Animist Balance and How It Relates to the Thaumaturge, the PF1 Medium and the PF1 Occultist

[Teridax]

Angwa wrote:

What Liturgist's Dancing Invocation actually does is letting you sustain Vessel spells for free if you move in certain ways. It does not give you that movement.

But it does: if it was in your interest to use that vessel spell and spend that action on it, then Dancing Invocation very much gives you that movement. If it was in your interest to move, then Dancing Invocation gives you that Sustain. If neither moving nor Sustaining that vessel spell are in your interests, why spend that action on either?

Angwa wrote:

If I were playing another caster that had an equal need to reposition and be in the frontline, like say, a War Priest, without compromising my action economy so I could still cast and strike/trip/whatever in one round I would use the same methods. Because it's the same problem, obviously, and it's a solved problem. I have actually played a War Priest like that, so this is nothing new, special or unique.

The closest thing a Warpriest gets to this kind of movement is Zealous Rush, which has a far narrower range of spell options that let you also move, and to top it all off the feat uses your reaction. The Warpriest very much does not get the same action economy as a Liturgist, not even close.

Angwa wrote:

This mobility really has nothing to do with the strength of the Animist Class, and I had used no Animist class feat or feature to action-compress away my mobility. Really, every caster who wants to can do this. Every single one.

How, exactly? This is a rather bold claim you're making here; I'm interested in seeing the evidence you have.

Angwa wrote:

Obviously, and this is really, really important: not every caster needs to do this. Needing to do this and having to invest to be able to do so isn't exactly a positive or some 'immense strength'.

Quick question: if Sustaining that spell did not benefit you, why would you do it?

Because at the end of the day, you're acting like you were forced to Sustain that spell and move, when the reality is that you chose to: I won't impugn your skill as a player, so I presume you had a good reason to do so. In other words: doing so was beneficial to you, and worth the action cost of both moving and Sustaining, a combination of actions that is, contrary to your claim, not standard among casters, nor something other casters can do in this way. This is why despite your protestations, that benefit is very much a strength: the Animist's vessel spells are beneficial to use, such that a the player will want to use them rather than not, and thus take the actions and effort to move and Sustain. Pretending like your hands were tied all along is not enough to successfully frame this strength as a weakness.

Angwa wrote:

Honestly, since they will go go for a one-handed weapon, probably just -1, and you can fix that with Tome if you want.

Why would Thaumaturges depend on strength for strong melee attacks? They have their vulnerabilities and generally lack the action economy for athletics maneuvers. I'd say strength isn't a priority.

As you may probably recall, melee weapon attacks use Strength by default, and all melee weapon attacks add their Strength to the damage roll. If you avoid Strength and rely on finesse weapons instead, your weapon will have a smaller damage die, and you'll lose up to +3 to each damage roll you make, which is not made up by the Thaumaturge's core class feature at early levels. This is also without even mentioning how relying on light armor instead of medium armor puts you at a -1 in AC, so there really are quite a lot of severe tradeoffs for not picking Strength on a Thaumaturge.

Blue_frog wrote:

However, since we're talking about the liturgist animist and how powerful it can be, it wouldn't be fair to leave the thaumaturge without implements.

The present discussion of the Thaumaturge was very specifically about the chassis, but do go on:

Blue_frog wrote:

This all ends-up with the most accurate martial possible (well, unless the fighter somehow archetypes to get sure strike, except he can do it only once in a fight) while doing very respectable damage.

Indeed, you can become an extremely accurate martial class as a Thaumaturge, and can even exceed a Swashbuckler at Charisma actions as a Charisma class (one would hope). This is, of course, provided you:

Permanently commit your once-per-character paragon benefit to your Tome implement, which also requires committing one of your limited adept benefits to that same implement.

Hold your Tome in one hand and your regalia in the other if you want the benefits of both. Here's hoping you like improvised attacks, or more likely are willing the sacrifice the benefits of one implement for the other.

Spend an action Exploiting Vulnerability and then a subsequent action each subsequent turn Intensifying Vulnerability, an action cost only eliminated at 19th level.

Succeed at your check to Recall Knowledge, which will be less likely if you pick a Strength or Dex apex item instead of a Charisma apex item.

So all things considered, given that at that point you've committed yourself so heavily to specializing in that one subclass, one would hope that you'd be good at something. Even so, at that stage the Animist not only gets the benefits of the Liturgist practice, but also the benefits of four different subclasses that they can swap out every day, with even many of their feats being swappable too.

[John R.]

Yeah, I think people are forgetting the major point of this thread. Thaumaturges have build diversity. Animists don't because they can innately do everything at least OK, if not well. One argument may be valid for why the thaumaturge may cover one base but in doing so, you've tied that character down with a build choice. Animist doesn't suffer such limitations. It doesn't have to remain tied to 1 or 2 or 6 apparitions permenantly. It can select any of the 13 of them each day.

[Teridax]

Agreed. One thing that's obvious with a Thaumaturge is that although you can get some really nifty benefits out of your subclasses, you can't get the full benefit of every subclass you choose: of the three subclasses you choose, which are all permanent choices, only one of the subclasses offers its full benefit, while another offers most, but not all of those benefits, and the third offers only the initial portion. Even if you get the 18th-level feat that gives you the adept benefit of your third implement, that's still not quite the same as getting the full benefits of four different subclasses you can completely swap out on a day-to-day basis.

