|
Hey guys - I've been brainstorming the best way to represent the various occult classes in PF2, as I'm sure many of us have. Many of them fit neatly into a new role (at least in my opinion), but I'm struggling significantly with the Mesmerist. Their PF1 incarnation is far too casting focused for them to be a Focus caster in PF2, and their spell list in PF1 is pretty perfect for the Occult list in PF2. That leads to an obvious role as a full-casting Occult caster; they don't seem to fit a prepared Occult caster too well (I'm in good agreement with the rest of the board that Witch fits that pretty damn well), but this puts them in the unfortunate position of clashing strongly with the bard - they could go for a more sorc/wiz niche of being very focused on their casting, but I definitely don't think that fits. To me at least, the Mesmerist's key niche is altering the way magic normally works to make up for a less-than-powerful casting ability (i.e. stare + spells, bold stares to effect things that they shouldn't, etc).
Which left me with a few conclusions:
1: Mesmerists shouldn't be shunted over to an exclusively arcane/divine/primal caster
2: Mesmerists shouldn't be 4 spells/level equivalent casters
3: Mesmerists clash too much with bards as 3 spells/level, spontaneous, CHA-based occult casters
4: Mesmerists definitely shouldn't be Focus casters
There aren't many ways to go from there - I considered trying to make them a bard-specific archetype, or a sorcerer one, but they don't fit too well there. Which leaves one option that I'd been reticent to consider - mesmerists as an archetype. Now that I've considered it, I think it might actually work pretty well - an archetype that anyone who casts spells can take that's designed around making enchantment (or similar) spells more subtle + effective, with feats giving you the classic stare + bold stare equivalents. One would have to worry about someone like a wizard or sorcerer taking the archetype and boosting their casting dramatically - but without seeing the final set of sorc/wiz feats, I'd have to imagine they'll be keeping a fair few of their feats that are very much worthwhile for casting.
What do you guys think? Am I missing something? It seems like it would make for a good archetype, and would be an interesting way to port across mesmerist. Bard-mesermists would be the classic, but something like a wizard/sorc mesmerist would be interesting both thematically and mechanically to me as well :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with
"
Mesmerists clash too much with bards as 3 spells/level, spontaneous, CHA-based occult casters
"
The only class feature that is the same is casting. There's still a class feature every odd level that should be different.
One thing I'm genuinely curious is how they are going to work psychic casting into PF2. It's canon on Golarion (it's big in Vudra) but it's going to require new rule which, I think, is going to determine what shape some of the Occult classes take.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I'm genuinely curious is how they are going to work psychic casting into PF2. It's canon on Golarion (it's big in Vudra) but it's going to require new rule which, I think, is going to determine what shape some of the Occult classes take.
My bet is that it's just a new set of components (Thought, Emotion, etc.) usable with any Spell List, depending on the Class in question.
One thing I'm genuinely curious is how they are going to work psychic casting into PF2. It's canon on Golarion (it's big in Vudra) but it's going to require new rule which, I think, is going to determine what shape some of the Occult classes take.My bet is that it's just a new set of components (Thought, Emotion, etc.) usable with any Spell List, depending on the Class in question.
Are psychics (the class) just going to be another kind of sorcerer then?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are psychics (the class) just going to be another kind of sorcerer then?
Maybe? I could also see them as Spontaneous Arcane casters (ie: no modular list) with some stuff to dabble in other lists based on Path choice.
That'd go well with Witches as Prepared Occult casters, Oracles as Spontaneous Divine casters, and Shamans as Spontaneous Primal casters.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thematically (and mechanically in PF1) Mesmerists are sufficiently different to Bards to deserve their own class.
I dunno, there's a lot of thematic overlap. They explicitly made the Iconics for the two Classes brothers for a reason, after all.
Relegating them to an archetype would be a severe disservice to the class in my opinion. Not least from the perspective of feat support. You would be replacing enough of the bard that many of the feats would no longer make sense.
I disagree. Feats to aid Bards in controlling minds and doing spellcasting in general are quite common, and can be made more so. And a bit of buffing and occult knowledge is actually also very much in the Mesmerist's wheelhouse.
I think Paizo can make two sufficiently different casters even using the same spell list and preparation method. Or even something completely new.
I agree with this, I just don't think Mesmerist requires this.
