Missing Archtype from Battlecry!

[Dokers]

Paizo. I love you. But what are you doing? No Skald in a book literally called Battlecry!? Maybe a Skald would break some design rules that you have internally for P2, but I had to break the rules of punctuation to even write that last sentence! No Skald in Battlecry! is like making a book called Arcane Spellcaster and not including anything for the Wizard! Ok, this post is a little tongue in cheek. But where is our Skald?

[Squark]

I don't know what a Skald achetype would do, honestly. Maybe you could try to give Bard the Battle Harbinger treatment and make it a wave casting class archetype, but Battle Harbinger is rather controversial, so I could understand Paizo being reluctant to try again so soon. It probably wouldn't be called Skald either unless it was purely about Scandinavian Poetry traditons.

[John R.]

Honestly, bard with the commander archetype or vice versa might scratch your itch.

[moosher12]

I always thought that the Warrior muse for the bard was supposed to be the skald replacement.

[Red Griffyn]

Squark wrote:

I don't know what a Skald achetype would do, honestly. Maybe you could try to give Bard the Battle Harbinger treatment, but Battle Harbinger has not been well received by and large, so I can understand their reluctance to try again. It probably wouldn't be called Skald either unless it was purely about Scandinavian Poetry traditons.

Bounded caster chassis bard. The battle harbinger was recieved poorly because didnt follow a number of design precedents set by martials and the magus, turned nearly every expected feature into a must take feat tax, and built a whole identity around a non scaling L1 spell that is easy to replicate in the system with other means (often with less actions and or no resources).

Whoever keeps making the balancing passes on these class archetypes (especially the harbinger) is way too conservative and is completely out of alignment with the user base expectations and fundemental game design.

People love the cleric+ bounded caster chassis design and consider it balanced (and it came out like 1-2 years before the harbinger). So its not like its impossible to execute the request for a bounded caster chassis bard class archetype.

IMO your more likely to get a satisfactory design out of team+ when they do bard+. Unfortunetly the next releases are set by community voting. So if you want that bard+ you have to vote it to the top. I suggest joining there discord.

[Castilliano]

What kind of skald is the game missing?
Thematically one can build a skald by flavoring Composition spells as a militant fervor in one's blood/songs/magic (and perhaps MCD Bard if wanting to balance more toward melee). So is there a specific mechanic you long for? If it's sharing Rage, that's high-level Barbarian territory that would be difficult to mirror in a low-level caster (unless as flavor as noted). Or is empowering weapons? What skaldy bits do you yearn for?

[Red Griffyn]

Castilliano wrote:

What kind of skald is the game missing?

Thematically one can build a skald by flavoring Composition spells as a militant fervor in one's blood/songs/magic (and perhaps MCD Bard if wanting to balance more toward melee). So is there a specific mechanic you long for? If it's sharing Rage, that's high-level Barbarian territory that would be difficult to mirror in a low-level caster (unless as flavor as noted). Or is empowering weapons? What skaldy bits do you yearn for?

Just go to the 1e skald archetypes and start importing ideas.

This is an off the top of the head list of what I want:
* Martial Weapon Progression
* Martial Weapon Specialization
* Martial Armour Progression
* Martial Armour Specialization
* Martial Save/Perception Progression
* Unique composition cantrips (e.g., giving out a rage like effect, weapon rune effect, providing a teamwork feat to multiple people, or a variety of design space not explored).
* Debuff compositions (e.g., the mesmerist in 1e was able to basically make themselves invisible from 1 person).
* Attack Compositions (it isn't just skald its all the martial focused 1e bard archetypes like thundercaller or sound striker that had fun compositions to do sonic/lightning damage).

Honestly a lot of the bard chassis/feats lead to really interesting options with strike + composition + move. Like house of the imaginary walls is so cool, but really a lost opportunity if you aren't in melee.

The problem with claims that a caster holding a weapon is basically equivalent to a bounded caster gish is that if you want to actually be good at swinging the weapon and part time on casting then they just don't scratch the itch or interface well with other martial archetypes. As well, you can't really achieve the same using bard as an archetype either because the cool feats people might want are so delayed (e.g., L12 for archetype for dirge of doom, L16 for something like songbird's call, L20 for house of the imaginary wall, or never for a L10+ feat).

