| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a power gamer that plays with mostly power gamers. I'm telling you from that perspective that it doesn't look very broken to me except Apparition Quickening which you still have to plan for. That is the one feat that is a bit broken as Quickening multiple times per day is pretty strong.I mostly just want to clarify that I think it is the best class in the game, not that it is broken, or overpowered as one might think of it. I think it is problematic design, but it won't necessarily ruin people's games if you have a socially conscious player at the helm. I think the resentment witch for example is both the best debuffer and the best occult caster in the game atm, and I while don't think an animist is *quite on that level* I do think it makes a convincing doppelganger but is simultaneously able to pivot out of that easily and do someone else's schtick to similar degree of competency.
You talk about how some of the heights of power come from picking things like elf step, but this is the kind of thing that really makes this bothersome. Regardless of whether people purposefully play suboptimally or not, that potential exists
Edit for some clarity and spelling errors
I can't say as I agree. I think the animist is a narrow power class with some very specific paths for performance, otherwise it underperforms.
I think the bard is still the best occult caster. I think the resentment witch is good, but their familar has to get too close to the battle. At the levels I play a lot at, familiars are going to have trouble making their saves to survive all that AOE stuff from high level enemies with gazes, auras, and the like.
There is reason I harp on distance. The high level stuff has so much nasty passive stuff that hammers groups or AOE attack or blasting capabilities. Then there is also the crazy mobility of higher level creatures. It's rough on things on animal companions, familiars, or soft target casters that get too close.
If you take away a feat like Apparition's Quickening away, they really lose a lot of their luster.
PF2 is a very fast game. I do not find sustain spells to be very powerful compared to an equivalent direct damage spell. It is played in a group setting where you have other well built characters bringing the hammer further increasing the speed a battle ends, which makes sustain spells even less useful.
I don't think worrying about Elf Step is worthwhile. You should be more concerned with Apparition Quickening than Elf Step with Liturgist. You are experienced enough to know that a good direct damage spell is often far, far more useful than a sustain damage spell.
You should be looking at two things with the animist:
1. How well do they deliver direct damage and how often.
2. How fast can they bring to bear martial damage and how good are their saves to stand up to gazes, auras, and the like.
This is the kind of stuff that matters as you level up. It's not just can I do this thing with a reasonable level of competence. It's how fast can can I bring to bear my power in terms of ease of set up and sustain and switching targets.
Having specced and tested the animist, it's ability to do so is not as good as being sold. That's why the animist is not dominating or breaking PF2.
Sure thing:
Turn 1: Cycle of Souls -> Channeler's Stance -> earth's bile -> Apparition's Quickening -> 9th-rank hungry depths.
Turn 2: Elf Step (Sustaining earth's bile and hungry depths) -> 8th-rank invoke spirits from your apparition slots.
Turn 3: Elf Step (Sustaining two vessel/apparition spells) -> Maneuvering Spell (Sustaining the third spell) -> execute.
Check the damage of this against a comparable well built martial or caster at that level.
You will find this isn't very impressive.
In my groups, by round three everything is usually nearly dead. This combination would be viewed as weak compared to direct damage spells or casting a group slow[/b] or debuff to set up the martials for a harder hammer.
This would be an extremely selfish form of play that would perform suboptimally compared to a group working together.
This is an example of what I was talking about where a player like Teridax to impress new, inexperienced players tries something like this to make the new players go, "Oooh, how did you do that" whereas experienced players would have already softened the targets at range with longer range AOE spells than [i]earth's bile, not being having weak save casters Elf Stepping within 30 feet of the big nasty with auras and gazes and AOE abilities themselves hammering the party, and taking down the enemy faster and more efficiently than this combo which Teridax seems to think just works with no opposition, moved into perfect position with no rounds spend closing the distance to get within 30 feet of the target, and no one else in the party built very well or doing anything to hit them from farther away while his animist moves into 30 foot range and somehow executes all of this by round 3.
Not how my groups work. Just getting into position to start all of this would take some time, but Teridax ignores things like movement, target changing, enemy abilities that can hammer you within 30 feet, or enemy mobility or movement that can outrun their abilities.
All of which get used in fights I'm in.
He's just making up this ideal series of actions that looks great on paper, but would take more to set up in play, especially with other group members doing activities from farther away to open the battle.
Check the damage of this against a comparable well built martial or caster at that level.
I did, it far exceeds even an Elemental Sorcerer's nova. I'd be curious to hear in your own words what a "well built martial or caster at that level" would be doing to beat this.
This is an example of what I was talking about where a player like Teridax to impress new, inexperienced players tries something like this to make the new players go, "Oooh, how did you do that" whereas experienced players would have already softened the targets at range with longer range AOE spells than [i]earth's bile, not being having weak save casters Elf Stepping within 30 feet of the big nasty with auras and gazes and AOE abilities themselves hammering the party, and taking down the enemy faster and more efficiently than this combo which Teridax seems to think just works with no opposition, moved into perfect position with no rounds spend closing the distance to get within 30 feet of the target, and no one else in the party built very well or doing anything to hit them from farther away while his animist moves into 30 foot range and somehow executes all of this by round 3.
Not how my groups work. Just getting into position to start all of this would take some time, but Teridax ignores things like movement, target changing, enemy abilities that can hammer you within 30 feet, or enemy mobility or movement that can outrun their abilities.
All of which get used in fights I'm in.
He's just making up this ideal series of actions that looks great on paper, but would take more to set up in play, especially with other group members doing activities from farther away to open the battle.
I'm going to be quite honest: it's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about, and that you're trying to make up for this with repeated personal attacks against my competence and experience and a whole lot of bluster.
