|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bane could make you expert with the weapon and provide bonus dice. Greater Bane would be legendary with more dice. Likewise judgements could improve your save proficiencies, bump your skill level with weapons and/or armor. Fast Healing will still be a thing, right? I don't expect as-is for any crunch, but most of it can be translated.
Bane could make you expert with the weapon and provide bonus dice. Greater Bane would be legendary with more dice. Likewise judgements could improve your save proficiencies, bump your skill level with weapons and/or armor. Fast Healing will still be a thing, right? I don't expect as-is for any crunch, but most of it can be translated.
I think if Bane was tied to bonus damage dice based on your Knowledge roll against the creature that would be pretty thematically in line (if only it treated your proficiency as higher or granted critical specialization effects on your attacks).
Fast-healing wouldn't be necessary if it was attached to Cleric Channel or Champion LoH (if Inquisitor was just a path for those or an archetype), you'd effectively be able to produce the similar "feel" with those.
There's a lot of space for it to live.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, Inquisitors getting a bonus against creatures they successfully Recall Knowledge about is an awesome idea, I hope that becomes a thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the idea of an umbrella "magic knight" clas with all the traditions at hand might also fill that "prepared any-list" class for the time being, and it could also allow things like Arcane Archer and >MAYBE< Arcane Trickster in that this class + Rogue would pull that off SO WELL. I think giving it a focus spell Somatic Strike sounds awesome, and having that queue off any list can make some wacky things happen that sounds super fun. As to Toker and Astro talking about inquisitors, I believe Rangers still have that feat that gives them a +X on an attack to a monster they identify, so that'd be a good template to base it off of.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, Inquisitors getting a bonus against creatures they successfully Recall Knowledge about is an awesome idea, I hope that becomes a thing.
Ranger kinda already do that with the Monster Hunter feat.
I think that Inquisitor will be like the Warpriest and become part of Cleric.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think inquisitor is a bit TOO different from Clerics to hang off that class. It’d be a lot easier to pass out a cleric’s deity out to another class (such as Ranger) than try to cram all the inquisitor skills and abilities into a cleric chassis.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...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 feel like this is the best argument for classes like the magus or inquisitor that could ostensibly be built off another chassis getting their own classes. PF2's feat progression is too slow to make a lot of these classes work. Either you don't come online until really late, or you don't get any 'real' feats until midgame because all of your class feats are being spent to enable your concept or both.
Kyrone, that seems like a fine approach, but I can also see the bane aspects tied to the primal tradition. Identify and kill is not unique to priests, even if PF1 did it that way. I agree that judgements should be tied to the cleric class.
Identify and kill is exactly what Rangers do with their Hunter Prey and have various feats to improve it aswell and are pretty much tied with the primal and nature.
Right now we can only speculate, but a lot classes now have "paths" and Inquisitor could very well be a Cleric one or who knows maybe even a Ranger Hunter Edge just as it can be a class on it own, just like Magus could just be a Wizard Thesis that gives/increase armor, weapon proficiency and give spellstrike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, if we assume that any new class will undergo a public playtest, here is what would be required for any new classes to be included in Kingmaker for PF2:
1) At Gen Con, a new book in the Rulebook line is announced for Spring 2020, with a playtest to begin this fall (probably in September).
2) Said playtest includes the desired new classes.
Then the playtest could be carried out in time for a new rulebook to be released in April, and the folks creating the PF2 version of Kingmaker will barely have time to get it into their fall 2020 release.
If we don't hear anything about new classes at Gen Con, we will have to assume that any magus, inquisitor, or other non-core class will be approximated with material available in the books that we already know about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think inquisitor is a bit TOO different from Clerics to hang off that class. It’d be a lot easier to pass out a cleric’s deity out to another class (such as Ranger) than try to cram all the inquisitor skills and abilities into a cleric chassis.
The more I sit on it, the more I think the Ranger could just absorb this class by adding elements of the Cleric.
I could certainly see it going either way, but an archetype for Inquisitor seems unlikely to cause the desired outcome.
Class or Class Path seems like the only options without a terribly delayed concept.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think inquisitor is a bit TOO different from Clerics to hang off that class. It’d be a lot easier to pass out a cleric’s deity out to another class (such as Ranger) than try to cram all the inquisitor skills and abilities into a cleric chassis.The more I sit on it, the more I think the Ranger could just absorb this class by adding elements of the Cleric.