To reinforce what John R.'s saying as well, those limitations may perhaps restrict the Thaumaturge's raw power, but they provide an immense benefit in build diversity: committing to selecting and upgrading an implement is a meaningful choice, because it locks your character out of other benefits they could otherwise get. The Thaumaturge hits this sweet spot where they have a lot of freedom to mix and match, but this depth of choice also means it's difficult for any two Thaumaturges to feel, let alone play the same. By contrast, when the Animist can choose any apparition they want on any day they want, and there's no contest when it comes to practices, all that means is that once you've played an Animist for a long enough period of time, you've played essentially the entire class. Limitations and commitment are often seen as bad things, but the Thaumaturge I think is a great example of how those can actually be a great source of fun. If there were more elements to the Animist that required commitment of some kind, I'd be willing to bet that the class would feel more satisfying as a result, and more diverse as well.

[Blue_frog]

Teridax wrote:

So all things considered, given that at that point you've committed yourself so heavily to specializing in that one subclass, one would hope that you'd be good at something. Even so, at that stage the Animist not only gets the benefits of the Liturgist practice, but also the benefits of four different subclasses that they can swap out every day, with even many of their feats being swappable to

One subclass that, as written a few posts earlier, makes the thaumaturge infringe on just about everyone's toes.

No need for other subclasses when one gives you all the flexibility you need. And that's quite what happens with the animist as well.

[Angwa]

Teridax wrote:

How, exactly? This is a rather bold claim you're making here; I'm interested in seeing the evidence you have.

Okay, no matter what gish with full caster progression I am playing, could be warpriest, warrior bard or animist, by the time we're solidly in the double digit levels I want to be able to cast those many, juicy spells, but also do my gish thing, but also will probably need to move as well.

You will need to go to dedications to fix this and invest feats, no class really offers good tools for this but there are a number of ways to go about this.

Anyway, for my Animist from lvl 12+ the main 2 were maneuvering spell from sixth pillar and skirmish strike.

(for levels 9+10-12 there was elf step and tumbling opportunist, but those were trained away at lvl 12, though tumbling opportunist came back at level 14, though that was more a nice to have, hardly a need to have).

Anyway, now I could strike, cast a 2 action spell, get a step and a leap, and sustain 2 spells. For warpriest and warrior bard just maneuvering spell will be enough for repositioning in general combat and do their gish thing. Running 2 vessel spells was definitely worth getting skirmish strike for.

Sixth pillar by the way has at least one other pretty essential feat you want anyway if you want to survive on the frontlines at higher levels while casting spells, so pretty good investment which won't lock you out, though that won't really matter at these levels.

But warpriest and warrior bards can't do all that while sustaining 2 spells! Big difference! Imba!

Well, they don't need to sustain vessel spells to begin with. And let's face it, warrior bard's martial performance essentially is sustaining your class thing by action-compressing it into a strike. From level 1. And they can get effortless concentration.

As an aside, also effortless captivation, I guess, if you want to deal with getting that to work post-remaster. Mostly good for the Bard, but I guess it should work for Nymph's Grace and Trickster's Mirrors as well.

[YuriP]

Teridax wrote:

Agreed. One thing that's obvious with a Thaumaturge is that although you can get some really nifty benefits out of your subclasses, you can't get the full benefit of every subclass you choose: of the three subclasses you choose, which are all permanent choices, only one of the subclasses offers its full benefit, while another offers most, but not all of those benefits, and the third offers only the initial portion. Even if you get the 18th-level feat that gives you the adept benefit of your third implement, that's still not quite the same as getting the full benefits of four different subclasses you can completely swap out on a day-to-day basis.

To reinforce what John R.'s saying as well, those limitations may perhaps restrict the Thaumaturge's raw power, but they provide an immense benefit in build diversity: committing to selecting and upgrading an implement is a meaningful choice, because it locks your character out of other benefits they could otherwise get. The Thaumaturge hits this sweet spot where they have a lot of freedom to mix and match, but this depth of choice also means it's difficult for any two Thaumaturges to feel, let alone play the same. By contrast, when the Animist can choose any apparition they want on any day they want, and there's no contest when it comes to practices, all that means is that once you've played an Animist for a long enough period of time, you've played essentially the entire class. Limitations and commitment are often seen as bad things, but the Thaumaturge I think is a great example of how those can actually be a great source of fun. If there were more elements to the Animist that required commitment of some kind, I'd be willing to bet that the class would feel more satisfying as a result, and more diverse as well.

The main “problem” of animist in terms of versatility between its “sub-classes” is more in their attribute distribution.

Many players tend to focus on a single build idea, for example. To make a blast animist, and so they invest primary in Wis > Dex/Con > some other attribute. This limits then to efficiently change to a EoB (that uses primary Str/Dex) or even Battle Forms (that usually focus into Con to improve the HP) and can make their experience when not playing as a blaster disappointing.

The same is valid for a martial focused animist that chose to bump Str/Dex/Con over Wis because they designed their builds to be primary martial focused and when they need to cast something that need to use their Spell DC this spell will be harder to land.

This makes these players to not travel between the animist options too much, given to them different gameplay feel too with these different builds of animists.

It is still possible to make a full versatile animist bumping both your Wiz and Str/Dex at the cost of lower HP. This allows to travel between apparitions easier but due to many players typically have just one plan and this build is naturally more complex probably many avoid this options and make a build focused on one single apparition only.

[John R.]

Tome grants the infinite sure strike effect. Weapon gives the +2.

[John R.]

Blue_frog wrote:

It wouldn't make sense to compare the thaumaturge and the animist with each other since they're totally different. Like you said, the animist is a full caster. It is only fair that the thaumaturge is leagues better than the animist at melee (and it is), and only fair that the animist is leagues better than the thaumaturge at casting (and it is). The only time I compared them was when you said the animist could be played as a melee (and it cannot).

