Which Partial Caster is Best at Casting?

[Maat Mons]

Let’s say you want to focus purely on spellcasting, but without using an actual full spellcasting class. Maybe your DM banned them. I don’t know. Which partial caster would fulfill this roll best?

[PoeticallyPsyco]

In 3.5, I'd say Bard, because in addition to being a well-rounded class with good class features to support their spellcasting, they've gotten tons of support from the expanding sourcebooks in the form of prestige classes that focus on aspects of the class, including several that focus on casting.

[Zanos]

Pathfinder has a really bad habit of creating 6th level "partial" casters that get spells that are 7ths, 8ths, and 9ths on other lists at lower levels. Hell, even some lower level spells are discounted so that they get them as level appropriate anyway. Summoner is probably the best for that, considering their spell list is basically any good conjuration spell, or any spell that is a good buff for an eidolon. Hell, they even get haste as a 2nd level spell.

[Kurald Galain]

Pathfinder has a really bad habit of creating 6th level "partial" casters that get spells that are 7ths, 8ths, and 9ths on other lists at lower levels.
That only applies to a handful of spells, and it almost always gives the partial caster gets some ability at more-or-less the same level as a full caster; I fail to see how that's a problem.


Summoner is probably the best for that,
I do agree that the original Summoner is problematic, which is why it got completely rewritten eight years ago and the original version is near-universally banned.

Anyway, to answer the OP's question: the best partial caster in terms of casting is the Warpriest, because it can cast two spells per round starting from level 2. It does have rather low staying power if it does that, and it's usually built as a gish instead, but in terms of casting it's hard to beat a free quicken.

[Jack_Simth]

Let’s say you want to focus purely on spellcasting, but without using an actual full spellcasting class. Maybe your DM banned them. I don’t know. Which partial caster would fulfill this roll best?

Original (non-unchained) Summoner for spell access. Any partial caster that gets it's own spell list gets at least some discounted spells, but this is probably the worst offender.

Banned at lots of tables due to how it can often out-fight the fighter, though. So you're a tier-2 arcanist (weaker than an Oracle or Sorcerer, so low tier-2, but still tier-2), and have a combat-capable buddy. If you wear your buddy (Synthesist variant), then you lose out on action economy, but can keep your save DC on par with the regular tier-2's (by way of using the Ability Increase evolution, applied to Charisma).

[Rynjin]

Regular Summoner by a country mile.



Anyway, to answer the OP's question: the best partial caster in terms of casting is the Warpriest, because it can cast two spells per round starting from level 2. It does have rather low staying power if it does that, and it's usually built as a gish instead, but in terms of casting it's hard to beat a free quicken.

It's pretty easy to beat a free Quicken when you're working with one of the weakest spell lists available as the levels Warpriest gets access to. The Cleric list is lackluster at levels 1-3 (generously) for Clerics, who get level 4 spells at level 7. Warpriest gets them at level 10, long after most of the spells you'd want to Quicken are falling behind, and oh yeah: he doesn't get to Quicken the good ones anyway, because they have to be self-targeted spells only. Getting to cast two buffs on yourself per turn does not a "best caster" make.

Assuming we're disqualifying the original Summoner, the second place winner would likely be the Skald, just due to Spell Kenning.

[Gnaeus]

Leaving aside chained summoner, I'd go with Silksworn Occultist. More spells known and spells per day than pretty much any of the other partial casters, with a lot of extra quasi spells in the form of implement powers. I would actually prefer a Silksworn over a Sorcerer as a primary caster at lower levels. Second only to summoners in summoning chops. With eventual access to all 9 schools. And if that doesn't get you there, fake it with UMD off a class with other Cha benefits and a big scaling bonus on UMD checks.

[Kurald Galain]

he doesn't get to Quicken the good ones anyway, because they have to be self-targeted spells only.
True, the quickened spell has to target yourself, but it can affect others nearby; for instance, Magic Circle Against Evil will protect the whole party for a swift action. (edit) True, there aren't many aura buffs, but the ones that exist are really good for a swift action.

The non-quickened spell can, of course, be anything you like. That said, I do agree that the cleric/warpriest list is not very good.

