Sorcerer//Oracle gestalt vs. non-gestalted T1s

[The Insanity]

In your opinion how does a gestalted Sorc//Oracle compare to non-gestalted T1 classes?

[legomaster00156]

It's still a Tier 2 class, per the definition (potentially able to do lots of things extremely well, but not potentially all things). It is probably more directly powerful than any given Tier 1 class, but it is still not more versatile, which is the baseline used for the tier system.

[The Insanity]

Well, I'm more concerned about comparing to the classes in T1 rather than the Tier itself, if that makes sense. I'd be totally content with your opinion becoming the consensus, though.

[legomaster00156]

Taking it case by case, let's see what we're working with:

Gestalt: 3/4 BAB, d8 HD, good Will saves. CHA-dependent for all spellcasting. Access to Sorc/Wiz list and Cler/Orc spell list, but cannot cast any spells not known. Bloodline, Mystery, and Oracle's Curse. Free cure or inflict spell known at every spell level, plus other bonus spells known from the bloodline and mystery.

Versus the main three T1 spellcasters:

Cleric: 3/4 BAB, d8 HD, good FORT and Will saves. WIS-dependent. Access to full Cler/Orc spell list, but can only prepare a certain number each day. Domains expand options, offer extra spells prepared each day, and often include some nifty class features. Can channel positive or negative energy for some decent d6's of healing or damage, and spontaneously convert spells into cure/inflict spells of equal or lower level.
Druid: 3/4 BAB, d8 HD, good FORT and Will saves. WIS-dependent. Access to full Druid spell list, but can only prepare a certain number each day. Can choose either a domain (see Cleric) or an animal companion. Can polymorph into certain forms for an hour per class level. Gains a bevy of additional minor class features.
Wizard: 1/2 BAB, d6 HD, good Will saves. INT-dependent. Potential access to full Sorc/Wiz spell list, but can only prepare a certain number each day. School specialization allows for extra spells prepared every day, plus a few minor class features. A few bonus feats.

There are, of course, other T1 spellcasters, but most of them follow a similar chassis and just have different class features and some derivative spell list. I see the gestalt as being more powerful on a pound-for-pound basis, but not overwhelmingly so.

[Peat]

At lower levels, the Sorcerer//Oracle would probably be notably better. Twice the spell slots and twice the class features is a big deal there.

Once you get higher, and the T1 caster has enough spell slots for most days and access to the next level of spells is more of an issue, I think it'd get more equal, but in terms of practical tabletop power I'm not sure there'd be a huge difference and it'd mainly hinge on game style.

[Gnaeus]

At all levels the gestalt would be better.

A PF sorcerer with the FCB that gives spells known is already functionally T1. His 6-8 spells known per level is functionally enough to have every top spell, cover all caster roles, etc.

The gestalt doubles that then gives revelations (which are often spell equivalents) for free. Assuming that the Sorcerer spells are a little better, he could fill the oracle side with overlap utility spells like resist energy, animate dead, summon monster and protection from evil, just so he doesn’t need them for Sorcerer spells.


It's still a Tier 2 class, per the definition (potentially able to do lots of things extremely well, but not potentially all things). It is probably more directly powerful than any given Tier 1 class, but it is still not more versatile, which is the baseline used for the tier system.

The thing is, it is more versatile. Let’s look at level 11.
Wizard (specialist, 22 int): spells known: 10/4/4/4/4/2
Spells per day: 7/7/6/5/4/3 (1/level must be specialty)

Cleric (22 wis): spells per day 7/7/6/5/4/3 (1/level must be domain, convert to cures

Gestalt (22 cha): spells known: 15/15/13/11/7 (including bloodline and mystery)
Spells/day:16/16/14/14/8

Yes, the wizard can spend resources (downtime and money) to expand his spellbook. But he will probably never scribe more than 15 level 2 spells or 13 level 3 ones. The cleric is a bit better, with all spells known. But functionally he will build a spell list and tinker with it a bit based on known circumstances. He probably won’t memorize more than 12 different third level spells over his 11 level career. And on any given day he has access to 7, including a domain spell and a cure.

The gestalt not only has more spells, with a wider spell selection since he is picking from 2 lists, he has nearly free use of his spells from his spells known. Does he need 4 protections from acid? 3 teleports? Spamming dispel magic to break a high level effect? No problem. Want to throw a bunch of Long duration buffs but not run out of spells? Ok. Got a bunch of slots left over at end of day, and already healed everyone? Convert to extended long duration spells and prebuff the party for next day, make some skeletons, planar bind, shrink some boulders, glyph the door, whatever.

The only real drawback is being a spell level behind on odd levels. Which admittedly is sad. There MAY be some level where the raw power of those 3 top level spells outweighs the fact that the wizard can only go 12 rounds casting spells from level 4-6 and the gestalt can go 22, out of more than double the choices. But the T1 must also deal with the real world problem of picking the wrong spell for a day. The gestalt knows all the top spells of every level, every day.

[Kurald Galain]

In your opinion how does a gestalted Sorc//Oracle compare to non-gestalted T1 classes?

Generally speaking, character power depends on (1) action economy, and (2) what the highest spell level is they can cast. Only at very low level does it depend on (3) spells per day, because mid-level characters have way more spells per day than they need (and "more than you need" times two is still "more than you need").

This gestalt doesn't help at all with 1 or 2, and only helps with 3 which isn't needed. So it's not really a power boost to a non-gestalt sorc or oracle.

[Murphy80]

In your opinion how does a gestalted Sorc//Oracle compare to non-gestalted T1 classes?
IMO if properly optimized and played, the S/O gestalt will be slightly more powerful than a T1 class. But the difference will be small.

[Gnaeus]

Generally speaking, character power depends on (1) action economy, and (2) what the highest spell level is they can cast. Only at very low level does it depend on (3) spells per day, because mid-level characters have way more spells per day than they need (and "more than you need" times two is still "more than you need").

This gestalt doesn't help at all with 1 or 2, and only helps with 3 which isn't needed. So it's not really a power boost to a non-gestalt sorc or oracle.

This completely incorrect response reminded me that the gestalt also gets better action economy. Leaving aside swift action spells, he also has a giant pile of high level slots he can use for quickened spells. Which work fine on spontaneous casters because pathfinder. Not enough? Gestalt has Imbue with Spell Ability and way more 4th level slots than I need.

It can also cast expensive long duration or utility spells like Stoneskin or Restoration for free with Blood Money+CLW+Lesser restoration. What’s 2 first and a second with 16 slots/level?

[upho]

Generally speaking, character power depends on (1) action economy, and (2) what the highest spell level is they can cast. Only at very low level does it depend on (3) spells per day, because mid-level characters have way more spells per day than they need (and "more than you need" times two is still "more than you need").

This gestalt doesn't help at all with 1 or 2, and only helps with 3 which isn't needed. So it's not really a power boost to a non-gestalt sorc or oracle.I have to say I also find this answer quite a bit off, most notably because it doesn't take into account that one of the main benefits of having this many great spells/day is a greatly boosted action economy. Minionmancy is a thing, as are quickened spells, default immediate or swift action spells and long duration buffs.

In that sense, this gestalt is essentially a "Master Summoner - Deluxe Super-Versatility True Full Caster Version". I absolutely agree with Gnaeus; especially in a real game this gestalt can kick a lot more butt than any T1 caster can.

Speaking of, as a more concrete comparison, in another recent thread I mentioned the Master Summoner being so far the only class I can see pretty reliably being able to solo Rappan Athuk for PF (starting at 5th). No T1 would stand much of a chance doing the same before at least 9th or so, but this gestalt most certainly would.

[Dimers]

The gestalt is almost certainly more versatile on a given adventuring day than a single-class full caster. Wizards and clerics and druids can prep exactly the right number of exactly the right spells, if they know exactly what they'll be facing (good luck with that) and if the right spells are on their single spell list. The gestalt can be ready for nearly any situation all the time just from having more spells known from a much broader list.

For bonus points, be a half-elf with Multitalented and get two more spells known every time you level up ...

[Kurald Galain]

I have to say I also find this answer quite a bit off, most notably because it doesn't take into account that one of the main benefits of having this many great spells/day is a greatly boosted action economy. Minionmancy is a thing, as are quickened spells, default immediate or swift action spells and long duration buffs.
Yes, minionmancy is great for your action economy. However, a sorc//oracle isn't particularly better at summoning than a plain sorcerer. Nor is he particularly better at long duration buffs either.
Protection from Arrows? Life Bubble? Speechreader's Sight? Overland Flight? Defending Bone? Looks to me like the sorc has plenty of long-term buffs by itself. And since this thread has the Pathfinder tag, there's not a lot of good swift or immediate action spells in existence.

The exception is a solo campaign, because then you'd really want an arcane caster with healing ability. But solo campaigns are very rare, and the OP didn't mention anything about going solo.


The gestalt is almost certainly more versatile on a given adventuring day than a single-class full caster.
The same principle applies: a spontaneous full caster is almost certainly more versatile. A sorc//oracle... isn't particularly more versatile than a pure sorc, in that regard: almost all versatile/utility spells are already on the sorc list (except for healing, but the OP said nothing about solo campaigns).

I mean, obviously getting more is better. But a sorc generally has more spells per day than he needs; so adding more spells on top of that is not all that much better. The sorc's spell list is overall more powerful than the cleric's, so having both lists is not all that much better than just the sorc list.


It can also cast expensive long duration or utility spells like Stoneskin or Restoration for free with Blood Money+CLW+Lesser restoration. What’s 2 first and a second with 16 slots/level?
What's 2 first and a second for any mid-level caster? This is a great example of how "more than you need" times two is still "more than you need".

It's the same reasoning why many people (wrongly) think the warlock and kineticist are overpowered. Since a mid-level caster has more spells per day than he needs, having infinite at-will spells (or spell-likes) isn't particularly more powerful.

So basically, unless you have a solo campaign or a ridiculous amount of encounters per day, having twice as many spell slots (or spells known) just doesn't have that big an impact.