Unless I misunderstood the point of the whole thread, it was more about comparing thaumaturges to other melee and animists to other casters. I do believe that a Thaumaturge casts a bigger shade over other melees than an animist does over other casters.

Yes, I really think you need to reread the OP.

The point of the thread was comparing both classes in how they compete with all other classes and roles. They each do so in different ways. The argument is dynamic versatility is stronger than static versatility.

And an animist can most definitely be played as melee. I've already pulled off a few crits with an ogre hook using Grudge Strike and it feels amazing. Teridax has referenced plenty of 1st hand examples of procing multiple reactive strikes. It's not a strength of the class but it's definitely capable.

[Angwa]

Teridax wrote:

So, just to be very clear: you had to commit at least two class feats just to get a much weaker version of Dancing Invocation at 12th level that doesn't let you Stride, let alone Fly or use any other form of movement that's essential for repositioning at those levels. For reasons I cannot fathom, you trained out of Elf Step, a 9th-level ancestry feat that lets you Sustain two spells at once, and still get more benefit out of the Animist with that Sixth Pillar by essentially Sustaining as a free action. Sounds an awful lot to me like those other casters don't really hold a candle to the Liturgist's action economy.

Yes, at this level that is how much I value action compressing away movement, or anything else, on a gish, just so I can have my round of spellcasting and something martial.

And if the party does not have counterplay to a flying opponent besides at least all melee having to go airborn that party has serious issues. Even if the Warpriest could actually use step and leap while airwalking but that would likely not be enough.

I'm not worried however, since in actual reality there will be a counterplay in place.

Anyway, the simple truth is that I'm playing a full spellcaster, so I want to cast spells. And if I'm a spellcaster in the frontline, I want to combine that with something that requires me to be there in the first place, because if not why am I not in the backline?

And at a high enough level this can be done by the other gishes, so this my baseline. I expect the Animist to be able to do this as well. But the Animist has all these sustain abilities to deal with.

Now, if I go these lengths to avoid spending actions on moving, believe me that I would only consider spending actions on sustaining in extreme situations. Leave that for the casters in the backline who can afford that.

That is why Elf Step went out. It's still wasting an action to sustain, even if it's 2 spells. At the higher levels I honestly believe that if you can't sustain them for free while doing something more impactful than stepping, it's not worth it. Not if you want to keep up with what other characters can do who are even vaguely optimized.

That's why I disagree that Animist has this amazing action economy because how can it when it's all about spells you need to sustain, or that Liturgist is busted because it is the only practice which actually helps with fixing this huge drain on your action economy. Barely.

You can make Animist work to meet my (table's) standards of effectiveness and have a fun gameplay, but you really have to go out of your way, disregard your class feats and you need FA. I think Bard or Warpriest are much easier to make effective gishes with than Animist.

[John R.]

I think we need to acknowkedge a couple things because I think people are getting the wrong impression:

-ignoring exploits, liturgist is not necessarily broken within the context of the system, just when compared to the other practices.

-animist does NOT have an amazing action economy. Liturgist just makes it more on par with most other classes.

-the animist class is not being argued as broken due to power. It is being argued as broken due to covering too many roles well inside its chassis.

[Blue_frog]

John R. wrote:

Yes, I really think you need to reread the OP.

The point of the thread was comparing both classes in how they compete with all other classes and roles. They each do so in different ways. The argument is dynamic versatility is stronger than static versatility.

My bad, then.

I still believe that the animist is nowhere near the height of the power curve, and a thaumaturge will step on more toes, though. And that's after playing both.

I believe the post I just made explains quite specifically why.

John R. wrote:

And an animist can most definitely be played as melee. I've already pulled off a few crits with an ogre hook using Grudge Strike and it feels amazing. Teridax has referenced plenty of 1st hand examples of procing multiple reactive strikes. It's not a strength of the class but it's definitely capable.

Well, here our experiences differ. While it's great to pull crits with an ogre hook using Grudge Strike, it's still nowhere near what a martial could output in your place, and nowhere near what you could have done casting instead.

The argument is not how many things you are able to do in a vacuum, but how many thing you'll actually be able to do in the space of your round. If you are using Embodiment of Battle and Grudge Strike, then you've used your whole round (you have maybe one action left to move or strike if hasted) while you could have used Divine Wrath to damage and sicken everyone while blasting with earth's bile, dealing probably more damage and debuffing them. Or confusing all mooks, or using spirit blast, or whatever spells you want. Usually, the best way to play a caster is... to cast.

Or what, you're hoarding resources because you're expecting a long fighting day ? Fine ! Without spending any resources and without even using Channeler's stance, earth's bile + Needle Darts benefits from cardinal guardians, will be more precise than your strikes, and will deal:

At level 5: 4d4+2 persistent in an area, 5d4 on one target. (av 22,5+2 persistent, and earth's bile deals half damage on a miss).

Your grudge strike with a d10 weapon and EoB: 2d10+4+2d6+1, average 23 with no half damage on a miss). Advantage casting, even on one target, and of course much better if there are more targets.

At level 10: 6d4+3 persistent in an area, 7d4 on one target (av 32,5 + 3 persistent, and still half on a miss)

Your grudge strike is still stuck at the same damage, except now you get an extra +1 from EoB, whoop dee doo, average 24.

I won't do all levels but EoB Grudge Strike is mathematically subpar, even when using no stance and no slots.

I'm glad you enjoyed it, but it has more to do with you rolling 19s and 20s on your attack than any true data.

Animist is a strong caster with strong spells and strong feats.