[Blue_frog]

Barbarian with bard dedication (either through FA or the hard way) kind of does that.

Just take spells without concentration, anthemic performance, and you're good.

Well, apart from the fact that you won't give your friend rage powers (but there aren't any rage powers anymore, so...).

[NorrKnekten]

Jason Bulmahn wrote a conversion document regarding what a 1e character would be when converted to 2e. Link Here

Barbarian with Bard dedication is indeed what a skald is, Just as Bloodrager is a Barbarian with Sorcerer Dedication or Sorcerer with Barbarian Dedication. It's an old document so some classes within has been released as actual classes or class archetypes.... investigator and kineticist

[exequiel759]

moosher12 wrote:

I always thought that the Warrior muse for the bard was supposed to be the skald replacement.

I mean, so was warpriest cleric for, well, the warpriest, yet we still got battle harbinger.

[BotBrain]

Yeah as NorrKnekten noted, we've had replacements for replacements by now. Arcanist is now arguably a flexible casting wizard, shaman is part of animist's schtick, spirtualist got rolled into summoner.

So I don't think a "skald" is forever out the question, it might just not look like or called a skald anymore. An occult wave caster (I.e Magus meets bard) could be really fun!

[Deriven Firelion]

moosher12 wrote:

I always thought that the Warrior muse for the bard was supposed to be the skald replacement.

This is what I thought too.

[Red Griffyn]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

I always thought that the Warrior muse for the bard was supposed to be the skald replacement.

This is what I thought too.

There are two camps. People that like a caster chassis subclass and people that like a bounded caster chassis. Generally, said camps dont enjoy playing the gish version of the other camp.

I think there have been enough repeated vocal requests (clearly I am one said proponent) for this across the many years of pathfinder 2e that we can stop being "surprised" that people want this. This should be even less "surprising" for 3/4 BAB, 1/2 caster classes from PF1e like the bard, skald, mesmerist, etc.

You dont have to be in the bounded caster "camp" to understand or appreciate that clearly others find value in it and can accurately self identify that they would enjoy it more than the current available options.

So lets stop glossing over the community/customer demand. You can enjoy your warpriest and I can enjoy my Cleric+ armorclad doctrine and we can all exist together and not yuck each others yums.

I am more surprised they didnt just publish a generico caster class archetype that can convert any caster into a bounded caster version with some generic gishy feats. It wouldnt be as satisfying as class specific class archetypes, but it would be future proofed from the masses asking for a class by class bounded caster version. Then we could have a skald, shifter,warpriest, etc. With whatever caster feat list you like most.

[Powers128]

Given the strength of composition cantrips on their own, I imagine a wave casting martial bard would be pretty potent. Would be cool to see

[Finoan]

Red Griffyn wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

I always thought that the Warrior muse for the bard was supposed to be the skald replacement.

This is what I thought too.

There are two camps. People that like a caster chassis subclass and people that like a bounded caster chassis. Generally, said camps dont enjoy playing the gish version of the other camp.

While I can agree with that, from what I have experienced playing Skald in 1e it fell definitely into the camp of caster chassis. There are, from what I know, two Barbarian hybrid classes in 1e: Skald and Bloodrager. Bloodrager is about 75% Barbarian and 25% Sorcerer. Skald is about 85% Bard and 15% Barbarian.

Comparing Bard to Skald, Skald gains martial weapon proficiencies and reflavors its party buffs that the Bard gives out.

Bard with martial weapon proficiencies already exists in 2e: the Warrior Muse mentioned previously.

What the people in this thread are asking for is a new class or class archetype that is more martial than caster, and has a Bard flavor. While that is fine to ask for, that's not a 1e Skald.

[moosher12]

Red Griffyn wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

I always thought that the Warrior muse for the bard was supposed to be the skald replacement.

This is what I thought too.

There are two camps. People that like a caster chassis subclass and people that like a bounded caster chassis. Generally, said camps dont enjoy playing the gish version of the other camp.