I don't like the idea of making a previous class which is similar to another class into an archetype- since an archetype means you have fewer feats available (since taking the archetype costs one). We could potentially do some sort of "alternative class" mechanic though, since doing this as a subclass seems odd as a bunch of bard feats should not be available to mesmerists and vice versa.
I personally can see them just making one Psychic class with something similar to kineticist casting and each path or "Hunter Edge" being a different PF1 Occult class.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally can see them just making one Psychic class with something similar to kineticist casting and each path or "Hunter Edge" being a different PF1 Occult class.
That's deeply unsatisfying, does a terrible job of reflecting anyone but Kineticist, and is very much not gonna happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kineticist of all classes is the one that really looks like it was built with second edition very much in mind. It is very very modular in the way everything just jumps up every other level and there are a bunch of choices and almost everything is built in for you
That said the burn mechanic doesn’t really seem to fit the design idea of making things easier to play
I have a player who has to track their effective HP using a spreadsheet. And I have seen damage calculating spreadsheets as well. I don’t think this is the direction they want to go
I would hate to see mesmerist as archetype, even if there are some similarities
mesmerist hat a very unique feel, using their stare to weaken and hurt enemies, touch treatment for allies and some swashbuckling to round it up
Also there is no real place for bardic performance in the mesmerist toolkit and bardic lore isnt exactly something that fits in there
alternate class maybe, but archetype...please not
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’d be okay seeing a Mesmerist archetype, but Id also be happy with the class. If it were an archetype, I imagine it’d replace inspire courage with a stare cantrip, change the casting components, give a specific muse, and grant a focus spell implant trick as the dedication feat.
But, looking at all that, it seems like it could just as easily be a separate class. Where Bard focuses on performances and skills, Mesmerist could be more of a caster augmented by focus spells- implant trick and touch treatment seem like good candidates for that. Painful Stare as a reaction makes plenty of sense, too.
@ Arcaian:
I'd be keen to hear your thoughts on the future of the Occultist.
My group never looked at 1E, but we are going all-in on 2E, and looking back at the occultist, it looks like SO MUCH FUN.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I was a betting man, I'd probably guess that Burn will be replaced with either Focus or some sort of Con-based pool of points, while a Kineticist's blast will be a cantrip while a lot of their stuff will just buff said cantrip.
I would be pretty disappointed if the Kineticist's "nova" mechanic does not involve hurting yourself at all. "Pushing your body to and past the limit" is an important identity of the class and the whole reason they are Con based to begin with.
I could see the mesmerist going either way. At its core it's pretty damn close to a bard who trades out the group buffs for targeted debuffs, but it could make a good full class too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Listening to Arcane Mark has kind of highlighted for me that archetypes need not be nearly as self contained as they were in PF1. For example, if you made a Mesmerist archetype, nothing prevents you from making more feats for that archetype or creating a secondary archetype it leads into.
So I think the big barometer of "should this be a class or an archetype" are probably "is the flavor strong enough to make it incompatible with a class's inherent flavor" and "does it make sense for this character to have access to the feats of a potential parent class."
As discussed recently, the sorcerer's bloodline has a pretty distinct flavor from the oracle, and it makes little sense for the oracle to have access to feats called bloodline this or bloodline that. Similarly, I think the bard has been pretty tied to compositions both for its flavor and its feats, and I can't really see that making sense on the mesmerist. As such, I probably wouldn't make it a bard archetype.
It seems like it could stand as a full class, but I think that could hinge on the plans for psychic casting more broadly.
Is there any reason we can't just make classes which are similar to, but nonetheless thematically and mechanically distinct from existing classes.
Like what if we did a "psychic version" for each of the 4 lists and the mesmerist is the occult one.
Is there any reason we can't just make classes which are similar to, but nonetheless thematically and mechanically distinct from existing classes.
Like what if we did a "psychic version" for each of the 4 lists and the mesmerist is the occult one.
That's kind of what I meant by plans for psychic casting. I don't see why they couldn't do this if they felt so inclined.
If we were going to have a psychic caster for each list where do they all fit?
Mesmerist is the Occult one, Psychic slots nicely into Arcane, Spiritualist works for Divine (you get healing and undead stuff in PF1), but I don't know what fits in Primal- we might need a new class (though we could recontexualize the Medium maybe?)
