| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't help but notice, as I'm in the process of shelling out more money than I want to admit on the awesome-looking Kingmaker Anniversary Edition, that Regongar is on the cover of the Companion Guide.
That very interesting because - as anyone who has played the Kingmaker CRPG knows - Regongar is a Magus. Specifically, an Eldritch Scion.
So, if he is in the Companion Guide, there are really only 3 possibilities:
1) He is a Magus, and rules for Magus will be out before or at the same time as the Kingmaker Anniversary Edition.
2) Magi aren't going to be a base class in Second Edition and Regongar will be an official example of how to emulate a Magus using multiclassing.
or 3) They are going to pull a Seltyiel and stat Regongar as a multiclass fighter/sorcerer since Magus won't be ready yet.
#3 seems the least likely to me, since it's an outcome no one would be happy with. #2 is possible but would be an odd decision considering Magus was a popular class.
It's also worth mentioning that out of the companions that appear on the cover, Regongar is the only one with a class not appearing in the Core Rulebook. In particular, the Inquisitor Jaethal is missing from the pictured companions.
Hence: I think we are going to get Magus rules some time next year. Thoughts?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Per this post that book will include all CRPG Companions.
So whatever the answer is for Magus, it's also probably the answer for Inquisitor. Beyond that, I have no real insight.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm more curious about how they are going to do the kineticist companion. Since that seems much less able to be done with an archetype or a multiclass build rather than a whole class than the magus does.
I'm more curious about how they are going to do the kineticist companion. Since that seems much less able to be done with an archetype or a multiclass build rather than a whole class than the magus does.
What update does a Kineticist companion appear in? I played relatively early on (stopped at the fey stuff as it was obscenely hard) and Kineticist wasn’t a thing
What type of Kineticist is it?
When is this kingmaker due out ?
I'm more curious about how they are going to do the kineticist companion. Since that seems much less able to be done with an archetype or a multiclass build rather than a whole class than the magus does.What update does a Kineticist companion appear in? I played relatively early on (stopped at the fey stuff as it was obscenely hard) and Kineticist wasn’t a thing
What type of Kineticist is it?
When is this kingmaker due out ?
It was the Wildcards expansion, which also added tieflings. So naturally there is a pair of tiefling kineticists- one fire and one water.
How are companions usually used? Couldn’t they just use monster/npc rules?
I would imagine the the dlc companion will not be there
NPC rules might be what they use
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How are companions usually used? Couldn’t they just use monster/npc rules?
Assuming the companions are meant to be actual useful allies for the entire campaign, I don't see them using monster rules since that would make advancement awkward.
Good catch about all the companions being in, DMW. That definitely does raise some interesting questions about Kineticist, which is another class I'm very much looking forward too.
...For anyone who knows Kaessa's backstory, it also raises some interesting questions about how they will handle a certain... issue she has.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The devs have stated a couple of times that we will get new races and classes "sooner rather than later". My guess is that they will have an announcement at GenCon for a new book and/or a playtest with new classes for release sometime next year. I also suspect that based on developer comments that the new classes will include the most popular classes of the past edition, such as Magus, Oracle, Witch, Kineticist, Summoner, etc.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My guess is there will be some sort of option available as a feat or class ability choice that will enable you to channel spells through a weapon.
My personal theory is that Magus isn't going to be its own distinct class anymore, but rather a set of choices designed for multiclass caster/martial characters. The biggest shtick that the magus had was spell combat (besides spellstrike), but I don't think they want to monkey with the action system they have by adding in an action economy manipulating ability like spell combat was.
To me the Magus in PF2 would be best as a wizard with the fighter dedication and a class option to channel their spells through their weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My guess is there will be some sort of option available as a feat or class ability choice that will enable you to channel spells through a weapon.
My personal theory is that Magus isn't going to be its own distinct class anymore, but rather a set of choices designed for multiclass caster/martial characters. The biggest shtick that the magus had was spell combat (besides spellstrike), but I don't think they want to monkey with the action system they have by adding in an action economy manipulating ability like spell combat was.
To me the Magus in PF2 would be best as a wizard with the fighter dedication and a class option to channel their spells through their weapons.