I think there have been enough repeated vocal requests (clearly I am one said proponent) for this across the many years of pathfinder 2e that we can stop being "surprised" that people want this. This should be even less "surprising" for 3/4 BAB, 1/2 caster classes from PF1e like the bard, skald, mesmerist, etc.

You dont have to be in the bounded caster "camp" to understand or appreciate that clearly others find value in it and can accurately self identify that they would enjoy it more than the current available options.

So lets stop glossing over the community/customer demand. You can enjoy your warpriest and I can enjoy my Cleric+ armorclad doctrine and we can all exist together and not yuck each others yums.

I am more surprised they didnt just publish a generico caster class archetype that can convert any caster into a bounded caster version with some generic gishy feats. It wouldnt be as satisfying as class specific class archetypes, but it would be future proofed from the masses asking for a class by class bounded caster version. Then we could have a skald, shifter,warpriest, etc. With whatever caster feat list you like most.

I certainly won't mind the option. You've probably seen me fighting for us getting a ninja, so I can understand the want. And a more martial version of a bard with a diminished spell list seems appreciable, especially one that can cast spells while raging, so I do hope Paizo considers. It's not a camp I've got a personal stake in, but I can understand the appeal. I was just pointing out that I thought that that was the original intention of the Warrior muse. Cleric gave us both Warpriest Cleric and Battleharbinger Cleric, so there is precedent for a Warrior Bard and a... Not sure what a more agnostic term for skald would be, Warchanter Bard? Either way, there is probably room for both.

[Red Griffyn]

Yeah, I feel like we say skald but we mean martial forward bard/skald/mesmerist/spirtualist. There are a lot of 'manifestations' with unique/untrodden design space in PF2e still. Quick glance at AON 1e shows archetypes like the ones below (some are more replicatable than others but many aren't really feasible if we're talking about martial forward gishes):

Skald

* Belkzen War Drummer (turns massive clubs/drums sonic siege weapons)
* Fated Champion (divination future seer/seeing warrior)
* Herald of the Horn (Commander style strategist using a war horn)
* Hunt Caller (raging song imbues animal senses/traits and ultimately wildshapes to people)
* Spell Warrior (singing runes onto weapons and counter-spelling/dispelling magic)
* Urban Skald (and alternative raging song that doesn't impact concentration/magic/mental skills but empowers them)
* Wyrmsinger (Song grants dragon like abilities and powers)
* Warpainter (Shifting Body Paints that empower spells/songs)

Martial Forward Bard

* Arcane Duelist (literally sings a versatile list of runes onto weapons like keen, elemental runes, speed, etc. and gains an arcane bond).
* Arrowsong Minstrel (basically a cooler starlight span/eldritch archer with the bard spell list or in this case occult list/bard feats).
* Dawnflower Dervish (enters a fluid trance dance state to fight)
* Flamesinger (singing flaming weapon runes onto everyone's weapon)
* Sound Striker (Literally turning words into projectile weapons)
* Thunder Caller (Calling down thunder, lightning, and raging)

Mesmerist
* Enigma (uses their hypnotic stare to become invisible to its target)
* Vexing Daredevil (psychic powers + martial mix fighting style)
* Vox (Uses their voice to empower their weapons or debuff enemies)

Spirtualist
* Phantom Blade (psychic black blade sentient weapon that grows with you)
* Ectoplasmatist (uses ectoplasm whip tendrils to attack
* Exciter (merges with a phantom to empower their martial abilities)

[ElementalofCuteness]

IS there any new Archetypes in Battlecry! ?

[Xenocrat]

Half a dozen or so.

[Dokers]

There has been a lot of talk about how to make a Skald that involve the Bard (warrior muse Bard, Bard dedication, etc.), but I feel that this misses the fantasy of wanting to play a Skald. It is not about being a spellcaster. It is about wanting to play a Barbarian who has support effects rather than being pure Hulk Smash. I actually wouldn't care if they dropped the spellcasting component completely. Take a Barbarian and give them altered composition style cantrips and I would be good. They could even find some way to tie in the Charisma more heavily into the class. Of course, you would have to take something away from the Barbarian. But you might even be able to make this work as a Barbarian Instinct.