[Dimers]

More spells known does indeed make a difference in play, because everything you know, you have prepared. A non-omniscient wizard/druid/cleric doesn't have that advantage. If the handful of spells they prep aren't right for the situations they face, it's a major part of their power lost.

Then you add the oracle's hit points, skill points, skill list, curse, revelations and spells that are useful to the PARTY instead of just the one CHARACTER ... Yes, the gestalt makes a significantly better contribution to a party's success.

[Gnaeus]

Yes, minionmancy is great for your action economy. However, a sorc//oracle isn't particularly better at summoning than a plain sorcerer. Nor is he particularly better at long duration buffs either.
Protection from Arrows? Life Bubble? Speechreader's Sight? Overland Flight? Defending Bone? Looks to me like the sorc has plenty of long-term buffs by itself. And since this thread has the Pathfinder tag, there's not a lot of good swift or immediate action spells in existence.

Not a lot, but some good ones. Dazzling blade on armor spikes for swift action blind. Stone shield, wave shield, and wendy escape for immediate attack counters. Liberating command of in a group. Grace for escaping nearby enemies to cast. And at higher level emergency force sphere, forceful strike, and cold ice strike.

Yeah. And false life (and greater). Greater Magic Weapon. Resinous Skin. Eyes of the Void. Protection from energy. Echolocation. Ghost Wolf. Lesser Simulacrum. Heroes feast. Oh, clerics have some nice long duration buffs too. Remove fear. Magic Vestments. Freedom of movement. How many spells do you have to prebuff?



The exception is a solo campaign, because then you'd really want an arcane caster with healing ability. But solo campaigns are very rare, and the OP didn't mention anything about going solo.

He didn’t say it wasn’t. Even if it was a party, that doesn’t mean there’s a better than oracle healer. Maybe there’s a Druid. Or an evil cleric. Or a good cleric who for some strange reason isn’t memorizing 4 restorations and 4 death wards. Maybe the cleric didn’t want to be a healbot. Or maybe, in the spirit of action economy and teamwork, the Gestalt told the cleric to prep fighting and utility spells and leave the downtime healing to the guy with 14 slots/level.

It’s one of the ways a gestalt is better than its component parts. A normal oracle probably would skip some utility cures, because he needs spells to cast during fights. A cleric has to pick the right utility cures and the right number. The gestalt has plenty of spells known so will always have the exact correct number of Neutralize Poisons, whether that is 0 or 3.



The same principle applies: a spontaneous full caster is almost certainly more versatile. A sorc//oracle... isn't particularly more versatile than a pure sorc, in that regard: almost all versatile/utility spells are already on the sorc list (except for healing, but the OP said nothing about solo campaigns).

I mean, obviously getting more is better. But a sorc generally has more spells per day than he needs; so adding more spells on top of that is not all that much better. The sorc's spell list is overall more powerful than the cleric's, so having both lists is not all that much better than just the sorc list.

Having available spells from both is. Polymorph line spell (with 3/4 BAB) followed by divine power hitting things with forceful strike is better than Polymorph line spell alone. I agree that the cleric list is slightly worse. But it has good spells that sorcerers don’t get (like FoM and death ward) and a lot of spells that are good on both lists, like Summon Monsters, and a lot of staple abjurations. And a few good spells, like Animate Dead, that he gets at lower level.



What's 2 first and a second for any mid-level caster? This is a great example of how "more than you need" times two is still "more than you need".

Aside from the fact that I’m disputing your all you need claim, no character in the game that I’m aware of has Blood Money and Lesser Restoration on his list.



It's the same reasoning why many people (wrongly) think the warlock and kineticist are overpowered. Since a mid-level caster has more spells per day than he needs, having infinite at-will spells (or spell-likes) isn't particularly more powerful.

So basically, unless you have a solo campaign or a ridiculous amount of encounters per day, having twice as many spell slots (or spells known) just doesn't have that big an impact.

That 11th Level 22 int wizard has 32 spells memorized. Say 5, 6 round fights, or 6 5 round ones. That ISNT a ridiculous number of encounters. That assumes that he used only 2 long term buffs (say mage armor and overland flight). That he used 0 divinations. 0 swift action or quickened spells or summons or short duration buffs before he opened a door. 0 utility spells. No heals of course. And it assumes that his first level spells are meaningful in ecl 11 fights and that all his memorized spells are useful.
The Vanilla Sorcerer is down to 1st and 2nds.
The gestalt can cast every one of those long term buffs we discussed, use his 5th level slots for quickened spells, fight the 30 round day, with heals, and divinations, and a buff or summon before every encounter and still have slots left.

Now, functionally, you are correct, it doesn’t look like that. Because the wizard and Sorcerer aren’t casting their 1st level spells. They pull out wands and staves and scrolls and pearls of power. Because they don’t actually have all the slots they want. At which point the Gestalt spends the same money on something else. Most likely metamagic rods.

And that’s at 11! Yes, that’s mid level. But so is 7. A wizard specialist 7 22 int has 20 spells, 7 first. A Sorcerer 7 has 21. Gestalt has about 42. That means he can do a solid prebuff routine, still have 2 3rd level spells per encounter in a 4 encounter day, with all the rest of his battle spells 2nds, and still heal the party after the fight.

And none of that takes into account the oracle revelations. Those are kind of build specific, but free boosts to your play style spells. Shadow, for example, has one that counts as spell focus for purposes of getting summoning feats. Flame has one that sets people who fail saves vs fire spells on fire. Elemental gives standard action meatshield summoning. Those all look better on the gestalt than a base oracle.

[CockroachTeaParty]

As previously mentioned, human FCB sorcerer is basically T1. There is so much sorcerer love in PF. Cheap items like mnemonic vestments, the horror that is Blood Money + Limited Wish, etc. etc. Slapping oracle on top of it is just savory gravy.

Human FCB sorcerer is so good that every time I consider making an arcanist (never really put it through its paces), I inevitably end up staring at sorcerer and that tasty human FCB and start to sweat profusely. With an oracle gestalt it's even better, as previously mentioned you could dump boring but useful cleric spells that overlap with the arcane list: summon monster, resist / protection from energy, freedom of movement, etc. Lots of good defensive buffs.

[Rynjin]

As previously mentioned, human FCB sorcerer is basically T1. There is so much sorcerer love in PF. Cheap items like mnemonic vestments, the horror that is Blood Money + Limited Wish, etc. etc. Slapping oracle on top of it is just savory gravy.

Human FCB sorcerer is so good that every time I consider making an arcanist (never really put it through its paces), I inevitably end up staring at sorcerer and that tasty human FCB and start to sweat profusely. With an oracle gestalt it's even better, as previously mentioned you could dump boring but useful cleric spells that overlap with the arcane list: summon monster, resist / protection from energy, freedom of movement, etc. Lots of good defensive buffs.

You, uh, might want to check the list of Arcanist FCBs again.

[CockroachTeaParty]

You, uh, might want to check the list of Arcanist FCBs again.

Mind pointing it out?

The main thing that makes me prefer sorcerer is the limited daily spell slots arcanists receive, and the fact that their limited spells prepared inevitably affords them less versatility than a sorcerer with just a boatload of spells known, no hassle (on a given day). I know they can use their points to swap spells out and get more slots(?), but it's ultimately more of a headache than just being a magical sledgehammer.

[Rynjin]

Mind pointing it out?

The main thing that makes me prefer sorcerer is the limited daily spell slots arcanists receive, and the fact that their limited spells prepared inevitably affords them less versatility than a sorcerer with just a boatload of spells known, no hassle (on a given day). I know they can use their points to swap spells out and get more slots(?), but it's ultimately more of a headache than just being a magical sledgehammer.

Sure: "Human Add one spell from the arcanist spell list to the arcanist’s spellbook. The spell must be at least 1 spell level below the highest level the arcanist can cast."

I like Sorcerers too, but I gotta admit Exploits are a tempting feature.

[Seto]

I feel like this thread really needs to specify whether it applies in real play or in theoretical optimization.

At any real table I've been in, which is to say low to mid-OP, the gestalt would outshine the T1 full-caster, no questions asked. I mean, good chassis, twice the spells slot, both divine and arcane capabilities, without mentioning the bloodline goodies and oracle powers? Especially at low levels, everyone would find it broken. I'll grant you that it could be different at high-OP tables, but I've never met those in practice.

Same applies to the debate about the relevancy of numerous spell slots. Looking at the Sorcerer's spells per day, I tend to agree with Kurald that once you're mid-level, it's probably more than you'd need on most days. However, if your DM puts you through a particularly fast-paced or unforgiving dungeon crawl? You might well start to appreciate the extra slots, even the ones you thought you'd never use.

If it's theorycrafting we're talking about, the question is totally different, and I could see the T1 caster come on top compared to the gestalt.

[Rynjin]

If it's theorycrafting we're talking about, the question is totally different, and I could see the T1 caster come on top compared to the gestalt.

I think even with theorycrafting the gestalt comes out on top. Paragon Surge is a helluva drug. And from what I understand the TO crowd around here considers FAQs and erratas irrelevant; you use the most broken variant of whatever you're trying to op for.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

In the case of a spellbook caster, it's actually a far from certain thing whether they have more spells known than the Orasorc in the first place.

For example, a 10th level Orasorc has 15 base spells known from each of his classes (arranged 5/4/3/2/1 - this ignores cantrips), plus 4 spells from his bloodline and 5 from his mystery, for a total of 39 spells known:

12 1st level
10 2nd level
8 3rd level
6 4th level
3 5th level

95 spell levels in all.

Meanwhile, the wizard starts with 3 1st level spells in their spellbook and adds 2 spells to it for free at each level up. Assuming they always add a spell of max level, they thus wind up with 21 total spells from level up:

5 1st level
4 2nd level
4 3rd level
4 4th level
4 5th level.

61 spell levels in all.

In other words, except for their very highest level of spell a spellbook caster has to go to quite significant effort (and expenditure of gp) before they can even theoretically match the Orasorc's versatility. Adding that many spells to your spellbook is hardly an insurmountable task, of course, but it isn't nothing either - and there is certainly the possibility that the spells you find are not exactly the spells you want.