I find this statement odd, because for me Spellstrike was the defining class feature of the Magus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a time limit as to how long the makers of the new Kingmaker material can wait for things like an official Magus class. If it isn't announced at Gen Con, it probably won't happen in time. Didn't they promise to deliver everything in late 2020? That would suggest that they can only use rules released by next spring -- so at most four months after the January 2020 products that we already know about.
I do expect to get a playtest announced at GenCon that will be for the APG like book for PF2e
I find this statement odd, because for me Spellstrike was the defining class feature of the Magus.My guess is there will be some sort of option available as a feat or class ability choice that will enable you to channel spells through a weapon.
My personal theory is that Magus isn't going to be its own distinct class anymore, but rather a set of choices designed for multiclass caster/martial characters. The biggest shtick that the magus had was spell combat (besides spellstrike), but I don't think they want to monkey with the action system they have by adding in an action economy manipulating ability like spell combat was.
To me the Magus in PF2 would be best as a wizard with the fighter dedication and a class option to channel their spells through their weapons.
But it is one feature that could arguably be a feat to combine the spell and the attack roll as one in similar way to double slice
I do expect to get a playtest announced at GenCon that will be for the APG like book for PF2e
A playtest announcement on the launch date? That could be a distraction
APG was playtested and released one year after core - when was that playtest announced ?
I believe it was announced at GenCon with the book announcement. It wouldn't start until October or something like that though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do expect to get a playtest announced at GenCon that will be for the APG like book for PF2e
I would be pretty surprised if a magus is in the first wave of new PF2 classes, considering how much mechanical and thematic space the magus occupies can be covered with CRB options. I mean, sure it was one of the first new PF1 classes but considering how the first new ancestries are Leshy, Lizardfolk, and Hobgoblin I don't think the original release order matters much.
I guess an achetype which requires martial weapon proficiency and 2nd level spells which gives access to spellstrike could be in order.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do expect to get a playtest announced at GenCon that will be for the APG like book for PF2e
I would be pretty surprised if a magus is in the first wave of new PF2 classes, considering how much mechanical and thematic space the magus occupies can be covered with CRB options. I mean, sure it was one of the first new PF1 classes but considering how the first new ancestries are Leshy, Lizardfolk, and Hobgoblin I don't think the original release order matters much.
I guess an achetype which requires martial weapon proficiency and 2nd level spells which gives access to spellstrike could be in order.
Why second level spells? That seems fairly harsh for fighters multiclassed as wizard.
...Then again, with the "minimum three feats" thing... I'd find that deeply unsatisfying overall, because it would mean the earliest Magus could come online would be 8th level.
I do expect to get a playtest announced at GenCon that will be for the APG like book for PF2e
A playtest announcement on the launch date? That could be a distraction
APG was playtested and released one year after core - when was that playtest announced ?
The APG playtest was started on 13 November 2009, just a couple months after the core rulebook premiered in August 2009. I don't know when the announcement was first made for the APG playtest, but GenCon 2009 isn't hard to believe, considering how close those dates are.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do expect to get a playtest announced at GenCon that will be for the APG like book for PF2e
I would be pretty surprised if a magus is in the first wave of new PF2 classes, considering how much mechanical and thematic space the magus occupies can be covered with CRB options. I mean, sure it was one of the first new PF1 classes but considering how the first new ancestries are Leshy, Lizardfolk, and Hobgoblin I don't think the original release order matters much.
I guess an achetype which requires martial weapon proficiency and 2nd level spells which gives access to spellstrike could be in order.
It can be sorta covered, but definitely lacking until at the earliest level 2 (and even then, I'd argue level 4).
And it was the 7th new class to my knowledge, behind Summoner, Witch, Alchemist, Oracle, Inquisitor, and Cavalier.
From what we know, Alchemist is now core. Cavalier is unlikely to make a direct Class return, though they've said it could, but likely not in the first set of Class releases.
So that leaves Summoner, Witch, Oracle and Inquisitor.
Not saying 4 isn't enough, but 5 would certainly not be "too many".
And that's if Inquisitor/Magus make it in as full Classes.
Personally, I'd rather see Magus/Inquisitor incorporated as Class Paths to the corresponding "parent" class (Magus -> Wizard, Inquisitor -> Cleric).
