Secrets of Magic Final Week

Responded to both surveys, had to cram the second with my full list of Summoners built as I didn't realize I'd have trouble submitting the first survey multiple times, rip.

Only thing I have to say about the playtest as a whole that isn't just somewhere on the boards already is advice to Paizo for future playtests: Please hire or assign a member of the playtest team to be a moderator on the board to resolve disputes and break up flame wars. In addition, it would provide a source to keep tabs on the discussion and resolve any rules questions as they arise, which would greatly help with the clarity of intent for the playtest. I had to drop out of posting about the Summoner midway through the playtest as the constant debating, name calling, and vitriol present was making me feel physically stressed. Some folks literally posted on the forum how the tone of some conversations was killing their interest. At least one person accused those in the other camp of "gaslighting".

Maybe I'm the only person here partial to this opinion, but as my first time actively participating in the Playtests, board interactions will not be something I remember fondly in the future.

Here's to Summoner being a great class come the full release, I have high hopes for what you guys will make.

I completely agree and will say that more communication overall would help diminish that, if not through these boards, then maybe streams or blogs.

I know the 2e playtest had a lot of vitriol and stressful moments, but one of the greatest parts of it was that we had streams on which the devs commented on the feedback and even provided alternatives.

It felt great to see that there was complaints about, I don’t know, Death and Dying and then there would be a stream and a small document with a fix. Made us feel our feedback was being heard and ended certain arguments.

I know the current playtests are much smaller in scope, but a single stream midway and a small hotfix for clarifications on certain rules or patches to that which just isn’t working would greatly improve even our own feedback (in the sense that there would be less repetition over certain topics and more focus on others).

Part of me wishes they would release the rules they plan to playtest in advance of the actual playtest because honestly getting together sessions to run them is a tough thing to pull off as a GM.

I mean sure, I guess discord can spit out a hundred online games a week or something, but I don't know that I feel comfortable just signing up for a random game. Not to mention people spend the first-week theory-posting mostly anyways.

I guess a month is a decent amount of time, but my views on the Classes changed a decent amount between release week and after seeing them in action. So even if they did a "mid playtest update", I probably wouldn't have had much play experience with them at that point anyway.

Staffan Johansson wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

zergtitan wrote:

Magus: Needs full spellcasting(i.e. retaining spell slots, but not gaining 10th level spells or legendary spellcasting) and needs spellstrike to instead add a free strike action to the spell casting and tie the effect of the spell attack to the effect of the weapon attack.

...This is less of a suggestion and more of a wishlist - and not a particularly realistic one at that.

Full spellcasting plus incredibly good action economy on spellstrike PLUS two hits from a single attack roll?

Would you like the Magus to not get above Expert in weapons OR spells? Because that's about the only way that's happening.

I'm thinking 2 slots per level (1 when they first get a new spell level), and change Striking Spell to work more like Channel Smite: 2 actions and expend a spell to Strike and deal +1d8/spell level damage of the kind dealt by the spell. You could then add feats that work off that, e.g. "When your spellstrike deals cold damage, the target must make a Fortitude save or be Slowed for one round."

I don't want a warpriest. I know I'm a broken record in this. But I still think it's a terrible decision to want an entire class to be a warpriest. At that point, we can just get the warmage wizard school and do that.

Mostly unrelated to the actual Magus, but I actually really want a Wizard School like this for the "Expert Arcane Gish" while the 4e Swordmage is a white whale for me, I also really love the 5e Bladesinger, which kind of plays this way.

Martialmasters wrote:

Staffan Johansson wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

zergtitan wrote:

Magus: Needs full spellcasting(i.e. retaining spell slots, but not gaining 10th level spells or legendary spellcasting) and needs spellstrike to instead add a free strike action to the spell casting and tie the effect of the spell attack to the effect of the weapon attack.

...This is less of a suggestion and more of a wishlist - and not a particularly realistic one at that.

Full spellcasting plus incredibly good action economy on spellstrike PLUS two hits from a single attack roll?

Would you like the Magus to not get above Expert in weapons OR spells? Because that's about the only way that's happening.

I'm thinking 2 slots per level (1 when they first get a new spell level), and change Striking Spell to work more like Channel Smite: 2 actions and expend a spell to Strike and deal +1d8/spell level damage of the kind dealt by the spell. You could then add feats that work off that, e.g. "When your spellstrike deals cold damage, the target must make a Fortitude save or be Slowed for one round."

I don't want a warpriest. I know I'm a broken record in this. But I still think it's a terrible decision to want an entire class to be a warpriest. At that point, we can just get the warmage wizard school and do that.

Mostly unrelated to the actual Magus, but I actually really want a Wizard School like this for the "Expert Arcane Gish" while the 4e Swordmage is a white whale for me, I also really love the 5e Bladesinger, which kind of plays this way.