Doing so gets even harder if the Orasorc uses any of the many means of gaining extra spells known, such as the aforementioned human sorc favoured class bonus (also the human oracle fcb, for that matter).

[Gnaeus]

In the case of a spellbook caster, it's actually a far from certain thing whether they have more spells known than the Orasorc in the first place.

For example, a 10th level Orasorc has 15 base spells known from each of his classes (arranged 5/4/3/2/1 - this ignores cantrips), plus 4 spells from his bloodline and 5 from his mystery, for a total of 39 spells known:

12 1st level
10 2nd level
8 3rd level
6 4th level
3 5th level

95 spell levels in all.

Meanwhile, the wizard starts with 3 1st level spells in their spellbook and adds 2 spells to it for free at each level up. Assuming they always add a spell of max level, they thus wind up with 21 total spells from level up:

5 1st level
4 2nd level
4 3rd level
4 4th level
4 5th level.

61 spell levels in all.

In other words, except for their very highest level of spell a spellbook caster has to go to quite significant effort (and expenditure of gp) before they can even theoretically match the Orasorc's versatility. Adding that many spells to your spellbook is hardly an insurmountable task, of course, but it isn't nothing either - and there is certainly the possibility that the spells you find are not exactly the spells you want.

Doing so gets even harder if the Orasorc uses any of the many means of gaining extra spells known, such as the aforementioned human sorc favoured class bonus (also the human oracle fcb, for that matter).

Yeah I assumed that one FCB or the other (probably sorc) was in use when I calculated the spells known above. Seemed too obvious to skip. If the half elf 2 favored class thing doubles up in gestalt (I’d rule no, but I’d ask as a player) it (along with paragon surge) makes Half Elf a clear winner.

[The Insanity]

It is for actual play.
Assume that the more op options are either banned or errataed/FAQed/houseruled to be more sane (human fcb is fine, half-elf doubling isn't, for example).
Any suggestions on how to bring Sorc//Orac closer in line with T1? The result doesn't necessarily have to be T1, I just want it to be competetive with Wizards, Clerics, Druids, etc.
Would giving spells known and slots of just one class, but access to Sorc and Orac spell lists work? Or maybe keep double spell slots or spells known?
I also wont mind ideas on how to buff Sorc and Orac seperately.

[Ramza00]

Why isn't playing an Arcanist not an option?

[upho]

Yes, minionmancy is great for your action economy. However, a sorc//oracle isn't particularly better at summoning than a plain sorcerer. Nor is he particularly better at long duration buffs either.
...
Looks to me like the sorc has plenty of long-term buffs by itself.This is all true, but it appears you're forgetting that neither a sorcerer or an oracle by themselves, nor a prepared caster, has anywhere near the slots to keep all the worthwhile buffs going (or even access to all of them) at maximum effect and also be able to spam the best combat spells in most games. This gestalt however, typically does.

As mentioned, practically any caster of course complements their lower level slots with wands, scrolls and pearls etc, but that won't be nearly enough to catch up with the gestalt who can not only afford to cast most of these spells at their own CL but also more/better items improving the spells they cast themselves and related class features (rods, robe of arcane heritage, ring of revelation, amulet of the spirits, etc).

But don't take my word for it; try building say an 11th level version of this gestalt consisting of say an abyssal sorcerer opted for summoning and/or a bones or juju oracle opted for necromancy, with as many great support/utility spells as you can fit, and compare the result to any T1 build of the same level. Regardless of whether you compare these builds when adventuring solo or with a party, and regardless of whether you look at a campaign/game style including a few or several appropriately challenging combats per day, I'm certain you'll find the gestalt is superior, most likely vastly so in the more combat focused typical PF campaigns (and even more so if also solo of course).


And since this thread has the Pathfinder tag, there's not a lot of good swift or immediate action spells in existence.Sure, but those that do exist definitely grant a very real edge to a PC who can afford to cast them repeatedly without notably impairing their casting effectiveness otherwise.


The exception is a solo campaign, because then you'd really want an arcane caster with healing ability.Sorry, but I don't get this; why would native access to healing be a high priority in a solo campaign? As mentioned, I don't think any single class/archetype beats the Master Summoner when it comes to going solo, and I can't really see how native access to healing would make it notably more superior.


I mean, obviously getting more is better. But a sorc generally has more spells per day than he needs; so adding more spells on top of that is not all that much better. The sorc's spell list is overall more powerful than the cleric's, so having both lists is not all that much better than just the sorc list.Well, compare say a mid-level wizard's spells in the top three slot levels when prepared for a "typical adventuring day" with those of this gestalt at the same level. Even if you do this only at uneven levels when the wizard is a spell level ahead, I find it hard to believe you honestly think the gestalt's much greater number of top slots isn't going to make it a more effective adventurer on the whole. Even more so if you again also consider that the wizard's earlier spell access matters less since the gestalt has money to spare on higher level scrolls, not having nearly as great need of buying "extra slots" as the wizard or a non-gestalt sorcerer or oracle. Perhaps most notably, this means the gestalt can in most games far more easily afford at least as early access as the wizard to more game-changing stuff like binding and create undead spells.

And as mentioned, having more spells known also definitely matters. So when comparing the adventuring effectiveness granted by the casting of a non-gestalt sorcerer or oracle and this gestalt relative that of a prepared full caster, another important difference is that the prepared caster doesn't have nearly as great versatility advantage over the gestalt as it has over the non-gestalt sorcerer or oracle.


It's the same reasoning why many people (wrongly) think the warlock and kineticist are overpowered.Yes, except the warlock and kinny would be overpowered if their abilities actually were as powerful as the highest level spells this gestalt has.


Since a mid-level caster has more spells per day than he needs, having infinite at-will spells (or spell-likes) isn't particularly more powerful.Yes, assuming the power of those at-wills only correspond to that of the strongest spells this mid-level caster can cast from slots at the very least two levels below his highest level slots, and that the campaign is about as easy as your typical Paizo AP. IOW, what you're saying here is certainly true to some extent, but it's far far from universally true, as in reality the advantage of spell spamming is of course highly dependent on the power and versatility of the spell(s) spammed relative the general difficulty/power level of the game.

This is also very obvious when looking at the advantages granted by an actually powerful spell spamming ability, such as the Master Summoner's SM SLA. As you know, this ability allows the summoner to cast one of the strongest and most versatile spells of each spell level in the game typically more than eight times per day, while a same level a wizard can typically at best cast the same spell three times per day. And this "power-spam"-ability is of course by far the greatest reason why the Master Summoner can handle a more challenging/solo game from an earlier level than any other class/archetype, why it's so much more powerful than the poor kinny without even trying, and why it typically remains at the very least as effective in combat as the wizard also in later levels. (That is of course unless or until the game is at such a high power level many of the more important opponents are beyond even the strongest super-boosted SM critters a PC of the relevant level can muster.)

So while the Master Summoner's SM SLA wouldn't be considerably more powerful in most games if it was limited to say 8+Cha/day instead of the current 5+Cha/day, that 5+Cha/day is certainly vastly more powerful than the same level wizard's maximum 3/day. The fact that the SM SLA also has a minutes duration instead of the spell's normal rounds duration is a relatively minor advantage after the first levels.


So basically, unless you have a solo campaign or a ridiculous amount of encounters per day, having twice as many spell slots (or spells known) just doesn't have that big an impact.Are you seriously claiming that outside of a solo campaign or one with "a ridiculous amount of encounters per day", the kinny's at-will abilities are "basically" as powerful as the Master Summoner's SM SLA?


He didn’t say it wasn’t. Even if it was a party, that doesn’t mean there’s a better than oracle healer.And again, it's not like the native access to healing spells is what makes or breaks this gestalt, regardless of whether we're talking about adventuring solo or with a party.


Or maybe, in the spirit of action economy and teamwork, the Gestalt told the cleric to prep fighting and utility spells and leave the downtime healing to the guy with 14 slots/level.And this.


It’s one of the ways a gestalt is better than its component parts. A normal oracle probably would skip some utility cures, because he needs spells to cast during fights. A cleric has to pick the right utility cures and the right number. The gestalt has plenty of spells known so will always have the exact correct number of Neutralize Poisons, whether that is 0 or 3.Exactly. And the same general principle also applies to tons of spells in categories other than healing.


I think even with theorycrafting the gestalt comes out on top. Paragon Surge is a helluva drug. And from what I understand the TO crowd around here considers FAQs and erratas irrelevant; you use the most broken variant of whatever you're trying to op for.I believe that is only valid for 3.5 FAQs and not reprinted errata, as those rules aren't as official as those in actual print (and the FAQs are generally also more messed up than the PF ones). PF errata and FAQs, even if only found online, on the other hand very explicitly take precedence over anything written previously, in actual print or not. In short, going against PF errata and FAQ is going against RAW and most definitely not something I've ever heard "the TO crowd around here" consider irrelevant.

But regardless, also a "free" feat for minutes/level is still worth a spell known for this gestalt, even if the feat choice can no longer be made also with each casting after the first each day.

[The Insanity]

Why isn't playing an Arcanist not an option?
It isn't not an option, if that's what you want to play. But playing an Arcanist does nothing to improve the Sorcerer or Oracle.

[Gnaeus]

It is for actual play.
Assume that the more op options are either banned or errataed/FAQed/houseruled to be more sane (human fcb is fine, half-elf doubling isn't, for example).
Any suggestions on how to bring Sorc//Orac closer in line with T1? The result doesn't necessarily have to be T1, I just want it to be competetive with Wizards, Clerics, Druids, etc.
Would giving spells known and slots of just one class, but access to Sorc and Orac spell lists work? Or maybe keep double spell slots or spells known?
I also wont mind ideas on how to buff Sorc and Orac seperately.

I think that in most games that Sorcerer (Oracle slightly less) is competitive with Wizard/Cleric/Druid by itself. It isn’t far behind. Has your group found differently? Tier discussion aside, at most tables the difference between a wizard and sorcerer will be less than the difference in system mastery between the 2 players. I played a PF sorcerer 1-18. I always outperformed the Druid (because of varying player skill), and I only really felt behind the Cleric at level 17 when he had Gate and I had summon monster 8.

