Psi Cantrips and Amps
Instead, you use your Focus Points to boost or modify your psi cantrips by applying amps—specialized thoughtforms that alter the expression of your psychic power. Each of your psi cantrips has a special amp heading. Whenever you cast a psi cantrip, you can amp it by spending 1 Focus Point as a free action. If the next action you take is to cast the psi cantrip, you add the amp effect. You can also gain additional amps through feats, allowing you to substitute a psi cantrip’s normal amp effect for another one. You choose which amp to use, if you choose to use any, each time you cast a psi cantrip. Unless otherwise noted, you can apply only one amp to a given psi cantrip.
Amp is now a free action "spellshape".
This means it can no longer be used with Spellstrike, Act Together, Slip'n'Sizzle, or similar (sub)ordinate actions.
RAW, Amped Guidance no longer works because they failed to change the language on Amped Guidance. RAI it clearly should work, but RAW I don't think it does work with the new way Amp works. There needs to be language added that allows to Amp as a Reaction and then cast Guidance as part of that Reaction, or something similar.
Edit: Same issue with Entropic Wheel. Basically, you can't use Amp with reaction spells with the new language on Amps.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Amp is now a free action "spellshape".
This means it can no longer be used with Spellstrike, Act Together, Slip'n'Sizzle, or similar (sub)ordinate actions.
RAW, Amped Guidance no longer works because they failed to change the language on Amped Guidance. RAI it clearly should work, but RAW I don't think it does work with the new way Amp works. There needs to be language added that allows to Amp as a Reaction and then cast Guidance as part of that Reaction, or something similar.
Edit: Same issue with Entropic Wheel. Basically, you can't use Amp with reaction spells with the new language on Amps.
Amp Guidance still works because Amp Guidance explicitly says you can cast it as a reaction with it amped. Since it says you can do that, you can. Even if you're trying to be "strict RAW", a spell that says you can do it trumps a rule somewhere else saying you can't because the spell is more specific. (Especially since the amp action doesn't actually say you can't, and people are relying on it not having a trigger to claim this.)
Allowing you to amp as a reaction wouldn't help because you now don't have a reaction to use the actual spell. Amp is a free action, so it just needs something that says "you can do this at any time to make the next cantrip you cast amp'd" for people that use a strict interpretation of when free actions can be used. (People who use a "whenever it makes sense to use one" interpretation already don't have this problem.)
More to the point: running PF2 "strict RAW" is going to be a bad time because the rules are full of stuff like this that works fine if you just read it as plain English and not fine if you try to read it like a legal document.
It's pretty obvious what the intent is here: you free action amp, and then you cast the amp cantrip. So free action amp is intended to be available anytime. It's sloppy that the amp action doesn't say it, but this one is obvious enough that anybody not doing that is falling into the "strict RAW is a troll ruling" situation.
This is an Arcane Cascade situation: it's technically wrong but also obvious in what it's intended to do. So it just needs to be noted in the errata thread and then we do the obvious thing that works.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, that's not enough. Not nearly.
They remastered the Psychic and decided to change how Amps work and then did not adapt current Amps to reflect that change.
This affects 11 psi cantrips (Reaction + Readied) in total that can RAW no longer be Amped. Guidance & Entropic Wheel are just those that are completely affected, the others only when readied, e.g. Amped Warp Step or Amped Message.
When you change something as fundamental as Amps on a Psychic, you better take the time to make sure you adapt the old Amps to the new language. Not doing that is incredibly lazy in my books, and smells like bad errata from 1e times. And I don't think it's OK to just gloss over this negligence with "yeah, well, who cares, just ignore it".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is the official language of everything related to the psychic published somewhere publicly yet? It feels premature to have intense debates about things that people have seen one page or one paragraph and not the whole text together on yet. If it is up somewhere, directing people to that would be a great way to get informed feedback instead of pure speculation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah dang, I do have to agree with Theaitetos a bit here.
1A amped cantrips like that being Ready compatible is actually a significant matter, and loosing that is a real nerf.
Being able to Ready:[1A buff/defense cantrip, AMP: inertial barrier]
Trigger: foe turn begins,
"If that foe hasn't been knocked to 0 before their turn begins, then I'll spend the FP to give [ally] physical resistance"
That kind of scenario, where you might want to go from 1-->2A to possibly avoid the FP burn, is no longer possible, and that sucks for them.
____________________________
A bit of a side note, but reading through Psychic again kinda makes me mad that Paizo has never expanded the list of Subconscious Minds.
These don't need a carefully crafted spell list w/ amped cantrips like the Conscious Minds do, S-Minds really are just a flavor chunk + 1A psyche ability.
