I am strongly in favour of the Kineticist coming back (officially) as soon as possible . In a pretty drastic turn around from my usual opinion on the class
I am far from their biggest fan but a lot of that is down to 1E execution and is likely to be solved in a 2E release
- Their supporting lore seemed very weak (at least on the surface)
- Mechanics were a bit all over the place and very difficult for them to understand
- class was very spikey with significant power boosts at odd levels and lulls inbetween
- it could easily be the strongest class at some tables by some distance. But if what I read on the boards is true then they could be extremely underwhelming at other tables
- very limited item support
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo Kineticist could come out this next year or not for six more years. We have no idea when it might come out or if it even really will find a place. Why should third party publishers limit themselves?
Also, of course someone who likes the class is going to make it. Usually people don't create content they don't like.
Paizo Kineticist could come out this next year or not for six more years. We have no idea when it might come out or if it even really will find a place. Why should third party publishers limit themselves?
Also, of course someone who likes the class is going to make it. Usually people don't create content they don't like.
Usually third party content explores a space that is not explored by the first party source . Such as the psionics which Paizo will not be touching. At all
Kineticist will come and sooner than 6 years but I accept your point that it might not be one year. It just seems rather early in the lifecycle to be doing something like this. Especially as adventures are in short supply for 2E. But then again it is often said people clamour for new classes the most
It still seems like a lot of work for such a potentially limited scope. But I don’t know rpg publishers calculate the value of their time spent on this. But as a labour of love that might not be the point and fair enough in that case
Companies can produce more than one thing at once. Legendary is already releasing a large-scale adventure path as well as conversions of several modules to 2E, alongside presumably continuing the Legendary Classes line. Samurai Sheepdog's We Faithful Few contains both the Warlock and Convoker, both being very similar to the witch and summoner in concept and execution.
Hell, Legendary's entire MO through much of 1E was in remaking the s@@@tier official classes and making them cool and fun.
They are doing conversions? Really? Does IP allow them to do that? Which ones ? That is really cool if they are
And now you mentioned it the Legendary Class line does ring a bell. You did mention “remake” though :-P.
I wonder if they will get their teeth into alchemist ...
Anyway I have derailed this unintentionally and keep on doing it by continuing the back and forth
What do people think about how classes can be grouped in the apparent future “concept book” idea ...?
Anyway I have derailed this unintentionally and keep on doing it by continuing the back and forth
What do people think about how classes can be grouped in the apparent future “concept book” idea ...?
The Lost Omens line seems perfect for this, particularly when it comes to including GM and player content in the same book. I could see a Lost Omens book focused on dragons that has lore about existing dragons, stats for new dragons, as well as feats and subclasses for classes that don't have a tie-in to dragons yet. While also adding things like a pseudodragon familiar, more feats for kobolds, and possibly a dragon-related ancestry or versatile heritage.
The design team indicated during their AMAs for PaizoCon that the actual "psychic" casters (ie, psychic) would use the occult list and have their own gimmicks. Like I can totally see psychic as a fun occult caster with Phrenic Amplifications and Disciplines.
It seems reasonably convenient, though I would hope the psychic unique spells come back as focus spells, simply because of how their scaling worked in PF1 was still fairly unique among the other available spells and fits the focus spell scaling progression pretty well. Undercasting was dope, but I could see that also being some kind of psychic specific gimmick.
* Summoner (I dont want the spell list to determine the Eidolon, Summoner is a versatility class and should remain so)
If it were to be a single spell list (assuming it's a caster) wouldn't that make it less versatile?
I guess what is being said here is that they don’t want a limit on :
Devil eidolon - divine list
Fey eidolon - primal list
Etc
However I would very much expect that to be one be the case. If they even have a spell list. The idea of making a class that needs to spend one action to get its companion to do anything also a caster (where most spells are 2 actions) could be seen as restrictive
I know this applies to druid but they are not going to be labelled as the “pet focused” class as their defining thing ...
Magus: as its own class. I think it can support all four spell lists, because I think each would make for a distinctive build when supplemented with appropriate focus spells. I also think that the spellcasting should only go to master, a la the Warpriest, in order to facilitate better martial skill.
Arcanist: it seems a shoe-in for the spontaneous arcane caster. Arcanist exploits seem to be early experimentations with focus spells. We could treat them like witch hexes and bard compositions, or else make them focus spells. The mixture of spontaneous and prepared caster is harder to mimic. You could experiment with just doing that, or... just as sorcerers have a signature spell per level, arcanists could have a flexible spell slot that they could fill with any spell they could prepare with a spellbook.
