The guy arguing how difficult it would be to recreate Kineticists in Pathfinder has already done it. Twice.
Which is just to say, I'm not shooting from the hip here. I've taken community surveys, had brainstorming sessions, done rounds of playtesting, etc. I've written 57 pages of material for homebrew kineticists.
That's where I'm coming from when I talk about shooting your stuff early with focus points or gather power feeling clunky. Experience, not theory.
Then if in the end it cannot be done without using spell slots, it is better to not do it at all instead of failing the class design goal so profoundly. Spend that playtest energy and page count on a class archetype for a druid or sorcerer, rather than something that is just going to piss off a lot of the very fans they're trying to cater towards, including several active both on here and on reddit.
There's no reason they have to port anything. I would like to see a kineticist. I've said several times in several places that I'd like to see several slotless casters actually. But I'll live if they never make any.
I'd like to note that Legendary Kineticist absolutely SLAPS. Super fun, well designed class, and I love what was done with Burn and the whole kit in general.
(Also, I like the psionic classes DSP provided us, but don't really envision any of them being quite so clearly delineated if they were ever to be reproduced in 2E's engine. Aegis and Soulknife could be two parts of the same class, for instance. And poor, poor Wilder.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Especially as I've been pretty clear that I'm taking about something that would pretty explicitly be marketed as 'not kineticist'. And elementalist magic in general isn't tied to non-Vancian mechanics; no one railed against Elemental Bloodline Sorcerers. If each casting class should eventually have a gishy equivalent that trades parts of casting for class features (Wizard > Magus, Cleric > Warpriest), a Sorcerer trading non-elemental access and slots for a 1-action attack cantrip and an ability to convert regular spells to focus spells would not only actually fulfill a 2E niche, it would arguably be a better representation of Avatar-esque elementalism.
I honestly am not sure what you're talking about. Are you talking about your own creation, or a hypothetical conversion of the kineticist? If yours, nothing of what I say applies. Not only do I have no opinions on something I haven't seen, but my opinions would be meaningless even if I did, as I don't play at your table.
If we're talking about Paizo putting something out called the kineticist, then the primary draw for the class for me will be the mechanics, which involves no slots (though focus spells are fine). Others share that opinion, but I certainly don't pretend it is universal. I personally don't require a 1 to 1 conversion of mechanics, except the slotless casting. I also am not attached to the elemental theme; especially if it winds up being an Occult based class, then channeling the classic 4 elements and wood don't really fit the theme anyways.
Am I not allowed to want a slotless caster? Because that's kind of how you're coming across. I have no doubt it is difficult to make both fun and effective and not stomp all over PF2 rules as they are. But I pay money to Paizo for difficult.
There's nothing stopping a theoretical Paizo kineticist from having the core chassis being "guy who shoots elemental magic for damage" while still having a variety of utility abilities, like several other classes who have non-damaging feats and focus spells.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can I politely just ask the opposite of what the OP suggests without ruffling too many feathers?
I do NOT want to see Paizo pollute their game with Power Points, Mana, a Magic Pool, or any other contrived "I spend X points from my -whatever- Pool" added to the game. If they want something like this they can handle it with Focus Points and Focus Cantrips instead.
Why 3 deep?
See again you are not looking at the versarility of Infusions and the "pick what you want from the list" nature of Utility Talents. But at the spells other spell lists get.
A Kineticist is not bound by any spell tradition. Even if their spell detects as one. Just like Red Mantis Assassin gets Arcane spells and casts them as Divine.
He means you only get 3 focus spells per encounter. In his playtests, it seems to be an issue that you would blow all of them in the first three rounds, and then just be pinging away the rest of the combat.
I'm not sure I see this as an actual design problem so much as a player-side one, myself, but I can see the limitation he means. I ran up into with my own homebrew as well.
Manbear, if I may ask, would you say your design aims more towards the 5E warlock than the 3.5? That seems more in line with the playstyle you seem to be seeking to replicate.
Well even beyond that, if you're able to cast regular spells as focus spells, suddenly you're able to cast your top tier spells *every* fight 3 times, where regular casters get only 5-6 top slots for the whole day. That's why I said its more of a player-side issue: it is not a reasonable design goal to be able to outcast a sorcerer.