[Blue_frog]

John R. wrote:

-the animist class is not being argued as broken due to power. It is being argued as broken due to covering too many roles well inside its chassis.

What can the (liturgist) animist cover well ?

- Casting (duh)
- Thievery skill
- Some lore skills
- Some exploration abilities through shapechanging.
- Can somewhat dabble in fighting

What can the (tome/regalia) thaumaturge cover well ?
- Legendary skills (better than anyone)
- Accuracy against bosses (better than anyone)
- Recalling knowledge (better than anyone)
- CHA skills (better than anyone)
- Using scrolls (better than anyone)- Melee fighting
- Ranged fighting (surprisingly)
- Can somewhat dabble in casting

I don't know which one looks the most broken here.

[John R.]

Blue_frog wrote:

John R. wrote:

-the animist class is not being argued as broken due to power. It is being argued as broken due to covering too many roles well inside its chassis.

What can the (liturgist) animist cover well ?

- Casting (duh)
- Thievery skill
- Some lore skills
- Some exploration abilities through shapechanging.
- Can somewhat dabble in fighting

What can the (tome/regalia) thaumaturge cover well ?
- Legendary skills (better than anyone)
- Accuracy against bosses (better than anyone)
- Recalling knowledge (better than anyone)
- CHA skills (better than anyone)
- Using scrolls (better than anyone)- Melee fighting
- Ranged fighting (surprisingly)
- Can somewhat dabble in casting

I don't know which one looks the most broken here.

Have you read my animist guide and the section on how the animist can cover the function of a lot, if not most, basic skill actions with their apparitions?

[Teridax]

Angwa wrote:

Yes, at this level that is how much I value action compressing away movement, or anything else, on a gish, just so I can have my round of spellcasting and something martial.

To be clear, the statement wasn't about how you value action compression or movement, it was about how the Animist's action compression blows that of the other casters out of the water. By all evidence, it does.

Angwa wrote:

And if the party does not have counterplay to a flying opponent besides at least all melee having to go airborn that party has serious issues. Even if the Warpriest could actually use step and leap while airwalking but that would likely not be enough.

I'd argue that being able to fly or air walk is the counterplay. Earthbinding the dragon certainly helps, but it probably shouldn't be the only strategy, especially when those flight spells become really cheap.

Angwa wrote:

Anyway, the simple truth is that I'm playing a full spellcaster, so I want to cast spells. And if I'm a spellcaster in the frontline, I want to combine that with something that requires me to be there in the first place, because if not why am I not in the backline?

Yes, exactly! And that's why the Animist's action compression is so good, because it lets you do exactly that and move at the same time, sometimes even do a third action on that same action too. If we're using the Sixth Pillar, that's two actions as a free action, which is amazing.

Angwa wrote:

That's why I disagree that Animist has this amazing action economy because how can it when it's all about spells you need to sustain, or that Liturgist is busted because it is the only practice which actually helps with fixing this huge drain on your action economy. Barely.

It's not just spells you need to Sustain, though, it's spells you want to Sustain, because again, you're spoiled for choice when it comes to spells you could cast at any range otherwise. If you don't want to drain your actions, don't, it's that simple. That you choose to proves that there is enough of a benefit for you to do so, and it is evident that the Animist provides exceptional action economy in this regard.

[Blue_frog]

John R. wrote:

Have you read my animist guide and the section on how the animist can cover the function of a lot, if not most, basic skill actions with their apparitions?

Yeah, and I fundamentally disagree with your view of lore skills, like a lot of people in the comments IIRC.

Thinking that circus lore can allow you to replace acrobatics or forest lore can allow you to replace survival is just something that doesn't happen.

If your GM does it this way (or if you're the GM and you do it this way) then more power you, and it certainly gives a huge power boost to the animist.

Edit: It still only goes to master AND is tied to int, which probably isn't the animist's forte, so EVEN IF you SOMEHOW find a DM who says "oh what the heck, use forest lore to track this boar", you're still meh at it.

[John R.]

Blue_frog wrote:

John R. wrote:

Have you read my animist guide and the section on how the animist can cover the function of a lot, if not most, basic skill actions with their apparitions?

Yeah, and I fundamentally disagree with your view of lore skills, like a lot of people in the comments IIRC.

Thinking that circus lore can allow you to replace acrobatics or forest lore can allow you to replace survival is just something that doesn't happen.

If your GM does it this way (or if you're the GM and you do it this way) then more power you, and it certainly gives a huge power boost to the animist.

I'm talking mostly through spells. Your spells can accomplish the goals of a lot of basic skill actions if not more.

[Angwa]

Teridax wrote:

Yes, exactly! And that's why the Animist's action compression is so good, because it lets you do exactly that and move at the same time, sometimes even do a third action on that same action too. If we're using the Sixth Pillar, that's two actions as a free action, which is amazing.

It's not just spells you need to Sustain, though, it's spells you want to Sustain, because again, you're spoiled for choice when it comes to spells you could cast at any range otherwise. If you don't want to drain your actions, don't, it's that simple. That you choose to proves that there is enough of a benefit for you to do so, and it is evident that the Animist provides exceptional action economy in this regard.

This is where we get to the core of where we disagree:

There is no spell I want to sustain, only spells I need to sustain. And as I go up in level that action tax needs to go because I'll get progressively more options in my spell slots that are better options to spend my actions on and actually do not need me to be in the frontline.

Those action taxes on my class features, which overwhelmingly want me to be in the frontline, need to disappear because my full caster chassis gets ever more filled out and long-ranged, just like you said. There is a tension there that only grows. You can see it too, but apparently are less bothered by it than me. Which is fine by the way, I'm really not throwing shade, we can have different opinions about what is balanced and what is not.

