| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, another problem with the 5th Ed Bard (and Rogue) is Expertise, by 9th level with a high Str, you can go around pinning pit fiends to the ground with impunity: "Welcome to 5th Ed, where Bards and Rogues are the best wrestlers in the multiverse."
As for the PF1 bard, with feats and archetypes, they should be able to cover a lot, maybe even get back to some of that druidical tutelage action!
Seeing 9th level spells still might make me...
You think 9th level spells are bad? If they get that, I bet they'll have an option for 10th level spells.
Just wait until Tiamat is going to attack, only for your Bard to cast Azathoth's Dance of Madness and have her stuck doing the Charleston around your Bard while the party does their best to turn her into paste.
All joking aside, I don't mind higher level casting for Bards. But if we're stuck with full casting or no casting, and Bards have to lose it, you'd have to give them some potent stuff to make up for the loss (they were more potent in spellcasting than the Paladin).
What would Bardic Performances be buffed to in order to make up for that?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If anything, occult magic makes me think of ouija boards, potions with chicken feet sticking out, and shriveled heads: In other words, Witch stuff. But take away the flavor and just look at the crunch of the spells, and they work with Bards, too. Mostly enchantment, some healing, some acoustic stuff (screams and cackles for the Witch, resonances and dissonances for the Bard), illusion, protection, etc...
Yes, another problem with the 5th Ed Bard (and Rogue) is Expertise, by 9th level with a high Str, you can go around pinning pit fiends to the ground with impunity: "Welcome to 5th Ed, where Bards and Rogues are the best wrestlers in the multiverse."
As for the PF1 bard, with feats and archetypes, they should be able to cover a lot, maybe even get back to some of that druidical tutelage action!
Seeing 9th level spells still might make me...
You think 9th level spells are bad? If they get that, I bet they'll have an option for 10th level spells.
Just wait until Tiamat is going to attack, only for your Bard to cast Azathoth's Dance of Madness and have her stuck doing the Charleston
I so want that spell, accompanied by the sounds of atonal flutes.
If If has to be full caster or spell point-based (like the paladin), I am pretty sure it will be the former. Spellcasting has been too big a part of the bard, unlike the paladin.
Me too. Which I don't prefer. But the more I think about it, the more I hope it doesn't get either. The Bard was 6/9 in 3.5 and PF1, as many have said, so maybe it will receive an altogether different treatment. Maybe Half-casters?
To those who think half-caster isn't accurate since 10th level spells are optional, 5/9(with option of 10) is closer to "half" then we ever have been before, right? At least relatively recently anyway...
Well considering arcane magic logic based now that would not fit the flavor of bards, witches, and most sorcerer bloodlines.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Witches to me have nothing thematically in common with witches, so I would be surprised and disappointed if they shared a spell list.Assuming you mean witches have nothing in common with bards, then I agree.
Arrrghhh...I need to stop crit failing my edit checks :(
To me at least, if we are only ever going to have 4 spell lists ever for the game (and I am not entirely certain that is going to be the case...they have stated four for the core book, not forever), I could see Witches fitting in well with either occult or primal (but perhaps fitting occult the best), sorcerers fitting in with occult, but maybe with options to pick and choose spell lists based on bloodline (someone with a celestial or fiend bloodline picks divine, someone with a fey bloodline picks primal, someone with aberration picks occult, etc). Bards to me still best fit with arcane, and still don't make sense to me as full casters.
We don't know if there will be 4/9, 6/9 and such in PF2, so far it's full caster (cleric, wizard, etc) and spell-point based (paladin). In 5th Ed, they raised the paladin and ranger to half-casters, 5/9, from 4/9, and raised the bard to full caster.Yes, another problem with the 5th Ed Bard (and Rogue) is Expertise, by 9th level with a high Str, you can go around pinning pit fiends to the ground with impunity: "Welcome to 5th Ed, where Bards and Rogues are the best wrestlers in the multiverse."
As for the PF1 bard, with feats and archetypes, they should be able to cover a lot, maybe even get back to some of that druidical tutelage action!
Seeing 9th level spells still might make me...
You think 9th level spells are bad? If they get that, I bet they'll have an option for 10th level spells.
Just wait until Tiamat is going to attack, only for your Bard to cast Azathoth's Dance of Madness and have her stuck doing the Charleston
I so want that spell, accompanied by the sounds of atonal flutes.