Emotional Acceptance's 1A heal is rather character-defining, being able to spend a turn unleashed to heal 3x for 2+(Lvlx2) is genuinely great.
Yet, there are literally just 2 options each for CHA and INT Psychics. That's surprisingly horrible, especially when the other 3/4 choices are waaay more niche than the heal.
Like, wow. Psychic is really "bad" in that no one at Paizo cared enough to actually fill it in with options. So few additional feats, etc.
The actual core chassis, including how every Psychic picks 2 sub-types, looks great. Almost like if Witches could mix & match the patron cantrip w/ the familiar hex ability.
I think I get why Paizo think it should be a 2 spell p R caster, but you need your desired PC to exactly match the scant options for it to be a good time. It really looks like Psychic just does not have the dev support it needs to be fun to play.
Heck, I'll crow all day about Alchemist's many problems, and how they kinda killed the class with the remaster. But at least Paizo cares enough about the Alchemist class to keep putting dev time into it.
Legit shocking to realize that anyone playing Psychic is forced to pick one of the two S-Minds that match their stat.
Is Psychic's 46 feats the smallest number for any class? No, I think it's 4th last.
Wow, even new kids like Exemplar have 49.
Ah, Animist only has 39, so at least Psychic isn't the literal lowest in that category.
I think the lowest are Animist:39 --> Thaumaturge:42 --> Commander:43 --> Psychic:46, but I could have missed one
For comparison with Psy, you've got "front cover casters" like Druid:100, Cleric:90, Bard:90, Sorc:70.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is the official language of everything related to the psychic published somewhere publicly yet? It feels premature to have intense debates about things that people have seen one page or one paragraph and not the whole text together on yet. If it is up somewhere, directing people to that would be a great way to get informed feedback instead of pure speculation.
Some people have the new PDF and its coming from them (but most people don't). That makes it hard to reference specific things and is the cause of some of the confusion in terms of the specific wording of changes.
No, that's not enough. Not nearly.
They remastered the Psychic and decided to change how Amps work and then did not adapt current Amps to reflect that change.
This affects 11 psi cantrips (Reaction + Readied) in total that can RAW no longer be Amped. Guidance & Entropic Wheel are just those that are completely affected, the others only when readied, e.g. Amped Warp Step or Amped Message.
When you change something as fundamental as Amps on a Psychic, you better take the time to make sure you adapt the old Amps to the new language. Not doing that is incredibly lazy in my books, and smells like bad errata from 1e times. And I don't think it's OK to just gloss over this negligence with "yeah, well, who cares, just ignore it".
I mean... if you're complaining to me about the lack of polish on stuff Paizo has been doing lately, you're preaching to the choir. I survived Remaster Oracle and the gigantic crapstorm surrounding that. :P We're still trying to get clarity on the repertoire size well over a year later, which you'd think is a pretty basic thing that should be easy.
I don't know what is up with Paizo these days, but it really feels like this stuff has gotten worse. Though to be fair, it happened before too. Arcane Cascade RAW flat out didn't work for 3 years. Everyone just went "yep that's silly" and collectively did what it was obviously intended to do while ignoring RAW because RAW didn't work. (Even PFS folks didn't run this one RAW.)
But the reality is this is what it is. And if you just apply some common sense, it works fine, because the alternative strict reading leads to nonsensical outcomes like "you can't use amps as part of a reaction despite them being designed specifically to be used as amp reactions."
So we've got a second Arcane Cascade situation on our hands. We can either do the same thing we did last time, or we can try to follow RAW when it leads to absurd outcomes and nerf Psychic into the absolute dirt.
Doesn't seem that hard a choice to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reading amps is not an arcane cascade situation where it’s obvious it has to work. Guidance and entropic wheel are (otherwise they don’t do anything), but it’s not literally broken for amps to not work with ready.
Almost certainly an unintentional side effect of their zeal to hammer magus, but they did actually make this change and there’s no obvious “it’s literally broken” cope to justify the change not being binding.
What would a new player think, for one? For literally broken features you can say they should know to let it work, I think they would for arcane cascade, but for readying amps? How the hell would they know that’s not an intentional design choice?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is the official language of everything related to the psychic published somewhere publicly yet? It feels premature to have intense debates about things that people have seen one page or one paragraph and not the whole text together on yet. If it is up somewhere, directing people to that would be a great way to get informed feedback instead of pure speculation.Some people have the new PDF and its coming from them (but most people don't). That makes it hard to reference specific things and is the cause of some of the confusion in terms of the specific wording of changes.
No, that's not enough. Not nearly.
They remastered the Psychic and decided to change how Amps work and then did not adapt current Amps to reflect that change.
This affects 11 psi cantrips (Reaction + Readied) in total that can RAW no longer be Amped. Guidance & Entropic Wheel are just those that are completely affected, the others only when readied, e.g. Amped Warp Step or Amped Message.