As you'll have noted, I listed that particular rotation only upon request, and only as an example of something the Animist can do that is patently ludicrous. At no point did I state that this is to be expected in every encounter, which is why I relied on much simpler comparisons to show that an Animist does not need any specific build to be a top-of-the-line blaster, among many other things. The simple point I have made, which others who have actually played the class have validated, is that the Animist is an overstatted, hyper-versatile class even before one starts talking about the exploit potential to their class features and feats. One of their greatest strengths is their adaptability, a quality you have utterly failed to recognize as a result of relying almost exclusively on min-maxed theorycrafted builds and white room scenarios whenever you come into these kinds of threads to state your opinions. With the Liturgist, one of their own strengths is their action compression and mobility, which you initially approached from a place of ignorance by not knowing how Tumble Through worked, and then from a place of vindictive houseruling when you realized this made the subclass very strong indeed. Perhaps the biggest reason why you appear to fail to appreciate the class's potential is because the class is genuinely complex, and thus cannot be easily grasped in the same reductive way you appear to have approached every other build in the game. Calling non-martial classes "selfish" for daring to not spend their every action supporting the martials reeks of inexperience, and does not set a very solid premise for judging what such a versatile caster can do.
So, to be clear: I'm not saying an Animist should spend three turns setting up to lay down four spells in one turn. I'm with Ryangwy here: you're getting lost in the weeds, Deriven, while conspicuously failing to acknowledge some of the most basic aspects of the class that make them notably strong, including a base chassis that exceeds even the Druid's, better focus spells, far more versatility, and just generally better features all around. The Animist clearly is built different compared to other casters, and if you still think that they're nothing special, chances are you still haven't played them adequately, if you've even played the class at all.
Just looked at Hungry depths. Not very good for a group fight. Now I know why I don't know it very well. I would not use it as it leads to problems for group set up and movement. Not something I would cast as it would interfere with how the group operates. Need very tight area to use a sustain damage spell against groups.
Just looked at Hungry depths. Not very good for a group fight. Now I know why I don't know it very well. I would not use it as it leads to problems for group set up and movement. Not something I would cast as it would interfere with how the group operates. Need very tight area to use a sustain damage spell against groups.
The fact that it's on the Lurker in Devouring Dark's spell list would normally have it ring a bell to someone who's played an Animist, but also the fact that it starts off at a perfectly inoffensive 5-foot radius makes it extremely easy to lay down in any fight, with added potential for area denial. The fact that the caster has full control over how wide to make the area I'd say is a plus, especially compared to spells like fireball that may end up harming party members in tight spaces and messy melees.
I'll also bring up how this is one example of spells at the Animist's disposal that target Reflex saves: as we all know, being able to target all three saves is quite a big plus, and this is something the Animist can do far more easily than any other divine caster thanks to their apparition and vessel spells. The divine list naturally targets Fortitude and Will quite well, but isn't quite so good with Reflex saves for the most part. Having access to many more Reflex save spells rounds this out nicely, and once more adds to the class's adaptability. By contrast, one of the Elemental Sorcerer's weaknesses that doesn't get brought up much in these discussions is that they're overly reliant on Reflex saves for blasting, and struggle quite significantly against enemies strong in those saves. Thus, whether the Animist is blasting or debuffing, they can adapt their spells to an enemy's saves far better than most other classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the bard is still the best occult caster. I think the resentment witch is good, but their familar has to get too close to the battle. At the levels I play a lot at, familiars are going to have trouble making their saves to survive all that AOE stuff from high level enemies with gazes, auras, and the like.
This misses the forest for the trees a bit. The Bard I would argue hasn't been exceptional for some time now. While yes familiars can be vulnerable this in actual play can be worked around and sometimes done so through the very means that makes this good depending on what you're up against. Maintaining any debuff on any enemy simply because they didn't critically succeed a save is so backbreaking that the fiddly aspect is well and truly worth it, especially when that debilitation shuts down the ability to do the kinds of attacks you listed
The fact the animist can so easy cross-list is a big deal, yeah. My Animist player complained about the lack of Reflex targeting spells, then I just pointed them at the vessel they forgot existed. Done. Which caster can just do that?
At the risk of being taken too seriously... A wizard with prep time :)
The fact that it's on the Lurker in Devouring Dark's spell list would normally have it ring a bell to someone who's played an Animist, but also the fact that it starts off at a perfectly inoffensive 5-foot radius makes it extremely easy to lay down in any fight, with added potential for area denial. The fact that the caster has full control over how wide to make the area I'd say is a plus, especially compared to spells like fireball that may end up harming party members in tight spaces and messy melees.
I don't get the impression that Deriven and his play group value area denial and other forms of battlefield control outside of direct forms like Quandary that 'just work', or at least I got this impression when Wall of Stone was categorized as utility by him some time back during a debate about wizards. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but the way they construct their groups, and what the encounters they run are like, don't require or don't engender play that makes this sort of tactic necessary/optimal
I did some more looking at Hungry Depths. The radius is not bad, but it's a 3 action cast spell. With a 9th level slot, it does 5d8 and 5d4 cold. I imagine Teridax is using Apparition's Quickening to cast a 3 action spell in the same round he is casting Earth's Bile.
A level 9 chain lightening does 11d12 damage.
A level 9 eclipse burst 10d10 and 10d4 damage with a possible blind.
So for he Hungry depths to match the direct damage it must be sustained for 2 rounds. Not bad, but also not always necessary. It must be a big enough area to hit everyone with the initial 5 foot burst.
So this whole set up will depend on the spread of the enemies.
Any caster can do this set up with Effortless Concentration at that level. Still not sure why someone would want to spend a level 9 slot on that when you can do the damage for 2 actions and not be forced into a sustain spell.
I imagine there may be a situation where Hungry Depths might be good. I don't take this spell. I generally have better uses for level 9 slots.
So the exchange for Hungry Depths versus a direct damage is 2 rounds of sustain within the given area within the 10 foot move in a line it can do on the sustain with a 3 action cast which would normally require Apparition's Quickening to use with Earth's Bile.
Which once again comes back to what I'm talking about. You used a bunch of resources to set up a sustain spell that may or may not be useful in the given situation.
It may have just been better to use the level 9 slot to hit the group or boss with direct damage up front and then move on other spells with more flexibility capabilities.
This misses the forest for the trees a bit. The Bard I would argue hasn't been exceptional for some time now. While yes familiars can be vulnerable this in actual play can be worked around and sometimes done so through the very means that makes this good depending on what you're up against. Maintaining any debuff on any enemy simply because they didn't critically succeed a save is so backbreaking that the fiddly aspect is well and truly worth it, especially when that debilitation shuts down the ability to do the kinds of attacks you listed
Not sure what you mean by this. Lingering Song is still effective. The True Target combined with Synesthesia is still brutal.
