|
To me, being able to be at least GOOD and often GREAT (even if never the best) in almost every role is top tier. I'd assume you are aware tiers aren't what they were in PF1. No class actually sucks in this system, so to me, if a class easily can meet bare minimum expectations in nearly every role in a single build, that's strong AF.This is not top tier. This is personal preference. You are in a weak party if that is your party composition and being good to great against a weak party build is not what I'm looking for.
Min-maxing still works very, very well in this edition.
Sorry, my bad. I made the knee-jerk mistake of conflating min-maxing with optimizing. You are correct, especially when classes like the fighter are the definition of highly effective min-maxing for the system.
That being said, I do believe animist is still top tier without being a DPS king in a similar way that the bard is. It's definitionally NOT min-maxed but it is strong in a lot of different things and weak in few areas.
I agree, how you describe your current party, an animist and any non-DPS character (or maybe even ANY additional character) sounds like they are never going to noticeably contribute but this is not a flaw of the class, it's....sorta a flaw in your party. It's not that they aren't performing well but they're essentially breaking the game's balance which sounds antithetical to the system. MAYBE it shows a flaw in the system, the adventure or your GM. If you think you would actually want to play animist outside of your current group dynamics, talk with you group about feeling like you're being forced out of options or find a different group. And again, if you just don't think you'd like it regardless of how your party is composed, that's fine too. Don't play one.
I vaguely recall that Deriven's tables don't often leave encounter mode once engaged to get full use out of 1 minute spell durations, but ripping through consecutive severe/extreme/tpk rank encounters isn't exactly impossible for any party that builds to do so.
Best part is that doing so in no way inhibits your ability to crush social encounters, skill challenges or any sort of exploration either. Especially in the mid-late game where you have so many extra abilities you can invest in for minimal build or gold cost.
It'd help if expectations were clearly set. I used 4-6 consecutive encounters with minimum 1 dungeon turn/10 minute exploration turn between them as my baseline for party stress testing and build experimentation. What sorts of baselines are the rest of you using?
They don't. Now you get it. They don't need me. I have to compete and standout all on my own, not because someone else is deficient. If you can't keep the pace and standout on your own, you will feel like you don't matter.That means if you're sitting there casting buff spells or sustaining vessel spells while the sorc next to you is dropping heavy AOE and the barb is raging, sudden charging, then next round whirlwind attack clean up and you're making a single grudge strike satisfied with that, you won't hang in that group. You'll feel like you are unnecessary.
For people that know how to min-max and push action economy and damage, this class looks slow. It has a single Practice that is even competitive. The other three practices wouldn't even compete with top tier builds due to the sustain actions necessary to make vessel spells work. You're slowing yourself just to make one of your key abilities work.I'm not seeing a lot of min-maxers on this thread. Probably not seeing them because the class isn't very strong for min-max play. You're not a min-maxer. You're a guy who likes the class because you like being a GISH and play with oddly built groups.
That's not my situation. I play with min-maxers that only choose maximally effective abilities, spells, classes, and anything that isn't going to bring stuff down very fast with minimal set up is not chosen.
Well, that's the thing.
I only played Animist as a blaster/secondary healer so I cannot speak for its martial abilities. I used forms for exploration like you do on your druid (air elem if I needed to fly, earth elem if I needed to burrow, water elem if I needed to swim) but not for fighting.So, again, this is merely from a blasting perspective - and of course a liturgist perspective since there's little debate that it's vastly superior to other practices.
But in this perspective, Earth's Bile, Medium's Awareness, Apparition Quickening and Cardinal Guardians...
This is helpful information.
I can see the blasting potential for an animist if you focus that way.
You know how good Explosion of Power is and I'm using it right now. That ability is brutal.
I think you could probably do a decent Animist melee if you focused that way. But there is always a trade off if going one way or the other.
I think the blaster is likely more powerful.
I am more inclined to believe the play experience of those that seem to have played the animist and made it clear it performs ok, but isn't top tier like you tried to sell it.
To be clear, I definitely think an Animist is top tier. It is right up there with a druid (the closest class in my opinion since they both are very flexible).
What I do NOT think is that it is overpowered.
You're the only person I've ever met who thinks the Animist underpowered. Many think it overpowered.
Your tables obviously run very differently from most. Quite frankly, I have no clue how your players seem to be able to optimize so much more than others do. So I can't give you good advice on the Animist. But you seem to find the combination of utility, gishness and blasting that the Druid has very good. And that combination should be achievable by the Animist. Their strength is their versatility.
And it is quite playable before L9 (when Liturgist kicks in). The action economy is annoying but liveable. Often you're just losing your third action. If you don't need to move then Earths Bile sustain some 2 action spell is a pretty good round.