When you change something as fundamental as Amps on a Psychic, you better take the time to make sure you adapt the old Amps to the new language. Not doing that is incredibly lazy in my books, and smells like bad errata from 1e times. And I don't think it's OK to just gloss over this negligence with "yeah, well, who cares, just ignore it".
I mean... if you're complaining to me about the lack of polish on stuff Paizo has been doing lately, you're preaching to the choir. I survived Remaster Oracle and the gigantic crapstorm surrounding that. :P We're still trying to get clarity on the repertoire size well over a year later, which you'd think is a pretty basic thing that should be easy.
I don't know what is up with Paizo these days, but it really feels like this stuff has gotten worse. Though to be fair, it happened before too. Arcane Cascade RAW flat out didn't work for 3 years. Everyone just went "yep that's silly" and collectively did what it was obviously intended to do while...
lol remember when the rolling mudslide composite impulse had no area for its area of affect move? Good times, good times. Only took 2 years to fix.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reading amps is not an arcane cascade situation where it’s obvious it has to work. Guidance and entropic wheel are (otherwise they don’t do anything), but it’s not literally broken for amps to not work with ready.
Almost certainly an unintentional side effect of their zeal to hammer magus, but they did actually make this change and there’s no obvious “it’s literally broken” cope to justify the change not being binding.
What would a new player think, for one? For literally broken features you can say they should know to let it work, I think they would for arcane cascade, but for readying amps? How the hell would they know that’s not an intentional design choice?
To be honest, if it says it has an amp effect in the description, I'm going to assume I can amp it. Doesn't matter the action restriction in Amp itself.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
... Is anyone noticing another problem here? Bolding for emphasis.
Whenever you cast a psi cantrip, you can amp it by spending 1 Focus Point as a free action. If the next action you take is to cast the psi cantrip, you add the amp effect.
More strict RAW is stupid territory but if this is how it's actually written. . .
The activation condition for amping is 'Whenever you cast a psi cantrip' ... but the benefits apply 'If the next action you take is to cast the psi cantrip'
... So you have to amp before you cast the psi cantrip, but you can't amp until you're casting the psi cantrip?
Forget 'doesn't work with spellstrike' ... you're dealing with a time paradox that stops you from using amps altogether because you need to simultaneously cast the spell before and after you amp it.
Again, obvious 'stupid raw is stupid' and not worth taking seriously angle but wtf was their goal here? There isn't even a time themed Conscious Mind Paizo!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oracle is such a bad class that Paizo won't answer a simple question but AMPS being this way is odd in my opinion. Magus Psychic was scary but this does not change anything but switch Magus doing somethign else or casters grabbing Blessed One Archetype for that juicy Focus Point in my opinion...
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magus with the nerfed imaginary weapon would be casterlevel * 2 * d6 in damage.
Fire ray offers the same, just with a worse damage type, but with a 1/2 level d6 afterburn effect.
With the stupid text of Psi Development (lvl 6 feat of psychic archetype) stating "If you don’t have one, you gain a focus pool of 1 Focus Point" you would not even get any focus point from the archetype.
You have two more focus spells, but no more focus points, directly contradicting the "Focus Points from Multiple Sources" rule...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magus with the nerfed imaginary weapon would be casterlevel * 2 * d6 in damage.
Fire ray offers the same, just with a worse damage type, but with a 1/2 level d6 afterburn effect.With the stupid text of Psi Development (lvl 6 feat of psychic archetype) stating "If you don’t have one, you gain a focus pool of 1 Focus Point" you would not even get any focus point from the archetype.
You have two more focus spells, but no more focus points, directly contradicting the "Focus Points from Multiple Sources" rule...
Technically, amped psi cantrips are not focus spells. Amps now consume focus points, and I suppose using an amp as a free action might be specified a focus spell itself (I don't have the PDF).
If amp is a free action spellshape with the trigger "you want to amp a cantrip," and the benefit doesn't capitalize cast, then wouldn't that just work in the middle of an activity anyway. At least I'm pretty sure you can use triggered free actions in the middle of activities. How much it just works the way that makes it work are we supposed to assume?
The Indomitable Magi Spirit, standing firm against what is in all likelihood a targeted assassination attempt.
Some friends and I noticed this all well, that the way it's worded actually suggests triggered free action. There are some other reactions and free actions that are triggered, but don't explicitly say so in the text as well. The capitalized cast a spell part is a red herring, what matters is the timing - if it's triggered during the activity it can slot in just fine. This is why stuff like touch focus and coven spell work for activities when most metamagic doesn't, because the action that modifies the next action is inserted directly before that next action.
