Secrets of Magic Playtest Aftermath

Yeah, it seems some people misread about Martial Caster.

I think people are reading it right but aren't happy with a small number of pre-selected spells for it. I want to cast Feather Fall for instance and I have to use 1 of my 4 slots because the game didn't select it for the feature...

fwiw, all of the things WatersLethe is suggesting just seem like they'd make the spells worse and less fun to use.

Though certain Incarnates having Reactions they can use would be neat.

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

You've said that twice, but none of the things you've described sound like drawbacks. Just that you don't particularly like the flavor of it. Which is fine, but an important distinction to make.

Kalaam wrote:

Yeah, it seems some people misread about Martial Caster.

I think people are reading it right but aren't happy with a small number of pre-selected spells for it. I want to cast Feather Fall for instance and I have to use 1 of my 4 slots because the game didn't select it for the feature...

Exactly. Or any other new hotness low level spell that comes out in the future.

Kalaam wrote:

Yeah, it seems some people misread about Martial Caster.

I think people are reading it right but aren't happy with a small number of pre-selected spells for it. I want to cast Feather Fall for instance and I have to use 1 of my 4 slots because the game didn't select it for the feature...

I know you hate consumables, but a Snapleaf is cheap by the time that 1st level spell slots should be becoming a non-major resource for a Magus (and AoN doesnt show them as uncommon) - which means a lack of access to feather fall from this Martial Caster class feature isn't a practical class limitation.

You can absolutely achieve the desired results within the resources provided by the game, which means its likely not imperative from a design standpoint to address this (or other already achievable items) particular concern.

fwiw, all of the things WatersLethe is suggesting just seem like they'd make the spells worse and less fun to use.

Sure, but as-is if you delete the words "Summon" and "Incarnate" from the spell, you have a pretty standard high level spell that doesn't mislead people into thinking they're going to be *actually* summoning something. Because in play, it's not going to feel like a summon at all. I know because it's essentially a high level debuff flaming sphere, which never felt at all like summoning to me.

Honestly, I think Incarnate spells can stay as is in some form but I could see them changing in this way:

After Arrival, there is a metric by which the spell can be dismissed (Damage of a certain type, Performing a specific action against it, etc.) with the Departure effect being the grander of the two benefits.

Then it has a "feel" as in a presence, but it is ultimately a two round spell that is contingent on the enemy reacting to the spell after the first round.

Then it's an action tax on the opponent to avoid the Departure effect and feels like it requires attention like an actual creature.

AKA in the example:

it gains the "Banishment" clause of "If the Incarnation is subject to a successful Diplomacy check to Make a Request, bargaining with the spirits to find rest."

Then you've sort of divided the "success/failure" aspect.

At least, that'd be a cool way to handle it, and make for an interesting new type of spell that works with with PF2 action economy.

2. Give them to the GM to control for the round

3. Give them default behavior patterns like avoiding fire/cold/cold iron

Isn't that the routine already described in the spell entry? The Incarnate Arrives where you designate, it moves towards your enemies, then Departs. You specifically don't control how it moves, the GM does.

Applying limitations on how it can move, like it can't go through fire walls or it moves away from Cold Iron, seem like good additions though to make it seem more creature-like. Also my read of Mark's description makes it sound like Banishment spells should work on Incarnates, and if that is not already the case I think it should be.

I could also see adding at minimum two available actions during its "turn". Commanding it to move, and either perform an attack or a special effect, would make it feel very much more like a summon.

Yeah, that's why Incarnate spells absolutely need to *feel* like a summon of some kind. Here's some options ... IDK, anything but just a longer than normal spell with a coat of paint that some may or may not find 'cool'.

I'm fine with incarna spells not being creature summonings. Conjuration spells aren't either.

If they just change the name of it away from incarna, does that fix it for you?

The thing with incarna is that it lets you get some much more powerful and flexible effects that you couldn't do at this level, or at all without per-spell special rules. The example spell, for example, is quite interesting from a design persepective. Think about duplicating the effect with regular spells, or what incarna spells you could make.

I really like it.

graystone wrote:

Kalaam wrote:

Yeah, it seems some people misread about Martial Caster.

I think people are reading it right but aren't happy with a small number of pre-selected spells for it. I want to cast Feather Fall for instance and I have to use 1 of my 4 slots because the game didn't select it for the feature...

I know you hate consumables, but a Snapleaf is cheap by the time that 1st level spell slots should be becoming a non-major resource for a Magus (and AoN doesnt show them as uncommon) - which means a lack of access to feather fall from this Martial Caster class feature isn't a practical class limitation.