[Teridax]

I do think there is room for a Skald class archetype, though I question how rage-y they can be made to be in 2e: if you want a class archetype that doesn't use spells at all except for compositions, that would probably be more of a Barbarian class archetype, but if the intent is to have a Bard that sends allies into a battle frenzy, except they're still allowed to concentrate actions... well, that's basically courageous anthem. This probably means there may even be room for two class archetypes here, not just one.

[moosher12]

You can reasonably make it pretty rage-y. Our two comparison points are the bloodrager, which added spellcasting on top of full-rage. Additionally, Shining Kingdoms gave us the Ulfen Guard archetype, which adds nerfed rage to any class. A class archetype that gives the bard nerfed rage that allows you to spellcast while raging might not be unreasonable.

[Dragonchess Player]

Dokers wrote:

There has been a lot of talk about how to make a Skald that involve the Bard (warrior muse Bard, Bard dedication, etc.), but I feel that this misses the fantasy of wanting to play a Skald. It is not about being a spellcaster. It is about wanting to play a Barbarian who has support effects rather than being pure Hulk Smash.

To me, that sounds like an Elemental instinct barbarian with the multiclassed kineticist archetype, selecting appropriate support impulses for the respective element.

Or maybe a barbarian with the bloodrager class archetype that chooses some support spells in addition to attack spells.

You could also probably flavor the battle harbinger cleric class archetype battle font (bless, etc.) as "lesser rage."

[QuidEst]

Dark Archives, the book about investigating spooky stuff, didn't have a spooky Investigator option. We did get it later in Divine Miniseries, though.

By my (incredibly narrow and atypical) definition, though, what makes a Skald a Skald just isn't feasible in PF2. But that's because to me a Skald is someone who takes a Leadership variant for a bunch of low-level kobolds and empowers them with two to three linnorm death curses.

[ElementalofCuteness]

What are the new Archetypes?

[glass]

Red Griffyn wrote:

You don't have to be in the bounded caster "camp" to understand or appreciate that clearly others find value in it and can accurately self identify that they would enjoy it more than the current available options.

Great post! I don't have a strong opinion on this specific case (partly because I don't know what "bounded caster"* means). But I am strongly of the opinion that people get to want what they want, and other people do not get to tell them they are wrong to want it (within reason of course - we are talking about elfgame content not human-rights violations).

And yet, people on the Internet will tell other people that they should not want what they want all the time. Less often in real life, but still too often IMNSHO. Wrongbadfun must be policed!

(* Although I am now wondering if it is another term for "wave caster")

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

glass wrote:

(* Although I am now wondering if it is another term for "wave caster")

Nailed it in one! The archetypes for Magus and Summmoner are called "bounded spellcasting archetypes", so even though the classes themselves don't use this terminology, it shows up sometimes where others might use 'wavecasting'

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

PS had to go looking on Reddit, but it looks like the names of the Battlecry! archetypes are

- Aldori Duelist (remastered with new feats)
- Crossbow Infiltrator (un-Drow Shootist)
- Field Propagandist
- Guerilla
- Iridian Choirmaster
- Munitions Master (Inventor)
- Necrologist (swarmkeeper with undead hordes)
- War Mage (Wizard)

[Ezekieru]

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

PS had to go looking on Reddit, but it looks like the names of the Battlecry! archetypes are

- Aldori Duelist (remastered with new feats)
- Crossbow Infiltrator (un-Drow Shootist)
- Field Propagandist
- Guerilla
- Iridian Choirmaster
- Munitions Master (Inventor)
- Necrologist (swarmkeeper with undead hordes)
- War Mage (Wizard)

There's also a Captain archetype in the Followers section, as well.

[Tremaine]

exequiel759 wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

I always thought that the Warrior muse for the bard was supposed to be the skald replacement.

I mean, so was warpriest cleric for, well, the warpriest, yet we still got battle harbinger.

So we are still waiting.

[Riddlyn]

What's does the war mage dedication look like?

[Tarik Blackhands]

Riddlyn wrote:

What's does the war mage dedication look like?