And, even non Liturgist, being able to switch your battle shape is often worth the action. For example, strike in a good damaging form sustain into a very mobile form move. Sure, a Liturgist would get to make a MAP -5 attack. But as a caster losing that second attack isn't the end of the world.
I haven't played it but theory crafting the Medium it also looks attractive. Not having to cycle to keep 2 apparitions useable gives some options.
I haven't played one yet. So I can't say for sure. It looks a bit slow with the vessel sustain spells. Maybe it is less slow in play, but for my groups any kind of set up is wasting time.
We tried playing some classes with abilities that require set up and the other PCs don't let the set up happen. They just unleash and go to town. If you're moving slow to set up your attacks, you're going to watch everything burned down while you're setting up.
I can likely focus on spells that hammer right from the opening but I have to do that like the sorcs and martials will do to keep up. I think the blasting path may have the best chance of doing that.
I vaguely recall that Deriven's tables don't often leave encounter mode once engaged to get full use out of 1 minute spell durations, but ripping through consecutive severe/extreme/tpk rank encounters isn't exactly impossible for any party that builds to do so.
Best part is that doing so in no way inhibits your ability to crush social encounters, skill challenges or any sort of exploration either. Especially in the mid-late game where you have so many extra abilities you can invest in for minimal build or gold cost.
It'd help if expectations were clearly set. I used 4-6 consecutive encounters with minimum 1 dungeon turn/10 minute exploration turn between them as my baseline for party stress testing and build experimentation. What sorts of baselines are the rest of you using?
Yes. You get it.
We usually have one or two people that build for social encounters. The entire group doesn't. They handle social or exploration if we run into them while everyone else waits. They don't enjoy social encounters anyway, so they are fine leaving it to the characters who build for it.
Usually charisma casters as they are best at it. We got one player that loves his skills and we usually let him do the thing he loves when we need it with some support.
The biggest pain with the way we play is focus point management. You can't blow those focus points too early when you aren't getting any 10 minute rests to get them back.
To me, being able to be at least GOOD and often GREAT (even if never the best) in almost every role is top tier. I'd assume you are aware tiers aren't what they were in PF1. No class actually sucks in this system, so to me, if a class easily can meet bare minimum expectations in nearly every role in a single build, that's strong AF.This is not top tier. This is personal preference. You are in a weak party if that is your party composition and being good to great against a weak party build is not what I'm looking for.
Min-maxing still works very, very well in this edition.Sorry, my bad. I made the knee-jerk mistake of conflating min-maxing with optimizing. You are correct, especially when classes like the fighter are the definition of highly effective min-maxing for the system.
That being said, I do believe animist is still top tier without being a DPS king in a similar way that the bard is. It's definitionally NOT min-maxed but it is strong in a lot of different things and weak in few areas.
I agree, how you describe your current party, an animist and any non-DPS character (or maybe even ANY additional character) sounds like they are never going to noticeably contribute but this is not a flaw of the class, it's....sorta a flaw in your party. It's not that they aren't performing well but they're essentially breaking the game's balance which sounds antithetical to the system. MAYBE it shows a flaw in the system, the adventure or your GM. If you think you would actually want to play animist outside of your current group dynamics, talk with you group about feeling like you're being forced out of options or find a different group. And again, if you just don't think you'd like it regardless of how your party is composed, that's fine too. Don't play one.
I'll give it a shot. I think the blasting build is likely more optimal.
I don't know. It looks slow early levels. I have to be a liturgist to maximize the power even though I kind of like the Medium Practice for concept.
I really do not love classes with one clear powerful build option that is vastly superior to the others for optimal play.
I'm always surprised when designers make something like Vessel spells sustain, then make only a single practice with a sustain with good action economy.
If you have a class with a strong class feature that requires sustain and you want all practices to be viable options, you should give all practices a sustain option that improves as they level so they can use the vessel spells without slowing themselves down.
It seems like someone didn't think the design all the way through for all the practices.
|
I really do not love classes with one clear powerful build option that is vastly superior to the others for optimal play.
While you're absolutely right it is probably worth stressing that the Liturgist only shines at levels 9+ and so that affects lots of characters less or not at all.
Kinda the opposite situation to rogue where the thief absolutely shines at lower levels but significantly less as you go up in levels and the Dex component up damage matters less and less.
But yeah, having some subclasses massively outshining others is a significant issue
I really do not love classes with one clear powerful build option that is vastly superior to the others for optimal play.
While you're absolutely right it is probably worth stressing that the Liturgist only shines at levels 9+ and so that affects lots of characters less or not at all.
Kinda the opposite situation to rogue where the thief absolutely shines at lower levels but significantly less as you go up in levels and the Dex component up damage matters less and less.