You can absolutely achieve the desired results within the resources provided by the game, which means its likely not imperative from a design standpoint to address this (or other already achievable items) particular concern.

Isn't snapleaf Firebrand-only? "members of the Firebrands gain access to them once they reach the rank of second mark"

KrispyXIV wrote:

graystone wrote:

Kalaam wrote:

Yeah, it seems some people misread about Martial Caster.

I think people are reading it right but aren't happy with a small number of pre-selected spells for it. I want to cast Feather Fall for instance and I have to use 1 of my 4 slots because the game didn't select it for the feature...

I know you hate consumables, but a Snapleaf is cheap by the time that 1st level spell slots should be becoming a non-major resource for a Magus (and AoN doesnt show them as uncommon) - which means a lack of access to feather fall from this Martial Caster class feature isn't a practical class limitation.

You can absolutely achieve the desired results within the resources provided by the game, which means its likely not imperative from a design standpoint to address this (or other already achievable items) particular concern.

Isn't snapleaf Firebrand-only? "members of the Firebrands gain access to them once they reach the rank of second mark"

I'm not sure, which is why I noted that AoN doesn't show them as Uncommon (which would make the access line make more sense).

It is a potential complication, for sure.

graystone wrote:

Kalaam wrote:

Yeah, it seems some people misread about Martial Caster.

I think people are reading it right but aren't happy with a small number of pre-selected spells for it. I want to cast Feather Fall for instance and I have to use 1 of my 4 slots because the game didn't select it for the feature...

I know you hate consumables, but a Snapleaf is cheap by the time that 1st level spell slots should be becoming a non-major resource for a Magus (and AoN doesnt show them as uncommon) - which means a lack of access to feather fall from this Martial Caster class feature isn't a practical class limitation.

You can absolutely achieve the desired results within the resources provided by the game, which means its likely not imperative from a design standpoint to address this (or other already achievable items) particular concern.

If the class requires me to use consumables to work correctly [or the way I think it should], I'm not playing it... I don't think it's much of an ask that my spell casting character be able to cast spells instead of using items: if I wanted that, I'd play an alchemist.

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

I would like Incarnate spells to have a way to prevent the depart effect if the folks targeted by it can do so. Something like "you cause the spooky ghost tornado to dissipate harmlessly by channeling positive energy into it"

Something like this, for me, would make it feel much more like a summons than "a spell that happens over two turns."

WatersLethe wrote:

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

I would like Incarnate spells to have a way to prevent the depart effect if the folks targeted by it can do so. Something like "you cause the spooky ghost tornado to dissipate harmlessly by channeling positive energy into it"

Something like this, for me, would make it feel much more like a summons than "a spell that happens over two turns."

Definitely agree. While Banishment and Dispel magic specifically should work, I'd like it if at least one additional banishment/counteract option was mentioned for each incarnate.

Definitely agree. While Banishment and Dispel magic specifically should work, I'd like it if at least one additional banishment/counteract option was mentioned for each incarnate.

Or just a clause for "other effects at the GM's discretion would also prevent the depart effect" so if your players decide to throw a bunch of fire at the incarnated ice monster, you can roll with it and reward them for their creativity.

Just chiming in to say that I personally like the feel that the incarnate effects have as presented. I'd rather not add in health, AC, etc. or spend space on specific banishment conditions.

That said, I will be reflavoring Ghost Sharknado to be hundreds of ghostly mouths and hands reaching down through the veil.

Issues like...

...whether or not 4-slot casters get full use out of magical staves.

Not sure how big of an issue this actually was though. It’s possible the surveys say something different, but not many people seemed to assume they worked any different for these classes than for any other spell-slot-casting class. It was also pretty unanimous that everyone was in favor of a clearer understanding one way or the other.

The post said it was addressing the main points/issues, in which it would seem the interpretation issue around Staves wasn’t an intended discussion point of the PT.

EDIT: I didn't take note of it until a second reading, but I think Striking Spell becoming a limited resource is definitely the wrong way to go. Its very core idea already limits it more than enough given its reliance on (still sadly extremely) limited spell slots. Magus already has a resource problem with its spells, adding a second resource problem with its core ability would just make it miserable to play in longer adventuring days.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't 2e moved on entirely from class-specific resources (outside of spell slots and alchemy resources) in favor of Focus Points? Barbarians don't have rage round limits anymore, Bards can Inspire as often as they wish, Champions don't have a limited number of Smites anymore, and so on and so forth. It would feel very wierd bringing back this whole paradigm for a single class.

