Stop trying to reinvent the wheel with Magus and Summoner

[Deriven Firelion]

I'm going to state this right now. I don't plan to buy the Secrets of Magic book if the magus and summoner make it into the game in anything close to the current play test form.

The 4 slots per day is a terrible design decision. I would even say a disastrous design decision.

I enjoy what PF2 did with martials. And casters still feel like the PF1 version of casters we all enjoyed. The power may be less, but the feel is the same.

This is the first version of an attempt to make a PF2 version of two super popular PF1 classes that is nearly nothing like they were in PF1. They don't feel the same. They don't play close to the same. They feel like a path to completely ruining two of the most popular PF1 classes.

This should be a simple design decision for both classes.

1. Magus want to spellstrike: This is what a magus does. Not a few times a day, but every round. They want to be able to cast some kind of spellstrike spell round after round. In PF1 they used the majority of their slots and cantrips on occasion to spellstrike over and over again. Not this roll twice to hit spellstrike with a martial attack roll and a spell attack roll. But one roll that if it crits, the spell crits. This was the focus of the class and should continue to be the focus of the class.

It's pretty simple to make happen and I'm not sure why the designers are over-complicating it. Spellstrike needs to work with cantrips and should be a 2 action attack that combines a spell and a strike in one roll. Once you have that base ability to build around baked in, then everything else is gravy.

2. Summoner: The summoner is a specialized class that uses a summoned creature emulating some other creature like an elemental or demon that serves its summoner.

This creature should be independent similar to an animal companion with its own stats, hit point pool, independent actions, and the like. Modifiable as it grows in power. It should be backed up by a caster with strong casting ability buffing it, not four slots a day with eidolon cantrips it has to spend an action using every round to give the illusion of doing something.

This should form the basis for design taken from the foundation of both classes from PF1. These two classes in particular should not be used as a design space to reinvent the wheel. The Magus and Summoner were two of the most popular classes from PF1 and the reason both were popular should be the basis for building them.

I am saying please go back to the core design elements of the magus and summoner as you did with every class in the PF2 Core and APG.

Even the APG had witches playing like witches using hexes. Oracles being cursed and calling upon their associated forces. Swashbucklers using precision damage and dashing around the battlefield. Investigators were never popular in my games, so didn't know much about them in PF1. No one ever played one.

Please reverse course on this and go back to the core abilities of the summoner and magus. Don't follow this strange design idea that seems to have taken the design team off course on these two classes. Look at the magus and summoner and get back to making versions that are familiar to PF1 players and will play similar to PF1 within the PF2 action system.

That's my 2 cents. I hope to be able to continue playing PF2, but the class design of these two classes is disastrous to me at this point. I will not purchase this book with these classes in this form. If two my favorite classes from PF1 are ruined for the entirety of PF2, then that is a 4E level of game ruination to me meaning I will start looking for another game.

I'm going to leave it alone until we get a play test with versions of both classes closer to what us PF players remember.

[Angel Hunter D]

I strongly suspect this is a case of them throwing the most "radically" different versions at us to test the waters. I hate when they do that, but apparently it does something they like to the surveys.

Or this is another Ultimate Wilderness and it's gonna suck.

[Squiggit]

Hard disagree on a lot of fronts. A Paizo that's unwilling to innovate and try new things is a company I'm definitely not interesting in. Imagine if every class in PF1 looked like the CRB classes because they didn't want to "reinvent the wheel." Sounds miserable.

Turning them into generic spellcasters, with the way PF2 does spellcasters, sounds awful and like it would suck much of the flavor out of the classes and throwing around hyperbolic buzzwords like "disaster" constantly doesn't make that sound any more fun.

[Cyouni]

I'm going to point out that if you really took PF1's design decisions to be the be-all and end-all, then you'd hate the design of the Bard and Sorcerer, even if we put aside all the major changes to the other classes.

[vagrant-poet]

My imagination was strongly grabbed by the playtest. There are rough edges, but I personally like the direction they are going. 4-slot casting is actually something I really like about the classes, it's some numbers and action economy stuff that may be awkward still. And they fixed similar problems I had in the APG playtest so I'm hopeful.

[Capn Cupcake]

Yeah I like the direction and concepts presented. The math is all out of wack but the core ideas are really solid and interesting. I'm excited to see what the final products look like.