I expect them to come out with something similar in the future. I imagine people will complain still because a defining aspect of the bladesinger was getting high ac. Wich won't happen likely lol.

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

Staffan Johansson wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

zergtitan wrote:

Magus: Needs full spellcasting(i.e. retaining spell slots, but not gaining 10th level spells or legendary spellcasting) and needs spellstrike to instead add a free strike action to the spell casting and tie the effect of the spell attack to the effect of the weapon attack.

...This is less of a suggestion and more of a wishlist - and not a particularly realistic one at that.

Full spellcasting plus incredibly good action economy on spellstrike PLUS two hits from a single attack roll?

Would you like the Magus to not get above Expert in weapons OR spells? Because that's about the only way that's happening.

I'm thinking 2 slots per level (1 when they first get a new spell level), and change Striking Spell to work more like Channel Smite: 2 actions and expend a spell to Strike and deal +1d8/spell level damage of the kind dealt by the spell. You could then add feats that work off that, e.g. "When your spellstrike deals cold damage, the target must make a Fortitude save or be Slowed for one round."

I don't want a warpriest. I know I'm a broken record in this. But I still think it's a terrible decision to want an entire class to be a warpriest. At that point, we can just get the warmage wizard school and do that.

Mostly unrelated to the actual Magus, but I actually really want a Wizard School like this for the "Expert Arcane Gish" while the 4e Swordmage is a white whale for me, I also really love the 5e Bladesinger, which kind of plays this way.

I expect them to come out with something similar in the future. I imagine people will complain still because a defining aspect of the bladesinger was getting high ac. Wich won't happen likely lol.

Yeah I wonder what it would even be like, since I'm sure they have an idea of not wanting to do exactly what DND does, close range casting might be a fun niche-- the kind of wizard whose specialty is actually just casting spells from up close, like Burning Hands and such. Then I guess it would have the speedier expert prof that warpriest has to best support cast and swing.

Part of me wishes they would release the rules they plan to playtest in advance of the actual playtest because honestly getting together sessions to run them is a tough thing to pull off as a GM.

I mean sure, I guess discord can spit out a hundred online games a week or something, but I don't know that I feel comfortable just signing up for a random game. Not to mention people spend the first-week theory-posting mostly anyways.

I guess a month is a decent amount of time, but my views on the Classes changed a decent amount between release week and after seeing them in action. So even if they did a "mid playtest update", I probably wouldn't have had much play experience with them at that point anyway.

Yeah. One month is a pretty short window. I think the only reason I was able to get 7 sessions is due to the fact that me and my group are home office'd due to the pandemic. Were this a normal year, I would've gotten two or three at most.

We'll probably never know, but I keep wondering, if the rumors that they put out their most audacious rules for testing are true, whether they go 'oh, we'll put this out just to confirm that it needs to be changed this way'.

Personally, I really do dislike the idea of being given version of a playtest that is just full of experimental stuff they know its probably going to get complaints.

I always felt that type of playtest is no better than a bait and switch. While also just making everything more toxic.

But thats just a personal opinion.

Personally, I really do dislike the idea of being given version of a playtest that is just full of experimental stuff they know its probably going to get complaints.

I always felt that type of playtest is no better than a bait and switch. While also just making everything more toxic.

But thats just a personal opinion.

I think it is important to remember that the playtest is not something you have to participate in. None of us are getting paid, and it isn't a preview of what is promised to come. It is basically people volunteering to try out some mechanics that the developers have questions about and provide feedback about those mechanics and how they live up to player expectations. It is perfectly ok not to participate in the playtest.

Everyone's feedback is valuable, but if the process of testing out incomplete elements of a game is frustrating, then it is ok not to participate.

Plus, not to repeat myself in this thread hopefully, if you don't like the way a class turns out in the end, and you honestly have ideas that fit your vision better, or you see someone else's idea that does, post it to the homebrew, talk to your table about using it, and just use that in your own game. If people like it they will use it. The open source nature of PF2 means that if you don't like the way something works, change it with the people you play with so that it does.

I think it is important to remember that the playtest is not something you have to participate in. None of us are getting paid, and it isn't a preview of what is promised to come. It is basically people volunteering to try out some mechanics that the developers have questions about and provide feedback about those mechanics and how they live up to player expectations. It is perfectly ok not to participate in the playtest.

Not only this but it's actually a privilege to get to participate in an open playtest for free.

This isn't like some early access game that charges 60 bucks, its a free set of rules they are allowing us to see in advance and actively voice concerns on them for a month.

Even if Playtests became the standard in the TTRPG industry, which they might eventually, we still need to keep in mind that we are in no way entitled to receive one, especially not for every single core book they release.