"No longer at will" doesn't have to mean "another resource pool to track." The simplest solution would be to simply not allow Striking Spell to be used with Cantrips. This would also reduce the odds of using buffs instead of offensive spells, your other concern.

Ravingdork wrote:

Issues like...

...whether or not 4-slot casters get full use out of magical staves.

Not sure how big of an issue this actually was though. It’s possible the surveys say something different, but not many people seemed to assume they worked any different for these classes than for any other spell-slot-casting class. It was also pretty unanimous that everyone was in favor of a clearer understanding one way or the other.

The post said it was addressing the main points/issues, in which it would seem the interpretation issue around Staves wasn’t an intended discussion point of the PT.

Yeah, they noted it was a frequent question, and will probably rework the wordings and definitions to include these answers in the final products. No need to explain them here, as the playtest rules are not meant to be used anymore. (People will still use them, but it's at their own risk, and they should make up their own answer, as at this point, it's the same as homebrew rules. Disclaimer: I used the playtest Investigator after the playtest until the final rules came out. Some unclear things got filled in by my GM no problem.)

The simplest solution would be to simply not allow Striking Spell to be used with Cantrips. This would also reduce the odds of using buffs instead of offensive spells, your other concern.

But wouldn't that just make the Magus more of a nova class?

To be clear, I don't have a gripe with that, but it seems to me that the way to achieve their intent of the Magus being less of a 'get your True Strikes right class' would be to have Striking Spell cause less damage and be more consistent. I don't know, that seems more like having it only work with cantrips (a cantrip + strike's damage is less than another martial's) as opposed to the proposition you alluded to.

The simplest solution would be to simply not allow Striking Spell to be used with Cantrips.

I don't see how that really solves anything. In the playtest, striking cantrips already didn't really work well, so it wouldn't actually change the paradigm in practice and even in theoretical space it only doubles down on a lot of the problems with the Magus class.

If anything, the relationship between Striking Spells and cantrips needs to be significantly improved so the Magus' routine feels more consistent.

Incarnate Spell should be a Summoner exclusive Summon Spell with a exclusive list of creatures (and at higher levels it breaks the current cap of 15th level creatures).

The spell will have the initial "Arrive" impact, but instead of having a "Depart" effect on the subsequent round, it actually stays as a creature that can only act on that next round and it stays in the battlefield.

Have any of you here played DOTA with the Warlock?

Yeah. I'm thinking it can, and should, be like that.

It's a Summoner-only mechanic, it's a flash and interesting ability AND you keep the summoning aspect. Even if each spell only Summons on creature, I can see them being worth a higher level feat (or feature tied to eidolon type).

Imagine having Summon Astraedaemon, Cornugon, Linnorms, Planetar and other powerful creatures as an actual option? That would be amazing, IMO. And would make the Summoner a Summoner

If being highly specific isn't good enough, make each choice have a small pool of options base on theme.

I like that the example of Incarnate spell is generic and any caster can pick it, my Aberrant Sorcerer player asked if he could use it because he will be lvl 13 next session. In a book called Secrets of Magic it should have new spells types for all spellcastesr after all.

Let me start by saying I am not advocating for these solutions, just pointing out that they exist.

Captain Morgan wrote:

The simplest solution would be to simply not allow Striking Spell to be used with Cantrips. This would also reduce the odds of using buffs instead of offensive spells, your other concern.

But wouldn't that just make the Magus more of a nova class?

To be clear, I don't have a gripe with that, but it seems to me that the way to achieve their intent of the Magus being less of a 'get your True Strikes right class' would be to have Striking Spell cause less damage and be more consistent. I don't know, that seems more like having it only work with cantrips (a cantrip + strike's damage is less than another martial's) as opposed to the proposition you alluded to.

My read is being a nova class matters less than there being "one true strategy." True Strike seems to be the problem there, so you could also kludge it to not work with True Strike a few different ways.

Meanwhile, more consistent staying power could be achieved through focus spells like that one that lets you apply property runes, which made them pretty competitive.

I don't see how that really solves anything. In the playtest, striking cantrips already didn't really work well, so it wouldn't actually change the paradigm in practice and even in theoretical space it only doubles down on a lot of the problems with the Magus class.

If anything, the relationship between Striking Spells and cantrips needs to be significantly improved so the Magus' routine feels more consistent.

Maybe, but it seems unlikely given Adam saying making the Magus rely on Cantrips didn't sit well.

Maybe, but it seems unlikely given Adam saying making the Magus rely on Cantrips didn't sit well.

