It is great when it works. It is a bummer when it doesn't. The math is more against you here than if you simply used Lingering Composition. Less yields, yes, but also less chances of success.
When using fortissimo with courageous anthem, you've got a +2 to the strike you need to land on a success and +3 on a crit, so you're more likely to hit something than not unless it's a boss. I don't think the math really screws you over with the combo.
I don't know how much harder or easier it will be with the new DC calculations, but I do know that an optimized Bard will only critically succeed on 20% of those checks at the highest level, with it being only more difficult (on average) as levels get lower.
Just as well, it's less about the math and more about the probabilities of failing. Even if the odds of succeeding any of those checks are equal, the latter combo requires making two checks (meaning two potentially bad rolls), whereas the former requires only one, and isn't tied to action or MAP penalty, and it's not like Bards are spending their focus points on...
Seems your main issue really is just fortissimo vs lingering. It's already a decent contest between the two, but martial performance definitely is the best use case for it. It's really nice synergy.
With Courageous Anthem going, a bard with 16 strength from levels 1-4 has the same to hit bonus as an unbuffed martial. At level 5 the martial pulls ahead, but your first strike is still more accurate than their -5 strike. Lack of durability is a problem but you can get medium and heavy armor through feats, and reach weapons with an attached banner are good mechanically and narratively. The ideal use of your turn will probably remain casting a top level slot + Courageous Anthem, but you shouldn't always plan for your ideal turn.
If you were going to resort to cantrips, your weapon probably hits harder, especially when you factor in flanking and item bonuses. If you need to reposition, demoralize, recall knowledge, or anything else you won't be be able to 2 action cast + 1 action composition, so you can decide if it is better to launch a 2 action spell or strike and keep the buff train rolling.
Melee casters will never be THAT good at melee, and should always remember their spells are their strongest contributions... But they have more options than regular casters or regular martials, and more options can always prove useful when the tactical situation calls for deviation from your standard routine.
I am aware of the math but it's not strictly because of the math that I am advocating against it. Also, medium armor is a trap all in itself, and really only serves as a gateway to heavy armor proficiency via a feat or class archetype. And Reach weapons are only effective against medium-sized foes, which aren't very common in the higher levels. Even unarmored is less of a trap by comparison, which is shenanigans. I don't know what banners do though, are they a specific magic item?
Depends on your weapon. If you're sticking to the safest option, a Shortbow, at around 7th level, a Telekinetic Projectile is doing 5D6, whereas a Shortbow is doing maybe 2D6+2. Yes, there is Deadly, but an average of 5 damage doesn't make up for lacking an additional dice, and it's only triggering (likely) on a 20, meaning its DPR coefficient isn't affecting very much. Even sticking to 5th level (a level where you are assumed to have a Striking weapon), you're still doing 4D6 damage. Just as well, it doesn't even have to be Telekinetic Projectile; using a Spellheart with another save-based Cantrip, you're adding on what is essentially free damage after a Strike (doubly true with Haste rolling around). There is also Phase Bolt, a cantrip that promotes accuracy against shielding foes, albeit slightly less damaging at this point (5D4).
This is less so with, say, a Halberd, but you are paying for that damage in other ways, such as No Dex/Wis/Con (the game assumes you do not compromise those attributes), or risking triggering reactions (which becomes all the more threatening and prevalent in the higher levels), and if you're going that route, you should just be wielding D12 weapons.
Seems your main issue really is just fortissimo vs lingering. It's already a decent contest between the two, but martial performance definitely is the best use case for it. It's really nice synergy.
It's more than that.
Fortissimo is still good for those one-round boss nukes after setting up with buffs like Haste, True Target, et. al., and debuffs like Synesthesia, Fear, etc. Having seen this in action against boss fights, it's definitely an awesome ability, and obviously the synergy with Martial Performance is there.
But Martial Performance has an inherent action cost to it (Strikes) that aren't guaranteed to work (such as if you miss, either because of bad rolls, high AC, or risking being disrupted/dropped via reactions). It's not like a Spellshape effect or a Spell-Storing weapon cast, where it's automatic, or able to trigger under circumstances of your choosing. With Haste, it's less of a sting, but that's not usually commonplace until the higher levels.