In that environment, slots are the natural solution. So would power points actually, to bring things back to the original problem. But that's trying to solve the wrong problem: a slotless caster should have compelling cantrips that you want to cast as often as possible, with your focus spells as a last resort.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care about points versus slots really, but I do want things like "The Occultist's potentially huge reservoir of mental focus" and "the kineticist's ability to do it's schtick being limited by strain on the body and nothing else" to come back.
Like the Occultist should be the class that breaks the "never more than 3 focus, never more than 1 point of refocus before level 12" rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed on Kineticists never having spell slots. They should behave much more like a martial.
Their cool abilities can be added in a lot of different ways. Just look at things like the Solarian and Barbarian. Barbarians can turn into dragons, and do it better than casters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My pitch for the Occultist would be to just do focus spells, but to do focus spells better than anybody. You can give the Occultist a multiplier effect via "focus invested into implements lets you cast multiple focus spells specific to that implement per point of focus invested". This lets the Occultist potentially spam their own focus spells more than other classes, but not letting them abuse other classes focus spells via multiclassing.
So something like: You have 2 focus, and a divination implement and a transmutation implement. You can invest one point of focus into your divination implement to give it 3 charges. Each charge can be used to cast a focus spell specific to your divination implement (but not focus powers specific to your transmutation implement, or other focus powers from multiclassing.) You can't regain invested focus until you have expended all charges in an implement, but you can recharge a spent implement during a 10 minute refocus activity. Uninvested focus can be used to pay for any focus power, including those tied to implements, but it's the standard "one focus per focus spell" rule- so it's more versatile but you get less bang for your buck.
I'm curious how the Occultist/Antiquarian will be translated, if it is.
It had the required proficiencies and potential options to be a Gish, though it did not require that. It was the first draft of resonance and talismans (at least from a flavor standpoint). Of all the OA classes, its list was the broadest and, ironically given its name, would most benefit from access to all 4 traditions to fully capture its 1e breadth.
I think I'd want to lean in on the Talisman aspect myself. I'll admit I haven't made as thorough a study of them as I should, but most grant access to a feat, trait, or crit option for 1 attack/round, right? What if they just went with a system that let you free style that? As part of your preparations, you picked options to prepare in advance. This would not be limited to the current options; just go straight to "and what feats do you want 1 round access to today?" Also , I'd want a pool of Quick Talismans you could make out of stuff lying around that you activated as part of the creation, like runes/ofuda in Wuxia stories. Would work best if you got a passive resonance bonus for having a certain amount of prepared but not expended talismans on your person, and possibly a focus spell that let you instantly create a number of level 1, or even level 0, talismans that last only a minute but let you gain that passive bonus.
I suppose my idea does not preclude Possible Cabbage's. The Ranger class is in some ways less of a class than 4-5 archetypes thinly held together by Hunt Prey; no reason Occultists can't be constructed similarly.
The way I see keneticist working is roughly as follows:
Elemental blasts are focus cantrips, and scale as such.
These blasts can be can be modified combined or enhanced with numerous focus metamagic feats which are all free actions that cost focus
Burn is a reaction with a trigger of having 0 focus, you take your own blast damage (fort save for half) to regain 1 focus
Focus cantrips would be primal casting off con
I guess something with baseline martial proficiencies, archetype level free talismans, and a witch style pick your implement could be a decent chassis tk start with though.
Yeah, unlike Alchemy, there's just not enough there to build an entire class around, as they're all extremely minor buffs instead of even as useful as Alchemical tools. So at best, I'm thinking Alchemical Investigator level of actual talisman use in practice, even if the class flavor leans more into it.
An occultist that makes talismans sounds more like an artificier.
The PF1 Occultist's implements were more permanent and, though not required, had a lot of implied flavor about being found or obtained rather than built (especially for archetypes like haunt collector or reliquarian).
And "person who manipulates implements and relics for magical power" is a pretty different (and preferable for me, if I'm being honest) conceptual niche than "person who crafts consumables" to the point where I honestly don't see any real connection at all between talismans and occultists.
And "person who manipulates implements and relics for magical power" is a pretty different (and preferable for me, if I'm being honest) conceptual niche than "person who crafts consumables" to the point where I honestly don't see any real connection at all between talismans and occultists.