[Septimus]

Leaving aside chained summoner, I'd go with Silksworn Occultist. More spells known and spells per day than pretty much any of the other partial casters, with a lot of extra quasi spells in the form of implement powers. I would actually prefer a Silksworn over a Sorcerer as a primary caster at lower levels. Second only to summoners in summoning chops. With eventual access to all 9 schools. And if that doesn't get you there, fake it with UMD off a class with other Cha benefits and a big scaling bonus on UMD checks.

I second that, with the addition of the panoply of the Mage's Paraphernalia which allows cheaper metamagic on top of that. Silkworn and panoplies are generally not ok, but either has definitively more spells and spell-like than most other partial casters (once we left chained summoner on the bench).

[Waazraath]

In 3.5, I'd say Bard, because in addition to being a well-rounded class with good class features to support their spellcasting, they've gotten tons of support from the expanding sourcebooks in the form of prestige classes that focus on aspects of the class, including several that focus on casting.

I think Bard as well (and then prestige class as soon as possible in a class with double progression where the other advances spells or semi-casting as well, something like Bard x / Binder 1 / Anima Mage 10).

[Rynjin]

True, the quickened spell has to target yourself, but it can affect others nearby; for instance, Magic Circle Against Evil will protect the whole party for a swift action.

While true in that specific instance, there aren't a ton of "aura buffs" like that, and most of the classic group buffs like Blessing of Fervor run afoul of this clause:


When cast in this way, the spell can target only the warpriest, even if it could normally affect other or multiple targets.

I think you're making the mistake of assuming that Fervor is anywhere near as good as Spell Combat in that regard. =p

[Zanos]

That only applies to a handful of spells, and it almost always gives the partial caster gets some ability at more-or-less the same level as a full caster; I fail to see how that's a problem.
If it's going to cast 9ths, just have it cast 9ths. If you have access to 9th level spell effects at the proper ECL you aren't a "partial" caster, you're a full caster with the serial numbers filled off. I guess you get less total slots.


I do agree that the original Summoner is problematic, which is why it got completely rewritten eight years ago and the original version is near-universally banned.
People complained about the Eidolon, not the casting. And I guess its banned in PFS, which I don't ever play. Most of my DMs have allowed it; not that I like summoner very much anyway.


Anyway, to answer the OP's question: the best partial caster in terms of casting is the Warpriest, because it can cast two spells per round starting from level 2. It does have rather low staying power if it does that, and it's usually built as a gish instead, but in terms of casting it's hard to beat a free quicken.
Warpriest is a perfectly good self buffer, but isn't much of a dedicated spellcaster. The spell list just doesn't have the spells to fill the role of a spellcaster, a warpriest that maxes out their casting stat at the expense of melee stats is going to suffer.

Anyway, if OG Summoner is off the table because of the rewrite, I'll say probably Mesmerist or Bard. As long as its not a campaign heavily themed around undead or another type of creature immune to mind affecting.

[Kurald Galain]

If it's going to cast 9ths, just have it cast 9ths.

There is a rather big difference between being able to cast one or two specific 9ths, and being able to cast every single 7th, 8th, and 9th level spell from the entire wizard or cleric list. If you really think this is a big deal, you should be able to show some actual examples other than the chained summoner.

[Zanos]

There is a rather big difference between being able to cast one or two specific 9ths, and being able to cast every single 7th, 8th, and 9th level spell from the entire wizard or cleric list. If you really think this is a big deal, you should be able to show some actual examples other than the chained summoner.
I'm not saying that PF "partial" casters are as powerful casters as wizards or clerics. I am saying that calling them "partial" or 6th level casters is a misnomer because the majority of their spells at higher levels are discounted versions of higher level spells.

Mesmerist is a 6th level caster with 34 spells on its 6th level spell list. Of these, 13 are natively 6th level spells, 13 of them are 7th level spells, 8 of them are 8th level spells, and 2 of them are 9th level spells. So maybe that's not quite a "full" caster, but if you're a "partial" caster where 60% of the spells of on your 6th level list are discounted version of higher level spells, I'm not quite sure it's as partial as folks are suggesting. It's certainly not accurate to say they only get spells up to 6th level.