If If has to be full caster or spell point-based (like the paladin), I am pretty sure it will be the former. Spellcasting has been too big a part of the bard, unlike the paladin.
Me too. Which I don't prefer. But the more I think about it, the more I hope it doesn't get either. The Bard was 6/9 in 3.5 and PF1, as many have said, so maybe it will receive an altogether different treatment. Maybe Half-casters?
Oh, I'm aware of all of that. My point was more that the Bard was a 6/9 in PF1, and not a full caster like Wizard or 4/9 like Paladin, so maybe it will get treated differently than either has in PF2. Maybe not, but maybe.
Well, there are a lot of directions that they could take Bard with its casting. We'll find out what they settled on before the playtest. I'm betting it'll be after we hear about the Sorcerer, which has fewer features they need to translate.
With regards to what we have information about, I'm glad to see Druid starting out with a nice base of skills. Crafting surprised me a bit, but I think they're rolling a lot of Druid's old skills into Nature.
It's interesting to see polymorph spells added to the list of things you need to use high-level slots for. If you use a low-level spell to become a scouting bird, for instance, you're going to be using a seriously risky AC. (That lightning retaliation ability for Druids comes to mind.) Dismissing as an action is nice, though. Then even if you don't have Natural Spell or its equivalent, you can return to humanoid form and still cast a spell. It's also interesting that you count as both humanoid and animal. Finally, it looks like spontaneous casters will be more flexible than prepared casters on what they turn into with a given spell on a given day, but may have to take up a lot of high-level spell known slots if they want the same sort of range of options.
The thing is, the alchemist was a half caster and now doesn't cast at all. (Yeah, not exactly a caster, but still.)
And if the class with the Occult list is not a full caster, they'd probably still have to future-proff the list with 7-9 spells, which would be akward.
Ah. That's true. The only thing about that that doesn't make me lose hope for the Bard is that they changed Alchemy so much, too. So...?
As for the thing about the Occult list, you're assuming it's the Bard. Which it probably will be. I'm hoping it's the Sorcerer. It's the perfect opportunity to further distinguish the Wizard and Sorcerer. They did it with Druid and Cleric, and I like it. And the Sorcerer, of all Core classes, feels the most Occult, to me anyway.
Well, there are a lot of directions that they could take Bard with its casting. We'll find out what they settled on before the playtest. I'm betting it'll be after we hear about the Sorcerer, which has fewer features they need to translate.
That could be a reason to release a Sorcerer blog right before the 4th of July, or as the last class before Gencon. If they've released pretty much everything on it already, we're less likely to lose our minds over it and it'd be easier on the mods.
Now, if they decided to surprise us and give Sorcerers the Occult list instead of Arcane, THAT would be brouhaha worthy. Briefly anyways.
I'm guessing we'll get Druids and Rangers fairly soon, since they dropped tidbits already on druids. Rangers make sense to follow along. But I hope they go into Bards and Monks fairly soon, certainly sooner than Sorcerers. Barbarians should be another low-drama release, so that can be done when convenient.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerer becoming an Occult caster is fine. Especially if they swap out those ridiculous Verbal and Somatic components for other more sensible ones; how come can magical quadrupeds like dragons cast innate spells anyway (not to mention their tongue shape)?
Arcane includes material essence, which Bard had very little focus on. Sorcerer, on the other hand, seems unlikely to give up blasting. The only non-bloodline class features Sorcerer ever got in PF1 were for blasting and familiars.
Occult almost certainly covers mental essence, and presumably the other can't be material, because that would be arcane. Between vital and spiritual, I'm guessing spiritual for it to earn the name "occult". But mental/vital seems to me like it fits Bard better, so maybe all six combinations are covered, but only four have proper lists?
Hmm, we'll see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, I hadn't thought about it, but occult components do seem like they would make more sense on a sorcerer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wasn't something in the blog about casting that bard could use their instruments instead of one of the usual components?
|
Occult almost certainly covers mental essence, and presumably the other can't be material, because that would be arcane. Between vital and spiritual, I'm guessing spiritual for it to earn the name "occult". But mental/vital seems to me like it fits Bard better, so maybe all six combinations are covered, but only four have proper lists?
Personally, my bet is Mental/Vital for Occult (and Mental/Vital works very well for both Bard and Witch), and Mental/Spiritual for the non-corebook Psychic list. Given that Primal is almost certainly Material/Vital, the final list would then be Material/Spiritual. I have no idea what that final list would be called or even look like.
