RIP magical child archetype


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ultimate Wilderness page 210 wrote:
Shapechanging Familiars: Familiars that can take various forms, such as the magical child’s animal guide, imps, and quasits, must have the same archetype for each form, and it must be legal for all of those forms (meaning if any form is an improved familiar, it can’t take archetypes that don’t stack with improved familiar).

The only reason to play this archetype is dead, now that Blood of the Beast introduced a Transformation Sequence social talent.

Silver Crusade

Add that to the list of nerfs in the new book.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

sorry, I fail to see why this talent renders Magical child useless.
I thought their familiar was the reason for this archetype


Vrischika111 wrote:

sorry, I fail to see why this talent renders Magical child useless.

I thought their familiar was the reason for this archetype

It’s very weak. Terrible spell list, and a familiar is much worse than an eidolon. The only way anyone could make it mechanically defensible was by applying different archetypes to different familiar forms. It still wasn’t strong, but it was at least interesting.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
Vrischika111 wrote:

sorry, I fail to see why this talent renders Magical child useless.

I thought their familiar was the reason for this archetype
It’s very weak. Terrible spell list, and a familiar is much worse than an eidolon. The only way anyone could make it mechanically defensible was by applying different archetypes to different familiar forms. It still wasn’t strong, but it was at least interesting.

I saw it as a (clearly unintended) way to apply one archetype to all forms, and get an improved familiar with Mauler, making it a full pet class. That said, it was already solidly in the “ask your GM” territory, so now it’s just a request to buff the archetype instead of a request to accept a certain rules interpretation.

Sovereign Court

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

Far as I'm concerned, the magical child should have always had kineticist powers rather than summoner spells. So I'm ambivalent about this anyway.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

...You gave me an idea.


Kalindlara wrote:
Far as I'm concerned, the magical child should have always had kineticist powers rather than summoner spells. So I'm ambivalent about this anyway.

Make a warlock and give them transformation sequence as a social talent.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the Magical child was already a bit DoA. A terrible spell list with weak class features. I don't know how any designer thought that was a good idea.


Kalindlara wrote:
Far as I'm concerned, the magical child should have always had kineticist powers rather than summoner spells. So I'm ambivalent about this anyway.

Should it be a kineticist archetype or a vigliante archetype, do you think? While social talents fit well enough it sits a bit uneasily with the rest of the vigilante class IMO.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing annoying me about Magical Children is that it seems to advertise a Sailor Moon playstyle (Magical Girl, a blaster playstyle, with the familiar as sidekick at best), when in fact it's more of a 'mon show (Pokémon/Digimon, focus on the 'mon with the child acting as support/buffer, because that's what the Summoner spell list does... Except that 'mon show protagonists usually don't have dual identities, and the Magical Child just gets a squishy familiar (improved or not) as combat pet.)

So yeah, if you want to play a Magical Girl blaster, play warlock with Transformation Sequence and a regular familiar, if you want to play with 'mons, take any of the non-vigilante pet classes.

This thematic misstep is the second highest on my personal list of things in Pathfinder that cause me an irrational degree of irritation.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
avr wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Far as I'm concerned, the magical child should have always had kineticist powers rather than summoner spells. So I'm ambivalent about this anyway.
Should it be a kineticist archetype or a vigliante archetype, do you think? While social talents fit well enough it sits a bit uneasily with the rest of the vigilante class IMO.

The material it's based on usually has secret identities, so being based on the vigilante made some sense. But having the summoner spell list feels like someone threw a dart at a board full of class abilities and picked whatever it hit. It doesn't fit thematically and doesn't do enough mechanically.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like the real death knell of the Magical Child was Blood of the Beasts letting any Vigilante (who can cast spells or SLAs, even from a race or a multiclass) take Transformation Sequence as a social talent.

The "you have a super-familiar" wasn't really part of the fantasy of the "magical child" character as far as I could tell, so you can just play the same character as a Warlock or a Zealot or a Cabalist and have a transformation sequence and a better spell list (or just play an avenger vigilante that punches people who's like an Aasimar or something.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It was already one of the worst archetypes the class got. Why kick it when it's already down, Paizo?

Agree that it should have had kineticist powers. Or at least something more like the Magus list.

Honestly even if you strip away the name, what exactly is the goal of the archetype? It gets a random smattering of conjuration and transmutation spells and... a familiar. I can't figure out what the vision for the archetype was.


I remember considering a dubiously-practical (and dubiously-legal) build that uses an identity change to shift faster than normal change shape. Any reason to do this falls apart when the familiar is not a competent member of the combat.


