Secrets of Magic Playtest Aftermath

Monday, November 2, 2020

Hi, folks! Logan here. We’ve had some time to look over the survey results and messageboard posts after the Secrets of Magic playtest concluded, and had team discussions about potential changes ahead. Thanks to everyone who participated in the playtest, playing characters, finding problems, taking surveys, and giving feedback! We wanted to give you a bit of an idea of the direction we’re looking at taking the magus and summoner for the final book. Not everything here is set in stone, though. We still have rewrites to do, more internal conversations to have, and additional data to look at. There are also hundreds of little things we’ll be changing, from individual feats to story elements—this blog is just hitting the main points. And, hey, if you stick around to the end of the blog, we have an extra treat for you!

Sketch of a pale male half-elf with white hair. He wears ornate robes and carries a sword in one hand. Magical fire dances in his other hand.

Seltyiel, the iconic magus, sketch by Wayne Reynolds

Magus

Much of the feedback on the magus indicated that it felt too restrictive and too random. The class could be quite powerful, but required really specific play patterns and choices to get there. We don’t want a class that can do a huge nova attack if you stack your true strikes correctly but isn’t satisfying for doing much else. Our focus for further magus development will be adding more varied strategies, making the action economy less difficult to deal with, and giving more clear paths to build toward what you want your magus to do.

Striking Spell: This ability, unsurprisingly, was the focus of much of the conversation from the playtest. In surveys, it was rated as being interesting, but not powerful enough. It was also rated as being difficult to understand. Players noted that it could be frustrating to spend your whole turn casting a Striking Spell spell, then miss with the Strike. Even having more chances at it didn’t take out the sting of needing to wait for another turn to try again. Often, even if the spell came off later, the magus had missed enough opportunities that it didn’t seem worth it.


Making changes to Striking Spell won’t be straightforward, and we still need to do a lot of experiments to find something that’s fully satisfying. One of the major drivers for the playtest version was making it highly flexible to allow for using a wide variety of spells (compared to, say, Eldritch Shot) and let you use your stored spell with other abilities (like Flurry of Blows or Power Attack). Ultimately, these came at the expense of having a straightforward, solid special ability that was dependable. And it also meant that many paths to doing cool things required multiclassing, which leaves the class itself feeling lackluster.

We know for sure that we want to restructure the action to make its presentation clearer. We’re also going away from using a special benefit that relies on a critical hit, as that led to the ability feeling too random and giving too strong an incentive to load up on true strike and put all your eggs in one basket. For actual effects of the ability, there are a lot of options on the table, such as having a stored spell with a spell attack roll not increase your multiple attack penalty, or going a bit farther and using the same roll for your Strike and spell (similar to Eldritch Shot), or having some type of buff you gain while you have a stored spell so you don’t necessarily want to use it right away. Some changes might require Striking Spell to no longer be at-will, so using it is a more impactful moment rather than repetitive. Lowering its frequency, of course, requires some other tools to give your other turns that magus flavor. We’re still workshopping ideas on that front.

Spells: The spell progression for magus has a total of four slots maximum. We knew the spell progression would also be a major topic of discussion. Players were pretty divided among which path to take, with about 40% of survey respondents happy with the playtest path, and a wide variety of opinions about alternatives with no clear victor. One of the common notes we saw was that the four slots didn’t allow for many interesting or fun utility spells, but that the Martial Caster feat brought some back in. To that end, we’re looking at adding a class feature similar to Martial Casting around 7th level. That will link to our next topic...

Magus Synthesis: Much of the discussion about the magus suggested slide casting felt like a mandatory pick. In the surveys, while slide casting was chosen the most, the selections were much more varied than we expected. And beyond that, shooting star had the best numbers on the “fun scale.” With the intention to make the action economy of Striking Spell more player-friendly, we also want to make the synthesis options more distinctly focused on certain playstyles rather than one appearing like a mandatory choice for action economy purposes. There will likely be more syntheses coming, too, as we add options for the final book.

We intend to give more of a story hook to syntheses, since they’re currently a bit dry compared to similar options in other classes. These will likely also come with some extra benefits that give a bit of a leg up to certain playstyles, such as adding more spells to your spellbook or influencing what you get from the Martial Caster benefit, as noted above. We’re also planning to change the name to avoid confusion with the summoner, who has had a synthesis option since 1st Edition. Finally, we heard you when you said Raise a Tome doesn’t work with the syntheses, and will be fixing that.

Spell Proficiency: This part is pretty straightforward. It was noted that the magus has a slower spell attack roll and spell DC progression than the champion or monk can get with their focus spells. The magus will be getting a faster progression.

Battle Spells: The magus potency spell wasn’t that popular. People have been asking for a special attack spell as a focus spell instead, particularly a 1-action spell. We had avoided that for two reasons: first, if the spell is strong, fights can end up really repetitive, and second, we had intended for cantrip choice and their use to be an important part of playing a magus. Cantrips ended up not feeling like a good enough value to be worth using with Striking Spell, though. The battle spell will be changing from magus potency, but the specifics aren’t settled yet. It might be an attack spell with a Striking Spell benefit; it might be based on your synthesis if those would benefit from being differentiated in this way—this depends a lot on how the rest of the class shakes out and we won’t have a clear answer for a while yet.