If we started treating these Playtests like the opportunities they are, we'd be better for it. It's not we "have" to playtest bad/good/dicey rules, it's we get to playtest those rules.

Unicore wrote:

I think it is important to remember that the playtest is not something you have to participate in. None of us are getting paid, and it isn't a preview of what is promised to come. It is basically people volunteering to try out some mechanics that the developers have questions about and provide feedback about those mechanics and how they live up to player expectations. It is perfectly ok not to participate in the playtest.

Not only this but it's actually a privilege to get to participate in an open playtest for free.

This isn't like some early access game that charges 60 bucks, its a free set of rules they are allowing us to see in advance and actively voice concerns on them for a month.

Even if Playtests became the standard in the TTRPG industry, which they might eventually, we still need to keep in mind that we are in no way entitled to receive one, especially not for every single core book they release.

If we started treating these Playtests like the opportunities they are, we'd be better for it. It's not we "have" to playtest bad/good/dicey rules, it's we get to playtest those rules.

1000x this.

Incorporating disparate opinions from randos using statistical analysis and survey writing expertise is such a *freakin* chore. And this is being done by people with the game design chops of Mark Seifter and Logan Bonner. These guys know what they're doing and consistently put out excellent work.

The fact that they're putting in the extra legwork to let us weigh in too is just a huge boon, no matter how you look at it.

I very much do not want them to polish their work up before putting it to playtest with the expectation that little is going to change. Save that performative garbage for AAA video game publisher "paid betas".

Completely agree. It's an honor to be able to get an input in those rules.

Just to be clear, I wasn't arguing for them to release nigh perfect rules, but rather just wondering if they already have expectations over what those rules would change a lot or not.

It is a Win/Win really. And those are rare enough to be applauded.

Oh I agree with all of you. I know that the playtest is optional, that rules are not aet in stone, that it has a lot of value, and that its a huge shore. I was not saying the playtest was bad.

I was just stating a preference in response to Richinevh's post. Even if I do dislike the type of playtest I mentioned, I understand why its done, and have no problem with it. Also I think, that as rules in general some of the things that got complained do make sense. But in the context of the specific classes, it needs to meet a different bar for mesh the lore, feel, and mechanics associated with them.

I'm actually really thankful that we have such great designers and that they do playtests, but at the same time, I wouldn't be especially interested in buying major rules additions that weren't playtested like this.

So I wouldn't consider it a 'privilege' per say, I'd consider it part of Paizo's commitment to the creation of a high quality product and to their community-- both of which are very much reasons why I'm proud to support them.

I don't see the playtesting as 'extra work for our benefit' I see it as an important part of the design process that isn't really optional for the level of quality we saw in the core rules and APG.

I would say they *should* do another pass for the Magus, but that opinion is based on the idea that the Magus may need to be overhauled in a way that might change it greatly between now and release-- and if its that different, we would still want the benefit of playtesting on that design.

But they are the professionals so if they feel otherwise, I trust them.

I kinda disagree.

I can't speak for everyone's respective jobs, but the truth is that laymen rarely have good ideas on how to solve problems although generally good at identifying them.

That's the reason "Reddit knows balance" is a thing for most video games. 1000s of upvotes on suggestions that are ultimately wrong or balance dictations that are just untrue. There's a lot of Dunning-Kreuger effect type stuff going on where people know so little about the subject they have strong opinions on but yet feel they are correct about an issue.

While I do think our feedback is valid, especially in great quantities where it is effectively boiled down to statistics, I can also recognize that the value of my opinion, when compared to a career developer, is orders of magnitude worse.

Customers often think they know what they want when it comes to complex solutions. This happens in software all the time where customers instead of just identifying the problem and reporting it to the developer, they specifically request an implementation that they believe solves that problem.

The reality is that the request to solve the problem is oftentimes an ill-formed request, an incomplete solution, an untenable solution, or in general just inferior to something else a Dev could produce.

But, once the dev hears that something is a problem for a customer, they can formulate a good approach (generally) to solving that problem while preserving the other systems they have to support and the standards they have in place.

TL;DR People are good at identifying problems, but people are often bad at solving those problems (due to lack of knowledge/experience solving those problems). Report the problems you have, and let the professionals solve the problem. Proposing a solution is fine, as long as you understand that your solution is like trying to solve a puzzle inside another room while looking through a keyhole.

After the uneccissarily large amount of vitriol on these forums in response to the playtest, I'd honestly be surprised if we get to do any more playtests. I know that if I were in charge of some things, I'd probably scan through and pick out the people that did more than armchair theorize and whine. Find those that playtested and analyzed well, and have just them do the playests in the future. Based on what happened, I do not think that the forum community can handle another playtest.

