is the Magical Child archetype the worst archetype for Vigilantes?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 131 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Catharsis wrote:
Haste is not "just one spell", it is THE spell. I'd guess presence or absence of it is more relevant to party power than the point-buy level.

This isn't just "an overstatement", it is THE overstatement.

To be honest haste is actually pretty mediocre when you first get it. I'd much rather see a level 5 wizard or level 4 summoner cast a BFC spell that shuts down multiple enemies than give the fighter +1 to attack rolls and maybe an extra attack if they actually manage to get a full attack off (which in and of itself is a crapshoot if you don't have an archer). At that level it's not even guaranteed to last all combat if a fight drags on.

Haste is good because it scales much better than most other spells in that same level. It's good when you reach a point where you don't care about third level slots anymore. On level? It's okayish.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The OG Summoner got lots of spells early that were indefensible from a role perspective. Yes, the Bard gets early access to mind control/buff spells, because influencing people is it's entire thing.

Why did the Summoner get DOMINATE MONSTER at 6? Even Bards and Mesmerists don't get that. Why can a Summoner cast it at class level 16, before anyone else?

There are lots of others, but that's always been the most egregious example to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

In this case, the real argument is whether the summoner should get the spell at all (since that is the only alternative to giving them access to it at level 16, when they gain access to their highest level of spells).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There are basically three problems that the Unchained Summoner were designed to fix:

First, as mentioned above the Summoner gets some spells earlier than they probably should. Sometimes 6 level casters get early access to things, because that's their gimmick, but the Summoner was unfocused here. Giving early access to summoning spells would have flown because of the name of the class, but haste does not summon anything.

Second, if you did not know what you were doing it was far too easy to make an incredibly weak Eidolon, making the class unfun to play.

Finally, if you did know what you were doing, it was far too easy to make a vastly overpowered Eidolon, thus making the class unfun for everybody else to share a table with.

I mean, in practice the Summoner was the single class banned from the most tables prior to Unchained, and alone is worth addressing. The USummoner is fine, but giving their spell list to the Magical Child is a little odd since there are a lot of spells on there someone without an Eidolon can't use at all (easy to house rule that they work on the MC's super-familiar, but "you can fix it with a house rule" does not excuse issues with the archetype.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
Why did the Summoner get DOMINATE MONSTER at 6? Even Bards and Mesmerists don't get that.

Why does a class that's shtick is summoning and controlling monsters have the dominate monsters spell? Seems thematic to me.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, in practice the Summoner was the single class banned from the most tables prior to Unchained, and alone is worth addressing.

I saw more tables ban gunslinger and we didn't get an unchained version. ;)

#2 and #3 are spot on: Eidolon power levels could vary wildly.

But I agree that a note/sidebar about Eidolon spells and familiars would have gone a LONG way in making the spell list more usable to the magic girl.


graystone wrote:
I saw more tables ban gunslinger and we didn't get an unchained version. ;)

I think a large part of "no gunslingers" just came out of people not wanting guns in their fantasy world, which is valid and something they addressed with a pretty good archetype in the ACG. It didn't really need a full reworking of the class; just print the bolt ace.

Summoner was a more involved fix, since the basic fantasy of the class is fine, it was just that the specifics needed reworking so the full unchaining was fine.

I'm just not sure what you'd do with an unchained gunslinger. Sure, deeds don't scale well and the fact that you get them automatically instead of picking makes the class less fun than it could be, but that's a swashbuckler problem too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

WHY the summoner got unchained makes sense. I do think the unchaining did a fairly terrible job at fixing the class though and did as much (or more) damage to what made it interesting as it did improve what was problematic.

But that's another topic entirely.

Quote:
I think a large part of "no gunslingers" just came out of people not wanting guns in their fantasy world

Well there was also a lot of negative reaction to guns targeting touch and the stuff about double barreled dual wielding which has since been patched out.

Scarab Sages

swoosh wrote:
To be honest haste is actually pretty mediocre when you first get it. I'd much rather see a level 5 wizard or level 4 summoner cast a BFC spell that shuts down multiple enemies than give the fighter +1 to attack rolls and maybe an extra attack if they actually manage to get a full attack off (which in and of itself is a crapshoot if you don't have an archer).

