I hear such good things about Embodiment of battle. I don't understand.
The only Animist combat build that I can think of to use the spell with is one that focuses on using it pretty much to the exclusion of other focus spells available. Is that the intent?
Stat spread: This is one of the things that you have no way of changing around from day to day. Do you build the character for spellcasting? weapon use? or both? What are some example stat spreads that people are thinking are ideal for an Animist that uses Embodiment of Battle on some days but not others?
Martial weapon proficiency: Are people carrying around two fully runed up weapons - one simple and one martial so that they can use the martial weapon while they have Embodiment of Battle up? Or do they only use weapons while they have Embodiment of Battle and don't use weapons when they don't?
Reactive Strike: This is reasonably nice, but you are still using your spellcaster level proficiency. With bonuses, of course, but see the next paragraph.
Status bonus to accuracy and damage: This is probably the best buff of the spell and likely the draw for it - again unless I am misunderstanding something. With the stat spread and proficiency of a spellcaster, does the +1, +2(at level 7), and +3(at level 13) make up the difference for both of those - both the secondary boost amounts of attack attribute (STR or DEX) and the lack of any other damage boosting in the class when compared to other martial classes? or even hybrid classes like Cleric Warpriest or the pre-Remaster Battle Oracle? Basically, what is the expectation here? I don't think it is full martial, but I am not sure what it is.
Action cost: This spell costs an action each round to sustain. Liturgist can help with that at mid levels (and helps more if the GM is fine with Tumble Through not going through an enemy). But if not Liturgist, the action cost means that there are a lot less actions available to the character.
So TL;DR: Is Embodiment of Battle a reasonable choice for a generalist Animist -one that picks Witness to Ancient Battles apparition on a whim one day? Or is it only good for an Animist that builds for it specifically - taking the right stat array and feats and such to capitalize on it? And how much of a martial does the spell turn the character into?
The stat spread you can just use a basic 18 WiS/ 16 dex, as it also works with finesse weapons as well.
But as you mentioned action economy with it is hard and now you need to keep a weapon up to date with runes and that is expensive.
What is a "generalist animist" in the first place? You haven't defined this term.
If you're asking whether Embodiment is a good choice for someone who doesn't carry a weapon and hasn't invested highly in Str or Dex then no, that's pretty obviously not a good match.
What is a "generalist animist" in the first place? You haven't defined this term.
I thought I did.
a generalist Animist -one that picks Witness to Ancient Battles apparition on a whim one day.
To better define it: An Animist that is wanting to freely pick any of the apparitions. The opposite of an Animist that would take Relinquish Control. Since the class is primarily a spellcaster, one that is most likely leaning towards spellcasting as their main combat strategy - and probably isn't locking in on either blasting damage or buff/debuff or healing or physical weapon damage or crowd control, but chooses which role to fill based on apparition choice and prepared spell slot choice for the day.
The Animist characters that I am theorycrafting generally don't have more than a +2 in either STR or DEX at level 1. WIS is at +4 to start with. I could probably go with the +4 WIS, +3 DEX, but then Finesse weapons don't have as much damage output.
So in my builds, what I am seeing is that Darkened Forest Form looks more appealing if I am wanting to go the physical damage route for a day on a whim. Because it ignores my physical stats and my choice of weapons.
Embodiment of Battle has to be designed for in order for it to be appealing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you play a generalist Animist, then you have Darkened Forest Form. Embodiment of Battle is very much for a specialized Animist. Between the heavy Strength investment (going anywhere under 16 would be punishing) and the weapon investment (a fully runed weapon is not cheap), I don't think we can call an Embodiment of Battle Animist a "generalist".
The status bonus is meant to compensate the lack of proficiency and Strength. It should be roughly at martial level in terms of accuracy. As you lack any other feature, you'll end up hitting like a Champion. So not bad, but not great either (especially as you won't have the crazy defensive ability of a Champion).
As for the action economy, I tend to not speak about the Liturgist because it's clearly raising tons of issues so I expect Paizo to modify it in the near future. But overall, wasting an action every round is super costly. The bonus doesn't really make up for the wasted action before high levels (even at level 7, it's hardly a good use of your action and you should deal the same amount of damage without Embodiment of Battle thanks to the extra action and as such extra attack).
Depending on this a Reactive Strike can be borderline guaranteed.
From my experience, people vastly overvalue how often their reaction triggers. I remember having checked on a PbP I was playing the actual occurrence of the reach Fighter AoOs and it was close to 15% of rounds. A "borderline guaranteed" Reactive Strike doesn't exist in this game or is artificially made up by the GM.
|
Depending on this a Reactive Strike can be borderline guaranteed.From my experience, people vastly overvalue how often their reaction triggers. I remember having checked on a PbP I was playing the actual occurrence of the reach Fighter AoOs and it was close to 15% of rounds. A "borderline guaranteed" Reactive Strike doesn't exist in this game or is artificially made up by the GM.