After the uneccissarily large amount of vitriol on these forums in response to the playtest, I'd honestly be surprised if we get to do any more playtests. I know that if I were in charge of some things, I'd probably scan through and pick out the people that did more than armchair theorize and whine. Find those that playtested and analyzed well, and have just them do the playests in the future. Based on what happened, I do not think that the forum community can handle another playtest.

You're probably blowing the vitriol out of proportion. There has been loads of good discussion, it's just easier to remember the negativity from frankly a small number of users.

Even then, if I were in Paizo's position I would treat the forums as an armchair game designer kindergarten and let people have their fun here, only stopping by to see if anything sticks out, and rely on the documentable surveys.

I kinda disagree.

I can't speak for everyone's respective jobs, but the truth is that laymen rarely have good ideas on how to solve problems although generally good at identifying them.

That's the reason "Reddit knows balance" is a thing for most video games. 1000s of upvotes on suggestions that are ultimately wrong or balance dictations that are just untrue. There's a lot of Dunning-Kreuger effect type stuff going on where people know so little about the subject they have strong opinions on but yet feel they are correct about an issue.

While I do think our feedback is valid, especially in great quantities where it is effectively boiled down to statistics, I can also recognize that the value of my opinion, when compared to a career developer, is orders of magnitude worse.

Customers often think they know what they want when it comes to complex solutions. This happens in software all the time where customers instead of just identifying the problem and reporting it to the developer, they specifically request an implementation that they believe solves that problem.

The reality is that the request to solve the problem is oftentimes an ill-formed request, an incomplete solution, an untenable solution, or in general just inferior to something else a Dev could produce.

But, once the dev hears that something is a problem for a customer, they can formulate a good approach (generally) to solving that problem while preserving the other systems they have to support and the standards they have in place.

TL;DR People are good at identifying problems, but people are often bad at solving those problems (due to lack of knowledge/experience solving those problems). Report the problems you have, and let the professionals solve the problem. Proposing a solution is fine, as long as you understand that your solution is like trying to solve a puzzle inside another room while looking through a keyhole.

Its funny because I'm actually super wary of exactly what you're encouraging us to be wary about (people being good at identifying problems, but not at solving them.) But I think there's a massive caveat here: we don't want to swing too far into credentialism, especially in the field of tabletop game design.

Basically, some of the folks on here *are* at a level of enthusiast in the hobby where our level of insight isn't actually all that much worse than a professionals would be, considering professionals as a class (as opposed to individuals, with Paizo's team being especially chock full of amazing talent).

Many of us have produced and extensively vetted homebrew (just for examples sake-- in addition to a decade of GMing experience in multiple systems, I was a regular r/unearthedarcana who created a pieces of very widely accepted content, and worked with others on their drafts fairly extensively) and that class of enthusiast is more or less where our professionals come from in this industry-- consider how many designers got their start from freelance submissions to publications like Dungeon and Dragon. I've considered trying to make the jump to Freelance, but I'm focused on my career as a Librarian right now-- but that doesn't really detract from my design chops, so to speak, which I'm always working to improve on, keeping up with new game systems and trends, exploring new ideas, and playtesting things at my own table.

Now that doesn't apply to everyone around here of course, and ultimately the designers have to be the one to make the decisions for the game, but I think some of the armchair design is helpful, and I'm sure specific designers have very different relationships with different kinds of feedback-- some probably can't stand armchair designers, while others might be happy to have the community kicking at tires along with them (gotta give credit to Mike Mearls for that expression) and to get to see responses to lots of different models, angles they may not have considered, designs that emphasize subtly different elements of their own design and so forth.

Imo, its mostly bad when the community can't have an open mind, and are personally insulting to the designers because they tried something weird to see what happened (for one thing, they almost certainly know something is weird, and likely have a back up planned for if the weird thing has a negative reception) we should be more constructive and supportive in our critiques, mockups, and debates.

But... they should still happen.

I think that 'armchair design' is kind of expected, or else there wouldn't be playtest forums and we'd just fulfill the multiple choice surveys.

That said, the devs probably have already outlined their own solutions to the issues that may arise and although we may state our cases (sometimes more than once) for one or two proposed fixes, it's pretty clear that theirs is the expertise.

Then again, as Unicore pointed out, if someone doesn't like an official solution, homebrew's always there and if one's feeling particularly bold, they could even go the third party publishing route haha

Sure, in principle, FOSS has similar concepts for crowd-sourced feedback and updates, so it's not altogether impossible or even unbelievable to think that certain ideas from the community hold value.

Ultimately, that's one of the reasons FOSS generally handles errors/bugs on faster time tables than private software.

But FOSS bugs/fixes/etc. are generally communicated directly to the party capable of making the changes and often times in a discreet way to emphasize security concerns.