Just giving access to both lists would work. It would basically result in oracle chassis with revelations and sorcerer spells (it would completely obsolete the Sorcerer, but so would the gestalt so no further issue there).There aren’t a lot of cleric spells that you would take preferentially to sorcerer ones. Just a few as mentioned that come a level early. So you would essentially be giving sorcerer 3/4 bab, cure spells, revelations, and medium armor casting. I’d play that.

The biggest difference between PF Sorcerer and wizard is the wizards faster spell progression. If you wanted sorc to equal wizard without giving oracle stuff you should change spell progression so Sorc gets higher level spells on odd levels. Like just bumping them up a level on the slot and spells known chart.

Doubling slots or spells known would probably either also work. Neither one alone is huge. (Doubling spells known would help Oracle more than sorcerer I think. Spell for spell they aren’t as versatile and there are a lot of niche condition heals and specialty spells). My biggest complaint about just doubling sorcerer spells known is that it might make all sorcs play a little samey, since there won’t be a lot of hard spell choices when you just take all the good spells.

[The Insanity]

I think that in most games that Sorcerer (Oracle slightly less) is competitive with Wizard/Cleric/Druid by itself. It isn’t far behind. Has your group found differently?
Yes. The player who thus far played a Wizard tried a Sorc for a change and was dissapointed by the much lower flexibility. The spontaneus casting was right up his alley, but not being able to change your day-to-day spell selection or expanding his versatility didn't sit right with him.


Just giving access to both lists would work. It would basically result in oracle chassis with revelations and sorcerer spells (it would completely obsolete the Sorcerer, but so would the gestalt so no further issue there).There aren’t a lot of cleric spells that you would take preferentially to sorcerer ones. Just a few as mentioned that come a level early. So you would essentially be giving sorcerer 3/4 bab, cure spells, revelations, and medium armor casting. I’d play that.
(...)
Doubling slots or spells known would probably either also work. Neither one alone is huge. (Doubling spells known would help Oracle more than sorcerer I think. Spell for spell they aren’t as versatile and there are a lot of niche condition heals and specialty spells). My biggest complaint about just doubling sorcerer spells known is that it might make all sorcs play a little samey, since there won’t be a lot of hard spell choices when you just take all the good spells.
Just so there's no misunderstanding, what I meant here is to still gestalt Sorc and Orac (combine their class features and spell lists), but without doubling the spellcasting or doubling either spells known or spell slots.


The biggest difference between PF Sorcerer and wizard is the wizards faster spell progression. If you wanted sorc to equal wizard without giving oracle stuff you should change spell progression so Sorc gets higher level spells on odd levels. Like just bumping them up a level on the slot and spells known chart.
In our games all full casters already get new spell levels as fast a Sorcerers. I doubt bringing Sorcerers and Oracles up to Wizard/Cleric spell progression would help much.

[Ramza00]

It is for actual play.
Assume that the more op options are either banned or errataed/FAQed/houseruled to be more sane (human fcb is fine, half-elf doubling isn't, for example).
Any suggestions on how to bring Sorc//Orac closer in line with T1? The result doesn't necessarily have to be T1, I just want it to be competetive with Wizards, Clerics, Druids, etc.
Would giving spells known and slots of just one class, but access to Sorc and Orac spell lists work? Or maybe keep double spell slots or spells known?
I also wont mind ideas on how to buff Sorc and Orac seperately.

Why isn't playing an Arcanist not an option?

It isn't not an option, if that's what you want to play. But playing an Arcanist does nothing to improve the Sorcerer or Oracle.

So if Arcanist is not an option, and you are asking how to "homebrew" (if I understand correctly) then I would look into Learned Sorcerer Archetype (4 Winds Fantasy Gaming; Strategists and Tacticians. opyright 2010, Author Ryan Costello, Jr.)

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/archetypes/4-winds-fantasy-gaming-sorcerer-archetypes/learned-sorcery/

You can read the text above but let me summarize it.

Keep: Bloodline (for flavor), and the Bloodline Class Skill Changes
Lose: Bloodline Arcana, all Bloodline Powers, Bloodline Feats, and Bloodline Spells.
Gain as in New: When you gain a new spell level (thus At 1st, 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 12th, 14th, 16th, 18th levels) you gain a Learned Sorcery Spell Known Slot, where you gain a new "sorcerer spell known" of that high level and you can fill that spell slot up with a spell you prepare from a spell book.
To prepare this spell known slot you must like a wizard get 8 hours of rest (to refresh your spells known) and spend 1 hour of preparation like a normal wizard.


Clarity Fix with this 3rd Party / Homebrew Archetype: A normal wizard takes 1 hour to fill up all their spell slots, but also can fill 0% to 25% of his spell slots in 15 minutes. See here.
http://legacy.aonprd.com/coreRuleBook/magic.html#preparing-wizard-spells
Thus I would allow a sorcerer to fill his Learned Sorcery Spell Known Slot with a single spell at this ratio.
0 to 3rd level it takes 1 hour (you only have 1 of these slots, 1st level only)
4th to 5th it takes 30 minutes (you now have 2 of these slots, 1st and 2nd level)
6th to 7th it takes 20 minutes (you now have 3 of these slots, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level)
8th + it takes 15 minutes to prepare a single spell slot (you now have 4 of these slots)
In addition I would allow this sorcerer archetype to take a variant of the Wizard Fast Discovery as a feat at or after 5th level of Sorcerer. Allowing the sorcerer to prepare each individual spell slot in a period of 1 minute (10 rounds.)
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard/arcane-discoveries/arcane-discoveries-paizo/fast-study/


Congratulation you now have a sorcerer which is tier 1. For example a 10th level sorcerer (without the oracle casting) would have these spells known and these spells per day if he had 26 Cha.
5/ 4/ 3/ 2/ 1 Spells Known plus
1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1 Learned Sorcery Spell Known Slot changeable each day plus
8/ 8/ 8/ 7/ 4 Spell Slots per day

vs a level 10 wizard who does not have specialist slots and has 26 Int.
6/ 6/ 5/ 5/ 3
And if you have a specialist spell slot (which some archetypes remove) it would be 7/ 7/ 6 / 6/ 4 plus the Wizard also gets the bonus feats and so on that the Sorcerer does not.

-----

Taking an Oracle Gestalt on top of the Learned Sorcerer Archetype would be easily where the Oracle + Sorcerer is superior where just having the Sorcerer with the Learned Sorcerer archetype by itself is trading blows with the T1 Wizard depending on your play style.

It is up to you, but I think you are making this too difficult for some reason. The Arcanist exists for a reason.

[The Insanity]

I don't feel like gutting the Sorcerer of almost all of his features (which are the reason someone might want to play him in the first place) just to turn him into a worse Wizard is the way to go... not in my opinion, at least.
And Arcanist exists to be a new class that's a unique blend of Wizard and Sorcerer, not to replace either of them.

[Ramza00]

I don't feel like gutting the Sorcerer of almost all of his features (which are the reason someone might want to play him in the first place) just to turn him into a worse Wizard is the way to go... not in my opinion, at least.
And Arcanist exists to be a new class that's a unique blend of Wizard and Sorcerer, not to replace either of them.

You want your cake and also want to eat it. Well the reason this idiom exists is sometimes you must share your cake with other people at the table.

A Wizard whole "schtick" , its gimmick, is its versatility of spellcasting if it knows ahead of time what to prepare. It also gets some bonus feats to give you even more flexibility to the chasis but the bonus feats "lock your wizard" into a style to differ him from another wizard.

You want a sorcerer to have the same wizard schtick, plus keep its sorcerer spontaneous casting schtick, but also it can't lose the schticks that make sorcerers into sorcerers flavor wise with bloodline powers, feats, spells, etc.

Perhaps you want to play a different system that does not have classes at all but instead allows you to buy class features, feats, skills, etc with a set amount of points?

[The Insanity]

I stated my reasons and intent. If you disagree then that's fine, but I won't engage further in this pointless argument. You're free to ignore this thread, but if you insist on posting then take my opinions into consideration.
Back to the topic.
Would making Sorcerers and Oracles (or even spont. casters in general) actually better at metamagic, instead of making it harder for them to use it, something that could potentially work?

[Dimers]

Metamagic is a good suggestion. You could give feats for free, or reduce the cost a certain amount, or make choice spells always-metamagicked like the 3.5 wu jen. Cost reduction might look like "ignore half your level plus your Cha modifier in spell level increases per day, maximum one level per casting until 12th, max two levels after that".

I also liked your idea of combining all class features except spells known and spells per day. I don't think it's necessary, mind; I agree with Gnaeus that a vanilla sorcerer or oracle can play just fine with T1s of the same optimization level and player skill. But a boost won't hurt interclass balance. Mysteries and bloodlines are good for mechanically-supported flavor while adding a little versatility or power, and it's hard to say no to more of that combo!

[Gnaeus]

The 2 metamagics it will want most are quicken, which works fine, and extend, for pushing long duration buffs into the next adventuring day. If you want to remove the casting time extensions for metamagic that won’t break much, but I think if you start adding additional free feats or especially metamagic cost reducers you are in danger of really overpowering it. Cost reducers on metamagic break things easily.

[CockroachTeaParty]

Sure: "Human Add one spell from the arcanist spell list to the arcanist’s spellbook. The spell must be at least 1 spell level below the highest level the arcanist can cast."

I like Sorcerers too, but I gotta admit Exploits are a tempting feature.

That FCB is pretty meh. It's worse than the sorcerer one really. A sorcerer gets a spell known, and it's on-tap 100% of the time. An arcanist getting spells into their book is fine, but requires expenditure of resources to have it prepared guaranteed; you can also burn money to put spells in your book. Arcanists' daily spells prepared is so constrained that they feel like a gimped sorcerer on any given day.

And while there are some okay exploits, most of them can be replicated by wise feat choices or the better sorcerer bloodlines.

[Gnaeus]

I decided to build one. Just to see what it looks like. Not promising highest op but it’s similar to what I would play.