And now I’ll turn this over to Mark to talk about the summoner!

Sketch of a dark-skinned human girl, wearing mage’s robes. She gestures to her eidolon, a dragon several feet taller than her.

New iconic summoner and her dragon, sketch by Wayne Reynolds

Summoner

Hi everyone, Mark Seifter here for a post-playtest report for the summoner class. First of all, thanks to everyone who participated in the summoner playtest, running games, posting playtest results and analysis, answering surveys, and more! The summoner class had quite a bit of online interaction this time around, and there were a lot of interesting and cogent discussions with many good points made by folks with differing opinions.

Overall people really liked the summoner, with the second highest overall approval after the swashbuckler, but there were also some pitfalls, from small to moderate, that people were looking to see fixed, and they all interact in different ways, which makes it a little harder than for the magus to go into great detail on what changes will happen. Finding a fix for a new issue might require revisiting our decision for one we had an idea of how to solve.


Main Takeaways: Some outcomes are clear. We’re strongly leaning toward changing Act Together to a variable-action activity, allowing either the summoner or eidolon to use a 1-, 2-, or 3-action activity and the other to use a single action. The summoner will be getting proficiency increases to spell attack roll and spell DC sooner, just like the magus. We also want to allow more customization of your eidolon at 1st level without loading up too many choices to make, so we’re leaning towards more evolutions being available at 1st level and giving you a free evolution to choose from at 1st level. We’re also looking into a few other avenues to potentially increase versatility—but there’s an upper limit on how complex the class can be, so there’s likely to be a process where we add and subtract things until we’re satisfied. As such, I don’t want to get too specific in case it changes.

Eidolon Types: We plan to increase from the four eidolon types presented here to between eight and 10 eidolon types in the final version. Expect them to be chosen from among the ranks of the eidolon types mentioned, but not presented, in the playtest, such as fey and demon eidolons.

Spellcasting: One issue that had a lot of discussion was how to handle spellcasting, whether to keep it the same, remove spell slots for other options like eidolon abilities or focus spells, increase spell slots and weaken the eidolon’s offense, or take a different approach. Based on the plurality of responses in favor of keeping the spellcasting the way it currently works, we are leaning towards that option. We’ve seen some positive playtest results with regards to diverse spell selection and usage.

Synthesis: There was a lot of feedback on the Synthesis feat that allowed you to merge with your eidolon; it was popular but many folks said that being an option you choose each time you Manifest rather than mandatory didn’t fulfill the fantasy and that the ability to use both options caused it to have quite a few restrictions it might not need otherwise. Right now we are leaning towards changing the feat’s name and flavor to be clear that it is meant for an optional ability, and then make the synthesist a class archetype in a later book, with trade-offs based around having only the option to merge with the eidolon, not to Manifest it normally.

Incarnate Spell Preview

That’s a lot to read, so let’s finish things off with a preview of a new type of “mega summoning” wherein you summon a powerful thematic creature that sticks around briefly and has a big impact! This is still early in the process, so any elements of this, including names, might still change. And because this is just a preview, don’t go trying to use this in Pathfinder Society! Though if I were your home GM and you gave me some cookies, I’d allow it, personally.

Incarnate Trait

A spell with the incarnate trait operates as follows, rather than conjuring a minion with the summoned trait and allowing you to direct its actions. When summoned, the incarnate creature takes its Arrive action. At the end of your next turn, the summoned creature can either Step, Stride, or take the action for another movement type it has (such as Climb or Burrow), and then takes its Depart action. Then the spell ends.

An incarnate spell directs its effects away from you and your allies as much as possible. The incarnate spell’s effect is not quite a creature. It can’t take any other actions, nor can it be targeted or harmed by Strikes, spells, or other effects unless they would be able to target or end a spell effect (such as dispel magic). It has a size for the purposes of determining its placement for effects, but does not block movement. If applicable, its effects use your spell DCs and spell attack roll modifier.

Summon Vengeful Dead — Spell 7

Incarnate, Necromancy

Traditions divine, occult
Cast [three-actions] material, somatic, verbal
Range 100 feet
Duration until the end of your next turn
You channel the forces of undeath to briefly call forth an amalgam of the vengeful dead slain by your enemies and allies alike. This amalgam manifests as a large tornado of insubstantial, howling faces. It occupies the space of a Huge creature and has a Speed of 60 feet.

Arrive (negative) All enemy creatures within a 60-foot emanation must attempt Fortitude saves.

  • Critical Success The creature is unaffected
  • Success The creature is drained 1.
  • Failure The creature is drained 2.
  • Critical Failure The creature is drained 3.

Depart (emotion, fear, mental) The vengeful dead lets out an anguished scream. All your enemies within a 100-foot emanation must attempt Will saves.