Witch, Summoner, and Oracle can all stand alone as the respective "Spontaneous" versions of their prepared counterparts (some would argue Summoner is Arcane, but I'd argue Primal, regardless though)
but that'd be a pretty caster heavy release of new classes (when there's already a good amount of them in Core.
It's hard for me to even picture what new classes look like because the foundation they have set for the current base 12 is so strong and flexible I believe they have the parts in place to cover a lot of ground within them.
And that's from someone who played more Magus characters in PF1 than I played any other class, with a close second probably being Inquisitor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find this statement odd, because for me Spellstrike was the defining class feature of the Magus.My guess is there will be some sort of option available as a feat or class ability choice that will enable you to channel spells through a weapon.
My personal theory is that Magus isn't going to be its own distinct class anymore, but rather a set of choices designed for multiclass caster/martial characters. The biggest shtick that the magus had was spell combat (besides spellstrike), but I don't think they want to monkey with the action system they have by adding in an action economy manipulating ability like spell combat was.
To me the Magus in PF2 would be best as a wizard with the fighter dedication and a class option to channel their spells through their weapons.
I don't think I disagree, I'm just saying Spell Combat and Spellstrike were the two biggest defining features of the class.
Spellstrike can be easily made into a class option or feat. Spell Combat, probably wont exist due to how the action economy of the system works.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never played a magus. I opened the section on the class, saw a bunch a bunch of rules, and decided to play an eldritch knight.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And it was the 7th new class to my knowledge, behind Summoner, Witch, Alchemist, Oracle, Inquisitor, and Cavalier.
From what we know, Alchemist is now core. Cavalier is unlikely to make a direct Class return, though they've said it could, but likely not in the first set of Class releases.
So that leaves Summoner, Witch, Oracle and Inquisitor.
I get the feeling that one of the occult classes is going to jump the queue and end up releasing much earlier than it did in PF1.
Like it wouldn't be wholly surprising to me if the first 5 new classes are Oracle, Witch, Occultist, Shifter, [New Class].
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
When asked about why they included the Alchemist in the core book for 2nd edition, they stated that it was because of not only the fact that it occupied a unique design space, but also because it was one of - if not the - most popular classes outside of the core 1st edition classes. The devs, in their posts and in their various interviews, have hinted that new classes are coming and have even mentioned how it would be a good idea to get the most popular classes released relatively soon. They have mentioned, and I have discovered, that the Magus is one of the most popular classes.
In one of his recent videos (or interviews - I cannot remember which) Mark Seifter has mentioned that (and I am paraphrasing here), while the multiclass system in 2nd edition is better than in 1st edition, and therefore creating less need for many of the hybrid classes, that the magus is still a class with a lot of interesting design space that can be explored in 2nd edition now that the baggage of 1st edition is gone. What new and interesting things can be done with the magus now that there is less of a need for spell combat? After all, spellstrike is still something that is not in 2nd edition and there were a lot of cool 1st edition magus archetype abilities out there that could be rolled into the core design of a new magus class now with the feat-focused design of the classes in 2nd edition. There is also the consideration of adding other magic/combat concepts such as arcane archer builds, natural weapon spellcasters, and unarmed magus martial artists.
For those who dont play the CRPG, the companions are no different then having another player. They have their own background, personality, and goal; and besides being controlled by 1 player, they all level just like a normal PC. There is no fudging of the values or abilities.
Well, except the player character is 25 point buy and the various NPCs range from 20 to 30ish. That's pretty fudgy. And monster values are extremely fudged, so this actually matters a lot.
But still, I'm not particularly convinced this AP redux means the various classes will appear in the same time frame. Paizo may just like the art (or want to draw in the audience, which at this point is either very devoted or gone)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A better idea would be to incorporate some version of spellstrike or similarly thematic Magus abilities without tying it to any class. Since NPCs aren't just "PCs, only crappier" anymore, they can incorporate any kind of Magus-like spread of abilities they want, without having to worry about tying it to a class.
Use it to figure out how well it works, and how best to incorporate it later as a PC option. Discover whether it will work better as a standalone class, or something like an archetype or class path.
Whatever they do, I hope it isn't pushing out an arguably superfluous class, while simultaneously pidgeonholing it onto an NPC, after recognizing one of the major design improvement of PF2 is that NPCs don't need to use PC rules.
