Throne's page

I know a few years ago there was a blog post stating that pocket editions of 1e books would continue to be printed 'as long as it's profitable to do so'.

Can we get an update on which books are likely to see another print run and which are gone for good?
(for example, Ultimate Magic pocket is unavailable pretty much everywhere except ebay)

For the books which Paizo sees no value in reprinting (plus things like the Player Companion line), is there any possibility of them being made available through print-on-demand services?

Whoever decided to give us Gun Kata, give yourself a pat on the back ☜(ﾟヮﾟ☜)

That's a good point. Ostentatious Arrival says "If your next action is" which would disqualify Meld into Eidolon as that is the action you take next, not Manifest Eidolon.

If we want to get that pedantic about it, it says if your next action is to Manifest your Eidolon, not if your next action is Manifest Eidolon.

The 'to' there is referring to the result of the action, not the name of the action (which would read more 'if your next action is Manifest your Eidolon' - which as Kelseus points out, doesn't exist).

To support this;
1) there is no action named 'Manifest your Eidolon', it's 'Manifest Eidolon'.
2) the result of the Meld Into Eidolon action is 'you Manifest your Eidolon'.

So if Ostentatious Arrival works at all, then it must work for Meld into Eidolon.

Removing weapon specialization actually sounds like a GREAT idea. It would give more room for magic-based damage and discourage 3 regular strikes gameplay.

I'm all for it, personally.

Just so long as they remember that part of balancing this equation involves making fewer attacks better, not just making 3-strikes rounds much worse.

The thing I hate most about shooting star is that it gives you permission, not a benefit. It should just be part of the base striking spell.
The other syntheses give you a stride, or temp hp. Shooting star... allows you to use shooting star.

Striking spell is terrible enough that people are falling back on those mediocre synthesis benefits as a reason to use it. Star doesn't even get thrown that bone.

Strill wrote:

That absurd attitude

So, I agree with you that the Magus isn't great as is, but... absurd attitude, really?

I feel like it shouldn't be an even remotely controversial take that "Is this thing fun?" should be a really important aspect of making, y'know, a piece of entertainment.

The notion that that's somehow 'absurd' or bizarre to consider is something I can't really wrap my head around at all.

Fun is entirely subjective in a way that numbers aren't.

One person might find missing their strike, requiring them to be extra careful next turn so as not to waste that spell fun.
Another is going to find missing their strike frustrating, because that's a waste of two actions they wouldn't have suffered if they hadn't used striking spell.

Fun for one, not fun for the other, but both are going to have their numbers in the toilet.

And anyway, Paizo definitely prefer that we get het up and passionate than greet the classes with disinterest and indifference.

Potency is not "arguably" better than buying runes. It is flatly better than trying to keep up with maxed out fundamental runes ...

'Keeping up' with maxed out fundamental runes isn't difficult, isn't supposed to be difficult, and is something the system math assumes you'll be doing.

I originally had very little interest, and not a small amount of trepidation, with Secrets of magic as for me personally and my play group the magus and the summoner in particular were very disliked classes in terms of mechanics/design and negative impact at a table for a myriad of reasons not worth really delving into here(Though I am interested to hear if we were unique in this, as my understanding was that fairly universally summoner was pretty much THE singular class GM's didn't allow in home games and hated to see at a PFS table). I say this partly to refute the threads title, as a significant re-design of these two classes was NOT what we expected, but very much happy to see. In a way, seeing a simple copy/paste of these classes between editions would be a disservice to the design possibilities the new edition could give them and I am very happy to see this playtest.

It feels to me like the designer here shares your position;

Some people are going to be good with that, some people are not going to care either way, and some people are really going to hate it, not just because they find this class underwhelming, but because it means they're probably never going to get a 2e version of the class they enjoyed.

To be fair, there are a lot of other reasons they might want to MC.

Off topic, but gits & shiggles is a good reason, right?