  • Critical Success The creature is unaffected.
  • Success The creature is frightened 2.
  • Failure The creature is frightened 3.
  • Critical Failure The creature is frightened 3. It’s also fleeing for 1 round or until it is no longer frightened, whichever comes first.
  • regards,

    Logan Bonner
    Pathfinder Lead Designer

    Mark Seifter
    Design Manager

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Pathfinder Playtest Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Pathfinder Second Edition
101 to 150 of 525 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Thank you for the aftermath commentary! Looking forward to the final classes!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

While the designers are taking the Magus in a different direction than I would have, this blog post inspires confidence that the problems will be fixed and the final versions will be good, fun classes. I wonder if maybe Striking Spell could be limited by allowing it to be used with focus points, along with a slot-- but make its damage more reliable?

That would make it consistently usable, since focus points come back like every encounter, but still quite limited.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


The one that says casting 4 spells a day without dedications or items (which still have yet to be fixed) is acceptable, which to a lot of us is not, especially with multiple encounters in a day. In fact, the majority of people don't find it acceptable, if we do the math correctly.

But, because they splintered off into how it should be fixed instead of combining them, it's to be ignored in favor of a blanket 40% who says it's acceptable, with no input as to whether it should be improved (or decreased), or an explanation as to what they found good about it. Was it to not bog down spell selection time? Was it about the right balance between martial and caster capabilities? Was it because they had other uses besides spell slots for their activities that 4 spells felt plenty?

It's a false equivalency, where accepting it is a single category, whereas not accepting it is split off into separate subcategories, even though they all fit under the same one the initial question asked, which is a simple binary answer that the question was meant to gauge. If the negative answer should be split into subcategories, so should the positive answers.

I did want the spells to change from 4 casting, and I'm a little anxious to see how the whole "7th level Martial Caster" thing goes down, but I think the described new direction could be fine.

If Summoner's felt that the casting was good enough (which Mark seems to indicates was the case) then this is probably the way to appease each class and keep the progression the same (by giving Magus bonus spells to compensate).

My only hope is that the Class Paths for Magus have some flexibility on the "bonus" spells option and it isn't "SUSTAINING STEEL GETS TRUE STRIKE, JUMP, AND FLY" which would be (IMO) worse than the current Martial Caster Feat.

I would have hoped for "pick a school" type of thing, but it doesn't sound like that's going to be the case.

We'll just have to see. 4 slot casting could be fine, but it really depends on what they tune around it to make it work.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:


If Summoner's felt that the casting was good enough (which Mark seems to indicates was the case) then this is probably the way to appease each class and keep the progression the same (by giving Magus bonus spells to compensate).

I'm not sure summoner actually is fine with only 4 spells, but that there's less visibility just due to how obvious a problem it is for the magus.

A "too busy to realize you haven't cast a spell" problem vs. a "I gotta cast a spell, I don't have any" problem.

Fixing the summoner's action economy issue (Act Together with activities, the math fixer focus cantrips) might see the lack of spells drop like a ton of bricks on the summoner later.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:


If Summoner's felt that the casting was good enough (which Mark seems to indicates was the case) then this is probably the way to appease each class and keep the progression the same (by giving Magus bonus spells to compensate).

I'm not sure summoner actually is fine with only 4 spells, but that there's less visibility just due to how obvious a problem it is for the magus.

A "too busy to realize you haven't cast a spell" problem vs. a "I gotta cast a spell, I don't have any" problem.

Fixing the summoner's action economy issue (Act Together with activities, the math fixer focus cantrips) might see the lack of spells drop like a ton of bricks on the summoner later.

Honestly, I don't disagree.

I can only assume that Mark and Logan have a better view of the data from the top down.

Funnily, both my Magi said they didn't need extra spells (one had Martial Caster and the other was playing at level 4 where it doesn't matter much at all), and both Summoners complained due to lack of spells.

I can only assume the experiences at my tables were not representative of the whole or that the issues were not considered "bad" by the standards of the survey (or my players weren't prompted in such a way to respond as they did to me).


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I just signed up to say thank you for this. I enjoyed the playtest and agree with most of the developer statements.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Expanding the idea behind martial caster seems like an elegant option for unlocking some utility without giving them full spellcasting.

I wouldn't mind seeing the Summoner get something similar, or the summon font discussed during the playtest.

Personally I don't really care as much about summoner spellcasting provided the Eidolon gets the necessary fixes, both mechanically and in terms of playability, it needs but leaving the option open is good.

Would also in general like to see Summoners get some feat support for those incarnate spells, they seem very thematic and in general I think feats aimed at specific types of spellcasting is underexplored in PF2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Great blog. Always nice to see the thoughts behind decisions.

I'm iffy on the incarnate stuff, cool it's a big aoe effect, not sure I want a big nuke of any sort, damage or debuff.
Variable act together is fantastic.

Being behind on stats half the game still feels rough. Having them increase by mod bonus instead of stat number like AC's do might help.
Might be a Dragon specific issue but I'm always using frenzy and never casting cantrips, so might be getting a vastly different result then other cantrip plus primary attack routines.

Hope we get some powerful focus abilities or similar, meta magic to increase summoned creatures levels a bit, a focus summon that's even lower level but lasts 10 minutes, a focus that turns our Eidolon into a creature we could summon at level -1 perhaps, just something to really making the summon aspect shine.