Psychic: it will probably be the prepared psychic caster, which would be a change from 1E. There are a few ways this can go. If they want to maintain the spontaneous flavor as much as possible, then they can either: a) can give them the equivalent of witch hexes, or b) give them a version of divine font with Detect Thoughts or a discipline specific spell. Otherwise, they will probably lean into the new prepared nature of the class and make the disciplines like a wizard's schools.
Shaman: the flavor screams "primal," so they will probably be the spontaneous primal caster. They will no doubt keep the spirit animal, which will be on par with the witch's familiar (and carry the same benefits and drawbacks). They will either have a version of witch hexes or bloodline spells. I don't know how the wandering spirit class feature would function in this framework. The ability to swap out some of your chosen class features would make the shaman distinct, but it might be too much of a headache.
Inquisitor: it could probably be a cleric doctrine, granting bonuses to Initiative and Perception, and mastery in Reflex saves.
Kineticist: element-appropriate cantrips are a must. Appropriate focus spells are also a must. It could probably have something like a cleric doctrine, one for more fighter-ish builds and one for more caster-ish builds.
Medium: I'd love to see it, but I have zero ideas as to how they would pull it off.
Medium: I'd love to see it, but I have zero ideas as to how they would pull it off.
Flexible multi-class is what I keep pushing, but a lot want to see a return of the harrow/playtest version.
Edit: “flexible multiclass feats*” is what that sentence should say
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Medium: I'd love to see it, but I have zero ideas as to how they would pull it off.Flexible multi-class is what I keep pushing, but a lot want to see a return of the harrow/playtest version.
One Class Feat per spirit would work for the Harrow version. Make them scale with level rather than be restricted by level and make it so you only have a certain number 'active' at a time (starting at one, then scaling up to three or so), and there's room for it structurally this edition, which is great.
If they went the harrow route, do you think those spirits would be on top of some spellcasting ability, or replace it? Replacing it would be more in line with the binder class this was an answer to.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they went the harrow route, do you think those spirits would be on top of some spellcasting ability, or replace it? Replacing it would be more in line with the binder class this was an answer to.
I'd guess, and prefer, some cantrips and a couple of niche Focus Spells, with some spirits providing additional options for both, but no actual slot-based casting.
Magus: as its own class. I think it can support all four spell lists, because I think each would make for a distinctive build when supplemented with appropriate focus spells. I also think that the spellcasting should only go to master, a la the Warpriest, in order to facilitate better martial skill.
Arcanist: it seems a shoe-in for the spontaneous arcane caster. Arcanist exploits seem to be early experimentations with focus spells. We could treat them like witch hexes and bard compositions, or else make them focus spells. The mixture of spontaneous and prepared caster is harder to mimic. You could experiment with just doing that, or... just as sorcerers have a signature spell per level, arcanists could have a flexible spell slot that they could fill with any spell they could prepare with a spellbook.
Psychic: it will probably be the prepared psychic caster, which would be a change from 1E. There are a few ways this can go. If they want to maintain the spontaneous flavor as much as possible, then they can either: a) can give them the equivalent of witch hexes, or b) give them a version of divine font with Detect Thoughts or a discipline specific spell. Otherwise, they will probably lean into the new prepared nature of the class and make the disciplines like a wizard's schools.
Shaman: the flavor screams "primal," so they will probably be the spontaneous primal caster. They will no doubt keep the spirit animal, which will be on par with the witch's familiar (and carry the same benefits and drawbacks). They will either have a version of witch hexes or bloodline spells. I don't know how the wandering spirit class feature would function in this framework. The ability to swap out some of your chosen class features would make the shaman distinct, but it might be too much of a headache.
Inquisitor: it could probably be a cleric doctrine, granting bonuses to Initiative and Perception, and mastery in Reflex saves.
Kineticist: element-appropriate cantrips are a must. Appropriate focus spells are also a...
How would you envision a divine magus being different from a warpriest but not treading on their toes? No divine font and domain access but more combat related things? That just seems like it is would a “better warpriest”. But maybe not
Your description of shaman seems like it could almost be covered by a primal witch and I wonder if that is the intent? If not then I would expect actually a really big focus on the spirit part to truly distinguish them in their own right
How would you envision a divine magus being different from a warpriest but not treading on their toes? No divine font and domain access but more combat related things? That just seems like it is would a “better warpriest”. But maybe not
As I understand it, the recommended way to play a warpriest is to use your spells to buff, not attack, right? That a Divine Magus would be going all in on attack/debuff spells (such as they are for the divine list) might give that different feel even before getting into the weeds of spell strike, spell combat, and the like.