[Wintermoot]

I'm not saying that PF "partial" casters are as powerful casters as wizards or clerics. I am saying that calling them "partial" or 6th level casters is a misnomer because the majority of their spells at higher levels are discounted versions of higher level spells.

Mesmerist is a 6th level caster with 34 spells on its 6th level spell list. Of these, 13 are natively 6th level spells, 13 of them are 7th level spells, 8 of them are 8th level spells, and 2 of them are 9th level spells. So maybe that's not quite a "full" caster, but if you're a "partial" caster where 60% of the spells of on your 6th level list are discounted version of higher level spells, I'm not quite sure it's as partial as folks are suggesting. It's certainly not accurate to say they only get spells up to 6th level.

Well what would you like to call them then? If you object to the word "partial", what would you like to call them?

[Zanos]

Well what would you like to call them then? If you object to the word "partial", what would you like to call them?
I mean I'd completely rework them to just be 1-9th casters off a fixed, themed list, like Warmage, Beguiler, and Dread Necromancer from 3.5.

[Kurald Galain]

Mesmerist is a 6th level caster with 34 spells on its 6th level spell list. Of these, 13 are natively 6th level spells, 13 of them are 7th level spells, 8 of them are 8th level spells, and 2 of them are 9th level spells.
Thank you for bringing an actual example.

The way I would put it, though, is that of the mesmerist's 6th level spells, it gets 26 much later than a full caster would (that's 76%), 8 of them slightly later than a full caster, and 2 of them slightly earlier than a full caster. And the latter two (Damnation of Memory and Impenetrable Veil) are not that great and appear overleveled for their respective full casters.

I don't see how that's a problem, really.

And people just don't play at level 16 all that much anyway. I'd be much more interested to find out how many first- or second-level mesmerist spells are actually (much) higher level for a wizard or cleric. I suspect there are much less of those.

[Jack_Simth]

Thank you for bringing an actual example.

The way I would put it, though, is that of the mesmerist's 6th level spells, it gets 26 much later than a full caster would (that's 76%), 8 of them slightly later than a full caster, and 2 of them slightly earlier than a full caster. And the latter two (Damnation of Memory and Impenetrable Veil) are not that great and appear overleveled for their respective full casters.

I don't see how that's a problem, really.

And people just don't play at level 16 all that much anyway. I'd be much more interested to find out how many first- or second-level mesmerist spells are actually (much) higher level for a wizard or cleric. I suspect there are much less of those.

Hmm. Checking the original summoner at, oh, spell level 2 (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spell-lists-and-domains/spell-lists-summoner/#p2).
57 spells. Treating "Native" as "Sorcerer, Wizard, Cleric, Oracle, or Druid list"

Natively 4th: 1 (Ghost Wolf)
Natively 3rd: 7
Natively 2nd: 46
Summoner Only: 3

Gets 2nd level spells starting at class level 4, in line with a Sorcerer. Those two known 2nd level spells at that level could be Ghost Wolf and Haste: A combat-capable summon you can get in advance (hours/level ... until it attacks, then rounds/level), and a generic combat buff... although at 4th, you'll be unlikely to be able to cast spells of that level more than twice a day.

[Gnaeus]

Hmm. Checking the original summoner at, oh, spell level 2 (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spell-lists-and-domains/spell-lists-summoner/#p2).
57 spells. Treating "Native" as "Sorcerer, Wizard, Cleric, Oracle, or Druid list"

Natively 4th: 1 (Ghost Wolf)
Natively 3rd: 7
Natively 2nd: 46
Summoner Only: 3

Gets 2nd level spells starting at class level 4, in line with a Sorcerer. Those two known 2nd level spells at that level could be Ghost Wolf and Haste: A combat-capable summon you can get in advance (hours/level ... until it attacks, then rounds/level), and a generic combat buff... although at 4th, you'll be unlikely to be able to cast spells of that level more than twice a day.

Without putting words in Kurald's mouth, I feel confident he would again point out that original summoner was so problematic that it was rewritten 8 years ago and banned at most tables and organized play...



I do agree that the original Summoner is problematic, which is why it got completely rewritten eight years ago and the original version is near-universally banned.