Moonchild: Oracle (Spirit Guide Archetype)/Sorcerer partial gestalt
Lunar Mystery/Arcane Bloodline, Lame curse
Str 13, Dex 7, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 20 (25 point buy)

Level 1: feat: Noble Scion (war)
Arcane Bond: Familiar (this could be any of the normal choices. Pick it for scouting, fighting, UMD or the stat boost)
Revelation: primal companion: tiger or bear
L1 Spells: mage Armor or grease, sleep, cure light wounds
AC 16 (breastplate+large shield -2 Dex), HP 11
Take mage armor if your DM frowns on leather barding on your pet. You act like a control caster while your tiger contributes damage.

L3: feat: extra Revelation (Prophetic Armor, use Cha instead of Dex for AC and reflex saves)
AC 21 prebuffed (Chain shirt+large shield +5 cha) hp 27
L1 spells: mage armor or color spray, sleep, grease, cure light wounds, identify, fumbletongue,
Like level 1. Tiger fights, you control or heal or melee as you prefer. You get a wandering spirit (shaman class feature) so that’s one of a couple dozen hexes selected daily.

L5: feat: summon good monster
L1 spells: mage armor or color spray, grease, summon monster 1, protection from evil, liberating command, wendy escape, cure light wounds, identify, fumbletongue, bonus shaman spirit spell
L2 spells: summon monster 2, false life, cure moderate wounds, invisibility, dust of twilight, bonus shaman spirit spell
I’m a big fan of summons on spont casters. (They cover damage, control and movement, and provide secondary casting, You get some versatility by cycling your wandering spirit. You cast false life on the AC and then make it the cornerstone of your summons strategy.

L7 feat: spell focus conjuration, augment summoning
L1 spells: mage armor or magic missile, grease, summon monster 1, protection from evil, liberating command, blood money, wendy escape, cure light wounds, identify, fumbletongue, bonus shaman spirit spell
L2 spells: summon monster 2, false life, lesser restoration, scorching ray, alter self, cure moderate wounds, invisibility, dust of twilight, bonus shaman spirit spell
L3 spells: summon monster 3, animate dead, cure serious wounds, dispel magic, rage, bonus shaman spirit spell
We now get the spirit ability for our wandering spirit. Our +2 BAB advantage over sorcerer covers the last disadvantage to dumping dex. Our tiger is now the second line behind the undead.

L9 feat: dazing spell
L1 spells: mage armor or magic missile, grease, summon monster 1, protection from evil, liberating command, blood money, wendy escape, cure light wounds, identify, fumbletongue, bonus shaman spirit spell
L2 spells: summon monster 2, false life, lesser restoration, scorching ray, alter self, resist energy, cure moderate wounds, invisibility, dust of twilight, bonus shaman spirit spell
L3 spells: summon monster 3, animate dead, haste, fly, fireball, paragon surge cure serious wounds, dispel magic, rage, bonus shaman spirit spell
L4 spells: emergency force sphere, summon monster 4, greater invisibility, moonstruck, dimension door, cure critical wounds, bonus shaman spell

L11 feat: improved familiar
Revelation: form of the beast (wildshape)
L1 spells: mage armor or magic missile, grease, summon monster 1, protection from evil, liberating command, blood money, wendy escape, cure light wounds, identify, fumbletongue, bonus shaman spirit spell
L2 spells: summon monster 2, false life, lesser restoration, scorching ray, alter self, resist energy, fog cloud, cure moderate wounds, invisibility, dust of twilight, bonus shaman spirit spell
L3 spells: summon monster 3, animate dead, haste, fly, fireball, paragon surge, cure serious wounds, dispel magic, rage, bonus shaman spirit spell
L4 spells: emergency force sphere, summon monster 4, stone skin, greater invisibility, forceful strike, moonstruck, dimension door, cure critical wounds, bonus shaman spell
L5 spells: summon monster V, lesser planar binding, aspect of the wolf, overland flight, mass clw, bonus shaman spirit spell

So not unexpectedly, looks a lot like a sorcerer. Could have gotten better mystery spells (lunar is pretty bad) but I think the pet will help at low levels more than a slightly better spell selection, and it let me take arcane for good spells. I think the wandering shaman spirit, with its hex/spells known/powers will give it a little day-day customizability. With mount+familiar+undead+bound outsiders+summons should be on top of the action game. Will probably take quicken at 13. It can blast, summon, cure, melee, buff.

I’d feel very comfortable playing that beside a wizard/cleric/Druid.

[Thunder999]

Still worse than a tier 1. The fact is that you still don't have the versatility of a prepared caster.

This is especially true for the oracle side, because the cleric/oracle list has a lot of situational spells and not nearly as many spells you'd want to cast more than once per fight and the difference between knowing the entire thing and knowing just a small subset is huge. The cleric is fine preparing that remove disease, remove curse, dispel evil, etc. as needed, the oracle either wastes a spell known on something that rarely gets used, or uses scrolls, and in pathfinder those spells require caster level checks, so scrolls just don't cut it.
Sorcerer vs wizard or arcanist isn't quite so bad, it costs the wizard/arcanist time and money to add spells, so the difference in spells known isn't quite as huge, but it's still very much there, the arcanist still does everything the sorcerer can thanks to archetypes and both fast study and quick study still exist for grabbing a spell you didn't prepare.

The gestalt still has all the things keeping them out of tier 1.

[Gnaeus]

Still worse than a tier 1. The fact is that you still don't have the versatility of a prepared caster.

This is especially true for the oracle side, because the cleric/oracle list has a lot of situational spells and not nearly as many spells you'd want to cast more than once per fight and the difference between knowing the entire thing and knowing just a small subset is huge. The cleric is fine preparing that remove disease, remove curse, dispel evil, etc. as needed, the oracle either wastes a spell known on something that rarely gets used, or uses scrolls, and in pathfinder those spells require caster level checks, so scrolls just don't cut it.
Sorcerer vs wizard or arcanist isn't quite so bad, it costs the wizard/arcanist time and money to add spells, so the difference in spells known isn't quite as huge, but it's still very much there, the arcanist still does everything the sorcerer can thanks to archetypes and both fast study and quick study still exist for grabbing a spell you didn't prepare.

The gestalt still has all the things keeping them out of tier 1.

You keep using that word versatility. I do not think it means what you think it means.

1. For the wizard to have more versatility, he must have more spells. He gets 4 by default. The gestalt gets 6-7 it can choose, 3-4 more it can’t. If you know 7 spells, so you have found/scribed 3, there is no combination of 6 spells that beats the spontaneous caster.

2. Assuming that the wizard knows as many spells as the Soracle, his spells must themselves be at least as versatile. The Soracle gets some spells (like animate dead) earlier. He gets other spells that the wizard doesn’t get (like death ward, or freedom of movement). The Soracle also gets BETTER use from some of his spells. Any Polymorph spell, any touch or ranged touch, is better for the Soracle than the wizard, because better BAB and more HP make combat forms more useful and attacks more likely to land. The Soracle also has access to a category of spells that the wizard lacks, heals. The wizard also likely (if we are taking our spells/day calculations seriously) has 2 prohibited schools which cost double to prep, so he probably isn’t learning spells from those schools that he doesn’t absolutely need.

3. Assuming that he knows as many spells and they are as good, you must also subtract out spells that duplicate base abilities. For example, the wizard likely preps (or buys a wand to cast, functionally the same thing) mage armor and shield. Solid spells. If the Soracle has a breastplate and large shield, he has the same AC without wasting spells known or cast.

4. Taking all that into account, the wizard must then have accurate knowledge of what he will be fighting. If he gets it wrong he can be screwed. Yes, he can leave a few slots open. But if the ghosts in the mansion are actually bandits with an illusionist boss he could easily be saddled with the wrong stuff.

5. Then you have to take into account tactical flexibility. Are you going to use that spell now and not have it for the boss? What if the right spell is the one you used in the last room. Yes, pearls are a thing, but they are fairly pricy and money you use on them isn’t going elsewhere. And they take an action to use.

6. Then, after all that, the marginal difference in power between the exact right spell and a pretty decent spell has to be enough to outweigh the basic differences in spells/day and non-spell abilities. Like, you know you are fighting a band of stealth assassins. So you take echolocation and it’s the best spell for that fight and use it at just the right time. That will make that fight easier for you. And I go “darn” and summon a vulpinal out of the same slot and he aoe blasts with his holy smites and drops some cures and we win anyway. Maybe I have to burn a few low level slots for heals afterwards, but even if you have the exact right spell, if I have more spells/day, there is no guarantee that you spent a lower % of your daily resources than I did. In this case, I have more spells/day, and hexes, and revelations.

Even after all that, there are still sometimes when the wizard is better. There are unquestionably advantages to prepared casting. But imagining that T1 is some kind of insurmountable barrier is forumthink gone wrong. Sometimes you can have a wider range of abilities and still be beaten by a guy with better attacks and more hp. Most fights in me experience ultimately come down to numbers.

[Rynjin]

I'm kind of confused by the general tone of this thread thinking that "worse than a tier 1" is a bad thing.

Tiers 1 and 5 are the pinnacles of poorly designed classes in any 3.X variant; anything below 1 and above 5 is progressively more balanced and good for the table's overall health to mix together.

Tier 2 is still incredibly flexible and powerful. You can literally do anything with a Tier 2 class; the only "problem" with them is you can't do EVERYTHING.

[Gnaeus]

I'm kind of confused by the general tone of this thread thinking that "worse than a tier 1" is a bad thing.

Tiers 1 and 5 are the pinnacles of poorly designed classes in any 3.X variant; anything below 1 and above 5 is progressively more balanced and good for the table's overall health to mix together.

Tier 2 is still incredibly flexible and powerful. You can literally do anything with a Tier 2 class; the only "problem" with them is you can't do EVERYTHING.

For my play group I agree. We like to cluster around high T3. But if a group plays at T1 power level, worse than a tier 1 is bad.

[The Insanity]

I'm kind of confused by the general tone of this thread thinking that "worse than a tier 1" is a bad thing.
It's not a bad thing, just not our preference.
If for you there's no significant difference between T1 and T2 then more power to you. For us the difference IS significant enough, so we try to fix it, if possible, which I think it is.