I still feel with the lack of slots and shared health combined with behind stats and no solid feat builds makes the class as a whole much weaker then a martial or a caster. I'm fine with the slots and health, I just feel that the class is missing great play style defining feats like wild shape, blocking feats, lunge(and stance), grappling feats (thrash, whirling throw, combat grab), etc. Things that allow you to make a play style, focus on an aspect of the class or do something different. I hope this class can get some top notch feats to build amazingly fun characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
I can only assume that Mark and Logan have a better view of the data from the top down.

Sure, sure.

Quote:
I can only assume the experiences at my tables were not representative of the whole or that the issues were not considered "bad" by the standards of the survey (or my players weren't prompted in such a way to respond as they did to me).

I never got to actually playtest anything. So I will admit a level of "armchair quarterbacking" but I have been reading threads and thinking about stuff and I know that my own impressions of the summoner off the bat was "wow, this is really good" and my impressions of the magus were "I don't get it, this isn't good, it doesn't function, the theme is all over the place, what am I missing?"

To a degree my opinion of the summoner went down and the magus went up, but that's not saying a lot for the magus, as I still think it is mechanically non-functional, just that my perspective shifted slightly (eg. the math says Spellstrike is better than not-Spellstrike, but I still don't think its working).


Samir Sardinha wrote:

Add class variants to summoner and maybe magus so we can have a better chasis to improve later, something in the Cloistered/Warpriest line.

Maybe one more focused on spellcasting and the other more martial options ( for the eidolon or even the summoner ).

It's really disappointing that decent combat plus decent magic is for prepared casting arcane only. Please give us more options here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Thanks for letting us know what you learned from the playtest.

One thing I think people missed with the Magus Potency is it makes a great way to keep a special purpose weapon. Put your runes on your main weapon and use Magus Potency when you need a different weapon -- such as one made of a special material.

Ludovicus wrote:
richienvh wrote:
On Striking Spell, we’ll just have to wait and see. Personally, I wouldn’t mind Striking Spell having a more limited usage. Could mean we’d get some ‘lesser spellstrike abilities’ that worked similarly to it, but without the potency of carrying a big spell to give that Magus feeling. Maybe something like some have suggested in the Swordmage discussion. However, nothing seems to be set in stone and I’m sure the final version of the class will turn out great.
I agree. And though I'm probably in the minority on this, I would be very happy to see the Magus go all in on the nova playstyle, at least as far as damage is concerned. Arguably, one niche not yet represented in the PF2 classes is limited-daily-use single-target damage (a sort of dedicated-boss-killer role), which strikes me as a natural niche for the magus.

I would much rather see the Magus become the best at taking advantage of weaknesses and being best able to get past resistances. A high alpha-strike just crushes what is supposed to be a significant boss fight.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


The one that says casting 4 spells a day without dedications or items (which still have yet to be fixed) is acceptable, which to a lot of us is not, especially with multiple encounters in a day. In fact, the majority of people don't find it acceptable, if we do the math correctly.

But, because they splintered off into how it should be fixed instead of combining them, it's to be ignored in favor of a blanket 40% who says it's acceptable, with no input as to whether it should be improved (or decreased), or an explanation as to what they found good about it. Was it to not bog down spell selection time? Was it about the right balance between martial and caster capabilities? Was it because they had other uses besides spell slots for their activities that 4 spells felt plenty?

It's a false equivalency, where accepting it is a single category, whereas not accepting it is split off into separate subcategories, even though they all fit under the same one the initial question asked, which is a simple binary answer that the question was meant to gauge. If the negative answer should be split into subcategories, so should the positive answers.

I did want the spells to change from 4 casting, and I'm a little anxious to see how the whole "7th level Martial Caster" thing goes down, but I think the described new direction could be fine.

If Summoner's felt that the casting was good enough (which Mark seems to indicates was the case) then this is probably the way to appease each class and keep the progression the same (by giving Magus bonus spells to compensate).

My only hope is that the Class Paths for Magus have some flexibility on the "bonus" spells option and it isn't "SUSTAINING STEEL GETS TRUE STRIKE, JUMP, AND FLY" which would be (IMO) worse than the current Martial Caster Feat.

I would have hoped for "pick a school" type of thing, but it doesn't sound like that's going to be the case.

We'll just have to see. 4 slot casting could be fine, but it really...

There might be a way to make it work, but I don't see an apparent solution. I suggested Spell Recall back from PF1 as a potential means to make it work, but I don't think it's in the cards for that to be put in the game without major balance issues coming to pass, or for it to just be a nothing ability. They don't have staying power like a Barbarian or Ranger does, and if they're expected to weave magic and martial capability together, they're not doing it for very long or for very many encounters in a day. 2, maybe 3 max. Meanwhile, Barbarian can rage in every combat (assuming no direct chains, but if so it might just carry over anyway), Rangers can just hunt whoever they want as an action, Rogues have Sneak Attack and awesome skills, with access to Debilitations later and in-class (feat) skill support. Magi get...4 spells a day with some meager cantrips and situational/level gated focus powers, and feats that make you either better at those 4 spells a day, cantrips, or focus powers? Ew. Double ew.

Looking at the Martial Caster feat, I didn't care for it because all it does is give you a lower level "flex" slot for one buff of your choice from a small select list (which gets bigger and bigger with each rulebook published, something that the Magus misses out on with this), and it basically becomes a feat tax for those who feel like it should be the baseline, not unlike simply taking a Spellcasting dedication to expand that list even further and more than a simple in-class feat could.