[Kilgorin0728]

I think it's important for Paizo to push new ideas and concepts for 2e. I really like how they elevated the alchemist, bard, fighter, and sorcerer, but to me the magus just feels off. The 4 slot casting seems awkward and janky and the Striking Spell is just spell combat from 1e but with no iterative attacks at higher levels. I like the idea of Striking Spell being the core feature, but it needs to allow the weapon attack to stand in for the spell attack. The version they have now needs to be a separate feat or even a battle spell that lets you cast a spell and make a Strike at a penalty.

I like the syntheses and the battle spells and I'm really hopeful for the class. I'm honestly just disappointed by the class as it is right now. It just feels wrong to call the book 'secrets of magic' and then have the two classes presented with almost no casting ability. Is the secret to magic just not casting magic? It just feels wrong. Both the magus and the summoner need to feel like unique and interesting additions to the magical classes and not like martial classes with really bad caster archetypes slapped on.

I do trust Paizo and I know they will fix these issues. They did it for the oracle in the most recent playtest and made it a strong and solid class. Anyone remember Resonance Points? I think that magus and summoner will be okay in the end, but they need a lot of work right now. I do wish we could have updates on the process of tweaking and refining though.

[DragoonSpirits86]

Not trying to be combative here, but the OP is pretty strong in his delivery and wording, and the OP hit so many topics relevant to me in a near opposite way I felt like I should respond with my own thoughts.

I originally had very little interest, and not a small amount of trepidation, with Secrets of magic as for me personally and my play group the magus and the summoner in particular were very disliked classes in terms of mechanics/design and negative impact at a table for a myriad of reasons not worth really delving into here(Though I am interested to hear if we were unique in this, as my understanding was that fairly universally summoner was pretty much THE singular class GM's didn't allow in home games and hated to see at a PFS table). I say this partly to refute the threads title, as a significant re-design of these two classes was NOT what we expected, but very much happy to see. In a way, seeing a simple copy/paste of these classes between editions would be a disservice to the design possibilities the new edition could give them and I am very happy to see this playtest.

I feel the unique new spell progression is a super interesting and honestly fairly elegant design direction. It may be just right, may need augmented with some king of cleric-esque font, maybe 2/2/2 or 3/3 works out better, but the DIRECTION of this spellcasting progression I love as a way to simulate focused or specialized limited casting.

Isn't saying these playtest versions are 'nothing like' their 1E versions a bit beside the point and odd? Of course these aren't mechanicaly alike, just the same as how the other core classes aren't mechanically alike to their 1E selves, its a new edition built from the ground up on a new framework...and is the point of the test not to compare 1E magi/summoners to 2E magi/summoners but instead to see how these new versions interact with the new 2E system and other 2E classes.

As to the OP's specific points..
1. Your first point is something the playtest magus can in fact do. Magi Cantrips exist, a magus can spellstrike using a spell of his highest known level EVERY SINGLE ROUND all day every day. Not that I agree with the idea that he should- A single, optimal 3 action routine that is always the correct choice regardless of the contexts of individual encounters is tactically boring and flat- in my opinion a bad design. The second assertion is trickier. As presented, a critical weapon strike DOES increase the result of the spell by 1 degree of success, which seems perfectly fine to me. The idea that magus should be critting more often than other classes, or that weapon/spell criticals were key to the theme of the class now or even in 1E I disagree with - the idea that 1E magus was a class Min/Max'd around abusing the mechanic of keened 15-20 weapon critical threat ranges to nova traited/free meta-magic enhanced shocking grasps and arcane marks is not something I would hope people would like to see moved forward. And even if you did, the suggestion that this design would be simple to balance in the frame work of 2E is neglecting to note that critical hit determination works nothing alike in the 2 systems on top of all the other possible concerns. Not liking the direction is one thing, but to wave away this design itteration as 'over-thinking' a 'simple' problem is frankly a little dismissivly rude.

2. You say you want a summoner which is a specialized class that uses a summoned creature....I see the eidolon feature and numerous 'evolution' tagged feats which alter and improve it which seems to fit that bill. I do not see a basis to your argument that the eidolon(a creature with its own statline which grows with you, and a statblock which you seem to suggest it is not), in order to fufill the theme or narrative purpose of the summoner class is required to be
*In any way related to the Animal companion feature - in fact, the less like a familiar or AC the eidolon is, the more specialized it would be to summoner, wouldn't it?
*have a seprate hit point pool
*Independent actions
This itteration is to me actually a very neat way to enhance the thematic link between the the eidolon and summoner while also elegantly dodging some of the more problematic issues with 'pet' classes ie unbalancingly high amounts of 'free' party hit points, avoiding the use of the minion trait while still reigning in the inherent power of multiple actors in a game tightly bound to action economy, providing interesting and class unique tactical movement and positioning concerns and options, keeping the flow of play/real world table time per player in check and others.

