|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Add anathema for each apparition, requiring the player to roleplay around the apparitions they choose. If they violate an anathema, they either lose the apparition for the day or take a thematic penalty. Look at PF1 medium's taboo mechanic for reference/inspiration.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I move to change venue for this case to the Homebrew forum. The proceedings are unlikely to be given a fair hearing in this one.
|
|
The multiclass needs a buff but honestly, wandering feats are too strong for other classes to poach and vessel spells might be as well. At the very least, allow the extra slots from Apparition Magic to allow normal divine spells as well. It really should just act like any other breadth feat. Oh and allow swapping apparitions daily, not after a full day's downtime.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't aware the Animist was significantly more powerful than classic powerhouses like the cleric or sorcerer. If you want us to suggest adjustments, yoy should outline your complaints.
I'd need to hear how its overpowered myself. I think it is a good class, but hardly overpowered unless you're playing a dual class game and allowing a dual class martial to Embodiment of Battle. If you let a fighter or monk use Embodiment of Battle nearly every fight in a dual class campaign, that would be insanely OP.
Oo, I like this thread!
I will say, though, that framing the issue purely in terms of nerfs is likely to be contentious, and I think it would first help to ground the case in why this is a problem with a tangible impact on players, and why this could benefit from a change. Here are my arguments:
Thus, while I will be the first to accuse the Animist of being overpowered and poorly-designed, I would also advocate for empathy as a guiding principle when deciding how to approach changes to the class, because I believe there is plenty of room to make the class feel a lot better to play and play with, even if they end up being less strong overall. One particular point of caution I would advise is concerning daily apparitions, as many players do enjoy being able to majorly change a core part of their character each day and view that as the main reason to pick the class. With all of this in mind, here is how I would approach changing the class:
In essence, the basic premise behind these changes would be to streamline the Animist by quite a bit, trimming away a lot of excess power but also making the class significantly more accessible and capable of making more permanent character choices, while still having the option to attune to different apparitions each day. Although you wouldn't be able to reinvent your character's class feats each day, you could still build in such a way that you could attune to an entirely different set of apparitions daily, and this would be balanced appropriately alongside more permanent apparition choices. You would, importantly, still be one of the most versatile spellcasters in the game, quite likely the most, and would have the unique advantage of being able to swap out your subclass every day, while also having the option to just pick up more permanent subclasses instead.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From my experience, I have had to explicitly brief my Animist players on being mindful of other party members when choosing their daily apparitions each day and building their character in general, because in the instances when I didn't, the Animist ended up treading so heavily on the toes of other party members that they sometimes ended up outperforming them at their own specialty, especially when blasting. Thus, I think the Animist has a genuine problem of eating the lunch of other player characters and then some.
What party composition would require this?
Animist isn't outshining a fighter, barb, cleric, sorc, rogue, or magus.
Adding status bonus to persistent damage is not RAW or RAI for Channeler's Stance. Persistent damage is a condition with its own rules and persistent damage is not sourced to the caster. Channeler's Stance in no way states the bonus applies to persistent damage and if the feat doesn't state it affects persistent damage, it doesn't.
The vessel spells are limited. I keep hearing about multiple sustains. I want to hear what they are multi-sustaining. You only get the vessel spell for your primary apparition and you can't sustain it twice in the same round. So what are they sustaining? Explain it to me.
I'm wondering if some of the OP claims are from running the class outside the rules. This idea of using Elf Step to sustain two spells is pure theory. You can only sustain apparition or vessel spells with Liturgist. What apparition or vessel spells are you sustaining that are so OP? Even if you cast something like Earth's Bile, you can only sustain it or cast it once a round and you can't do both. It clearly states in the vessel spell rules that you can only sustain or cast one instance of a vessel spell once per turn.
I want to hear examples of what is being done that is OP. Otherwise, what proof is there this class is OP? Please provide examples across levels.
What party composition would require this?
Animist isn't outshining a fighter, barb, cleric, sorc, rogue, or magus.
You say this, but I've seen an Animist encroach quite a bit on the Fighter's territory with embodiment of battle, particularly at certain levels where their attack mod got quite close, and also out-burst a Sorc and a Psychic on other occasions with Channeler's Stance and earth's bile.
Adding status bonus to persistent damage is not RAW or RAI for Channeler's Stance. Persistent damage is a condition with its own rules and persistent damage is not sourced to the caster.
Persistent damage is damage, and it is RAW for it to benefit from status bonuses, as evidenced by feats like Burn It!. Of course, we've had this discussion already in a thread you wrote with the thinly-veiled intention of trying to discredit the Animist's power, in which you ended up unsuccessfully trying to convince everyone that Tumble Through can't be used to move without passing through an enemy (it can).