I'm not sure why you value the condition extending of the witch familiar ability so highly given if a synesthesia or other debuff hits, it lasts for a minute, no extending required.
I can see the value if the extending is required, but I don't see the value if the spell lands.
Bard is still very, very strong. Their ability to group buff and combine songs that automatically work is nice.
I don't get the impression that Deriven and his play group value area denial and other forms of battlefield control outside of direct forms like Quandary that 'just work', or at least I got this impression when Wall of Stone was categorized as utility by him some time back during a debate about wizards. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but the way they construct their groups, and what the encounters they run are like, don't require or don't engender play that makes this sort of tactic necessary/optimal
We do like walls against groups, mostly wall of force at high level. At lower level a wall of stone can work too. It depends on the damage cut off for bashing the hardness.
Wall of stone in the 9 to 13 range is effective. Once the monsters reach the next damage increase.
I'm sure you seen the way monsters increase damage and spells increase in effectiveness. Which wall to use depends on damage and effectiveness scaling.
A wall of stone is only good for so long before they can be bashed down too easily by high level monsters. Against monsters that they are built to be effective against, they work. We use wall of stone in the 9 to 13 range. Then move up to wall of force as it scales for the higher level monsters to not be able to bash it down so easily.
The fact the animist can so easy cross-list is a big deal, yeah. My Animist player complained about the lack of Reflex targeting spells, then I just pointed them at the vessel they forgot existed. Done. Which caster can just do that?
I'll also bring up how this is one example of spells at the Animist's disposal that target Reflex saves: as we all know, being able to target all three saves is quite a big plus, and this is something the Animist can do far more easily than any other divine caster thanks to their apparition and vessel spells. The divine list naturally targets Fortitude and Will quite well, but isn't quite so good with Reflex saves for the most part. Having access to many more Reflex save spells rounds this out nicely, and once more adds to the class's adaptability. By contrast, one of the Elemental Sorcerer's weaknesses that doesn't get brought up much in these discussions is that they're overly reliant on Reflex saves for blasting, and struggle quite significantly against enemies strong in those saves. Thus, whether the Animist is blasting or debuffing, they can adapt their spells to an enemy's saves far better than most other classes.
What do you mean? Every caster can do this. Some do it better than others. The arcane list is very good at targeting all three saves. Every list targets at least two with a splattering of the third.
The four saving throw effects is often more important than the save for effectiveness. So rating what spell to use depends on more than just the defense against it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see the value if the extending is required, but I don't see the value if the spell lands.
I'm not sure why you value the condition extending of the witch familiar ability so highly given if a synesthesia or other debuff hits, it lasts for a minute, no extending required
That if is why resentment is so good. I expect enemies to succeed their saves, particularly the most difficult ones and synesthesia is 1 round when the enemy succeeds. So I highly value that the witch can extend this indefinitely. Same goes for slow to use another example. Yes synesthesia and true target together are brutal, Witches can do this, and they may not buff as easily as the bard but if they need to they still can given they have the same spell list with the same number of slots
That if is why resentment is so good. I expect enemies to succeed their saves, particularly the most difficult ones and synesthesia is 1 round when the enemy succeeds. So I highly value that the witch can extend this indefinitely. Same goes for slow to use another example. Yes synesthesia and true target together are brutal, Witches can do this, and they may not buff as easily as the bard but if they need to they still can given they have the same spell list with the same number of slotsI can see the value if the extending is required, but I don't see the value if the spell lands.
I'm not sure why you value the condition extending of the witch familiar ability so highly given if a synesthesia or other debuff hits, it lasts for a minute, no extending required
How many actions does it take for them to get a buff up and then start debuffing the enemy compared to the bard? The difference between can do something and is good at doing so is really in the action costs in PF2.
Which once again comes back to what I'm talking about. You used a bunch of resources to set up a sustain spell that may or may not be useful in the given situation.
If the spell wasn't useful in the given situation, I wouldn't be using it. Thankfully the Animist ends up with up to 55 spells to choose from at any given time, so it's not like their choices are limited.
First off there is some serious underestimation of what other classes can do, and most definitely when it comes to blasting. While the Animist is a partial spontaneous caster, it is not a full 4 slot spontaneous caster with all the bells and whistles.
This just in, apparently every class needs to be an Oracle or a Sorcerer to even qualify as good. I guess Resentment Witches better pack it in, then.
But more seriously, I find this argument both silly and emblematic of the discourse around the Animist: it's never about assessing the complete picture, or seeing how the Animist performs overall, it's always about claiming that the Animist can't possibly be overtuned, because they don't beat the literal best at X at the thing they're best at. This, despite the fact that the Animist has in fact far more spell slots than the average caster by having 4 slots per rank up to max rank-2, and gets to stretch their spell output even more thanks to their vessel spells and plenty of resourceless actions in their feats. The Animist has in my opinion some of the best spell output in the game, if not the best, and can outlast even 4-slot casters by using vessel spells to supplement their slots.
Yes, earth's bile is a good blasting focus spell, but other classes can have good focus blasting spells too. Other classes, and especially Sorceror, can stack more damage boosts. An Animist will not beat a blasting focused Oracle and no one will beat a blasting focused Sorceror.
As shown with a simple example of earth's bile + fireball, an Animist absolutely can out-blast an Imperial Sorcerer, and so before factoring in benefits from the Animist's subclasses and feats. If you think other classes can stack more damage boosts, that to me suggests a lack of awareness of feats like Channeler's Stance and Cardinal Guardians.
Range matters. Your Animist will be in the frontline. Especially at the higher levels casting there comes with a whole slew of complications you need to be prepared for, and the tools for that aren't really in your kit.
This reads as fairly off-base to me on a number of levels. For starters, the Animist is perfectly capable of casting from a distance if they so wish, and has the raw spell output for it even without vessel spells, but also very obviously has the tools to survive in both the frontline and the backline, including fantastic action economy, top-tier defenses for a caster, and access to the entire divine list, including amazing mobility spells like air walk.