I'm toying with trying something with sentinel dedication for scaling heavy armour prof, shield cantrip, and never using Striking Spell at all, 'spellstriking' only after capturing.

Whoa, sure is rough to have whole chapter of my spellbook going to ashes whenever I learn a new spell level eh?

Seriously, use some common sense too. If you know how to cast a 8th level spell, you know how to cast a 1st level one.

Spell slots are just "memory space" in the character's mind to keep the spells ready. The magus has less than the wizard and focuses on keeping what little space he has to hold as much power as possible.

If you're going to try calling for common sense, you should probably apply some and burn the strawman.

No-one is saying you don't know the spells anymore, or that you can't cast them anymore. Just that you can't cast them at a level beneath your slots anymore.
You still know True Strike. You can't still cast True Strike as a 1st level spell, because you can't cast 1st level spells.
Being able to understand the distinction is important for following this conversation.

I think it is valuable to point out that this issue of spells and spell level creates some confusion in the way the playtest document is written. I think it would be a big mistake to playtest the magus with the assumption it is incapable of using a staff, and that is an intended class restriction. Everyone should playtest it as it feels most relevant to you and report that information in your survey, but at best this is just an editing error that will clearly get fixed before the book is published. Otherwise a casting MC dedication and basic spell casting become absolutely mandatory, and everything else about spamming true strike is still on the table as far as striking spell is concerned.

There is definitely value in playtesting with the assumption that you can cast from the staff, just don't pretend like there's no possible issue with that.

I'm not 100% convinced that it's the intent that you can't, just that the rules don't look like they support it, and we should be pushing for clarification rather than dismissing the idea that it could be a problem out of hand.

Do you read that you lose the ability to cast lower level spells? In fact the number of spells and your ability to cast spells of a certain level are two separate things in this description, and the wording "As you increase in level as a magus, your number of spell slots and the highest level of spells you can cast from spell slots increase, shown in Table 1–2: Magus Spells per Day" makes no mention that you are unable to cast spells of a lower level. You just don't have available spell slots for casting them, that doesn't mean you are suddenly incapable of casting the spell. Granted this is a playtest, so they may want to change the graphic presentation of the chart, but the text makes it clear the chart is only showing what spell slots you have, not what level spells you are capable of casting. You only gain the ability to cast spells of new levels as your character levels up. You never lose that ability.

Your spell slots are your ability to cast spells. That is literally their thing.

You're wrong, but you do you.

Of course, even if you can't cast 1st level spells, you still count as being able to cast True Strike, just not a level 1 True Strike.

Definitely.

It's probably not the intent that the wonky spell progression locks you out of staff spells for levels you've grown out of, but I don't trust the class design enough to say it's definitely not.
Clarification is needed.

If it's something they let slide by, that's great and awful.
You're essentially going to have a bastard sword with a rune of 'here's a bunch of True Strikes and a few situationally useful spells a day', which would feel as mandatory as doubling rings for a dual-wielder.

Quote:

Both prepared and spontaneous spellcasters can cast a spell at a higher spell level than that listed for the spell. This is called heightening the spell. A prepared spellcaster can heighten a spell by preparing it in a higher-level slot than its normal spell level, while a spontaneous spellcaster can heighten a spell by casting it using a higher-level spell slot, so long as they know the spell at that level (see Heightened Spontaneous Spells below). When you heighten your spell, the spell’s level increases to match the higher level of the spell slot you’ve prepared it in or used to cast it. This is useful for any spell, because some effects, such as counteracting, depend on the spell’s level.

In addition, many spells have additional specific benefits when they are heightened, such as increased damage. These extra benefits are described at the end of the spell’s stat block. Some heightened entries specify one or more levels at which the spell must be prepared or cast to gain these extra advantages. Each of these heightened entries states specifically which aspects of the spell change at the given level. Read the heightened entry only for the spell level you’re using or preparing; if its benefits are meant to include any of the effects of a lower-level heightened entry, those benefits will be included in the entry.