This interpretation also has the benefit of not breaking reaction amps and readied actions. It does kill maneuvering spell off via similar free action rules though, which is deeply unfortunate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magus with the nerfed imaginary weapon would be casterlevel * 2 * d6 in damage.
Fire ray offers the same, just with a worse damage type, but with a 1/2 level d6 afterburn effect.With the stupid text of Psi Development (lvl 6 feat of psychic archetype) stating "If you don’t have one, you gain a focus pool of 1 Focus Point" you would not even get any focus point from the archetype.
You have two more focus spells, but no more focus points, directly contradicting the "Focus Points from Multiple Sources" rule...
Wait, do you also not get a focus point from Psi development if you already have one? Seriously? If this is true hard confirmation they're *trying* to kill off the archetype.
Edit:
I now have confirmation via screenshot that psi dev does in fact not increase your focus pool. Psychic "remaster" delenda est. Unwind it all.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is darkly funny they do so much in the name of killing IW magus, when IW was never necessary for magus anyways, but simply one path of several.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole point of the remaster focus change was to do away with some of the stupid order of operations based bs that came with focus point generating feats.
Bringing it back for the sole purpose of making the psychic archetype worse is some next level brainrot.
It's entirely possible they copied the text from other caster archetypes that grant focus spells, like Sorcerer and Oracle in PC2, which uses that same specific line about gaining a focus pool if you don't have one. So it may be something to call for a clarification on whether it qualifies as a known focus spell or not for purposes of adding to your focus pool.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember homebrewing a Psychic remaster a while back and posting it online: there too, I turned amping into a free-action spellshape, and at least one other person immediately pointed out how this wouldn't work with reaction amps. A single, simple round of feedback was enough to avoid the problem we're now seeing on the class in officially-printed material. If the above is true, it also sounds a lot like whoever handled the Psychic remaster just copy-pasted boilerplate rules text without adapting it to the class's specific mechanics, which just leaves me wondering what happened for things to go this wrong.
I remember homebrewing a Psychic remaster a while back and posting it online: there too, I turned amping into a free-action spellshape, and at least one other person immediately pointed out how this wouldn't work with reaction amps. A single, simple round of feedback was enough to avoid the problem we're now seeing on the class in officially-printed material. If the above is true, it also sounds a lot like whoever handled the Psychic remaster just copy-pasted boilerplate rules text without adapting it to the class's specific mechanics, which just leaves me wondering what happened for things to go this wrong.
Turnover, probably. People come and go over time, work on different projects, move to other companies, and such. The really deep rules knowledge isn't working on this stuff.
And with little to no playtesting, stuff gets through that shouldn't.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue with the current lack of quality control is that we're also not getting timely errata, and developers won't answer rules questions on social media (including these forums), so we're stuck with unclear or outright broken rules indefinitely. Add in that Paizo seems to be taking a mostly nerf-heavy approach to balance, and the quality that shone through at the start of PF2's life seems to be rapidly sliding into the rear-view mirror.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue with the current lack of quality control is that we're also not getting timely errata, and developers won't answer rules questions on social media (including these forums), so we're stuck with unclear or outright broken rules indefinitely. Add in that Paizo seems to be taking a mostly nerf-heavy approach to balance, and the quality that shone through at the start of PF2's life seems to be rapidly sliding into the rear-view mirror.
It seems like some people in Paizo just have different ideas for what class balance should be, and the people that agree with each other are working on the same classes.
Like on one hand Oracle gets super buffed (while being made a lot more uninteresting), but Wizard gets nerfed (at least it was kind of understandable because of the OGL nonsense).
Class design seems to still be pretty good, but maybe we will see something different with Necromancer and Runesmith.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue with the current lack of quality control is that we're also not getting timely errata, and developers won't answer rules questions on social media (including these forums), so we're stuck with unclear or outright broken rules indefinitely. Add in that Paizo seems to be taking a mostly nerf-heavy approach to balance, and the quality that shone through at the start of PF2's life seems to be rapidly sliding into the rear-view mirror.
Yeah all these problems combined with a lack of errata is really lowering the overall quality of the game. It's getting more and more noticable as things pile up.
It seems like some people in Paizo just have different ideas for what class balance should be, and the people that agree with each other are working on the same classes.
Like on one hand Oracle gets super buffed (while being made a lot more uninteresting), but Wizard gets nerfed (at least it was kind of understandable because of the OGL nonsense).
Don't forget the lack of playtesting. When people just change stuff and do it in a vacuum from other people doing that without testing those options, you wind up doing things that sound good on paper but... *waves hands*
I'm also not sure even people working within a class agree on balance. Oracle's mysteries/curses are all over the place ranging from "this curse does basically nothing" to "this curse will get you killed".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also not sure even people working within a class agree on balance. Oracle's mysteries/curses are all over the place ranging from "this curse does basically nothing" to "this curse will get you killed".