Your point about shaman being more or less a primal witch I agree with though. The lack of a wandering spirit/hex equivalent is a big gap in the chassis, but one that can be patched via a couple of feats instead of an entire class. Could even call them "Shamanism".
Actually now I want that even if we do get a full Shaman class. Being able to get a temporary patron sounds handy.
Brawler
Magus
Shifter
Warpriest
Would Brawler work as an archetype? The APG will have archetypes that cater to people who want to use bows, two-handed weapons, and improvised weapons. Makes sense there would be an archetype for players who want to specialize in unarmed attacks without playing a monk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An idea for how the Arcanist could work: Give them a spell equivalent of the alchemist's infused reagents. Like, they can prepare their spells normally, or they can leave a spell slot open to spontaneously cast a lower level spell. Having a balance between "Do I prepare now for more power or be more versatile later?"
An idea for how the Arcanist could work: Give them a spell equivalent of the alchemist's infused reagents. Like, they can prepare their spells normally, or they can leave a spell slot open to spontaneously cast a lower level spell. Having a balance between "Do I prepare now for more power or be more versatile later?"
You could probably achieve something like this with a new arcane thesis for the wizard instead of a new class or archetype.
Yeah your suggestion doesnt sound like an Arcanist.
Also a large part of the appeal for Arcanist are all the Arcanist Exploits. Which largely don't fit the theme of Wizards.
I feel like if the Arcanist is going to come back, it's going to have to come back differently. A class that has prepared and spontaneous casting doesn't feel like it would fit in PF2 without overshadowing other classes. Maybe what I said wouldn't work, but I don't think how it was in PF1 would work either.
Alot of what people are suggestion should just be subsumed into other classes.
Theses classes are what should brought back.
Kineticist: They can work and fufill a primal focus caster.
Summoner: Either subsuming some of occult class making them occult focus caster centred around abilties and their edilion.Shifter: Martial class of it with focus being Adaptive shifter archetype of 1e.
Magus: Probally rename it and make all traditions or just keeping arcane turning into sword dancer where focuses on using stances and elemental abilties like making flames shoot out of sword, probally allow it get multiclass or lesser version of spellslots.
Tatican/Commander/Warcheif/Knight: Whatever it name it martial version of bard focusing commanding and assisting the battle as well as social fields outside of combat.
Gunslinger: Comsumed into drifter type trickster class as path focuses on trickery and skill.
I would prefer to have any concept as an option on an existing class if it can reasonable be done, but SOME of these are just too different:
A bard is a full caster, that is just not the concept of a tacticianLikewise if you leave a summoner with full casting then it is going have to have a very weak eidolon - and that is the main point of the class. You'll end up with a half baked concept that no one will like.
I feel like if the Arcanist is going to come back, it's going to have to come back differently. A class that has prepared and spontaneous casting doesn't feel like it would fit in PF2 without overshadowing other classes. Maybe what I said wouldn't work, but I don't think how it was in PF1 would work either.Yeah your suggestion doesnt sound like an Arcanist.
Also a large part of the appeal for Arcanist are all the Arcanist Exploits. Which largely don't fit the theme of Wizards.
I always liked the idea of the arcanist in a tinkering with magic sense with the exploits and stuff but was somewhat unimpressed with the outcome of wizard +.
So as a personal homebrew that I have always felt fits and could work here I gave arcanist the words of power as a spell list, all of them. Which I feel gave the class more an identity and pushed the idea of tinkering with magic.
Now words of power coming back may be a pipe dream but if they did I would hope that they get affixed to a class so they get some actual support rather than functioning as a nebulous side system.
I feel like if the Arcanist is going to come back, it's going to have to come back differently. A class that has prepared and spontaneous casting doesn't feel like it would fit in PF2 without overshadowing other classes. Maybe what I said wouldn't work, but I don't think how it was in PF1 would work either.Yeah your suggestion doesnt sound like an Arcanist.
Also a large part of the appeal for Arcanist are all the Arcanist Exploits. Which largely don't fit the theme of Wizards.
I always liked the idea of the arcanist in a tinkering with magic sense with the exploits and stuff but was somewhat unimpressed with the outcome of wizard +.
So as a personal homebrew that I have always felt fits and could work here I gave arcanist the words of power as a spell list, all of them. Which I feel gave the class more an identity and pushed the idea of tinkering with magic.