Alternatively, mesmerist could be a psychic archetype.
I forget if one of those missing combinations (mental+spiritual, etc) was one that neatly matches psychic magic flavor or not.
I think my first choice for a Mesmerist would be as a Bard path/ class archetype. My second choice would be as a cantrip-and-focus-power caster.
|
If I was a betting man, I'd probably guess that Burn will be replaced with either Focus or some sort of Con-based pool of points, while a Kineticist's blast will be a cantrip while a lot of their stuff will just buff said cantrip.I would be pretty disappointed if the Kineticist's "nova" mechanic does not involve hurting yourself at all. "Pushing your body to and past the limit" is an important identity of the class and the whole reason they are Con based to begin with.
They could be Focus spells, but with a special Class Feature that let them regain a focus point as an action (later as a free action?) by taking some damage. :O
If I was a betting man, I'd probably guess that Burn will be replaced with either Focus or some sort of Con-based pool of points, while a Kineticist's blast will be a cantrip while a lot of their stuff will just buff said cantrip.I would be pretty disappointed if the Kineticist's "nova" mechanic does not involve hurting yourself at all. "Pushing your body to and past the limit" is an important identity of the class and the whole reason they are Con based to begin with.
The big problem with this is that in PF1, you risk knocking yourself unconscious. In PF2, you risk accidental suicide if you get papercut after burning yourself to the limit.
I’ve mentioned before, but my preference would be to give kineticists a unique debuff, and once they hit 4+con modifier (or whatever, can be tweaked) they become unconscious, rather than them directly manipulating their HP.
Alternatively, mesmerist could be a psychic archetype.
I forget if one of those missing combinations (mental+spiritual, etc) was one that neatly matches psychic magic flavor or not.
I still say Mental/Spiritual would best reflect witch spellcasting. I wish it was primal, for my own personal flavor reasons, but my spreadsheet insists otherwise. Psychics feel closer to Occult than anything, but I haven’t run the numbers yet. It’s harder to do anyways, since there’s less overlap between Psychics and the other class lists.
A thought just occurred to me. I suggested in a different thread that they could at some point decide to make single essence spell lists. Still runs into the problem of “ I thought we were keeping it to 4 lists and that’s it?”, but at least what skill you’d roll isn’t an issue (mental essence can be identified by either arcane or occult, your choice). But if they did that, the various psychic casting classes might get parceled out to an essence a piece. Psychics could become Mentalist, Mesmerists Spiritualist (ug, THAT’LL be confusing, and almost reason enough on its own not to do this). Occultists and Kineticists are two ways you can approach Materialist. Spiritualists might make good Vitalists. And mediums can go wander off to become the Harrower and Dilettante classes (see discussion in “New Classes” thread).
|
|
My apologies to everyone for creating a thread and then proceeding to disappear for almost a day - ended up running a PF1 game unexpectedly last night! :)
Are psychics (the class) just going to be another kind of sorcerer then?Maybe? I could also see them as Spontaneous Arcane casters (ie: no modular list) with some stuff to dabble in other lists based on Path choice.
That'd go well with Witches as Prepared Occult casters, Oracles as Spontaneous Divine casters, and Shamans as Spontaneous Primal casters.
Before I get into the various comments on mesmerists, I just feel like I'm missing something here. Psychics have never been my favourite class in PF1, but does the psychic list from PF1 really have enough in common with the arcane list to do this? They seemed like they were one of the more mentally focused casters in PF1, seems odd to give them Material casting to me.
Listening to Arcane Mark has kind of highlighted for me that archetypes need not be nearly as self contained as they were in PF1. For example, if you made a Mesmerist archetype, nothing prevents you from making more feats for that archetype or creating a secondary archetype it leads into.
So I think the big barometer of "should this be a class or an archetype" are probably "is the flavor strong enough to make it incompatible with a class's inherent flavor" and "does it make sense for this character to have access to the feats of a potential parent class."
As discussed recently, the sorcerer's bloodline has a pretty distinct flavor from the oracle, and it makes little sense for the oracle to have access to feats called bloodline this or bloodline that. Similarly, I think the bard has been pretty tied to compositions both for its flavor and its feats, and I can't really see that making sense on the mesmerist. As such, I probably wouldn't make it a bard archetype.
It seems like it could stand as a full class, but I think that could hinge on the plans for psychic casting more broadly.