If healing falls under Spiritual, I guess I could see Occult as Mental/Spiritual, but I doubt that's the case. Unless healing is available to both Vital and Spiritual, I suppose.
Though in that case I don't know what Mental/Vital would be and don't know what the Psychic list would be either. Really, I think Occult will be Mental/Vital.
Hmm, I hadn't thought about it, but occult components do seem like they would make more sense on a sorcerer.
Components actually seem to vary by Class. Sorcerers can use their own blood as a material component, for example (and without it leaving their body).
Wasn't something in the blog about casting that bard could use their instruments instead of one of the usual components?
Yep, they can use them for somatic and, I think, material components. Which is pretty neat, really.
A lot of what makes a bard a bard would presumably now be skill feats for the Perform and social skills. So something would definitely need to be done for it, whether full casting or spell points or something else. It's a class that can go in multiple directions, so I see either of the following as basically equally likely:
What about his class feats, they should also be doing bard stuff. I could imagine his class feats would make his magic more... singy?
What makes people think this Material/Mental/Spiritual/Vital spell classification is even a thing in 2e?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What makes people think this Material/Mental/Spiritual/Vital spell classification is even a thing in 2e?
The Spell Blog, which lays them out explicitly.
How relevant they are mechanically is an open question (they may simply be used to define the 6 Spell Lists and have no further mechanical relevance), but they certainly exist as a meaningful distinction in-world.
Occult almost certainly covers mental essence, and presumably the other can't be material, because that would be arcane. Between vital and spiritual, I'm guessing spiritual for it to earn the name "occult". But mental/vital seems to me like it fits Bard better, so maybe all six combinations are covered, but only four have proper lists?Personally, my bet is Mental/Vital for Occult (and Mental/Vital works very well for both Bard and Witch), and Mental/Spiritual for the non-corebook Psychic list. Given that Primal is almost certainly Material/Vital, the final list would then be Material/Spiritual. I have no idea what that final list would be called or even look like.
If healing falls under Spiritual, I guess I could see Occult as Mental/Spiritual, but I doubt that's the case. Unless healing is available to both Vital and Spiritual, I suppose.
Though in that case I don't know what Mental/Vital would be and don't know what the Psychic list would be either. Really, I think Occult will be Mental/Vital.
Hmm, I hadn't thought about it, but occult components do seem like they would make more sense on a sorcerer.Components actually seem to vary by Class. Sorcerers can use their own blood as a material component, for example (and without it leaving their body).
Wasn't something in the blog about casting that bard could use their instruments instead of one of the usual components?Yep, they can use them for somatic and, I think, material components. Which is pretty neat, really.
If someone dabbles in the occult, that sounds more like contacting spirits than healing to me. But Bard is more about healing than contacting spirits. Hence me wondering if the category of occult spells exists without a list. I dismissed the possibility earlier, but given what we know, I’m rethinking that.
What makes people think this Material/Mental/Spiritual/Vital spell classification is even a thing in 2e?The Spell Blog, which lays them out explicitly.
How relevant they are mechanically is an open question (they may simply be used to define the 6 Spell Lists and have no further mechanical relevance), but they certainly exist as a meaningful distinction in-world.
The spell blog does not say that those are the only 4 essences tapped by magic. There could be dozens for all we know, and they only revealed these 4 so far because those were the two anchor spellcasters.
|
|
If someone dabbles in the occult, that sounds more like contacting spirits than healing to me. But Bard is more about healing than contacting spirits. Hence me wondering if the category of occult spells exists without a list. I dismissed the possibility earlier, but given what we know, I’m rethinking that.
Maybe. It definitely sounds Witch appropriate to dabble in the Occult, and Witches have basically no spells that seem overtly Spiritual (I'd peg them as Mental/Vital just like Bards). The Occultist also seems better suited to Mental/Vital than Mental/Spiritual, and if they aren't Occult, who is?
Bear in mind that things like Magic Circle and Planar Binding sort of have to fall under either Mental or Material (probably Mental) as well as Spiritual or a Wizard couldn't do them (which they pretty clearly should be able to).
Given that, Spiritual seems less about dealing with external spirits and more about dealing with and empowering your own soul and/or channeling divinity.
|
|
The spell blog does not say that those are the only 4 essences tapped by magic. There could be dozens for all we know, and they only revealed these 4 so far because those were the two anchor spellcasters.