The concept of the Arcanist always felt* like a wizard who's arcane school was experimentation. I honestly can't imagine them seperate from the Wizard, and think it would make a great generalist School, in the vein of the Universalist.
Edit: *to me
I feel like if the Arcanist is going to come back, it's going to have to come back differently. A class that has prepared and spontaneous casting doesn't feel like it would fit in PF2 without overshadowing other classes. Maybe what I said wouldn't work, but I don't think how it was in PF1 would work either.Yeah your suggestion doesnt sound like an Arcanist.
Also a large part of the appeal for Arcanist are all the Arcanist Exploits. Which largely don't fit the theme of Wizards.
I think that Arcanist Exploits fit the theme of Wizard incredibly well. Someone who studies the hell out of magic to figure out how it works, and then use it to their advantage, is the most Wizardly thing I can think of.
Tatican/Commander/Warcheif/Knight: Whatever it name it martial version of bard focusing commanding and assisting the battle as well as social fields outside of combat.
I would prefer to have any concept as an option on an existing class if it can reasonable be done, but SOME of these are just too different:
A bard is a full caster, that is just not the concept of a tactician
We do have the Marshal coming out in the APG soon. Its supposed to fill this idea.
Would Brawler work as an archetype? The APG will have archetypes that cater to people who want to use bows, two-handed weapons, and improvised weapons. Makes sense there would be an archetype for players who want to specialize in unarmed attacks without playing a monk.Brawler
Magus
Shifter
Warpriest
Brawler's "things" were unarmed, maneuvers, and getting new feats, generally to support those maneuvers. The new feat thing is probably wildly unnecessary in 2e's environment, but getting tricks you could add on to maneuvers could fill that spot pretty strongly. I think these concepts have a strong enough base for at least a subclass (as I put in my initial post for this thread), and possibly a full class. It depends on how extensive you want these tricks to be.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lump me in with those who would rather see Arcanist come through as a combination Wizard Thesis that replaces the normal Arcane School Feature with the pseudo-spontaneous preparation method and adding a handful of Class Feats (and MCA Feats) the key off and have the prereq of the Arcanist Theis as the Exploit support.
Brawler's "things" were unarmed, maneuvers, and getting new feats, generally to support those maneuvers. The new feat thing is probably wildly unnecessary in 2e's environment, but getting tricks you could add on to maneuvers could fill that spot pretty strongly. I think these concepts have a strong enough base for at least a subclass (as I put in my initial post for this thread), and possibly a full class. It depends on how extensive you want these tricks to be.Would Brawler work as an archetype? The APG will have archetypes that cater to people who want to use bows, two-handed weapons, and improvised weapons. Makes sense there would be an archetype for players who want to specialize in unarmed attacks without playing a monk.Brawler
Magus
Shifter
Warpriest
I think if you take the fighter as it is now and put on the coming up martial artist archetype you should be pretty close to a brawler
I think if you take the fighter as it is now and put on the coming up martial artist archetype you should be pretty close to a brawler
Oh yeah, I forgot that martial artist was an upcoming archetype! Interested to see if that satisfies the brawler's itch.
Oh yeah, I forgot that martial artist was an upcoming archetype! Interested to see if that satisfies the brawler's itch.I think if you take the fighter as it is now and put on the coming up martial artist archetype you should be pretty close to a brawler
I also forgot about this. Martial Artist might be exactly the thing for this. Hard to remember all 38ish of those Archetypes.
Spiritualist, as as something separate from Summoner. I feel like the class has a lot of potential just with both the spirit and how it can grow but also with the class itself gaining a lot of Unique ghost like powers (Think kinda like the Eidolon classes from the Ghostwalk 3.0 setting book without the needing to be a dead ghost yourself).
Would honestly like to see it kinda like ranger, where the animal companion/spirit is not something you have to take, but can be one of other options like gaining the ectoplasmic tendrils that increase with power, or gaining personal cool ghost like powers (Think current Moonknight in Marvel comics, gaining the ability to walk through walls and what not.)
Beguiler
Binder
Shaman
Summoner (with a new name...even if it's somnour or sompnour)
I really like spell-casting classes.
and Hexblade (...always interested me for some unknown reason.)
There is definitely a theme of spirits with Shaman, Spiritualist, and the Medium in late PF1 development. I like some of the ideas Vorsk provided for the Spiritualist.
Real gish: not just a fighter/wizard with hit+cast, but closer to a monk. Ninja/hexblade/4e swordmage/etc..