Squiggit wrote:
Honestly even if you strip away the name, what exactly is the goal of the archetype? It gets a random smattering of conjuration and transmutation spells and... a familiar. I can't figure out what the vision for the archetype was.

"We still need a vigilante pet class but are all out of ideas".

That's the only thing that remotely makes sense to me.


So, what did Ultimate Wilderness reprint and buff? I've heard Viking might have been.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Wood Kineticist has a printed utility talent now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
deuxhero wrote:
So, what did Ultimate Wilderness reprint and buff? I've heard Viking might have been.

The Viking appears pretty decent now, and it's my recollection that this was not always the case. But I think just due to the dynamics of how most of the new stuff comes from Player Companions, whereas the Hardbacks are the province of the Paizo Design Team (who tend to be more careful), most of the time you see things reprinted in hardbacks they are going to have abuses or loopholes closed and the really powerful stuff might be reduced in power.

That being said, a bunch of the new stuff in the book is great. I read the archetypes chapter and now I have like 9 new characters I want to play. Some of the new feats (like improved and greater spring attack) are positive additions too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

People, people, people. The Magical Child wasn’t meant to be like Pokémon, nor was it Sailor Moon. It was meant to be like Sailor Moon merged with He-Man. Think about it. Civilian identity with a pet. Both person and pet transform into a superior version through the aid of magic. Just like He-Man. The only thing they did wrong was making the pet act like a Familiar instead of an Animal Companion.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What do the crummy summoner spells have to do with being He-man? If they were aiming for that, they weren’t any closer to the mark.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Honestly even if you strip away the name, what exactly is the goal of the archetype? It gets a random smattering of conjuration and transmutation spells and... a familiar. I can't figure out what the vision for the archetype was.

"We still need a vigilante pet class but are all out of ideas".

That's the only thing that remotely makes sense to me.

Except in that same book was the Mounted Fury archetype, which is already a pet vigilante archetype.

Sovereign Court

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

Don't forget the extra kick in the pants: In Pathfinder Society you can't take any of the really flavorful or powerful improved familiars without a boon that doesn't apply to the Magical Child because of the way the boon is written.


Melkiador wrote:
What do the crummy summoner spells have to do with being He-man? If they were aiming for that, they weren’t any closer to the mark.

they wouldn't be so crummy if they were actually the summoner spell list


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
What do the crummy summoner spells have to do with being He-man? If they were aiming for that, they weren’t any closer to the mark.

Ahem. He-Man merged with Sailor Moon. I already said that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
What do the crummy summoner spells have to do with being He-man? If they were aiming for that, they weren’t any closer to the mark.
Ahem. He-Man merged with Sailor Moon. I already said that.

Except the Summoner spell list has nothing to do with with Sailor Moon either. (Well, maybe the anime version of Taxido Mask, the quickest motivational speaker in fiction.) Sailor Moon would be a blaster, not a buffer. You can replace Sailor Moon with He-Man, but that's because He-Man is essentially a magical boy show.

The 'mon show is where the "cheer for your combat pet to make it stronger" (buff spells) comes from. Even the multiple pet transformations might come from that (Digimon).


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Cringer/Battle Cat is really more of an animal companion than a familiar, in any case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While Pokemon may be able to be done with Improved Familiars (though this is only due to the magical properties of both, pokemon's combat roles are more akin to Animal Companions though...) Digimon with their many twisting and branching digivolution paths, are definitely more akin to Eidolons >.> just my opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, I'm not saying it was done well, it's just the only explanation I have for the buff spells.

Side note:

Ventnor wrote:
Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller wrote:

"We still need a vigilante pet class but are all out of ideas".

That's the only thing that remotely makes sense to me.
Except in that same book was the Mounted Fury archetype, which is already a pet vigilante archetype.

That's a class that requires you to be mounted for several of its abilities. That's not the same as an independent combat pet.

Of course, they couldn't just give it a proper combat pet (because why play the original class then), so "transforming familiar" was the nerf they came up with.
Or something. I'm just guessing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dracala wrote:
While Pokemon may be able to be done with Improved Familiars (though this is only due to the magical properties of both, pokemon's combat roles are more akin to Animal Companions though...) Digimon with their many twisting and branching digivolution paths, are definitely more akin to Eidolons >.> just my opinion.

I think of pokemon as full eidolons as well. This is not an animal companion.


Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
What do the crummy summoner spells have to do with being He-man? If they were aiming for that, they weren’t any closer to the mark.
Ahem. He-Man merged with Sailor Moon. I already said that.