The vessel spells are limited. I keep hearing about multiple sustains. I want to hear what they are multi-sustaining. You only get the vessel spell for your primary apparition and you can't sustain it twice in the same round. So what are they sustaining? Explain it to me.
Circle of Spirits lets you choose another vessel spell and is a feat you get for free at level 1 on the Liturgist, otherwise known as the most popular Animist practice by far. I take it you still haven't yet played an Animist.
I'm wondering if some of the OP claims are from running the class outside the rules. This idea of using Elf Step to sustain two spells is pure theory. You can only sustain apparition or vessel spells with Liturgist. What apparition or vessel spells are you sustaining that are so OP?
The very fact that the examples you cited exist and are easily usable on Animist characters very much prove that these are not theoretical, even if your attempts to dismiss them certainly are. One common example of sustaining two spells in tandem is store time with embodiment of battle, which lets you make two Reactive Strikes per round at level 1.
I want to hear examples of what is being done that is OP. Otherwise, what proof is there this class is OP? Please provide examples across levels.
So here's the thing: you have already heard these examples before, as per the thread I linked, and all you did was bend over backwards to try to dismiss every single one out of hand, including by storming off to the errata thread and demanding that Paizo remove Tumble Through from the game. Yours is therefore not a genuine request for information, it's just sealioning, pure and simple. It is my sincere belief that you came to this thread with the intent to rehash all of those same debunked arguments once more and thereby attempt to derail the conversation, and I would please ask you not to do this. If you don't believe the Animist is overpowered, that's fine, this thread is not for you (and this applies to anyone else reading this exchange as well). If you want to engage with the thread OP and suggest changes to the Animist, regardless of whether or not you believe the class needs them, feel free to do so, but debating the Animist's power I don't think is actually particularly relevant to the conversation PathMaster wants to have.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that the Liturgists is currently too strong because of Dancing Invocation. I would like to see it changed to something like "Once per Round, the first time you sustain a vessel spell, you can Step as a Free Action". That would go a long way to solving the Elf Stepping Liturgist problem. Giving Circle of Spirits for free is fine (though maybe it should just be a baseline action for all Animists). But it's something you could similarly do by with a Human char with Natural Ambition.
Channeler's stance should be errata'd to clarify the damage increase only applies to the initial damage and healing, and no ongoing damage. It already specifies this for the healing part, so this wouldn't be too out there as far as errata go.
Embodiment of the Battle should probably not give you Reactive Strike at level 1. If nothing else I think this is the big thing that pushes it over the limit. Providing it at 4th rank would be better, given that's the level range where most non-fighter martials will have their own versions, but that would make Store Time essentially useless until level 6. Maybe a better compromise would be to give Embodiment its own, bespoke but weaker version of Reactive Strike. Or making it more like Monk's Stand Still, and have a feat to upgrade it to let it interrupt Manipulate actions as well? This is likely too much change to be implemented though.
Oo, I like this thread!
I will say, though, that framing the issue purely in terms of nerfs is likely to be contentious, and I think it would first help to ground the case in why this is a problem with a tangible impact on players, and why this could benefit from a change. Here are my arguments:
From my experience, I have had to explicitly brief my Animist players on being mindful of other party members when choosing their daily apparitions each day and building their character in general, because in the instances when I didn't, the Animist ended up treading so heavily on the toes of other party members that they sometimes ended up outperforming them at their own specialty, especially when blasting. Thus, I think the Animist has a genuine problem of eating the lunch of other player characters and then some.
On the flipside, the most common complaint I have heard from people considering an Animist is that the class is far too complicated and has way too many moving parts, and this alone has turned many players away. I do therefore think the class could stand to be made more accessible.
When fellow players played an Animist, their biggest complaint was that they felt none of their decisions really mattered in their long run, and they struggled to come up with a consistent identity for their character when so much of them changed from day to day. This extended to their apparitions, whose impermanence made it difficult to roleplay any sort of lasting bond. Having played an Animist myself, I feel like I've essentially played every Animist in one go, and playing a different character of the same class would just lead to the same general patterns of preparing spells, apparitions, and wandering feats. I think the Animist could therefore stand to have more meaningful permanent decisions to make and more replayability as a result. Thus, while I will be the first to accuse the Animist of being overpowered and poorly-designed, I would also advocate for empathy as a guiding principle when...
I see the logic behind this. And I have felt the problems you mention of Animist feeling like they all play the same, lack a solid "build", and can't really develop any rapport with their spirits. But I think that streamlining it ultimately makes the class less unique.