YMMV. In most groups I've seen, Haste flat-out doubles the group's damage output. A save-or-suffer is much more hit-and-miss. If anything, I'd say the spell's usefulness decreases once everybody has several accurate attacks per round anyway.

I know BFC is supposed to be God's way of playing Pathfinder, but frankly, I'm a bit of a heretic these days. I've played a Conjurer a while back and felt totally useless every once in a while. That's never happened to me with my more recent Lore Warden Fighter (!). Accurate high damage output is never useless.

In my current Kingmaker campaign, the Bard tried valiantly not to take Haste, but eventually caved and bought a few scrolls for important fights. It's just that good.

(But let's get back to topic...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

PossibleCabbage: LOL Yeah, I know there where different reasons for gunslinger hate but I had to disagree with the "single most banned" part. Bolt Ace helps the class but even THAT needed rework before it actually worked 100%.

Unchained Gunslinger/swashbuckler: Best fix IMO would be a rework like unchained monk abilities. Give a list of abilities and make the fixed abilities instead open slots plus fixing scaling at the same time.

Squiggit: I agree. I too understand the why but the how went WAY overboard IMO. It's much less fun making an unchained one and I haven't managed to get excited enough about one to actually play one.

Gunslingers: Yep, double barreled, dual wielded weapon corded ect has seen the patch hammer but the majority of people that disliked guns did so for the 'no guns in my fantasy' reasons from my perspective. The minority did so because of disliking the grit mechanic. Very few brought up flawed gun mechanics as a reason for cutting gunslingers.

Catharsis: While a group/campaign certainly COULD be build to see haste double damage output, the average group sees much less out of it. Mostly only ranged weapon users with free reload can take full advantage of haste unless you regularly see melee free for all's with only 5' moves needed to find a foe in reach. Of course, the higher your level the better it gets but that was kind of the point of the original comment: At the level the summoner gets it, it's not THAT impressive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The unchained summoner should have just been a full caster. That would have solved the early access problem, while still giving the Summoner access to thematically appropriate spells.


making it a full caster would have made it the best full caster. No other full caster has access to a super pet. Plus being spontaneous if made a full caster they'd have needed to given it the spell progression of the sorcerer so more spells per day. Oh and being arcane they'd need to drop it's BAB.
That or break all of their "rules" with it.

Yeah, easier to have it be a 6th caster still.


I love how Divine Casters (like Druids) are allowed to have Full Casting Progression (with their entire Spell List as Spells known), Medium-BAB, the ability to cast in Armor, and a Level-Scaling Companion... yet Arcane Casters are not.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
I love how Divine Casters (like Druids) are allowed to have Full Casting Progression (with their entire Spell List as Spells known), Medium-BAB, the ability to cast in Armor, and a Level-Scaling Companion... yet Arcane Casters are not.

Eidolons >>>>>>>> Animal Companions.

The closest analog a Divine Caster gets are a hunter or Huntmaster inquisitor sharing teamwork feats with thier companion, and they are both six level spontaneous casters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

personally, and it seems the view of the boards and DEVs is that
Arcane > Divine > Nature
aka
Wizard > Cleric > Druid
when it comes to spell list. Wizard list is able to pull off so much more than the cleric list, in that their list is very broad and generally applicable. Cleric list does a few things, but lots of their stuff is of shorter duration. Druid list is the most niche.


If you made the Summoner a full caster you would need not only to tone down the Eidolon to be about as weak as an animal companion (and thus no longer the main point of the class) and you would need to come up a summoner-specific 9 level spell list (since just giving it the wizard/sorc list would be absurd.)

It's more work than I think they were willing to put into any of the Unchainings. It's not like the summoner was a class people were as into because of the fluff as things like the Rogue and the Monk.


Chess Pwn wrote:
making it a full caster would have made it the best full caster.

That's a pretty bold statement given that we're talking about a class that doesn't even exist. Seems like it'd actually be relatively easy to make a full caster summoner that isn't as good as say, the wizard, by virtue of class features and spell options.

A non-casting usummoner would have been interesting too.

Maybe we should make a usummoner thread though instead of using a vigilante thread to talk about them.


An arcane 9th level caster with the ability to cast no problem in mithral breastplate for free, 3/4 bab, superiour Summoning SLA and an Eidolon is what you'd have if you just gave them 9th level casting. If you reworked the entire class to be a 9th level caster then sure, it probably wouldn't top the wizard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
While a group/campaign certainly COULD be build to see haste double damage output, the average group sees much less out of it.