But yeah, having some subclasses massively outshining others is a significant issue
I saw that. Which is why I called it slow. Level 9 is a lot of levels to wait for a sustain that is at least usable with some other useful action. Level 18 is definitely a long time to wait.
Druid wild shapes and that's it. They can fly and use reach for that one action. But a Animist wild shapes and tries to fly, they are using a sustain and a move action to fly. Two actions committed to using a vessel spell. That's kind of rough.
One of the big advantages of the druid with Untamed Form is flight and reach all in a single focus point spell usable all day, especially with Form Control and Perfect Form Control. Even at 2 levels lower for form control, you're getting max benefits for most forms. I like to use Air elemental form for providing flanking for flying creatures and to take them out of the air with trips.
If I'm using the animist, I can't step while flying and I can't leap while flying. Maybe I could tumble through at half speed to sustain and move at half speed which would require a roll and risk of activating Reactive Strike type abilities which a lot of high level creatures have, so I don't love that option. Whereas the druid just moves up with reach and hammers.
It's not as efficient a user of forms as the druid. It pays a low up front casting cost, but a high sustain cost for forms. Whereas the druid pays a slightly higher up front casting cost, but no sustain cost. The feat cost is part of the class and high quality feats so that part doesn't feel like anything you wouldn't already take.
|
|
It's not as efficient a user of forms as the druid. It pays a low up front casting cost, but a high sustain cost for forms. Whereas the druid pays a slightly higher up front casting cost, but no sustain cost
You're not wrong. But most of those flying druid options only come on line at L8 with Aerial Shape so the Liturgist is only 1 level behind (or 2 if the Druid uses actual spells).
And the ability to change shapes for that sustain can, sometimes, be absolutely worth the action. Lots of the time it has no value, of course, but sometimes it can be wonderful. Even at low levels suddenly getting a swim or climb speed or a 50 ft move speed can be worth the action.
And, of course, from time to time the 1 action cast is wonderful. You get 2 rounds of shapechange for 1 action (just don't sustain it on the 2nd round). Or you get to essentially dismiss it for free when the stars align and you want to be able to cast spells again NEXT round.
I'd suggest trying it. In my experience I found Animist shapechange comparable to Druidic even before L9. Better in some ways, worse in others. At L9+ Druids often have better options (Plant Shape at L10 and L12, for example). But man it is nice to be an Earth AND Metal/Air Elemental on the same turn :-). Enemy is sniping from the top of a tower? You're in his face and hitting him with a quite decent attack.
The Animist is one of the classes where my actual play experience differed considerably from my expectations from just reading the class and creating some characters. Better in some respects, worse in others.
It's not as efficient a user of forms as the druid. It pays a low up front casting cost, but a high sustain cost for forms. Whereas the druid pays a slightly higher up front casting cost, but no sustain costYou're not wrong. But most of those flying druid options only come on line at L8 with Aerial Shape so the Liturgist is only 1 level behind (or 2 if the Druid uses actual spells).
And the ability to change shapes for that sustain can, sometimes, be absolutely worth the action. Lots of the time it has no value, of course, but sometimes it can be wonderful. Even at low levels suddenly getting a swim or climb speed or a 50 ft move speed can be worth the action.
And, of course, from time to time the 1 action cast is wonderful. You get 2 rounds of shapechange for 1 action (just don't sustain it on the 2nd round). Or you get to essentially dismiss it for free when the stars align and you want to be able to cast spells again NEXT round.
I'd suggest trying it. In my experience I found Animist shapechange comparable to Druidic even before L9. Better in some ways, worse in others. At L9+ Druids often have better options (Plant Shape at L10 and L12, for example). But man it is nice to be an Earth AND Metal/Air Elemental on the same turn :-). Enemy is sniping from the top of a tower? You're in his face and hitting him with a quite decent attack.
The Animist is one of the classes where my actual play experience differed considerably from my expectations from just reading the class and creating some characters. Better in some respects, worse in others.
How did you deal with flying and sustain?
Certain things are clear in the rules:
1. You cannot step while flying.
2. You cannot leap while flying.
3. If you don't have a target to tumble through, you cannot tumble through.
So even a level 9 liturgist must spend two actions to sustain and move while flying. So one attack? Is that what a flying shaped changed Liturgist is limited to?
Or did you use the Tumble Through option all the time risking AOOs?
It's the 3. point that's wrong here, you can Tumble Through without an enemy.
"You Stride up to your Speed. During this movement, you can try to move through the space of one enemy."
So, you can try to go through an enemy's space, but you don't have to, and you go at full speed like a normal Stride/Fly etc. I believe there was even a developer comment somewhere that this is an intended interaction for the animist though I can't recall who or where.
Are you seriously trying to argue that? An enemy's space doesn't require an enemy? I'm not running it that way. You would have to get something more than a developer making some offhand comment.