If they're so worried about stepping on spellcaster toes, they don't need to be. Reduced progression later down the line and reduced overall slots is more than enough punishment, especially when attributes and being MAD are taken into consideration.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BretI wrote:
One thing I think people missed with the Magus Potency is it makes a great way to keep a special purpose weapon. Put your runes on your main weapon and use Magus Potency when you need a different weapon -- such as one made of a special material.

I don't think it was missed but that people saw that as a niche use and something that might be something you want as an optional ability and not a mandatory one: this is especially true when you take into account that casting it means that you aren't using Striking Spell that round [unless you're using 1 action magic missile or message].

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Looking at the Martial Caster feat, I didn't care for it because all it does is give you a lower level "flex" slot for one buff of your choice from a small select list (which gets bigger and bigger with each rulebook published, something that the Magus misses out on with this), and it basically becomes a feat tax for those who feel like it should be the baseline, not unlike simply taking a Spellcasting dedication to expand that list even further and more than a simple in-class feat could.

Yeah, if they are making several Martial Caster feats I find myself wondering why I wouldn't take multiclass ones instead and have multiple slots that aren't spell locked.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If we want a Magus to be able to do some magic thing all day, the answer is "focus spells" not "spell slots."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
If we want a Magus to be able to do some magic thing all day, the answer is "focus spells" not "spell slots."

That's more cast a very small list of spells all day which I don't think a lot of people mean when they want all day casting. The draw with a prepared caster is picking the spells you use for the day but leaving it to focus is more like spontaneous casting which doesn't feel a lot like a magus.

Now it could work but I'm not sure how happy people would be with it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
If we want a Magus to be able to do some magic thing all day, the answer is "focus spells" not "spell slots."

Not really.

Focus spells allow a non-spell-slot form of spellcasting, which is usually limited (but scaling) and has better strength than a cantrip, but weaker than an actual spell.

It also has a hard limit (1 to 3 depending on if you have feats which grant focus points), with requirements to refocus between combats to do so (which is time that's not being spent receiving healing or searching rooms and such), and expending feats to be able to refocus more points between combats.

Not to mention, getting focus spells is also usually feats in and of themselves, or at the very least, specialized choices that are very limited in scope and effect.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Disclaimer: I couldn't look at the playtest, due to my ~50 hour per week night shift coronavirus testing lab job up through last Friday and the subsequent need to find a new place to live before going back to my regular job. But I wanted to say:

Don't be afraid to have a second playtest as needed for further debugging.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Don't be afraid to have a second playtest as needed for further debugging.

I think they've locked themselves into a timetable that wouldn't allow them to do this without pushing back the book so this seems very unlikely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Innominat wrote:
Samir Sardinha wrote:

Add class variants to summoner and maybe magus so we can have a better chasis to improve later, something in the Cloistered/Warpriest line.

Maybe one more focused on spellcasting and the other more martial options ( for the eidolon or even the summoner ).

It's really disappointing that decent combat plus decent magic is for prepared casting arcane only. Please give us more options here.

I'd wait to see the multiclass dedication before giving up hope here. If it gives access to something Iconic, like spell strike, it may solidly expand options for what themes and casters you can 'make' a magus type character for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:
Innominat wrote:
Samir Sardinha wrote:

Add class variants to summoner and maybe magus so we can have a better chasis to improve later, something in the Cloistered/Warpriest line.

Maybe one more focused on spellcasting and the other more martial options ( for the eidolon or even the summoner ).

It's really disappointing that decent combat plus decent magic is for prepared casting arcane only. Please give us more options here.
I'd wait to see the multiclass dedication before giving up hope here. If it gives access to something Iconic, like spell strike, it may solidly expand options for what themes and casters you can 'make' a magus type character for.

seems weird if the base archetype (or a simple archetype feat) would give access to the full "main thing" of a class.

Usually those kind of abilities come with restrictions, like Hunt prey not givng Edge, Rage not getting the specialization damage bonus, Stratagem not giving the Int bonus to attack, and etc.

I have a feeling that they would do something like "you can spellstrike but only with spells and slots gained from the archetype" and then give a base cantrip alongside it to have a starting point for those spellstrikes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Looking at the Martial Caster feat, I didn't care for it because all it does is give you a lower level "flex" slot for one buff of your choice from a small select list (which gets bigger and bigger with each rulebook published, something that the Magus misses out on with this), and it basically becomes a feat tax for those who feel like it should be the baseline, not unlike simply taking a Spellcasting dedication to expand that list even further and more than a simple in-class feat could.
Yeah, if they are making several Martial Caster feats I find myself wondering why I wouldn't take multiclass ones instead and have multiple slots that aren't spell locked.

Just a quick point, the blog post above makes it sound like this will be a 7th level class feature, not a class feat you have to choose. Both would be an option if you really wanted a lot of spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thank you for the Aftermath Report. I'm trying to remain cautiously optimistic considering these are probably some of the most difficult classes to balance without creating some type of issue at the table (either they aren't having fun, or the other PC's aren't having fun because they feel inferior/useless by comparison).