The dedication itself lets you push enemies caught in non-cantrip area spell 10ft on a failed save. It has caveats that it's only moving your INT in people, can't move them into obstacles (booo), and bigger things cost more ""targets"" to move (aka large costs 2 people, huge 4, garg SOL).

The level 1 buy in locks you into battle magic for your school, gives you training in light and medium armor (expert at 11), get shield block, treat martial weapons as simple, and lose your thesis and arcane bond.

Lastly it gives you an ability that lets you trade any slotted spell for sure strike which...is of extremely dubious use due to the spell's added cooldown.

[ElementalofCuteness]

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Riddlyn wrote:

What's does the war mage dedication look like?

Lastly it gives you an ability that lets you trade any slotted spell for sure strike which...is of extremely dubious use due to the spell's added cooldown.

Also you trade our your Arcane Bond and Drain Bonded Item for an ability to push when using none-cantrips and a hyper useful, completely in no way, super game breaking ability, which GM will totally ban, cast Sure Strike as if you prepared it once per encoutner....My bad Once per 10 minutes. Most likely because Paizo forgot they nerfed Sure Strike.

Surely, you trade Drain Bonded Item for ability to freely cast Sure Strike. Sure you can cast it from your Battle School Slots but like, how many times are you actually going to be wanting to cast Sure Strike in a day with the 10 minute cooldown restriction? Once you hit levels where you get better attack roll spells are you not going to prepare Sure Strike in your rank 1 slots anyways?

Paizo needs to release mroe Attack Roll Spells...

[exequiel759]

I was so exited when I saw the war mage because I thought they took the D&D 3.5 war mage class and made it into a blaster caster archetype for the wizard and...they went with the worst possible option for it. The archetype jumps through a thousand hoops to make the wizard a "viable" (and I put emphasis on the "") melee martial, but for the surprise of nobody, it still a subpar martial and now with less caster goodies.

They just needed to add a bonus to damage equal to the spell's rank like a psychic or sorcerer, and if they really wanted to make it fun, make it so spell attacks (but not spell DCs) scale their proficiencies at 5th / 13th / 19th to make it spell attack-focused archetype. Make it so the dedication gives you scaling light and armor proficiencies and thats it. I feel they could lose a spell slot per day and it would be fine to compensate this.

[ElementalofCuteness]

Sorcerer is knocking at the War Mage's door. They ask, Hey how do you like your Class Archetype which is sub-par to me? Look you get to give up a slot to cast Sure Strike, neat if it was able to be used more then once a encounter. Should have made it a unique focus Spell, Sure Spell or something. This class Archetype feels incredibly weak, is it just me who feels this way about it? What am I missing here to want to play this over a normal Battle Magic School wizard?

[exequiel759]

I don't know how the design of archetypes happens behind the scenes but I would really want for whatever they are doing to be revised for future books. Its been a few books now that I been feeling that archetypes are a lottery, because they are either insanely strong or totally worthless.

For example, in this very book we have both the commander and guardian multiclass arhcetypes, with the former being insanely good and the latter being heavily restricted for no reason. There's also archetypes like the necrologist which, even if interesting in concept, their execution is really weird and the overall flavor is also strange for a book about martials. The same with the swarm eidolon, which is certainly cool, but I wonder why put it here?

[ElementalofCuteness]

exequiel759 wrote:

For example, in this very book we have both the commander and guardian multiclass arhcetypes, with the former being insanely good and the latter being heavily restricted for no reason. There's also archetypes like the necrologist which, even if interesting in concept, their execution is really weird and the overall flavor is also strange for a book about martials. The same with the swarm eidolon, which is certainly cool, but I wonder why put it here?

To be fair this is how I feel. Why did we get and I will quote here. New Sorcerer Bloodline, New Wizard Class Archetype (Isn't the Magus a War Mage basically?). New none-martial like Eidolon for Summoner and the Necrologist which, has nothing to do with Martials...period! If it used troop commanding rules maybe but this feels like it be best suited for a Remastered Book of the Dead.