Lingering Performance, while it doesn't have that good burst Fortissimo does, is still solid for constant spellcasting, and since not every fight is a boss fight, it is practical for most combats. Instead of having to cast a spell/cantrip every other round if you're lucky, you're able to cast a spell every round. Bards are a spellcaster first, martial second. Even if they are the most potent "martial" spellcaster, they are, at the end of the day, primarily, a spellcaster.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, medium armor is a trap all in itself, and really only serves as a gateway to heavy armor proficiency via a feat or class archetype.
The armour specialization benefits of medium armour armour are often better. It is lighter on the dex requirements. It is a valid alternative.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is anyone suggesting that they intend to take this feat without warrior muse? Nethys seems to be suggesting that warrior muse is a requirement here.
But, really, if you're talking about this feat and then complaining that it means that you have to make strikes, you're looking at it wrong. The point of this feat is that it's for bards who already want to make strikes. If you are not already a bard who wants this thing, then this feat is not for you. If you are already that kind of bard, then it's a nice little action efficiency booster on the martial strikes you were already going to make.
Agreed. This is just about options and another way to home.
If I am playing every bard the same then I'm quickly going to get bored.|
|
Seems your main issue really is just fortissimo vs lingering. It's already a decent contest between the two, but martial performance definitely is the best use case for it. It's really nice synergy.It's more than that.
Fortissimo is still good for those one-round boss nukes after setting up with buffs like Haste, True Target, et. al., and debuffs like Synesthesia, Fear, etc. Having seen this in action against boss fights, it's definitely an awesome ability, and obviously the synergy with Martial Performance is there.
But Martial Performance has an inherent action cost to it (Strikes) that aren't guaranteed to work (such as if you miss, either because of bad rolls, high AC, or risking being disrupted/dropped via reactions). It's not like a Spellshape effect or a Spell-Storing weapon cast, where it's automatic, or able to trigger under circumstances of your choosing. With Haste, it's less of a sting, but that's not usually commonplace until the higher levels.
Lingering Performance, while it doesn't have that good burst Fortissimo does, is still solid for constant spellcasting, and since not every fight is a boss fight, it is practical for most combats. Instead of having to cast a spell/cantrip every other round if you're lucky, you're able to cast a spell every round. Bards are a spellcaster first, martial second. Even if they are the most potent "martial" spellcaster, they are, at the end of the day, primarily, a spellcaster.
You just laid out the use cases for both compositions but you still don't have a good point against martial performance. At the end of the day, it's not an action tax, it's saving you actions and focus points. You break-even when you fail to trigger martial performance.
Have some sure strikes. That along with your +2 from fortissimo makes it reliable when you need it to.
The better argument would be that fortissimo is relatively late and you need two muses to make the combo work. Before that, martial performance is mainly saving you some focus points for other stuff. But as was pointed out earlier, it does stack with lingering to give you 4 or 5 rounds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pointless distinction is pointless to make.
Bards making strikes isn't a problem. Basing your spellcasting/buffing efficiency on making strikes is where the problem is, since you can very easily have several rounds where you do nothing but apply a song, whiff, and move or do nothing with your third action, all because your strike rolls are garbage or you're up against a really high AC foe.
I freely acknowledge that my grasp of bard feats is not anything close to encyclopedic. Thank you for the clarification.
As for the problem, you're looking at it wrong. It's more like this:
- In any given turn, you're probably going to want to have a composition up an running. You're a bard. It's kind of the bard "thing".
- For any character who takes Warrior Muse, you're going to want to be making strikes from time to time. Pick a round where you try to take a shot at someone.
--- If you miss, you lose nothing.
--- If you hit, and you haven't extended this play of this composition yet, you get an extra round on it. That's cool.
If it was using Lingering Composition, it goes from 3/4 to 4/5. If it wasn't, it goes from 1 to 2. Either way, it makes life a little easier for you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I totally disagree that medium armor is a trap option. The difference between medium and heavy armor is literally 1 AC point, and unless you are a champion or take sentinel, the armor specialization bonuses literally don't matter. Not to mention that medium armor specialization bonuses aren't bad either, worse than heavy, but not bad either.