Obviously, this isn't a 1 to 1 comparison here, but it's more than reasonable to say that we as a community should be communicating in such a way that is conducive to giving that feedback ultimately to the people that have the power to make those changes. We often argue with each other or against the people who do have the power to make these changes/decisions, and I don't know that we're doing the best job on the forums of keeping this in mind: We need to be presenting legitimate feedback for the party in question that can make the changes we want.

The issue becomes when people that have decades of experience, produced content, etc. are intermixed with people that are new to TTRPGs, new to playtesting in general, and any other form of what I would qualify as "laymen".

In FOSS, those "requests" would simply be rejected/ignored.

On these forums, not really the case. If you have a keyboard and an opinion, you've got ample opportunity to contribute in all the same ways as anyone else. And because we cannot assume "good knowledge", we have to assume that everyone is equally "bad knowledge".

At least to me that's how it shakes out. Everyone's opinion has to be treated equal to the value of the lowest opinion, and as unfortunate as it is, that means that your/my/anyone's opinion is worth exactly "1 schrute buck" just like everyone's.

I do think discussions are good and that some arm chair deving is fine, but within reason.

Sure, in principle, FOSS has similar concepts for crowd-sourced feedback and updates, so it's not altogether impossible or even unbelievable to think that certain ideas from the community hold value.

Ultimately, that's one of the reasons FOSS generally handles errors/bugs on faster time tables than private software.

But FOSS bugs/fixes/etc. are generally communicated directly to the party capable of making the changes and often times in a discreet way to emphasize security concerns.

Obviously, this isn't a 1 to 1 comparison here, but it's more than reasonable to say that we as a community should be communicating in such a way that is conducive to giving that feedback ultimately to the people that have the power to make those changes. We often argue with each other or against the people who do have the power to make these changes/decisions, and I don't know that we're doing the best job on the forums of keeping this in mind: We need to be presenting legitimate feedback for the party in question that can make the changes we want.

The issue becomes when people that have decades of experience, produced content, etc. are intermixed with people that are new to TTRPGs, new to playtesting in general, and any other form of what I would qualify as "laymen".

In FOSS, those "requests" would simply be rejected/ignored.

On these forums, not really the case. If you have a keyboard and an opinion, you've got ample opportunity to contribute in all the same ways as anyone else. And because we cannot assume "good knowledge", we have to assume that everyone is equally "bad knowledge".

At least to me that's how it shakes out. Everyone's opinion has to be treated equal to the value of the lowest opinion, and as unfortunate as it is, that means that your/my/anyone's opinion is worth exactly "1 schrute buck" just like everyone's.

I do think discussions are good and that some arm chair deving is fine, but within reason.

The trick is, good and bad knowledge are typically self evident from the posts and the points made-- which is one of the values of debate, it can make the value of any argument clearer.

If a designer reads something useful to them, they don't have to say "ah but what if this person is doing bad knowledge?" they can rely on their own assessment of what's being said to decide, and heck, sometimes the person with a keyboard and an opinion and nothing else might see things in a different way and offer something of real value.

They've repeatedly told us they read most of what we post on the playtest forums anyway, so in essence, its already happening.

I might be biased as like The-Magic-Sword, I'm fairly into homebrew and have made several popular classes and subclasses for 5e and classes/ancestries for 2e. I personally think I have a decent grasp of design by this point. So I do really appreciate the Paizo team letting us playtest and provide feedback. Yeah, you'll always get some bad apples in the playtest forums, but that's the internet for you. I'm hoping Paizo can shift through the good and the bad (plus they have the surveys). I wouldn't be opposed to heavier moderation on the forums though

One thing I'd like to see in future playtests (and heck, future published books) is sidebars that explain choices and expectations, particularly in short playtests like this. Things like "We expect a typical magus turn to have them use striking spell to charge their weapon with a cantrip and then Strike, with their actual spell slots being used when they need to hit extra hard." That would enable us to (a) provide input on whether that's what we think a magus should be doing, and (b) evaluate how fun/powerful/useful that is, and compare it to other tactics we find. For example, if the expected behavior is Striking spell -> cantrip -> Strike, and people find that Strike, Strike, Shield provides better results, then something should probably be done about Striking Spell.

One thing I'd like to see in future playtests (and heck, future published books) is sidebars that explain choices and expectations, particularly in short playtests like this. Things like "We expect a typical magus turn to have them use striking spell to charge their weapon with a cantrip and then Strike, with their actual spell slots being used when they need to hit extra hard." That would enable us to (a) provide input on whether that's what we think a magus should be doing, and (b) evaluate how fun/powerful/useful that is, and compare it to other tactics we find. For example, if the expected behavior is Striking spell -> cantrip -> Strike, and people find that Strike, Strike, Shield provides better results, then something should probably be done about Striking Spell.