Certainly some parts of it would work well that way. I think I ultimately prefer it as a Magus spinoff, but you could do a Ranger subclass with a deity and some good focus spells if you squint.
I didn’t want to raise this in the gunslinger thread, but part of why I feel like this is that I don’t feel rangers occupy the “primal champion” slot anymore. For PF2, that might well be better occupied with a champion cause. Rangers are the survivalist class, as much a skill class as the rogue but with a different focus and application of those skills. Under that concept space, inquisitors fit right in (I wouldn’t mind if Rangers picked up the teamwork shtick from Inquisitors too eventually; that would fit well).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, if we assume that any new class will undergo a public playtest, here is what would be required for any new classes to be included in Kingmaker for PF2:
1) At Gen Con, a new book in the Rulebook line is announced for Spring 2020, with a playtest to begin this fall (probably in September).
2) Said playtest includes the desired new classes.
Then the playtest could be carried out in time for a new rulebook to be released in April, and the folks creating the PF2 version of Kingmaker will barely have time to get it into their fall 2020 release.
If we don't hear anything about new classes at Gen Con, we will have to assume that any magus, inquisitor, or other non-core class will be approximated with material available in the books that we already know about.
I would expect any book with a Playtest to have to be the Gencon release, I’d also expect a big new class book to be a Gencon book.
I don’t think that stops Legendary meeting the late 2020 deadline for Kingmaker though - they’d be shared in and have access to the classes as they are tested and completed off to the printers, and will have a few months to apply the final version- with the Gencon Book coming out late July, and Kingmaker November/December, and equivalent printing deadlines for the two, that’s more than enough time.
So, if we assume that any new class will undergo a public playtest, here is what would be required for any new classes to be included in Kingmaker for PF2:
1) At Gen Con, a new book in the Rulebook line is announced for Spring 2020, with a playtest to begin this fall (probably in September).
2) Said playtest includes the desired new classes.
Then the playtest could be carried out in time for a new rulebook to be released in April, and the folks creating the PF2 version of Kingmaker will barely have time to get it into their fall 2020 release.
If we don't hear anything about new classes at Gen Con, we will have to assume that any magus, inquisitor, or other non-core class will be approximated with material available in the books that we already know about.
I would expect any book with a Playtest to have to be the Gencon release, I’d also expect a big new class book to be a Gencon book.
I don’t think that stops Legendary meeting the late 2020 deadline for Kingmaker though - they’d be shared in and have access to the classes as they are tested and completed off to the printers, and will have a few months to apply the final version- with the Gencon Book coming out late July, and Kingmaker November/December, and equivalent printing deadlines for the two, that’s more than enough time.
This timeline makes sense to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone before mentioned the idea of Magus picking their Magical Tradition akin to Sorc. I didn’t see the connection till i came across Nature-Bonded Magus. 1e Warpriest looked like it was rather similar to how they made Cleric for 2e. Though the free magical enchantments Warpriest had they gave to Champion. I’m starting to wonder if they may have rolled Warpriest into a Cleric Doctrine because they plan to have Magus cover the general Gish roll for each Tradition.
Traditional Magus -> Arcane
Nature-Bonded Magus -> Primal
Warpriest Magus -> Divine
Psychic Warrior Magus -> Occult
So, if we assume that any new class will undergo a public playtest, here is what would be required for any new classes to be included in Kingmaker for PF2:
1) At Gen Con, a new book in the Rulebook line is announced for Spring 2020, with a playtest to begin this fall (probably in September).
2) Said playtest includes the desired new classes.
Then the playtest could be carried out in time for a new rulebook to be released in April, and the folks creating the PF2 version of Kingmaker will barely have time to get it into their fall 2020 release.
If we don't hear anything about new classes at Gen Con, we will have to assume that any magus, inquisitor, or other non-core class will be approximated with material available in the books that we already know about.
I would expect any book with a Playtest to have to be the Gencon release, I’d also expect a big new class book to be a Gencon book.