Medium armor also allows you to get your Dex at +1 and forget it exists for the rest of the campaign, while heavy armor if you aren't proficient with it already takes away a feat you could have used for something else. In all honesty, I feel heavy armor for certain classes is more trouble than its worth really.
I'm playing a battle bard right now. I'm using a bow and a reach spear. I'm not sure how I feel about Martial Performance. It does work every so often. Most of the muse feats are built to be useful at certain times, so maybe it isn't meant to be an every round extension.
It doesn't work with Dirge of Doom, which is disappointing as I do enjoy that composition cantrip a lot when I get it. It also wouldn't work well if you do anything else but strike.
So not sure it is worth taking over Lingering Composition and Esoteric Polymath from a power perspective. That is the usual combination I take.
I guess it does encourage you to strike as you would expect from a battle bard. If you want to do that, you do get some benefit and it fits the visual you would expect of a battle bard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, medium armor is a trap all in itself, and really only serves as a gateway to heavy armor proficiency via a feat or class archetype.The armour specialization benefits of medium armour armour are often better. It is lighter on the dex requirements. It is a valid alternative.
Who gets armor specialization?
-Champions (and their dedication tree)
-Fighters
-some Sentinels
That is it. Two classes and a couple archetypes which it is feat-locked for. For what, up to 4 less damage on certain types of strikes? Hardly groundbreaking or a significant balance point compared to most other things you get. Justifying the feat expenditure is very hard since it isn't available until higher level anyway, and class feats are usually more important the higher level you get, especially as a martial.
As for the whole "less Dex" argument, you are suggesting it is worthwhile to constantly critically fail Reflex Saves to maintain the same semblance of AC that a light armored character has. Whereas you could just bump Dexterity like everyone else and not be crippled when a Fireball comes your way. And there is no Bulwark trait to handicap that choice with Medium Armor.
Seems your main issue really is just fortissimo vs lingering. It's already a decent contest between the two, but martial performance definitely is the best use case for it. It's really nice synergy.It's more than that.
Fortissimo is still good for those one-round boss nukes after setting up with buffs like Haste, True Target, et. al., and debuffs like Synesthesia, Fear, etc. Having seen this in action against boss fights, it's definitely an awesome ability, and obviously the synergy with Martial Performance is there.
But Martial Performance has an inherent action cost to it (Strikes) that aren't guaranteed to work (such as if you miss, either because of bad rolls, high AC, or risking being disrupted/dropped via reactions). It's not like a Spellshape effect or a Spell-Storing weapon cast, where it's automatic, or able to trigger under circumstances of your choosing. With Haste, it's less of a sting, but that's not usually commonplace until the higher levels.
Lingering Performance, while it doesn't have that good burst Fortissimo does, is still solid for constant spellcasting, and since not every fight is a boss fight, it is practical for most combats. Instead of having to cast a spell/cantrip every other round if you're lucky, you're able to cast a spell every round. Bards are a spellcaster first, martial second. Even if they are the most potent "martial" spellcaster, they are, at the end of the day, primarily, a spellcaster.
You just laid out the use cases for both compositions but you still don't have a good point against martial performance. At the end of the day, it's not an action tax, it's saving you actions and focus points. You break-even when you fail to trigger martial performance.
Have some sure strikes. That along with your +2 from fortissimo makes it reliable when you need it to.
The better argument would be that fortissimo is relatively late and you need two muses to make the combo work. Before that,...
It is not saving you as many actions as Lingering Performance would (maybe 2 actions versus 3 or more likely 4, over the course of 5 rounds), and unless you have a regular need for Focus Points for things outside of your class, the idea that they are competing for the same resource is nonsense, as odds are, you use Lingering Composition for easier fights/winding down encounters, and you use Fortissimo for harder/boss fights. Having seen both of these used
You actually don't need two muses because there is no "combo." You either take Lingering to extend your standard composition, or Martial Performance to extend your Fortissimo; they are mutually exclusive. Yes, Martial Performance can work on Lingering Composition, but most encounters are over for that to matter. The argument would make more sense if you utilized a Harmonize while Hasted to keep two different compositions somewhat extended, but that is a whole different animal compared to what the discussion is about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I totally disagree that medium armor is a trap option. The difference between medium and heavy armor is literally 1 AC point, and unless you are a champion or take sentinel, the armor specialization bonuses literally don't matter. Not to mention that medium armor specialization bonuses aren't bad either, worse than heavy, but not bad either.