Sustaining sucks. This is why Liturgist isn't broken and why when I was playing an Animist I even trained out of Elf Step. It simply wasn't good enough.
As I recall, the issue you raised over this was that you couldn't Step into difficult terrain. How come you didn't pick Feather Step? At high level, that should've normally been a trivial investment. I find this statement all the more perplexing considering how the action cost of Sustaining can be eliminated entirely via feats like Maneuvering Spell, and how the Animist has enough Focus Points at high level to not even need to Sustain their vessel spells if they don't want to.
What makes all of this so weird is that this has essentially no correlation to my play experience with the Animist. My character encountered zero struggles with surviving damage or Sustaining, in large part because they made use of divine spells to boost their already-strong base survivability and didn't force themselves to spend actions Sustaining vessel spells on turns where it was inconvenient (that, and I was playing a Liturgist). They had ample room to try out new builds and excel at them, and on several occasions performed well enough that I had to rein them in to not step on the toes of my teammates, who were nonetheless playing and building their own characters optimally for the party. In general, it was patently obvious that they far fewer limitations than any other class and could simply do far more in general, to the point where they sometimes felt like a dual-classed character. Coupled with a few exploits that massively increased their power and that I had to petition to houserule against, notably Channeler's Stance and its damage bonus applying to earth's bile's persistent damage, this is about as close as it felt to me to playing a 1e caster in 2e, and not necessarily for the right reasons in my opinion.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
it's never about assessing the complete picture, or seeing how the Animist performs overall, it's always about claiming that the Animist can't possibly be overtuned, because they don't beat the literal best at X at the thing they're best at.
This is where I'm at with the discussion. I don't really care whether or not the animist is outshined in any role like damage where we have to find such specific white room examples to prove one side or the other. I mean, it SHOULD probably be outshined in every role but that's not the point....
It's like, every class is getting As in 1 or 2 subjects but failing everything else (which is a good thing in this system). The animist on the other hand is getting all Bs and Cs and maybe a couple Ds. That's the issue at hand - whether that's a good thing or not and if that aspect needs to be balanced.
Does the animist have a significantly higher role GPA than the rest of the classes (a class of classes :P )?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First off there is some serious underestimation of what other classes can do, and most definitely when it comes to blasting. While the Animist is a partial spontaneous caster, it is not a full 4 slot spontaneous caster with all the bells and whistles. All the reasons why that is plain better than prepared in general, and particularly for blasting, apply.
Yes, earth's bile is a good blasting focus spell, but other classes can have good focus blasting spells too. Other classes, and especially Sorceror, can stack more damage boosts. An Animist will not beat a blasting focused Oracle and no one will beat a blasting focused Sorceror.
Just for some context, a perfectly normal mid-combat turn for my 18th level Animist I mentioned before, could look like:
Turn Starts - Cycle of Souls as a free action> Step, Sustain Earths Bile (started on a previous turn) > Drop into Channelers stance (from Forest's Heart the turn before) > Cardinal Guardians resolves.
Action 1: Step > Sustain River Carving Mountains to reposition
Action 2 & 3: Use a 7th level Apparition slot to upcast Fireball, benefiting from Channelers Stance bonus damage and potentially Cardinal Guardians.
Total potential damage dealth:
- 14d6+7 fire damage + 5d4 Fire + 5d4 bludgeoning + 5 persistent fire
Movement:
- 60ft of total movement (step + step + Stride (40, elf) + 10 bonus from River Carving Mountains)
Other:
- 50ft of difficult terrain created.
Bare in mind that is me choosing to cast Fireball over a higher level spell, which I also have access to.
That looks like a really good turn!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many actions does it take for them to get a buff up and then start debuffing the enemy compared to the bard? The difference between can do something and is good at doing so is really in the action costs in PF2.
I believe it is exactly zero difference in number of actions
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's like, every class is getting As in 1 or 2 subjects but failing everything else (which is a good thing in this system). The animist on the other hand is getting all Bs and Cs and maybe a couple Ds. That's the issue at hand - whether that's a good thing or not and if that aspect needs to be balanced.
Does the animist have a significantly higher role GPA than the rest of the classes (a class of classes :P )?
I do think so, and I largely agree with this assessment -- I do think the Animist is genuinely A-grade in several respects, but even if they weren't, they'd still have more than any one given class. This by itself I think could be fine if the class was like the Bard, and the things that made them above the curve were benefits that directly lifted everyone else up, but I don't think that's the case with the Animist: they can certainly provide support and switch to dedicated supporting easily, but their ability to fill virtually any gap in the party's capabilities I think easily leads to this "pick me" playstyle where they keep snagging the spotlight, including potentially on occasions where another party member could have capably handled a task.
By design, characters in Pathfinder tend to be a decent B- or C-grade at a few things alongside whichever specialty they may have, and when more or less everyone's the same, this creates opportunities where everyone gets a turn to shine, even if it's not something they're the best at. Intelligence classes, for instance, tend to be quite decent at Recalling Knowledge, whereas classes like the Druid or Warpriest Cleric are known for being quite survivable on the frontline and able to mix in some competent Strikes. When you have a class that's a cut above decent at most things, it becomes very easy for those characters to get outshined, whether or not it's their specialty. More annoyingly, it becomes very easy for the Animist to end up hogging a lot of the spotlight, not just at the big things but at the little things too.
AestheticDialectic mentioned that the class can be okay in the hands of a socially conscious player, and I think it's worth highlighting the opposite: a player who isn't necessarily aware that they're hogging the spotlight, or who has a tendency to take on any challenge they have a reasonable chance of accomplishing regardless of how much attention their character has taken up previously, can easily end up annoying their teammates by denying them a chance to express their own characters' full repertoire of abilities. In one instance where a player at my table was running an Animist, I had to make a gentleman's agreement with them to avoid certain builds, simply because they'd ended up treading far too close to other party members with them. This is why the Animist's balance I think is something worth criticizing, and not just worth highlighting: I do think the class has a ton of other problems, notably that it's not very approachable, but the simple fact that it can do too much on one character I think has legitimately caused issues at my table and required me to intervene, whether on my own character or another player's.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t want to revisit a lot of what has been said again and again, but what seems clear to me is that people are enjoying playing the animist and feel like it is powerful. There have been one or two tables who have reported here that they feel like the animist is too powerful and is making other players feel bad about their builds. Since then the conversation switched to be more theoretical about whether those feelings are justified or not.