All in all my message would be I hope the playtest feedback will show that some of us at least like what we see here -the biggest step into new, unique, and interesting solutions to some complex problems we've seen yet this edition. Please hold your course allowing the themes, narrative space, and character concepts of previous classes to still flourish in 2E, while designing the best game you can now without feeling a need to keep the sacred cows of a previous game alive. Hopefully kinks are worked out, numbers are kiggled, major issues are addressed and we all get something better for having gone through this playtest.

[Henro]

Personally I'm very happy with the direction these two classes seem to be taking, especially Summoner.

[Tweezer]

I'll note that I didn't play 1E, as I have My rpg background from non D20 based games, so I don't know how a 1E Magus played.

What the OP says, and what I keep seeing, is calls for more power to the classes. At least, that's how I understand it, when people want striking spell to be a Two action skill which combines a spell and a strike and only needs one roll to hit, or that they want the summoner's eidolon to have separate HP pool, while at the same time giving the Summoner more spells.

I can't see how either would be balanced against the current core classes.

I agree that Magi seem to have accuracy issues with spell striking unless they utilize a shifting staff of divination to true strike their striking spells, but I don't think the proper fix is to just turn the entire thing into a two action activity with a single roll (and what would happen to the spell if the roll missed?)

From my perspective I think Magus suffer from the same issue as the Warpriest. Their spell proficiency raises at a rate that is a little too Slow, and their martial proficiency doesn't seem to completely offset this.

For Summoner I don't really understand the complaints, as I really like how the class looks now aside from the delayed spell proficiency progression...

[graystone]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Or this is another Ultimate Wilderness and it's gonna suck.

I hate you for making me remember that... :P

Henro wrote:

Personally I'm very happy with the direction these two classes seem to be taking, especially Summoner.

I don't love or hate either one. I have a sense of apathy. I loved the old PF1 classes but these don't really bring much to the table. So far playing them has left me wondering 'why am I not playing a class that does this better?'

Magus ATM doesn't do better at it's signature move than just Striking and casting a spell but locks abilities into it trying to force you into a set 3 action pattern. Shooting Star, which I thought I'd like, really fell flat by losing the retry the next round i you miss your strike. Slide casting is ok with the free move and the most fun of the bunch but spell accuracy keeps it from too much fun. Sustaining Steel, which I thought would really suck turned out to be passable: the temp hp help pad out the base 8 hp/level the class has, making it a bit more durable.

Summoner... It's been like going between watching paint dry and grass growing. Will my eidolon Stride, Strike, Strike or Strike, Stride, Strike or Strike, Strike, Stride. If it's an exciting round I might mix it up and toss in an Athletics check but it all just blends together. I really miss doing actions like a normal martial class like Oversized Throw or Intimidating Strike. Add to that the summoner is an immobile ACT TOGETHER/BOOST EIDOLON machine [just insert healing into the coin slot] and the thrills just keep coming.

I'll see in anything changes after a few levels more but I'm not holding my breath.

[OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0]

graystone wrote:

Add to that the summoner is an immobile ACT TOGETHER/BOOST EIDOLON machine [just insert healing into the coin slot] and the thrills just keep coming.

Graystone - does this appear to be supported elsewhere - if so I’d like to see it further examined and discussed - from reading the Summoner playtest threads I get the feeling some Important changes are being called for, and given the action economy of PF2 this would be terrible to miss...

[Salamileg]

I'm going to echo some other people and say that I actually really like the direction of both classes and just think they need some tweaks. For instance, Spellstrike is too inaccurate and feels very clunky, when the Magus is meant to seamlessly combine might and magic. And I really like how the summoner is, but it could definitely use some help with being on par with martial characters given that it essentially is a martial (I wouldn't be opposed to more eidolon customization, but don't think it's as necessary as some people do).

[The-Magic-Sword]

Four slots is fine, provided each class has more resources to use beyond that on a regular basis-- the Magus especially needs damaging focus spells so they can Striking Spell without talking their slots, and then use their slots as a nova resource. Seperately, Spell Striking needs adjustment because the odds of your spell actually going off is too low.

