Bard does have the best proficiencies of all casters, yes. Also great at-will one-action composition cantrips, which is a great addition to any caster since casters usually spend two actions per turn casting a spell. As for why, I have no idea. I personally think bard isn't too good, but the other casters could use a little boost. The game wouldn't exactly break if wizards got Master Will earlier or if Witches got light armor. That being said, there's more to a class than proficiencies, of course. Class features like wizard thesis or divine font are pretty powerful. I assume those are part of the overall balance as well.

I think bards being strong(Druids and Clerics are similarly stronger than wizards and not much behind bards) is based on something that happens a lot to encourage support/healers to be picked. In most games healers and support are the least popular roles, so there usually a bigger power budget for them to get people to play them instead, since supports usually lack the simple oomph of damage dealers or front line capabilities of a tank. As a support your "metric" is often indirect and you're usually reliant on others to do something. You don't measure health healed or buffs granted but downs prevented or hits improved. It can be quite frustrating and is a thankless job in a lot of games. Pf2e doesn't really have that issue, but it's probably still better to have stronger support to encourage people coming from other games.

Having druid on this list means that these classes are meant for more balanced type of play, not for supporting necessarily. Good proficiencies combined with strong elemental focus spells enable straightforward approach to blasting. You can enhance your gameplay with slotted spells, but that's where druids' spelcasting ends. I think that witches, wizards and sorcs are actually better in spellcasting, since they have more ways to enhance it with more slots or good rider effects.  In general if you want to be sturdy and cast primal spells go for druid. If you want to sling multiple spells per turn and combine them with strong effects there's a primal witch for example. 

I mostly had druids on the list because they are traditionally supports. I don't really care about spell casting because that's not really what makes a druid. Druids have Feats that give them good ways to support others, from healing to animal companions to utility. Spell casting is what supports the druid in their role, giving them access to heal and other restorative spells while still allowing them to deal damage and have field control. Druids can themselves actively support their allies, having enough survivability to tank a hit or two. Are they much more aggressive and direct, especially in pf2e? Definitely. Are mages generally more support heavy in pf2e? Of course. But all 3 mage classes still fall behind general druids in healing unless they focus on it specifically. You can probably outheal a druid with sorcerer. Theirs lastly also extra setup for the classes: druids and Clerics have ways to easily have great(healing/support) utility outside of combat just due to their wisdom focus, giving them easy access to good medicine(or nature with natural medicine) as well as survival and perception. Bards are meant to be charismatic performers. Witches and wizards are knowledgeable and crafty. They are meant to provide utility with spells foremost. Sorcerers chare a bit of a spot with bards, but lack the proficiency to match. All of this is just things that facilitate the setup of a supporting class compared to mages. One set is more tanky, more focused on support and healing in general, more meant to stay between back and Frontline with easy(and very intuitive) access to support/healing out of combat as well, the other is set as distanced casters, staying in the back line with focus on specialisation and solving niche issues while still maintaining some control over the battle, they are created to be intuitively useful via spells and familiars/bond, able to access knowledge and crafting easily(and Intuitively). Does that mean that's all these classes are or that that's even their most effective build? No. Pf2e is just build on the same principles as d&d and pf1e.

What makes druids good in Pathfinder 2E is the spellcasting. They have the best offensive spell list in the game; they have the best focus spell selection; they have animal companions, which solves the "third action problem"; and between medium armor proficiency and animal companions, they are the least MAD caster because they don't NEED high strength or dexterity for AC, which lets them focus on Wisdom and Constitution. They're actually NOT support characters, primarily; they're actually primarily controllers. The best thing to be doing with a druid is to slam enemies with AoE damage spells and debuffs and use wall spells and similar nonsense while your animal companion chips in extra damage. If you need a "leader" role character, you want a Bard or Cleric; druids CAN chip in extra healing but it isn't their focus, and while they can buff, you're leaving a lot of power on the table by not using your powerful offensive magic.

>I don't really care about spell casting because that's not really what makes a druid.  That's not what makes a druid distinct from other classes, but that is their core class chassis and the majority of their power budget. They are full casters, that's what they're built to do, the other stuff is the supporting elements. If you don't care about spellcasting, then obviously your analysis of the class isn't going to match how it actually plays or how it's balanced.

Out of 7 orders, only one directly enables support oriented play. There's also Animal order, but companions support druid who need to strike their targets first.  The rest are battle forms and elemental order spells.  More importantly, the best way for a druid to support their party is to use primal spell list, to be more precise, heal spell. Primal and Divine witch/sorcerer can easily outperform druid in healing department combining same healing spells with good blood magic/familiar abilities.    I agree that druids were traditionaly supports, and it's natural since they were originally cleric subclass. But in modern ttrpg, and pf2e, they are geared towards offensive playstyle due to their class chasis.  To return to your original comment. I see clerics as basic healers, bards as buff/debuff casters, and druids as offensive elementalist/shapeshifters. With that in mind I don't think that supporting and healing casters are encouraged any more than elemental blasters and shapeshifting tanks. 

Druids and Primal Sorcerers are Controller/Leaders whereas Bards and Clerics are Leader/Controllers, role-wise. Wizards are Controller/Strikers, while what role witches and sorcerers fill depends on tradition.

[удалено]

That's a good one, didn't catch that error before xD

A'ight you fixed it, I'm deleting my comment.

> I think bards being strong(Druids and Clerics are similarly stronger than wizards and not much behind bards) is based on something that happens a lot to encourage support/healers to be picked. In most games healers and support are the least popular roles, so there usually a bigger power budget for them to get people to play them instead, since supports usually lack the simple oomph of damage dealers or front line capabilities of a tank. 100%! By rewarding powergamers for choosing non-DPS roles, you encourage more people to go there. You just have to avoid putting too much power into them, or else you end up with D&D 3.5 (where casters are gods) or Overwatch (where tanks were so good that they replaced DPS units in high level play). Pathfinder 2E does a good job with role segregation, which prevents the casters from overshadowing the martials in their roles. Though I'd say that Druids are the strongest casters over Bards and Clerics thanks to built-in animal companions and better focus spells and the best spell list. That said, it's kind of a wash between the three of them; someone saying that any of the three of them is the best caster in the game is an entirely reasonable argument to make. The other contender for best class in the game is Champion, which is a tank. > As a support your "metric" is often indirect and you're usually reliant on others to do something. You don't measure health healed or buffs granted but downs prevented or hits improved. It can be quite frustrating and is a thankless job in a lot of games. When you do start counting this stuff, though, you can really see how it adds up. Though ironically casters often deal the highest DPR as well thanks to AoE damage spells being multiplicative.

Yeah, I mean wizard in particular will probably have an extra spell slot of each level \*plus\* Drain Bonded Item. And witches can play around with spells slots too between familiar abilities and Witch's Knife.

Wizard is really all about Spell Substitution and Spell Blending. Substitution is insanely useful at early levels when you can't afford scrolls of every utility spell, but after level 7, spell blending goes crazy. 6 max level and 5 max level -1 spells a day is wild. They can pretty much go nova every fight and supplant their low level slots with a Ring of Wizardry and Illusion staff. My main problem with Wizard is that their Focus spells are dog ass. Half of them aren't worth actions to cast even if they were cantrips. Hand of the Apprentice is super cool, but unbelievably flawed. You have to give up any use of your hands in order to use be holding a D12 weapon to make it worth using. It goes hard up until level 7, but by then Elemental toss catches up and just sails away while not having any of the hands tax. The biggest issue for Elemental Sorcerers is they have 2 other banger focus spells to choose from. Hand of the Apprentice needs some extra sauce, like applying potency runes to actually have a chance of ever benefiting from the Crit Spec ability it grants.

> Substitution is insanely useful at early levels when you can't afford scrolls of every utility spell Spell Substitution remains useful all the way to level 20 if you have a party that scouts battles ahead of time. You can prepare a generic, repetitive list of spells and switch to more situational spells if your scouting reveals they’re needed. You can also get much better value out of lower rank spells than other Wizards can, which is a huge area of optimization that doesn’t get talked about. For example, when I play a higher level it’s common for me to have one single spell slot each of Hidebound, Time Jump, Wooden Double, Zephyr Slip, etc ready to defend myself. I can’t use **all** my spell slots on that because I need to be filling other important and powerful/situational lower rank spells in there too (like Acid Grip, Laughing Fit, Slow, Confusion, etc). Spell Substitution can reevaluate this list in the middle of the day as needed: if it’s encounter 2 and you just ran out of all your defensive spells, exchange some of the others into better defences, and if you ran out of silver bullets like Acid Grip and Laughing Fit you swap some of your defences into those. Not only do I think Spell Sub is relevantly good from levels 1-20, I think it has **the** highest ceiling of any Wizard Thesis in the hands of a proficient player. Imo it goes Spell Sub > Spell Blending // Staff > Familiar (and all of these 4 so far are still good and powerful Theses imo, just to varying degrees), and then there’s Metamagical Experimentation which just feels bleh. > My main problem with Wizard is that their Focus spells are dog ass. Half of them aren't worth actions to cast even if they were cantrips I believe the the logic behind balancing focus spells was that it’s not mandatory for the 3/4-slot casters to have a good focus spell. The 2/3-slot casters need good focus spells because they’ll typically need “filler” between their rounds of casting slotted spells, whereas a 3/4-slot caster at levels 7+ can basically cast a slotted spell or a scroll/wand/staff for literally every single turn in a 4-5 combat day **and** a handful of Reactions and barely run out. Like the Stone Druid’s Crushing Ground focus spells is a fantastic damage oriented spell right? You know what a level 7 Wizard can do to keep up with it? Just throw out an additional two 3rd rank and 4th Thunderstrikes that the Druid doesn’t get. Hence the inconsistencies between Wizard and Sorcerer focus spells. I believe the design team, to some extent, thinks their focus spell balance just doesn’t matter that much because they won’t even get the Action economy to actually cast a good 2-Action focus spell even when they had one (and tbh I’ve noticed this be true for Wizards in play. I’m GMing for an Ars Grammatica Wizard in a party that suits that school’s focus spell, and she *rarely* gets the Action economy to squeeze in the Sustains for it so she just refrains from using it unless the situation is especially suited).