Other heightened entries give a number after a plus sign, indicating that heightening grants extra advantages over multiple levels. The listed effect applies for every increment of levels by which the spell is heightened above its lowest spell level, and the benefit is cumulative. For example, fireball says “Heightened (+1) The damage increases by 2d6.” Because fireball deals 6d6 fire damage at 3rd level, a 4th-level fireball would deal 8d6 fire damage, a 5th-level spell would deal 10d6 fire damage, and so on.

Seems pretty clear you can cast a 9th level Magic Weapon, it's just that it gains no benefit versus 1st level Magic Weapon.

Sorry, should've been clearer.

The magus arcane casting ability says nothing about losing the ability to cast 1st level spells, you just don't have slots for them. With a staff you don't need to use any spell slots to cast a spell. Would a wizard out of 1st level spell slots not be able to cast truestrike through a staff? of course not. People are reading into what "able to cast an appropriate level spell" means for no reason. 20th level magi are able to cast a 1st level spell through a scroll, a wand or a staff.

This is spurious pedantry on a par with 'but the book doesn't say you can't take actions when you're dead!'.

Has it been confirmed that you can definitely still cast 1st level spells with no 1st level spellslots?

It seems to just get waved away in this thread, but the books are inconclusive on if it's possible to put a 1st level spell in a 5th level slot and not have it be a 5th level spell.
(It may be that it's never clarified that you can because until now there was no reason why you would want to, but until it is clarified it's not a non-issue).

Besides that... I guess the 4-round adventuring day is the new 5 minutes?

A magus shouldn't be as good at casting and fighting as a non-fighter martial who goes all in for the Wizard dedication, since the champions/barbarian/monk/ranger is spending 5 class feats on 2 spell slots per level up to 6th and one 7th and one 8th level spell slot. That's five feats for 14 slots and the Magus has just one fewer feat than those classes.

Hard disagree. Those classes all get a better base toolkit.

A fighter with 5 wizard dedication feats and 8 class feats widens the gap so much more it's not even funny.

Slide Casting is clearly the best of the three--this is a real issue with the class. Sustaining Steel effectively gives you fighter hit points, over and over again, which is nice but I appreciate that it makes the action economy tight. Shooting Star is useless from this perspective on Striking Spell.

Agreed Shooting Star is useless.

Portal Slide makes Slide Casting better. Quickened Spellstrike is great when you appreciate that it triggers your Magus Synthesis, so you get a kind of double-quickened effect: you can cast a 2-action spell (not level-limited, unlike other Quickened Casting feats), Stride, Strike, Strike. (It doesn't stack so you can also be actually quickened when you pull this off, if you have haste or hasted assault up.) Standby Spell lets you hold on to a spell that synergizes well with Striking Spell while still letting you prepare other spells in your few precious slots.

Portal Slide is max 4 times per day if you use all your slots for offensive spells. Quickened Spellstrike is once per day. Far too limited, would never take either of them even if Striking Spell was more worthwhile (my playtest magus has Spell Swipe in the level 10 slot, to throw back spells stored from Capture)

At high character levels, someone who invests almost half their class feats in a spellcasting multiclass archetype can get more spells, at lower levels, than a magus who invests zero class feats gets. A magus, meanwhile, has better spells, and can cast 2 each of their highest levels. If you really want the extra low-level spells, you can take the wizard multiclass archetype too.

The idea that a fighter with a wizard dedication is better at casting than a magus is absurd.

Not so absurd.

Sure, a Magus can take the Wizard dedication too, but my point is that they really shouldn't have to in order to be an inarguably better caster than a fighter who dabbles.
And that 6-slot Magus still has 9 Magus feats. The 12-slot Fighter still has 8 fighter feats. The opportunity cost doesn't balance it out as much as you seem to think, especially with what the Fighter chassis brings to the table before feats even come into the equation.