What the blog says is that Striking Cantrips didn't feel like good value, which is true, they basically weren't worth doing in the playtest.

Addressing that by making them more usable would directly address the issues of a magus' longevity and how much the class felt like it lived or died based on getting a good combo off by making their gameplay loop more repeatable.

You definitely could make Striking Cantrips not work and buff Striking Spells significantly to turn it into a nova mechanic, but then you'd also need to invent entirely new combat options for the Magus to go on top of that, because something you can do only four times a day is not consistent enough to be a core mechanic.

It seems more reasonable to just expand upon what already exists to make it more reliable, rather than hardcoding limitations into it and then being forced to essentially create an entire new suite of class features, but both are functional solutions.

I am also amused to think of a tiny fey eidolon as the spellcaster and the summoner as the martial role, but that would be a big switch.

Sprites are going to become a playable class in the Lost Omens Ancestry Guide due out in march 2021, according to Amazon

Mathmuse wrote:

I am also amused to think of a tiny fey eidolon as the spellcaster and the summoner as the martial role, but that would be a big switch.

Sprites are going to become a playable class in the Lost Omens Ancestry Guide due out in march 2021, according to Amazon

Awesome! I hope elves are a playable class too!! Ah...the cycle is complete.

Oh, and thanks Amazon!!!

Striking Spell as a flourish makes sense if that's what is meant by making it a limited resource. X times per day wouldn't be fun though.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Maybe, but it seems unlikely given Adam saying making the Magus rely on Cantrips didn't sit well.

What the blog says is that Striking Cantrips didn't feel like good value, which is true, they basically weren't worth doing in the playtest.

Addressing that by making them more usable would directly address the issues of a magus' longevity and how much the class felt like it lived or died based on getting a good combo off by making their gameplay loop more repeatable.

I don't know that they WANT a gameplay loop. Spellstrike eating up the full round and getting repetitive seems to be stuff they want to avoid. Or at the very least, the feedback makes it sound like Spellstrike shouldn't be that loop.

You definitely could make Striking Cantrips not work and buff Striking Spells significantly to turn it into a nova mechanic, but then you'd also need to invent entirely new combat options for the Magus to go on top of that, because something you can do only four times a day is not consistent enough to be a core mechanic.

Sure, but cantrip striking may just not be that core mechanic. Ultimately, the Magus's at will damage is constrained by what the martial classes deal. The magus can't exceed that value AND have spells, and because they have the same accuracy a martial there's only so much cantrips can add for extra damage. Which means spell striking is going to have a tough time feeling worthwhile compared to the magus just striking. It may be better to then lean into using strikes, focus spells, and other abilities that make those turns between nova bursts still feel interesting.

This also means striking spell can be stronger. I don't think the mechanic being able to squeeze more damage out of a Disintegrate slot once a day is as concerning as the mechanic having an at will output similar to a barbarians. You de-shackle it from the latter and you can make the former better.

It seems more reasonable to just expand upon what already exists to make it more reliable, rather than hardcoding limitations into it and then being forced to essentially create an entire new suite of class features, but both are functional solutions.

Well they've already invented some of those mechanics. People who leaned on the focus spells with normal strikes seemed happier than when they focused on spell strike. They still get martial proficiency after all. There is the whole comabt teleporting feat.And the post shares several interesting ideas they've already had on that front.

Again, though, I'm not really advocating for this. I was merely pointing out that it was an option for making striking spell no longer at will without adding another resource pool, not that they SHOULD. Whether it is a good idea or not was kind of besides the point.

I would like to see striking spell be a focus spell that combines a strike with a spell as a single action and can be sustained to keep the spell if the strike misses.
I would also create other focus spells tied to strides and spells and being hit and casting a spell as a reaction.

(As well as some standard damaging focus spells and such)

I would like to see the always on element borrow the Oracle mystery and curse approach and grant the magus refocusing feats for free (like the oracle).

I hope Paizo can give more spell previews in addition to the incarnate spell.

Frankly I think more cantrips or multi action spells can shore up a lot of the short comings of the magus and summoner without drastically changing their preview build.

I also hope with the incarnate spell reveal, they have at least discussions or recommendations on rebuilding Horde Summoners/Necromancers which is my favorite villian build.

I don't know that they WANT a gameplay loop.

Everyone has some kind of gameplay loop and every martial class has some kind of basic combat mechanic. You're right that they don't have to, strictly speaking, but a Magus who can only spellstrike four times a day and essentially doesn't have anything else baked into their kit and just spends the rest of the day making vanilla strikes sounds legitimately terrible to play.