I'd have to say that this is a good representation of why I'm struggling to see it as a bard archetype - it really doesn't seem like it shares much thematically with bard. You certainly could do, as suggested in this thread, a bard-specific archetype where you trade out Inspire Courage for stare, then don't compositions but instead get modifications to your stare, and a custom muse is done. It'd be a pretty good representation of a Mesmerist, it just seems odd that you'd have access to Bard feats - the bard feat list in the playtest at least seemed pretty focused on the more classic Bard things. I can definitely see how it'd work mechanically, it just seems like you'd have to be tip-toeing around the Bard feat list to avoid picking up things that aren't thematically appropriate for a mesmerist.
|
|
@ Arcaian:
I'd be keen to hear your thoughts on the future of the Occultist.
My group never looked at 1E, but we are going all-in on 2E, and looking back at the occultist, it looks like SO MUCH FUN.
Occultists are a very fun one from PF1 :D I'd argue the key parts of the Occultist class are a relatively limited set of casting that is made up for with powerful magical abilities cast from their items. Their implements are vital to the class - they control what type of magic they can cast, and their knowledge of implements give them huge capabilities in identifying and using magical items.
I don't think the above justifies a full caster in PF2, which would naturally put them as a Focus caster. An alternative is putting them in a similar position to an Alchemist, but instead of a pool that is used to create items, you do a more traditional Occultist mechanic of investing it in various items. That seems like it's a bit too different from PF2's goal of minimizing the various pools from classes, and clashes with multiclassing into it pretty badly. It seems to me the easiest way to represent it in PF2 would be to have class feats to unlock the different implements (probably with a free one at 1st), and then higher level feats allowing you to choose to further specialize in an implement (or pick up stuff like magic circles and outsider binding). The implements give you Focus spells appropriate to the school of magic. I think it'd fit Occultist pretty well, but it does struggle a little bit to make a caster Occultist - for that you'd likely want to select the more Caster appropriate implements (evocation, etc) and multiclass into an appropriate caster.
What does everyone else think? :)
|
|
For the non-mesmerist stuff:
Are psychics (the class) just going to be another kind of sorcerer then?One thing I'm genuinely curious is how they are going to work psychic casting into PF2. It's canon on Golarion (it's big in Vudra) but it's going to require new rule which, I think, is going to determine what shape some of the Occult classes take.My bet is that it's just a new set of components (Thought, Emotion, etc.) usable with any Spell List, depending on the Class in question.
Honestly, I do feel this is the best way to go. I may be misjudging their spell list in PF1, but they don't seem like they've got sufficient difference to an Occult (or Arcane, as mentioned up-thread?) sorcerer to really be worthwhile to me as a separate class. Their disciplines is the main thing that they do differently - there might be enough thematic difference to justify a class, but mechanically I do feel they'd struggle to differentiate themselves as a class.
They could be Focus spells, but with a special Class Feature that let them regain a focus point as an action (later as a free action?) by taking some damage. :OIf I was a betting man, I'd probably guess that Burn will be replaced with either Focus or some sort of Con-based pool of points, while a Kineticist's blast will be a cantrip while a lot of their stuff will just buff said cantrip.I would be pretty disappointed if the Kineticist's "nova" mechanic does not involve hurting yourself at all. "Pushing your body to and past the limit" is an important identity of the class and the whole reason they are Con based to begin with.
Ooh, I think that's a lovely way to represent it. I think probably the main issue with it just being damage is that it's supposed to be permanent across the day - one could make it unhealable, but that is getting fairly complicated. An alternative is when you take the action to regain Focus, you gain a condition that represents the damage - it could be one of the existing ones, or it could be a unique Burn condition that decreases your max and current HP by a set amount? Seems easier to track, to me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Before I get into the various comments on mesmerists, I just feel like I'm missing something here. Psychics have never been my favourite class in PF1, but does the psychic list from PF1 really have enough in common with the arcane list to do this? They seemed like they were one of the more mentally focused casters in PF1, seems odd to give them Material casting to me.