I'm actually comfortable with the action cost, it's ok for some classes to have seperate "move into position turns" and "full attack" turns provided it works out overall. It's ok to have some classes with a different action economy interaction, in other words.

If anything I'd like to see the spell hold longer to enable set up.

[Kelseus]

I am strongly in the "This is clearly the most extreme version for the Playtest" camp.

Just think about what the Witch or Oracle looked like at this time last year. Paizo design staff clearly believe it is best to push the envelope as far as they can in the playtest. It's always easier for them to pull back then wish they had done more.

The playtest is also relatively short (and earlier in the year) compared to the APG, which says to me that they may be reserving some time in Oct-Nov to do a second round if they really feel they need it.

[BishopMcQ]

Re: Spellstrike, I will say that I dislike the two rolls as currently laid out. I loved the change to critical effects in 2E that made it a single roll, I don't need to roll again to confirm. The fact that the spell is being channeled through the weapon makes the second roll seem unnecessary.

I like the improved effect on a crit, it makes Saving Throw spells feel like they are getting something out of the need to attack instead of the spell automatically hitting. Some of the restrictions with the Spellstrike mean that it may not always be the optimal choice--if I need to hit two targets it might be better to cast Electric Arc on its own rather than channel through the sword.

2E has a mechanic through Arcane Archer that Spellstrike can draw from. I do think that since Spellstrike is a core function of the base class, it should be a little better. Simply removing the second attack roll would fix that in my mind.

I like the synthesis. Yes, some may be more optimized than others, but they each provide a unique feeling and approach. Given the dramatic change in spell slots, some clarification should be added in a sidebar about how the loss of low level slots interacts with various magic items that are based on slots. This is because many players use the books and don't scour internet forums and Twitch feeds for clarification, so having it in the book will streamline the experience.

[Throne]

DragoonSpirits86 wrote:

I originally had very little interest, and not a small amount of trepidation, with Secrets of magic as for me personally and my play group the magus and the summoner in particular were very disliked classes in terms of mechanics/design and negative impact at a table for a myriad of reasons not worth really delving into here(Though I am interested to hear if we were unique in this, as my understanding was that fairly universally summoner was pretty much THE singular class GM's didn't allow in home games and hated to see at a PFS table). I say this partly to refute the threads title, as a significant re-design of these two classes was NOT what we expected, but very much happy to see. In a way, seeing a simple copy/paste of these classes between editions would be a disservice to the design possibilities the new edition could give them and I am very happy to see this playtest.

It feels to me like the designer here shares your position;

Didn't like the 1e Magus, didn't want to see something like the 1e Magus in 2e, and is more interested in catering to the people who didn't like the 1e Magus than to the people who did.

Some people are going to be good with that, some people are not going to care either way, and some people are really going to hate it, not just because they find this class underwhelming, but because it means they're probably never going to get a 2e version of the class they enjoyed.

[graystone]

OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:

graystone wrote:

Add to that the summoner is an immobile ACT TOGETHER/BOOST EIDOLON machine [just insert healing into the coin slot] and the thrills just keep coming.

Graystone - does this appear to be supported elsewhere - if so I’d like to see it further examined and discussed - from reading the Summoner playtest threads I get the feeling some Important changes are being called for, and given the action economy of PF2 this would be terrible to miss...

Not sure: everyone's just started testing them after all but I'm not sure what else a summoner is meant to do when the eidolon is the 'martial': it's not like a pet where you let it attack and do something yourself: shares MAP makes sure you aren't attacking, you lose actions for not using Act Together and Boost Eidolon seems built into the damage expectations. Maybe get pompoms and cheer?

You also run into the fact that you're better off raising con, dex and wisdom over your Key stat of cha [unless you use a dragon]. I'd have suggested using Cha skills in combat but the summoners Cha has been pretty low so far for out tests. Maybe someday We'll have a dragon summoner but I wonder how well it'll work out.

[Verzen]

Quote:

Personally I'm very happy with the direction these two classes seem to be taking, especially Summoner.

Quote:

For Summoner I don't really understand the complaints, as I really like how the class looks now aside from the delayed spell proficiency progression...

To begin, most of my fun comes from character creation.

IMO

Summoner is incredibly boring. It's weak. The Eidolon feels inconsequential. It doesn't have that summoner FEEL I got from 1st ed that made me love the class. I want a create-a-monster feel. I dont need it to be so OP like in 1st ed, but I feel like MAP and action economy will prevent that in the first place. What I DO want is it to feel like a create-a-monster feel again. I hate the choices of Eidolons. We should be able to design our own unique Eidolon rather than, "Choose this carbon copy."