If my focus spells would still drain my actions at the double digit levels, I would only use them very sparingly and I would be playing a basic caster chassis with barely any class features.

Okay, so I can make them disappear with Liturgist, though to be fair I have to go somewhat too far out of class to make that happen to my satisfaction. A Class fixing it's own imposed action economy penalty as you level up is not amazing to me, it's a basic expectation, and one that Animist could definitely have handled better.

I really can't explain it more clearly than that, I'm sorry.

[Blue_frog]

As for OP's original question, it's pretty simple, actually. If you're starting a campaign with friends and someone says "I'm gonna play an animist" - and you're at least a bit concerned about your group strength - would it deter you from playing any class ? Maybe another divine caster, but that's a problem with all casters, and that's not even a given. You certainly won't say "oh wow, someone's gonna play an animist, better not play my fighter/my sorcerer/my rogue, I'll get overshadowed".
Says nobody.
Ever.

[Deriven Firelion]

Blue_frog wrote:

As for OP's original question, it's pretty simple, actually. If you're starting a campaign with friends and someone says "I'm gonna play an animist" - and you're at least a bit concerned about your group strength - would it deter you from playing any class ? Maybe another divine caster, but that's a problem with all casters, and that's not even a given. You certainly won't say "oh wow, someone's gonna play an animist, better not play my fighter/my sorcerer/my rogue, I'll get overshadowed".

Says nobody.
Ever.

When one person is claiming something, I don't usually buy it. Teridax is the only person selling the animist as this over-powered monster class.

I would think if the animist were crazy powered I'd be hearing gesalt upselling it or [i]Superbidi[/b] singing its praises.

Blue Frog already said it was a great blasting class, which I agree with. Not so great as to be over-powered, but definitely good to top tier blaster.

Animist isn't doing much to make well-designed, top tier martials feel bad in any way.

[YuriP]

Even as blaster until what I have studied the class, it isn't the super-powerful blaster of all the times.

It's a good blaster. Very complicated to deal with because you need to search along the apparitions, feats, and spells for the best possible combinations to make what do you plan to do to work and check if it will work as you are planning.

The interesting about animist IMO is it's a versatile class that can do many things pretty well just pulling the right strings and does this without looking weaker as compensation like some classes like alchemist are.

It goes way from that point that frustrates many people here when someone says “but the class is super versatile” kkkkk

[Deriven Firelion]

YuriP wrote:

Even as blaster until what I have studied the class, it isn't the super-powerful blaster of all the times.

It's a good blaster. Very complicated to deal with because you need to search along the apparitions, feats, and spells for the best possible combinations to make what do you plan to do to work and check if it will work as you are planning.

The interesting about animist IMO is it's a versatile class that can do many things pretty well just pulling the right strings and does this without looking weaker as compensation like some classes like alchemist are.

It goes way from that point that frustrates many people here when someone says “but the class is super versatile” kkkkk

I did not find many of the apparition spells great for blasting. So it made using Quicken Apparition tougher than I thought it would be.

I don't find the animist all that interesting. The apparitions are a very mixed bag. I think the Oracle can perform better blasting over the course of a day. The animist's feats are very unfocused and all over the place. You'd have to be in a badly built group to have the animist outshine other well built characters.

[Easl]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

When one person is claiming something, I don't usually buy it. Teridax is the only person selling the animist as this over-powered monster class

And AFAICT, T.'s arguments center around high level combos. So again we may have a situation where if there's an imbalance, it's affecting few games because it's occurring at levels beyond 90% of Paizo's organized play and APs. Not throwing shade, "doesn't work in my game, please community, help!" is exactly why these fora exist. But it does probably mean that Paizo doesn't have to move a change up the priority list.

I'd also say that novel and flexible ways of playing top-tier casters are always welcome, but I'm a bit skeptical it really outperforms tried and true things like chain lightning, or level appropriate haste and slow....none of which the Animist has. So if the Animist can achieve top of yardstick performance in novel ways? Yay. Good design. Thumbs up. Does this mean it's going to replace other casters? I'm guessing not. There's probably a bunch of things parties want their casters to do that Animist doesn't do, and those three are just the three things I initially searched for weeks ago when this first came up. A more detailed search will probably reveal more. The old "you are a big gun, not the big gun" adage.

[Deriven Firelion]

Easl wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

When one person is claiming something, I don't usually buy it. Teridax is the only person selling the animist as this over-powered monster class

And AFAICT, T.'s arguments center around high level combos. So again we may have a situation where if there's an imbalance, it's affecting few games because it's occurring at levels beyond 90% of Paizo's organized play and APs. Not throwing shade, "doesn't work in my game, please community, help!" is exactly why these fora exist. But it does probably mean that Paizo doesn't have to move a change up the priority list.

I'd also say that novel and flexible ways of playing top-tier casters are always welcome, but I'm a bit skeptical it really outperforms tried and true things like chain lightning, or level appropriate haste and slow....none of which the Animist has. So if the Animist can achieve top of yardstick performance in novel ways? Yay. Good design. Thumbs up. Does this mean it's going to replace other casters? I'm guessing not. There's probably a bunch of things parties want their casters to do that Animist doesn't do, and those three are just the three things I initially searched for weeks ago when this first came up. A more detailed search will probably reveal more. The old "you are a big gun, not the big gun" adage.

I'd have to see how his parties are building. But he mentioned his fighter took Disrupting Stance over Tactical Reflexes and no one has ever done that in any group with a fighter I've played in. They all take tactical Reflexes at level 10 and all have a strategy for activating multiple reactions.