In PFS, there are very commonly 6 PCs at the table. The majority are almost always martial enough to benefit greatly from haste. So the spell is adding the firepower of the best 3 PCs + 25% or so of the eidolon. Yes, that's not 100% extra for the whole party, but it's still very, very good.

Also, the PCs are often better grouped so you can catch them all in a spell than the bad guys.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
whew wrote:
graystone wrote:
While a group/campaign certainly COULD be build to see haste double damage output, the average group sees much less out of it.

In PFS, there are very commonly 6 PCs at the table. The majority are almost always martial enough to benefit greatly from haste. So the spell is adding the firepower of the best 3 PCs + 25% or so of the eidolon. Yes, that's not 100% extra for the whole party, but it's still very, very good.

Also, the PCs are often better grouped so you can catch them all in a spell than the bad guys.

Think of grouping in the sense of being able to full attack every round to take advantage of the extra attack. No matter HOW martial a group may be, if there is 10'+ between foes then you aren't getting the +1 attack during the move rounds. When we're talking a 4th level casting haste spending 1/2 the 4 rounds moving also cuts the extra attack in half. Unless you're looking at an all ranged martial free action reload group, you're losing a lot of those extra attacks.

Now is it a good spell: yes. Is it WAY too awesome for the summoner to have at 4th? Not that I can see. I don't think the issue was ever them casting it as a 2nd but making cheaper haste wands others could use.

Squiggit wrote:
Maybe we should make a usummoner thread though instead of using a vigilante thread to talk about them.

That's going to be hard to do as part of the reason the archetype is subpar is that it borrows it's spell list from the summoner. As such, it's inevitably and inexorably linked to the class. Any debate on how to make it not suck is going to have to find it's way to that spell list and how to fix it.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

The extra speed can allow for an attack in rounds characters would otherwise have 0. Not every benefit is from standing still and full attacking.


KingOfAnything wrote:
The extra speed can allow for an attack in rounds characters would otherwise have 0. Not every benefit is from standing still and full attacking.

Never said it couldn't, but you're much more likely to miss out on the extra attack than gain one you normally wouldn't IMO.

And back to the point, it's not a super powerful buff to get the spell 1 level before a wizard. Nice but not breaking anything.


graystone wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
The extra speed can allow for an attack in rounds characters would otherwise have 0. Not every benefit is from standing still and full attacking.

Never said it couldn't, but you're much more likely to miss out on the extra attack than gain one you normally wouldn't IMO.

And back to the point, it's not a super powerful buff to get the spell 1 level before a wizard. Nice but not breaking anything.

The issue with getting powerful spells at lower Spell Levels isn't about the character level the spell is gained... it is about the impact Spell Level has on Item Creation Costs.

An original Summoner can scribe a scroll of Haste for 100gp (MV 200 gp) (Lv 2; CL 4), while a Wizard must pay 187gp 5 sp (MV 375gp) (Lv 3; CL 5), and a Bard or Skald has to pay 262gp 5 sp (MV 525) (Lv 3; CL 7).


KingOfAnything wrote:
The extra speed can allow for an attack in rounds characters would otherwise have 0. Not every benefit is from standing still and full attacking.
graystone wrote:

Never said it couldn't, but you're much more likely to miss out on the extra attack than gain one you normally wouldn't IMO.

And back to the point, it's not a super powerful buff to get the spell 1 level before a wizard. Nice but not breaking anything.

Cantriped wrote:

The issue with getting powerful spells at lower Spell Levels isn't about the character level the spell is gained... it is about the impact Spell Level has on Item Creation Costs.

An original Summoner can scribe a scroll of Haste for 100gp (MV 200 gp) (Lv 2; CL 4), while a Wizard must pay 187gp 5 sp (MV 375gp) (Lv 3; CL 5), and a Bard or Skald has to pay 262gp 5 sp (MV 525) (Lv 3; CL 7).

Psst, Cantriped, like, three posts above yours, that guy you're responding to had noted:

graystone wrote:
I don't think the issue was ever them casting it as a 2nd but making cheaper haste wands others could use.