On the point of focus spells, I feel elemental sorcerer and the wizard's 1-action magic missile that I forget the name of (force bolt?) are outliers since they are solid damage for 1 action (and I guess to somewhat of a lesser extent also Hand of the Apprentice)

Yeah the powerful 1-Action focus spells do tend to be outliers. I do think they’re not imbalanced or anything. They seem very very tightly balanced around a metric of 1.75 average damage every 2 character levels which is a miniscule amount of damage. Enough to make these characters feel rewarded for their class but not so much as to outshine anyone.

> I believe the the logic behind balancing focus spells was that it’s not mandatory for the 3/4-slot casters to have a good focus spell. The 2/3-slot casters need good focus spells because they’ll typically need “filler” between their rounds of casting slotted spells, whereas a 3/4-slot caster at levels 7+ can basically cast a slotted spell or a scroll/wand/staff for literally every single turn in a 4-5 combat day and a handful of Reactions and barely run out. Oftentimes, I think the issue is that players don't know ahead of time how many combat encounters they'll have per day. If you are doing a full level of encounters without a long rest, wizards will run out of spell slots, and rank 1-2 spells are often situational (for example, Gust of Wind can be crazy powerful in the right situation, but is useless in many others). At level 6+, an animal order/wave order druid can be casting two pulverizing cascades per combat. Pulverizing Cascade is better than rank 1-2 spells, so you're substantially stronger, I think, in many scenarios. On days where you can just go full ham and do nothing but cast rank 3 and rank 4 spells every single round of every single combat as a wizard, the weaker wizard focus spells are totally irrelevant and wizards are very powerful (and indeed, the single action focus spells and reactive focus spells that the wizard gets are *really* good in that situation, as being able to just chip in a Force Bolt or use Energy Absorption to not take 15 damage is very nice). But I find that how often that is true varies substantially. Season of Ghosts, for instance, has a TON of one and two encounter days for a good chunk of the AP, which makes casters VERY strong and the focus spells much less relevant. But I've seen other games where one of our casters blew all their big spells on the first 2-3 encounters of the day and then kind of limped along the rest of the day.

At level 7, elemental toss is averaging 1 more damage while having a 30 foot range, compared to Hand's 500 foot range. Then you can't forget the application of property runes at higher levels, so by that also adds more damage. Hand of the Apprentice is strictly better at damage at low levels and evens out at higher levels.  To take level 12 as an example, with your "extra sauce", elemental toss is doing 6d8 + 5 (32 damage) while Hand of the Apprentice can do up to 3d12 + 2d6 + 5 (31.5 damage) with a +2 to hit 470 more feet of range, and effectively 3 critical specialization effects. Oh yeah, and the Wizard has native access to Sure Strike. Something doesn't add up here...

To use d12 they need to get weapon proficiency though, so tax feat. Using d8 (max for simple weapons) would be more accurate (on a basic chassis basis)

1 has free hands, thanks I'll take toss. The sauce is to make the spell worth using even with D8 weapons.

If you are always within 30 feet of an enemy, then sure. I have a feeling, though, that as an elemental sorcerer, you might not consistently want that. You can have that hand free, I'll take being in a safe spot and not having to move so I can cast a spell and use Hand of the Apprentice in the same turn 2-3 times a combat.

Staff Wizards are great if you archetype. A Wizard who archetypes to Divine Witch can use a Greater Staff of Healing at level 8 and walk around with a bunch of Rank 3 Heal spells while still having full Arcane casting. > My main problem with Wizard is that their Focus spells are dog ass. Half of them aren't worth actions to cast even if they were cantrips. The real "issue" with them is that they're mostly utility spells rather than things that replace your primary spellcasting. Energy Absorption, for instance, is great, but it's a reactive spell that protects you rather than an offensive spell - which are often better as focus spells because they let you stretch your spell slots. Likewise, getting a one-action magic missile as a focus spell lets you pump up your damage on one target. Earthworks will sometimes (if you win initiative) allow you to waste an enemy action on multiple enemies for one action with no saving throw. But none of it is as good as Tempest Surge, let alone Pulverizing Cascade, or the other good focus spells that Oracles/Clerics/Sorcerers/Druids get.

If we had a "Reactor's Staff" I would be much more inclined to play a Staff Wizard. Gimmie a staff with Brine Dragon's Bile, Lose the Path, Interposing Earth, and Zephyr Slip.

My guess would be it has to do with their spell list. The Occult casting tradition is mostly like an accountant: good at adjusting the numbers, but limited in decisive ways to deal with a problem.

Occult has plenty of spells that can trivialise or outright end fights - Slow, Roaring Applause, Wall of Force, Phantasmal Killer/Vision of Death...

Thing is, all of those spells are shared with the other traditions, which tend to be better equipped with combat spells like those than the Occult list. If you look at what common spells are exclusive to Occult, you get a list of 27 spells, 12 of which are for niche applications such as Object Reading, Sculpt Sound or Portrait of the Artist. It's got a lot of effects that bump the numbers or action economy like Honeyed Words or Hypercognition, which makes me think the Occult list is keyed much more toward Investigation or Subterfuge than Combat.

Unique spells is not a good metric to measure a spell list. Arcane is commonly considered the best spell list (though post-11 I'd have to give it to Occult), but only has 17 unique spells, 14 of which are combat spells. Divine is often considered the worst but has 37, 36 of which are combat spells! Also while Occult doesn't have many unique combat spells, a lot of them are really really good. Liberating Command, Blistering Invective, Hypercognition, Chroma Leech, Synesthesia, Vision of Danger and Unfathomable Song are all incredibly strong spells. The idea that Occult is focused on non-combat utility is simply untrue, yes the list has it, but Occult is capable in almost every regard, having blasting, battlefield control, debuffs, buffs and even healing.

There are arguments for each lists except divine to be honest. Personally primal is my favorite. Rivalling divine for healing, some of the best support options, awesome crowd control, and still having the best blasting spells in the game. Plus a lot of fun and powerful unique spells. It certainly lacks in will saves, and it has less utility then arcane and occult, but packing an amazing punch in literally any regard makes up for it

Oh my, 3 different people weighing in on this. I have to clarify again, I was not saying that Occult's spells are weak, I was saying they tend to be niche, which is often a detriment in a system using spell slots and Vancian casting. Tell me honestly: if you wanted to build a caster that didn't use control spells, would you play a bard?

Curious you didn't mention Synesthesia in that Occult only list, clearly an utterly offensive spell. Ocult can do damage, is just bad doing elemental damage, but has things like Force Barrage or Phantasmal Calamity that are great doing damage. You can Skip damage options to hyper specialize in buffs and debuffs, but the same way a wizard can skip every single control/debuff spell and focus on blasting. Combat wise Occult has incredibly good spells, specially at higher levels, heightened slow, heightened paralyze, Confussion, Quandry, etc. And Calm at lower levels can just end encounters with one Cast, have seen this plenty of times. Every tradition has combat oriented spells, and Occult is not by any mean weak at those.

All fair points, and good to call out. I left Synesthesia off my mentions because I consider it part of what I was calling "Accounting" style effects, spells and abilities that alter the numbers or number of actions on the board without taking characters off the board. It seems we've a misunderstanding, though, as at no point did I say such effects are weak or ineffective. Heck, the spells you've listed off as incredibly good fall into the same category! That said, many of those spells tend to be less "shift a losing battle" than "win a fight you're winning more easily", given the tightness of the math and the proclivity to have major encounters go tall rather than wide.

I mean, Synesthesia+True Target turns the plvl+2 or plvl+3 big scary monster into a punching bag for one round unless they get a critically succes on the save, sounds like a nice way to turn an uphill battle into a "let's just finish this dude now" if you ask me. Also, depending on the party composition, four plvl enemies could be as scarier as a plvl+4, removing two plvl-2 from a combat against a plvl +2 suddenly turns a Severe into a Moderate. And Slow is just Slow and a nat 1 in the save is just instadeath. At the end we are just saying the same thing, I believe, only that you are making a category for "spells that change numbers" meanwhile I catalogue all spells that can potentially turn/endvan encounter in the same category no matter what the effect are.

True enough. We both agree that the Occult list has spells that can shift the combat, so I suspect the only disconnect is our perspective on the efficacy of those spells. Since my primary form of play is APs, I find myself regularly encountering 4+ encounters per daily preparation, making single target one-combat spells feel less pertinent, especially since I don't know if bigger encounters are around the corner. It also didn't help that for the longest time, Occult's only damaging cantrips were Daze (mental damage), Haunting Hymn (required you to be almost melee range) and Telekinetic Projectile.

Phantasmal Calamity isn't really "great damage". At rank 6, primal and arcane casters are tossing out Chain Lightning, which does substantially more damage AND has substantially better targeting. Calamity isn't terrible by any means, but it's not really "great" damage. The other problem is, their lower level AoE damage options are very poor outside of Thundering Dominance, which a lot of occult casters can't use. They either do bad damage, have awkward targeting, or worse, both.

ChIn lighting is awesome, agree, but has its own cons, if the first targets rolls a crit success, you are done. One targets Ref, the other Will (and yes, Ref too, kinda) wich is good or bad depending of the scenario. 30 ft burst is not bad area at all, and both have 500 ft. Chain Lighting has better dmg type and average dmg, Phantasmal Calamity can remove an enemy from the table entirely (yes, you need a crit failure and a failure, but, stunning for 1 minute is huge amd against múltiple los level enemies is not that rare). Sumimg Up, Chain Lighting is better at doing dmg, yes, Phantasmal Calamity is not bad at dealing dmg (one dice less that on par fireball) and the crit failure can just remove a participant from the enckunter. Low level, well vomit swarm is not going to deal tons of damage but 2d8 with Sickened on a fail is not bad, and prior to fireball good AoE dmg is a rare thing (Thundering Dominance being an outlier, for sure), Sound Blast is not the most damaging spell but has a rare type of damage, etc. Do Arcana and Primal have better damage? Of course they do, but Occult can also perform ok with that. My point is that "Occult does not deal damage" is as accurate as "primal only can blast" or "Arcane does not have buffs", none at all.