I feel this is common for caster subclasses. There's always one that's leagues above the rest, while the others are either meh or bad.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also not sure even people working within a class agree on balance. Oracle's mysteries/curses are all over the place ranging from "this curse does basically nothing" to "this curse will get you killed".I feel this is common for caster subclasses. There's always one that's leagues above the rest, while the others are either meh or bad.
Which is kinda why systems, dare I say products, like pf2 historically have made use of "fix by addition."
The bad subclass options don't hurt the game nearly as much if new on-par options keep being added over time.
It doesn't even mean "powercreep" if you take the measuring line to be more of a highscore than a gross average of all options.
_______________________
It's not a coincidence that a lot of the usual suspects for "bad" classes in pf2 don't really support this idea.
At first glance, Alchemist seems greatly helped by more items being added. Pre vs post Treasure Vault Alchemist power ranking definitely jumps from a blank minus to a flat blank.
But in reality, adding better items has improved the class by 0 amount. It *has* to be a chassis thing.
It's like adding new spells, they can help the individual PC perform better, but the choice to be that class is just as bad as before, or perhaps worse. For Alchemist, the comparison is with archetype Alch options (that no longer lag behind a real Alch in i.level). Better items doesn't help the class of Alchemist look better next to Rogue, etc. But being able to poach an Alch's appeal via things like F. Tech's recharging VVials does certainly hurt the class.
This is why Paizo really makes a problem for themself when they don't build classes with this future expansion in mind.
Alchemist has never gotten a new Research Field, and was not designed for new RFs to even be a thing.
Psychic has never gotten a new conscious or subconscious mind, etc.
It's also why Wizard did focus their rework efforts around adding a new expandable dimension in the remaster.
The old system of spell schools/types was static, while we've been seeing a trickle of academic options to do this "Fix by addition."
Spellcasters have also had a lot of trouble really giving themselves a unique chassis appeal among their peers, as so much power budget is tied up in the shared spells.
Psychic put a lot of it's budget into their spellcasting itself being "unique" as a non-verbal mental thing, but that doesn't really translate to felt uniqueness in gameplay, lol.
Which leaves the class to live/die based on psyche mechanics and amps.
Both of these could be expanded by the addition of new feats, as easy a lift as it gets for Paizo.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is kinda why systems, dare I say products, like pf2 historically have made use of "fix by addition."
PF2 notoriously does very little of this directly, though. Classes rarely receive bespoke options... and when they do the results are incredibly haphazard, and often rather bad.
The bad subclass options don't hurt the game nearly as much if new on-par options keep being added over time.
For the most part they don't.
It's not a coincidence that a lot of the usual suspects for "bad" classes in pf2 don't really support this idea.
Not especially? Fighters are evergreen and have received next to nothing of note (a handful of new feats across seven years of publishing, a few of them are okay). The Magus has received a whopping three new subclasses and none of them are worth talking about or do anything to address their core competencies.
Alchemist honestly is in a better place than most because alchemical items get printed far more often than subclasses. I know you want to say those don't count but... they do.
Alchemist has never gotten a new Research Field, and was not designed for new RFs to even be a thing.
The toxicologist was not in the CRB.
Psychic has never gotten a new conscious or subconscious mind, etc.
And about zero of its problems have anything to do with subclasses.
You're really barking up the wrong tree with this thesis. Paizo rarely adds options to anyone and when they do they do very little for the class' power.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you remove the focus point from Psychic Dedication you make the weakest caster now obviously the weakest caster Multielcass Archetype. You get 1 AMP'd Cantrip with NO additional Focus Points, so you get 1 if you had 0 but if you had 1 point already? Nah, might as well have had 0 focus spells so you can get 2 points at level 8+...This HAS to be a mistake, right? Order of operations should not determine what levels you should optimally take feats.
Class feats are in an odd spot, as the feat slots are chassis, but low level feats can be poached. And some are just multi-class to begin with.
In total, I'd call class feats "mostly chassis," especially 6+ feats, which cannot even be poached in 1-11 APs.
And I'd argue that yes, "fixing by addition" has very much been a thing in pf2. Even Alchemist has benefited a whole lot from new feats.
This is enough of a thing for "AP feats" to be a small community term of it's own, where folks roll their eyes at them.
They are notorious for either being kinda useless flavor feats, or they push the upper bounds of that class' power balance.
I did totally forget that Tox was added a little after base Alch though, shoulda remembered it was an Adv Players Guide addition. Hope for new Alch Research Fields being possible? Eh, that's def just cope.