:)

(I do this, too. But I thought I'd mention it, now, before it becomes a heated point, due to the normal tunnel vision this sort of argument tends to induce.)

EDIT:

Also, just so we're all on the same page (heh, see what I did there?) about this facet of the topic:

It was first mentioned here, with:

ryric wrote:
Eh, the real issue with the chained summoner list was allowing otherwise 4th level spells as potions (stoneskin, dimension door), and otherwise 5th level spells as wands (teleport). The level at which the summoner got the spells really wasn't as much an issue as circumventing restrictions on cheap spell-in-a-can items.

This was followed by:

David knott 242 wrote:

That wouldn't explain why PFS went with the unchained summoner though, since they ban item crafting by player characters.

I guess they were more concerned with the evolutions than the spells, though, now that I think of it.

... and:

Rysky wrote:
Going with Unchained was company wide, not just for PFS. After Unchained the UnSummoner is the only version supported by Paizo in their products.

:)


graystone wrote:

PossibleCabbage: LOL Yeah, I know there where different reasons for gunslinger hate but I had to disagree with the "single most banned" part. Bolt Ace helps the class but even THAT needed rework before it actually worked 100%.

Unchained Gunslinger/swashbuckler: Best fix IMO would be a rework like unchained monk abilities. Give a list of abilities and make the fixed abilities instead open slots plus fixing scaling at the same time.

Squiggit: I agree. I too understand the why but the how went WAY overboard IMO. It's much less fun making an unchained one and I haven't managed to get excited enough about one to actually play one.

Gunslingers: Yep, double barreled, dual wielded weapon corded ect has seen the patch hammer but the majority of people that disliked guns did so for the 'no guns in my fantasy' reasons from my perspective. The minority did so because of disliking the grit mechanic. Very few brought up flawed gun mechanics as a reason for cutting gunslingers.

Catharsis: While a group/campaign certainly COULD be build to see haste double damage output, the average group sees much less out of it. Mostly only ranged weapon users with free reload can take full advantage of haste unless you regularly see melee free for all's with only 5' moves needed to find a foe in reach. Of course, the higher your level the better it gets but that was kind of the point of the original comment: At the level the summoner gets it, it's not THAT impressive.

i agree bolt ace does need a revamp as there is literally no point in going more than 5 levels into it currently since they made it so you cant reduce the cost of that one deed


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You know, the silliest thing about the Unchained Summoner is that people are calling the original version 'chained summoner' now. I can't be the only person who's bothered by this.

The UC list definitely lacks some of the blockbusters of its previous iteration, but it still has a lot going for it. You have a buff centeic list with evergreen spells (like Grease and Glitterdust) that cherry picks buffs from the Druid list. Between spells like Barkskin, Greater Magic Fang, Heroism and Mage Armor, you're passing around tens of thousands of golf in value to yourself and your allies. Plus you still have at some pretty decent utility spells.

Slap all of this onto a modest combat chassis with weapon proficiencies and Feats-But-Better talents that beatstick summoners would kill for, then give it arguably the best familiar in the game. I'd call that a pretty sweet deal. My friend convinced me to respect this archetype with a build idea that managed to pull off "reach cleric with a bodyguard and early access Vital Strike on AoOs."

EDIT: I think the Brute's vigilante identity works really well if you divorce it from the base class and refluff the mechanic as an artificially created variation of lycanthropy. The weaker stats even make it safer to throw at low level parties.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

*nods*

I view the Brute Archetype closer to a template than an archetype. It's great for NPCs and plots, but I would go beyond dissuading PCs from taking it and outright refuse to let a PC take it. Barbarian Wild Ragers are more manageable than them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rosc wrote:
You know, the silliest thing about the Unchained Summoner is that people are calling the original version 'chained summoner' now. I can't be the only person who's bothered by this.

You're not alone.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The monk and rogue are called "chained" because the original versions of those classes are generally bad. I figure the chained summoner is so-called because so many games simply won't allow you to play one.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
The monk and rogue are called "chained" because the original versions of those classes are generally bad. I figure the chained summoner is so-called because so many games simply won't allow you to play one.

Sweet Nethys' multicolored danglers, that's the best explanation I've heard yet. I am flabbergasted at the fact that I never thought of it that way.