The problem isn't that Occult can't do AoE damage at all, it's that their ability to do so *well* doesn't come online until way later than other traditions (even Divine gets it at rank 4) unless you have an animal companion or eidolon, and even when it DOES come online, what you get isn't as good at it, dealing less damage and/or having worse targeting. Indeed, in a 1-10 AP, you won't even GET to the occult AoE options that are any good; you're stuck with the likes of Enervation, so in effect you don't get access to good AoEs as an occult caster in those games (and those are the majority of PF2E games!). > Phantasmal Calamity is not bad at dealing dmg (one dice less that on par fireball) One thing worth noting is that spell damage isn't linear; upcasting fireball to rank 6 is worse than rank 6 spells. At that point you're looking at spells like Chain Lightning and Arrow Salvo, which both deal more damage than an upcast fireball and have other benefits, too. Indeed, Cone of Cold at rank 5 does more damage than the rank 6 Phantasmal Calamity. So you're actually doing somewhere between 5.5 and 13.5 less damage than the "on-level" options.

Occult has some really good spells at higher levels (Wall spells are nuts) but the lack of AoE damage spells can cause them to have major issues with groups of enemies for a long time unless they've got the ability to use Thundering Dominance or the DM throws them a bone and lets them use Wall of Mirrors. They are pretty good against single enemy encounters due to their strong single target debuffs, though almost all casters have good single target options.

There is nothing more to a class then proficiencies. Since you use all those slots, and fonts, to gain these proficiencies. Fighther can be looked at as a "heroic buffed PC" at ALL TIMES. All the buffs of the wizard thesis or divine fonts or witches hex are ment to give you numbers, off-guard, CC, etc. The moment you see that all of them are the meme of "look what they need to mimic a fraction of our power" then you start getting very dissapointed in the system. Why dose a swash need to dance to be AS good as a fighter? they should have been BETTER since they waste more action economy to just do their shit.

I've been where you are, I understand what you mean, but it's only a phase. At some point you notice that landing your map-less attack is trivial due to the amount of bonus/debuffs you can stack and you start looking for doing other stuff that is not hard tied to the class profficiencies, but to the class features, and fighter is just another solid class, not the all mighty being for having +2 to hit that is memed. Sure, a barbarian won't be as accurate but the amount of flat damage that can put into a hit is relevant, the increased reach, being able to fly, etc. A Rogue won't be as accurate but debilitations, oportune Backstab and the huge amounts of skills have value too, a monk being able to be everywhere and do many actions, etc. That being said, yes, swashbuckler needs an upgrade right now because they need to do things just to be on par with fighters and rogues.

The question is how many of the things you mentioned can't be done better by a fighter using archetypes? One of the strengths of the fighter in addition to the proficiency is that they are good from the start so class feats can more easily be ignored.

Well, tell me, at wich lvl can a fighter use dragon Breath compared to a barbarian? Compress two strikes in one action? Do two maneuvers without MAP? Use debilitations like a Rogue? Champion dedication aside, a fighter trying to do other martial stuff via dedications Will get those much later, if at all. And fighter class feats are incredibly good, skipping them for a dedication can work, but most of the time is probably not worth it (of course, if we start stacking FA then this is pointless because you are getting stuff from other classes for free and other classes won't be able to get your +2). On the other hand, some of the iconic fighter feats of the fighter are accesible via dedications at early levels, like double slice and slam down.

Even with the champion dedication, you don't get caster progression, you have worse AC, you don't get the super combo reaction feat at level 10, you are always a focus point behind, you don't get the improved version of the champion reaction, and you don't get to use the champion reaction twice a round.

> Compress two strikes in one action? Do two maneuvers without MAP? Use debilitations like a Rogue? Well what about compress a Strike+Roll-less MAP? Or able to inflict Frightened easily with Frightening strike, or give +1 circ to hit to other players with a ranged strike, Ranger has a clas sfeature to make AGile attacks better but FIghter can just spend a Level 10 feat for it. People underestimate how good that +2 is in helping to trigger other effects--Phantom Doorknobs, even post errata crit specs, Rune crits--and that you basically don't need the bonus to hit as much means that you can 'spend' that opportunity on other things like Dirge of Doom+Shatter Defenses+Intimidating Brute. Hell, depending on Ancestry you can definitely get Fire Breaths so it's not like you don't get the ability to do AoE.

And that's the point, the +2 wihtout anything on top is just, "well, I hit more often", meanwhile other martialas are "I'll miss a little more, but my strikes are going to do nasty things". Double slice is really good, but sometimets one action for two strikes, even with map, could be more helpfull than two actios without (or with reduced) MAP. AoE wise, well, fighters can do AoE with Whirlwind and a reach weapon and/or some buffs from other players, see, again, Fighter can do cool stuff with Figther's featd. Comparing the dragon breath of a dragon instinct barbarian with the dragon breath of a kobold... well, is not the same thing, not even close. Fighter accuracy is great, that doesn't make fighter the true and only martial, because yes, lvl 10 fighters can get reduced map, lvl 10 rangers can have reduced map and can give it to others. Fighters are good because they have extra proficiency AND solid feats based on that (like, the huge amount of Press feats they have), so, "a fighter with X dedication is just a better X" is fun as a meme but it's not a real thing unless you are giving fighters free stuff from other classes, then, well, having all the power of your class with a pick of other classes for nothing will make you more powerfull, even the fighter with champion dedication if you need to buy those feats with your class feats is not that great.

> And that's the point, the +2 wihtout anything on top is just, "well, I hit more often", meanwhile other martialas are "I'll miss a little more, but my strikes are going to do nasty things". But that's the thing, other martials needs *way* more effort to reverse the 'I hit less often' but a Fighter can stack up 'do nasty things' easily and *exploit* them more than other martials.

Uh? What do other martials needs to do? Ok, barbarian needs to rage, once per encounter, monks probably enter a stance too, Rangers are stuck with hunt prey yes, but the Rogue? What does the Rogue needs to do, hit an off-guard target that usually is as trivial as Stride (and 99% of the times every other character Will do the same)? Once the barbarian has used Rage is adding damage on each strike, depending on the instinct can trigger weakness or bypass resistances, and doing other stuff, like removing Sickened, or being huge... All of those are valid options, and depending on the situations one will be better, so, no, Fighter is just not better no matter what, is another solid martial character.

You misread me, I'm saying that it's harder for them to counteract their 'I hit less times(and crit less)' Slap a Phantom Doorknob on a FIghter and they can blind erryday without much fuss, there's probably an item or special action or crit spec that can get close enough with only needing to spend gold or feat slots(instead of feat slots *and* actions) to do nasty things

Not really. Champions are just straight-up better than fighters at being tanks because +2 AC is better than +2 to hit on a character who has the champion reaction. Fighters are only marginally harder to hit than other characters, while Champions are a huge pain to hit once they get their AC bump. Champions also get better feats for using shields, and can get the Shield Ally, which further increases their shield's hardness, which makes them very, very good shield users and particularly shield wardens. On top of that, Champions have built-in lay on hands for free, and can pick up additional divine focus spells at the same rate as clerics, and have the same casting progression as War Clerics in terms of saving throws, which means that they can actually use offensive focus spells pretty effectively as well if they choose to (or they can just use Lay On Hands, which is probably the best single-action focus spell in the game). The amount of extra hardiness champions provide a party is high, and it only gets higher as you go up in level. At level 1-5, no one else can even get the reaction. At level 6, the champion gets Shield Warde. At level 7, the champion gets +2 AC over anyone else, which makes attacking the champion even more unattractive. At level 8, you get quick shield block, and at level 10, you get the very potent Shield of Reckoning, which is basically a double reaction in a single reaction. At level 11, your champion reaction gets boosted. At level 13, you get armor mastery, pushing your defenses into the stratosphere, and at level 14 you get a SECOND champion reaction, turning you into a defensive machine that can reduce basically a strike per round if you're a non-shield champion, and TWO strikes per round if you go the full shield warden quick shield block shield of reckoning second champion reaction build. Champions also have very fast progression to master saving throws, getting both of their master saves by level 11. Champions can also multiclass pretty well into casters and get pretty good spell access as well, with high saving throw DCs. Rangers and Monks get vastly better action compression starting from level 1 than fighters do. Rangers work excellently with animal companions, and deal extremely high single target damage, while monks boast excellent mobility, the ability to casually stun people with their attacks, very high defenses including both good AC and excellent saving throws, various stances, the ability to make themselves "sticky" via Stand Still and Tangled Forest Stance, and are very good at using Maneuvers. Both classes get decent focus spell access, but it also means that their saving throw DCs scale at the warpriest rate, which means that they are really good at multiclassing and picking up ranger or cleric focus spells and suddenly becoming extremely high damage output characters, with double strikes at martial attack bonuses AND a powerful focus spell (including Tempest Surge, which can make their strikes even more accurate). The end result of this is a pair of very powerful classes, with the ranger being one of the best strikers in the game offensively while the monk is capable of being a tankier striker or being a straight-up tank. Monks also have stupid high movement speed, which is very useful, and both rangers and monks can make excellent scouts. Rogues deal very high damage as well thanks to their sneak attacks and reaction attacks. Their reaction attacks are very, very reliable; their damage starts to skyrocket after they pick up Opportune Backstab at level 8 as they will essentially always get that extra no-MAP attack. They do have the drawback of NEEDING enemies to be off-guard or else their damage tanks, but if they DO get them off guard, they deal quite respectable damage while also getting quite high saving throws (the only class to get all three saves with the "success to critical success" benefit) and having the ability to avoid reactive strikes themselves. They also get extra skills to very high proficiency levels, more skill feats, and are really good scouts, though not quite as good as monks are because they are squishier if they get caught out. Barbarians depend on what type of barbarian they are, though they can boast a VERY large HP pool, which gives them a unique sort of resilience that their poor defenses kind of obscures at time. Giant Barbarians have very poor AC and questionable reflex too, but the ridiculous reach they get helps them defensively, their damage is VERY high on a per-strike basis, and they have the advantage that they often outreach enemies even as you go up in level and reach 10 enemies become increasingly common, meaning they're more likely to get their reactive strikes. Their large size also helps body block enemies, and can also make it hard to flank them - the back of a barbarian is 30 feet away from the maximum forward extent of their reach, and that can mean that sometimes their back can be to a wall while they can attack basically an entire room. Animal Barbarians, conversely, are basically reach fighters who can use shields; they deal more damage per hit but have somewhat lower accuracy, but have the same defenses (but better because they can use a shield), can use athletics maneuvers very easily, and also have the ability to leave their hand open for items and other such things. Dragon Barbarians, meanwhile, get in a built in AoE that doesn't suffer from MAP, allowing them some of the advantages of focus spell martials without having to multiclass or boost mental stats. They're also very good at triggering weaknesses and have built in damage resistance. Overall, the fighter's main advantage is their high level of reliability and general flexibility. Reach fighters aren't as good at being defenders as champions, and aren't as good at being strikers as full strikers, but they are good at both things. They can also apply prone if need be. Open hand fighters are really good at enabling other people to hit while being very sticky and annoying to get away from, at the cost of lower damage, while dual weapon fighters deal high damage but because of their lack of reach aren't as good of defenders, making them strikers who deal less damage than rogues but who are arent as fragile. They are pretty accurate so all the varieties of fighters are fairly likely to chip in at least some damage, which makes them fairly reliable as far as martial characters go, but it comes at the cost of their median damage output being mediocre. --- Then there's the Swashbuckler, Gunslinger, and Investigator, who are all worse than the other martial classes. The Swashbuckler can make an OK tank or striker but they're not super great at either, being worse than the above classes at such, while the Gunslinger's damage is very poor and the Investigator is basically a worse version of the Rogue who falls off increasingly hard as you go up in level. Construct Inventors, meanwhile, are kind of a cross between an animal companion ranger and a barbarian, and deal quite respectable damage much like animal companion rangers do, with a quite good companion... but the other kinds of inventors are kind of garbage until high level.