Also they rather give new stuff to Sorcerers, Summoners, Wizards & Necromancers over Barbarian, Fighters, Rangers, and Swashbucklers in the book that sounded like it was suppose to be the Martial book? I dunno maybe I miss read the Paizo Blogs about Battlecry! Perhaps the magic stuff was a last minute addition?

[Squark]

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

For example, in this very book we have both the commander and guardian multiclass arhcetypes, with the former being insanely good and the latter being heavily restricted for no reason. There's also archetypes like the necrologist which, even if interesting in concept, their execution is really weird and the overall flavor is also strange for a book about martials. The same with the swarm eidolon, which is certainly cool, but I wonder why put it here?

To be fair this is how I feel. Why did we get and I will quote here. New Sorcerer Bloodline, New Wizard Class Archetype (Isn't the Magus a War Mage basically?). New none-martial like Eidolon for Summoner and the Necrologist which, has nothing to do with Martials...period! If it used troop commanding rules maybe but this feels like it be best suited for a Remastered Book of the Dead.

Also they rather give new stuff to Sorcerers, Summoners, Wizards & Necromancers over Barbarian, Fighters, Rangers, and Swashbucklers in the book that sounded like it was suppose to be the Martial book? I dunno maybe I miss read the Paizo Blogs about Battlecry! Perhaps the magic stuff was a last minute addition?

Battlecry! was never the "Martials" book. It's the "War" book. Aesir Bloodline, a military wizard, and Necromancer raising their own pseudo-troop make perfect sense. Swarm Eidilon is a little bit of a curve ball, I'll admit.

[exequiel759]

To be a bit more positive about the book (which I like, but there's a few weird things on it) is that I really liked the captain archetype. I wanted a Leadership-like archetype for PF2e to have followers and the such and this archetype is exactly that. I haven't looked deep into it but it seems the followers are pretty much analogous to animal companions math-wise, but I'm not sure since these do get pseudo-potency runes unless animal companions so they could be stronger? I don't feel they are stronger because they don't have as much feat support, but they are certainly cool.

[StarMartyr365]

Squark wrote:

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

For example, in this very book we have both the commander and guardian multiclass arhcetypes, with the former being insanely good and the latter being heavily restricted for no reason. There's also archetypes like the necrologist which, even if interesting in concept, their execution is really weird and the overall flavor is also strange for a book about martials. The same with the swarm eidolon, which is certainly cool, but I wonder why put it here?

To be fair this is how I feel. Why did we get and I will quote here. New Sorcerer Bloodline, New Wizard Class Archetype (Isn't the Magus a War Mage basically?). New none-martial like Eidolon for Summoner and the Necrologist which, has nothing to do with Martials...period! If it used troop commanding rules maybe but this feels like it be best suited for a Remastered Book of the Dead.

Also they rather give new stuff to Sorcerers, Summoners, Wizards & Necromancers over Barbarian, Fighters, Rangers, and Swashbucklers in the book that sounded like it was suppose to be the Martial book? I dunno maybe I miss read the Paizo Blogs about Battlecry! Perhaps the magic stuff was a last minute addition?

Battlecry! was never the "Martials" book. It's the "War" book. Aesir Bloodline, a military wizard, and Necromancer raising their own pseudo-troop make perfect sense. Swarm Eidilon is a little bit of a curve ball, I'll admit.

Siccing a swarm of flensing locusts on my enemies is near the top of my Summoner bucket list.

[BotBrain]

Squark wrote:

/QUOTE]

Battlecry! was never the "Martials" book. It's the "War" book. Aesir Bloodline, a military wizard, and Necromancer raising their own pseudo-troop make perfect sense. Swarm Eidilon is a little bit of a curve ball, I'll admit.

Yeah this really can't be stressed enough. Calling it "the martial book" was always something that was imposed on it by the community, really. I don't think it was a wrong assumption, but I do think calling it that is about as misleading as calling WoI "the divine book". It is, but it also isn't.

That being said if we got a martial book, especially one focused on a bunch of feats for most martial classes, I wouldn't complain.

[QuidEst]

Swarm eidolon was a popular request, and this book definitely has a troops-and-swarms sub-theme going on.