While I'd enjoy that, the concern would probably be that it would prime the reader and distort their feedback by setting certain expectations and biases.

Staffan Johansson wrote:

One thing I'd like to see in future playtests (and heck, future published books) is sidebars that explain choices and expectations, particularly in short playtests like this. Things like "We expect a typical magus turn to have them use striking spell to charge their weapon with a cantrip and then Strike, with their actual spell slots being used when they need to hit extra hard." That would enable us to (a) provide input on whether that's what we think a magus should be doing, and (b) evaluate how fun/powerful/useful that is, and compare it to other tactics we find. For example, if the expected behavior is Striking spell -> cantrip -> Strike, and people find that Strike, Strike, Shield provides better results, then something should probably be done about Striking Spell.

While I'd enjoy that, the concern would probably be that it would prime the reader and distort their feedback by setting certain expectations and biases.

Eh, I don't know if that's really fair to say.

One, they already include flavor text at the beginning that describes how a Class might fight for all classes anyways, and generally, anytime you expose someone to something for the first time, it goes without saying that instructions do help use it in at least somewhat intended way.

Now, in the case of playtesting, perhaps "how intuitive is it to use" is a metric they want to govern the class as well, so leaving off guidance is intended for the sake of deriving value from abilities being "self-explanatory". That's a perfectly valid reason to not include those.

But a "Here's is how we expected their general routines to look sidebar" would at least give us a frame of mind for how to use something as it was originally envisioned to operate, and whether that vision coincides with what the player wants out of the Class.

There's wiggle room in between "do this exact routine" and "here's how we thought a typical turn might look".

One thing I'd like to see in future playtests (and heck, future published books) is sidebars that explain choices and expectations, particularly in short playtests like this. Things like "We expect a typical magus turn to have them use striking spell to charge their weapon with a cantrip and then Strike, with their actual spell slots being used when they need to hit extra hard." That would enable us to (a) provide input on whether that's what we think a magus should be doing, and (b) evaluate how fun/powerful/useful that is, and compare it to other tactics we find. For example, if the expected behavior is Striking spell -> cantrip -> Strike, and people find that Strike, Strike, Shield provides better results, then something should probably be done about Striking Spell.

This is what I really like seeing in the twitch stream videos and at convention panels. But I totally recognize that getting that kind of process feedback is something that will only happen when it is fun for them to give, and they don't feel attacked for doing so.

This would really be nice. I know its different worlds, but Unearthed Arcana has recently incorporated some sidebars on design intent and clarification. I think it has helped a lot.

I have seen several mentions of limiting spellcasting by making 10th level spells unavailable to the limited spellcasters.

I think I should point out that something that only becomes available at 19th level is not really a meaningful limitation if denied. Any such limitation should kick in at 1st level and persist through all levels.

I have seen several mentions of limiting spellcasting by making 10th level spells unavailable to the limited spellcasters.

I think I should point out that something that only becomes available at 19th level is not really a meaningful limitation if denied. Any such limitation should kick in at 1st level and persist through all levels.

That's not true, especially in 2e. Even level 20 features are factored into balance. Regardless considering their current situation you could give them some buffs and it qol fixes right now without taking anything away

I have seen several mentions of limiting spellcasting by making 10th level spells unavailable to the limited spellcasters.

I think I should point out that something that only becomes available at 19th level is not really a meaningful limitation if denied. Any such limitation should kick in at 1st level and persist through all levels

One of the core design goals for 2e was to make high level play more functional and give it more spotlight, like by making APs go from 1 to 20.

Given that perspective, it makes sense that even high level balance is considered a key part of a class' balance.

Many existing classes have features that do not kick in until 19 (Legendary Spellcasting and Master Armor proficiency for non-Champion/Monk martials are the two big ones), and said features are clearly still a part of their power budget.

Yes, 2e is balanced for high level play too, but a loss of 10th level slots isn't felt until 19th level. That's not enough limitations for levels 1-18. Losing 10th level spells can be considered part of the class's power budget, but its a minor part.

Yes, 2e is balanced for high level play too, but a loss of 10th level slots isn't felt until 19th level. That's not enough limitations for levels 1-18. Losing 10th level spells can be considered part of the class's power budget, but its a minor part.

Massive disagree

Yes, 2e is balanced for high level play too, but a loss of 10th level slots isn't felt until 19th level. That's not enough limitations for levels 1-18. Losing 10th level spells can be considered part of the class's power budget, but its a minor part.

By that same logic, missing out on Master armor proficiency and Legendary Spellcasting is a minor limitation. Nevertheless, it very clearly is a balancing point for multiple existing classes, with Warpriest being the most proeminent example of that. Classes are written with the expectation that they will be played from 1-20, and that there isn't a cutoff level where limitations stop being factored in.