Tumble Through requires an enemy to set the DC. If it didn't require a DC, then you would have an argument. But it does have a DC set by the enemy you're using it against.
If they wanted you to be able to do it without an enemy present, they should have made it a stride action. But they didn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Attempt an Acrobatics check against the enemy's Reflex DC as soon as you try to enter its space. You can Tumble Through using Climb, Fly, Swim, or another action instead of Stride in the appropriate environment.
The rules text above makes it clear how Tumble Through works. If you're not trying to go through the enemy's space, you're not using Tumble Through.
It's not a stride. It requires you to have an enemy to set the DC and at least an attempt to go through the Enemy's space.
You *can* try.
If you enter an enemy’s Space, you must make a Check. If you don’t, you don’t make any check.
This time, RAW is pretty clear.
It doesn’t work with haste however.
Same as being able to sustain two spells with a single elf step.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You *can* try.
If you enter an enemy’s Space, you must make a Check. If you don’t, you don’t make any check.This time, RAW is pretty clear.
It doesn’t work with haste however.
Same as being able to sustain two spells with a single elf step.
No, not how I run it. This idea that you are trying to separate the parts into a favorable ruling without reading the whole is a strange attempt at turning a Tumble Through action into a Stride.
If you're going to use Tumble Through, you will try to Tumble Through, endure the AOOs, and there is no Tumble through without trying to go through an enemy's space and make the DC.
I'm not sure why you're trying to rules lawyer this, but that isn't allowed at my table. I have despised attempts at trying to read rules in some convoluted way to benefit you since PF3 led to the term "rules lawyer."
Tumble Though action is exactly what' it is. You have to try to Tumble Through an opponent's space and make the roll and set the DC.
It's not "I'm really striding, but calling it Tumble Through."
I'm really surprised you're attempting this reading Blue Frog. I don't care how you run it at your table, but that's not how it works. If they intended you to Stride and activate the ability, they would have said it.
The Elf Step is at least RAW. The Tumble Through is not. It's a weird attempt to compartmentalize what Tumble Through is and get a sustain for a stride.
If it allowed you to Sustain with a Stride action, you could also use the Stride action from Haste and many other sources of Quickened, or from activities like Sudden Charge. So requiring Tumble Through is functionally a little bit more restricted as it's not compatible with those.
If they wanted you to be able to do it without an enemy present, they should have made it a stride action. But they didn't.
A Tumble Through action is a Tumble Through action. If you could use it like Stride, it would be a stride.
Some of you have real loose rulings at your tables. Not anything I would allow.
My players know this and wouldn't even attempt it. Tumble Through is a very clear ability that works as a whole for a specific purpose that isn't the same as a stride as you are trying to make it.
I guess that is part of the reason the animist plays better at some tables. They have loose rulings on things like Tumble Through.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't believe no one has linked this (unless I missed it) but Tumble Through allowing a full movement without going through an enemy space is both RAW and RAI according to Michael Sayre. Now, my GM acknowledges this but still does not allow it and I'm fine with it cuz again, I think it's too strong. But yes, if you want to be as RAW and RAI without houseruling, Tumble Through is pretty much any full stride, fly or climb with an added feauture.
A Tumble Through action is a Tumble Through action. If you could use it like Stride, it would be a stride.
Some of you have real loose rulings at your tables. Not anything I would allow.
You are the one house ruling here. As John R. pointed out, a developer confirmed Tumble Through is just an umbrella action that lets you perform any sort of movement you have a Speed for, without needing to go through someone. The rules text for Tumble Through also states: "During this movement, you can try to move through the space of one enemy." It's "you can," not "you must," so the bit about moving through enemies is optional.
And yes, technically this means that most characters have no reason to take a Stride action, because everyone can just Tumble Through instead and cartwheel across the battlefield like a bunch of circus performers. It's very silly, but generally amounts to a nothingburger at most tables because people aren't actively trying to roleplay a gymnast, and will still usually Stride when they're not trying to move through an enemy.
Going back to the Liturgist, though, this means that their Sustain on a Tumble Through isn't really a restriction: you can perform any kind of movement you want, you can try to move through an enemy if you want, and you also get to Sustain a vessel or apparition spell at the same time. The subclass really does have exceptionally good action economy, and that goes a long way towards eliminating the action costs of Sustaining vessel spells.
I'm really surprised you're attempting this reading Blue Frog. I don't care how you run it at your table, but that's not how it works. If they intended you to Stride and activate the ability, they would have said it.
The Elf Step is at least RAW. The Tumble Through is not. It's a weird attempt to compartmentalize what Tumble Through is and get a sustain for a stride.