Initial Reactions:

Striking Spell: Personally favor the idea of some type of buff while holding a spell with the limitations of a stance-type mechanic. Otherwise, just hoping the "lowered frequency" wouldn't end up too restrictive since this is the defining ability of the Magus in my opinion, and I'd want the class capable of using it fairly frequently to feel satisfying.

Magus Potency: I will happily dance on this spell's grave if it is fully removed. Felt like an unwelcome hold-over from PF1 that didn't fully integrate with the design of PF2. And if non-primary weapons not having enough bonuses is an issue, then the group really should just be playing with Automatic Bonus Progression.

Summoner: Whatever you do, please, please, do not make some type of "Summoning Font" as keeps getting mentioned. Getting rid of class-specific pools was a great improvement in this edition, so I hate having to worry that you're going to go backwards on that. (And thematically, I hate the idea that Conjugation Specialist Wizards could easily become inferior at conjuration spells...)

Incarnate Spells: Sounds cool, but feels a bit incomplete at the moment. Like why doesn't it block movement if it is a summoned being that takes up physical space? And why wouldn't the enemy reasonably expect some type of benefit for attacking the creature in front of them? I'd say the Black Tentacles spell benefited from being attackable in PF2 compared to PF1, so it seems weird that the enemy wouldn't get some type of reprieve if they are able to deal X damage within the round of the Incarnation's existence.

-----

shroudb wrote:

seems weird if the base archetype (or a simple archetype feat) would give access to the full "main thing" of a class.

Usually those kind of abilities come with restrictions, like Hunt prey not givng Edge, Rage not getting the specialization damage bonus, Stratagem not giving the Int bonus to attack, and etc.

I have a feeling that they would do something like "you can spellstrike but only with spells and slots gained from the archetype" and then give a base cantrip alongside it to have a starting point for those spellstrikes.

Considering Synthesis is becoming a larger part of what it is to be a Magus, the Magus multiclass could potentially give spellstrike but not allow anything related to Synthesis to keep that as Magus-only. Because honestly, a multiclass spellstrike that didn't work with existing spells doesn't sound like spellstrike.


Hmm. A lot still seems up in the air about Magus and SUmmoner, almost to the point that it sounds like they're going to be redone from the start and built back up.

Not sure you should rush them out in a book with the way you're talking about ideas.

---
Incarnate spells- I'm just puzzled by the 'Mega summoning, pseudo-creature' flavor text. It seems pointless and, frankly, inaccurate.

The example shown is a 3 action 2 round spell with a big area. Its a big, powerful necromancy spell.

The idea of multi round spells with a high initial action cost isn't bad, I'm just not sure there's any benefit to limiting the flavor this way. Especially since there are already spells with lingering or subsequent effects.

Its also, unfortunately, something that seems entirely out of place for the setting. I'm not sure how you link sudden final fantasy summons to Golarion and existing material, whereas a big fireball that blinds people with infernal smoke the next round doesn't need complex rationalization as to how it works and why it exists.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Voss wrote:
Its also, unfortunately, something that seems entirely out of place for the setting.

Scratching my head at this assertion. There's nothing particularly setting breaking about casting a spell to call up a big thing for a short duration.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hell, it would be interesting if it's established as a new type of spell in-setting as well, and would be neat to learn how they came about. I like seeing Golarion evolve through new PF2 mechanics.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Regarding Incarnate Summons, while it's a cool concept, I think they should have an AC and hp at least, give players an opportunity to destroy the summon before its Depart effect goes off.


The incarnate summons were probably not given the HP and AC statistics because it could be abused somehow; like for example, a hypothetical substantial dragon was summoned to unleash a nasty breath attack next turn, but could be used as an extremely potent meat shield for an enemy attack of the same caliber, usurping the roles of the party martial characters in the process...

However, having said statistics working as limiters as proposed above sounds quite good though.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Don't be afraid to have a second playtest as needed for further debugging.

I think they've locked themselves into a timetable that wouldn't allow them to do this without pushing back the book so this seems very unlikely.

Given a choice between insufficient testing and pushing back on the delivery, I am very much in favor of pushing back on the delivery.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
graystone wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Don't be afraid to have a second playtest as needed for further debugging.

I think they've locked themselves into a timetable that wouldn't allow them to do this without pushing back the book so this seems very unlikely.

Given a choice between insufficient testing and pushing back on the delivery, I am very much in favor of pushing back on the delivery.

I don't think what you or I want will change anything at this point... I mean I don't want 4 slot casting but I don't see that changing either.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Gaulin wrote:


Synthesis - The other main bummer for me in this post. I suppose if we get to keep it as is now and rename it, it's something, but feels like it would be easy to fix and include in the book instead of waiting even longer for a future book.
It became clear that the full concept deserves to be given some significant space to stretch its wings (a la class archetype with all the adjustments spelled out and feats that are specific to the synthesist character only), and the summoner has a set number of pages. In the end, trying to squeeze it in instead of more summoner options in general would be a disservice to both. I'm very excited about getting it out there when we have a good book to include it!