There really isn’t much data to work with as far as whether this is an issue that needs to be addressed at a game development level or not. I haven’t heard that animists are taking over PFS, which seems like it would happen quickly if the animists versatility is so over powered, since there is little PFS values more than versatility. Like the endurance factor wouldn’t really matter at all in PFS as you rarely have more than 3 encounters in a session and often have rests between them. The most likely reason for this is that the animist struggles with their action economy at low levels and it takes a long time to get to high level play in PFS. At low levels the animist also hurts for spell slots, particularly if they are being expected to be the only healer in the party.
The thing about getting too concerned about the balance of high level casters is that they are all pretty good (except the psychic) and get a lot of versatility from their ability to use spell slots and scrolls. In an actual party, having 2 casters trying to fill the same role is rare and counter productive, so the risk of players feeling like their toes are getting stepped on is pretty slim. I think this is why we are getting so few reported cases of this, and where it is happening, talking to the players, or making a ruling at the table to limit some of the most exploitable combos is pretty easy. This happens all the time with things in the game, like over use of wall of stone, or illusions, depending upon the needs of the table.
No matter what, the animist is not going to receive a major overhaul, so the most likely thing the devs would do if they felt there were high level issues with the magus and specific combinations of feats and features is nerf one or two of those offending abilities so they don’t work together any more. It is fine to try to point this out to newer GMs who have a player with an animist character that might be building into something that feels broken to some players, but I also think there are a fair number of players who have been waiting a long time for PF2 to offer a caster this versatile and just preemptively trying to nerf it doesn’t seem necessary to me.
And there go the goalposts...
I love the Resentment Witch I'm playing, but yes, when it comes to blasting she her bags are packed. Not that anybody minds or expects otherwise.
I'm not sure calling out the ridiculousness of holding four slots per rank as the minimum requirement for blasting power, or any sort of spellcasting power in general, really qualifies as moving the goalposts. You may refer to the extremely basic comparison to the Imperial Sorcerer as but one example; earth's bile is an extremely helpful spell for blasting even if its damage doesn't single-handedly beat that of a two-action spell on paper.
I also find this argument silly. But then I'm the one saying that Animist is a generalist and can't beat the specialists, and especially when it comes to this focus on blasting.
Oh hey, speaking of goalposts, I think I found the ones you were trying to move!
First off there is some serious underestimation of what other classes can do, and most definitely when it comes to blasting. While the Animist is a partial spontaneous caster, it is not a full 4 slot spontaneous caster with all the bells and whistles.
Once again, dismissing the Animist's ability to be a top-tier blaster on the mere basis that they're only a three-and-a-half slot caster, rather than a four-slot caster, is ridiculous, and goes beyond simply asserting that they "can't beat the specialists". It is quite clear you're holding "has to beat every specialist at all of their specialties simultaneously" as the criterion for determining whether or not the class is at all overtuned, a criterion that now several different people who have played the Animist have challenged.
And Animists can't have more focus points than others, so why would they outlast anyone?
The mere fact that I have to explain this to you raises significant doubts over how much play experience is factoring into this discussion, I'm sorry to say, because this should normally be immediately obvious from just running a single encounter. Just to lay it out as plainly as I can:
Thus, in combination, the Animist gets to max out their Focus Points without any feat investment, gets to stretch each of their Focus Points far better than other classes, and can easily fall back exclusively on Focus Points to do what other classes would require spell slots to achieve. That, and the class has numerous unique resourceless actions in their feats, including the ability to simply cast slot spells without expending a spell slots. It is quite plainly obvious that the Animist is made to have exceptionally long-lasting spell output, and in practice I have seen them able to outlast even four-slot casters.
Yeah, sure, that example shows absolutely nothing.
"This example is inconvenient to me, let me find an excuse to dismiss it real quick"
Look, Imperial Sorceror has no direct blaster bloodline spells and almost no blaster bloodline gifts.
... really? The focus spell known for massively boosting the accuracy of your spells isn't good for blasting, do your reckon? Because that would place you in the extreme minority of people who believe as much, and I have seen ancestral memories used to great effect for actual blasting. The fact that it can also help with debuff and crowd control spells is an added bonus. It just so happens that earth's bile is also incredibly good for blasting.
But they have Force Barrage as a gift, so in moments where you need ALL THE DAMAGE RIGHT NOW they can burn their resources to do bonkers insane damage, though that won't look the least bit like your example.
Yes, quite possibly because I've read how force barrage actually works, and therefore am aware that you can't stack sorcerous potency's damage bonus against the same opponent, which makes the spell not that great for raw damage, if still a very reliable option all the same.
And than you have bloodlines and builds which are actually focused on blasting...
You mean, like the Imperial Sorcerer? Because if that's not good enough for you, that essentially just leaves the Elemental Sorcerer, so that would just be bloodline, singular.
Anyway, you said that Animists being best at X was a silly argument, didn't you?
Not quite. I'm arguing that claiming the Animist is balanced just because they don't outperform the literal best option in the game for X at that same strength, i.e. the rhetorical strategy you're engaging in right now, is silly. The Animist does in fact beat many other classes at things like caster defenses, spells ready to cast simultaneously, and access to spells across traditions, and some other classes are normally meant to be specialists at these things, just as they're top-tier at a bunch of different things like blasting and gish combat, but the simple point I and others have made is: they don't need to be. Even if they were just decent at all of these things, that would still be incredibly strong in a game where versatility is costed very highly. Tunnel-visioning like you're doing on a single thing like blasting and then using that one thing in isolation to claim that the Animist isn't overtuned is a fallacious and ultimately pointless argumentative strategy.
Uhuh. Of course you can hang back. Every caster can.
So why argue otherwise? Why move the goalposts again and talk about gishing when the entire subject of range is relevant to literally anything but gish combat?