I disagree that the current Animist is too complicated. It's a lot of homework to learn the different Vessel, Apparition Spells, and Wandering feats. But that's also true for classes like the Alchemist, or having to learn the different Domain Spells. The learning curve is part of the charm for some, and with how many classes we currently have I'm no longer swayed by the argument that it chases too many new players away. Just warn them that it's a hard first class to play, and to maybe consider any of the other tens of options if that sounds off-putting.
I also disagree that it's overpowered, or eating other classes' lunch. I think there's moments where an Animist will outshine somebody, due to circumstances and solid play. But an Embodiment Animist will consistently lag behind a true Martial in terms of raw numbers. Their to-hit modifier isn't any crazier than what a Bard or Warpriest can achieve. And, similar to those classes, the fact that Embodiment is built on status bonuses means there's a ceiling on how strong it can be. And all of this at the cost of losing one action per turn to sustain (on top of other vessel spells you might want to sustain) and a non-trivial malus to spell attacks and your spell DC.
What makes Embodiment so good is that it's so easy. It's everything you need rolled into one spell: weapon proficiency, bonus to hit and to damage making up for the fact that you can't have DEX or STR as a primary stat, and reactive strike. Where other casters would need to heavily invest into feats and spells like Courageous Anthem or Bless to close the gap, Animist just gets all of it in a single focus spell. (It also drives home even further how bad Battle Oracle has it but I digress)
Similarly, Channeler's Stance is strong when used at the right moment. But much more limited than Sorcerous Potency. Earth's bile is maybe a little overtuned (damage progression comparable to Clinging Ice, but AoE and with extra persistent damage) but it's also the only blasting focus spell to benefit from Stance. Their other options are their apparition spells, which you have far fewer of. You may be able to match the damage of Sorcerer's Spells a couple of times, but they'll do it far more often than an Animist ever could. And if you have Embodiment of the Balance you might want to save those slots for some heals. Blaster Animist works, but has far less gas in the tank than most any other blaster.
I think what surprises/annoys people far more is how effortlessly an Animist can slide in and out of different roles. If built correctly they can swap between blasting, healing, and attacking on the fly, just at the cost of some actions. That's not something any other class gets to have. But that is also a big part of what makes the class fun and unique. Their specialty is not having a specialty or set path.
That's ultimately what leads to them feeling homogeneous across tables/games: If you can't specialize your other option is to diversify, so that's what everyone does.
I don't think that makes it a bad class though, it's just not for everybody.
I can definitely empathize with not wanting to make the Animist less unique. I do find myself disagreeing on a few points, however:
All of which is to say that the tools are right there to let the Animist beat other classes at their own game, and I have seen it happen at my table, not just due to freak circumstances but as a direct, consistent result of their abilities. And to be clear: the problem isn't simply that the Animist can rival or beat specialists, as that could be fine on a class that can choose its own specialty. The problem is that the Animist gets to do this while also having the highest versatility in the game. In a balanced environment, a class with that much versatility would normally be balanced to be mediocre at everything it does, as was the case with the pre-remaster Alchemist (and still is to some extent now), and a class with that much raw power would normally be balanced to be quite specialized, as with the Psychic. That the Animist gets to be top-tier in both is cause for concern, in my opinion.
But also, to bring it back to actual homebrew: the changes I suggest would let you still have a lot of versatility, it'd just be balanced along a sliding scale between daily flexibility and overarching flexibility through more fixed apparitions. That you'd get to stack these subclasses and choose exactly how flexible you want them to be would be unique among classes, and a spontaneous Wisdom caster in particular is to this day unprecedented in PF2e. I would say that's points in favor of more uniqueness, not less, and could make the Animist much more accessible without sacrificing the essential bits that let them stand out from other classes.
While this advice is true in a general sense, it's not really applicable here. This is a homebrew thread; it's not intended to legitimately change the animist at all tables, or push for errata,
Exactly. That is the entire point of moving the thread here in the first place. Animist is one of my favorite classes and I personally think that the only thing Animist needs is a bit clearer wording on Liturgist's Dancing Invocation. The class as a whole certainly doesn't need nerfed.
But that isn't the topic of this thread. This thread assumes that Animist is needing changes and nerfs to bring the gameplay experience in line with what the OP is envisioning.
And while I might not agree, the forums are big enough for us all. There can be a place to discuss Animist nerfs.
Teridax, I'd kinda like to see how you think animist compares to each class and how the animist might overshadow what they specialize in. It might show where it needs to be nerfed or where some classes are still in need of a buff.
I mean, I just pointed out how they encroach on the Fighter, Sorcerer, and Psychic's territory, with fairly specific comparisons, and in past exchanges have pointed out how they can achieve a substantial portion of an Untamed Druid's strengths for far less build investment. I have also indicated how all of this is against a backdrop of incredible versatility, far more than any of the classes mentioned. If you've genuinely read or remembered this and are somehow still unclear, you may want to express where this confusion on your part stems from.