Hard pass from me on that idea.

Captain Morgan wrote:

I don't know that they WANT a gameplay loop.

Everyone has some kind of gameplay loop and every martial class has some kind of basic combat mechanic. You're right that they don't have to, strictly speaking, but a Magus who can only spellstrike four times a day and essentially doesn't have anything else baked into their kit and just spends the rest of the day making vanilla strikes sounds legitimately terrible to play.

Hard pass from me on that idea.

Just because you don't spellstrike every round doesn't mean that your other turns are spent on vanilla strikes. They could change the ability so that instead of the spell going off the first time you hit something, it is set off by a free action that is triggered by hitting something, meaning that you can choose to release the spell or keep it stored. If they then add something like the bespell strikes effect anytime that the weapon is charged, you would be able to benefit from spell strike for multiple rounds, while only casting one spell.

Squiggit wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

I don't know that they WANT a gameplay loop.

Everyone has some kind of gameplay loop and every martial class has some kind of basic combat mechanic. You're right that they don't have to, strictly speaking, but a Magus who can only spellstrike four times a day and essentially doesn't have anything else baked into their kit and just spends the rest of the day making vanilla strikes sounds legitimately terrible to play.

Hard pass from me on that idea.

Just because you don't spellstrike every round doesn't mean that your other turns are spent on vanilla strikes. They could change the ability so that instead of the spell going off the first time you hit something, it is set off by a free action that is triggered by hitting something, meaning that you can choose to release the spell or keep it stored. If they then add something like the bespell strikes effect anytime that the weapon is charged, you would be able to benefit from spell strike for multiple rounds, while only casting one spell.

This is definitely one idea under consideration, but it is a really bad idea if the goal is to incentivize the magus to cast powerful attack spells through their weapon. You are basically asking the magus not to actually use the spell, except as a damage battery. The difference between this and the swashbuckler panache mechanic is that a swashbuckler can get panache by making a skill check, something they can do over and over again. The magus is only going to have a few spells, they will basically be incentivized to cast their spell and not release it unless they absolutely have to or the fight is almost over. But offensive spells (with a few notable exceptions) in PF2 are swingy high damage potential options that change the encounter when they land successfully. If you have to sustain the spell in your weapon, you are basically trading the fun of different spells with different effects for a damage buff where the only thing that maters is probably spell level and damage type.

That feels like a big step in the wrong direction for a class that delivers spells through a weapon strike. I'd rather see something like that happen through a stance or focus power, that feed off of an incredibly limited supply of spells.

I hope Paizo can give more spell previews in addition to the incarnate spell.

Frankly I think more cantrips or multi action spells can shore up a lot of the short comings of the magus and summoner without drastically changing their preview build.

I also hope with the incarnate spell reveal, they have at least discussions or recommendations on rebuilding Horde Summoners/Necromancers which is my favorite villian build.

Bestiary 3 will have "troop" rules to basically have a "swarm" of medium-sized creatures (they said they tried to make sure it was not *exactly* like a swarm, so that it felt less weird than in PF1).

Should be a very solid start. Doing Animate Dead on a skeleton troop should bring the basis of this fantasy to life well.

I love the magus and the main thing that appeals to me is being able to blend magic and fighting often. I'm not into limiting it to a resource where i can't use Spellstrike often.

My only issue with the previewed Incarante spell is that it's necromancy instead of Conjuration.

It shouldn't matter what type of creature/s you summon, you aren't "creating" them, you are just bringing them to this plane, so it should be a Conjuration effect.

That should also help a bit with the "summoning feeling"

Nothing To See Here wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

I don't know that they WANT a gameplay loop.

Everyone has some kind of gameplay loop and every martial class has some kind of basic combat mechanic. You're right that they don't have to, strictly speaking, but a Magus who can only spellstrike four times a day and essentially doesn't have anything else baked into their kit and just spends the rest of the day making vanilla strikes sounds legitimately terrible to play.

Hard pass from me on that idea.

Just because you don't spellstrike every round doesn't mean that your other turns are spent on vanilla strikes. They could change the ability so that instead of the spell going off the first time you hit something, it is set off by a free action that is triggered by hitting something, meaning that you can choose to release the spell or keep it stored. If they then add something like the bespell strikes effect anytime that the weapon is charged, you would be able to benefit from spell strike for multiple rounds, while only casting one spell.