This is technically true, but I personally feel that Mark Seifter strongly implies that those four are the only ones people should be thinking about in his post here (and the one above it on the same page discussing Essence implications).
It's not definitive, but it's indicative.
Well, there are a lot of directions that they could take Bard with its casting. We'll find out what they settled on before the playtest. I'm betting it'll be after we hear about the Sorcerer, which has fewer features they need to translate.
With regards to what we have information about, I'm glad to see Druid starting out with a nice base of skills. Crafting surprised me a bit, but I think they're rolling a lot of Druid's old skills into Nature.
It's interesting to see polymorph spells added to the list of things you need to use high-level slots for. If you use a low-level spell to become a scouting bird, for instance, you're going to be using a seriously risky AC. (That lightning retaliation ability for Druids comes to mind.) Dismissing as an action is nice, though. Then even if you don't have Natural Spell or its equivalent, you can return to humanoid form and still cast a spell. It's also interesting that you count as both humanoid and animal. Finally, it looks like spontaneous casters will be more flexible than prepared casters on what they turn into with a given spell on a given day, but may have to take up a lot of high-level spell known slots if they want the same sort of range of options.
Crafting actually makes a lot of sense for druids. If you are living in the woods communing with nature you are not running to the store that much. So if you need something you have to either make it yourself or likely do without.
Crafting actually makes a lot of sense for druids. If you are living in the woods communing with nature you are not running to the store that much. So if you need something you have to either make it yourself or likely do without.Well, there are a lot of directions that they could take Bard with its casting. We'll find out what they settled on before the playtest. I'm betting it'll be after we hear about the Sorcerer, which has fewer features they need to translate.
With regards to what we have information about, I'm glad to see Druid starting out with a nice base of skills. Crafting surprised me a bit, but I think they're rolling a lot of Druid's old skills into Nature.
It's interesting to see polymorph spells added to the list of things you need to use high-level slots for. If you use a low-level spell to become a scouting bird, for instance, you're going to be using a seriously risky AC. (That lightning retaliation ability for Druids comes to mind.) Dismissing as an action is nice, though. Then even if you don't have Natural Spell or its equivalent, you can return to humanoid form and still cast a spell. It's also interesting that you count as both humanoid and animal. Finally, it looks like spontaneous casters will be more flexible than prepared casters on what they turn into with a given spell on a given day, but may have to take up a lot of high-level spell known slots if they want the same sort of range of options.
Agreed! It was a surprise to see that in the top three, though. But without a separate Survival skill, it makes sense.
Well, in any case, speculating about what spell list a witch might tap is very premature. Even if they've selected it at this early stage (not guaranteed), they may well change their mind between now and when they're released.
Personally, I would be disappointed if the witch had little to no nature based magic, or the bard had a great deal (although given the roots of the class, I could live with that). I would also be disappointed if the witch had to depend on powers and cantrips to add the nature magic back in because her spell list lacked it, while I would not mind if she lacked charms and curses on her spell list, since I already expect her powers and cantrips to be all over those. Edit: In fact, they may well get their own spell list when finally released, distinctly different from either bards or druids, but overlapping both in some ways. That might work best.
Less to these issues, I'm unsold on Occult as a spell list. Not because its bad (although I'd have preferred Psychic for the bard) but because I could easily see the eventual Occultist being unable to use ther Occult spell list and use resonance and innate casting instead. Maybe they can rename Occultist to be "Artificer" or something along those lines?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So how does the whole Mental, Spiritual, Vital thing interact and relate to the Spell Lists (Arcane, Divine, Occult, and Primal)?
It’s a way to broadly categorize the forces that different types of magic draw on. Arcane is mental and material, while divine is spiritual and vital. Primal is probably material and vital. I don’t think that means that Wizard and Cleric don’t share spells, but it will probably result in spell lists being a little more equitable and fleshed out.
I had an idea.
The flexibility of the Bard has been what amounts to its identity. So with Bard class feats it is how you want to build your bard.
It may be that it doesn't intrinsically go up to full caster ( or specialize ? )
If you take a broad assortment of class feats you will still be the jack-of-all trades master of none. There in your flexibility is your strength and how well you pull of synergies.
Or your can specialize your Class Feats and go deeper down one the routes of bard, perhaps getting to full caster if you specialize on the mystical and spell.