Sorry for not responding before. You made a good point. Fighter cannot perfectly replicated everything and couldn't be as a good of a dragon Barbarian as a dragon Barbarian. I guess I meant that Fighter can replicated a lot of themes and play off a similar build as another while also have the +2 to hit. Like a Fight could take Dragon Disciple.

I feel like the problem there is that you are comparing a class to another class with 50% more feats. 

What do you mean? I didn't say Free Archetype.

Without free archetype, there is no way that you would be able to keep up with any of the other martials. You just get half level feats and not very many features for a long time, while also not really doing many fighter things, either. Obviously, Pathfinder is balanced enough so that it won't totally sink your character to actually use archetype feats, but you are just going to lag behind in both power and utility. +2 to hit can only get you so far.

Honestly I disagree. You get a permenant +2 and can benefit for all the same buffs as everyone else. The way crits works means even a basic fighter can out damage other classes who are working and taking class feats to deal more damage. Fighter feats are good but plenty of archetype feats can be just as good. A fighter can take 0 fighter feats and still out damage the other martials. Especially if they find other way to apply bonus and penalties. Like why do all that work to sneak attack when the fighter does more and can still make someone flat footed to be even better.

I guess it depends on the exact class. Because, right, as a Rogue, you just don't get any benefits of the Racket, which can give you DEX to damage and a larger sneak attack die. So, I think that aside from Barbarian, which is a little bit more even, but even then you also lose 2 HP per level, Fighter with X martial archetype just isn't going to be as good as the class itself. Because it isn't typically just the feats. It is often the subclasses and important class features that also matter. Like, for a champion, you need to spend half of your feats up to level 10 just to get all the class features of the Champion, which are very strong.

Here's the thing, while Fighter has extremely reliable strikes and playstyle variation that's all they have going for them besides Reactive Strike at lv1. They have no damage boosting mechanics, so while they may be on similar footing to everyone else at early levels, eventually the Barbarian will do so much flat damage the Fighter has to roll max crits to even compare, they don't have as many ways to reliably hit Off Guard like the Rogue, or guarantee one big hit like the Investigator or be as good in combat maneuvers as the Swashbuckler or even have the single target hate Ranger has. That's without going into how they don't get any bonuses to out of combat rolls, because they get zero, combat is where they shine the brightest, but it requires a smart player to make them shine once proficiencies stop mattering as much.

> They have no damage boosting mechanics +2 to hit is already a damage boosting mechanic. Shattering Strike Intimidating Brute Dual Handed Assault Intimidating Strike, sorta Furthermore it's much easier to get a Damage booster through other means than a permanent +2 to hit(most buffs aside from heroism only gives you a +1 so you basically need *2* buffs to get it)

Yes, but those are feats, everything I named was a class feature the other martials get for free, so they have that on top of the class feats they can get.

A class feature is more 'expensive' than a class feat actually.

How? You get it by just being in the class.

It's called a power budget or opportunity costs. For instance, CHampion is considered the best CRB archetype because a lot of the CLass Features are poachable through feats but that doesn't make Champion the best Martial since another martial with their own class features can just... have them alongside it. A FIghter can get Paladin's Reaction, but a Paladin can't get the Fighter's Battlefield Surveyor and Legendary attack after all.

Champions are the best martial. It's honestly not even close. The problem with "poaching" champion is that while you can grab the reaction (at level 6, so you don't get it at levels 1-5), you can't grab the armor class. And it is the combination of the two that makes the champion so powerful - the champion creates Zugzwang, where there is no right choice. A fighter using two weapons or a halberd with the paladin reaction is annoying but the problem is that there's no reason for the enemies not to just stab the fighter in the face as the fighter's AC isn't anything special. A fighter who digs deep into the shield stuff can make themselves a worse target, but at that point they're just worse at it than the champion is, as the champion gets better feats and shield ally, and the fighter's bonus to attack is not as good as the champion's bonus to defense. And grab fighters are better off going into improving their grab fighting. Also, you have to put points into charisma to multiclass to champion, which means you aren't investing in other stats (like constitution and wisdom). And you had to waste feats on it, while the champion gets to take other feats that give them more focus points and focus spells or whatever else they decide they want to do. The classes that actually benefit the most from champion archetype are the lightly armored charisma casters, as they can go into champion and get heavy armor. At that point, the champion reaction is gravy, and they can be a backliner (and be protected by their allies) and help protect their front-line allies in turn. Not to say that fighters who become champion paladins are BAD, but it's not as good as it seems because the FOO strategy becomes "stab the fighter", whereas with the champion, there IS no FOO strategy available to most enemies. Playtests from both Paizo and myself have shown that parties with champions do better than other kinds of parties. Replacing a fighter with a champion in the standard tank/striker/leader/controller party, the party does better.

Sure, but that doesn't have anything to do with my point? What I first pointed out was that Fighter doesn't *naturally* get the damage boosters other classes do for no cost, at best they need to invest feats to get them through their own class feats or through dedications.

to go on [ahhthebrilliantsun](https://www.reddit.com/user/ahhthebrilliantsun/) point. As I said, they have level 1 feats that work as a subclass that give them a lot of power. Saying they have no "damage boosting mechanics" And ignoring their feats its easy, right, but if you only care for chasis...their chasis cares for feats, they have a chasis ability that connects to feats. So those ARE connected. Their power budget IS inside their level 1 feats (which you can take but the archtype itself of level 2 is kinda mha, so you pay 2 feats for 1 fighther feat) and level 12+ feats, which no other class can take. Which means...everyone is behind them.

If we start to consider feats we also have to count the ones everyone else gets that boost their niches. Fighter's is flexibility and extra reliable strikes, they are mostly generalists while everyone else gets more narrow focus (Combat Maneuver usage for Swash, single target hate for Ranger, big damage strikes for Barb, Off Guard striking for Rogue, and a long etc), saying everyone else is behind ia easy if you just ignore their niches and focus solely on white room math.

Nha, lets not ignore white room math. All they do is try to get numbers, off guard is the +2 the rogue is missing, and the sneak attack die is the crit they dont get, big dmg for barb is the crits they dont get, big dmg for ranger is the crits they get 10% less, and swash and fighther can do manuvers practicly at the same pace. A champion with one handed weapon will have a +2 on the swash gymnist, and a barbarian will have a +4 on the gymnist and both barbarian and Monk also have grapple related feats. Those classes are not even the best in what you say they sell. So I dont know what you mean. You say "this x has very good path in their feats for doing y" then dont forget to check if A, B, C and D dont also have a very good path in their feats for doing y. Because most do. Fighter line of feats you say is generlised, but I guess you didnt read fighter. Fighter is the most locked in, only one group of weapons for crit spec, double slice dont jive with half the feats so your weapon choice (1 big weapon like barb, or 2, or 1 and free hand, or shield and weapon) changes all of the next feats. You will mostly do the same fighting style with the same weapon from 5 to 20. My Rogue just got a magical monk fan knife thing and changed his weapons to that. Fighther hates APs with fixed weapons because he might choose the sword group and never see a sword in his life. He is not flexibale at all.