Hopefully it has a better chance at life than the Medium did.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The NPC wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Gaulin wrote:


Synthesis - The other main bummer for me in this post. I suppose if we get to keep it as is now and rename it, it's something, but feels like it would be easy to fix and include in the book instead of waiting even longer for a future book.
It became clear that the full concept deserves to be given some significant space to stretch its wings (a la class archetype with all the adjustments spelled out and feats that are specific to the synthesist character only), and the summoner has a set number of pages. In the end, trying to squeeze it in instead of more summoner options in general would be a disservice to both. I'm very excited about getting it out there when we have a good book to include it!
Hopefully it has a better chance at life than the Medium did.

In fairness, the original medium was ridiculously ambitious. It would have been such a huge class that you could base entire campaigns around nothing but the different kinds of medium, and given its own book in the process.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
graystone wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Don't be afraid to have a second playtest as needed for further debugging.

I think they've locked themselves into a timetable that wouldn't allow them to do this without pushing back the book so this seems very unlikely.

Given a choice between insufficient testing and pushing back on the delivery, I am very much in favor of pushing back on the delivery.

Do you really though? Because burning more man months on a book eats almost strictly out of Paizo's probably not enormous profit margins and may result in significant long term damage to the quality of other products.

I can say given a choice between (somewhat) insufficient testing and pushing back on the delivery for some amount of time, I would like people who actually know what that entails to make the decision.


If the Magus cannot do a full "spellstrike" every turn, but gets a benefit from having a spell in their weapon during the "cooldown" I think it could be Magus enough to work. Depends what the benefit would be of course. A stronger version of bespell weapon ? Adding Int to attack or damage rolls ? Access to special spellstrike reactions (Spellstrike AoO for example)

If Capture Spell is buffed and is a way to spellstrike more often it would be very cool too. "Oh, you thought I was on cooldown, what a bad idea you had casting a spell towards me"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Regarding Incarnate Summons, while it's a cool concept, I think they should have an AC and hp at least, give players an opportunity to destroy the summon before its Depart effect goes off.

I disagree. There are several other spells that create tangible, lasting effects that cannot be destroyed by striking them. You can't hack down a Flaming Sphere or a Chromatic/Prismatic Wall.

Such effects allow other tactics to come into play. Dispel Magic, other dispelling abilities, protecting against the coming effect, killing the caster fast, taking cover...

For the strikable-or-not confusion argument of other posts: That is the same with e.g. Chromatic Wall... sometimes you have to learn by failing that some magic walls can be crushed and others not. (Also going by the article you won't even be able to target a Incarnate spell with a Strike, so there is no wasted Strike)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm greatful for the status update and sharing of thoughts, but how is it that none of the issues in which playtesters were seeking clarification got addressed?

Issues like...
...whether or not 4-slot casters get full use out of magical staves.
...how numerous effects interact with the pooled hit points and action economy of summoner and eidolon.
...dragon eidolons not actually being dragon eidolons due to lack of flight.

And several others. These seemed (to me at least) to matter a great deal to a lot of people as they fundamentally impacted how these classes would play. I'm not surprised we didn't get the clarifications this early on, but it seems odd to me that these topics apparently don't even bear acknowledging yet.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I let this blog stew in my noodle for a bit longer and I have to agree that if there is significant uncertainty about how the classes will go, it should be pushed back.

The whole "4-slot casting" paradigm is going to be a major part of the game going forward, serving as a foundation for all half-martials/half-casters from here on out. It's important to get it right.

I do believe it would be a mistake to proceed with 4-slot casting, for reason's I've espoused in the playtest forums. Martial Caster was woefully inadequate, and getting it baseline wouldn't come close to providing the right feel for the class, and would be a disservice to future classes who are going to be stuck with 4-slot casting as well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

I let this blog stew in my noodle for a bit longer and I have to agree that if there is significant uncertainty about how the classes will go, it should be pushed back.

The whole "4-slot casting" paradigm is going to be a major part of the game going forward, serving as a foundation for all half-martials/half-casters from here on out. It's important to get it right.

I do believe it would be a mistake to proceed with 4-slot casting, for reason's I've espoused in the playtest forums. Martial Caster was woefully inadequate, and getting it baseline wouldn't come close to providing the right feel for the class, and would be a disservice to future classes who are going to be stuck with 4-slot casting as well.

Agreed on the 4-slot casting, specifically the Martial Caster concept. Martial Caster feels very much like a hack, a way of saying "we know the toolkit for Magus casting feels light weight, so we're going to back some spells back in that seem to be useful for a Magus". It's an inelegant solution because it creates a fixed laundry list that all Magus' taking that feat will have access to. It removes a lot of the "I'm equally a magic caster with a spellbook and preparations to make" from the class.

What happens when another 4 slot casting class comes along with a different set of spells that "seem necessary but are generally inaccessible in our new 4 slot casting arrangement"? Does that class get its own set of spells that can be added back via a feat? It feels orthogonal to the intent of the design.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:


...how numerous effects interact with the pooled hit points and action economy of summoner and eidolon.

I am also a little concerned on this.

Like, Eidolon's interacting with Aura's, mental targetting abilities that sortof affect action economy, double penalties for triggering AoOs or being considered as "separate" for the purposes of attacks. Those were all WAY bigger issues in actual play.