This is definitely one idea under consideration, but it is a really bad idea if the goal is to incentivize the magus to cast powerful attack spells through their weapon. You are basically asking the magus not to actually use the spell, except as a damage battery. The difference between this and the swashbuckler panache mechanic is that a swashbuckler can get panache by making a skill check, something they can do over and over again. The magus is only going to have a few spells, they will basically be incentivized to cast their spell and not release it unless they absolutely have to or the fight is almost over. But offensive spells (with a few notable exceptions) in PF2 are swingy high damage potential options that change the encounter when they land successfully. If you have to sustain the spell in your weapon, you are basically trading the fun of different spells with different effects for a damage buff where the only...

What if casting a spell into the weapon charges with bespell strikes for 1 minute regardless of when the spell actually goes off? That way, you can use the spell when you need it, but still get benefits on turns when your not casting.

Additionally it doesn't have to be a pure damage boost. The spell could give varying effects depending on its school, such as a necromancy spell causing enfeeblement. Maybe it could even duplicate the spell on a critical hit, possibly with half damage or a one step better save, allowing spellstrike to make up for the magus' low number of spells. This would grant a magus a certain amount of the crit spikiness they had in 1st edition without making them rely on it, the way they do with the playtest spellstrike.

Alternatively, they could get a new ability that lets them do something fun and magical with their strikes, when they aren't casting spells, to make up for not being able to cast every turn.

My only issue with the previewed Incarante spell is that it's necromancy instead of Conjuration.

It shouldn't matter what type of creature/s you summon, you aren't "creating" them, you are just bringing them to this plane, so it should be a Conjuration effect.

That should also help a bit with the "summoning feeling"

First: Now "Animate Dead" is a Necromancy spell that summons undead. Source: AoN, Animate Dead page (APG p. 214)

Second: It has been confirmed that summon spells actually creates an "average" copy of the creature you summons, it doesn't actually summon a real creature. To actually bring a creature, you need to do the Planar Binding ritual. (it have been so in PF1 too, btw: Ask JJ thread in 2015; there has been more confirmations of this specifically for PF2, but I don't have the time to fetch them all right now.)

I guess they evaluated that summoning undead creatures were closer to Necromancy than Conjuration. As "summoning" actually create the creature, it needs necromantic energies to create that particular copy.

My issue with these incarnate spells is that they don't feel like summoning at all. I don't care what tags you put on it, you essentially point at a spot and "Do Effect A there" and then the next turn it follows some simple logic akin to point to a second spot and "Do Effect B there."

The fact that it moves is irrelevant, it doesn't take up space, can't be attacked, and so on and so forth basically makes it 2 separate spells that you spend 3 actions casting, with the second effect going off the next turn.

They're cool.
They're powerful.
They're not summoning.

In your opinion.

My issue with these incarnate spells is that they don't feel like summoning at all. I don't care what tags you put on it, you essentially point at a spot and "Do Effect A there" and then the next turn it follows some simple logic akin to point to a second spot and "Do Effect B there."

The fact that it moves is irrelevant, it doesn't take up space, can't be attacked, and so on and so forth basically makes it 2 separate spells that you spend 3 actions casting, with the second effect going off the next turn.

They're cool.
They're powerful.
They're not summoning.

It feels plenty like summoning for some people. It's in the vein of Final Fantasy or Golden Sun, and it's a more exciting flavor of summoning for me. Instead of summoning up some weak creature to mildly inconvenience my enemies, I can now call upon forces so powerful that even their brief contact with our world sends devastating ripples across the battlefield.

No flimsy probably-going-to-miss meat shields, no "any action spent attacking them is an action spent not attacking the party" reasoning, no issues with a summons becoming irrelevant after a level or two, no looking up a guide to figure out what isn't wasting the spell. This gives summoning the feel of something powerful, something that would garner conjurers respect and fear in the setting! And it does so in a reasonable, balanced fashion.

I mean, don't get me wrong. The existing summoning spells certainly fit one of the flavors of summoning pretty well- summoning up weaker disposable minions to do your bidding. But that's not the only fantasy that exists. We also have rituals, to gain the services of a creature for a longer period of time. The Summoner class manifests an eidolon in a more permanent fashion. The incarnate spells cover what happens when you direct your magic towards something beyond what you can fully summon- likely beyond what you'd truly want to bring fully into the world.

Draco18s wrote:

My issue with these incarnate spells is that they don't feel like summoning at all. I don't care what tags you put on it, you essentially point at a spot and "Do Effect A there" and then the next turn it follows some simple logic akin to point to a second spot and "Do Effect B there."

The fact that it moves is irrelevant, it doesn't take up space, can't be attacked, and so on and so forth basically makes it 2 separate spells that you spend 3 actions casting, with the second effect going off the next turn.