I still don't understand why playtest Magus and Summoner aren't getting level 10 slots. Not getting actual level 10 spells is ok, but now their magic power stops growing at level 17, and that's bad.

fanatic66 wrote:

Yes, 2e is balanced for high level play too, but a loss of 10th level slots isn't felt until 19th level. That's not enough limitations for levels 1-18. Losing 10th level spells can be considered part of the class's power budget, but its a minor part.

By that same logic, missing out on Master armor proficiency and Legendary Spellcasting is a minor limitation. Nevertheless, it very clearly is a balancing point for multiple existing classes, with Warpriest being the most proeminent example of that. Classes are written with the expectation that they will be played from 1-20, and that there isn't a cutoff level where limitations stop being factored in.

Losing legendary casting isn't what really hurts the War Priest. It's the delayed casting proficiency in general. When other casters get expert casting (later than martials getting expert in weapons), war priest only gets expert in weapons. By the time the war priest gets expert in casting, the other casters nearly have master in casting. Plus due to the MAD nature of being a gish, you likely won't have an 18 in your casting stat, unlike other casters, which sets your further behind. Losing legendary casting is a loss, but its minor compared to what I just discussed.

Players won't feel the loss of legendary casting until 19th level, which either is nearly the end of the campaign or unreachable by some campaigns. In my last few years of D&D/PF, I've only ever been part of one campaign that reached 20th level. Every other campaign either felt apart earlier (TPK, DM burnout, real life issues, etc) or just ended naturally at an earlier level than 20. From what I've seen/heard from others, this is fairly common. High level features do matter for balance, but I value them less crucial than low to mid level features, as those will actually affect a player's enjoyment of a class for most of their 'character career'.

In short, the War Priest pays for better martial proficiency by being a weaker caster (delayed casting proficiency, MADness) than Cloistered Clerics.

fanatic66 wrote:

Yes, 2e is balanced for high level play too, but a loss of 10th level slots isn't felt until 19th level. That's not enough limitations for levels 1-18. Losing 10th level spells can be considered part of the class's power budget, but its a minor part.

By that same logic, missing out on Master armor proficiency and Legendary Spellcasting is a minor limitation. Nevertheless, it very clearly is a balancing point for multiple existing classes, with Warpriest being the most proeminent example of that. Classes are written with the expectation that they will be played from 1-20, and that there isn't a cutoff level where limitations stop being factored in.

Losing out on legendary spellcasting means that your earlier proficiencies advance slower - the equivalent would be the Magus getting all of its spell slots later than other casters, which I can't imagine the people campaigning for this solution would be happy about.

I wanted the magus to get 1 level delay in acquiring new spell levels as well as only 2 spells per level, so that full casters could show off when new spells come online unlocking different aspects of play (invisibility/flight/teleport etc).

At first level a magus would have a key focus power and cantrips, which would set the tone for the rest of the magus play experience.

Lightdroplet wrote:

fanatic66 wrote:

Yes, 2e is balanced for high level play too, but a loss of 10th level slots isn't felt until 19th level. That's not enough limitations for levels 1-18. Losing 10th level spells can be considered part of the class's power budget, but its a minor part.

By that same logic, missing out on Master armor proficiency and Legendary Spellcasting is a minor limitation. Nevertheless, it very clearly is a balancing point for multiple existing classes, with Warpriest being the most proeminent example of that. Classes are written with the expectation that they will be played from 1-20, and that there isn't a cutoff level where limitations stop being factored in.

Losing out on legendary spellcasting means that your earlier proficiencies advance slower - the equivalent would be the Magus getting all of its spell slots later than other casters, which I can't imagine the people campaigning for this solution would be happy about.

If there was something to do differently with these classes it would be a different progression. Not having slower progression might be the thing to make them feel better to play.

Having the spell level progression lose spells (so that the new classes only get 4 spells total) was a pretty wild mechanic to begin with, so I wouldn't be surprised to learn they have alternatives ready, but I can't imagine that having new classes deviate from getting spells equal to half your level is really on the table for either class. Not if you are expected to cast summons or highest level attack spells.

I think the main thing demonstrated by this playtest is how the tight design of PF2 makes it really hard to deal with classes where the math goes outside the norms.

In the core rules, most classes follow one of two proficiency progressions: martial or caster. Within each category, there's some wiggle room regarding which order things come in (e.g. wizard and sorcerer switch up which order they get expert in Fortitude and Reflex), but they're pretty similar. And you're either a full caster, gaining access to new spell levels at every odd level, or you're limited to focus spells and maybe cantrips. Different classes get different number of slots, but they still get them at the same time.

We could see some of those cracks begin to show as early as the core book, with the alchemist and the warpriest. Neither fit as either a caster or a martial, and that's definitely a part of why they have issues.