And again, to make this very clear: the point here isn't that the Animist purely needs nerfs, much less that the class and its players deserve to suffer. It is also my opinion that the Animist is a very clunky and overly complex class to play for a number of reasons, which is why many of the changes I suggested above were aimed at improving the class in various ways and making them feel better to play. It's all too easy to confuse power with enjoyment when there are just so many examples out there of power that is difficult to appreciate or just not implemented in a way that generates the most enjoyment, whether it's the post-remaster Oracle to many players or the Animist. I'd like the class to be less of a headache to include in a party, but I'd also like the class to be attractive to more players, particularly those who like their theme but are currently turned off by their mechanical complexity.
Finally, Perpdedog is right: it doesn't even matter what you think of the Animist, because this is ultimately a thread about imagining how the Animist could be different, not about justifying why they ought to change. Paizo is unlikely to act on anything put forth in this thread and nobody's hurting anyone by spitballing, so we might as well have fun with this creative prompt.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you've genuinely read or remembered this and are somehow still unclear, you may want to express where this confusion on your part stems from.
Not trying to offend but your comments are a lot and many (and a lot of your points exist on other posts) so I was just asking for a point-by-point breakdown/summary of your opinion on where you think the animist could use nerfs, both for OP who might not be familiar with your previous points and for myself as some brief notes to keep in mind.
Not sure if the rest of your comment is directed at me or just part of the conversation in general.
Not trying to offend but your comments are a lot and many (and a lot of your points exist on other posts) so I was just asking for a point-by-point breakdown/summary of your opinion on where you think the animist could use nerfs, both for OP who might not be familiar with your previous points and for myself as some brief notes to keep in mind.
Not sure if the rest of your comment is directed at me or just part of the conversation in general.
Okay, but I have literally just told you that I have given a point-by-point breakdown summary already on this very thread, i.e. literally the post right before the one where you ask for this clarification. It's not like I'm asking you to dig through my post history, and while I do want to assume good faith here, it still comes across to me as a little strange that you would ask for clarification literally right after I did exactly that.
As for the rest of my post, it does address more than just you, as several people have come to this thread without bothering to engage with the actual topic of discussion, but it does address you all the same. We don't need to justify the Animist's state of balance to be able to suggest changes, and I say this while acknowledging that you're one of the few people who did at least try, if only to a small extent.
|
|
Okay, but I have literally just told you that I have given a point-by-point breakdown summary already on this very thread, i.e. literally the post right before the one where you ask for this clarification. It's not like I'm asking you to dig through my post history, and while I do want to assume good faith here, it still comes across to me as a little strange that you would ask for clarification literally right after I did exactly that.
You might not notice because you already know what you wrote but your comments are the opposite of brief or summarized (at least in comparison to most other commenters) and they are just generally not easy to digest. I'm lookin' for cliff notes when you're giving a dissertation. For example (and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth) you could break down your points in the following way:
-Striking: With embodiment of battle and Grudge Strike, animist can meet or exceed standard martials in attack bonus and damage while still having full spellcasting. [insert suggested nerf here]
-Blasting: Animist is as strong a blaster as a sorcerer, but with the chassis of a druid and the flexible utility of wizard. [insert suggested nerf here]
-Skills: With a mixture of utility spells and Crafter in the Vault, animist can replace a rogue while still having full spellcasting. [insert suggested nerf here]
I was just looking for a similarly brief and easy to digest format for your overall thoughts on how the animist might overshadow classes in certain roles.
You might not notice because you already know what you wrote but your comments are the opposite of brief or summarized (at least in comparison to most other commenters) and they are just generally not easy to digest. I'm lookin' for cliff notes when you're giving a dissertation.
How's this for cliff notes:
TL;DR: I don't think your way of engaging with the topic of discussion is at all helpful and I'd much rather not be made to constantly repeat myself. I think that in order to have a more productive conversation, you will need to take the time to read what others have to say, rather than demand people metaphorically chew your food for you. If you have any questions or requests for clarification after you've read a little more on the topic, feel free to ask.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. You still can't sustain the same Vessel Spell in the same turn even if you have two vessel spells available.
Changing your primary apparition changes your vessel spell, but doesn't somehow allow you to sustain the same vessel spell.
Once again, I'm asking what combination of sustain makes this Elf step so great?
You and Bluefrog brought this up. I want to know what combination of apparition and vessel spells you can cast to outdo the simple damage or effects of another class just unleashing.
These sustains take time to cast and set up, then you're stuck sustaining them while trying to do other things.