Disruptive Stance is something a fighter might take with their flexible feat if taking on casters. But often you can waste casters by hitting them a bunch. No need for Disruptive Stance. You want the caster to cast, so you can reactive strike them. If you have Disruptive Stance, the caster you are hitting will likely decide to move outside of reach first before casting.

Just hit the caster. Don't worry about their spells.

[Angwa]

Teridax wrote:

Regardless, I think that ultimately brings us to what is probably the more important point, one I think we agree on: although you may think the Animist isn't strong and I do, neither of us seem to have found the class all that fun to play. Compared to other classes, the Animist is really fiddly and dependent on hidden synergies to shine, when it is normally standard for PF2e classes to be more accessible and to contain all of their most important synergies within their own class features and feats. In this respect, I think the Animist is more akin to a PF1e class than a 2e one: the class is extremely complicated and difficult to make work properly, but if you're a min-maxer who pores through splatbooks and knows just what disparate options to stack together, they can go off the rails, or at the very least become so much more powerful that there ends up being a major difference in performance between builds that have those synergistic options and builds that don't. I personally really don't like this, and would much prefer it if the Animist were made more accessible and less prone to exploits.

Well, this would be another point of disagreement: I do think it's strong and fun to play. Just not OP and better than anyone else. Except perhaps druids, but that is mostly because Druid is pretty frontloaded and many of their options don't scale all that well.

Also, while you can get the tools to deal with sustains and being in melee range, I remain convinced that these are in essence disadvantages you have to address by minimizing the costs and maximizing the returns.

Anyway, it's great to strike and cast a spell while tumbling and leaping around while also having 2 other effects go off. And yes, I really do know you can also sustain apparition spells, like Earth's Bile and Grasping Spirits if you want to go pure damage (short range blasting is imho their strong suit).

Awesome visuals, respectable damage, good support, a full caster, very intense gameplay and risk vs award because you are in the frontlines as a caster. What's not to like?

What I can wholeheartedly agree with is the Animist being fiddly, very dependent on system mastery and going out of class and having lotsa mental overhead. So, while they can take their place among the strong options, it's easier to get the same general level with the other strong classes, and there are plenty which can be downright better in a broader range of group set-ups than Animists.

[Deriven Firelion]

I'm finally seeing what everyone is saying about the druid now. The only druid that scales well is the Untamed Form druid. It's the only one I play. The storm and animal druid are good early on, but I rarely take any additional storm druid feats other than Tempest Surge which scales well and animal scales poorly after 10.

The animist has more builds than the druid, though the druid is still the best at battle forms for a caster. But that's it.

I have built multiple amazing battleform druid casters that have performed exceptionally well.

I never touch any of the other druid schools besides grabbing a fist level blasting spell.

The animist is also pretty narrowband for builds, but the druid may be even more narrow though I think you could build a decent healer as a druid. The animist can be a good healer too.

It would be nice to see the druid have better feats for the other druid orders. Then again when I play a druid, I want to shapechange while doing a some other stuff. It's currently the only appeal or a druid for me is the ability to efficiently use battle forms.

[yellowpete]

Traveling Workshop is better than what either of you seem to think, it's not just the tools that you get which would be a negligible benefit as Blue_frog correctly notes (only saving 1 Bulk and 5 gp would be a joke). After setting it up for 10 minutes, you are always treated as already having spent a day of work setting up for any items you Craft. But, to Craft an item for which you have a formula, you only need a single day of such setup before you can roll and finish your work. Meaning that, for items which you have a formula for, after setting up for 10 minutes you create any amount of them instantaneously (paying full price, but still). It's a sidegrade of Prescient Consumable – slower, only works on things you have the formula for, but up to your level instead of half and you can churn out a lot if you have the funds.

You can only use the items yourself (and in fact, have to do so in order to be able to switch off the Crafter in the Vault again) but it's still quite an interesting asset. Now, does it step on another class' toes, in this case the alchemist? Not really – it's still slower, harder to collect relevant formulae for and way more expensive than Quick Alchemy.

To me, it falls into the pattern that I see generally in the Animist. You do competetive things in your role as a mostly divine caster as you should, and you have a solid chassis, but if you branch out into other roles like martial or crafter/skill monkey, you never reach the overall effectiveness of a specialist of another class in that role.

[John R.]

yellowpete wrote:

To me, it falls into the pattern that I see generally in the Animist. You do competetive things in your role as a mostly divine caster as you should, and you have a solid chassis, but if you branch out into other roles like martial or crafter/skill monkey, you never reach the overall effectiveness of a specialist of another class in that role.

Yeah, this is where I'm at but where I can sympathize with Teridax as well. Animist doesn't have the raw power of a specialist but can also copy their gimmicks which I think is what Teridax is after.

For example, yes, at level 1, an animist can pull off 2 reactive strikes....but they have to spend 3 actions prepping to do so (embodiment of battle, Circle of Spirits, store time).

So it's kinda like:
"Look what I can do guys!"
"Pfft...yeah, I can do that too...just gimme a minute...almost there...*pop* There we go! (Not so special now are we?)"

I think it really just depends on the group or player on if copying a gimmick is OK if it's balanced out with extra action cost (which liturgist then often violates).

[Angwa]

Teridax wrote:

Okay, and that feeling is valid, as all feelings are; what interests me though is what basis you're operating on here. I get that these spells need to be Sustained, and needing to Sustain something is itself worse than if the duration were consistent (though this would make things like repeatedly dropping earth's bile every round a little weird without a Sustain action), the bit I want to highlight the most here though is that these are things that you absolutely can choose not to do and still be very powerful for it, much like an Oracle who doesn't lean into their curse and still finds themselves a powerful generic caster. If it's just a vibe, that's fine, but if you're trying to convince me or others that this completely optional choice to Sustain that would only happen due to a net benefit is, in fact, a detriment, that requires some kind of justification.

