What makes 3-Slot Balanced for Bard? Errata for 4-Slot?

[moosher12]

So, I've been thinking on it. After watching BadluckGamer's video on the Oracle, I see that the Oracle has now become a 4-Slot per Rank caster. Alongside the Sorcerer and the upcoming Mystic, which is also a Spontaneous Spellcaster in the upcoming Starfinder 2E. This leaves Bard alone among the known Spontaneous Spellcasters in this aspect. (The Psychic and Summoner being spontaneous caster exist, but they're also in a weird place as they use variant spellcasting allotments that are far from the norm, and by my opinion, technically do not count for this argument, as they are also Legacy, and this is a question more towards the remastered state of play).

I'm trying to think, what makes the Bard worth keeping as a 3-slot class, balance wise? Should it be updated to a 4-slot like the other spontaneous casters? Or is there a balancing point that keeps it to where it needs to remain 3-Slot, while Oracle and Sorcerer have 4-Slot.

Badluck Gamer also points out this may be an error. Should it be reserved for Sorcerer? But additionally, what makes the Mystic worth having it?

[AestheticDialectic]

I don't think the slot number per rank is much to do with spontaneous versus prepared. Wizard is prepared 4 slots, playtest witch was 4 slots, Animist is 4 slots half being prepared and half being spontaneous. Psychic is 2 slots, and summoner is a wave caster

[Witch of Miracles]

Bard focus cantrips are some of the strongest at-will abilities in the game, particularly when accounting for Lingering Composition. That alone is enough to argue the class does not need more spell slots.

[Squark]

Yeah, Composition Cantrips are incredibly powerful. The bard is already straining the power budget as it is.

Oracle getting 4 slots has more to do with losing the mystery passives and free domain spell than being spontaneous.

[Deriven Firelion]

Bard needs extra stuff about as much as the rogue or barbarian...oh wait.

[moosher12]

Good points all! Thank you for the input. I can agree the Bard having Focus Cantrips is a very good point. As an aside, it does connect the dots why the Witch would have been reduced from 4 spell slots to 3 since it also has Focus Cantrips.

[Vodalian]

moosher12 wrote:

Good points all! Thank you for the input. I can agree the Bard having Focus Cantrips is a very good point. As an aside, it does connect the dots why the Witch would have been reduced from 4 spell slots to 3 since it also has Focus Cantrips.

Because witch focus cantrips are terrible compared to bard focus cantrips. Often they do to one target on a failed save (evil eye) an effect that is weaker than what the bard does to all enemies (dirge of doom) without any check.

[Captain Morgan]

While compositions are definitely the big draw, they also get martial weapon proficiency, extra trained skills, light armor, expert to master perception, and solid save progression. It's a really stacked class.

Also not sure that the Oracle is actually a 4 slot caster since it has contradictory text. There's like a 65% chance it is, and even then I'm not sure it needed to be one.

[Old_Man_Robot]

Captain Morgan wrote:

While compositions are definitely the big draw, they also get martial weapon proficiency, extra trained skills, light armor, expert to master perception, and solid save progression. It's a really stacked class.

Also not sure that the Oracle is actually a 4 slot caster since it has contradictory text. There's like a 65% chance it is, and even then I'm not sure it needed to be one.

I saw on reddit that there was discord comment from -someone- at Paizo confirming it was indeed meant to be a 4 slot caster. But that is basically a game of telephone.

August 1st will be the confirmation.

[Lightning Raven]

Quote:

I'm trying to think, what makes the Bard worth keeping as a 3-slot class, balance wise?

They're already the strongest caster and class in the game.

From PF1e to PF2e, Bards went from being 6th slot casters to 10th slots "full casters". Without losing pretty much anything from their old concept of versatile skills and special compositions (which are all crazy good).