Could be done, I suppose. Bards could innately get access to spell slots up to 10th, and the spell list up to 5th or 6th, but have to spend their class feats to get higher level spells. We have a precedent of individual 10th level spells being locked behind feats, and every full caster could in theory be getting the class feat of "7th level cleric spells" as part of their class chassis. Bards would simply have to select them, like the Vigilante playtest version of the Warlock or Zealot, and it would be competing against other potential class features.
If these two classes share a spell list, maybe that list is simply a list of spells shared by all spell casting classes? Even in PF1 I could come up with a fairly large list of spells that are on all 3 of the cleric, druid, and sorcerer/wizard lists.Both of them also have healing (which Wizard distinctly does not), so I doubt it.
That depends on how healing is handled in general. There are hexes and performances that grant healing in PF1, and neither witches nor bards have much in the way of spells for removing harmful conditions, so they actually could do without specific healing spells on their spell lists.
But I guess we will know for sure in a couple of months. I am still leaning towards the idea of Bards using something other than arcane magic.
The Occultist also seems better suited to Mental/Vital than Mental/Spiritual, and if they aren't Occult, who is?
The Occultist was noteworthy among the occult classes in that it's spell list was the closest to the Wizard. Lots of blasting. Their enchantment spells were actually lackluster. Necromancy was good. The "psychic only/psychic specialist" spells that they got were things like Node of Blasting and Etheric Shards (blasting/evocation) and very early access to Retrocognition (investigation of spiritual traces of the past).
I could actually see them as Physical/Spiritual. Fireballs and spirit calling. The implements had spiritual resonances/traces that they were supposed to be channeling in some fashion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if the gnome's "Discerning Smell" ancestry feat grants them scent or just makes them smell funny?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bear in mind that things like Magic Circle and Planar Binding sort of have to fall under either Mental or Material (probably Mental) as well as Spiritual or a Wizard couldn't do them (which they pretty clearly should be able to).Given that, Spiritual seems less about dealing with external spirits and more about dealing with and empowering your own soul and/or channeling divinity.
I think Magic Circle and Planar Binding are going to be rituals presumably not restricted to class, and therefore their essence classification isn't necessarily relevant to class spell lists.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see the essences used as a reason to narrow some of the more expansive spell lists. Wizard can still be very broad, because physical covers a whole lot, and mental covers a big enchantment/illusion space, but the kitchen sink might get tossed back.
Conjuring, however, can easily fit under the Arcane conceptual scheme. Physically calling/creating a creature that you mentally control.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Conjuring, however, can easily fit under the Arcane conceptual scheme. Physically calling/creating a creature that you mentally control.
I liked everything you said in that post, but gave me an additional idea. What if Summon monster created a temporary creature out of raw material essence, which is kind of the way it works (or could be flavored to work) in Starfinder? I like the SF version, I'll admit. It has a ton of innate variety built in, since creatures can have all kinds of descriptions, and yet it's future-proofed against later bestiary entries. It doesn't matter what whacky level 2 demon they come out with in Beastiary 7.5 or AP 200, Summon Monster can't summon them. But more templates can be added. If Calistra wants to allow her clerics to summon creatures with a sting attack and an innate ability to cast charm, its only a custom template away.
At the same time, it opens up calling as something that even low level adventurers might try to do. Lesser Planar Ally might be wasted on a mere imp, or a harbinger archon, but not if you could cast that spell as a ritual at level 3.
Bear in mind that things like Magic Circle and Planar Binding sort of have to fall under either Mental or Material (probably Mental) as well as Spiritual or a Wizard couldn't do them (which they pretty clearly should be able to).Given that, Spiritual seems less about dealing with external spirits and more about dealing with and empowering your own soul and/or channeling divinity.
I think Magic Circle and Planar Binding are going to be rituals presumably not restricted to class, and therefore their essence classification isn't necessarily relevant to class spell lists.
Yeah I think Planar Binding was specifically referred to as a ritual now. I am guessing quite a few spells are no longer spells now.
Presumably, any spell that requires more than 3 actions to cast is now a ritual.
It would make more sense that any spell from 1e that takes more then a round to cast would become a ritual in 2e.
Presumably, any spell that requires more than 3 actions to cast is now a ritual.