I don’t think that stops Legendary meeting the late 2020 deadline for Kingmaker though - they’d be shared in and have access to the classes as they are tested and completed off to the printers, and will have a few months to apply the final version- with the Gencon Book coming out late July, and Kingmaker November/December, and equivalent printing deadlines for the two, that’s more than enough time.
That timeline would make sense from Paizo's point of view, but Gen Con to the end of the year is definitely not enough time for anything from a Gen Con 2020 release to make it into Kingmaker for PF2 that soon afterwards.
Psychic Warrior Magus -> Occult
I agree with everything you said, except this.
Hexblade buddy, Hexblade.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Red Mage Knight!
JRPG jokes aside, I do want a more general name then hexblade. I want to cram the Arcane Archer and all the various archer gishes in there too.
One thing I want from the PF2 magus (assuming it's a full class and not an archetype) is "more definitive thematic space." From the get-go the conceit of the Magus was "a gish that works for all 20 levels" which is fine, but that's a mechanical consideration not a thematic one. Like aside from "what spell list they use" the thematic difference between a Magus and an Inquisitor, Occultist, Archetyped Vigilante is mostly "the Magus lacks themes others have" IMO.
One thing I want from the PF2 magus (assuming it's a full class and not an archetype) is "more definitive thematic space." From the get-go the conceit of the Magus was "a gish that works for all 20 levels" which is fine, but that's a mechanical consideration not a thematic one. Like aside from "what spell list they use" the thematic difference between a Magus and an Inquisitor, Occultist, Archetyped Vigilante is mostly "the Magus lacks themes others have" IMO.
Don't you think maybe those pieces can be realized through the pool abilities though?
Arcane Pool and Judgement have similar aspects, Warpriest the Divine-gish version could certainly incorporate some kind of typed damage and divinity.
Really, if you called it "Discipline" and then the spell list was paired with a set of abilities, I think it could work.
Now on the matter of the Occultist, I think that needs to live elsewhere, and likely can absorb classes like the Kineticist, but that's my take.
Red Mage Knight!
I could see something like "Hex Knight" or "Accursed Magus".
I'd personally like to see any weapon style be allowed with the Gish, Archers included.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, if we assume that any new class will undergo a public playtest, here is what would be required for any new classes to be included in Kingmaker for PF2:
1) At Gen Con, a new book in the Rulebook line is announced for Spring 2020, with a playtest to begin this fall (probably in September).
2) Said playtest includes the desired new classes.
Then the playtest could be carried out in time for a new rulebook to be released in April, and the folks creating the PF2 version of Kingmaker will barely have time to get it into their fall 2020 release.
If we don't hear anything about new classes at Gen Con, we will have to assume that any magus, inquisitor, or other non-core class will be approximated with material available in the books that we already know about.
I would expect any book with a Playtest to have to be the Gencon release, I’d also expect a big new class book to be a Gencon book.
I don’t think that stops Legendary meeting the late 2020 deadline for Kingmaker though - they’d be shared in and have access to the classes as they are tested and completed off to the printers, and will have a few months to apply the final version- with the Gencon Book coming out late July, and Kingmaker November/December, and equivalent printing deadlines for the two, that’s more than enough time.
That timeline would make sense from Paizo's point of view, but Gen Con to the end of the year is definitely not enough time for anything from a Gen Con 2020 release to make it into Kingmaker for PF2 that soon afterwards.
Is there any reason to think the people working on Kingmaker won't have access to that information the moment it's finalized? In other words, several months before Gen Con 2020?
One thing I want from the PF2 magus (assuming it's a full class and not an archetype) is "more definitive thematic space." From the get-go the conceit of the Magus was "a gish that works for all 20 levels" which is fine, but that's a mechanical consideration not a thematic one. Like aside from "what spell list they use" the thematic difference between a Magus and an Inquisitor, Occultist, Archetyped Vigilante is mostly "the Magus lacks themes others have" IMO.
Could you explain where the Magus is missing themes? I agree on broadening the themes more, just like they have with other classes, just not sure what you mean by an Inquisitor, Occultist, Archetyped Vigilante have more themes that the Magus lacks.
They both have deadlines for submitting things to print and could be changing them at any point before then.