And giving delayed access to spells, like the 1e magus or bard, doesn't work very well in PF2 because spell level is important in itself, because of counteracting and incapacitation. A 10th level caster who can't cast 5th level spells is at a severe disadvantage.

So the way I see it, there are essentially three ways of going about making hybrid classes like the magus:

1. Lean strongly one way or the other. You either make a class that fights at a martial level and has a bit of casting, or you make a class that casts at a proper level and can fight a little.

2. A middle ground where you're worse at fighting than a martial, and worse at casting than a caster. This will give you lots of options, but generally you will always feel like you're behind.

3. Full progression on both proficiency fronts and balance that out in other areas, assuming it's even possible, or just accept that it's OK to be multi-competent because you can only do one thing at a time anyway.

In the latter scenario, one way to control that is limiting windows for competence when certain conditions are met. Preferably through conditions you are given tools to trigger.

IE make conditions where doing something martial enhances magical ability to comparable level and vice versa. Then you are only achieving parity when your actions reflect balancing yourself between the two disciplines.

In the latter scenario, one way to control that is limiting windows for competence when certain conditions are met. Preferably through conditions you are given tools to trigger.

IE make conditions where doing something martial enhances magical ability to comparable level and vice versa. Then you are only achieving parity when your actions reflect balancing yourself between the two disciplines.

That's why I'm a fan of Striking Spell being one roll based on the weapon attack roll. It improves the Magus's spell accuracy, but only when doing their unique class feature.

Just an aside.

On playtesting: I think privelege goes too far. Essentially, the community is providing a service, for free, to Paizo. Sure, Paizo has to organise the playtest, and engage with it, but it is an invaluable way to generate not only a lot of data, but free ideas too. Which, given that’s entirely what their products consist of apart from the art, is not to be sniffed at.

On relative experience/ability, creating bias and, sadly, vitriol:

I think the designers/devs can easily gauge the merits of concepts and biases, and how or where to use or ignore them. Sometimes a solution comes not from a proposed concept, but concepts hinted at or even unrelated to the proposed concept.

I agree with Steffan above that guiding sidebars are useful - sure it might skew some folk, but plenty armchair workers will either disabuse themselves of such guidance or work within it in unexpected ways.

As for vitriol, I think the designers/devs are well versed in identifying and ignoring shrillness, snark all the way up to downright abuse. I hope to see Paizo continue to playtest where they think it useful, because I imagine like most profit-making concerns, ultimately they do what makes economic sense well before they decide to extrnd privileges. Which is sustainable.

I’m running a follow up game with the characters from one of my Playtest because they all loved their characters so much. Characters made from rules given to my table a year in advance free of charge.

I stand by the word privilege.

That's one of the interesting things about the playtests: we get access to classes early and in-progress. We get a lot of time to play around with them. I had a playtest investigator in my games before the APG and currently am running a PbP with a summoner who wants "more meat on the bones" of the summoner, but loves the class too much to switch (despite my offer of a free rebuild). I look forward to seeing the summoner in action over the coming year, as I'm certain this PbP will be crawling along at the speed of... Well, most PbP.

I’m running a follow up game with the characters from one of my Playtest because they all loved their characters so much. Characters made from rules given to my table a year in advance free of charge.

I stand by the word privilege.

Yep, understood. Just one of those situations where given the lens of our experience and the framework of our views, we are both right. At the moment I’m having a big discussion with my 9 y.o. son about fairness, and how, according to him, the world (of human agency) (where possible) should be “fair”. I point out to him that fairness is relative and that in many many situations there are competing needs, desires, viewpoints etc and that you can’t make situations/outcomes fair for/by everyone - oftentimes what one person is happy to call fair, another calls tyranny.

So, happy gaming is all I can end with.

As for vitriol, I think the designers/devs are well versed in identifying and ignoring shrillness, snark all the way up to downright abuse..

You don’t build an immunity to abuse, you can build better ways to deal with it, but you’re never immune to it.

And no matter how small, little things can build up and tear down, especially if there’s a plethora of them.

I’m running a follow up game with the characters from one of my Playtest because they all loved their characters so much. Characters made from rules given to my table a year in advance free of charge.

I stand by the word privilege.

Me too. We always use the playtest classes throughout the year, so basically we get classes and them upgraded versions on release!

I do admit, however, that I will homebrew a lot on those two this time around

OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:

As for vitriol, I think the designers/devs are well versed in identifying and ignoring shrillness, snark all the way up to downright abuse..

You don’t build an immunity to abuse, you can build better ways to deal with it, but you’re never immune to it.

And no matter how small, little things can build up and tear down, especially if there’s a plethora of them.

Absolutely. I did not mean to excuse poor behaviour or make it seem insignificant in case that was anyone’s reading of my post.