Not necessarily. Maybe some particular ones will be, but I doubt every Exploration Mode or Downtime Mode oriented spell (which is likely to have casting times measured in periods appropriate for those modes, minutes or even more) will be a Ritual.
|
|
The spell blog does not say that those are the only 4 essences tapped by magic. There could be dozens for all we know, and they only revealed these 4 so far because those were the two anchor spellcasters.This is technically true, but I personally feel that Mark Seifter strongly implies that those four are the only ones people should be thinking about in his post here (and the one above it on the same page discussing Essence implications).
It's not definitive, but it's indicative.
Also the Essences are described as the building blocks of the universe. And the 4 mentioned pretty much cover all aspects of reality IMO
On the Bard topic, I think the greatest balancing factor for a full caster is the number of spell slots. Maybe the Bard will have less slots than other full casters but will keep his specific PF1 abilities
Question, can everyone "cast" a ritual or only spellcasting classes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Conjuring, however, can easily fit under the Arcane conceptual scheme. Physically calling/creating a creature that you mentally control.I liked everything you said in that post, but gave me an additional idea. What if Summon monster created a temporary creature out of raw material essence, which is kind of the way it works (or could be flavored to work) in Starfinder? I like the SF version, I'll admit. It has a ton of innate variety built in, since creatures can have all kinds of descriptions, and yet it's future-proofed against later bestiary entries. It doesn't matter what whacky level 2 demon they come out with in Beastiary 7.5 or AP 200, Summon Monster can't summon them. But more templates can be added. If Calistra wants to allow her clerics to summon creatures with a sting attack and an innate ability to cast charm, its only a custom template away.
At the same time, it opens up calling as something that even low level adventurers might try to do. Lesser Planar Ally might be wasted on a mere imp, or a harbinger archon, but not if you could cast that spell as a ritual at level 3.
The summon creature spell was awesome. The design was great and enables a good number of options which are all relevant
I hope with the new level/prophiciency system summoned monster dont become arrow-catchers again (because thats pretty much how they felt in pf1 for me)
Question, can everyone "cast" a ritual or only spellcasting classes?
I don't think it is spellcaster only but I doubt just anyone can cast a ritual. I'd bet it is linked to the Occultisim skill through skill feats and proficiency levels. So anyone who invests in the skill could cast rituals but spellcasters likely get trained in it as a default skill.
Question, can everyone "cast" a ritual or only spellcasting classes?I don't think it is spellcaster only but I doubt just anyone can cast a ritual. I'd bet it is linked to the Occultisim skill through skill feats and proficiency levels. So anyone who invests in the skill could cast rituals but spellcasters likely get trained in it as a default skill.
I'll bet different rituals are linked to different magic skills. So Resurrection will use Religion, Elemental Swarm will use Nature, etc.
I'll bet different rituals are linked to different magic skills. So Resurrection will use Religion, Elemental Swarm will use Nature, etc.Question, can everyone "cast" a ritual or only spellcasting classes?I don't think it is spellcaster only but I doubt just anyone can cast a ritual. I'd bet it is linked to the Occultisim skill through skill feats and proficiency levels. So anyone who invests in the skill could cast rituals but spellcasters likely get trained in it as a default skill.
I was just looking at the skills thread and it looks like arcana and occultisim are not the same skill as I previously thought. So if Occult is a sperate skill and the as yet unrevealed fourth spell list that would make a lot of sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Conjuring, however, can easily fit under the Arcane conceptual scheme. Physically calling/creating a creature that you mentally control.I liked everything you said in that post, but gave me an additional idea. What if Summon monster created a temporary creature out of raw material essence, which is kind of the way it works (or could be flavored to work) in Starfinder? I like the SF version, I'll admit. It has a ton of innate variety built in, since creatures can have all kinds of descriptions, and yet it's future-proofed against later bestiary entries. It doesn't matter what whacky level 2 demon they come out with in Beastiary 7.5 or AP 200, Summon Monster can't summon them. But more templates can be added. If Calistra wants to allow her clerics to summon creatures with a sting attack and an innate ability to cast charm, its only a custom template away.
At the same time, it opens up calling as something that even low level adventurers might try to do. Lesser Planar Ally might be wasted on a mere imp, or a harbinger archon, but not if you could cast that spell as a ritual at level 3.
I am hoping it follows the starfinder method for summoning and it looks like they are going that route somewhat for familiars as well. That way you can more easily summon something to fit your imagination by just applying the correct grafts to the base you pick and then you don't have to keep pouring through new bestiaries every version for the best ones. It would be easy to just add more summon graft options as you go and it would be more easily modular for enhancing/changing existing stuff without much work.