I mean, to start: Talisman Crafter. But moreover, looking at the descriptions of talismans, a lot of them sound like the kind of implements an Occultist might have picked up, like a small hammer, the claw of an Owlbear, lock of hair from a murderer, tooth from a hanged man, etc..
I didn't imagine them being consumed exactly, more like charged. Just the exact powers that you'd get from charging an implement would be mechanically identical to a talisman. And of course you could reuse them.
I'm curious how the Occultist/Antiquarian will be translated, if it is.
It had the required proficiencies and potential options to be a Gish, though it did not require that.
IIRC it was a fairly popular class since the chassis was quite strong. Probably less popular than the Kineticist, but moreso than the medium, psychic, or spiritualist. So I would expect it back.
I think the Occultist would be fine if we leaned into the Gish aspect (after all "I want more spells" is a fine use for multiclassing.) If we look at the classes who have focus spells as part of their kit, it's just part of the toolbox not the focus of class features.
The Champion gets focus spells, but focuses on armor and reactions.
The Monk can have focus spells, but focuses on mobility and action economy.
The Ranger can have focus spells, but is generally unfocused by design.
The Witch/Sorcerer/Bard/Wizard/Druid/Oracle/Cleric can have focus spells, but the real focus is on spell slots.
So what if we took the chassis for the champion or the monk and instead of giving champion/monk stuff, we just made all the class features that aren't like "proficiency" tie into focus spell casting. You'd still have a strong chassis for things like armor and weapons (a thing the Occultist could be very good at in PF1) but the draw would be the flavor and the focus spells.
I'm curious how the Occultist/Antiquarian will be translated, if it is.
It had the required proficiencies and potential options to be a Gish, though it did not require that.
IIRC it was a fairly popular class since the chassis was quite strong. Probably less popular than the Kineticist, but moreso than the medium, psychic, or spiritualist. So I would expect it back.
I think the Occultist would be fine if we leaned into the Gish aspect (after all "I want more spells" is a fine use for multiclassing.) If we look at the classes who have focus spells as part of their kit, it's just part of the toolbox not the focus of class features.
The Champion gets focus spells, but focuses on armor and reactions.
The Monk can have focus spells, but focuses on mobility and action economy.
The Ranger can have focus spells, but is generally unfocused by design.
The Witch/Sorcerer/Bard/Wizard/Druid/Oracle/Cleric can have focus spells, but the real focus is on spell slots.So what if we took the chassis for the champion or the monk and instead of giving champion/monk stuff, we just made all the class features that aren't like "proficiency" tie into focus spell casting. You'd still have a strong chassis for things like armor and weapons (a thing the Occultist could be very good at in PF1) but the draw would be the flavor and the focus spells.
Building on this, maybe one class path could involve improving talismans using focus spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having the Occultist be the focus caster nonpareil also gets around the potentially thorny issue of "the Occultist should cast Occult spells" without stepping on the toes of like the Psychic, Witch, Sorcerer and the Bard.
Since we're generally discussing Psychic classes now, what about the Mesmerist? Class Archetype, Bardic Muse, different class entirely with new mechanics, what?
I've only ever read the class, so I have no particular attachment to it, but I'm curious what others think.
In PF1 the Mesmerist was effectively "the anti-bard" so having it as a Bard class path/class archetype (replacing inspire courage) would probably work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, just spitballing an idea for the Medium, based a bit of the Rogue's Eldritch Trickster racket. What if they got a flexible multiclass dedication at level 1 (that is, a dedication you can swap out while doing preparations every morning) and with it flexible multiclass feats?
I'm really hoping for the Harrowed Medium, PF2 edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since we're generally discussing Psychic classes now, what about the Mesmerist? Class Archetype, Bardic Muse, different class entirely with new mechanics, what?
I've only ever read the class, so I have no particular attachment to it, but I'm curious what others think.
My thought was that multiple occult classes (psychic, mesmerist, possibly spiritualist) could be combined into one class with different disciplines. Just like druids pick an order to focus on one area of nature, this class pick a discipline to focus on one mental ability. Telekinesis, mind reading, hypnotism, maybe even communing with the dead could all be areas of focus.
You could also recreate psychic magic's emotion and thought components with a metamagic action or feat that replace any verbal and somatic components of a spell with "phrenic components" or something that lets them cast spells while remaining perfectly still and silent.