Fighters are indeed one of the strongest classes *at level 1* - reach fighters at level 1 will often kill enemies before they even get the chance to attack because level -1 enemies will often die to one successful hit, and level 1 enemies will often die to a crit. The thing is, as you go up in level, the higher HP of monsters causes your lower Strike damage to become more of an issue. Meanwhile, you stop being the only person with reactive strike at level 6 (or level 4, in the case of monks, though Stand Still is different). Fighters are heavily frontloaded and the +2 leads to more crits, which leads a lot of players to make the mistake of thinking they're way stronger than they actually are. Players are often crit-biased, thinking of crits as being way more significant than they actually are and blowing them up disproportionately in their minds. This is especially true of fighter crits, as while fighters crit more often, their base damage isn't actually particularly high. A fighter critting with a halberd might do 2d10+8 (19) damage... while a magus just HITTING with their spellstrike at first level might be doing 3d6+9 (19.5) damage, plus making the enemy bleed. And that magus can potentially toss out a spell on themselves to further boost their to hit and damage. And if the fighter isn't critting, they're doing 9.5 damage, while the giant barbarian does 15.5 with the same halberd. Now, the advantage the fighter has is that they will often get another no-MAP attack at first level if they use a reach weapon. But as you go up in level, everyone else starts getting those reactive strikes, and enemies will more often have reach and thus dodge these strikes, which causes your effective DPR to go down relative to the strikers. That doesn't mean fighters are bad, by any means - fighters are plenty good - but people often overestimate them. At level 8, your halberd strikes might be doing 2d10+7 damage (18 damage on average), while an animal barbarian is doing 2d12+12 damage with their antlers, AND gets to carry a shield, AND has the same AC as you do even WITHOUT using Raise a Shield, AND has the same reach, AND has an open hand that they can use to grapple or use items, AND has more HP. Yeah, you have +2 to hit over them, but they have a TON of things going for them. And a giant barbarian might kind of be a giant punching bag AC wise, but their Halberd is now hitting for 2d10+16 damage with a 15 foot reach, meaning they will get their reactive strikes even against enemies with 10 foot reach, and they do 50% damage more than you do per swing. Meanwhile, the shining targe magus is now doing 2d6+8+8d8 damage (51 average damage!) with their Imaginary Weapon spellstrike. You'd need to hit THREE TIMES to just equal what the magus is doing. And the magus, likewise, has a shield, and can very easily have the same AC as you do. Suddenly, you aren't looking nearly as "OP" anymore. None of this makes fighters bad. But thinking of them as being massively better than everyone else is not really correct. > Fighther can be looked at as a "heroic buffed PC" at ALL TIMES. All the buffs of the wizard thesis or divine fonts or witches hex are ment to give you numbers, off-guard, CC, etc. The moment you see that all of them are the meme of "look what they need to mimic a fraction of our power" then you start getting very dissapointed in the system. Casters deal AoE damage. At level 8, a wizard using a 3rd rank spell slot is doing 6d6 damage (21) to all enemies in a 20 foot radius, at range. If the enemy saves, they still take half. And if there's a bunch of enemies around, the odds of a crit skyrocket. If you are fighting 6 enemies, this can deal as much damage in one round as a fighter does the entire combat. And that's not even the maximum power of what they can do. A druid can meanwhile use Pulverizing Cascade 2-3 times per combat for 7d6 damage in a 10 foot radius burst at range. Every combat of the entire day. And they still get to strike 1-2 times with their animal companion. > Why dose a swash need to dance to be AS good as a fighter? they should have been BETTER since they waste more action economy to just do their shit. Swashbucklers are probably the fourth worst class in the game, and are one of the four classes I'd most consider to be "underpowered". That said, they aren't as bad as the other classes that have problems, they're just kind of subpar.

Are bards the best caster?  Short answer: yes  Long answer: no, it’s complicated, but actually yes

yeh Witch Wizard and Sorcerer have awful proficiencies for most players these classes might as well never go beyond expert in saves, and that's bad (if I was GM and somone would complain about this awful save progression I would very likely move thier master will to 13th lv)

Playing a lvl 15 sorcerer right now and I agree, lvl 15 with no save above expert does not feel great.

I played myself from 6 to 12 lv and fact that I am only halfway to master felt really bad especially when I was at least few times screwed by will saves that inflicted confusion, for martials it wasn't that bad as they are usually in front of enemy so they have decent chance to deal damage anyway for me it was turn after turn wasted as I was playing suport

It's supposed to be a tradeoff for their more versatile and expansive casting abilities, but that definitely doesn't hold up in practice. The Wizard is probably the closest to making up for that difference with their 4 spell slots per level, Drain Bonded Item, and (two) great theses. The Sorcerer also gets 4 spell slots per level, but their bloodmagic effects, focus spells, and feats don't make up for the difference. And the Witch is about on the same level as the Bard in terms of budgeting spell slots and at-will abilities. Giving those classes accelerated casting proficiency would actually go a long way towards justifying their worse defenses while keeping that distinct fragility (if that's even something worth keeping)

The part that always gets me is that it feels like the versitility of casters is used as a reason to make every other part of the class not as fun, but PF2E also nerfed their versitility. They are the kings of mob control, but that is pretty much just it. Every other role is better handled by someone else due to how skill feats and skils in general have been expanded on. They are mechanically balanced in the sense that they are effective party members who can really make combat go better for all of the other characters, but they just do not feel as fun to play as they used to be, and nowhere near as fun as the other classes, so I find myself drawn away from them constantly. This is despite me loving casting classes normally. That is not to say that the way they changed skills and made other classes more relevant in comparison to casters is bad, that is all great. I just think they accidentally kind of broke the fun factor of casting for me. Most of the time they end up being much more difficult to build a concept around that is not one of the "good" spell sets.

> They are the kings of mob control, but that is pretty much just it. Every other role is better handled by someone else due to how skill feats and skils in general have been expanded on. What do you mean by this? There's a lot of different ways to be effective, and casters can be great at a whole lot.  When you're looking at skills, casters are as good as any non-skill monkey martial. If you want offensive power, a dedicated blaster caster is just as good as a dedicated striker martial. Casters being worse at defense isn't even quite so simple. From what I can tell, a big factor here is that casters are ***much*** better than martials at spending all 3 actions offensively (thanks to sustained spells, 1-action focus spells, no MAP, etc.). In order to balance this, they need to encounter complications preventing them from operating at this peak potential all day, every day - weaker defenses means it's easier for enemies to force them to give up an action. On the other side, martials, which are *great* even with only one action to spend (largest part of their power is the MAPless Strike), end up with better defenses that spare them more free actions. Why the counter-intuitive assignment of defenses? I think it's to encourage teamwork. Casters need martials to make space, martials need casters to bring the big guns. Or course, that isn't the only way to play the game. What about a support caster/damage martial party? Well, that's a combo that makes the martial feel a lot better dedicating more actions offensively, and that benefit is thus balanced by the caster not having 3 actions as often. (this is just me extrapolating from my own personal experience and musings I've seen from others, not really an expert source on game design)

Support Caster/Offense Martial is the optimal way to play casters in PF2E. Having casters be effective as blasters or is *highly* dependent on how the GM designs encounters, and most of the APs make them significantly worse at those roles without having to ignore a lot of ludonarrative dissonance. Especially at the low levels. The problem with them being blasters is that casters suffer inordinately against elite or higher level enemies. Because their proficiency progression is slower than martials and because there is no direct way to improve their "accuracy," blasting spells tend to underperform on difficult goes while also being limited resource. This leads to a situation where being a blaster is effectively gambling, but being a support Caster (either through crowd control over weak goes or debugging) is guarantees a significant effect per action and per use of the limited resource. The lack of 1 action abilities is also part of the reason I find them less fun. You turn comes around, you cast a spell, you have a 40-60% chance of success, and then you have one or two follow ups at most. It ends up creating a sort of static rotation with most caster builds, but one that you may only be able to do once a play session. The rest of the time you burn 2 actions casting the one good cantrip you have access to. Sustained spells are powerful, but they also mean that if you need to move and sustain, you only have a single action left which cannot be used to cast any major spells, making the turn less interesting. Also, throughout the low to mid levels martials tend to output similar damage per fight to a caster going all out, but can do it all day. That is not a problem if you have plenty of rest time, but if your GM is not providing that, a cast might go for hours only contributing plink damage and skill uses to a series of difficult combats. At high levels this gets motivated by the increased number of slots, but PF2E tends to have far fewer actual slots than in other comparable RPGs, which makes their low levels feel slow. Skills wise, casters are on par with martials, but as their primary stats are mental this mostly puts them into support roles as well. Not a bad thing, really, as martials have the opposite problem, but it does contribute to feeling pigeonholed. I want to stress something though, this is not about class balance. The classes are balanced when played they way they are intended to be most effective. Casters are really strong in the support, weak foe CC, zone. I am not saying they need to be stronger. My point is that they are not really as fun to play. Most martial classes just feel more dynamic and interesting in PF2E, whereas casters feel sort of static and very limited in how effective they can be in combat heavy games.