2. How are you encroaching on the other classes? Is your strength going to be maxed out like a fighter or barbarian while you're trying to keep up your wisdom?
The barbarian is hands down best at maneuvers and it's not really even close if you build for them.
But nearly every strength-based martial can be good at them too.
I see a thread bringing up the animist as over-powered, but what I don't see and didn't see in the other thread is how the animist is outdoing other classes in actual play.
And what those classes are they are outdoing.
What are the numbers as your proof? Is the the group your "overpowered" over built well or are you overpowered in a group with the alchemist, an investigator, and a witch or something like that.
I want to hear some real examples or this is all talk like when someone posted the Thaumaturge is so powerful because of how much they can do, then when push came to shove the Thaumaturge couldn't outperform the stronger classes in combat.
It was more access to non-combat activities where they were I guess over-powered.
I've been playing with the animist builds. I'm not seeing an overpowered class at all. I know with 100 percent certainty I can build powerful characters from a lot of classes with very strong, focused abilities that will standout in a group.
On a side note, you didn't prove anything Teridax concerning persistent damage.
This is what Channeler's Stance says: While in this stance, whenever you cast or Sustain an apparition spell or vessel spell that deals energy damage, you gain a status bonus to the spell’s damage equal to the spell’s rank.
Persistent damage doesn't occur when you cast or sustain a spell. It occurs at the end of a targets round.
So no, by RAW it doesn't affect persistent damage. It does exactly what it says it does. When you cast or sustain the spell, you get the status to damage. That damage doesn't affect any lingering effects that occur later like persistent damage. So you would have talk the DM into allowing this at whatever table you're playing at as it isn't RAW.
PF2 is very much a game where things do as they are stated. The extra damage from Channeler's stance only occurs to damage done when you cast the spell or sustain it. The main advantage of Channeler's Stance is it affects sustain. That's it. It does not affect persistent damage. That is your house rule.
So once again, let's hear your numbers as to why you're encroaching on martials or other classes. Not theory, but actual numbers and round by round examples of you mastering multiple sustains and doing all this stuff other classes can't do.
I really want to hear these round by round breakdowns and stat array you're giving these characters.
I don't think the animist is overpowered. I've looked over and ran mock battles using it and it has a slow set up and requires dedication to once aspect of the class to do it well.
The best builds I see for an animist are blasting builds. A lot of the sustain apparition spells aren't that good. If you had phantom orchestra, that would be something. Even the status bonus for channeler's stance doesn't keep up with phantom orchestra.
1. You still can't sustain the same Vessel Spell in the same turn even if you have two vessel spells available.
Changing your primary apparition changes your vessel spell, but doesn't somehow allow you to sustain the same vessel spell.
Once again, I'm asking what combination of sustain makes this Elf step so great?
You and Bluefrog brought this up. I want to know what combination of apparition and vessel spells you can cast to outdo the simple damage or effects of another class just unleashing.
This was already explained to you here:
One common example of sustaining two spells in tandem is store time with embodiment of battle, which lets you make two Reactive Strikes per round at level 1.
Given that you've been told all the tools needed to achieve this, it should be pretty self-evident, but just so we're on the same page, here's how you go about it:
So while this does take a turn to set up, it leaves you in a state where you're Striking with equal accuracy to a martial class while also being able to make more Reactive Strikes than even a Fighter. Later on, the Forest's Heart stance lets you extend your Reactive Strike range to 30 feet, and the Cycle of Souls feat lets you enter that stance as a free action (while also letting you potentially Sustain one of your vessel spells in the process as well).
These sustains take time to cast and set up, then you're stuck sustaining them while trying to do other things.
Hold up: if you didn't know how this setup worked, how can you make judgment calls on its action costs? It sounds an awful lot to me like you already know how all of this works, and are feigning ignorance while also trying to argue against the thing you're feigning ignorance of. You can't have it both ways.
2. How are you encroaching on the other classes? Is your strength going to be maxed out like a fighter or barbarian while you're trying to keep up your wisdom?
It doesn't need to be; your attack mod will be on par with that of a typical martial class or better for 80% of the game's levels even with maxed-out Wisdom. This by itself is already a breach of niche protection, but on top of that the Animist can also boost their own maneuvers, gain Reactive Strike, apply it twice per round, and massively boost their Striking range, so there will be situations where they will be outperforming other martial classes.
I see a thread bringing up the animist as over-powered, but what I don't see and didn't see in the other thread is how the animist is outdoing other classes in actual play.
I question what it is you're asking for here, because people did list their play experiences and directly told you how the Animist impacted their table. What makes this request come across as insincere as well is how you yourself refuse to share any of the logs you claim to keep of your play sessions, and frequently make statements that could not be made from a place of gameplay experience.