Medium armor also allows you to get your Dex at +1 and forget it exists for the rest of the campaign, while heavy armor if you aren't proficient with it already takes away a feat you could have used for something else. In all honesty, I feel heavy armor for certain classes is more trouble than its worth really.
Bulwark says hi.
You can say that you don't need Dexterity as a stat with Medium armor, up until the point you get absolutely destroyed by a breath weapon or a spell.
Speaking as an ex high level champion, this was precisely how I got destroyed in a lot of combats. Neglecting Reflex Saves is not much different than neglecting HP, since there is usually a correlation between the two.
You actually don't need two muses because there is no "combo." You either take Lingering to extend your standard composition, or Martial Performance to extend your Fortissimo; they are mutually exclusive. Yes, Martial Performance can work on Lingering Composition, but most encounters are over for that to matter. The argument would make more sense if you utilized a Harmonize while Hasted to keep two different compositions somewhat extended, but that is a whole different animal compared to what the discussion is about.
If Martial Performance is pointless in the face of Lingering Composition, then Lingering Composition's own critical effect is similarly pointless.
Also, Lingering Composition does, at times, fail. So Martial Performance can be useful as a backup there.
They're not anything like as mutually exclusive as you're making them out to be.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Seems your main issue really is just fortissimo vs lingering. It's already a decent contest between the two, but martial performance definitely is the best use case for it. It's really nice synergy.It's more than that.
Fortissimo is still good for those one-round boss nukes after setting up with buffs like Haste, True Target, et. al., and debuffs like Synesthesia, Fear, etc. Having seen this in action against boss fights, it's definitely an awesome ability, and obviously the synergy with Martial Performance is there.
But Martial Performance has an inherent action cost to it (Strikes) that aren't guaranteed to work (such as if you miss, either because of bad rolls, high AC, or risking being disrupted/dropped via reactions). It's not like a Spellshape effect or a Spell-Storing weapon cast, where it's automatic, or able to trigger under circumstances of your choosing. With Haste, it's less of a sting, but that's not usually commonplace until the higher levels.
Lingering Performance, while it doesn't have that good burst Fortissimo does, is still solid for constant spellcasting, and since not every fight is a boss fight, it is practical for most combats. Instead of having to cast a spell/cantrip every other round if you're lucky, you're able to cast a spell every round. Bards are a spellcaster first, martial second. Even if they are the most potent "martial" spellcaster, they are, at the end of the day, primarily, a spellcaster.
You just laid out the use cases for both compositions but you still don't have a good point against martial performance. At the end of the day, it's not an action tax, it's saving you actions and focus points. You break-even when you fail to trigger martial performance.
Have some sure strikes. That along with your +2 from fortissimo makes it reliable when you need it to.
The better argument would be that fortissimo is relatively late and you need two muses to make
Fortissimo has maestro as a prerequisite so you do need both muses.
There's not much to your argument now if you really just prefer to use lingering composition. There are alternatives as we've talked about. They're reasonable and really good once you get fortissimo.
Well, I created a bard with champion multiclass, maestro muse, I hope it works!
You actually don't need two muses because there is no "combo." You either take Lingering to extend your standard composition, or Martial Performance to extend your Fortissimo; they are mutually exclusive. Yes, Martial Performance can work on Lingering Composition, but most encounters are over for that to matter. The argument would make more sense if you utilized a Harmonize while Hasted to keep two different compositions somewhat extended, but that is a whole different animal compared to what the discussion is about.If Martial Performance is pointless in the face of Lingering Composition, then Lingering Composition's own critical effect is similarly pointless.