EDIT:
Though, to be fair, if they mean for the NPC companions from the game to occupy a different role than just NPC, they could certainly use it in a number of unique ways, including trying prototype designs (or fully-fledged designs) for a new class like the Magus or Inquisitor.
I get the feeling that one of the occult classes is going to jump the queue and end up releasing much earlier than it did in PF1.Like it wouldn't be wholly surprising to me if the first 5 new classes are Oracle, Witch, Occultist, Shifter, [New Class].
So I know there are a few on the forums here that really love the Occult classes, but is the popularity really that wide spread?
I thought they were okay at best.
Also, on the note of the classes you listed, Shifter is the weakest base Class they even released (in terms of design and concept).
I'd eat my shoe if Shifter made it in with the first round of base classes over Summoner, Magus, or Inquisitor. Inquisitor and Magus were undoubtedly more popular and widely used.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's a strong chance the Magus and Inquisitor end up as archetypes, and the summoner is likely one of the later classes to be released.
I mean, all you really need to make the magus work is spellstrike, as "spell combat" and "casting in armor" are inherent to the system. Whereas the inquisitor is more of a job description which allows for a wide variety of people to fill it- Nethys should have inquisitors who are wizards, Gozreh should have inquisitors who are druids, Gorum should have inquisitors who are Barbarians, etc.
I wouldn't expect a summoner before the world guide book which covers Sarkoris is solicited.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reading how Warpriest is a cleric pathway really makes me think Inquisitor will go the same route.
Only that it could thematically mesh well with things like Ranger and Champion and thus be an archetype gives me pause (kind of aligned with PossibleCabbage's point above)
Magus could be a pathway for wizard or archetype that can be applied to certain casters to allow them to deliver spells in combat. Question here is that if this wasn't limited to Wizards/Sorcerers might it need a new name? (Say if it could be applied to clerics)
Although clerics putting divine power through their weapons seems like it might trade on champions a little? I am not sure
*
What is not being considered is whether or not there will be brand new classes in the next book / playtest
Reading how Warpriest is a cleric pathway really makes me think Inquisitor will go the same route.
Only that it could thematically mesh well with things like Ranger and Champion and thus be an archetype gives me pause (kind of aligned with PossibleCabbage's point above)
I am about here as well, but then I was also thinking the Inquisitor and the Ranger, in terms of "feel" do not differ all that much.
It's just what specifically their "target" is that differs. Judgement and Hunted Target could very easily become similar aspects of each other.
A Class Path that swaps some trained Skills and Animal Companion for "Solo Tactics" equivalent would be kinda close in "feel".
A Class Path for Cleric indeed makes the most sense to me as well though.
Magus could be a pathway for wizard or archetype that can be applied to certain casters to allow them to deliver spells in combat. Question here is that if this wasn't limited to Wizards/Sorcerers might it need a new name? (Say if it could be applied to clerics)
I'm about at the point where they should just call it a Gish, or the variations for each get a different name:
Martial Class Paths:
Wizard -> Magus
Spontaneous Wizard -> Bloodrager (or maybe Eldritch Scion)
Bard -> Skald
Cleric -> Warpriest
Druid -> Hunter (probably needs a new name)
Now the interesting thing that comes up is Inquisitor is kinda Cleric + Rogue
Which opens up this can of worms for Skilled Class Path:
Wizard -> Beguiler/Warlock
Cleric -> Inquisitor
Druid -> Ranger(? no idea)
Bard -> Spellthief/Sandman Archetype
What is not being considered is whether or not there will be brand new classes in the next book / playtest
Oh I certainly hope so, and to me just because a common name has returned does not mean it's a not a "new" Class.
tangent:
So what Role does the Ranger actually fill now? I am drawing huge blanks on where they actually place in the current game given the Playtest.
Does anyone have the "spark notes assessment" of the Ranger that has the book?