[WWHsmackdown]

4 slots originally seemed like a power signpost that signaled fewer class mechanics outside the slots themselves and fewer avenues of all day repeatable power. Also, worse health, armor, and save progression. Essentially, that fourth slot is powerful enough to justify sacrificing A LOT. Now with Oracle and playtest animist, idk. Ultimately though, no, I wouldn't want to see bard get a fourth slot. It's plenty strong

[25speedforseaweedleshy]

oracle get 4 slot could be misprint

wizard and sorcerer both get 4 slot the worst defence among all class

which is the main reason many consider witch underpowered and should get 4 slot

if all caster get 4 slot there is no justification for d6 and one master save of wizard

[Teridax]

To answer the OP's questions in order:

Despite having only 3 slots per spell rank, the Bard is considered one of the strongest casters, if not the strongest, due to a combination of extremely strong focus cantrips, solid base stats, access to a highly versatile spell list, and amazing feats. Bards can do a lot of different things on tap before they even start to dip into their spell slots.

Given how the Bard is already considered by many to be the strongest class in the game, I don't think it would make sense to give them 4 slots per rank. I would say the issue is more that there's been a degree of spell slot creep as of late: while the Animist could be chalked up to a playtest class that was ridiculously overtuned in a variety of different ways, the Oracle I'd say feels like a case of the developers overcompensating for a class that until now has been incredibly stunted and weak.

I personally do think that 4-slot spontaneous casting should be reserved for the Sorcerer unless there's a very good reason for some other caster to have it (and I do think the Mystic potentially qualifies). In my opinion, having 4 slots per spell rank takes so much out of a class's power budget that it's very difficult to give them that much in the way of distinct and impactful class features. This is why the Sorcerer's subclasses cap the number of spells you can freely add to your repertoire, for instance, because at that point you need to take a bit of stuff away to give it back and make it feel like a benefit.

I think that on paper, the Mystic is fairly light on core class features, and their mystic bond specifically is small enough to fit on a 4-slot caster. My issue with the class when it released, however, was that this 4-slot caster was also trained in light armor and had 8 HP per level, which I don't think normally ought to be accessible to casters with that many spell slots. The official argument given was that this was supposed to make them hold up in an environment where ranged attacks would become much more common, but I don't find that argument very convincing.

[moosher12]

Teridax wrote:

To answer the OP's questions in order:

Despite having only 3 slots per spell rank, the Bard is considered one of the strongest casters, if not the strongest, due to a combination of extremely strong focus cantrips, solid base stats, access to a highly versatile spell list, and amazing feats. Bards can do a lot of different things on tap before they even start to dip into their spell slots.
Given how the Bard is already considered by many to be the strongest class in the game, I don't think it would make sense to give them 4 slots per rank. I would say the issue is more that there's been a degree of spell slot creep as of late: while the Animist could be chalked up to a playtest class that was ridiculously overtuned in a variety of different ways, the Oracle I'd say feels like a case of the developers overcompensating for a class that until now has been incredibly stunted and weak.

I personally do think that 4-slot spontaneous casting should be reserved for the Sorcerer unless there's a very good reason for some other caster to have it (and I do think the Mystic potentially qualifies). In my opinion, having 4 slots per spell rank takes so much out of a class's power budget that it's very difficult to give them that much in the way of distinct and impactful class features. This is why the Sorcerer's subclasses cap the number of spells you can freely add to your repertoire, for instance, because at that point you need to take a bit of stuff away to give it back and make it feel like a benefit.

I think that on paper, the Mystic is fairly light on core class features, and their mystic bond specifically is small enough to fit on a 4-slot caster. My issue with the class when it released, however, was that this 4-slot caster was also trained in light armor and had 8 HP per level, which I don't think normally ought to be accessible to casters with that many spell slots. The official argument given was that this was supposed to make them hold up in an environment where ranged attacks would become much more common, but I don't find that argument very convincing.

Very good explanations. I thank you. ^^

And yeah, it is a bit weird. I didn't know how to place it, but you saying Spell Slot creep finally put to more succinct words what I was feeling on it.