Good post MM.
Couple of thoughts you might not have considered;

Completely agree with your assessment on Slide Casting being a no-brainer.
I don't think that sort of 'clear head-and-shoulders winner' is good design, though.
Shooting Star especially looks really really bad; you get to use a different weapon for an ability that's all drawback, no benefit.

Those very 'meh' first level feats are made even worse by the Magus not getting a feat at first level. No reason to ever take any of them.
Raise Tome is a bad joke; just cast Shield.

Cascading Ray is an interesting idea, but worse than it looks; not only are you using your worse Spell Attack numbers, but it's always going to apply MAP. You're probably looking at it sitting around -8 compared to the attack that triggers it.

On the other hand, I think Capture Spell is potentially better than you give it credit for. It gives you a stored spell as a reaction, and so allows for Spell Swipe & Dispelling Spellstrike, without ever having to use Striking Spell.

I think a first level class feature that can be used at will giving both an action economy bump and MAP avoidance is a complete non-starter. It's simply not how the system is designed to work.

...

Your PPS is basically agreeing with what I am saying, though - that the accuracy is what is lacking.

Just repeating the claim that 'no-one can have this mechanic because no-one has this mechanic!' doesn't make it a better argument.

My PPS, as you well know, is pointing out that Striking Spell isn't really MAP avoidance, so shouldn't even lock the ability out of an economy bump if we accept your argument (which I don't, obviously), as others have also pointed out.
Stop arguing in bad faith.

Throne wrote:

If you're not using Striking Spell for spell attack spells, what are you using it for?

Buffs aren't eligible. Control and other spells with saves, you're better off just casting than risking missing your strike and not being able to cast.

You're not, because of magus synthesis. (As you get more class feats that play off Striking Spell, this gets even more true.)

For Slide Caster, maybe.

Which of the feats do you consider make it worthwhile?
Capture Spell looks decent, but then that neatly sidesteps most of the downside.

Quote:

Spell attack spells with Striking Spell are a bad choice, because Striking Spell is bad. There are no better choices.

Master Spellcasting at lvl 19 isn't a 'core class feature', it's bad comedy.
Someone dipping into spellcasting as a side-gig gets it earlier.

One level earlier. At the cost of an 18th level class feat. (Some "side-gig"!) Meanwhile, someone who uses a multiclass archetype is 1-2 spell levels behind you and can only cast one spell in their two top spell levels.

Earlier mastery, more spells, even better able to utilise staves since they don't 'grow out' of being able to cast certain level spells. I'm not saying there's no opportunity cost, just that it's a bit off that you're worse at the cornerstones of your class (castin' and fightin') than a fighter with a wizard dedication.

I don't think the problem is the action economy at all (that really can't be better than it is for reasons that have been discussed)

The reasons haven't been discussed, and don't really hold up.

P.S. Action economy is still a problem.
P.P.S. Striking Spell is arguably not even an accuracy enhancer; you're going to be hitting at a similar deficit to someone else's second strike, have a significant chance of being locked out of the 'second strike' by missing the first, and don't even get that arguable benefit if using a non spell-attack spell (as has been suggested).

If you're not using Striking Spell for spell attack spells, what are you using it for?
Buffs aren't eligible. Control and other spells with saves, you're better off just casting than risking missing your strike and not being able to cast.
Spell attack spells with Striking Spell are a bad choice, because Striking Spell is bad. There are no better choices.

Master Spellcasting at lvl 19 isn't a 'core class feature', it's bad comedy.
Someone dipping into spellcasting as a side-gig gets it earlier.

I like how you imbue the spell into your weapon and don't lose it if you miss. Action economy issues aside, this is a very good solution to helping Magus lose their spells less frequently in a game where missing is common.

This adds additional points of failure into landing your spell and makes you more likely to lose the spell than just casting it, not less.

I aggree, there is probably a lot of spells and feats that will be in the final book that we don't see here. (maybe a selection of 1 action spells and more martial oriented feats)

So let's focus on tuning this execution.