In one of his recent videos (or interviews - I cannot remember which) Mark Seifter has mentioned that (and I am paraphrasing here), while the multiclass system in 2nd edition is better than in 1st edition, and therefore creating less need for many of the hybrid classes, that the magus is still a class with a lot of interesting design space that can be explored in 2nd edition now that the baggage of 1st edition is gone. What new and interesting things can be done with the magus now that there is less of a need for spell combat? After all, spellstrike is still something that is not in 2nd edition and there were a lot of cool 1st edition magus archetype abilities out there that could be rolled into the core design of a new magus class now with the feat-focused design of the classes in 2nd edition. There is also the consideration of adding other magic/combat concepts such as arcane archer builds, natural weapon spellcasters, and unarmed magus martial artists.
That's really cool to hear, since I am strongly in the camp of wanting Magus to return as a base class.
A Magus that dropped Spell Combat (which was IMO really just a crutch to make the basic concept even work) in favor of a greater focus on Spellstrike and other ways to blend magic and martial skill would be amazing.
My guess is that Regongar will use the Magic Warrior archetype that the first world guide will have. Although it’s a bit soon to divorce that from its regional setting, so perhaps not.
I *hope* that the Inquisitor, Hunter, and Magus get rolled into a single gish class, but that’s reaching for the stars. We’ll see where it actually lands soon enough, I suppose.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I *hope* that the Inquisitor, Hunter, and Magus get rolled into a single gish class, but that’s reaching for the stars. We’ll see where it actually lands soon enough, I suppose.
If we are shooting for the stars we could throw hexblade in there as an occult option as well.
My hope is for the Magus to split their combat ability and spellcasting more evenly than multiclassing in 2E does (which may well likely involve limiting the number of spells per level or denying them access to the higher level spells like 1E did), get "paths" to differentiate traditions for spellcasting (admittedly, this might mean combining inquisitor into this as the divine-casting magus), focusing on spellstrike with feats that double down on it and give it different applications.
As to the pet classes like the Hunter, Spiritualist, and Summoner, I am hoping that the Summoner gets a similar treatment to my hopes for the Magus above, but focuses on its pet/companion, which is linked to the spellcasting tradition of the Summoner (Eidolon for Arcane, Spirit for Occult, Animal/Beast/Elemental for Primal, Angel/Archon/Demon/Devil for Divine), and doubles down on Teamwork abilities with the pet/companion. That way the Summoner would just roll the Spiritualist and Hunter into its design.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It should be noted (and hasn't been noted here as far as I've seen) that Regongar is an Eldritch Scion, so basically a sorcerer-based magus with the blue dragon bloodline. Unless they change that fact about him, I don't see how he would make the base magus appear in PF2 sooner. He's most likely going to be a sorcerer/fighter multiclass of some kind.
Also, spell combat seems rather easy to implement in PF2. Having access to it all the time would probably be a bit too much, so it could simply be a focus spell. It would basically be a (melee) strike that has a small attack penalty but can be used as a somatic casting action. If having it as a focus power would be too limiting, just make it a press with the flourish trait and allow it to count as a somatic action only if it hits. Limit it to spells that are at least 2 levels below your highest available level and you're pretty much set.
Whatever form it takes, it could easily come from an archetype, allowing to not only to simulate a magus' spell combat, but also the swift action buffs of PF1 classes like warpriest and inquisitor.
If we are shooting for the stars we could throw hexblade in there as an occult option as well.
I *hope* that the Inquisitor, Hunter, and Magus get rolled into a single gish class, but that’s reaching for the stars. We’ll see where it actually lands soon enough, I suppose.
I desperately want this done well with a Witch on an occult spell list. I know if done right it’d be my new favorite class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
tangent:
So what Role does the Ranger actually fill now? I am drawing huge blanks on where they actually place in the current game given the Playtest....
It depends. Note that most classes are flexible about what "role" they fill. Fighter can be DPR or Tank, for instance.
I think the most *popular* role for Ranger will be DPR. They now have a MAP of 0/-3/-6 (0/-2/-4 with an agile weapon) against their hunted target *if* they choose the Flurry Hunter's Edge. There are quite a few class feats to double down on DPR. There are two other Hunter's Edges, though, that should give the Ranger some breathing room to focus on other roles.
I expect that Snares alone should give Ranger the chance to do some area control, among other things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we are shooting for the stars we could throw hexblade in there as an occult option as well.
I *hope* that the Inquisitor, Hunter, and Magus get rolled into a single gish class, but that’s reaching for the stars. We’ll see where it actually lands soon enough, I suppose.