Waterslethe wrote:
The whole "4-slot casting" paradigm is going to be a major part of the game going forward, serving as a foundation for all half-martials/half-casters from here on out. It's important to get it right.

I am also concerned about this, but if every version of "half-caster/gish" gets the "you get extra spells of a certain type" then I could stomach that.

An Inquisitor that only gets 4, but then gets a subset of Necromancy spells if they are like an Inquisitor of Pharasma would probably be okay.

My guess on why the progression is persisting is because they decided to advance the Proficiency of casting. I would have preferred quantity of spells over quality in this case, but you definitely can't do both.


There's no reason you couldn't have a future "half-caster" class with meager spellcasting proficiencies and lots of low level slots but no high ones, it's just that class has to be about "buffing" in a way that the Magus really is not.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah, I guess I'm saying if they don't find a solution that makes them say "ah! this is it!" but feels more like a "I guess with these tweaks it should be fine" they should really consider pushing back the schedule.

If the new martial caster was "You get one spell per level of all spell levels except your top two" that would be much more elegant than "here, take this abbreviated list of spells we think a magus wants, no you can't cast your old favorite spells with these extra slots".

I just want them to make sure the paradigm they select stands the test of time.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
...dragon eidolons not actually being dragon eidolons due to lack of flight.

Not how dragons work.


Yeah, it seems some people misread about Martial Caster. It won't be a feat anymore and will just be part of the kit. Depending on the spells made available through it, it could be enough and be part of the "half-caster" chassis fairly easily. Though each new book might have to include a paragraph or something saying which spells are added to the differnet "Martial casters"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
If the new martial caster was "You get one spell per level of all spell levels except your top two" that would be much more elegant than "here, take this abbreviated list of spells we think a magus wants, no you can't cast your old favorite spells with these extra slots".

Is "spells selected for martial caster cannot be combined with striking spell" too janky?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
If the new martial caster was "You get one spell per level of all spell levels except your top two" that would be much more elegant than "here, take this abbreviated list of spells we think a magus wants, no you can't cast your old favorite spells with these extra slots".

This is why I liked Wave Progression so much.

Now instead of getting to choose if I want True Strike at 1, Mirror Image at 2, and then my main offensive spells vs. Fear at 1, Enlarge at 2, and I have all this choice to build the Magus that suits the playstyle I am going for, I get a cookie cutter set of spells that supposedly "exemplify" my Class Path.

But it really depends on what the Class Paths look like and if it's possible to expand this Martial Caster equivalent.

But yeah, super concerned about the flexibility, especially if one of the Martial Caster lists has True Strike or Haste which will make them feel like objectively stronger picks.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
...dragon eidolons not actually being dragon eidolons due to lack of flight.

Flight is not a requirement, see CRB page 631 "dragon" trait, and Linnorms for an example.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, my biggest issue with Martial Caster as written was that the spells were preselected, which would completely lock the Magus out of low level spells that remain useful in low level slots that come out in future books.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kalaam wrote:
Yeah, it seems some people misread about Martial Caster. It won't be a feat anymore and will just be part of the kit. Depending on the spells made available through it, it could be enough and be part of the "half-caster" chassis fairly easily. Though each new book might have to include a paragraph or something saying which spells are added to the differnet "Martial casters"

I honestly think the proposed solution is a really interesting compromise for the more themed half-casters.

Where in 1E, these classes had a specific and limited spell list, we now have a situation where the Magus has full open access to their whole spell list for their big 4 spells, and a limited class spell list for some lower level slots.

That's not a terrible situation imo, and is an interesting echo of their themed class spell lists in 1E.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Voss wrote:
Its also, unfortunately, something that seems entirely out of place for the setting.
Scratching my head at this assertion. There's nothing particularly setting breaking about casting a spell to call up a big thing for a short duration.

Its the FF limit break aspect. Where its an entity that isn't actually an entity for the sake of a big flashy visual effect and then it swans off to wherever it doesn't exist.

There really isn't anything like it in the setting, whereas keeping it as a normal spell effect (albeit over two rounds), lets people get creative with how their spells look and behave, rather than just triggering the same battle music and cutscene that you just want to skip after the 4th or so time you cast it.

And since its a pen and paper RPG, you just innately skip all that anyway, so the strong visual tie to an overly specific 'non-entity' entity doesn't actually give any benefits in the first place.

A fixed manifestation to a new type of thing for the world simply has more drawbacks than benefits.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah, that's why Incarnate spells absolutely need to *feel* like a summon of some kind. Here's some options:

1. Give them HP/AC/Saves
2. Give them to the GM to control for the round
3. Give them default behavior patterns like avoiding fire/cold/cold iron
4. Have them leave behind a weaker version of its initial summon, that someone has to deal with after it exhausts its magical momentum
5. Give it reactions or triggers that dictate its behavior in certain events, like attacking friendlies if they cross its path in the round
6. Make the area it emerges from a temporary thin spot to its originating plane, and have chances of unexpected consequences

IDK, anything but just a longer than normal spell with a coat of paint that some may or may not find 'cool'.

101 to 150 of 525 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Secrets of Magic Playtest Aftermath All Messageboards