But when gishing and using vessel spells their defense is neither top tier and Liturgist just makes your action economy manageable, not fantastic.
Their defense as a gish is top-tier, though. They have the best defenses out of any caster, beating even the Druid at their own specialty. You also don't seem to realize that the Animist has a whole arsenal of spells from the divine list, i.e. the spell list known for its healing and protection spells, that it can use on itself as necessary in addition to its vessel spells, including reaction spells like curse of recoil that don't eat into their main actions. Being able to Sustain while moving as a melee gish in particular is immensely good, and a benefit only the Druid can access for gish combat at a much later level. It really does read like you're imagining the Animist going in, spending most of their actions Sustaining without using their subclass features at all, and pretending they don't have any spells while doing so.
I did mention that difficult ground can shut down Elf Step and other step subordinate actions, but that was not why I trained out of Elf Step as soon as I could. Of course I took Feathered Step, but not for Elf Step but to use Skirmish Strike, so I needed the dex anyway. And I told you about Maneuvering Spell as well, so no need to be perplexed.
If you took the 1st-level general feat that lets you Step into difficult terrain, why then did you allegedly struggle so much with Stepping into difficult terrain? Why claim that the Liturgist makes the class's action economy "manageable, not fantastic" when you took Skirmish Strike to completely eliminate the action cost of Sustaining? What exactly made Elf Step so not worth it that another 9th-level ancestry feat was better on your build? None of this is adding up.
No need for a houserule about channeler's stance, it doesn't boost persistent damage.
Yes, it does. If you really want to go over this whole song and dance again, I'll be happy to reproduce the arguments and examples here (hint: persistent damage is damage, and is treated as such for damage bonuses in existing feats).
Anyway, should I choose to believe you have actual play experience with the class, which based on our previous discussions about the class I have serious trouble with, I can only conclude that by the level Liturgist kicks in there must be an incredibly vast gulf between what is considered playing and building optimally at our tables.
I truly wonder, besides a druid, on whose toes could you have possibly tread?
I have mentioned this already, but in both my play experience and that of others at my table, the Animist managed to do things the Fighter and other martial classes wouldn't have been able to do without a decent amount of feat investment thanks to a combination of extreme range via Forest's Heart and doubled Reactive Strikes every turn, and made the party Psychic feel pretty crap about their blasting. Had a dedicated support joined the party, they would have had trouble competing with a class that can easily turn on a dime to output massive amounts of resourceless healing while accessing utility spells from across all four traditions. The fact that you have trouble even visualizing this, let alone understanding basic facets of the Animist's design such as their spell output and staying power, concerns me a little. Assuming you yourself have actually played the class, I'm curious: what even was your playstyle? What feats did you take and what did a typical turn with your Animist look like? What were your considerations during encounters and throughout the adventuring day?
I also think there are a fair number of players who have been waiting a long time for PF2 to offer a caster this versatile and just preemptively trying to nerf it doesn’t seem necessary to me.
I don't think we really need to wait; Paizo already seems to be aware that there is a problem and have adapted accordingly. The Myth-Speakers AP gave us two new apparitions, the Shepherd of Errant Winds and the Speaker in Sibilance, and both are several degrees weaker than the vanilla apparitions, with mediocre spell lists and truly awful vessel spells. Time will tell for sure what will happen to the class, but something tells me the developers would rather continue to release useless apparitions than do anything that would power-creep the Animist even further.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think only Apparition's Quickening could use a look as that does exceed what every other caster can do. To give one caster three quickens per day versus one for every other caster seems imbalanced.
Sustain spells aren't that good no matter how many people on this thread claim they are. I play a lot of high level casters. There are way better spells than the ones people are posting to use for the double sustain that do direct damage or have other effects. They post these spells like we're all supposed to go, "Oooohhh, so strong." Yet I'd rather use Eclipse Burst and cast a Phantom Orchestra to sustain, one of the few spells worth a cast and sustain action.
I'd much rather have a real martial than a pretend martial that needs a spell for regular hits and doesn't have any feats that really let them do more powerful martial abilities. And that has to elf step all the time to keep their schtick going when we might need someone that will Sudden Charge or fly after some enemy in the air that is moving very fast.
The animist isn't breaking my games even when power gamers make them. All the stuff Teridax posts is nothing that would work very well in our games. All of it completely ignores distance when engagement starts and everything else well built martials and casters can do as well as general battle movements and anything the enemy can do.
Even yesterday we were fighting a creature with a 20 foot reach whip that could grapple easily and move targets around the battlefield with the whip. It had a powerful fire aura. And some crazy mobility and AOE spells it could drop at range. Against such an enemy, I'd love to see the Elf Step strategy while this creature is moving 80 feet plus a round with dimension door all the time.
And it was immune to fire. So fire wasn't going to work so great against it. How diverse are the animists damage spells? Not so diverse from what I've seen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This misses the forest for the trees a bit. The Bard I would argue hasn't been exceptional for some time now. While yes familiars can be vulnerable this in actual play can be worked around and sometimes done so through the very means that makes this good depending on what you're up against. Maintaining any debuff on any enemy simply because they didn't critically succeed a save is so backbreaking that the fiddly aspect is well and truly worth it, especially when that debilitation shuts down the ability to do the kinds of attacks you listedNot sure what you mean by this. Lingering Song is still effective. The True Target combined with Synesthesia is still brutal.
I'm not sure why you value the condition extending of the witch familiar ability so highly given if a synesthesia or other debuff hits, it lasts for a minute, no extending required.
I can see the value if the extending is required, but I don't see the value if the spell lands.
Bard is still very, very strong. Their ability to group buff and combine songs that automatically work is nice.
I don't get the impression that Deriven and his play group value area denial and other forms of battlefield control outside of direct forms like Quandary that 'just work', or at least I got this impression when Wall of Stone was categorized as utility by him some time back during a debate about wizards. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but the way they construct their groups, and what the encounters they run are like, don't require or don't engender play that makes this sort of tactic necessary/optimalWe do like walls against groups, mostly wall of force at high level. At lower level a wall of stone can work too. It depends on the damage cut off for bashing the hardness.