Well I didn’t want to repeat my *entire* position on this :p .
I’m curious what lore has already been established on the 10 Magical Warriors. I semi jokingly referred to this class’s (which I want as the prepared “choose your own spell list” class) subclasses as “White (divine), Black (Arcane), Blue (primal), and Red (Occult) Knights”. But maybe that might actually map to those mythical figures.
Instead of hanging loose, it would root Magi right into the setting in a way that it hasn’t benefited from yet.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
tangent:
So what Role does the Ranger actually fill now? I am drawing huge blanks on where they actually place in the current game given the Playtest....
It depends. Note that most classes are flexible about what "role" they fill. Fighter can be DPR or Tank, for instance.
I think the most *popular* role for Ranger will be DPR. They now have a MAP of 0/-3/-6 (0/-2/-4 with an agile weapon) against their hunted target *if* they choose the Flurry Hunter's Edge. There are quite a few class feats to double down on DPR. There are two other Hunter's Edges, though, that should give the Ranger some breathing room to focus on other roles.
I expect that Snares alone should give Ranger the chance to do some area control, among other things.
The ranger is one of the best classes at perception (only ranger and rogue get legendary in perception), and has quite a few class feats to make it a good forward scout. It can find traps as well; sometimes without even looking, with the right class feat.
I can imagine a ranger sneaking ahead, finding a foe, then setting snares and luring the foe back to the party.
The ranger has a number of buff and debuff abilities (typically all centered on a single foe, their hunted target).
I think the ranger can probably be more mobile than the rogue, especially when terrain specializations and wild stride (aka woodland stride in pf1) are in play.
Not sure if any of this helps you understand the ranger's potential "roles" better or not
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even with Eldritch Knight in 3.5 they still made Duskblade; an Arcane twist on Paladin with 4th level spells and Full BAB. With Eldritch Knight in PF1e they still made Magus. History has proved twice now that Multiclassing can’t fill the void that a Magus class can fill.
That said, i look forward to how they design the Magus for 2e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
tangent:
So what Role does the Ranger actually fill now? I am drawing huge blanks on where they actually place in the current game given the Playtest....
It depends. Note that most classes are flexible about what "role" they fill. Fighter can be DPR or Tank, for instance.
I think the most *popular* role for Ranger will be DPR. They now have a MAP of 0/-3/-6 (0/-2/-4 with an agile weapon) against their hunted target *if* they choose the Flurry Hunter's Edge. There are quite a few class feats to double down on DPR. There are two other Hunter's Edges, though, that should give the Ranger some breathing room to focus on other roles.
I expect that Snares alone should give Ranger the chance to do some area control, among other things.
The ranger is one of the best classes at perception (only ranger and rogue get legendary in perception), and has quite a few class feats to make it a good forward scout. It can find traps as well; sometimes without even looking, with the right class feat.
I can imagine a ranger sneaking ahead, finding a foe, then setting snares and luring the foe back to the party.
The ranger has a number of buff and debuff abilities (typically all centered on a single foe, their hunted target).
I think the ranger can probably be more mobile than the rogue, especially when terrain specializations and wild stride (aka woodland stride in pf1) are in play.
Not sure if any of this helps you understand the ranger's potential "roles" better or not
Oh certainly this was the attempt in the playtest, it just wasn’t very rewarding to play.
I thought maybe they might have pivoted to more options (such as including spells or making snares better) but the scout aspect if reinforced would be fine.
Thanks!
I think you're not going to see Bane or Judgements be options if PF2, at least not in a way that is mechanically like their PF1 versions.
Judgements, maybe, if the bonuses stay small; I could see them coming back and looking similar to the Bard's composition spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Judgements, maybe, if the bonuses stay small; I could see them coming back and looking similar to the Bard's composition spells.
I could also see them taking the form of a debuffing channel of a Cleric.
You know I love the innovation on the classes they've pulled out this edition. Bard and Sorcerer were two bold moves with established classes and they were prime choices to make.
Also loved the Warpriest path of the Cleric, excellent way to scratch an itch and it can always be fostered with Class Feats long term.
On that front, I've got a lot of faith it's going to be cool and fresh, whatever form it takes.