It's more than vibes.

Obviously sustaining is optional, and if the effect is desired it's a benefit. The build I was talking about was all about enabling sustains, so it's clear I see value in it, and in the way Liturgist allows me to do that.

The lore skills are nice-to-haves, but honestly pretty meh and tacked on almost as afterthought. They do something special with the structure of their spell slots, but honestly it's just a mess, adding needless complexity for little gain. On top of that pure spontaneous spellcasters are still better imho, but okay, good enough, it's still a full spellcaster, and I can live with using digital tools because Animist and paper character sheets don't jive at all.

That leaves the vessel spells. To me those are most mechanically impactful thing about the class is the vessel spells. For me that is the Animist's selling point and why I am playing it. The core class features.

Just like that Oracle who doesn't use its cursebound abilities you mentioned, I personally would never play that.

Anyway, the Animist core class features that matter to me are all sustained spells, with a short range. Even if they are impactful of course this is a detriment. Sustaining spells is a huge cost after all.

To further put this in focus and approaching it from the opposite angle: I will argue that at the higher levels the practices other than Liturgist are at most mediocre. And that is mostly because of their out of combat utility. In high level combat I am really confident they will be outperformed by every spontaneous caster at the very least, but also prepared casters who have useful class features they can leverage.

That's how much gating your most potent class features behind sustains is a detriment.

Now, of course Liturgist exists and offers tools you can invest in, but you have to invest to get to the level you're comfortable with, be that elf step or going for another route. It's something you have to fight against to put to effective use.

Teridax wrote:

The Animist in this respect is an exception: we can happily disagree on where the floor starts and the ceiling ends, but in my opinion it'd be better for the class if they were made less finicky didn't have such a large gap between optimized and unoptimized builds.

PF2e, even though they put effort into balance, has also been expanded upon for many years by now. There are tons of classes and a bazillion dedications. Especially those dedications have been getting more and more power, with so many juicy higher level class feats, like tactical reflexes or opportune backstab now available for everybody. And the more classes come out the more combinations of poachable low level stuff.

This gap will only increase, and it's fine as long as it does not get too wide. That said, Animist definitely has issues in this regard, starting with the fact of the practices are so unequal.

[Teridax]

Angwa wrote:

That leaves the vessel spells. To me those are most mechanically impactful thing about the class is the vessel spells. For me that is the Animist's selling point and why I am playing it. The core class features.

Just like that Oracle who doesn't use its cursebound abilities you mentioned, I personally would never play that.

I'd mention that the apparition spell repertoire (and their associated spell slots) is a massive point of power by itself alongside what you listed, but I think this highlights a different criticism from the current discussion, and a no less valid one: correct me if I'm wrong, but it feels like vessel spells are your main draw to the Animist, yet their limitations didn't make them feel as fun to use as you wanted. This is a sentiment I share, that and stuff like the Lore skills being needless complexity and yet more power that isn't put to proper use in the class's abilities.

Although I do think vessel spells are very powerful, and thus more worth using than not, I agree that they can often feel a bit clunky to use, and it can feel especially bad when a spell like embodiment of battle does nothing specific when Sustained, other than have its duration extended. The Liturgist in this respect plays quite an important part in helping bypass that clunkiness, even if independently both represent a significant amount of power and exploit potential for the class. In effect, I do think these are things that make the Animist extremely powerful (and, like a curse-less Oracle, on a class that's already got a lot of raw power elsewhere too), but I also agree with you that in practice, that power doesn't necessarily translate to enjoyment so much as annoyance.

[John R.]

Teridax wrote:

in practice, that power doesn't necessarily translate to enjoyment so much as annoyance.

"With great power comes great responsibility." - Some Buzzkill

[Easl]

Teridax wrote:

I'd mention that the apparition spell repertoire (and their associated spell slots) is a massive point of power by itself alongside what you listed,

I'm not seeing it. Let's take a blaster Animist. They select Steward of Stone and Fire as their primary so they can use Earth's Bile. Their apparition spells are one fixed Primal spell per rank (most overlap with Arcane too), plus two divine slots. I am not sure how that is a 'massive point of power' when druids, sorcs, and witches of the same level are running around with all their slots being primal. So what I'd say is that the Steward-picking Animist is likely a better and more flexible blaster than an all-divine blaster. But probably still not as good at blasting away all day as a primal or arcane class. More flexible? Sure. But as other posters have said, they get that flexibility by being a smidge less good at things the specialists do best.

[Unicore]

I really like the animist and its flexibility. These are selling points of the class for me, and I think the apparition spell repertoire is a strength of the class, but keeping up with it at high levels, as you start loosing apparitions is a lot of work. It really doesn't have to be, especially as you burn through its top ranks very quickly in the day and then are mostly left with some debuff, buff and utility spells that you will mostly be casting from the lower rank slots, but it is definitely a much more complex class than most casters. Which I think is fine for later book classes to be, but the Animist is not an easy class for newer players to pick.

[Angwa]

Teridax wrote:

I'd mention that the apparition spell repertoire (and their associated spell slots) is a massive point of power by itself alongside what you listed, but I think this highlights a different criticism from the current discussion, and a no less valid one: correct me if I'm wrong, but it feels like vessel spells are your main draw to the Animist, yet their limitations didn't make them feel as fun to use as you wanted. This is a sentiment I share, that and stuff like the Lore skills being needless complexity and yet more power that isn't put to proper use in the class's abilities.