[Quertus]

I'm kind of confused by the general tone of this thread thinking that "worse than a tier 1" is a bad thing.

Tiers 1 and 5 are the pinnacles of poorly designed classes in any 3.X variant; anything below 1 and above 5 is progressively more balanced and good for the table's overall health to mix together.

Tier 2 is still incredibly flexible and powerful. You can literally do anything with a Tier 2 class; the only "problem" with them is you can't do EVERYTHING.


For my play group I agree. We like to cluster around high T3. But if a group plays at T1 power level, worse than a tier 1 is bad.

So, the tier list is dumb. What I originally thought Tier 1 meant a) is a niche not actually covered under the tier list; and b) translates roughly to "the character can, in general, actually play the game".

If the adventure / challenge is to close an underwater, extradimensional portal with invisible incorporeal guardians, can your character contribute to that scenario, or are you just wasting time on your phone until you can contribute again, like you would if your character were dead? Or, from the opposite side, is the adventure constrained to be more mundane by the presence of your character? That's how I, personally, tend to evaluate how "good" a class is - and, in that regard, despite how horrible the tier system is, I'll contend that "worse than a Tier 1" is proper phrasing.

Being "worse than a Tier 1", to me, isn't about power, but about making the game enjoyable.

[NigelWalmsley]

As ever, the tiers are good at a specific thing, and bad at other things.

The tiers accurately describe the relative power of classes. Wizards are better than Warblades are better than Fighters. If you want to talk about how powerful two classes are, the tiers are a reasonable tool for doing that.

But there are a lot of things the tiers aren't good at. By focusing heavily on power, the conflate things that should not be conflated, leading to shoddy analysis when people try to generalize from them, rather than try to analyze the classes in whatever particular context they happen to be interested in.

If you want to talk about something other than "how good are classes compared to each other", you should not use the tiers as a yardstick, and should instead look at the traits classes have. And if you do that, it's obvious that different classes have different positive or negative traits, and that those things aren't especially well-correlated with tier.

For example, there's genuinely a lot to commend the Wizard class. Spell preparation gets a bad rap from some people, but it's genuinely a very good marriage of mechanics and theme. It encourages the academic, studious class to study and prepare for challenges. That's good. The fact that Wizards can learn new spells from scrolls means they have a reason to care about treasure that's lacking in classes that are often lauded as "better designed". Specialization, particularly when coupled with all the variants and ACFs that build off it, allows for a degree of customization that's lacking in many other classes.

Spellcasters in general are often derided as "game-breaking", but that's not really accurate. It's more correct to say that they can play a game that non-casters can't (I believe this is what Quertus is getting at). Spellcasters, with a few exceptions like the Warmage and the Healer, have a toolbox of non-combat options that allow them to drive the plot. That's certainly different from martial characters, whose options seldom extend very far beyond skill checks.

Of course, I'd be remiss to go too far off into contrarianism for its own sake here. The Tier 3 classes that are often held up as the pinnacle of design do have advantages casters lack (though many of their claimed ones come from misunderstanding the Tier System and trying to apply its insights in places they don't make sense). Most notable of these advantages are the sheer variety of classes in the tier, and in particular the variety of resource management mechanics. Full casters all work pretty much the same way. You have spell slots, you expend spell slots, you cast spells out of them. Prepared or spontaneous is a wrinkle, but not nearly as much of one as the difference between a Binder and a Crusader.

The idea that 6/9 casters are "more balanced" is pretty absurd (for much the same reason that an amp that goes to 11 isn't any louder), but I think there's a very strong case to be made that six levels of spells is better than nine on other grounds. Primarily, it makes it much easier to create meaningful distinctions between power levels.

The notion that "Tiers 1 and 5 are the pinnacles of poorly designed classes" is a cargo-cult analysis. The tiers are a narrow tool, designed for a particular context. To claim that they give general insight into game design is to reveal a lack of understanding of the subject.

[The Insanity]

Some more brainstorming.
Spont. casters can change their spells known every day, but prep. casters can change their prepped spells whenever with enough time (something like minutes equal to 1 + new spell's level; each spell is done separately).
It would make Sorc and Oracle T1, I think, but also better than regular T1s, on the other hand the modified T1s might step on spont. caster toes too much.

[Calthropstu]

It's definitely strong and can easily compete well. Hell, sorcerers are easily stronger than druids in PF already simply because the druid spell list is such pure and utter crap. I rate PF druids as T2 because their list is just so utterly small and bad, but that's just me though.
It is not the absolute strongest gestalt out there, but definitely top 5. (The absolute strongest is sorcerer/psion because of psychic reformation turning the sorcerer portion into a more powerful and more versatile version of the wizard)
So what does it actually do? Others have done a good comparison, but here's the thing: having access to both cleric AND wizard spells is not to be underestimated. Those 2 classes EASILY have the best lists in the game. Cleric might be a distant second to wizard but it is still definitely second. No other lists even come close.
The real question though:
Does gestalt give you 2 different spell pools for spells known/spells per day? I have seen it ruled by GMs both ways, and legitimate arguments exist for either. If you get Sorc spells per day + Oracle spells per day and Sorc spells known and oracle spells known, you have more than double the spells and a very good selection of the best spells... easily putting you very far ahead. But if you have "spells per day" and can choose between the 2 lists, the gain is much much smaller.

[Jack_Simth]

In your opinion how does a gestalted Sorc//Oracle compare to non-gestalted T1 classes?

Depends a bit on Archetype interpretations, level (mostly "even or odd?"), race picks, a few other bits of build, and some campaign-specific items.


A Spirit Guide (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/oracle/archetypes/paizo-oracle-archetypes/spirit-guide) oracle can pick the Arcane Enlightenment (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/shaman/spirits/lore/#TOC-Hexes) hex at 3rd level.

What that does for an Oracle is a bit fuzzy. There's two questions that need to be asked of the DM, each of which has a set of possible answers:
1) How does this work for the Oracle, being that it lets you prepare spells and Oracles are spontaneous? There's three basic answers:
a) It doesn't. Oracles can't prepare spells.
b) You gain the ability to prepare the selected wizard spells in your spell slots.
c) They're spells from your spirit, so they're treated as spirit magic spells and you can cast them exactly like you would the other spells you get from your spirit (useful at 4th+).
2) Given that I swap spirits daily, can I change those arcane spells out daily by simply binding a different Lore spirit? There's two basic answers:
a) Sure.
b) Nope. You're limited to once per level for that.

1b or 1c, paired with 2a, turns the Oracle into a Tier-1. Which means - at even levels - the boosts from having double class features puts the Oracle/Sorcerer gestalt over the other tier-1's. At odd levels, the extra spell access of the traditional tier-1's might win out. Maybe. It's close.
Two words: Paragon Surge (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/p/paragon-surge/).

Oh, you need more? It grants a bonus feat (which was FAQ'd to require you to pick the same feat with the same decisions on a given day). Grab Expanded Arcana (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/expanded-arcana) to have a floating spell known (or two), that you get to pick on the fly. This makes a Sorcerer or Oracle a "bare minimum" T-1. Gestalting the two then puts the combo over the top... at even levels. At odd levels... eh, much harder to say.

Note that a human with the racial heritage feat could qualify for knowing the spell.
The Planar Binding line lets a Sorcerer "prepare" by way of calling the perfect outsider for the job. Likewise, the Planar Ally line does similarly. Has drawbacks, but once reached, again: Puts the Sorcerer or Oracle to the "bare minimum" T-1 line. And Gestalting means that - at even levels - the gestalt is likely ahead of most Tier-1's.Money & time. Any caster in Pathfinder can craft stuff, if they take the feat. There's a couple of different items for adding spells known to a spontaneous caster in Pathfinder. Most notably, the Page of Spell Knowledge (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/m-p/page-of-spell-knowledge/). If you have enough money and time, the Gestalt may as well be Tier-1.

Also... that's a *lot* of spells known. While no, the gestalt can't really change them out (although do see above), the Gestalt's spells known are going to be comperable to a Wizard's spellbook at even levels.

[upho]

It's not a bad thing, just not our preference.
If for you there's no significant difference between T1 and T2 then more power to you. For us the difference IS significant enough, so we try to fix it, if possible, which I think it is.In which manner do you find the difference significant? Or rather, what would you say builds based on the lower tier classes lack which makes them unable to pull their own weight while for example the druid still can in your games?

While the answer may seem obvious to a lot of people - that not even an alchemist, magus, summoner or human sorcerer can have both enough raw power and enough versatility/adaptability - I believe that answer would only be true if one or both of the following two claims are also mostly true in your games:
1. Many challenges can't be overcome - at least not effectively enough - unless each PC can cast just the right spells of a level demanding full caster progression, but neither finding or preparing the right spells is a problem. (Of course, a part of the reason for such an extreme dependence on spell access may be that the party typically includes only one or two PCs.)

2. The party never ends up in combat against opponents powerful enough to render most or all of their offensive spells and caster minions useless. (When facing truly dangerous opponents, during a large majority of levels one of quite a few more high-op T2 - T4 builds may be of greater value to the party than an equally high-op T1 build. Unless perhaps if your game/GM allows for easy maximum abuse of the most stupidly open-ended caster stuff (like trompe l'oeils), also in higher levels a few of these T2 - T4 builds can allow a party to challenge far more dangerous opponents than the T1s can. If your game includes for example psionics or especially PoW, the mechanical variety and number of such builds possible increases drastically, as does their op ceiling in terms of both their adventurer capabilities in general and their combat prowess in particular.)

IOW, it appears to me that your game has unusually one-sided mechanical demands. It seems to be extremely high-power in terms of its versatility demands, requiring each PC has a significantly greater versatility than the most high-op sorcerer with easy access to scrolls and wands can have. But it doesn't seem to be particularly high-power in terms of its combat prowess demands, not even in higher levels requiring any party member has the "raw numbers power" to fight opponents of a CR greater than say +7.