____________
As far as an example of "Fix by addition" goes, I'll definitely point to Witch.
It seems Paizo has found them easier to add new options for over time, but it's important to remember Witch was kinda seen as a worse Wizard (if the spell list matched) due to lacking any pseduo-4th slot, Arcane Bond, the arcane thesis, etc.
The remaster helped to make the Patron mechanic more impactful than before, which further boosts how meaningful new Patrons are for the class.
___________
https://2e.aonprd.com/Sources.aspx?ID=1
For the OG classes, here's a fun way to look at what was actually core-core to them when pf2 launched, with the rest being added later. I didn't realize that Staff Nexus was added later, in the APG.
A few clicks than then let you browse what the category looks like now, such as seeing the expanded list of Bloodlines, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget the lack of playtesting. When people just change stuff and do it in a vacuum from other people doing that without testing those options, you wind up doing things that sound good on paper but... *waves hands*
I'm also not sure even people working within a class agree on balance. Oracle's mysteries/curses are all over the place ranging from "this curse does basically nothing" to "this curse will get you killed".
Agreed on all points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am happy with the duration spell change for unleash psyche. Gives an easy strat for the types of spells to cast on your last turn of unleash. Sustain on your stupified turns and do whatever miscellaneous strats need doing
I am happy with the duration spell change for unleash psyche. Gives an easy strat for the types of spells to cast on your last turn of unleash. Sustain on your stupified turns and do whatever miscellaneous strats need doing
It was definitely a good change. It was crazy how Infinite Eye had literally no way to make use of the feature with their Amps/Cantrips. It should work with Glimpse Weakness now.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kitusser, in regards to the conversion we have in the other thread.
Basically the option was not in line with damage from other cantrips. that you can see.
When it was amped it wasn't in line with any other focus spell. Easy to see.
If they had made it a physic only class feature then it would have had a different set up design balance points it would have needed to clear. but as a modular feature any class can obtain it cannot obviate other options and it needed to have a place among other options.
Before this remaster version it was out of place.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically the option was not in line with damage from other cantrips. that you can see.
When it was amped it wasn't in line with any other focus spell. Easy to see.
I don’t think it was ever meant to be. The whole point of psi cantrips is that they’re upgrades to regular cantrips, and amps are better than most other focus spells. While I do think there are issues to poaching amps, spending class feats to have an above-average cantrip I don’t think is unbalanced when you have focus and slot spells.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t think it was ever meant to be. The whole point of psi cantrips is that they’re upgrades to regular cantrips, and amps are better than most other focus spells. While I do think there are issues to poaching amps, spending class feats to have an above-average cantrip I don’t think is unbalanced when you have focus and slot spells.Basically the option was not in line with damage from other cantrips. that you can see.
When it was amped it wasn't in line with any other focus spell. Easy to see.
As far as I can tell the designer intent is shown in this release. It is what they meant it to be.
Think about it this way, the same expenditure of class feats elsewhere is now a comparable investment, before it was not.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kitusser, in regards to the conversion we have in the other thread.
Basically the option was not in line with damage from other cantrips. that you can see.
When it was amped it wasn't in line with any other focus spell. Easy to see.If they had made it a physic only class feature then it would have had a different set up design balance points it would have needed to clear. but as a modular feature any class can obtain it cannot obviate other options and it needed to have a place among other options.
Before this remaster version it was out of place.
Psi Cantrips are clearly upgrades over regular cantrips. This is pretty clearly shown by the fact that all of the Psi Cantrips based on already existing ones are given upgrades specifically for the Psychic. But even if this is the case, current cantrip IW is worse than Gouging Claw.
I also do not think that Psi Amps are supposed to be in line with other focus spells. For the most part they are more powerful or they do very unique things. Some are pretty bad, but that's just how it always is.
If the issue is other classes poaching the cantrips, then nerfing the archetype (like they did) should be enough to address that. I hate it when something gets nerfed because another class can poach it for themselves. It's like how Multiclassing in say 5e causes many features to be nerfed.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kitusser, in regards to the conversion we have in the other thread.
Basically the option was not in line with damage from other cantrips. that you can see.
When it was amped it wasn't in line with any other focus spell. Easy to see.If they had made it a physic only class feature then it would have had a different set up design balance points it would have needed to clear. but as a modular feature any class can obtain it cannot obviate other options and it needed to have a place among other options.
Before this remaster version it was out of place.
I mean, if people think it should be nerfed... that's a fair opinion. But people were claiming it wasn't nerfed and that's just wrong. It's very clearly a nerf.
I don't really think it needed a nerf given we're talking about a 6HP no armor class that has to go into melee to use it. It should be good given the risk. The idea that we need to nerf it because archetype means that the fix should have been there, not nerfing the actual class because the archetype is a problem.