Puppeteer: hidden in the back, remotely controlling a puppet on the front line. Fooling enemies, disguises, and other fun stuff. A cross between illusionist and summoner.
At-will magic: blasts, curses, hexes, pushes, etc... warlock/psion/etc..
Non magic support: aid as a reaction, (non-magic) inspire courage, and similar. Probably as an archetype. Warlord/tactician/etc...
3e artificer: temporary and permanent enchant items, ect... I have not seen anything that covers this as well as the 3e version.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Correction, I DO have new a thought for this thread (more accurately, it's a refinement of something I've already said in previous threads):
In the waning days of 3.5, Wizards started playing with the idea of slotless casters. I'd like to see several of those, along the following lines:
1. Blaster: This is obviously the kinetecist
2. Terrain Control: Dragonfire adept played with this, but was never particularly good at it. I'd like to see another crack at it.
3. Restoration/Buffs: Dragon Shaman was the most sincere attempt, though some Paladin archetypes from PF1 also edged in there.
4. Debuffs and Mind Games: Hexblade was the closest in 3.5, the witch could do this (and should get the ability again), but I'd like to see a class built around not having spells get to specialize in it as well.
I don't necessarily need to see 4 different classes, or even require 4 classes to be sharply defined on these lines, but I'd like to see multiple iterations of a slotless caster, instead of just a kineticst.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Correction, I DO have new a thought for this thread (more accurately, it's a refinement of something I've already said in previous threads):
In the waning days of 3.5, Wizards started playing with the idea of slotless casters. I'd like to see several of those, along the following lines:
1. Blaster: This is obviously the kinetecist
2. Terrain Control: Dragonfire adept played with this, but was never particularly good at it. I'd like to see another crack at it.
3. Restoration/Buffs: Dragon Shaman was the most sincere attempt, though some Paladin archetypes from PF1 also edged in there.
4. Debuffs and Mind Games: Hexblade was the closest in 3.5, the witch could do this (and should get the ability again), but I'd like to see a class built around not having spells get to specialize in it as well.I don't necessarily need to see 4 different classes, or even require 4 classes to be sharply defined on these lines, but I'd like to see multiple iterations of a slotless caster, instead of just a kineticst.
I'm into this. I know it's a bit outside of the scope of this thread, but it would be cool to see Words of Power or some alternative casting rules sometime in the future. Such a product would be pretty niche I think and much better suited later in PF2e's lifetime. But I would love to see some alternatives to slots and spellpoints.
I could see a Summoner having all 4 casting options (though I'd prefer they had no list, but Focus Spells similar to Wild Winds Stance except buffing/enabling the Eidelon).
So a Medium could be Occult, another (perhaps similar to a PF1 Hunter) could have an animal or plant theme for Primal, one dealing with angel & devil motifs could be Divine, while many more could be lumped under Arcane. I think that'd work for flavors, perhaps each of the four having unique abilities they can unlock or a different chassis like Unchained had.
Ultimately, I think a Summoner will have to be fairly weak (or simply occupied) in order for their Eidelon to be effective. Having to Maintain an Eidelon plus having 1 round combat buff options (like a Bard except for the Eidelon) would work. In a sense, Animal Companions are about as good as a second Strike. Eidelons, by denying the Summoner of a primary Strike or 2-action+ spells, could reach a higher level.
Essentially, the Summoner would be as weak an animal companion, at least while the Eidelon was PC level.
I think the Kineticists should also use some like Wild Winds Stance, using a Focus Spell to activate an ability (or suite of linked abilities) they can use for a whole combat.
They'd likely need an emergency way (burn) that they can access more Focus Points since they'd be so reliant on them (which would otherwise put them in dire straits if there's no lull to recharge).
I'd like to see somethings along these lines (old and new classes):
1) Magus - Arcane Fighter - as per 1e
2) Hexblade/Cabalist - Occult Fighter. Mixing mental and martial attacks. Strange, Mysterious, Gloom Blade fantasy
3) Inquisitor - Cleric Rogue - Hunter of men and monsters as per 1e. Great flavour.
4) Scout - The Nature Rogue - What Ranger is to Fighter; Scout is to Rogue. Skillful, nature-based, lots of movement, sneaky, deady.
5) Saint - Magical or Supernatural incarnation of a god in a mortal's body, something new and wonderful with wow-factor like the Solarion.
6) Warmage - Medieval technomancer, Martial Wizard, Muscle Wizard - Arcane Support Caster trained to wage war and enhance weapons and fellow warriors; Buffs; Battlefield abilities; Can wear armour and survive the heat of combat.
Just my 2c!