One thing I want from the PF2 magus (assuming it's a full class and not an archetype) is "more definitive thematic space." From the get-go the conceit of the Magus was "a gish that works for all 20 levels" which is fine, but that's a mechanical consideration not a thematic one. Like aside from "what spell list they use" the thematic difference between a Magus and an Inquisitor, Occultist, Archetyped Vigilante is mostly "the Magus lacks themes others have" IMO.
Occultist as the 4th leg. I kind of like it.
But yeah, that’s why I want them to attach them to the 10 Magical Warriors and Old-Mage Jatembe. Instead of “gish”, the class story would be “emulators of some of the earliest mages, joining their mystical knowledge with martial techniques. While many train at the academy and take on the responsibilities of the Nameless, the teachings have spread (and evolved) far beyond their origin point.”
I think Magus' niche as an arcane battle mage is pretty well defined thematically while still being open enough to allow for a variety of characters to theoretically come out of that chassis.
They might not be as strictly defined as the druid or inquisitor but I think that's a good thing in the same way that it's good that the wizard or fighter have a lot of comparative openness in their design.
I think there's much less reason for a divine Magus because Warpriest is basically everything a divine Magus would want to be, except Spellstrike.
And I'm still personally of the opinion that a 2e Magus would make more sense looking more like Kineticist - with a variety of specialized magical abilities rather than full casting.
I would also strongly prefer a Magus class that does its one thing very well than a Magus that tries to do everything.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could you explain where the Magus is missing themes? I agree on broadening the themes more, just like they have with other classes, just not sure what you mean by an Inquisitor, Occultist, Archetyped Vigilante have more themes that the Magus lacks.
Well, without referencing game mechanics, try to explain what a magus is, as something distinct from a fighter/wizard or a wizard/fighter.
Like an inquisitor is- A troubleshooter for a deity/church, they root out the tough problems, are self-sufficient, and get their hands dirtier than a cleric probably should.
Occultist- you have an intuitive understanding of the secret history of seemingly ordinary objects, and are able to use this to access the magic in weird junk that others would ignore.
For the archetyped vigilante, it depends on which one: like a cabalist is a secret cultist who maintains an a facade as "just like everyone else" while harnessing secret powers in private. A warlock is basically Dr. Strange, a magical girl is basically Card Captor Sakura, etc.
For me, the Magus was just "a functional gish- someone who does both magic and weapons" with most of the draw of the class being how efficiently it does it (I mean, the dervish dancing shocking grasp magus became cliche solely because of the DPR spikes).
Now if you tie the magus to the ten magic warriors associated with Jatembe, or you made them all have a bond with a mysterious intelligent item a la the black blade, or you have them manifest weapons from their will a la the mindblade, then you have something. But the class needs a thematic hook it didn't have before.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now if you tie the magus to the ten magic warriors associated with Jatembe, or you made them all have a bond with a mysterious intelligent item a la the black blade, or you have them manifest weapons from their will a la the mindblade, then you have something. But the class needs a thematic hook it didn't have before.
But if you tie the magus to the then magic warriors associated with Jatembe, now every magus that existed before that wasn't associated with Jatembe doesn't have their class anymore. I'm not sure that's really a gain.
A warlock is basically Dr. Strange
Man that Archetype could have been so good if bolts wasn’t nerfed so terribly.
On your point for an item focus, that’s an exciting idea!
Think about most of the things we’ve been discussing and one of the biggest commonalities is the focus on a particular item or weapon.
Arcane Archers it’s a bow, then magus has black blade, staff master, arcane thame, mystic bolts, card master, etc.
Basically turning mundane weapons magic, directly creating weapons, or bonded with a weapon. Given the theme of arcane pool, perhaps the focus of the class could be the persons ability to imbue weapons/things with arcane power.
You include the body as a weapon, and kineticist can kinda be feasible here too.
And you need not stop at weapons, card master is a good example of that. Almost like the class manifests magic than it casts it, which does align with the all focus point caster concept.
Occultist could be this but with literally almost a touch of wild magic by allowing them to interact with any item.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But if you tie the magus to the then magic warriors associated with Jatembe, now every magus that existed before that wasn't associated with Jatembe doesn't have their class anymore. I'm not sure that's really a gain.
All but 2 of the CRB classes have built in subclasses/class paths, so that should probably be the assumption for new classes anyway. So we could do Magic Warrior, Black Blade, Arcane Archer, etc.