A character with reactive strike can substantially affect a combat even if they only use it once in a combat (so the bad guys know you have it).
This is far more obvious to the GM than to players. I fairly often have bad guys act so as to NOT provoke the reactive strike and instead do something somewhat less effective.
Also some GMs have their bad guys not provoke Reactive Strikes when the bad guy really would. For example, an animal intelligence opponent should NOT recognize what a Reactive Strike is from seeing its buddy hit. MAYBE it would become cautious when IT is unexpectedly hit. Maybe.
A character with reactive strike can substantially affect a combat even if they only use it once in a combat (so the bad guys know you have it).
15% is once every 2 combats, considering that chances are high that it happens at the end of the fight and as such doesn't impact the fight in any other way. Still not "borderline guaranteed".
For example, an animal intelligence opponent should NOT recognize what a Reactive Strike is from seeing its buddy hit.
There's no should or must in that case. It really depends on how the GM perceives combat and combat abilities. I've seen zombies Stepping because the GM considered it was ridiculous for the zombie to Stride 5 ft.
In my experience, Reactive with Reach triggers at least 1/2 rounds without any effort
I play a 15ft. reach large size Reactive Strike character in PFS and I'm not even at 50%.
As I said, players significantly overvalue the occurrence of reactions. Once every 2 rounds is much closer to Opportune Backstab chances to trigger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm... Analyzing...
I think the difference in perception is real, and is probably due to differences in party tactics.
The simple tactics used by uncoordinated players - such as the random groups put together in PFS play - is a rush-down strategy. Players don't often coordinate with each other, they just do whatever they can individually to go and attack the enemy.
So when the party tactics are to rush to the enemy and attack them, then Reactive Strike doesn't happen very often. The enemies are standing their ground and not moving.
In more coordinated groups that are trying to synergize around Reactive Strike, the front line may be holding their ground for the first round and forming a defensive line while being buffed or making recall knowledge checks - and waiting for the enemies to come to them. The enemies, in turn, may be more tactical and be trying to skirt past the front line to take out the softer targets. Both of which will cause Reactive Strike to be more common.
|
|
For example, an animal intelligence opponent should NOT recognize what a Reactive Strike is from seeing its buddy hit.There's no should or must in that case. It really depends on how the GM perceives combat and combat abilities. I've seen zombies Stepping because the GM considered it was ridiculous for the zombie to Stride 5 ft.
I personally consider that GM to be 100% absolutely and completely wrong.
Zombies are DUMB. Both mechanically and in the vast majority of fiction that form our common understanding of Zombies.
That is part of the reason that they're generally only threatening in large numbers and, even then, often only against unprepared sorts.
But IMAO it is part of the GMs responsibility to try hard to have the antagonists act like they would in world, to use tactics appropriate to the creature. While there are obviously lots and lots of edge cases where reasonable people can disagree Zombies stepping really shouldn't be one. That is a tactical maneuver. Zombies don't use tactics.
I've seen lots and lots of (generally newbie) players have their characters stride when they should step. And I'm pretty sure that even the least experienced players are more tactically aware than Zombies.
There is a reason why Reactive Strike builds are valued so high.
I value Reactive Strike a lot. What I dont overvalue is it's occurrence.
One man's experience doesn't matter.
But it's the only man here who actually calculated the occurrence. So, I tend to believe the one who brings actual prooves.
That is a tactical maneuver.
The zombie had to move five feet so the GM used the action allowing you to move five feet. It's Step. No tactical maneuver whatsoever from their point of view.
The issue is: Nothing states that Step is a tactical maneuver. Nothing in the game allows us to know what actions are meant to be made by what creature. I have ways to play my stupid enemies that are miles ahead other GMs, just because we don't analyze the game and the creatures the same way.
There's no form of truth on these questions.
If you have a slam down fighter or grapple+trip monk in your group then RS should be nearly several per round for the group. That's how my group wrecked FotRP. If your not triggering it multiple times per fight, then your group isn't built for it in some way.
Every party I’ve been in that has had reactive strike prioritizes knocking enemies prone to capitalize on it. Even in my PFS play experience it has been common to ask at the beginning if anyone has it, and I’ve even seen prepared casters alter spell selection to pick spells that prevent stepping (like providing difficult terrain/preventing movement. The reactive strike part of the focus spell is a huge component of it.