What are the numbers as your proof?
Well, for starters, I listed the levels at which embodiment of battle lets an Animist match or exceed the attack mod of a martial class, so perhaps you could start there.
Is the the group your "overpowered" over built well or are you overpowered in a group with the alchemist, an investigator, and a witch or something like that.
I can only speak for my own table, but we all have good knowledge of build options in Pathfinder and my players build characters that perform well and aren't spread too thin. It is within this context that a player overshadowed other well-built characters with an Animist to such an extent that I had to step in and ask them to change how they played their character in order to avoid this situation, while also applying some house rules to address certain edge cases that arose.
I want to hear some real examples or this is all talk like when someone posted the Thaumaturge is so powerful because of how much they can do, then when push came to shove the Thaumaturge couldn't outperform the stronger classes in combat.
Welcome to the forums, Deriven, where the entire point is to talk. As it stands, people have given examples, so it would help to listen as well, not just focus on talking over others as you have.
I've been playing with the animist builds. I'm not seeing an overpowered class at all.
Do you have literally any evidence for this? Because you've also effectively admitted to not knowing what Circle of Spirits is and how it lets you Sustain multiple vessel spells simultaneously. Given that once again, this is an extremely basic element of the Animist and a foundational component of one of their apparition's vessel spells, I'm going to press X to doubt here.
On a side note, you didn't prove anything Teridax concerning persistent damage.
I explained an extremely basic rules element you could have verified yourself and pointed to a feat that clearly demonstrates that persistent damage benefits from status bonuses, the same as any damage. You can stick your head in the sand if you want to, but pretending that I didn't prove anything is arguing in bad faith. Also, you're pulling your own claims from out of nowhere here without citing any rules or examples, so it's rather difficult to take your claims seriously here.
I don't think the animist is overpowered. I've looked over and ran mock battles using it and it has a slow set up and requires dedication to once aspect of the class to do it well.
So normally, if someone had any experience with the Animist as they had previously claimed, their first point of reference here would be their actual play experience, not "mock battles". Thus, I don't think your cover story really holds here, and this is not the first time you have made grandiose claims about your play experience or relative system mastery next to that of others that turned out to be false. If you want to argue that the Animist isn't overpowered, that's fine (though again, not appropriate for this thread), but please be honest about your level of experience and subject matter knowledge and avoid artificially inflating your credentials.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TL;DR: I don't think your way of engaging with the topic of discussion is at all helpful and I'd much rather not be made to constantly repeat myself. I think that in order to have a more productive conversation, you will need to take the time to read what others have to say, rather than demand people metaphorically chew your food for you. If you have any questions or requests for clarification after you've read a little more on the topic, feel free to ask.
I'm sorry. I was just trying to elicit some feedback from you that was easier to engage with. With your previous comments from other threads I also thought this was a topic you might have more thoughts on and might want to elaborate more points without all the detail. I didn't mean to offend and was trying to avoid having this all develop a confrontational tone. I guess I failed but at least try to keep in mind that not everyone is trying to attack you. I know tone can be difficult to convey through text, especially in a community obsessed with a game based in cold, technical phrasing but I think most people here are trying to communicate in good faith.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since this isn't a rules thread, maybe instead of actually litigating those issues it would be more helpful to just ask the hypothetical: Under the premise that a table holds that the damage bonus isn't supposed to be double dipped with the persistent part of Earth's Bile, do you still consider the Animist to be stepping on other blaster toes too much? If so, what sort of turn 1-2-3 routine are you envisioning under which it becomes an issue? (edit: wrote this before the last post, but I suppose it's still relevant)
With regards to blasting, simply entering Channeler's Stance and using earth's bile lets you apply your status bonus twice by casting it and an apparition spell. This can be achieved at level 1 with the ignition cantrip from Steward of Stone and Fire, and also comboes strongly with a Lurker in Devouring Dark, which grants grim tendrils as an apparition spell (which also incidentally deals persistent damage, which can be troublesome if you apply the status bonus RAW). At higher levels, Cardinal Guardians and the right choice of apparitions can let you gain a significant advantage in accuracy, whereas Cycle of Souls lets you enter Channeler's Stance at no action cost.
Although the stance carries a limitation of applying only to your apparition and vessel spells, it carries the benefit of applying to your apparition cantrips as well, which at early levels provides an effective and resource-free means of applying that bonus. Unlike a Psychic, you can also keep maintaining this bonus past the first 2 rounds in an encounter without stupefying yourself, and unlike both, you can end up dramatically increasing your accuracy in a way that makes up for using spell slots of slightly lower rank as well. Thus, the Animist can end up out-blasting the Psychic and rivaling a blast-oriented Sorcerer for fairly little build investment.