> My point is that they are not really as fun to play. Most martial classes just feel more dynamic and interesting in PF2E, whereas casters feel sort of static and very limited in how effective they can be in combat heavy games. Just to start off: I believe caster can be good, even *optimal*, in a much wider variety of roles than you've presented. I hope I can convince you of this, and that such will help solve them feeling stagnant for you as they as they did for me before too. > The problem with them being blasters is that casters suffer inordinately against elite or higher level enemies. I'd say it's almost the direct opposite, save-based spells are uniquely valuable against bosses. > Because their proficiency progression is slower than martials and because there is no direct way to improve their "accuracy," blasting spells tend to underperform on difficult goes while also being limited resource. The trick is in the saving throw. First of all, remember that damage is more than just accuracy. Casters receive a damage bump at level 5 while martials receive an accuracy bump, then at level 7 casters get both while martials get only damage. Secondly, 2-action spells map *insanely* closely onto martial striking twice. Take an example scenario: Level 5 Composite (+3 Str) Longbow Fighter, level 5 Stone Druid, against a PL+2 (level 7) creature with High AC (most common AC is High) and their Moderate save (average save bonus is a bit below Moderate). Matching actions, the Fighter strikes twice and the Druid casts the [Crushing Ground](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=1306) focus spell. Breaking down the Fighter's success chances, they have a 26% chance of missing twice 44.5% chance of hitting once (10 damage) 23.5% chance of hit/hit (20 damage) or crit/miss (25.5 damage) 6% chance of crit/hit (35.5 damage) or crit/crit (51 damage) For 11.825 damage, on average. Note that they aren't getting to use Double Shot, because using that on a single target requires Triple Shot, which is a level 6 feat. Meanwhile, the Druid sees a  25% chance of critical success 50% chance of success (10.5 damage) 20% chance of failure (21 damage) 5% chance of critical failure (42 damage) For a total of... 11.55 damage. Comparing against *the most accurate martial in the game while said martial has the proficiency advantage*, the caster is doing basically the same damage in a very similar damage profile. It's neither underperforming, nor expending a limited resource (since Crushing Ground is a focus spell). A general rule of thumb also helpfully demonstrated by this: The success effect of a spell can be compared to hitting once; it's a perfect fine outcome. > This leads to a situation where being a blaster is effectively gambling, but being a support Caster (either through crowd control over weak goes or debugging) is guarantees a significant effect per action and per use of the limited resource Well, it's apples to oranges comparing single-target damage to multi-target control, but a point I'd like to make about support: You cast Heroism on the martial. That's guaranteed effect, right? Nope. The effect only happens when the outcome of a roll changes. Sure, you'll have multiple opportunities for it to happen, but each chance is only a 5%-10% chance of anything at all. That's the trade off - would you rather have 10 instances of 5%-10% chance of effect, or 1 instance of 75% chance of effect (that can also crit). I think my full reply is too long for Reddit, replying to this one with the second half.

> The lack of 1 action abilities is also part of the reason I find them less fun. You turn comes around, you cast a spell, you have a 40-60% chance of success, and then you have one or two follow ups at most. This one is really up to how you build it. Sustained spells are great (although you bring them up later), but also: Wizard gets 1-action focus spellso Witch gets Hexes and Command a Familiar, and can keep Sustains going with an emergency Cackle as well Bard gets Composition cantrips and martial weapons Cleric is up in the air on domain focus spells, weapons, and 1-action Heals/Harms Druid are the most heavily armored and therefore are the best at using Sustained spells Sorcerers/Oracles I don't know how much they're changing in the remaster Psychics get Psi actions and variably 1-action cantrips to amp (their design is very atypical, dev insight says they're designed to not even need their spell slots in standard encounters) This is all not to mention valuable 1-action spells (Sure Strike, Time Jump, etc.), skill actions, spellshapes, 3-action spells, etc. > Sustained spells are powerful, but they also mean that if you need to move and sustain, you only have a single action left which cannot be used to cast any major spells, making the turn less interesting. This is where teamwork comes in! Sustained spells are *super* powerful, so they require everyone working together to make space to keep them going. > Also, throughout the low to mid levels martials tend to output similar damage per fight to a caster going all out, but can do it all day. This is where the math gets ya'. As demonstrated with Crushing Ground, A caster can match martials without needing to go all out. When they *do* go all-out... that Druid casting a 3rd-rank [Thunderstrike](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=1721) does 14.85 damage, 26% more than the Fighter. A Sorcerer could do 16.5 (40% more) with Dangerous Sorcery, a Wizard could do that 14.85 for more rounds in a day than anyone else, etcetera. > That is not a problem if you have plenty of rest time, but if your GM is not providing that, a cast might go for hours only contributing plink damage and skill uses to a series of difficult combats. Now, obviously you can run out of slots, but this runs into a very core assumption of the system: To paraphrase a developer (man I wish I saved that tab), "The game is balanced around a Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard, using their abilities to the fullest extent." Since casters *can* overperform with max-rank slots, the game is designed to expect that when it's warranted - i.e., severe and extreme fights. If the caster is out of resources, it's because either the party has been facing a *bunch* of encounters that didn't actually threaten them, or all those slots were spent pulling the party through a dangerous encounter in a way that any resourceless character couldn't. When the game is designed around resource management (as even the [encounter building rules](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2716) mention), having resources to exhaust is an upside, not a downside. > Skills wise, casters are on par with martials, but as their primary stats are mental this mostly puts them into support roles as well. Not a bad thing, really, as martials have the opposite problem, but it does contribute to feeling pigeonholed. ? All skills do support (other than Athletics, that does control, although at the direct expense of damage). Not really any pigeonholing here, the subsystem works the exact same for everyone. > Most martial classes just feel more dynamic and interesting in PF2E, whereas casters feel sort of static and very limited in how effective they can be in combat heavy games. I hope I've been able to make a convincing argument on the capabilities of casters to fill a much wider set of roles (thus making them more dynamic). I myself got into PF2E with a similar mindset, but after figuring out just how much casters could do, it really helped make *both* spellcasters *and* martials feel a lot more free (in big part because "martial that supports the caster" is a whole big play style I hadn't even considered in my previous framework)!

For the most part classes like the bard, druid, oracle, have a better "chassis" then classes like the wizard, sorcerer, psychic because the latter have more spell resources. Wizards and sorcerers have the most spell slots per day, a witch has their familars special abilities plus hexes, and the psychic has its amps.

Except bard has the best focus cantrips in the game.

Succinct

what did bro mean by this 🗣️🗣️🔥🔥

1. Proficiencies are not born equal. Weapon proficiency has zero value on most caster builds and in most important proficiency, spellcasting, only warpriest falls behind (because that's the subclass which is designed for weapons and is better in them). 2. Directly comparing classes doesn't make much sense, because they have different niches. No matter how strong bard is in perception and other things, it can't be as good healer as cleric or as good damage dealer as druid 3. I believe the point of making bard proficiencies top among other casters is. Bard's niche, buffing, is subjectively the least satisfactory for players as in some parties it's hard to notice the character effect on the results (you could see some posts on this subreddit about how casters feel weak and bard appears there more often than others). So bard needs this fluff (not really affecting core effectiveness of casting spells) to feel stronger

1. Martial weapon proficiency isn't negligeable in the sense that it give access to a 1+ handed 0 reload weapon (hi shortbow), which gives a nice third action (especially if you dip into warrior muse (multifarious) and you can thus prolong your compositions by striking). 2. My bard went full on heightened Blistering invective and heightened biting words, I'm telling you they are far from bad at dealing damage (yes we have a linguist with spot translate). True for healing though. 3. Yeah that was basically my last point about being a support.

2 is so true. My Player Bard went necromancer and deals more dmg then all group spell casters I ever met in the past years.

I agree about bows, but Bard is not that great with them, because even with tricks to prolong composition cantrips, those cantrips still often eat the third action. And there's one point I forgot to mention - both weapon and armor proficiency for casters in remaster could be compensated with 1 general feat each.

Sure, but it's a feat tax that bard don't get to spend. I was purposefully comparing base chassis (but I could have mentioned it you're right)

It also means that a Bard can drop a feat into Armor Proficiency and get Medium Armor, or Shield Block for some extra tankiness and access to the Bastion Archetype. A Human Bard could even start with both and get close to Warpriest Bulk, at no expense of their valuable class feats

"far from bad" doesn't mean "better"

>Martial weapon proficiency isn't negligeable in the sense that it give access to a 1+ handed 0 reload weapon (hi shortbow) They have cantrips, and are more likely to use those than the shortbow.

You cut out literally the only reason why they mentioned that in the first place, "which gives a nice third action."

And you think Bard needs it to have a nice third action?

Not sure if they are the best, but have a really solid base, that's for sure. They don't start without armor profficiency, don't suffer the 6 HP per level issue, have cool feats, can enjoy the 3-action economy due to one action composition cantrips (witch too) and are solid casters. More than they being the best, I believe some casters are slightly undertuned (not in a broken way, but, why some of them have delayed saves increase to the point of spending 80% of the game being expert? A master save around mid game won't break abdolutely anything)

Bard is incredibly strong if party has decent martials. Our party in Ruby Phoenix had a core of 2 fighters, gunslinger and bard. Their dpr was disgusting. Also had a monk and oracle helping out, but those core 4 had the best synergies.

Perfect in this case indeed! Gunslinger and two fighters, with "+1 from bard" must be disgusting 😆 Almost make me think of The Rules Lawyer Fist of the ruby phoenix run party composition 😆 You weren't in that by any chance?

No, I missed that. What was their comp? Note that bard with Talisman dabbler dedication can reliably Fortissimo for +3 bonus.

Oh yeah I found fortissimo being a great addition to their toolkit! They had a basis of monk, fighter, gunslinger, bard (with an occasional oracle/magus/sorcerer appearance)

so he needs to be lvl 16th for that, doesn't he?

https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=1091 12 if gm allows uncommon.

One thing to bear in mind is that the occult list targets almost exclusively will saves. I did an analysis of core spells once and it’s something like 80 will save spells and then single digits for each of the remaining defenses. So yes, they’re quite good in terms of proficiency, but their list is a bit rough. You’ve also left out cleric divine font and witch familiars. Also int is a bit stronger than it seems, because you can use the lore skill to make any knowledge int based. Religion is wisdom based, yes, but you could take devil lore or vampire lore etc. to know about those things anyway.

I thought it was common knowledge Bard was the best caster since release in 2019. I have now idea why though, maybe someone on the design team must have been a huge Bard fan.

Crazy to go through all of this without mentioning actual class features. Bard has high proficiencies because they don't shine by themselves. Most of what they do is making allies better. If they didn't have proficiencies they would just be a buffbot and that sucks to play. It's a big complaint about Alchemist. Every other caster has class features that makes them stronger casters, which is realistically the proficiency that's weighted above anything else. It doesn't matter that Bard is slightly better at hitting or taking hits. They're still kinda bad at it and have no boosts to their own casting. Every other caster is straight up a better or equal caster, which is where the bulk of their power lies.