But I'm not sure if "we have to support all versions of a class that were created off a presentation devoid of Golarion specific flavor." Is necessary. Like the summoner never made any sense to me until I learned that the class harkens from the God Callers of old Sarkoris, and the Sarkorian diaspora after their country exploded got it elsewhere.
I'd really prefer the Magus either be an archetype or get much more firmly rooted in Golarion lore than it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think classes should be rooted in the lore beyond "there are people in Golaran who can do these things."
Possibly not, since the kineticist works via "I just woke up and now I'm able to move objects with my mind, neat!" but the Magus isn't exactly an intuitive class. Like being able to combine martial skill with magical acumen more efficiently than a fighter/wizard or wizard/fighter multiclass is not something you came up with on your own- someone or something taught it to you, so what is their whole deal?
Perhaps you learned from an existing, august tradition which dates back centuries if not longer. Perhaps you were tutored by a mysterious intelligent item you found. Perhaps you learned from the spirits themselves which can be shaped into a weapon.
It's just that the Magus needs more of a hook since of all the classes the Magus is probably the most "you're unlikely to be 100% self-taught" of all.
I believe a character should choose their backstory, not the game.
But "I just learned to combine magic and weapons on my own" does not require a class, that is a multiclassed fighter/wizard or wizard/fighter. If we want to make something similar to that which stands on its own as a whole class, we need to differentiate from the bespoke mage knight MC both mechanically and thematically.
But I'm not sure if "we have to support all versions of a class that were created off a presentation devoid of Golarion specific flavor." Is necessary. Like the summoner never made any sense to me until I learned that the class harkens from the God Callers of old Sarkoris, and the Sarkorian diaspora after their country exploded got it elsewhere.
I don't think specific classes are bad, I just don't think they need to exist as a rule.
I mean, you could make all Wizards into Gebbian Necromancers and add a lot of flavor to the class and make them a lot more Golarion relevant, but you'd also be stripping away the ability to build a lot of other characters that exist outside that niche.
I just don't see what's wrong with the Magus being a bigger tent like the Fighter rather than a narrowly defined one like the Druid.
But "I just learned to combine magic and weapons on my own" does not require a class, that is a multiclassed fighter/wizard or wizard/fighter.
I'm not sure that's entirely true either. The fighter/wizard is someone who uses magic alongside martial skills, but they don't blend disciplines in the same way a Magus does. That's a pretty significant difference between the Magus and other gishes right there and one that, at least for now, still seems to be relevant in PF2.
You are massively underselling the potential of the gish class. PF2 classes are broad and highly modular. I believe having the gish class would fit with this theme quite well.
The basic class features can be spellcasting, martial proficiencies, spell strike, and using focus to enchant your weapon. Everything else would be a class path or a feat.
I think having a flexible spell-list would be the most "future-proofed" version of this class. (Or at least start with the choice between arcane and occult, and that would leave room to add divine or nature later)
In this paradigm, if you wanted to create an arcane archer, you can choose the arcane spell list and archery training. (Same principle as card caster, esoteric, etc.)
You could also create a Sigilus by taking the inscribe rune and inscribe star rune feat. You could become a Bladebound by taking the Black Blade feat.
This is much cleaner than creating 4+ classes and dozens upon dozens of archetypes.
I will say if you define gish as any blend of a martial and magic, then the stealth/subterfuge based gish could benefit from its own space.
That might make the divide a little more manageable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if you tie the magus to the then magic warriors associated with Jatembe, now every magus that existed before that wasn't associated with Jatembe doesn't have their class anymore. I'm not sure that's really a gain.
Now if you tie the magus to the ten magic warriors associated with Jatembe, or you made them all have a bond with a mysterious intelligent item a la the black blade, or you have them manifest weapons from their will a la the mindblade, then you have something. But the class needs a thematic hook it didn't have before.
I don’t think that’s really true. Barbarians, Wizards, Witches, Summoners, Gunslingers, Psychics, and Arcanists are all pretty thoroughly rooted into the setting. But just because that’s where that class originated or is mostly widely practiced doesn’t mean YOUR entry into the class had squat to do with it. Sure you might have learned from a Garundi expat...but so could have your teacher’s 8xgreat grandmother 300 years ago. It’s been a few millennia since the warriors; teachings drift.