You can't test this with the approach 'there's probably stuff in the book we haven't seen that makes this work', because if there isn't, and there's no reason to think there is, you're left with an unworkable mess.

You know, I can see that Magus and Summoner have some rough edges, but why is that every playtest we seem to get a contingent of people saying "OMG this is the worst thing ever Paizo completely ruined this and couldn't possibly have made it any worse"?

For what it's worth, I've been around for long enough to know they could definitely have made it worse.

Like... I agree that Magus probably has some accuracy issues, but that's... a pretty small part of the class, design space wise, and easily fixed?

Cool. And once they fix the accuracy issues, there are the action economy issues.

You might not agree that the issues other people have with the class are issues at all, but that's not a requirement for people to have those issues.
For fans of the 1e Magus, there's a lot to dislike about this.
Of course, pleasing fans of the 1e version isn't a requirement. It's not necessarily even a design goal. But that doesn't mean they're not allowed to ask 'what the hell is this?'

Casting proficiency is a bigger problem than action economy, but that isn't to say that action economy isn't still a big problem.

'If you miss the weapon attack, you can still hit with it next round to unleash the spell' doesn't suddenly make striking spell a good accuracy boost. The inaccuracy boost more than counteracts it; you're still just losing actions.
No data to back it up, but I feel like a spell attack followed by an attack with an agile weapon with MAP every round is going to turn out better than an attack with your weapon which you have to land or lose the rest of your actions for the turn.
That's just my gut, but there are definitely going to be many cases of a Magus missing the attack then not being able to swing on their next turn; dead badguy, dead Magus, hell, even if the target just takes 3 move actions away, since you don't get AoO. And that is going to get really frustrating.

There is no 1st level ability in the game that both gives better action economy AND avoids MAP.

No offense, but I'm not sure that's relevant. There isn't anything, until there is.

Ressy wrote:

For an attack-roll based spell, it lets you ignore MAP.

Keep in mind that you will have -1/-3 on hit depends your proficiency, if compared to a pure spellcaster.

Then you will be able to see the "advantage" of using a saving throw spell.

Pretty well rounded.

Your save DC is going to be at a similar deficit. Will be interesting to see how often that makes the difference between a save and a crit save.

I can't believe that the intention is to completely lose access to magic items like Scrolls just because you don't have slots of the appropriate level.

This definitely feels worth breaking out into its own issue for clarification, or to highlight what may be an unintended consequence of a new way of managing spell slots.

I also think 4 slots a day are too little, but I assume the intention was to make the Magus use a lot of magic items and that's what they'll spend their gold on rather than their weapon, since they can give it a relevant fundamental rune as they level up. So rather than investing in that +2 striking longsword, how about getting that ring of wizardry Mk II ? They both cost 1000 Gold.

That's just my assumption tho'.

Magus Potency and Runic Impression are situational bandaids for when you don't have an appropriate weapon for the situation, you shouldn't be relying on them as replacements for a level-appropriate magic weapon.

It's a bad joke of a feat. Just cast Shield.

I also think it should be said that there's no way to do this fast or cheaply, but if you are in the right setting and have a gm willing to work with you, it sounds very fun and rewarding.

It's a sandboxy post-apoc homebrew, so hopefully can work with the setting. I'm fine with it not being quick or cheap; long-term goals drive the character.

Some helpful tips in these posts, thanks very much.

Well, more a king, really.
Or Emperor? God-Emperor has a nice ring to it...

I'm not so up-to-speed with 2e full casting, beyond the received wisdom that it's been reigned in a lot from 1e.

With that in mind, how could one go about magically creating their own nation?
I'm talking 'wizard (or sorcerer) walks into the desert, raises city walls from the sand, brass constructs patrolling the walls, magically plentiful food and water supply', the works.

Builds are great, but just spitball theorycrafting is good too, any suggestions of what feats, spells, items, whatever would come in handy?