Well, I don’t know what to tell you, that’s the rules. You can choose to play differently at your table and that’s your privilège as a DM, but it’s still a houserule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Starfinder added a trait to allow alternate movement types with a Stride. PF2 didn't have that, and Tumble Through was used as something of a hack to do the same thing, while also avoiding any Haste interactions. I absolutely thought that the "no target" loophole was unintentional cheese until the devs clarified that it was intended, and why.
I absolutely thought that the "no target" loophole was unintentional cheese until the devs clarified that it was intended, and why.
Same here. It's one of those is/ought discrepancies where I think the original wording was fairly clear all along, but because the logical consequences were so goofy (i.e. the party and monsters backflipping all over the place), I automatically tried to correct that and assumed the action was specifically for moving through enemies and nothing else, especially as that would cohere with PF2e's general balance. It's only when I saw the dev confirmation and logic behind it that I changed my mind.
In our case, we houseruled the "sustain every time" part to make it only once per round, else we had some pretty wild games where you could sustain six spells at once and still move without even being hasted.
Well, we never got to the "six spells at once" but two in one action while also moving was still too powerful for our taste.
So we changed it - but we know it's a houserule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In our case, we houseruled the "sustain every time" part to make it only once per round, else we had some pretty wild games where you could sustain six spells at once and still move without even being hasted.
Well, we never got to the "six spells at once" but two in one action while also moving was still too powerful for our taste.
So we changed it - but we know it's a houserule.
Mhmm. If someone shows up with Elf Step to double-sustain on one action, they're probably not a good fit for the tables I'm playing at.
What is the Tumble Through cheese part? I am curious since i have not heard of this with this Animist sub-class.
Mhmm. If someone shows up with Elf Step to double-sustain on one action, they're probably not a good fit for the tables I'm playing at.
While I would caution a player at my table against hyper-optimizing an Animist, I think that highlights the underlying problem: the Animist's design lends itself way too easily to exploits, and this almost feels intentional. Whereas most classes in 2e are designed so that the gap between average and maximal optimization isn't too large, the Animist seems almost designed on purpose to have lots of cheesy interactions that cause their power levels to explode with the right build choices. Whereas a player who tends towards optimization can optimize away with any class and still not hog the spotlight at a table full of more casual players, the same can't really be said for the Animist, and so it's easy to end up with the same rifts in performance we see in PF1e or D&D 5e/3.5e. The class could easily benefit from having those exploits trimmed away, IMO.
What is the Tumble Through cheese part? I am curious since i have not heard of this with this Animist sub-class.
Because you can use Tumble Through to replicate any sort of movement without needing to move through an opponent, a Liturgist Animist can Tumble Through instead of Striding or performing any other sort of movement just to auto-Sustain their apparition and vessel spells. This is intentional, and can be taken even further with feats like Elf Step, which lets you Step twice and thus Sustain two spells in a single action. When the Commander releases, you could go Even Further Beyond with their Defensive Retreat tactic, which lets every squadmate Step three times as a free action.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is the Tumble Through cheese part? I am curious since i have not heard of this with this Animist sub-class.
If they’re doing it to maximize sustains then I agree. But Elf step is quite popular for other reasons so how can you tell WHY they took elf step?
Personally, I’d just house rule that the Liturgist only gets one free sustain a round
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd personally rule it to operate in the reverse: if you sustain a spell, then you can get a free step, leap or [maybe] tumble through. This still allows a lot of free move actions but it would not allow any ability combo shenanigans (at least none I can immediately think of).
I don’t think there is any value to sustaining spells when it is not your turn. If you don’t sustain it on your turn, the spell is over. If you do sustain it on your turn, sustaining it again after your turn is over doesn’t increase the duration any longer than before. I guess the issue is spells that allow you to take some kind of action when you sustain, and I don’t really think it is ok for the game to allow any of that when it is not your turn. It is possible the commander will have already addressed this in the way it grants additional actions, and if not, that is probably where it can be fixed with errata.
I guess the issue is spells that allow you to take some kind of action when you sustain, and I don’t really think it is ok for the game to allow any of that when it is not your turn. It is possible the commander will have already addressed this in the way it grants additional actions, and if not, that is probably where it can be fixed with errata.
That's the issue, I'd say. Earth's bile has you use its projectile, store time gives you an extra reaction, trickster's mirrors generates an additional mirror, and so on: you're right that Sustaining these effects out of turn wouldn't extend their duration, but all of these are effects where the timing makes a big difference, as applying them out of turn means you can catch enemies you couldn't have harmed as easily before, get an extra Reactive Strike via embodiment of battle before the start of your next turn, get extra defenses the enemy didn't anticipate, and so on. This also extends to actual apparition spells, many of which do something when sustained, such as aqueous orb, dancing fountain, hungry depths, implosion, invoke spirits, unfathomable song, whirlpool, and wrathful storm, so this could be quite disruptive in practice.