Wall of stone in the 9 to 13 range is effective. Once the monsters reach the next damage increase.
I'm sure you seen the way monsters increase damage and spells increase in effectiveness. Which wall to use depends on...
Monsters do get to the point where they can one tap wall of stone, but because the wall is shapeable you can usually drain a lot of actions from them even when this is the case. Wind it back and forth in front of them and space it out so they have to step between striking at the wall. If you're in a conventional dungeon structure this is even better because you can use surrounding walls to increase how many winds you can get without leaving the sides able to be walked around too easily. In a hallway you can just fill the whole damn hallway up and make them take like 5 turns busting through it, space permitting.
If you have multiple enemies you can often silo them off from each other so they can't leverage their better action economy as well - it's hard to i.e. have one person knock down the wall and the rest rush through it when everyone has walls between them. This is much easier when you have external walls to work with.
Even yesterday we were fighting a creature with a 20 foot reach whip that could grapple easily and move targets around the battlefield with the whip. It had a powerful fire aura. And some crazy mobility and AOE spells it could drop at range. Against such an enemy, I'd love to see the Elf Step strategy while this creature is moving 80 feet plus a round with dimension door all the time.
Just say Balor. As it so happens, the Animist is exceedingly well-equipped to handle one, with quandary as but one spell they can access that lets them time the creature out. Even if we were to assume the monster was a PL+4 uber-boss, they'd only have a 50% chance to escape on the first turn, giving the party ample opportunity to prepare against them. The class's weak Will saves make them a prime target for cheap control spells like laughing fit that easily rob it of its reactions and potentially its actions too, and Forest's Heart lets them grapple the Balor with a 65% success chance from outside their whip and aura range. None of these are options typically available to divine casters, but all of them are readily available to an Animist, who also gets to trigger several of the Balor's weaknesses at at time with spells like moonlight ray. I'm quite surprised you'd think the creature would be such a challenge for a well-optimized party that has an Animist, to be honest, and more generally I'm curious: how did your party actually deal with this enemy? What does your party even look like? It seems that by "optimized" you instead mean "extremely rigid and incapable of adapting", which is perhaps why you're struggling with simple scenarios like these and the Animist, a phenomenally adaptive class, in general.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it just me, or does this thread largely feel like the same points have been getting repeated for like 4 pages?
...This misses the forest for the trees a bit. The Bard I would argue hasn't been exceptional for some time now. While yes familiars can be vulnerable this in actual play can be worked around and sometimes done so through the very means that makes this good depending on what you're up against. Maintaining any debuff on any enemy simply because they didn't critically succeed a save is so backbreaking that the fiddly aspect is well and truly worth it, especially when that debilitation shuts down the ability to do the kinds of attacks you listedNot sure what you mean by this. Lingering Song is still effective. The True Target combined with Synesthesia is still brutal.
I'm not sure why you value the condition extending of the witch familiar ability so highly given if a synesthesia or other debuff hits, it lasts for a minute, no extending required.
I can see the value if the extending is required, but I don't see the value if the spell lands.
Bard is still very, very strong. Their ability to group buff and combine songs that automatically work is nice.
I don't get the impression that Deriven and his play group value area denial and other forms of battlefield control outside of direct forms like Quandary that 'just work', or at least I got this impression when Wall of Stone was categorized as utility by him some time back during a debate about wizards. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but the way they construct their groups, and what the encounters they run are like, don't require or don't engender play that makes this sort of tactic necessary/optimalWe do like walls against groups, mostly wall of force at high level. At lower level a wall of stone can work too. It depends on the damage cut off for bashing the hardness.
Wall of stone in the 9 to 13 range is effective. Once the monsters reach the next damage increase.
I'm sure you seen the way monsters increase damage and spells increase in
Fights are fast. Everyone in the group has more powerful abilities at higher level. Not sure why you're wasting 3 actions to cast wall of stone when you have other things to do with higher level slots in the short battles.
If things are too weak, then you won't need wall of stone to deal with them. If things are strong, then wall of force is better.
You want to keep things as simple and focused as possible using your best tools at the best time.
Wall of Stone was great at lower level. Now wall of force works better. Use your fifth level slots for a howling blizzard or fireball in an easy fight to do some damage with lower level slots while saving the higher level slots for the hard fights.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it just me, or does this thread largely feel like the same points have been getting repeated for like 4 pages?
No. You're right. That's where nearly every thread leads that is any length.
If the animist is over-powered or whatever people want to claim, it will show up at tables. For me, it isn't. I think the class is fine, but not particularly interesting. It's a class they tried to put too much into it and made it an unfocused class with a messy play-style.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fights are fast. Everyone in the group has more powerful abilities at higher level. Not sure why you're wasting 3 actions to cast wall of stone when you have other things to do with higher level slots in the short battles.
If things are too weak, then you won't need wall of stone to deal with them. If things are strong, then wall of force is better.
You want to keep things as simple and focused as possible using your best tools at the best time.
Wall of Stone was great at lower level. Now wall of force works better. Use your fifth level slots for a howling blizzard or fireball in an easy fight to do some damage with lower level slots while saving the higher level slots for the hard fights.
I think I would much rather have a wall of stone prepped than a fireball that’s multiple ranks removed from my highest level slots. That’s a terrible use of blasting, if a fight was so easy an under-heightened *fireball* made a significant impact, I could probably have just not used a slot and if I still had to I’d do much better with a rank five command or rank six slow. Or a wall of stone that’s sapping multiple actions. And, importantly, all those preps are still good if I need the slots for something difficult. Under-heightened fireball is not going to help me in a serious fight.
As for wall of force vs wall of stone, I love me a good wall of force but for pure action denial wall of stone wins that easily. They’re going to have to bust through multiple layers, and they can’t walk around it. Really you should prep both, wall of force is great for fliers and as a wall you can put any angle (sometimes relevant), but for grounded enemies wall of stone is the all time GOAT of wall spells.
Fights are fast. Everyone in the group has more powerful abilities at higher level. Not sure why you're wasting 3 actions to cast wall of stone when you have other things to do with higher level slots in the short battles.
If things are too weak, then you won't need wall of stone to deal with them. If things are strong, then wall of force is better.