In PF1 the Psychic list is...odd. It's very Mental focused, yes, with all the stuff that implies, but has no healing and a lot of Force effects and telekinetic stuff as well. It's not a good direct translation for any PF2 list, but I think Occult and Arcane are about on par in terms of representing it.
|
|
Before I get into the various comments on mesmerists, I just feel like I'm missing something here. Psychics have never been my favourite class in PF1, but does the psychic list from PF1 really have enough in common with the arcane list to do this? They seemed like they were one of the more mentally focused casters in PF1, seems odd to give them Material casting to me.In PF1 the Psychic list is...odd. It's very Mental focused, yes, with all the stuff that implies, but has no healing and a lot of Force effects and telekinetic stuff as well. It's not a good direct translation for any PF2 list, but I think Occult and Arcane are about on par in terms of representing it.
That does complicate what one should be doing with them in PF2 - especially as Force effects aren't supposed to be Material either. One of the pitfalls of set lists for different traditions, I guess - I'll have a more detailed look over their PF1 list and think about it; Arcane/Occult with connections giving a fair few spells from the other list seems the easiest for a full class, but I'm not sure on there being a sufficiently interesting mechanical or thematic niche for psychic as a class, to be honest.
What if Psychics are arcane or occult depending on their tradition (but never primal or divine)?
I could see caster classes devoted to a single essence then pairing it with whatever it goes with.
...It seems to me the easiest way to represent it in PF2 would be to have class feats to unlock the different implements (probably with a free one at 1st), and then higher level feats allowing you to choose to further specialize in an implement (or pick up stuff like magic circles and outsider binding). The implements give you Focus spells appropriate to the school of magic. I think it'd fit Occultist pretty well, but it does struggle a little bit to make a caster Occultist - for that you'd likely want to select the more Caster appropriate implements (evocation, etc) and multiclass into an appropriate caster.What does everyone else think? :)
Oh, that's a neat idea. Perhaps you would invest focus points into an implement to gain a passive effect until you expend the focus point to cast a focus spell?
|
|
Oh, that's a neat idea. Perhaps you would invest focus points into an implement to gain a passive effect until you expend the focus point to cast a focus spell?
...It seems to me the easiest way to represent it in PF2 would be to have class feats to unlock the different implements (probably with a free one at 1st), and then higher level feats allowing you to choose to further specialize in an implement (or pick up stuff like magic circles and outsider binding). The implements give you Focus spells appropriate to the school of magic. I think it'd fit Occultist pretty well, but it does struggle a little bit to make a caster Occultist - for that you'd likely want to select the more Caster appropriate implements (evocation, etc) and multiclass into an appropriate caster.What does everyone else think? :)
Without having seen the final rules I'm not sure exactly how Focus points will be detailed - but it seems like that's not going to be working against PF2's implementation of Focus points.
Before I get into the various comments on mesmerists, I just feel like I'm missing something here. Psychics have never been my favourite class in PF1, but does the psychic list from PF1 really have enough in common with the arcane list to do this? They seemed like they were one of the more mentally focused casters in PF1, seems odd to give them Material casting to me.In PF1 the Psychic list is...odd. It's very Mental focused, yes, with all the stuff that implies, but has no healing and a lot of Force effects and telekinetic stuff as well. It's not a good direct translation for any PF2 list, but I think Occult and Arcane are about on par in terms of representing it.
Solidly Occult, I'd say. Arcane has elemental blasting, which feels way off for Psychic, vs. a healing spell that boosts mental defenses. Occult is actually where force effects generally go.
|
Not too necro a thread but I was just thinking about how I can see it easily fitting into the Bard chassis as an archetype but also how it might be able to stand on its own with a couple of its features. If they flipped the bonuses from their powers into penalties for the enemies they'd pack a bigger punch on the battlefield and not be so single target focused. Inspire Courage becomes Inflict Cowardice and Inspire Competence swaps to Inflict Incompetence.
At the same time, Painful Stare as a reaction seems like an obvious choice that doesn't quite fit into the a Bard. I'm not sure about tricks or touch treatment. I can sort of see Touch Treatment like an extra pool with Clerics and channeling. Tricks seem like focus powers but would be extremely limited by the number of focus points you can get as a class, though I guess that would be a built in Manifold Stare. I just think it would get annoying very quickly with you not being able to refocus unless you are able to activate then each combat. A lot 1e tricks are kind of situational. The Bold Stares I'd break down as different cantrips since handing out a bunch of penalties is extremely strong in this edition.
As someone who loves playing debuffers and enablers, I'm waiting with baited breath to see what they're planning.