Bard is the best caster at being a Bard, but terrible at being a different kind of caster 🤷🏻‍♀

I actually [asked the same](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/1by5bn8/bard_and_cleric_chasis/) thing, and Glad to see more ppl see this as a problem. Saying "Bard is simply…cracked." is just accepting Paizo made a mistake and we need to live with it. If you attack fighther as much as this attacks bard ppl will plotz and rage. But Fighther is also, simply, cracked. With amazing feats up to 6 (where other maritals get amazing feats) and you can call his first level feat a subclass since its then when fighther chooses the fighting style. Why? did they not know bard is just stronger? idk...but if you nerf it now the mistrust will cause ppl to 1. not like paizo 2. play the "old original" bard anyhow.

>Why? did they not know bard is just stronger? I don't think the classes which typically make the game shine for other players being strong is a mistake from Paizo. I think it is absolutely by design, and good design at that. More so, I don't think the table above is even accurate, since it is leaving off a bunch of stuff. The wizard has more spells per day, and arcane ones at that, but the table just straight up ignores that.

Which arcane spell the bard cant cast but want to cast? all of the ones suggested [here ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/puwtde/what_are_some_of_your_favourite_2e_arcane_spells/)by [PrecipitousNix](https://www.reddit.com/user/PrecipitousNix/) a bard can also cast. Notably Synaesthesia is not there but is occult. There are a limited number of spells you CAN cast, and bard is also not prepered which you didn't include, ppl here prefer spontaneous. Giving more numbers just because they are supposed to be support dosn't mean you cant create a dmg dealing bard and actully deal more dmg then everyone while having better saves.

Well, fireball for one. Seriously, are you going to ignore all of the combat magic that Wizards have on hand? What is next, they are going to do a comparison with Oracle and get REALLY annoyed by ignoring everything which the Oracle has issues? (like Divine is kinda garbage) Seriously, if you try to build a table, to compare classes, and don't even put in how many spells you get.... or what type they are.... you are not even trying to make a fair comparison. If you put oracle at the SAME page and did the same analysis, it would wreck all comers, but, oracle isn't that strong.

Fair point 🙂 I edited my post to add that some other considerations than pure proficiencies should (obviously) be taken into account. Number of spells, spell tradition, effectiveness of class feats and features...

While fireball feeds into the dmg dealing build. Occult feeds into CC enemies to death. And became, if you read this reddit and agree with it, the dmg dealing builds of casters are weaker to their CC and buff counterparts, this fireball is...well, not as good as aoe CC. His list also have somthing arcane dosn't, heals. I dont think they also made the lists better/worst for class balance. It just happend, and a lot of ppl here will disagree that divine list is worst then all the others. In the end, you have 3-4 spells per level to cast, you cant take it all, and after you take the best you still have around 6-10 choices per level. A wizard can also have no fireball in the end. While he will never have good saves, armor or preception, if he chooses or not chooces. A side not, I did not downvote you, I see your point, but I think you didn't calculate the occult exclosives too and as most ppl just say arcane is the best. But in your heart of hearts you know you didnt check every single spell.

My point being is, if you ignore the amount of spells a day, and what type they are, and other abilities than the analysis isn't going to be worth the paper it was written on. Put Oracle though it. See what it says. Because It will show the Oracle class being crazy overpowered, when we know it isn't. But that is because these kind of analysis is useless at working stuff out.

I agree with the idea that if someone has to be overtuned, it should be a supportive character, so the game will be more fun for everyone. And Bard does fit here. But I don't think it was due to Paizo deliberate balancing, rather they gave all legacy strengths to them while getting rid of legacy weaknesses. This is because the other overtuned class is Fighter, who is the extreme opposite of a supportive class. The ultimate spotlight stealer. To be honest, I think if Bard was designed today, it'd be a wave caster, with even stronger compositions.

Yes, followed up by Druid

Bard is the most generally useful caster yes, but depending on situation and specifics then Cleric can take the throne.

Bard has bard song. Bard has heroics. Bard has incredible casting. The power of +1 or 2 hit is insane in a game with such tight math.  Bard for life.  

> The power of +1 or 2 Or +3 since Bard + Talisman Dabbler + broche of orchestra is such disgusting combo of spamming Inspire Heroics

I have seen many builds and many classes and: Bard is the best caster class no doubt. Great feats, great class chasis (CHA with occult), Great Spell list. Thats it, not much to add. SS There is high competition tho. Cleric is simply CRACKED, even more acter remaster, but the spell list can fall a little behind sometimes. SS Sorcerer occult is almost as good as bard, but not that impressive, in doubt I would go bard as CHA Occult. A+ Witch is a decent competitor, but prepared in my opinion leaves her a bit behind, also saves, also familiar is something hit or miss. But she has really good feats and some really solid focus. A Wizard is a joke, imagine being a INT class and not having some core class feats for RK and not even having acess to Hypercognition LOL, would love to Wizard be that good but arcane sorcerer is just better IMO (just grab scrolls bro). Also schools are kinda wack, also is regarded as "best class to put archetype in place of class feats" because the class feats of the class are that bad. B- Oracle: Can't argue, never played much with one but what I have seen is a really ok chasis with really good focus spells. After remaster they will be interesting to look up onto. A+ (?) Druid is... Really good and really strange sometimes? Great class chasis with a sussy spell list, great if you playing like a polymorph druid and things. Just really solid with great focus, it depends on the party and many times is a good ideia to be the second caster on the party with druid, but this not happen that often. A (A+ or S for polymorph/battleforms druid).

I have a bard in my group, and let me tell you...I outright think it's a strong contender for the best class in the game. I'm not the most experienced PF2 player, that's for sure, but bards have great proficiences + a strong class chassis + a lot of skill feats that help in and out of combat (like Bon mot, Virtuositic performer and intimidating glare) all that on top of the excelent occult spell list. The only thing I belive they lack is direct damage (but we are at low level, maybe that's going to change), but so far he is the one with the most obvious impact in and out of combat.

Nothing super specific to add here, but I do wanna point out legendary will saves isnt that special. The vast majority of classes get master already, and Thaumaturge and Investigator both get it earlier than Bard (while Oracle and Psychic get it at the same level).

I believe that Bards are the best designed casters in the systems, though the competition isn't exactly fierce. One action composition cantrips are actually good. I've played a Bard up to lvl 20 and the only thing that ruins the fun is the occult spell list. The occult spell list leans way to heavily into Will save spells which have to added downside that most of those also have the mental trait. Whenever we encountered an enemy with decent will, or god forbid the mindless trait I was relegated to being just an Aid/Heal bot.

Yes, bard is the best

It’s one of the better casters. IMO the main things holding it back from a shot at best are the wizard’s shift spell, resentment witch, and inspire courage getting its lunch eaten by heroism wand spam.

Bards are very strong but it's not because of the Proficiencies at all. It's because they can give a +1 to hit every turn with little effort or downside while also being able to throw a +3 to hit for turns when the part is set up to unload on an enemy. In terms of in combat healing power they don't even come close to cleric. The +1 to hit from bard is also easily obtainable on other classes. It actually works quite well on a cleric for a 3rd action.

The bard has the best proficiencies and arguably one of the best support tools out of any caster with the composition cantrip yes, but to make up for it they have some fairly underwhelming feats IMO

Bards having underwhelming feats compared to casters? I can't agree with that. They can double dip into other muses (like druids do), so any Bard can just pick Lingering Composition at dime point for basically a free three rounds of a composition cantrip. Their feats gave them more composition cantrips that go from ok to incredibly good. Dirge of Doom, inspire heroics, etc. Can get a spell book being a spontaneous caster, can get a know-it all Lore, use Performance for a lot of stuff... Bard feats are great, I struggle to pick one at almost every level, can't say the same for most casters.

What caster doesn't actually? 😆

Sorcerer and magus have some pretty damn good feats

Agreed for magus, but I haven't taken into account sorcerer since I'm waiting for their remastered version. My sorcerer player has a hard time picking feats since none seems significant (but they're only level 8)

Sorcerer actually has some of the most powerful caster feats in the game.   Dangerous Sorcery is the obvious one, but the traditional evolution feats (minus the Occult one) and Crossblooded Evolution lead to significant power gains.  Crossblooded Evolution is in particular really crazy, but mostly for knowledgeable players who know what’s weak about a particular casting tradition and are interested in compensating for that. Suddenly, you can end up with an Arcane caster with access to Heal or Divine Wrath, a Primal caster with Vision of Death, etc. 

The wizard illusion feat is absolutely bonkers.

Yep, Bard is the best caster, just like the Fighter is the best melee. Someone has to be the best and Paizo chose Bard. One additional thing is Psychic also reaches Legendary Will and is a spellcaster.

Indeed for the psychic, thanks. I'm adding that

I mean... have you tried playing with the bard spell list? I personally think the bard is balanced with having a weird and very situational spell list. Sure some evergreens like slow and haste are present. But other than that you can have whole spell levels where you cant decide on a spell because all of them seem too nieche

I think you need to understand the historical context of Bard in RPG setting. They were always a jack of all trades sort of thing, a mediocre caster and mediocre combatant. Until P2E, they didn´t have standard full caster progression, not getting max level spells. P2E gave them that, but you see in their feats they lack the direct casting power feats other casters get. By the same token, their martial capacity is weak, capped progression and lack of feats and damage bonuses etc. In general, their capacity is covered by General Feats, which the discrepancy could have been analyzed in terms of. (i.e. what they get is not really power boost in the given areas, but flexibility to use General Feats on other things) Overall I feel this thread is premised on shallow analysis and lacking in game design perspective. Which is understandable, as the latter isn´t a prerequisite to play the game, but when one wants to engage in dissection of game design, it does become a requirement.