And I do think John R. is right here: the problem lies specifically with the Animist here, and we wouldn't be having these exploits if the order of things were reversed, i.e. Sustaining an apparition or vessel spell would let you Leap, Step, or Tumble Through rather than the current way round. It'd still be a huge action economy benefit, but it would also be less prone to exploits. I'm generally not a fan of pasted-on action compressors such as these -- there's a good reason why PF2e makes most action compressors their own bespoke actions -- but at least there are fewer actions that make you Sustain something that are available to the Animist than actions that let you Step, Leap, or Tumble Through.
Free-action sustain is available via at least one pre-remaster archetype, and I imagine that might have factored in. As much as I enjoy having mechanical interactions and modifications, PF2 makes a point of minimizing them. Having a custom one-action activity to sustain and step/leap/tumble feels like the PF2-est solution.
But, at the end of the day, it's some pretty niche edge cases. I'm not gonna let it bug me until I see issues at one of my tables or it becomes the only talking point about the class.
Am I thinking correctly about the distribution of fits, or are there mistakes?
Caster (Liturgist)
Channler's Stance
Embodiment of the Balance
Medium's Awareness
Apparition's Reflection
Apparition's Quickening
Whispers of Warning
Banish Falsehoods of Flesh
Cardinal Guardians
Echoing Channel
True Channel Spell
Gish:(Medium)
Spiritual Expension Spell
Apparition's Enchantment
Grudge Strike
Instinctive Manuvers
Apparition's Quickening
Whispers of Warning
Cardinal Guardians
Spiritual Spellshape Stance
Spirit's Sacrifice
True Channel Spell
|
|
Am I thinking correctly about the distribution of fits, or are there mistakes?
Caster (Liturgist)Channler's Stance
Embodiment of the Balance
Medium's Awareness
Apparition's Reflection
Apparition's Quickening
Whispers of Warning
Banish Falsehoods of Flesh
Cardinal Guardians
Echoing Channel
True Channel SpellGish:(Medium)
Spiritual Expension Spell
Apparition's Enchantment
Grudge Strike
Instinctive Manuvers
Apparition's Quickening
Whispers of Warning
Cardinal Guardians
Spiritual Spellshape Stance
Spirit's Sacrifice
True Channel Spell
I would NEVER choose Banish Falsehoods of the Flesh without a very good reason. It's SUPER niche and locks down one of your skills.
I'd definitely choose Forest's Heart over Spiritual Spellshape Stance for your gish build unless you have a specific plan for it...
Otherwise, just keep in mind that you can freely swap around wandering feats every day.
What archetype has free sustain actions pre-remastered!? Also is there any way to mitigate the confused status effect?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What archetype has free sustain actions pre-remastered!?
Captivator archetype, level 14 feat Effortless Captivation.
Only for illusion/enchantment, though.
Yeah, that feat is super-weird. It really shouldn't have had the metamagic trait to begin with, and the fact that it depends on OGL schools means you'd have to look at several legacy versions of the Animist's apparition spells to see that it'd work with them (specifically, enthrall, laughing fit, and unfathomable song). If nothing else, though, a free-action Step/Leap/Tumble Through each round would probably still be less excessive than the auto-Sustain on those actions when moving and when paired with feats like Elf Step.
I also think QuidEst makes a good point: if the Liturgist got a bespoke single action that let you both Leap/Step/Tumble Through and Sustain an apparition or vessel spell, then that would nip every possible abuse case in the bud. It would probably take even less space than the current text at 9th level, too, e.g. "As a single action, you can Sustain an apparition or vessel spell and Leap, Step, or Tumble Through."
Yeah, that feat is super-weird. It really shouldn't have had the metamagic trait to begin with, and the fact that it depends on OGL schools means you'd have to look at several legacy versions of the Animist's apparition spells to see that it'd work with them (specifically, enthrall, laughing fit, and unfathomable song). If nothing else, though, a free-action Step/Leap/Tumble Through each round would probably still be less excessive than the auto-Sustain on those actions when moving and when paired with feats like Elf Step.
I also think QuidEst makes a good point: if the Liturgist got a bespoke single action that let you both Leap/Step/Tumble Through and Sustain an apparition or vessel spell, then that would nip every possible abuse case in the bud. It would probably take even less space than the current text at 9th level, too, e.g. "As a single action, you can Sustain an apparition or vessel spell and Leap, Step, or Tumble Through."
That might work.
I also like John R's version: "Whenever you sustain a spell, you can leap, step or tumble through".So you *can* sustain twice a round, it justs costs you two actions and gives you two specific move actions. It removes all multisteps shenanigans.