They're cool.
They're powerful.
They're not summoning.

It feels plenty like summoning for some people. It's in the vein of Final Fantasy or Golden Sun, and it's a more exciting flavor of summoning for me. Instead of summoning up some weak creature to mildly inconvenience my enemies, I can now call upon forces so powerful that even their brief contact with our world sends devastating ripples across the battlefield.

No flimsy probably-going-to-miss meat shields, no "any action spent attacking them is an action spent not attacking the party" reasoning, no issues with a summons becoming irrelevant after a level or two, no looking up a guide to figure out what isn't wasting the spell. This gives summoning the feel of something powerful, something that would garner conjurers respect and fear in the setting! And it does so in a reasonable, balanced fashion.

Take my fav from mentionning Golden Sun my dude.

shroudb wrote:

My only issue with the previewed Incarante spell is that it's necromancy instead of Conjuration.

It shouldn't matter what type of creature/s you summon, you aren't "creating" them, you are just bringing them to this plane, so it should be a Conjuration effect.

That should also help a bit with the "summoning feeling"

First: Now "Animate Dead" is a Necromancy spell that summons undead. Source: AoN, Animate Dead page (APG p. 214)

Second: It has been confirmed that summon spells actually creates an "average" copy of the creature you summons, it doesn't actually summon a real creature. To actually bring a creature, you need to do the Planar Binding ritual. (it have been so in PF1 too, btw: Ask JJ thread in 2015; there has been more confirmations of this specifically for PF2, but I don't have the time to fetch them all right now.)

I guess they evaluated that summoning undead creatures were closer to Necromancy than Conjuration. As "summoning" actually create the creature, it needs necromantic energies to create that particular copy.

Conjuration spells transport creatures via teleportation, create an object, or bring a creature or object from somewhere else (typically from another plane) to follow your commands.

then their "clarifications" (that i still havent seen them) are directly opposite of what they have actually written in their core rulebook.

"Bringing something from another plane" is 1000% a Conjuration effect, regardless of the plane it is being brought from.

As for Animate Dead:

Your magic dredges up a corpse or skeleton and fills it with necromantic life, and you force the dead to fight at your command. You summon a common creature that has the undead trait and whose level is –1; this creature gains the summoned trait. Heightening the spell increases the maximum level of creature you can summon.

You bring a corpse and *make* it undead by filling it up with necromantic energy, hence the appropriate school.

Elfteiroh wrote:

shroudb wrote:

My only issue with the previewed Incarante spell is that it's necromancy instead of Conjuration.

It shouldn't matter what type of creature/s you summon, you aren't "creating" them, you are just bringing them to this plane, so it should be a Conjuration effect.

That should also help a bit with the "summoning feeling"

First: Now "Animate Dead" is a Necromancy spell that summons undead. Source: AoN, Animate Dead page (APG p. 214)

Second: It has been confirmed that summon spells actually creates an "average" copy of the creature you summons, it doesn't actually summon a real creature. To actually bring a creature, you need to do the Planar Binding ritual. (it have been so in PF1 too, btw: Ask JJ thread in 2015; there has been more confirmations of this specifically for PF2, but I don't have the time to fetch them all right now.)

I guess they evaluated that summoning undead creatures were closer to Necromancy than Conjuration. As "summoning" actually create the creature, it needs necromantic energies to create that particular copy.

Quote:

Conjuration spells transport creatures via teleportation, create an object, or bring a creature or object from somewhere else (typically from another plane) to follow your commands.

then their "clarifications" (that i still havent seen them) are directly opposite of what they have actually written in their core rulebook.

"Bringing something from another plane" is 1000% a Conjuration effect, regardless of the plane it is being brought from.

As for Animate Dead:

Quote:

Your magic dredges up a corpse or skeleton and fills it with necromantic life, and you force the dead to fight at your command. You summon a common creature that has the undead trait and whose level is –1; this creature gains the summoned trait.

...

Right, which is what you're doing with the current incarnate spell we have on offer, just on a much larger scale. You're grabbing a bunch of restless spirits that are already in the world, and pumping them full of enough energy that they can manifest and lay a serious hurting on your enemies. The description of the spell even says as much.

That seems pretty solidly necromantic to me.

Draco18s wrote:

My issue with these incarnate spells is that they don't feel like summoning at all. I don't care what tags you put on it, you essentially point at a spot and "Do Effect A there" and then the next turn it follows some simple logic akin to point to a second spot and "Do Effect B there."