[Rynjin]

I'm not 100% sure where the idea that Summoner is "near-universally banned" comes from though. From PFS, absolutely. From home tables, PBP, etc.? I see a lot of "no Master Summoner" (and the occasional "no Synthesist" from people who don't understand action economy), but "no Summoner" is far from universal.

By that token we may as well disqualify all the Occult classes from contention, because THEY are near-universally banned (a lot of GMs out there never bothered to read Occult Adventures and just blanket ban everything from the book; I think I've seen exactly 1 PBP in the last 4 years over on Paizo's site that didn't explicitly ban Occult classes).

[Jack_Simth]

Without putting words in Kurald's mouth, I feel confident he would again point out that original summoner was so problematic that it was rewritten 8 years ago and banned at most tables and organized play...

Maybe. But the Mesmerist has some 120 2nd level spells.

[Gnaeus]

Maybe. But the Mesmerist has some 120 2nd level spells.

They do, but the only one they get early that I would care about is suggestion as a 2nd, same as a bard. I see a couple of others that a wizard gets at 3, like Rage or Tongues, both of which bards also get at 2. Which might, maybe be worth casting in a second level slot, but I wouldn't waste one of my 4 spells known on them. Other than suggestion, Everything I could imagine actually casting as a mesmerist is same level as wiz (alter self, invis, knock, glitterdust, blindness, blur, mirror image). Maybe you could count Hold Person, but a lot of classes get it as a 2, it is less that Mesmerist gets it early than wiz gets it late.

[Waazraath]

Nvm what I posted before, of course it's the Vigilante (CA) with 20 level 3 spells at class level 7!

[Thunder999]

Original summoner has a rather good list and since the Eidolon acts independantly, has the actions free to cast.

Mesmerist applies penalties to enemy will saves that effectively give them the DCs of a full caster (-3 to will saves makes up for cappping at 6th level rather than 9th for 16+modifiers rather than 19+modifiers).

Warpriest can cast a lot, but those swift action spells have to be self buffs, so not exactly a casting focused playstyle. Also suffers from being stuck with just the Cleric list, which results in getting everything late (as opposed to most other 6/9 classes which have adjusted spell levels).

Occultist can get some solid metamagic support and does end up with a lot of spells known eventually.

[icefractal]

Yeah, I wouldn't call OG Summoner "widely banned" at all, IME. Aside from Master Summoner, it's fine. And even Master Summoner is more of a time problem than a power problem - there's not a lot that buffs summoned monsters in PF1, so in a higher-op game they're going to be individually rather weak.

I don't like Unchained Summoner, and at that point I'd just play a Conjuration-focused Sor/Wiz instead. The spell list changes are defensible (IMO it went from a bit too strong to a bit too weak), but the change to Eidolons is terrible. The whole point was that you could build your own creature, and they screwed that up.

[Snowbluff]

Pathfinder has a really bad habit of creating 6th level "partial" casters that get spells that are 7ths, 8ths, and 9ths on other lists at lower levels. Hell, even some lower level spells are discounted so that they get them as level appropriate anyway. Summoner is probably the best for that, considering their spell list is basically any good conjuration spell, or any spell that is a good buff for an eidolon. Hell, they even get haste as a 2nd level spell.

On that note, and it may be a bit of a trick, but also Alchemists get Simulacrum and Summon Animals via their discoveries as well.

6/9 casters are totally balanced, because they don't have any ninth level spells! It only goes to 6! /s :smalltongue:

[Rynjin]

Yeah, I wouldn't call OG Summoner "widely banned" at all, IME. Aside from Master Summoner, it's fine. And even Master Summoner is more of a time problem than a power problem - there's not a lot that buffs summoned monsters in PF1, so in a higher-op game they're going to be individually rather weak.

I don't like Unchained Summoner, and at that point I'd just play a Conjuration-focused Sor/Wiz instead. The spell list changes are defensible (IMO it went from a bit too strong to a bit too weak), but the change to Eidolons is terrible. The whole point was that you could build your own creature, and they screwed that up.

I commonly houserule that regular Summoners just use the Unchained list and call it a day for that reason.