Rysky wrote:

*nods*

I view the Brute Archetype closer to a template than an archetype. It's great for NPCs and plots, but I would go beyond dissuading PCs from taking it and outright refuse to let a PC take it. Barbarian Wild Ragers are more manageable than them.

Honestly, I think of Brute as some virulent plague. I'm getting a 28 Days Later vibe. You could have half of a village infected with the stuff, and the PCs have to find the cure (or burn the virus out) before they're overrun. That sounds like a fun mission.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Not gonna lie, brute as budget lycanthropy (with some sort of infection mechanic thrown in) is pretty cool.

Still an awful archetype, but using how bad it is as a way to leverage it so it's manageable for NPCs is actually really clever.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

*nods*

And oooo I like the 28 days later take on it.


Brute just needs a few tweaks to it's weakest parts to make it a viable option. I remember a lot of "homebrew" fixes being talked about it when it was released. A lot of those didn't need to do much for it, but made it a playable one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
An arcane 9th level caster with the ability to cast no problem in mithral breastplate for free, 3/4 bab, superiour Summoning SLA and an Eidolon is what you'd have if you just gave them 9th level casting. If you reworked the entire class to be a 9th level caster then sure, it probably wouldn't top the wizard.

I thought it was obvious, but I had meant you'd balance the summoner around being a full caster, not that you'd just give them 9th levels spells without changing anything else. They'd have a limited spell list focusing mostly on conjuration and buffing. Dropping the Hit Die and the BAB would be an obvious choice. And at that point they'd basically be a druid with a weaker BAB and a better pet.

I'm not really sure why the summoner was ever a 3/4 BAB class in the first place. Nothing in the flavor suggests they should be. I wonder if there was originally an idea to have the summoner be a battle buddy with his eidolon, but he doesn't actually have any class features towards that effect and had a spell list that heavily encouraged being a combat caster.


Melkiador wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
An arcane 9th level caster with the ability to cast no problem in mithral breastplate for free, 3/4 bab, superiour Summoning SLA and an Eidolon is what you'd have if you just gave them 9th level casting. If you reworked the entire class to be a 9th level caster then sure, it probably wouldn't top the wizard.

I thought it was obvious, but I had meant you'd balance the summoner around being a full caster, not that you'd just give them 9th levels spells without changing anything else. They'd have a limited spell list focusing mostly on conjuration and buffing. Dropping the Hit Die and the BAB would be an obvious choice. And at that point they'd basically be a druid with a weaker BAB and a better pet.

I'm not really sure why the summoner was ever a 3/4 BAB class in the first place. Nothing in the flavor suggests they should be. I wonder if there was originally an idea to have the summoner be a battle buddy with his eidolon, but he doesn't actually have any class features towards that effect and had a spell list that heavily encouraged being a combat caster.

being able to flank with your edolon gets significantly more dificult if you are a 1d6 hd and half bab than if you are a 1d8 and 3/4 bab


1 person marked this as a favorite.

He's able to cast in armor, and has simple weapon proficiency, Works well as a THW because he gets a free shield bonus for being near his eidolon (a combat bonus) And he has a GREAT buffing list, so if you're selfish there's a lot of combat bonuses (kinda like the cleric), And then you can eventually take evolution points from your eidolon to yourself, which can be combat oriented.

Run something like 16+2/14/14/7/12/12 and a headband will be enough to get your spells, You can wear mithral kikko no problem or mithral breastplate with a trait, with barkskin and a free shield bonus makes your AC good, while heroism makes your saves and attack rolls good. And you're using a THW so your damage is pretty good and you can use arcane strike since you don't need swift actions for antyhing.


Chess Pwn wrote:

He's able to cast in armor, and has simple weapon proficiency, Works well as a THW because he gets a free shield bonus for being near his eidolon (a combat bonus) And he has a GREAT buffing list, so if you're selfish there's a lot of combat bonuses (kinda like the cleric), And then you can eventually take evolution points from your eidolon to yourself, which can be combat oriented.

Run something like 16+2/14/14/7/12/12 and a headband will be enough to get your spells, You can wear mithral kikko no problem or mithral breastplate with a trait, with barkskin and a free shield bonus makes your AC good, while heroism makes your saves and attack rolls good. And you're using a THW so your damage is pretty good.

Basically all of that and more can be replicated with a druid though. And the druid has a better spell list, if you're comparing it to the theoretical summoner full caster.