Except the Summoner spell list has nothing to do with with Sailor Moon either. (Well, maybe the anime version of Taxido Mask, the quickest motivational speaker in fiction.) Sailor Moon would be a blaster, not a buffer. You can replace Sailor Moon with He-Man, but that's because He-Man is essentially a magical boy show.

The 'mon show is where the "cheer for your combat pet to make it stronger" (buff spells) comes from. Even the multiple pet transformations might come from that (Digimon).

Except, I don't think a single one of the mon-masters has a secret identity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
What do the crummy summoner spells have to do with being He-man? If they were aiming for that, they weren’t any closer to the mark.
Ahem. He-Man merged with Sailor Moon. I already said that.

Except the Summoner spell list has nothing to do with with Sailor Moon either. (Well, maybe the anime version of Taxido Mask, the quickest motivational speaker in fiction.) Sailor Moon would be a blaster, not a buffer. You can replace Sailor Moon with He-Man, but that's because He-Man is essentially a magical boy show.

The 'mon show is where the "cheer for your combat pet to make it stronger" (buff spells) comes from. Even the multiple pet transformations might come from that (Digimon).

Except, I don't think a single one of the mon-masters has a secret identity.

Well, maybe one.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Lol. I can't believe I forgot that guy. Ok, so the Magical Child archetype is based off a minor bad guy of the Digimon franchise. Strange design choice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought Magical Child was more along the lines of Card Captor Sakura for theme.

I haven't actually watched that show, but I recall several people who probably did saying it was, at least regarding how in the hell summoner magic and a familiar fit into the magical girl archtype.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

IIRC, Amanda Kunz (she wrote up all of the vigilante archetypes for Ultimate Intrigue) had no idea what a magical girl even was when she got the assignment. (I can't find her post where she discussed that, though. Huh.)

And so we got something that's cute but doesn't really fit with any portrayals. (And probably doesn't have an energy blast because of the overlap with warlock.)

Heh. My houserule fix is to just allow the player to pick their 1-6 list and they follow spontaneous progression no matter what list they picked.

(Wonder if that's the other reason they got summoner - because the other 1-6 spontaneous arcane list was bard.)

Silver Crusade

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

Granted it technically does match the only consistent portrayals between the Magical Girl genre, and that’s a transformation sequence and cute Animal buddy. Everything else is different depending on which Magical Girl series we’re talking about (compare Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha to Card Captor Sakura).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Almost every magical girl has a magical attack. And most of those attacks are either element or energy based and relatively strong to their universe. Basically, magical girls are blasters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@ Rysky - Hmmm. Yeah, that's fair.

We sort of got a low-powered Sakura - her power set is basically summoning tied to two artifacts (her wand and the Deck).

Sakura not having giant energy blasts makes her something of an odd duck, though. (I suppose she could summon an elemental card to do it for her, though.)

I'm going to guess that the warlock archetype already existing is why magical child didn't get an energy blast.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:
I think of pokemon as full eidolons as well. This is not an animal companion.

But that's not a pokemon, that's an Ultra Beast :p

(Lorewise, they are specifically different than pokemon, mechanically they're the same)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dracala wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
I think of pokemon as full eidolons as well. This is not an animal companion.

But that's not a pokemon, that's an Ultra Beast :p

(Lorewise, they are specifically different than pokemon, mechanically they're the same)

derail:
pokemon cosmology is a mess of parallel dimensions. The notion that a UB's home dimension disqualifies it from being a pokemon kind of falls flat when, for example, a lugia with Psycho Boost is also from a world required to be separate from the current games. Black and White even had different geography from one another. Also, the legendary pokemon (expressly referred to as such) of gen 7 match every criterion of being UBs except their abilities.

In a sense, they are more distinct and alien mechanically than lore-wise. Most other pokemon are based around multiples of 2, 5, or 12, which are what a lot of human culture uses. All UB base stats, move levels (barring 1), and the levels at which cosmog and cosmoem evolve are prime.


Would you have preferred I linked Magnezone?


Melkiador wrote:
Except, I don't think a single one of the mon-masters has a secret identity.

Yeah, I mentioned that in my original Magical Child rant above, too.

Otherwise, "Had no idea what Magical Girls are and thus based it on an complete outliner" actually does make sense. (I haven't watched much of Card Captor Sakura, but I remember hearing that her cute animal sidekick does transform into a battle form, so that fits, too.)

Still. Want to play a more typical Magical Girl? Warlock + Transformation Sequence (+ Familiar) has your back.

(Either way, it's also still second place on my "sources for irrational amounts of irritation, Pathfinder edition" list.)

Shadow Lodge

Well, let's be fair, Mauler familiar does not get you a Kerberos. He starts off the size of a doll and then turns into a massive lion-like creature with wings and a fiery breath weapon....