So, just spitballing an idea for the Medium, based a bit of the Rogue's Eldritch Trickster racket. What if they got a flexible multiclass dedication at level 1 (that is, a dedication you can swap out while doing preparations every morning) and with it flexible multiclass feats?
I've had more or less the same thought, and will eventually get around to homebrewing a version.
But there's a LOT of interest in a harrowed medium, including on the developer side I imagine (since it was their first thought). Some have suggested making a class feat for each harrow card, and your pick those up to create a pool of abilities you pick from each fight or day.
Since we're generally discussing Psychic classes now, what about the Mesmerist? Class Archetype, Bardic Muse, different class entirely with new mechanics, what?
I've only ever read the class, so I have no particular attachment to it, but I'm curious what others think.
My thought was that multiple occult classes (psychic, mesmerist, possibly spiritualist) could be combined into one class with different disciplines. Just like druids pick an order to focus on one area of nature, this class pick a discipline to focus on one mental ability. Telekinesis, mind reading, hypnotism, maybe even communing with the dead could all be areas of focus.
You could also recreate psychic magic's emotion and thought components with a metamagic action or feat that replace any verbal and somatic components of a spell with "phrenic components" or something that lets them cast spells while remaining perfectly still and silent.
At first I disliked this, but upon more reflection it is starting to grow on me. I'm fairly certain the Spiritualist will wind up included into the Summoner, but I could definitely be wrong. But even if it does, you can still do this: if the Druid can pick between casting, a pet, healing, and transformation, I don't see why a Psychic wouldn't be able to choose from casting, mind games, a pet, and channeling spirits.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Talking of Psychic classes I really want a non-medium Fiend Keeper.
I loved the Fiend Keeper's flavour. But medium made zero sense as the chassis; 'I'm keeping a demon bound ... but also swapping it out for a different demon each morning'.
Basically I want to play Penric-esque characters (as per the novels by Lois McMaster Bujold), though not necessarily the spell casting part - that isn't what is important about the character for me.
I could see Fiend Keeper being an expanded archetype like Cavalier or Dragon Disciple.
My thought was that multiple occult classes (psychic, mesmerist, possibly spiritualist) could be combined into one class with different disciplines. Just like druids pick an order to focus on one area of nature, this class pick a discipline to focus on one mental ability. Telekinesis, mind reading, hypnotism, maybe even communing with the dead could all be areas of focus.
I don't think this one makes a lot of sense in practice. It sounds really good and has been something I've thought about before, but if you just look at the current design trends, class paths are mostly fairly minor in what benefits they give and I don't think you could really capture the full essence simultaneously of the Spiritualist, Mesmerist, Psychic and others all by just swapping out a couple class features.
That's not to say you couldn't emulate some of them with archetypes and alternate class paths, but I don't think they really make sense all being mashed together.
I believe that the Spiritualist probably belongs as part of the Summoner, and I say that as somebody who absolutely loves the Spiritualist. I think the classes have more to gain by pooling their coolness than they'd get by being split out.
My basic pitch for the class would be that you'd made a doctrine-like choice at character creation between
A) having a companion that is a significant force in combat (and possibly having slightly diminished casting, like a warpriest; I do think it's important that the companion feels powerful from one to twenty, even if it means that the character has to be limited in other ways to compensate.)
and
B) having a companion that's more analogous in its role to a familiar, but having a font-like pool of summon spells
The actual balance between these options isn't something that I have intuitions about; the size of the font, the gap between how good in combat the companions are, and whatever other fringe benefits you'd want to put in there are all knobs you could turn. Summoners probably get bard-like proficiencies, with light armor and simple weapons, plus maybe a few thematic-but-not-amazing other weapons.
In a manner similar to bloodline, your companion's family (regardless of your "doctrine") determines which list you cast spells from. Families would be similar the ones used by the Unchained Summoner, providing some default abilities, with "Phantom" as an option that has the Occult spell list attached.
Various other things that are attached to the classes could be relegated to feats, appropriately rebalanced, of course. For example, the emotion aura and the random SLAs could go there. I feel like the idea of an emotion aura on an angel or demon or arbitrary outsider is reasonably flavorful. (You could probably also just drop the random SLAs.)
That does make for a potentially overstuffed class, and in particular you'd really need to be careful not to step too hard on the sorcerer's toes, but I think the overall package makes sense.