This one-sided demand for extreme mechanical versatility isn't a bad thing if it's intended and reflects your group's preferences, at least not if you're fine with having to pay for these preferences by being limited to a very small number of existing classes. But I really think you should first have a talk with those in your group about changing the game style if it's instead more of an unforeseen and unwanted effect, perhaps of a slow development nobody has had a reason to question before (for example of a slow largely unintentional "arms race" between the GM and the strongest PCs, especially if there has also long been a strong tendency in your group that the most high-op PCs are T1 classes).


Some more brainstorming.
Spont. casters can change their spells known every day, but prep. casters can change their prepped spells whenever with enough time (something like minutes equal to 1 + new spell's level; each spell is done separately).
It would make Sorc and Oracle T1, I think, but also better than regular T1s, on the other hand the modified T1s might step on spont. caster toes too much.Yes, and it demands even more prep and system mastery from the players, not to mention the poor GM who must be able to challenge PCs able to choose virtually anything level-appropriate from among nearly 2,000 options on the fly.

I think it would be enough to grant the spontaneous full casters say one extra slot per day and spell level in which they can prepare any spell on their list, provided they have access to it in a book or as a scroll.


So, the tier list is dumb.Nah, I'd say the dumb part is how badly a lot of people interpret and apply it incorrectly. It's often ascribed a far greater importance than it should, to some degree probably because its definitions aren't very good, but mostly because people seem to forget the very important related bits it doesn't rank.


Or, from the opposite side, is the adventure constrained to be more mundane by the presence of your character? That's how I, personally, tend to evaluate how "good" a class is - and, in that regard, despite how horrible the tier system is, I'll contend that "worse than a Tier 1" is proper phrasing.That runs both ways, though. I'd say the presence of a T1 is just as much a constraint on the adventure as the presence of a T5, for example by ruling out any investigation/mystery type stories/challenges which aren't wholly in the realm of magic already.

And I have to say that the logic of calling the T1 and T5 classes the worst is flawless from an overall game design PoV. When looking at the hypothetical average mean and mode versatility of all the classes in the game, the few T5s and T1s are the outliers causing much of the classes' problematically large standard deviation in versatility, while more than 80% of the classes are T2 - T4 and the vast majority of them can be played together without much risk of balance issues.


Being "worse than a Tier 1", to me, isn't about power, but about making the game enjoyable.Well, I believe you're right in the sense that what you're saying here illustrates how the tiers' measure of power isn't nearly as universally applicable as a lot of people seem to think.


But there are a lot of things the tiers aren't good at. By focusing heavily on power, the conflate things that should not be conflated, leading to shoddy analysis when people try to generalize from them, rather than try to analyze the classes in whatever particular context they happen to be interested in.This.

Also, especially when applied to the PF classes, I believe the tiers not only focus heavily on power in general, but the power of versatility in particular. Especially in a game where the PCs never reach 17th level and combat encounters make up an overwhelmingly large majority of the story's more important and demanding challenges, as is the case in a typical published AP, the tiers' measure of power and the tier definitions aren't as applicable, and the ratings consequently a bit misleading. The same is true when considering for example that the classes' actual power ranking can change considerably depending on the level of optimization. For example, a summoner can likely solo more APs than any T1 can and from a far earlier level, despite being a 6/9 caster on paper and pretty accurately rated low T2 according to the tier definitions. Likewise, a build based on T3 PoW classes can reliably solo more dangerous opponents in combat than any T1 can, making them more powerful in that context.


If you want to talk about something other than "how good are classes compared to each other", you should not use the tiers as a yardstick, and should instead look at the traits classes have.Yes, and I believe you should only use the tiers as a yardstick when talking about "how good are classes compared to each other" when "good" is explicitly defined as "mechanically powerful" and when the game context is reasonably similar to the context in which the tiers' define and measure power.


Spellcasters in general are often derided as "game-breaking", but that's not really accurate. It's more correct to say that they can play a game that non-casters can't (I believe this is what Quertus is getting at). Spellcasters, with a few exceptions like the Warmage and the Healer, have a toolbox of non-combat options that allow them to drive the plot. That's certainly different from martial characters, whose options seldom extend very far beyond skill checks.Yep. And likewise, non-/low-casters can play a game which casters aren't designed for, which is why they have a high risk of breaking such a game.


The Tier 3 classes that are often held up as the pinnacle of design do have advantages casters lack (though many of their claimed ones come from misunderstanding the Tier System and trying to apply its insights in places they don't make sense). Most notable of these advantages are the sheer variety of classes in the tier, and in particular the variety of resource management mechanics. Full casters all work pretty much the same way. You have spell slots, you expend spell slots, you cast spells out of them. Prepared or spontaneous is a wrinkle, but not nearly as much of one as the difference between a Binder and a Crusader.While I generally agree, keep in mind that we're talking about PF here, where some full casters have quite a bit more significant class features and at least all 1PP T3 classes have spell slots.


The idea that 6/9 casters are "more balanced" is pretty absurd (for much the same reason that an amp that goes to 11 isn't any louder),I believe this is completely missing the point; in comparison to any other casting progression based category of classes in the game, the average 6/9 class is both balanced to a much larger number of classes and also closer to the average mean and mode of all classes in the game. IOW, the classes in the game define the proverbial amp's min and max volume and all levels in between.

...and as anyone who has an amp which goes to 11 will tell you, of course it's louder! And way more METAL! \m/


The notion that "Tiers 1 and 5 are the pinnacles of poorly designed classes" is a cargo-cult analysis. The tiers are a narrow tool, designed for a particular context. To claim that they give general insight into game design is to reveal a lack of understanding of the subject.AFAICT, you're missing the context here. I believe Rynjin is saying the T1s and T5s are the worst designed classes from a balance perspective. So while we may have different valid opinions on the importance of class balance, Rynjin is simply stating the objective truth. And if you say he's wrong, you're also saying that your own claim that the tier system measures class power is equally wrong.

[Quertus]

That runs both ways, though. I'd say the presence of a T1 is just as much a constraint on the adventure as the presence of a T5, for example by ruling out any investigation/mystery type stories/challenges which aren't wholly in the realm of magic already.

Yes and no. But mostly no.

You can absolutely have "what happened here?" as an element in the game; you just cannot so easily railroad that to play out one particular way. You can't force "you have to talk to the Baker to learn about the involvement of the Mistress" when the PCs can talk to gods, the dead body, or random pieces of furniture.

This is an anti-railroading feature - or, rather, a potential anti-railroading feature - of T1 involvement.


And I have to say that the logic of calling the T1 and T5 classes the worst is flawless from an overall game design PoV. When looking at the hypothetical average mean and mode versatility of all the classes in the game, the few T5s and T1s are the outliers causing much of the classes' problematically large standard deviation in versatility, while more than 80% of the classes are T2 - T4 and the vast majority of them can be played together without much risk of balance issues.

"There are lots of people of average intelligence in the world; therefore, idiots & geniuses are the problem."

"There are lots of people of average height in the world; therefore, midgets & giants are the problem."

"There are lots of programs of average complexity in the world; therefore, easy to use & complex apps are the problem."

"There are lots of d6's in the world; therefore, d4's and d20's are what's wrong with gaming."

No, sorry, I'm not buying it.

[upho]

Yes and no. But mostly no.

You can absolutely have "what happened here?" as an element in the game; you just cannot so easily railroad that to play out one particular way. You can't force "you have to talk to the Baker to learn about the involvement of the Mistress" when the PCs can talk to gods, the dead body, or random pieces of furniture.Let's put it this way, I assume you've played RPGs where the PCs have no or relatively insignificant supernatural/equivalent powers, and despite that haven't felt any more railroaded - potentially even less so - than you do in your typical D&D adventure.

The difference between a well-designed adventure for say a party of non-casters without UMD and one for a party of prepared full casters is the nature of the challenges, but nothing makes either one inherently any more railroad-y than the other. The important bit is that neither one can be well-designed for both parties, as they must be as fundamentally different as the set of tools available to the two parties.

That said, I believe your claim that a T1 typically is a "potential anti-railroading feature" is highly likely to be a correct description in most games, but that's because of two other factors related to the above. First, AFAIK a very large majority of published adventures for PF aren't exclusively targeting either one of the mentioned two outlier types of parties, but typically some less clearly defined mix including both types of PCs. Second, largely because magic doesn't exist IRL, designing good challenges for a party of non-casters generally doesn't require nearly as high degree of system mastery as it does for a party of full casters, and at least what I've seen so far strongly indicates very few designers of published adventures have enough system mastery to do the latter.

And of course, these two factors are most likely just as present and relevant in the case of most homemade adventures. Though the amateur designer often has the great advantage of designing for an already known specific party of PCs, those PCs will of course very rarely be all T1s or T5s without UMD, but far more often some less fortunate mix including both. And if the average professional designer doesn't have the system mastery required to properly challenge full casters in a sufficiently interesting, varied and meaningful way, it doesn't seem very likely the average amateur does.

TL/DR: A T1 is often a "potential anti-railroading feature" simply because an extremely small proportion of all PF adventures played were actually designed for T1s. (Which unfortunately also means their "anti-railroading" is typically far more likely to have a disruptive negative net effect on the game rather than a constructive positive one.)


No, sorry, I'm not buying it.I certainly wouldn't either if I believed those false analogies to be true. I think the major thing you're missing is that the outlier classes aren't necessarily poorly designed in a vacuum, they're poorly designed because they don't play nicely with the large majority of classes and adventures. But let me try fix a couple of your analogies so you might see what I'm getting at:

"There are lots of people of average intelligence in the world but very few idiots & geniuses; and therefore classes for the majority where the students learn from each other aren't suitable for idiots & geniuses."

"There are lots of people of average height in the world but very few midgets & giants; so if only size of clothes can be made in the world, far more people would have clothes if the size made is M and not XXXS or XXXL."

But honestly, those still fail to include and/or emphasize some highly relevant factors, perhaps most notably that a T3 game allows for a far greater number of existing classes with minimal risk of the classes causing balance issues than a T1 or T5 game does.