I can't believe no one has linked this (unless I missed it) but Tumble Through allowing a full movement without going through an enemy space is both RAW and RAI according to Michael Sayre. Now, my GM acknowledges this but still does not allow it and I'm fine with it cuz again, I think it's too strong. But yes, if you want to be as RAW and RAI without houseruling, Tumble Through is pretty much any full stride, fly or climb with an added feauture.
No, that's not what he said. That is in no way an official ruling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I don’t know what to tell you, that’s the rules. You can choose to play differently at your table and that’s your privilège as a DM, but it’s still a houserule.
I'm really surprised you're attempting this reading Blue Frog. I don't care how you run it at your table, but that's not how it works. If they intended you to Stride and activate the ability, they would have said it.
The Elf Step is at least RAW. The Tumble Through is not. It's a weird attempt to compartmentalize what Tumble Through is and get a sustain for a stride.
No, it is the rule. It would be pointless to call a Tumble Through a Tumble Through but decide it is really a Stride.
You took an unofficial comment by a game designer and extrapolated into a favorable ruling.
Sorry, I read that comment. It is not official. It doesn't change what Tumble Through is.
I don't care if you run ridiculous interpretations of rules at your table, but that doesn't much fly at our table.
You can't even seem to explain what the difference between a Stride and Tumble Through is other than "It doesn't work with haste" is the only difference. That's ridiculous.
In our case, we houseruled the "sustain every time" part to make it only once per round, else we had some pretty wild games where you could sustain six spells at once and still move without even being hasted.
Well, we never got to the "six spells at once" but two in one action while also moving was still too powerful for our taste.
So we changed it - but we know it's a houserule.
I'm not worried about that as there aren't many sustain apparition and vessel spells that would have much of an impact on the game. Useful sustain spells that do more than non-sustain spells are rare. If someone wants to use sustain spells that are inferior, it doesn't much bother me if they reduce their effectiveness voluntarily.
|
|
No, it is the rule. It would be pointless to call a Tumble Through a Tumble Through but decide it is really a Stride.
Please, tell us what you REALLY think about this ruling. You're being far too subtle :-).
But keep in mind in all future conversations about the Animist that you're playing it differently from everybody else. You are clearly the outlier, no matter how much you think you're obviously right
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't believe no one has linked this (unless I missed it) but Tumble Through allowing a full movement without going through an enemy space is both RAW and RAI according to Michael Sayre. Now, my GM acknowledges this but still does not allow it and I'm fine with it cuz again, I think it's too strong. But yes, if you want to be as RAW and RAI without houseruling, Tumble Through is pretty much any full stride, fly or climb with an added feauture.No, that's not what he said. That is in no way an official ruling.
OK...the quotes were:
"Or, and hear me out here, maybe those are two completely different things.
Quick Spring's problem was that it was functionally two Strides for the cost of one as a single feat.
Animist had tons of playtest feedback pointing out how quick and easy it was to get Leaps to the same functionality as Strides so the 9th-level liturgist ability is intentionally "a move action with style while you Sustain".(And as others have noted, it's not literally all Strides, because it won't work with e.g. quicken effects that let you Stride.)"
And then a response to: "Honestly it’s really good to know that the tumble in that is intended to be able to be used as just a stride since there’s been a lot of debate about that. Thank you for the clarification!":
"I mean, if you're not backflipping as you go you're literally doing it wrong, but we were very cognizant of how Tumble Through works." <-- This right here is him reiterating his confirmation in the previous quote that there is no confusion in the rules and that Tumble Through is in fact a stride, swim or climb with the option of a chance to move through an enemy space but it is it's own action separate from those other 3 actions.
This is the next closest thing to errata you can get and the rule doesn't need errata. It literally works that way. People were just concerned if it was an example of "too good to be true" and this is a major Paizo designer more or less saying, "No, that is how it works." (paraphrasing)
I will say, going to the errata thread and asking for a core action to be deleted from the game, rather than admitting to having misread that action in a manner most of us had done at some point, is certainly a choice. I also think it's pretty clear at this point that this thread was never a sincere request for input on the Animist, so much as an attempt to harvest talking points against the Animist for the sake of a separate, now-defunct argument. That it backfired this spectacularly is a testament to the Animist's hidden power in my opinion, as well as their many design problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't believe no one has linked this (unless I missed it) but Tumble Through allowing a full movement without going through an enemy space is both RAW and RAI according to Michael Sayre. Now, my GM acknowledges this but still does not allow it and I'm fine with it cuz again, I think it's too strong. But yes, if you want to be as RAW and RAI without houseruling, Tumble Through is pretty much any full stride, fly or climb with an added feauture.No, that's not what he said. That is in no way an official ruling.OK...the quotes were:
"Or, and hear me out here, maybe those are two completely different things.