I'm sorry. I was just trying to elicit some feedback from you that was easier to engage with. With your previous comments from other threads I also thought this was a topic you might have more thoughts on and might want to elaborate more points without all the detail. I didn't mean to offend and was trying to avoid having this all develop a confrontational tone. I guess I failed but at least try to keep in mind that not everyone is trying to attack you. I know tone can be difficult to convey through text, especially in a community obsessed with a game based in cold, technical phrasing but I think most people here are trying to communicate in good faith.
Understood, and on my part I apologize for taking your attempts the wrong way. I've experienced many instances in the past of people on these forums, and online discussions in general, feigning sincerity in order to try to exhaust, undermine, and gaslight people they've disagreed with while staying under the radar of moderation, and so am probably a bit too vigilant of those kinds of tactics. I'll make an effort to be more patient.
In the future, however, I would also recommend that you change some of the ways you engage with others if you want to avoid coming across as confrontational or insincere: for starters, it is generally recommended to avoid asking people to repeat themselves, as it is likely to irritate them even if your request was done in good faith. If you want to initiate a conversation with someone on your own terms, a good way to do this is to take the first step, express yourself the way you want the conversation to proceed, and invite the person to do the same: this helps set an equal relationship in the conversation from the start, and avoids setting the expectation of having someone else carry the conversation for you at your request.
For what it's worth, I do have a lot of thoughts on the Animist and will be happy to discuss those. As I've mentioned, though, I would prefer to discuss the Animist's balance in another space, and would like this discussion to focus specifically on suggesting changes to the class, if that's okay. I will, however, be happy to briefly justify certain specific changes if this helps better explain my philosophy behind them. For instance:
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the future, however, I would also recommend that you change some of the ways you engage with others if you want to avoid coming across as confrontational or insincere: for starters, it is generally recommended to avoid asking people to repeat themselves, as it is likely to irritate them even if your request was done in good faith. If you want to initiate a conversation with someone on your own terms, a good way to do this is to take the first step, express yourself the way you want the conversation to proceed, and invite the person to do the same: this helps set an equal relationship in the conversation from the start, and avoids setting the expectation of having someone else carry the conversation for you at your request.
Yeah, I try to start off with a more casual tone when I can to avoid a stricter, matter-of-fact tone. It usually misses on specifics but I feel starting off blunt and literal prematurely can come off as abrasive. It seems I may have instead come off as sarcastic or disrespectful unintentionally.
I wasn't trying to have you repeat yourself entirely but I can see where you could feel that way now. I really just wanted additional points I felt you might have been passing up, but summarized in short bulletpoints to avoid you having to write a lot of extra. My quality of word usage varies depending on my mood or mental state and I admit I probably flubbed on that attempt.
I ultimately saw my request as a way to point out more areas where the animist might need nerfs but I won't push if you'd rather not engage the topic from that angle. I've honestly kinda lost interest in this thread as the OP hasn't participated further and I was just looking to help, as I personally find the class doesn't need nerfs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I feel you, I'm curious to know more of the OP's ideas on the subject too. FWIW, I think the Thaumaturge is a good point of comparison, because the class is also all about emulating the niches of other classes, except I think the Thaumaturge does this successfully by a) getting close but not quite in crucial ways, b) having fixed implements, meaning they can't rebuild themselves from the ground up each day, and c) having something that is truly unique to themselves while paying an appropriate price for it (namely, Exploit Vulnerability and not having a physical key attribute). If we were to apply this model to the Animist (and still perhaps applied a few tactical nerfs), I think that would justify a framework where the Animist could choose between more but fixed apparitions (which could each let you emulate the better part of another class's niche), or fewer apparitions that you could swap out every day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Haven't played an animist but one of the core problems I see is that the benefits of Embodiment of battle are easily overshadowed by the fact your a divine caster and should be giving similar hit bonuses to your group. It's sustain so your slowed 1 and step to sustain is mostly useless if your already flanking in melee. Third it tanks your spell dc's by 2 points and that's rough, A lot to give up for so little.
As an aside I don't see where your getting a second reaction for RS. Also circle of spirits doesn't sustain in and of itself, and while I understand it's role in your setup, it's a level one feat anyone can take and a 9+ medium can achieve the same for less actions.
So if you think that's a really good ability then it might heavily depend on your group. If you don't have much front line you can act as a decent martial, but in a group with two heavy hitters you should be buffing their to hit so they can Slam down and wreck enemies.
If you think liturgist is too much, maybe make it so you can only sustain spells from your current primary apparition.