You want to keep things as simple and focused as possible using your best tools at the best time.
Wall of Stone was great at lower level. Now wall of force works better. Use your fifth level slots for a howling blizzard or fireball in an easy fight to do some damage with lower level slots while saving the higher level slots for the hard fights.
I think I would much rather have a wall of stone prepped than a fireball that’s multiple ranks removed from my highest level slots. That’s a terrible use of blasting, if a fight was so easy an under-heightened *fireball* made a significant impact, I could probably have just not used a slot and if I still had to I’d do much better with a rank five command or rank six slow. Or a wall of stone that’s sapping multiple actions. And, importantly, all those preps are still good if I need the slots for something difficult. Under-heightened fireball is not going to help me in a serious fight.
As for wall of force vs wall of stone, I love me a good wall of force but for pure action denial wall of stone wins that easily. They’re going to have to bust through multiple layers, and they can’t walk around it. Really you should prep both, wall of force is great for fliers and as a wall you can put any angle (sometimes relevant), but for grounded enemies wall of stone is the all time GOAT of wall spells.
I don't see what wall of force does that wall of stone doesn't when it comes to fliers. I think the fact you can angle and shape wall of stone makes it the clear winner. Wall of force is always a straight line which is a massive downside
Fights are fast. Everyone in the group has more powerful abilities at higher level. Not sure why you're wasting 3 actions to cast wall of stone when you have other things to do with higher level slots in the short battles.
If things are too weak, then you won't need wall of stone to deal with them. If things are strong, then wall of force is better.
You want to keep things as simple and focused as possible using your best tools at the best time.
Wall of Stone was great at lower level. Now wall of force works better. Use your fifth level slots for a howling blizzard or fireball in an easy fight to do some damage with lower level slots while saving the higher level slots for the hard fights.
I think I would much rather have a wall of stone prepped than a fireball that’s multiple ranks removed from my highest level slots. That’s a terrible use of blasting, if a fight was so easy an under-heightened *fireball* made a significant impact, I could probably have just not used a slot and if I still had to I’d do much better with a rank five command or rank six slow. Or a wall of stone that’s sapping multiple actions. And, importantly, all those preps are still good if I need the slots for something difficult. Under-heightened fireball is not going to help me in a serious fight.
As for wall of force vs wall of stone, I love me a good wall of force but for pure action denial wall of stone wins that easily. They’re going to have to bust through multiple layers, and they can’t walk around it. Really you should prep both, wall of force is great for fliers and as a wall you can put any angle (sometimes relevant), but for grounded enemies wall of stone is the all time GOAT of wall spells.
No one in my group slots wall of stone past the levels I stated. The fifth level direct damage spell is something we would use in a fight just to toss a spell we didn't need due to boredom. The wall of stone would do nothing.
You have so many slots at high level, there is zero need to waste time on a wall of stone. Just use a slow spell on single target and AOE slow on groups for action denial. It works much better and doesn't interfere with your party's actions.
You gotta sell this idea that isn't necessary about wall of stone for some reason. No idea why. We don't use it. We don't need it. It isn't anywhere near a "GOAT" spell for action denial. It's just a wall that gets too weak at higher level.
Walls are used for specific strategic purposes to divide battles if the group is too large. That's it. Action denial is done with slow spells and trips or something similar roaring applause.
I don't see what wall of force does that wall of stone doesn't when it comes to fliers. I think the fact you can angle and shape wall of stone makes it the clear winner. Wall of force is always a straight line which is a massive downsideFights are fast. Everyone in the group has more powerful abilities at higher level. Not sure why you're wasting 3 actions to cast wall of stone when you have other things to do with higher level slots in the short battles.
If things are too weak, then you won't need wall of stone to deal with them. If things are strong, then wall of force is better.
You want to keep things as simple and focused as possible using your best tools at the best time.
Wall of Stone was great at lower level. Now wall of force works better. Use your fifth level slots for a howling blizzard or fireball in an easy fight to do some damage with lower level slots while saving the higher level slots for the hard fights.
I think I would much rather have a wall of stone prepped than a fireball that’s multiple ranks removed from my highest level slots. That’s a terrible use of blasting, if a fight was so easy an under-heightened *fireball* made a significant impact, I could probably have just not used a slot and if I still had to I’d do much better with a rank five command or rank six slow. Or a wall of stone that’s sapping multiple actions. And, importantly, all those preps are still good if I need the slots for something difficult. Under-heightened fireball is not going to help me in a serious fight.
As for wall of force vs wall of stone, I love me a good wall of force but for pure action denial wall of stone wins that easily. They’re going to have to bust through multiple layers, and they can’t walk around it. Really you should prep both, wall of force is great for fliers and as a wall you can put any angle (sometimes relevant), but for grounded enemies wall of stone is the all time GOAT of wall spells.
All this does is show me that some people just don't play this game at a very high level. Wall of Stone gets wasted by the mooks I play against.
Wall of stone is for level 9 to 13 or so when the mooks can't bust it down so easily. At high level one mook can rip a wall of stone apart. If you're using it to slow them down where you cut your own party off, then they can just wait behind the wall of stone for you to destroy it to get to them. I've done this to party's thinking their wall tactics were so great. You can imagine the look on the casters face when the enemy waits on the other side of the wall making them use their actions to take the wall down if they want to advance.Most of the time you use wall of force to divide groups. You use it strategically. You want it to last against the damage the enemy is doing, which is why it is better.
Walls aren't very useful against fliers anyway if there is room for them to fly around it. So not sure you think of wall of stone works better.
Teleporters bypass walls easily as well.
There are certain strategic requirements of use of walls. They are not used casually or in a vacuum. They are used strategically, mostly to divide battlefields to piecemeal a strong group of creatures.
You don't want them to interfere with your group's actions or to be used strategically by the enemy like thinking they will just keep coming and use their actions to bash the wall down when they can very easily let your group do it if you cut yourself off from them by putting it up too soon or in a place that they can use to their advantage.
I don't waste my time on wall of stone past around level 13 like I stated. If you want to spend your time thinking wall of stone is great because you can't find a better use for your actions or higher level spell slots, have at it.