Quick Spring's problem was that it was functionally two Strides for the cost of one as a single feat.
Animist had tons of playtest feedback pointing out how quick and easy it was to get Leaps to the same functionality as Strides so the 9th-level liturgist ability is intentionally "a move action with style while you Sustain".(And as others have noted, it's not literally all Strides, because it won't work with e.g. quicken effects that let you Stride.)"
And then a response to: "Honestly it’s really good to know that the tumble in that is intended to be able to be used as just a stride since there’s been a lot of debate about that. Thank you for the clarification!":
"I mean, if you're not backflipping as you go you're literally doing it wrong, but we were very cognizant of how Tumble Through works." <-- This right here is him reiterating his confirmation in the previous quote that there is no confusion in the rules and that Tumble Through is in fact a stride, swim or climb with the option of a chance to move through an enemy space but it is it's own action separate from those other 3 actions.
This is the next closest thing to errata you can get and the rule doesn't need errata. It literally works that way. People were just...
That is unconvincing. There is zero reason to use a Tumble Through action for any other reason but to game the rules if you don't intend to Tumble Through.
This idea you can say, "I am using Tumble Through" with no enemies around, no one to tumble through, just because is one of the most ridiculous attempts to game the rules I've seen.
I want no part of it. It's cheating, pure and simple.
The fact a game designer thinks that a skill action named Tumble Through is just a Stride with a different name is one of the worst off-hand comments I've seen that people are running with.
No, it is the rule. It would be pointless to call a Tumble Through a Tumble Through but decide it is really a Stride.
Please, tell us what you REALLY think about this ruling. You're being far too subtle :-).
But keep in mind in all future conversations about the Animist that you're playing it differently from everybody else. You are clearly the outlier, no matter how much you think you're obviously right
No, just keep on selling that a comment by a designer that wasn't making an official ruling for everyone to follow is RAW and RAI.
I am just a purchaser of the game trying to run an ability called Tumble Through as an ability that actually requires you to Tumble Through.
Whereas as you are trying to turn a comment by a game developer that wasn't intended as a game ruling to turn Tumble Through into a Stride.
This is not an outlier. This is a game designer overstepping their bounds and a certain segment of the player base trying to sell us all that a Tumble Through is a Stride.
Very different. So you can stop pretending this is an errata or clarification backed up by Paizo. It isn't. It's a comment by a game designer that's making a cowboy ruling that you're latching onto.
Nowhere is this set in stone at all. So you can stop pretending it is.
Paizo should not create abilities with specific names and intent, then undermine what they are with some flippant ruling by a game designer that isn't official.
That's what should not be happening. So in any future discussion of the animist, I will make sure I clearly state that I do not allow Tumble Through to be used like a Stride. They are separate abilities to be used in the appropriate circumstances, not interchangeable actions with no meaning like you intend to run it.
I'm starting to see why in some campaigns, the animist is better with a liberal ruling on Tumble Through. Makes more sense why some consider it powerful and other consider it less so.
Nothing like rules cheese to make a class seem better than it is. I wish I had known that from the beginning as I want no part of that rule cheesing which I consider cheating.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tumble Through:
You Stride up to your Speed. During this movement, you can try to move through the space of one enemy. Attempt an Acrobatics check against the enemy's Reflex DC as soon as you try to enter its space. You can Tumble Through using Climb, Fly, Swim, or another action instead of Stride in the appropriate environment.
Googling definition of "can":
verb
modal verb: can; modal verb: could
1.
be able to.
"they can run fast"
2.
be permitted to.
"you can use the phone if you want to"
Reinterpreted Tumble Through using 2 direct definitions of "can":
1. You Stride up to your Speed. During this movement, you [are] able to try to move through the space of one enemy. Attempt an Acrobatics check against the enemy's Reflex DC as soon as you try to enter its space. You can Tumble Through using Climb, Fly, Swim, or another action instead of Stride in the appropriate environment.
2. You Stride up to your Speed. During this movement, you [are] permitted to try to move through the space of one enemy. Attempt an Acrobatics check against the enemy's Reflex DC as soon as you try to enter its space. You can Tumble Through using Climb, Fly, Swim, or another action instead of Stride in the appropriate environment.
My question is not what is intended for Animist but why does the Tumble Through action have the weird wording of.
Tumble Through [one-action]
You Stride up to your Speed. During this movement, you can try to move through the space of one enemy. Attempt an Acrobatics check against the enemy's Reflex DC as soon as you try to enter its space. You can Tumble Through using Climb, Fly, Swim, or another action instead of Stride in the appropriate environment.
- You can try to move through the space of one enemy. If this is not intended then why is it written in the Tumble Through Action then? Can try is not the same wording as You must, or something similar whicvh would enforce the action.