This version is doing the same damage as Distant Grasp's Telekinetic Projectle, except amp IW can hit 2 targets at point blank range and Telekinetic Projectile has 60' range. That range is really valuable on a squishy caster.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I can tell the designer intent is shown in this release. It is what they meant it to be.
Sure, and in both the original release and the remaster, several of the Psychic’s psi cantrips are regular cantrips with upgrades layered on. I think that is a pretty clear statement of intent. Given how the remaster fails to account for the existence of reaction amps or the unique relationship between amps and Focus Points, I’m going to hazard the guess that the changes we’re seeing are less the product of sound decision-making, and more a cautionary tale of what happens when you burn out your developers and give them too little time to do the research and playtesting needed to update a class properly.
Think about it this way, the same expenditure of class feats elsewhere is now a comparable investment, before it was not.
As someone who called for the MC archetype to be nerfed, and argued bitterly with people on here over it, I think the archetype is weaker now than other caster dedications, and by a lot. If what you say is true and psi cantrips are on the same level as any other cantrip, then only receiving one such cantrip in the dedication is a worse deal than any caster dedication that gives out two cantrips. If amps are meant to be just run-of-the-mill focus spells, then having to wait two levels later than other caster archetypes to get a focus spell, and then not even get a Focus Point for it if you already have a focus pool, is a worse deal than other caster archetypes. I don’t think there is any consistent logic here to justify what was done to the Psychic in this remaster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t think it was ever meant to be. The whole point of psi cantrips is that they’re upgrades to regular cantrips, and amps are better than most other focus spells. While I do think there are issues to poaching amps, spending class feats to have an above-average cantrip I don’t think is unbalanced when you have focus and slot spells.
Psi cantrips being better than other cantrips I'll grant you (Although that rapidly loses relevance once you have enough spells to cast multiple ranked spells per combat). But I've never bought the idea that Amped Psi Cantrips are better than Focus spells apart from maybe 4 outliers (Shatter Mind, Guidance, Message, and the old Imaginary weapon). I guess I can see where the reputation came from when bery few classes had access to good focus spells. But that seems to be more a case of them finally nailing down what they want focus spells to be able to do woth psychic, and most focus spells from then on being at roughly psychic's level.
As far as I can tell the designer intent is shown in this release. It is what they meant it to be.Sure, and in both the original release and the remaster, several of the Psychic’s psi cantrips are regular cantrips with upgrades layered on. I think that is a pretty clear statement of intent. Given how the remaster fails to account for the existence of reaction amps or the unique relationship between amps and Focus Points, I’m going to hazard the guess that the changes we’re seeing are less the product of sound decision-making, and more a cautionary tale of what happens when you burn out your developers and give them too little time to do the research and playtesting needed to update a class properly.
Think about it this way, the same expenditure of class feats elsewhere is now a comparable investment, before it was not.As someone who called for the MC archetype to be nerfed, and argued bitterly with people on here over it, I think the archetype is weaker now than other caster dedications, and by a lot. If what you say is true and psi cantrips are on the same level as any other cantrip, then only receiving one such cantrip in the dedication is a worse deal than any caster dedication that gives out two cantrips. If amps are meant to be just run-of-the-mill focus spells, then having to wait two levels later than other caster archetypes to get a focus spell, and then not even get a Focus Point for it if you already have a focus pool, is a worse deal than other caster archetypes. I don’t think there is any consistent logic here to justify what was done to the Psychic in this remaster.
Well shield as a psy cantrip gets to target others in 30ft so its better than shield not as a psy cantrip.It also has the amp feature, its just locked by the the level 6 archtype feat now.
Really what you are getting when you pick that level 6 feat is a cantrip that is also a focus spell, a focus point, and the ability to amp your first chosen psy amp. its pretty loaded in that level 6 feat.What i really meant by not being better was that it seems the designers are obersving damage caps that this cantrip was not in line with. Compare it to amped melee Ignition or flurry of claws or fire ray.
Or compare it as a cantrip to non amped melee ignition or gouging claws.
They are much more comparable now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Psi cantrips being better than other cantrips I'll grant you (Although that rapidly loses relevance once you have enough spells to cast multiple ranked spells per combat). But I've never bought the idea that Amped Psi Cantrips are better than Focus spells apart from maybe 4 outliers (Shatter Mind, Guidance, Message, and the old Imaginary weapon). I guess I can see where the reputation came from when bery few classes had access to good focus spells. But that seems to be more a case of them finally nailing down what they want focus spells to be able to do woth psychic, and most focus spells from then on being at roughly psychic's level.