Also, Lingering Composition does, at times, fail. So Martial Performance can be useful as a backup there.
They're not anything like as mutually exclusive as you're making them out to be.
Never said pointless, merely that it's not really necessary given the average encounter duration is 3 rounds. It might be helpful for those longer/tougher fights, but not absolutely necessary. If you have a dead feat you want to do something with, it's there. But if you would rather invest in archetypes or pick up a different feat, you probably won't be worse off if you invested in those instead.
Yes, it can fail, but the odds of it failing compared to Martial Performance is significantly less. Comparing your Performance modifier to the (what used to be) Standard Level DC, it is significantly more in your favor compared to a Strike modifier against Enemy ACs. And if it does fail, you didn't waste an action, nor a focus point, for it. You can then still cast a spell that round, and you can try it again next round. Compared to if you fail a Strike, where you both waste the action (which happens after you spend an action casting the composition), as well as lower your MAP, and locks you out of most every spell for that round.
The "mutually exclusive" part is more along the lines of not being able to combine Lingering Composition and Fortissimo. But even if it is based on requirements, it is all just one class feat away.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Darksol, you're looking at it backwards. Warrior Bards don't make Strikes just to proc Martial Performance. They make Strikes because they're Warrior Bards; Martial Performance is a rider, not a reason.
The Warrior Bard isn't casting spells every turn, and only throwing in a token Strike out of obligation every so often because they "have" to use the feat they're stuck with. The Warrior Bard is making Strikes when they have a good opportunity to do so already, with or without Martial Performance. They've already chosen to make both Strikes and spells, and will continue to do so even if you strip them of all their feats.
So, don't look at it as "wasting a turn to use Martial Performance vs. playing correctly to use Lingering Composition", because that's the wrong mindset. It's a question of whether a Bard that's already making Strikes still wants Lingering Composition, or whether the new Martial Performance will be good enough to let them forego it.
Darksol, you're looking at it backwards. Warrior Bards don't make Strikes just to proc Martial Performance. They make Strikes because they're Warrior Bards; Martial Performance is a rider, not a reason.
The Warrior Bard isn't casting spells every turn, and only throwing in a token Strike out of obligation every so often because they "have" to use the feat they're stuck with. The Warrior Bard is making Strikes when they have a good opportunity to do so already, with or without Martial Performance. They've already chosen to make both Strikes and spells, and will continue to do so even if you strip them of all their feats.
So, don't look at it as "wasting a turn to use Martial Performance vs. playing correctly to use Lingering Composition", because that's the wrong mindset. It's a question of whether a Bard that's already making Strikes still wants Lingering Composition, or whether the new Martial Performance will be good enough to let them forego it.
The Bard/Fighter I played with mostly made Power Attacks with a D10 Reach weapon. They never utilized Martial Performance because Martial Performance didn't exist back then, and honestly, they really didn't need it. They were strong enough with Lingering Composition, and they took and saved Fortissimo for boss fights, as he should have. But there were plenty of times when, even with those buffs, they would still miss strikes, meaning in those cases, Martial Performance did nothing. Meanwhile, Lingering Composition was up almost every time plausible, and given the average duration of encounters (3-4 rounds), for Martial Performance to have made an impact, it would have needed to be a longer fight.
If martials aren't making strikes, they are useless for the encounter. Same goes for spellcasters who don't, you know, cast spells. Do they have to be spell slots or focus spells all the time? No. But unless there are extreme circumstances, if you aren't slinging spells or making strikes, or even using basic tactics, you're not contributing to the combat's end. A Bard can do both, but they shouldn't always be doing both, nor relying on something that isn't their primary tactic to be their primary form of prolonging a positive effect.
You do realize the whole argument of the thread was debating the exact merits of those stances, right? My stance explanation was simple and to the point: Martial Performance is much harder to get their stars to align, as it requires more successful checks which last half as long, and therefore is the much more unreliable playstyle, meaning newer players can easily get discouraged by the high risk/moderate reward playstyle. This is like saying Swashbucklers are a great newbie class while completely ignoring the Fighter class that has come before it and outclasses it in most every way imaginable.