[moosher12]

Teridax wrote:

I think that on paper, the Mystic is fairly light on core class features, and their mystic bond specifically is small enough to fit on a 4-slot caster. My issue with the class when it released, however, was that this 4-slot caster was also trained in light armor and had 8 HP per level, which I don't think normally ought to be accessible to casters with that many spell slots. The official argument given was that this was supposed to make them hold up in an environment where ranged attacks would become...

As a brief aside, I think this last point does raise a question. If their argument is that such a class should get extra spells in the Starfinder environment, I wonder if the Mystic would have had 3 slots if it was built for Pathfinder.

Basically, if the environment is a factor, would that mean that certain Pathfinder classes should get a spell buff when played in Starfinder to keep up, and alike, would certain Starfinder classes need their spell slots to be nerfed to stay balanced in Pathfinder. It's an interesting can of worms.

I'm looking forward to the 1st. Will be interesting to see how people interact with these possibilities in the playtest. I do hope that the classes would drop in and work relatively well, though, without GM's having to ban or retune them when it comes to the final product. From what I've seen so far, of the three classes from the field test, while not all of them are have all options compatible, they at least have enough non-tech features to function within Pathfinder without the scifi technology.

[Teridax]

moosher12 wrote:

As a brief aside, I think this last point does raise a question. If their argument is that such a class should get extra spells in the Starfinder environment, I wonder if the Mystic would have had 3 slots if it was built for Pathfinder.

Basically, if the environment is a factor, would that mean that certain Pathfinder classes should get a spell buff when played in Starfinder to keep up, and alike, would certain Starfinder classes need their spell slots to be nerfed to stay balanced in Pathfinder. It's an interesting can of worms.

I'm looking forward to the 1st. Will be interesting to see how people interact with these possibilities in the playtest. I do hope that the classes would drop in and work relatively well, though, without GM's having to ban or retune them when it comes to the final product. From what I've seen so far, of the three classes from the field test, while not all of them are have all options compatible, they at least have enough non-tech features to function within Pathfinder without the scifi technology.

You hit the nail on the head, and this is the exact issue I also take with that defense for the Mystic's stats and spell slots. If combat in Starfinder 2e gives enemies such freedom of target selection that it's basically impossible to have a true cloth caster, then that creates compatibility problems where classes like the Psychic, Sorcerer, Witch, and Wizard will not in fact be truly playable in SF2e. If we're fluffing up the stats of Starfinder casters just for them to survive combat there, then that also creates a compatibility risk where those casters risk becoming too strong, durable, or both in Pathfinder. On top of that, if the expectation is that casters are going to get attacked regardless, this raises the question of what the point of being tanky even is in Starfinder if all it does is encourage the enemy to focus the squishies.

... but that's a matter for another forum. In the meantime, I don't think the Oracle needed to have four spell slots per rank, and I would rather they'd stayed a 3-slot caster if it meant they still got to have a mystery benefit.

[Perpdepog]

WWHsmackdown wrote:

4 slots originally seemed like a power signpost that signaled fewer class mechanics outside the slots themselves and fewer avenues of all day repeatable power. Also, worse health, armor, and save progression. Essentially, that fourth slot is powerful enough to justify sacrificing A LOT. Now with Oracle and playtest animist, idk. Ultimately though, no, I wouldn't want to see bard get a fourth slot. It's plenty strong

That's how I always understood the four slots to function, myself. Now I'm not so sure. If it is true we're moving to more casters having four slots that is a bit of a feelsbad for the wizard IMO, who's meant to be the slottiest slot caster out there.

[Finoan]

Psychic is, as far as I know, still considered a pretty good class even though it only has two spell slots per level.

Regarding Wizard, I would rather that it go the route of getting more non-slot class abilities than just pumping up the number of spell slots. Similar to how Witch was buffed - not by giving them 4 slots, but by making their other mechanics work better.