Once you get Dragon Form once per hour, it can even have utility outside of combat. People hugely underestimate the potency of being a big powerful dragon travelling through the countryside or turning into a Gold or Silver Dragon in town square to rally the people.

How much play actually happens at 18th level though?

Dragon Disciple does feel pretty mechanically underwhelming, with most of the early feat options feeling like traps... but that's fine, take class feats and wait for the fun stuff.

I'm taking pretty much all of the lvl 8+ DD feats on my Kobold Aldori Swashbuckler.
Could I have built a better optimised character? Of course.
Would I have loved the concept or enjoyed playing it as much? Probably not.

Cheers Rysky, you rock.

Any chance of some more information on the shifter?

Feels like an arbitrary barrier to players actually using the stuff in the books they pay for.

Great for the guys who don't like their players building the characters they want to play, I guess?

And no, it's not 'just the same as dm fiat that's always been in the system'.

Throne wrote:

Gut feeling is that people who like/can tolerate Starfinder will get on with this, but people who actually enjoy Pathfinder will find themselves needing to find another game.

there's enough of P1 material out there for many lifetimes of gaming.

Don't be so bloody disingenuous.

Completely irrelevant.

People drift away from games that are not getting new content.
The release cycle maintains buzz. New material keeps the game fresh. Stagnant games dwindle.

Sure, there'll still be some people playing. But before long the people who want to keep playing will have trouble finding people to play with, and they'll move on to something else.

And everyone on this forum knows it.

So let's stop treating people like idiots and pretending like no-one who who wants to keep playing PF1 is going to have any trouble doing so. Even for an rpg website, that's a make-believe step too far.

Gut feeling is that people who like/can tolerate Starfinder will get on with this, but people who actually enjoy Pathfinder will find themselves needing to find another game.

Colette Brunel wrote:

An operative weapon melee solarian with Strength 10 deals an absolutely pathetic amount of damage: 1d4+1 with each hit at 1st- and 2nd-level. That is terrible.

So? The class is a controller, not a dps machine.

Except they're not that either. Their control abilities are short range, vanishingly situational gimmicks that are going to let you down at least half the chances you get to use them anyway.

Throne wrote:

JRutterbush wrote:

Colette Brunel wrote:

Robbgobb wrote:

If not going to use either then why play a solarian?

I wanted to see how a solarian would fare at 1st level, which means no soldier (blitz) dip.

But that's not what you did. You ignored all of the Solarian's features. If you wanted to test how the Solarian fared, you would have actually built a character designed to use its class features. Even if you say you didn't use those features because they're bad, you still didn't actually test the Solarian, you tested a classless melee character. Of course that ended poorly. And it's true that going with more Charisma instead of Strength or Dexterity would also have ended poorly... but you can't claim that it would have, only that it might have... because you didn't actually test it.

...except 'not using the bad stuff on a class' is still seeing how that class fares.

No, it's not. You didn't use your class features and have them fail to be effective, you just assumed they would be ineffective and chose not to use them at all.

You don't need to use solar weapon to know it does less damage at less range than the alternative. Simple reading comprehension will do.

You don't need to use solar armour to know it gives less AC than the alternative. Simple reading comprehension will do.

And you don't need to use Blackhole or Supernova to know that you're going to go whole game sessions without the opportunity to use them coming up, when you've just gone a whole game session without the opportunity to use them coming up.

Your claim is mistaken at best, but more likely just outright disingenuous.

Making me want to look into a Dex/chr based solarian. Guns and class abilities...

I'd considered it, but most of your abilities are either extremely short range, or explicitly melee only.

And if you can't pull your weight when your teammates are relying on you because your class is deeply fundamentally flawed, then your characters will die.

Colette Brunel wrote:

Robbgobb wrote:

If not going to use either then why play a solarian?

I wanted to see how a solarian would fare at 1st level, which means no soldier (blitz) dip.