Dragonborn3 wrote:
Well, let's be fair, Mauler familiar does not get you a Kerberos. He starts off the size of a doll and then turns into a massive lion-like creature with wings and a fiery breath weapon....

Besides, I'm pretty sure he liked to hear himself talk.

Also, Magical Child can't have Mauler familiars anymore. Ultimate Wilderness says that transforming familiars must have a single archetype that is legal for all its forms - Mauler isn't legal for improved familiars.

(Also, I vaguely remember that many of her cards were actually buffs...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A custom spell (or mythic/artifact ability, perhaps granted by the classic artifact wand) to temporarily transform a familiar into an set-form eidolon (or an animal companion with a few eidolon evolutions?) for a short period of time would probably be the closest way to model Kero under Pathfinder.

Especially if the power could be used reactively at the familiar's discretion.


Something I also just realized:
CC Sakura doesn't have a proper transformation sequence.

Sure, the key amulet transformed into a staff in a stock sequence, but the clothes? They were provided by her cosplay-happy friend, and she had to change outfits by hand.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Well, let's be fair, Mauler familiar does not get you a Kerberos. He starts off the size of a doll and then turns into a massive lion-like creature with wings and a fiery breath weapon....

Besides, I'm pretty sure he liked to hear himself talk.

Also, Magical Child can't have Mauler familiars anymore. Ultimate Wilderness says that transforming familiars must have a single archetype that is legal for all its forms - Mauler isn't legal for improved familiars.

(Also, I vaguely remember that many of her cards were actually buffs...)

Setting aside the fact I loved the show for a moment...

Yeah, Magical Child is even less appealing to me now. Lot's of shapeshifting stuff just seemed to get nerf-nuked in the book.


The Sideromancer wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Would you have preferred I linked Magnezone?

I probably would have accepted that more fully, but I'm sure it could still be done, I mean there are plant and vermin companions, I'm sure there could be construct companions. The real reason I suggested companions in the first place is because besides the magic (which I talked about with Improved Familiars upthread) the level advancements make for pokemon evolution better than eidolons do.

Spoiler:
and yes I know about branching pokemon evolutions (eevee is actually one of my favorite pokemon) and 3 stage evolutions, who wouldn't know about those things? they were even in Gen 1. But, its nothing like the modular evolution of Digimon, which Eidolons could so much more easily represent.
>.>

As for Pokemon cosmology

Spoiler:
The ultra beasts specifically come from places between dimensions, that are alien to the main universes and not naturally habitable for non UBs..... As for Pokemon like Solgaleo, Necrozma, and Lunara, the similarities are not unintentional, they're meant to blur the lines between what's a Pokemon and what's not. Also there's been diverging universes since Gen 5 because of Cyrus messing with time and space.


Dracala wrote:
I'm sure there could be construct companions.

There is an archetype for that! Alchemist Construct Rider


off-topic lore, contains US/UM spoilers:
There isn't much indication that they all inhabit the space between dimensions. Many just aren't adapted to any other's environment. Let's use Xurkitree as an example. It has no way of controlling movement in the void, and since it draws energy from the ground, might starve in areas with barren ground, including both Nihilego's and Pheromosa's domains. I'd put the cosmog line as inhabiting the space between, and maybe necrozma, but none of the others.

Not habitable for non-UBs is a big stretch. As far as anyone can tell, the various sections all have atmospheres close enough for more familiar life. There isn't always a complete ecosystem, which may be why the UBs are all capable of getting energy from instabilities in the surrounding space, but it wouldn't be out of the question for something self-sufficient or that can feed off of the one common thing in each Uspace (such as herbivores in Ujungle) could do quite well provided it stays out of the way of things that could outfight it. In other words, normal natural processes.

What about giratina? It's over in it's own pocket dimension where nothing else is, but is not a UB.

As for when the dimensions became separate, it became fully pointed out in Oras, but the concept applies to the whole series. Each save file is its own universe. This is to reduce the paradoxes inherent in multiplayer (as well as the introduction of Megas): if a given universe only had one mewtwo prototype produced, how are two of them fighting? This gets really interesting with Rainbow Rocket, since the members have all succeeded at their original plans. Considering how far off the rails most of said plans would take the timeline, having wildly different parallel universes is confirmed. The way I see it, Celesteela is just as much restricted to universes distinct from the one being played as the Banette with metronome (only available by move tutor in gen 3, taking place in a timeline that does not include mega evolution).


I've been posting in a thread about the new games, maybe we should move over there?


Customizability aside,

I like my megas

1 to 50 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / RIP magical child archetype All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.