I think context is key here, because focus spells premaster were generally a lot weaker: compare, for instance, ancestral memories to what it used to be. Back when that was the standard, the Psychic's amps were significantly above the curve. In general, the defining aspect of the Psychic's current weakness is that it's not that they changed in the remaster, everyone else did: every caster got to Refocus to full in-between encounters, nearly every caster got better focus spells, and nearly every caster got substantial improvements to their class features, with divine casters also receiving major improvements to their spell list. Although the Psychic was never the strongest caster around, they had distinct qualities that have now become the standard for virtually every other caster, so now their unique features are nothing special.
Well shield as a psy cantrip gets to target others in 30ft so its better than shield not as a psy cantrip.
Yes, and imaginary weapon is now straight-up worse than gouging claw in all but a handful of circumstances. What you are presently demonstrating is that not only was your prior argument false, the balance between psi cantrips is inconsistent. In neither case is offering just one of them in the dedication enough, in my opinion.
Really what you are getting when you pick that level 6 feat is a cantrip that is also a focus spell, a focus point, and the ability to amp your first chosen psy amp. its pretty loaded in that level 6 feat.
For starters, the feat does not give you a Focus Point if you already have a focus pool anymore, but even if it did, literally every caster MC archetype save for the Animist, the Sorcerer, and the Summoner let you get a focus spell and a focus point at level 4. If you go for the Blessed One dedication, you can even get both as early as level 2. Although I do think there are still legitimate problems with letting non-Psychics poach amps, at this stage I don't think even amped guidance is worth sinking a 6th-level feat if it doesn't also give a Focus Point.
What i really meant by not being better was that it seems the designers are obersving damage caps that this cantrip was not in line with. Compare it to amped melee Ignition or flurry of claws or fire ray.
Gouging claw, a regular melee cantrip, deals more damage, so this doesn't hold true either.
Psi cantrips being better than other cantrips I'll grant you (Although that rapidly loses relevance once you have enough spells to cast multiple ranked spells per combat). But I've never bought the idea that Amped Psi Cantrips are better than Focus spells apart from maybe 4 outliers (Shatter Mind, Guidance, Message, and the old Imaginary weapon). I guess I can see where the reputation came from when bery few classes had access to good focus spells. But that seems to be more a case of them finally nailing down what they want focus spells to be able to do woth psychic, and most focus spells from then on being at roughly psychic's level.I think context is key here, because focus spells premaster were generally a lot weaker: compare, for instance, ancestral memories to what it used to be. Back when that was the standard, the Psychic's amps were significantly above the curve. In general, the defining aspect of the Psychic's current weakness is that it's not that they changed in the remaster, everyone else did: every caster got to Refocus to full in-between encounters, nearly every caster got better focus spells, and nearly every caster got substantial improvements to their class features, with divine casters also receiving major improvements to their spell list. Although the Psychic was never the strongest caster around, they had distinct qualities that have now become the standard for virtually every other caster, so now their unique features are nothing special.
Well shield as a psy cantrip gets to target others in 30ft so its better than shield not as a psy cantrip.Yes, and imaginary weapon is now straight-up worse than gouging claw in all but a handful of circumstances. What you are presently demonstrating is that not only was your prior argument false, the balance between psi cantrips is inconsistent. In neither case is offering just one of them in the dedication enough, in my opinion.
Really...
For gouging claw are you including the crit rider, cause imaginary weapon has its own crit rider its just not for damage.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For gouging claw are you including the crit rider, cause imaginary weapon has its own crit rider its just not for damage.
I am indeed including the crit rider. Doubled regular and bleed damage by my books is significantly more reliable than pushing a melee opponent away when it means needing a crit to create safety for yourself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For gouging claw are you including the crit rider, cause imaginary weapon has its own crit rider its just not for damage.I am indeed including the crit rider. Doubled regular and bleed damage by my books is significantly more reliable than pushing a melee opponent away when it means needing a crit to create safety for yourself.
You don't like push effects?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are we really going to talk about push as if it was positive? Most of the time pushing someone away is more detrimental than benefitial unless the target goes after the party and the one that pushes the target away goes last. Otherwise it ends up costing an Stride action for both the target and your allies.
The push from IW isn't even something you can actually control, so it could lead to situations where you wouldn't want to push someone but it happens anyways.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Push effects are decent, push effects that only trigger on a crit and thus can’t be relied on less so.
If were talking about a spell attack crit rider then we really shouldnt be considering either the bleed or the push.
What I see as the benefit of push on IW is that when it does happen you get either some safety after having taken a chance and moved in to use it. Or you get some more options for a third action now that the thing is 10ft away. Also if an team mate has reactive strike I am going to push them that way so if they do want to come back to me they are going to get hit.
Edit:and you can choose not to detonate causing the push if you want.