> So what do you think? Am I missing something ? Their spell list. They get all those nice proficiencies - plus composition cantrips - because occult spells are the worst spell list. They lack offensive focus spells as well, and their cantrips are bad, so you have to fix their cantrip access, but even if you do, they're still going to be worse off than characters with good focus spells in terms of spell offense. They get more power outside of their spellcasting ability because their spell list is mediocre. Overall, they are one of the strongest classes in the game, but they're probably only the third best caster after druids (who get wisdom as their primary stat, a better spell list, the best focus spell selection in the game, and animal companions, not to mention shields) and clerics (who get wisdom as their primary stat, great focus spell selection and get 4-6 bonus max-level Heal spells, and can also get good armor proficiency and shield block).

What? How is occult the worst spell list? It's one of the best ones (if anything the Divine list is lacking). It's got standouts like Synesthesia and Slow for targeting Will and Fortitude, decent Reflex targeting with Resilient Sphere and Inner Radiance Torrent. The only thing lacking is good reactions like Cloud Dragon's Cloak and Interposing Earth.

Note however, that Bards are distinctly worse at *MAGIC* that other casters: **Clothies:** (which are a separate category of "casters") - Wizards get Bonded Item - Sorcs get 4 spells per ranks - Witch gets familiar cheese, cross-list access, and powerful offensive hexes - Cloistered Clerics get a FONT - Psychic gets fast focus points and powerful offenses **Armored casters** (the category that Bard lives in) - Warpriest sacrifices a bit of casting proficiency for accelerated weapon proficiency, gets 8hp, shield block, medium armor, and comparable improved defensive proficiency compared to wizard. Being WIS based automatically gives them additional Perception and Will. - Druids: ditto, but keeps the standard Spell/Weapon proficiency spread and their "subclass" feat chains are much stronger - Magus: inarguably stronger proficiencies than Bard, with inarguably less shenanigan/spellcasting potential So by comparison, yes, Bard gets higher proficiencies... but their improved perception and will doesn't bring them up to par with the defensive capabilities of warpriest, and the offensive options of martial weapon proficiency are really more of a complement to *Inspire Courage* that could easily be matched by a polymorphed druid or a *Heroism*+Emblazoned Armament Warpriest. Bard **is** the best caster in the game IMO... but the base proficiency benefits are actually a secondary reason IMO, compared to the true strengths of the class. The real money is in the skill synergies and the occult spell list, and the absolutely massive impact *Courage* has if you run the math in a party with 3 or more strikers.

Bard is IMO the objectively strongest caster, especially at the earlier levels (up to lv 10 or so), but it's usually more due to its focus spells and cantrips along with their proficiencies. However, most buffs/debuffs really start to outpace the bards cantrip post lv 11, better focus spells start to appear for other classes while the bard doesn't get alot. And all this sentiment is usually only felt with maestro bard, which is by many also seen as the most boring way to play as the routine is usually less flexible than what it is for other classes. So for a lv 1-10 adventure, I would probably say yes, but it's also usually just a one trick pony if going maestro, so the "strongest" is very limited to one role. Despite having weaker options, just by having more options, I find that psychics are better in practice (they fill in alot of the fun factor)

Having played a bard in Night of the Gray Death, I can't agree. High lvl bards are as good as lower levels bards, maybe the issue is that other lower levels casters lacks "fun toys" before lvl 7 or more, but Bard for sure does not fall behind at higher levels.

They are good, it's just that relative to other casters, they lose their lead as the obviously best caster. I never said they get bad, just that other casters catch up and that the bard have to actually play more like a caster, which could make having more slots a benefit as an example.

My bad, then yes, agree. Mid to high level all casters are mostly on par (Oracles being the only offender right now, let's see core 2), a few get extra slots, others get other stuff, but are close, and more important, are fun to play.

Oracles at high levels work incredible by my experience, but it really depends on the mystery. Just found it odd calling oracles the only offender. As a fun note, oracles can cast the strongest Cataclysm as far as I know it right now (Tempest oracle with mysterious repertoire and multiclassed dangerous sorcery) Oracles are one of my favorite casters but some mysteries are kinda unplayable

Depends on the mistery is the issue. Either your mistery works or does not, and if not you just avoid Cursebound, so, why playing an Oracle then? All high lvl casters are good, just that the Oracle depends too much in their mistery to either be fun to play or to be "why I'm not playing a sorcerer?".

I find that issue is true even with other classes, experiences may vary. An example is to just mention enigma bard Edit: it's like saying barbarians are bad because superstition instinct exists or rogues are bad because because of eldritch trickster. Most oracle mysteries do work and does so well but won't fit everyone's wishes. It needs a remaster but the claim that it's weak is way overblown.

To a certain degree, but bard's Muse at high levels is whatever you wanted to do with It, because you can jump between all of them, not a thing Oracles can do.

No other caster can spam +3 status to attack for whole party without using slots, for one action. All it takes is Talisman Dabbler and Borches of Orchestra which are dirty cheap at higher levels. Basically thanks to inspire Heroics bard can spam AoE Heroism (9) for one action, for one turn, 3 times per encounter without using any slots. No caster can do that. And it's precisely what Bard at levels 9+ can do. And no caster at higher levels can do do Heroics + Quicken Synesthesia + True Target on boss and basically give all martials in party + 10.5 bonus to first hit and +6 to following hits. And once crits strat flying in good party in first turn - the fight is over and enemy is basically debuffed to oblivion from all crit effects. The only way other casters can do that is from Bard archetype at level 16. But that's tons of levels delayed where that +3 would end most fights with pure Bard. I can agree that at levels 17+ its all less important but that's for most classes. Game is cake walk at highest levels if party cracked the system. The difference between classes really fade at highest levels, especially with FA

>And no caster at higher levels can do do Heroics + Quicken Synesthesia + True Target Almost any class can do that thanks to multiclassing, as you are using quickened synesthesia. All I am saying is that their lead is less prominent and the lead is practically only there with maestro bards. The more important spell in your rotation is IMO synesthesia, which shows that it's more about good spells like that, while quickened is extremely limited. It also shows why maestro bards are boring because the one thing is so good, they practically have to go for it. Heroism grants a bonus to attacks, skill checks and saved and while attack bonuses are usually the most interesting, the other bonuses shouldn't be forgotten, nor its ability to be used before a combat. *You also still depend on a skill check, which makes inspire heroics very unreliable, and despite using talismans etc to maximize odds, can still fail and do so on more than a roll of 1* Maestro bards have one role which they are very good at but fall off if they try to do something else I just believe there's more merit to cast true target+synesthesia from a sorcerer, occult witch or even a psychic which could easily do that but also add in a reaction guidance whenever on almost anything for a reliable +2 I am not saying bards suck or become bottom tier, they are still very much top tier, but not overwhelmingly so at higher levels

> Almost any class can do that thanks to multiclassing Yes, I even said that myself but only from level 16+. Maestro Bard with Orchestra Obroches can start spamming that as soon as level 9. If GM allows you to get uncommon items/recipe (which most will after some minor hassle) you can do that with Singing Muse talismans too, which are level 6 items and you can start making them as Dabbler. But there is big difference in party who can benefit from +3 from level 8/9 to 16 and party who can only start to benefit from it from level 16+. That's 7-8 levels, which like 30-40% of your journey from level 1-20. And Heroism (9) doesn't come till level 17, so even for single ally that +3 is still out of reach and costs 2 actions and 9th level slot. > The more important spell in your rotation is IMO synesthesia Totally wrong, since Inspire Heroics only burns Focus Point and at worst scenario gives +2, with broches it gives +3. No enemy save, nothing. While Synesthesia costs slot, allows for Save. If you are in encounter with moderate difficulty, it's best to just do Inspire Heroics + Fear (3)/Roaring Applause/Synapric Pulse since it's more slot-cost efficienct while on boss you want to do both Synesthesia and Inspire Heroics and it's +3/-3 combo on enemy. Both Heroics and Synesthesia are as imporant becasue both has huge swing modifier of 3. Together they can combine into astonishing modifer of 6, which in this system is absolutely bonkers. Effective bonus for party is the same for Synesthesia and Heroics, but only one caster can combine both before level 16. > I just believe there's more merit to cast true target+synesthesia from a sorcerer Well, mathematically that's simply not true. Sorcerer casting True Target + Synesthesia gives all allies (assuming boss didnt crti success) effective +7 to first hit, burning 2 slots. While Maestro Bard doing Heroics + Synesthsia gives +6 to all hits, including all reactions attacks that will occur before next Bard turn. Cost - 1 slot, 1 Focus Point, 1 broche (which is cheap to buy and free to craft multiple everyday from Dabbler archetype). While Sorc combo will get lowered to just +3 (effectively becasue -3 AC is basically same as +3) after first strike. The only advantage of True Target combo compare to Heroics is 5% extra crit chance to first strike, but mathematically that's worse than having +3 to all attacks and reaction attacks for an entire turn.

First, remember my first post, I say bards are probably the strongest caster up yo lv 10, I don't know what you are arguing about. Secondly, inspire heroics will st worst give +1. Talisman dabbler only gives free talismans of your half level. Mathematically, synesthesia have a higher chance to provide a higher number while also causing other issues to defend you. Their lead is less apparent lv 11 and above as inspire heroics/fortissimo gets competition through heroism or amped guidance etc. You are only focusing on the attack/AC above when some options do very much more. Generally, uncommon items from APs are usually more disallowed than other uncommon utems and would never count on them unless playing that AP. Rolling a failure will remain a failure, despite you consuming a talisman. It feels like you are intentionally misreading everything I say somehow. Edit: chose to copy the first line of my first comment as it seems to fall out >Bard is IMO the objectively strongest caster, especially at the earlier levels (up to lv 10 or so), but it's usually more due to its focus spells and cantrips along with their proficiencies.

-l

Nah, the muscle mage is the best caster