Haven't played an animist but one of the core problems I see is that the benefits of Embodiment of battle are easily overshadowed by the fact your a divine caster and should be giving similar hit bonuses to your group. It's sustain so your slowed 1 and step to sustain is mostly useless if your already flanking in melee. Third it tanks your spell dc's by 2 points and that's rough, A lot to give up for so little.
I personally think the penalty is overblown, because your vessel spell will already let you deal damage through competent Strikes, and you're a full caster with access to an immense amount of utility spells that don't rely on your spellcasting proficiency at all. Being able to trap enemies with a wall spell before cutting them to pieces on your next turn is pretty terrifying.
As an aside I don't see where your getting a second reaction for RS. Also circle of spirits doesn't sustain in and of itself, and while I understand it's role in your setup, it's a level one feat anyone can take and a 9+ medium can achieve the same for less actions.
Store time gives you that second reaction, and Circle of Spirits being so easily accessible I'd say makes the Animist more powerful, not less. It may not Sustain by itself, but it does let you deploy two different vessel spells during the same encounter, with action compressors like Elf Step letting you Sustain two for the price of one.
So if you think that's a really good ability then it might heavily depend on your group. If you don't have much front line you can act as a decent martial, but in a group with two heavy hitters you should be buffing their to hit so they can Slam down and wreck enemies.
It's not an either-or situation; you can do both. It is entirely possible to prebuff allies with heroism before joining in as a powerful gish yourself (that, or buff in-combat). I do agree, however, that if your party is already heavy on martial classes, then you'll get diminishing returns with a third, so you might get more value out of utility-oriented vessel spells like discomfiting whisper or nymph's grace.
If you think liturgist is too much, maybe make it so you can only sustain spells from your current primary apparition.
This could work for sure, and would definitely help by capping the extra Sustain to just one vessel spell. I'd perhaps still want to change the 9th-level benefit into a bespoke action just in case some feat option comes about that gives you some benefit each time you Sustain, but the restriction you propose would already address most existing abuse cases.
Just to focus the discussion on a subset of Animist abilities, how's this for a set of changes to the Animist's gish playstyle:
So effectively, your gish playstyle would generally be more about switch-hitting than continually rivalling martial classes, leaving more room to do other stuff instead. If you wanted to commit to a battle form, doing so would be a bit smoother, and an Untamed Druid would have a much more consistent second Strike with less of a Focus Point investment.
|
|
embodiment of battle is reworked so that instead of its current benefits, you Strike with a simple weapon or unarmed attack when you Cast the spell, and the first time you Sustain the spell each round. This Strike gains a major bonus to its accuracy (for instance, rolling the attack twice and using the better result). Again, you'd gain no other benefits, so no status bonus to attack and damage rolls, no Reactive Strikes, and no martial weapon familiarity (and no penalty to spellcasting).
So what happens if you gain proficiency with anything greater than simple weapons? Are you still limited to simple weapons? I'd almost say it'd have to be because free repeatable sure strike sounds stronger than what we now have.
Rather than its current implementation, Grudge Strike lets you make a melee Strike as a reaction when damaged by an enemy in your attack's reach. The attack gains no bonus to its accuracy, but instead deals additional vitality or void damage (and probably more so than its current amount). Perhaps you could even add an additional effect where if the triggering damage came from a critical hit or a critical failure on a saving throw, your Strike gains an additional benefit, such as greater accuracy or more bonus damage.
I like this. Matches the name of the feat better as well.
So what happens if you gain proficiency with anything greater than simple weapons? Are you still limited to simple weapons? I'd almost say it'd have to be because free repeatable sure strike sounds stronger than what we now have.
Correct, it would still be limited to simple weapons and unarmed attacks, so that it wouldn't go off the rails with martial weapon proficiency.
I like this. Matches the name of the feat better as well.
Much appreciated! I might try these out at some point, and see how they change gish Animist builds.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what happens if you gain proficiency with anything greater than simple weapons? Are you still limited to simple weapons? I'd almost say it'd have to be because free repeatable sure strike sounds stronger than what we now have.Correct, it would still be limited to simple weapons and unarmed attacks, so that it wouldn't go off the rails with martial weapon proficiency.
I don't know how to feel about this. It's good but I'm the kind of person who likes to get hits in with a big meaty martial weapon. Maybe treat such a weapon when using this variation of embodiment of battle as a simple weapon appropriate to its type...sorta how improvised weapons work. That way it stays balanced but someone who normally wields a martial weapon doesn't have to swap between two types of weapons.
That's fair, yeah, one option could certainly be to allow martial weapons and even advanced weapons, but reduce their damage die by a step. You're right that this would make the switch from a current Animist easier, as most gish builds I've seen rely on a martial weapon.