But that's not what you did. You ignored all of the Solarian's features. If you wanted to test how the Solarian fared, you would have actually built a character designed to use its class features. Even if you say you didn't use those features because they're bad, you still didn't actually test the Solarian, you tested a classless melee character. Of course that ended poorly. And it's true that going with more Charisma instead of Strength or Dexterity would also have ended poorly... but you can't claim that it would have, only that it might have... because you didn't actually test it.

...except 'not using the bad stuff on a class' is still seeing how that class fares.

Not using the class features in playtest is still not useful, but as I said, it does not all that appealing either way, particularly at first level so I have no basis to defend it. My only hope is that Solarian is the baseline for melee combat and Soldier is just overboard or that it's weak to compensate for how useful the later abilities are. I'm going to play it as a lightweight mobile duelist with charm and some control elements and hope for the best.

That depends if you're testing specific features, or the class overall.

Not taking advantage of Solar Manifestation is a major mistake though, as that way you forfeit one of the Solarian's few advantages over the Soldier. The Solar Manifestation basically gives you either a free AC bonus or a free weapon, so you can spend more money on whichever of the two you don't get for free.

Except it's not an advantage. Especially at 1st level, solar weapon is worse than one you can buy, solar armour + light armour (especially on a class that can't focus heavily on dex) is lower AC than heavy armour.

Colette Brunel wrote:

Robbgobb wrote:

So you wasted in my opinion on a feat to have heavy armor because you were not happy with light armor and so did not want to use the class abilities to say that the class does not work which means not playing the class and just making a character with tables based of a class.

If solar armor is insufficient for a Strength-based frontliner's AC needs, then that is a problem with solar armor itself.

Would you say your definition of "insufficient" is "lower than the possible maximum you can achieve across any class"? Because then I would argue the issue lies in the definition, not the class ability.

If you're standing on the front line, why would you not want as much AC as you can possibly get?

On one hand people are saying 'oh, you built a glass cannon, it's no wonder you died with no survivability!' and on the other 'oh, you wasted a feat on survivability! You can live with a couple less points of AC!'.

A point or two more AC will keep you alive a lot longer than a couple extra points on Constitution. Make up your damned minds.

"So, a little theorycrafting shows this class to be pretty bad. It's a clunky confusing mess of abilities that don't mesh well with a primary stat which gives you next to nothing."

"Theorycrafting will only tell you so much. We need to hear your in-game experience to be able to draw an accurate picture!"

"Ok, I got some in-game play experience. The class was pretty bad. It's a clunky mess of abilities that you're mostly either better off not using or won't have much opportunity to use, and the primary stat gives you next to nothing."

"We don't want your in-game experience."

You guys....

Pulling a creature out of Cover, or pulling them behind your Cover so you can attack them from relative safety seems strong.

With a) How ranged-centric the game should be compared to PF b) How strong a +4 AC is with so few ways to boost AC/To Hit, that should be pretty good.

You can't pull them through solid objects, and you don't get to choose the direction - they always move directly towards you.

...I'm sure that's going to come up every week.

And even then you're probably better off just getting behind their cover with them and driving them out into the open with smacks to the face. You've got a better chance of keeping them exposed a lot longer that way.

That's still overstating its utility.
Once every 4 rounds you can move a thing an amount that is in all likelihood quite a bit less than it can move.

IF the badguy has gotten between you and your party mate...
IF the badguy is going to act before your party mate...
IF it's a melee badguy...
IF it's more interested in fighting your party mate than you, despite you being so close (very short range, don't forget - but then after 3 rounds of graviton attunement with them still approaching your team you're not going to be seen as much of a threat)...
MAYBE (keep in mind the sort of badguy who is going to want to get in your party's face to make melee full attacks is likely to have a good Fort save) you can stop a teammate eating a full attack (when we've been told that a full attack isn't often going to be the best idea anyway), taking only the single instead.

#TacticalExcellence