The fact that it moves is irrelevant, it doesn't take up space, can't be attacked, and so on and so forth basically makes it 2 separate spells that you spend 3 actions casting, with the second effect going off the next turn.

They're cool.
They're powerful.
They're not summoning.

It feels plenty like summoning for some people. It's in the vein of Final Fantasy or Golden Sun, and it's a more exciting flavor of summoning for me. Instead of summoning up some weak creature to mildly inconvenience my enemies, I can now call upon forces so powerful that even their brief contact with our world sends devastating ripples across the battlefield.

No flimsy probably-going-to-miss meat shields, no "any action spent attacking them is an action spent not attacking the party" reasoning, no issues with a summons becoming irrelevant after a level or two, no looking up a guide to figure out what isn't wasting the spell. This gives summoning the feel of something powerful, something that would garner conjurers respect and fear in the setting! And it does so in a reasonable, balanced fashion.

I mean, don't get me wrong. The existing summoning spells certainly fit one of the flavors of summoning pretty well- summoning up weaker disposable minions to do your bidding. But that's not the only fantasy that exists. We also have rituals, to gain the services of a creature for a longer period of time. The Summoner class manifests an eidolon in a more permanent fashion. The incarnate spells cover what happens when you direct your magic towards something beyond what you can fully summon- likely beyond what you'd truly want to bring fully into the world.

Let's examine this a bit further to see whether it's a summon spell or merely an effect no different than, say, a Flaming Sphere.

As a 7th level spell, it's a Fortitude Save to inflict Drained, followed by a Will Save to inflict Frightened.

Every creature has good Fortitude saves. There is no exception. So, on-level creatures will almost guaranteed save against the effect, bosses will be unaffected, whereas lower level mooks can (but won't always) fail. So, the spell does 13 to 26 damage per on-level or lower creature (though this is less for lower level creatures). The Will Save is much more likely to have a positive impact because it is targeting a save that not every creature will be very strong against. It is actually the saving throw with the fewest passive bonuses to it. So, a boss might fail, though success and critical success is still likely. Same with on-level creatures. Lower level creatures can critical fail and pull them out of the fight for about 2 rounds, and severely debuff them, which is strong.

But, it has no HP, AC, Saves, etc. It has a DC, for both saving against the effect as well as for counteracting, which is crucial here because, as the blog post states, it can be counteracted like any other spell. I'd like to say that it could be Banished as well, but nothing suggests that it's possible because it's not a creature, much less one from another plane, and even if it was, a tornado isn't a creature, it is at-best a complex hazard of a very, very high level.

So okay, it's essentially a super-powered Fear spell with a drain component to it. Not opposed to it, but it's by no means any more of a summon than a Flaming Sphere is, and is actually less of a summon than Wall of Force is, since you can target and destroy that (as an object, which can also be "summoned" like any other creature).

On the contrary, I think of Flaming Sphere instead summoned a special type of fire elemental, was conjuration instead of evocation, but otherwise functioned identically, that would be a super flavorful summoning spell.

On the subject of work together, one thing I haven't seen discussed anywhere is that even this new version won't let both the summoner and the eidolon each take a two action activity. For instance, if I want to cast a spell and have my dragon eidolon breath fire, I can't. I don't know if this would work out balance wise, but it may be a good idea to word it so that the summoner and eidolon between them get as many actions as were spent on work together plus one, with the restriction that they each must take at least one of the actions.

On the subject of work together, one thing I haven't seen discussed anywhere is that even this new version won't let both the summoner and the eidolon each take a two action activity. For instance, if I want to cast a spell and have my dragon eidolon breath fire, I can't. I don't know if this would work out balance wise, but it may be a good idea to word it so that the summoner and eidolon between them get as many actions as were spent on work together plus one, with the restriction that they each must take at least one of the actions.

That was discussed during the playtest, and is intentional. Two-action activities are balanced around always only being 1/round, no matter what extra actions you get. If both your eidolon and Summoner could cast in a round, that's free Quicken Spell multiple times per day.

On the contrary, I think of Flaming Sphere instead summoned a special type of fire elemental, was conjuration instead of evocation, but otherwise functioned identically, that would be a super flavorful summoning spell.

It's not a creature, though. If it was, I could Demoralize it, and it would have its own save DCs and such reduced. But I can't, because it's not a creature.

I could also Banish it, because it was called from the Plane of Fire. But because it's not a creature, it's not an eligible target, ergo that can't be right.

I'd rather not use the "Climb as Flight" fallacy as a means to justify whether something is or isn't a summoned creature, especially when all intents and purposes point otherwise.