You think the druid has a better spell list? I'd much prefer the 6th of unchained summoner to the full 9 of druid.


Chess Pwn wrote:
You think the druid has a better spell list? I'd much prefer the 6th of unchained summoner to the full 9 of druid.

That's just because of the early access. If you break those spells out and put them where they belong in a full spell list, I think you'd see the druid's list is better.


We have enlarge person, long arm, shield as lv1 spells that the druid lacks. Druid had longstrider
lv2 we both have barkskin. Summoner has alter self, blur, invisibility, see invisibility.
lv3 summoner has heroism, fly haste
lv4 greater invis, dimension door. druid has Strong Jaw
lv5 is Overland Flight
lv6 greater heroism

yeah, the 6 of summoner, no early access, to me is the better buffing list than the druid's.

Not factoring in that the eidolon is much better than an animal companion.


I was talking about the entire druid spell list. But yeah, if you're looking at just buffing spells, the summoner has slightly better, because he was meant to be buffing his eidolon. The druid is more of a half-blaster/half-healer with some animal themed buffs that can work with his wild shape. Keep in mind the level differences too. The summoner gets level 3 spells at the same time the druid gets level 4.

Also, I personally prefer Air Walk to Fly, because you don't have to worry about fly checks. And as a druid, your movement speed is quite fast anyway.


So first you say ignore early access, then you say, oh but factor in getting spell levels later. Plus yes, buffing, since I said, "Summoner has great buff spells for him to do combat with" (personally overall. I really dislike the druid list.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

IMHO the essential flaw with the Magical Child is the exclusivity of the Magical Transformation ability itself. It's kind of head-scratching to me that what should have been an alternate class feature available to all Vigilantes is limited to just one archetype - and one that doesn't really fit the general MG theme in the first place.

At worse the Magical Transformation ability should have been available as a feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Son of the Veterinarian wrote:

IMHO the essential flaw with the Magical Child is the exclusivity of the Magical Transformation ability itself. It's kind of head-scratching to me that what should have been an alternate class feature available to all Vigilantes is limited to just one archetype - and one that doesn't really fit the general MG theme in the first place.

At worse the Magical Transformation ability should have been available as a feat.

Funnily enough Transformation Sequence is available as a social talent now. Granted it's basically inferior to Quick Change and requires the ability to cast magic but I guess you could feasibly get it earlier than L7 and it's still flavorful...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Son of the Veterinarian wrote:

IMHO the essential flaw with the Magical Child is the exclusivity of the Magical Transformation ability itself. It's kind of head-scratching to me that what should have been an alternate class feature available to all Vigilantes is limited to just one archetype - and one that doesn't really fit the general MG theme in the first place.

At worse the Magical Transformation ability should have been available as a feat.

Magical Transformation was made into a Social Talent in the Blood of the Beast player companion that any Vigilante who casts spells can take. Magical Children just get said talent for free.

So your Warlock or Cabalist or Zealot can totally have their own transformation sequences now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Son of the Veterinarian wrote:
It's kind of head-scratching to me that what should have been an alternate class feature available to all Vigilantes is limited to just one archetype - and one that doesn't really fit the general MG theme in the first place.

A transformation sequence isn't thematic to Magical Girls?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The transformation sequence is absolutely thematic to Magical Girls. The *Magical Girl archetype as a whole*, not necessarily so much


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ah... The Brute... Not only it's definitely the worst Avenger archetype, it's probably the worst archetype in the whole game!


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Brute: An archetype for people who hate vigilantes, alchemists, barbarians, and themselves.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
Brute: An archetype for people who hate vigilantes, alchemists, barbarians, and themselves.

Also hate your party, because you're going to be attacking them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Larkos wrote:
Son of the Veterinarian wrote:
It's kind of head-scratching to me that what should have been an alternate class feature available to all Vigilantes is limited to just one archetype - and one that doesn't really fit the general MG theme in the first place.
A transformation sequence isn't thematic to Magical Girls?

A transformation sequence itself is, but the Magical Child archetype as written doesn't really feel like any magical girl I've ever seen - though admittedly it's a genre I've not delved deeply into. Several other archetypes feel a lot more like Magical Girls than the MC.

51 to 100 of 131 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / is the Magical Child archetype the worst archetype for Vigilantes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.