Although I do think vessel spells are very powerful, and thus more worth using than not, I agree that they can often feel a bit clunky to use, and it can feel especially bad when a spell like embodiment of battle does nothing specific when Sustained, other than have its duration extended. The Liturgist in this respect plays quite an important part in helping bypass that clunkiness, even if independently both represent a significant amount of power and exploit potential for the class. In effect, I do think these are things that make the Animist extremely powerful (and, like a curse-less Oracle, on a class that's already got a lot of raw power elsewhere too), but I also agree with you that in practice, that power doesn't necessarily translate to enjoyment so much as annoyance.

Vessel spells are very much the draw indeed. It's the class' unique selling point to me.

The Apparition spells were fine, I guess?

I mean way back when I played a Halcyon wizard flexible caster. Everything basically being a signature spell which you can change around is nothing new or special to me. Also played 2 sorcerors and I feel confident enough that I can build a repertoire that covers all the bases just fine. There's a point where getting more signature spells starts having serious diminishing returns.

Anyway, about the clunckiness of using the vessel spells, lvl 1-4 were fine. Being a slowed pocket martial is fine. Tossing cantrips or the occasional spell while sustaining Earth's bile is fine. You're not amazing, but really, who is. Lvl 5 you get fireball, but you really start feeling your accuracy lagging. Earth's Bile started becoming more dominant. It mostly was a drag around levels 6-8. The other caster starts getting under steam, everyone has good reactions, the martials are pulling ahead and their builds have their basics covered.

Level 9 is obviously very 'yay'. Stupidly so. Think this is the only class which has to wait so long for something so essential.

[Teridax]

Easl wrote:

I'm not seeing it.

I'm sorry, you're not seeing the benefits of having notably powerful spells such as protector tree, lifewood cage, quandary, invisibility, acid grip, uncontrollable dance, laughing fit, (*inhales*) fireball, wall of stone, falling stars, sure strike, enlarge, and true target on a full prepared divine caster? That's a shame, particularly as Clerics and Oracles get so much mileage out of the three they get, which are neither signature spells nor always even that good.

[John R.]

Aside from the flexibility, I like the animist because it adds a ton of flavor to divine spellcasting which I find to be very bland. The cleric and oracle are definitely effective but they don't have the flair I get from arcane and animist adds that.

[Teridax]

I fully agree. One of my criticisms against the Animist is that the class actually has a lot of really good ideas, it's just difficult to appreciate any one thing at all when there are so many different mechanics slammed on top of one another, some without any real justification. The Animist's "thing" could have easily been their apparition repertoire and the immense versatility that offers, ramping up the spell poaching of other divine casters up to 11. Similarly, it could have been the swappable subclasses on an otherwise stable chassis, which seems to appeal to quite a few players. If you really worked hard on it, it could even have been their Lore skills.

Individually, these I think are really cool ideas, and developing more on those mechanics could have probably made for a really satisfying class, potentially even several really fun and interesting casters. However, when the class has this massive signature spell repertoire and can also swap out lots of spells each day and can also get four different focus spells that each let you be another class and can also get eight different Lore skills and can also swap out many of their feats and... well, you get the picture, those individual elements tend to get lost in the mechanical alphabet soup that is this class, and even players who don't necessarily see the class as overpowered are put off by its complexity. In spaces like these, it makes discussing the class more difficult, because there are so many mechanics that it's hard to give each one its due attention and importance.

[Easl]

Teridax wrote:

Easl wrote:

I'm not seeing it.

I'm sorry, you're not seeing the benefits of having notably powerful spells such as protector tree, lifewood cage, quandary, invisibility, acid grip, uncontrollable dance, laughing fit, (*inhales*) fireball, wall of stone, falling stars, sure strike, enlarge, and true target on a full prepared divine caster?

You're not a full prepared divine caster. You are 2+2. My point should be obvious: for players who want to blast from that second number, 2+2 is better than 4+0 but not as good as 0+4

[Teridax]

Easl wrote:

You're not a full prepared divine caster. You are 2+2. My point should be obvious: for players who want to blast from that second number, 2+2 is better than 4+0 but not as good as 0+4

Last time I checked, 2+2 equals 4, and even the Psychic, a 2-slot caster, is considered a full caster by virtue of their up-to-legendary spell proficiency, which the Animist also has. You can blast from both numbers, and do more than just blast to boot, as the vast array of utility spells ought to demonstrate.

[Easl]

Teridax wrote:

Easl wrote:

You're not a full prepared divine caster. You are 2+2. My point should be obvious: for players who want to blast from that second number, 2+2 is better than 4+0 but not as good as 0+4

Last time I checked, 2+2 equals 4, and even the Psychic, a 2-slot caster, is considered a full caster by virtue of their up-to-legendary spell proficiency, which the Animist also has. You can blast from both numbers, and do more than just blast to boot, as the vast array of utility spells ought to demonstrate.

How is this hard? If someone wants to play a blaster and wants the full power and range of primal spells (or arcane spells), Animist is a step up from casters limited to the divine list but a step down from something like sorc, because the Animist can neither cast the amount of primal spells nor the range of primal spells the sorc can. The apparition is not a 'massive point of power' from an overall game perspective because the Animist doesn't overtop any currently existing blasting capability. Yes, apparitions make this divine caster better than other divine casters at primal blasting. It's much much better than trying to build a divine caster with a primal access archetype to get those spells. But the class is still not as good at primal blasting as a primal caster.