So yes, again, the outlier classes are poorly designed in the sense that there's a significantly increased risk of balance issues when they're played in the same game as the large majority of classes (and as a consequence they're the least suitable to for the challenges in a large majority of adventures). If we assume the classes instead had consisted of more than 80% T1s (instead of more than 80% T2s - T4s as is the case), then there would of course have been an equally good reason to call the few classes below say high T3 poor design instead.

[NigelWalmsley]

I think it would be enough to grant the spontaneous full casters say one extra slot per day and spell level in which they can prepare any spell on their list, provided they have access to it in a book or as a scroll.

I think this is the wrong approach. Trying to make Sorcerers better by making them more like Wizards reduces versatility and makes the game less interesting. What should be done is making the Sorcerer better at what it does. To that end, the appropriate change would be to improve the things the Sorcerer does well (and remove the arbitrary limitations, like the one-level delay). Give them more spells known at each level. It honestly doesn't have to be all that many, people dramatically underestimate the value of tactical versatility.


That runs both ways, though. I'd say the presence of a T1 is just as much a constraint on the adventure as the presence of a T5, for example by ruling out any investigation/mystery type stories/challenges which aren't wholly in the realm of magic already.

I don't think this is true at all. It's true that magic puts some constraints on what you can do with a mystery, but conventional wisdom dramatically exaggerates the degree. The basic problem, I think, stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem presented by a mystery. Consider the iconic investigation adventure: a murder mystery. It's true that magic reduces the complexity of finding the murderer by expedient of spells like Speak with Dead and Scrying (though it does not eliminate it, as savvy killers will plan around these spells). But if you've watched any procedural, you'll know that the actual "whodunnit" is only a part of criminal investigations. You've got to gather evidence, build a case, and eventually argue in court. Any of those things could be complicated by the realities of the setting, and depending on the context, things could be complicated further still by political, military, or economic issues. A well-constructed mystery doesn't have to directly account for magic at all to remain compelling when people are throwing around Communes and Legend Lores.


Yep. And likewise, non-/low-casters can play a game which casters aren't designed for, which is why they have a high risk of breaking such a game.

I don't think this is true. Casters and non-casters play the same game at low levels, and non-casters continue to play that game at all levels. The difference is really quite simply that non-casters do not get to touch certain parts of the game. There are no corresponding parts casters can't touch.


While I generally agree, keep in mind that we're talking about PF here, where some full casters have quite a bit more significant class features and at least all 1PP T3 classes have spell slots.

I think tier discussions probably blur those lines, but I would say that insofar as we do say that all T3s are partial casters, that's a mark against the tier. If every class is going to do things in basically the same way, we might as well pick the balance point where classes have the most to do.


AFAICT, you're missing the context here. I believe Rynjin is saying the T1s and T5s are the worst designed classes from a balance perspective.

I don't think that claim is meaningful. "Balance" is a relative properly, not an absolute one. Saying a class is "more balanced" is like saying a person is "more taller". Taller compared to who? Balanced compared to what? You can point out that T3s are in the middle, but that's tautological. If "balance" is a property of the class (rather than a relation between the class and the system), they would have it regardless of the rest of the classes. But by the standard being argued, ripping out everything below T3 would make T2 the "most balanced". I don't think that a property that exhibits that kind of behavior can be meaningfully assigned to the class.


Second, largely because magic doesn't exist IRL, designing good challenges for a party of non-casters generally doesn't require nearly as high degree of system mastery as it does for a party of full casters, and at least what I've seen so far strongly indicates very few designers of published adventures have enough system mastery to do the latter.

Magic doesn't exist IRL, but lots of things that are similar to magical effects do. I don't think it's that hard to write adventures that are resilient to magic (and you'll note that in PF, the designers had the ability to rewrite the entire system to eliminate whatever the worst offenders were). It's just easier not to. Never underestimate the degree to which people will take the path of least resistance.

There's a deeper problem too. No one ever figured out how 3.PF is supposed to work at high levels, so people just kind of write whatever. If you actually mathhammered the system and figured out how high level adventures should look, I think people would write to that, even if it happened to expect more magic.

Finally, it's not like magic is the only think that derails adventure paths. Most are pretty easy to blow up just by ... trying to blow them up. Magic just makes that easier, as it does with so many other things.

[Rynjin]

I don't think that claim is meaningful. "Balance" is a relative properly, not an absolute one. Saying a class is "more balanced" is like saying a person is "more taller". Taller compared to who? Balanced compared to what? You can point out that T3s are in the middle, but that's tautological. If "balance" is a property of the class (rather than a relation between the class and the system), they would have it regardless of the rest of the classes. But by the standard being argued, ripping out everything below T3 would make T2 the "most balanced". I don't think that a property that exhibits that kind of behavior can be meaningfully assigned to the class.

That's an easy one to answer: to the base assumptions of the game.

There are mathematical averages for challenge difficulties that the game runs on.

Then there is also the objective measures of "how many challenges can this class trivialize".

[Gnaeus]

It seems to me that these questions were answered by OP.

Are T1s unbalanced versus game? No. At the optimization level/play style of their game, they had a Wizard and he was fine.

Are T1s unbalanced vs. other classes? No. We weren’t asked to fix T1s. They are perfectly balanced, in the sense that they are the target we are comparing Soracle to/trying to reach.

The rest seems as relevant as a Druid//swordsage on a “help me fix my friend’s monk” thread.

[Gnaeus]

Having had a long time to think on this, I don’t think we have adequately considered how many moving parts such a gestalt gets, and given the nature of 3.pf optimization, how much those can add up to totals greater than the sum of their parts.

Like, we touched on Spirit Guide before, in terms of a build and in terms of how it may be able (DM ruling permitting) to give flexible wizard spell access via lore. But even without that ruling, it gives free access to otherwise spell slot taking downtime spells. Like Animate Dead (bones, and one level before Wizard), Awaken (nature, and wizards can’t get it), and contact other plane and legend lore (lore). I can’t think of any Soracle who wouldn’t benefit from this archetype. I expect some will build around certain spirits with good lists, others will use more of the flexibility aspect, but it seems almost always helpful.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. I’m still fond of my build above, with an AC and familiar and Cha>Dex for most everything. But consider the following build types.

The Ice Queen:
Winter Mystery. Cross blooded Marid/Draconic.
Marid lets you turn any elemental spell to cold damage. Draconic makes all cold spells do extra damage. But Winter lets you attach a free “Slow” rider to everyone who fails a save and takes cold damage. Add in the +1 metamagic Rime spell, which entangles any target of a cold damage spell for (spell level) rounds. And Signature Spell (metamagic reducing trait) or a +1 metamagic rod.

So now, (available by level 1 but really effective 4+) every single elemental damage spell does extra damage and slows. Trash spells like Burning Gaze, Flaming Sphere and Elemental Touch now have the option of being Slowing, Entangling attacks. Any target that fails a save is Staggered, -3 melee attacks, -5 ranged, -3 AC and REFLEX saves, 1/4 movement speed, and making concentration checks to cast. That’s pretty close to as good as the Dazing spell combos my group nerfed as OP, but available 3 levels earlier and using much lower spell slots. Fireball is meh but entangling slowing fireball is nasty. And we give up nothing. We still have more spells than a typical sorcerer even after cross blooded. We can even still use spells with their original element if we fight cold immune enemies (although for cold resistant ones slowing entangling extra damage iceball still usually > fireball.) We can key it off any save. There ARE going to be some GM calls (like how does it interact with burning gaze in terms of the fire, or can you make a shadow evocation slowing entangling cold scorching ray). But it will be a dominant control caster 4-20.

The SOrZilla.
Half Elf Battle Mystery Aberrant Bloodline spirit guide, Eldritch Scrapper.

We want to make a better cleric. My original thought was life mystery, since life mystery oracles are one of the games best healers. But then I realized that life spirit gives us everything we want on that front, and how amazingly Battle Mystery interacts with other stuff.

So Eldritch Scrapper takes away all the powers from Aberration bloodline except the 2 we want. All our Polymorph spells get extended, and extra 5-15 foot reach on touch spells. In exchange we get a pool of bonus combat feats which we can activate as a move action. That’s pretty Meh for a sorcerer with his trash chassis, but we’re a mid bab medium armor cleric type. Battle mystery gives a level 1 better than improved initiative scaling revelation which is good for anyone. But what it really gives is a number of revelations that mimic multiple combat feats.

Now we take paragon surge. Because we were going to anyway. And it’s a polymorph spell so it’s extended for free. Extra Revelation is a feat, which we can mimic with paragon surge. By first level we are a passibly competent fighter-type. But by 12 we can emulate entire feat trees. Remember that touch attacks and ray attacks are weapon-like spells which should be valid targets for our Weapon Mastery revelation. Unless we REALLY want skill focus for something, we will take the elf weaponry racial trait for bows and long swords.

Like a PF Druid focusing on wildshape combat, we will drop our casting stat by a few points for a slightly higher str/dex. And we will probably want to pick either Str or Dex as our primary combat stat. But we then have a ton of added flexibility:

Want to pretend to be a fighter with some odd weapon (like we are impersonating a drow and want to double wield hand crossbows long enough to show you can?) you can do that.
Want to turn into a tiny flying creature and make yourself invisible then deliver touch attacks (or heals!) with your freakishly long tiny arms after giving yourself weapon finesse? You can do that.
Want to give yourself combat reflexes and improved and greater trip and be an area control build? You can do that.
Want to cast your party buffs like haste and then save spells by whipping out your longbow? You can do that.
Want to take weapon focus, improved critical, greater weapon focus, point blank shot and precise shot for a single fight and then spam disintegrate or scorching ray? You can do that.
Want to use your AC and Hp along with wizard defense spells and tank? You can do that.
Want to turn into a monster and then take natural attack feats? You can do that.
Want weapon focus, dazzling display and disheartening display for fear stacking but only when that helps you? You can do that.

The only limitation is we can’t cast paragon surge and another polymorph at the same time. So if we really want to utilize grapple or trip forms we might have to suck it up and take Maneuver Mastery (gives improved and greater maneuver and full bab without the combat expertise prerequisite) as a general feat.