I mean, how often does the origin of our number system come up? Even in math classes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a Gish lover since..since 2nd edition elven fighter/mages in elven chain and i loved playing magus, but i don't see any point of magus becoming his own full class.
It doesn't seem likely that they will introduce any kind of hybrid classes...half casters with their own customized lists will not be introduced any time soon IMO. MC works for that just fine either way(IMO caster/martial is better for archer and martial/caster for melee). In PF1 magus was caped at 6th level...with MC you get 8th lvl.---and with new action economy arcane archers don't need anything to be very powerful builds, but for melee i think we will see something soon...Archetype or a feat(like rouge's sneak attack w magic) that does something to compliment a melee build....doesn't need to be spellstrike, although I wouldn't mind :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t think that’s really true. Barbarians, Wizards, Witches, Summoners, Gunslingers, Psychics, and Arcanists are all pretty thoroughly rooted into the setting.
I'd argue Wizards, Arcanists and even to an extent Gunslingers and Barbarians all qualify as pretty broad, open ended classes in terms of flavor and how they're rooted in the setting.
Making Jatembe's magic warrior the default magus archetype would be akin to having the Thassilonian sin mage in the CRB and not leaving room for any other kind of wizard.
A broadly defined magus however can include the magic warrior archetype, blackblade wielders, psychic warriors and everything in between all work under the same umbrella without stepping over or invalidating each other.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the question is- what do you want from a gish that you can't get from the martial who buys up to 2 slots at every spell level through 8th via multiclassing, or the caster who buys weapon/armor proficiency and combat abilities through multiclassing?
Like if it's just spellstrike and "you can spend focus to enhance your weapon" that can honestly just be an archetype.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like if it's just spellstrike and "you can spend focus to enhance your weapon" that can honestly just be an archetype.
It probably could be an archetype, but if you're spending one feat to pick up spells and three or four more feats to expand your spell list and a feat to pick up something like spellstrike and a feat to enable arcane pool and another feat or two to expand arcane pool and so on and so forth... you're not gonna have very much room left over to really customize your character and you probably won't actually be playing the character you want until level 5 or 7 or maybe later.
I mean fundamentally that's why the PF1 magus exists, because the Eldritch Knight was kind of hackish and didn't come online until you were a third or halfway done with your campaign. I think expecting the class to work as a feat chain in PF2 just recreates the same issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean fundamentally that's why the PF1 magus exists, because the Eldritch Knight was kind of hackish and didn't come online until you were a third or halfway done with your campaign. I think expecting the class to work as a feat chain in PF2 just recreates the same issue.
I figure this is why Magus rules are going to come late, if at all. Paizo is going to give room to people to experiment with various gish builds to see what works well and what works less well, and then try to fill the remaining space with something. I have played the "Martial spending most of their class feats on spells" (Barbarian MC Cleric) and I was satisfied with how it went, but I figure the Caster MC Martial is a better gish.
Like the Kingmaker Eldritch Scion, I would expect to be a Sorcerer MC Fighter, honestly.
Like if it's just spellstrike and "you can spend focus to enhance your weapon" that can honestly just be an archetype.It probably could be an archetype, but if you're spending one feat to pick up spells and three or four more feats to expand your spell list and a feat to pick up something like spellstrike and a feat to enable arcane pool and another feat or two to expand arcane pool and so on and so forth... you're not gonna have very much room left over to really customize your character and you probably won't actually be playing the character you want until level 5 or 7 or maybe later.
I mean fundamentally that's why the PF1 magus exists, because the Eldritch Knight was kind of hackish and didn't come online until you were a third or halfway done with your campaign. I think expecting the class to work as a feat chain in PF2 just recreates the same issue.
yeah but don't forget that your martial class prof and class features don't fall back at all, so you don't need anything but spells and some cool spellstrikelike ability....and maybe a feat or two from your martial class.
i can totally imagine an early archetype (lvl4) that has a prereq like "str or dex key ability, medium (or maybe light)armor, trained in spell attacks, 2 cantrips" that builds upon your existing spell list and type and has further feats to maybe specialize in melee or ranged....or something like that
much more likely then some level cap/custom list hybrid class IMO