I hate how evolutions are just class feats. We don't get nearly enough customization to make the Eidolon fun AND it seems like my Summoner gets more customization than my Eidolon does. At least at level 1 as a human I can select a background which gives me a skill feat, an ancestry feat, and a general feat.

What do Eidolons get? Uh nothing. They don't even get evolution choices at level 1 aside from dark vision which is not very exciting.

A lot of the class fantasy of what I think of when I think summoner (ala Final Fantasy Eidolons) is lost in this iteration of summoner. It feels like we went from Yuna in FF10 to the FF14 summoner and it feels bad.

[Verzen]

Quote:

2. You say you want a summoner which is a specialized class that uses a summoned creature....I see the eidolon feature and numerous 'evolution' tagged feats which alter and improve it which seems to fit that bill. I do not see a basis to your argument that the eidolon(a creature with its own statline which grows with you, and a statblock which you seem to suggest it is not), in order to fufill the theme or narrative purpose of the summoner class is required to be

*In any way related to the Animal companion feature - in fact, the less like a familiar or AC the eidolon is, the more specialized it would be to summoner, wouldn't it?
*have a seprate hit point pool
*Independent actions
This itteration is to me actually a very neat way to enhance the thematic link between the the eidolon and summoner while also elegantly dodging some of the more problematic issues with 'pet' classes ie unbalancingly high amounts of 'free' party hit points, avoiding the use of the minion trait while still reigning in the inherent power of multiple actors in a game tightly bound to action economy, providing interesting and class unique tactical movement and positioning concerns and options, keeping the flow of play/real world table time per player in check and others.

I do NOT mind the sharing of HP but since we are sharing HP it needs something back in return and that is to actually feel like I have a monster under my thumb, again. Right now the Eidolon feels like just an extension of my PC. The feel of having a monster ally just isn't there.

I also want to have that build-a-monster feel and I do not feel like the evolution feats accomplish this at all. There is zero customization for our Eidolons at level 1.

[Verzen]

Quote:

I'll note that I didn't play 1E, as I have My rpg background from non D20 based games

Summoner in 1e had its problems but those problems cant exist with MAP and the 3 actions of 2nd edition.

But it's STRENGTH was basically being able to design our own monster. We were given a base form and we can just use points to give our Eidolon various traits and abilities. This was an incredibly unique experience and I found it incredibly fun and satisfying.

So they redid the Eidolon due to the problems with 1e natural attacks to instead be a base Eidolon of Angel, Abberation, etc but still give us some, albeit limited, evolution points to then modify them further. This was.. okay I guess. But it lost a lot of that create-a-monster feeling.

2nd edition tries the summoner and they instead remove ALL of the create-a-monster feeling from it by removing evolutions and all customization at level 1 and just giving us the base form.. then spreading evolutions out over 20 levels through the use of feats.

This is incredibly boring. They went from being extremely customizable and fun and making me feel like YUNA from FF10 to basically a shell of its former self and it just does not feel good as a class.

I dont think, if we recreated the eidolon point system from 1e, that we will run into the same problems in 2e just due to the fact of MAP and 3 action economy. We should have a similar system to make us feel like we are creating a monster that we can then control.

[JardelBeserk]

Here we go... I don't like Magus and summoner. I can emulate this two classes easily with the PF2 Core and the APG. So i don't hate it but i don't need it. I'm exciting to see what's more it is in this book so i can decide if it is worth to buy it.

[QuidEst]

I feel the balance point you (the OP) want for Magus doesn't exist. Master weapons is full BAB, and expert is half BAB, no in between. Slower scaling spells for 6/9 casting doesn't work well because of how important those top level slots are.

If you want Magus slinging spells all day, then they don't have room for master with weapons. So they get the same proficiency as Wizard. At which point... what's the point?

[Selkor]

I think I would be fine with the Summoner having 4 spells if the Boost & Reinforce Eidolon had a longer duration like 1 minute, and then give the summoner some other kind of action to do. I was thinking of giving Intimidate a try and see how that meshes with a build. I also wouldn't mind them having more focus spells, particularly one that could summon.

It would be nice if some of the Summoner feats gave the Eidolon some kind of martial feats like Lunge or Parry or Attack of Opportunity, they are supposed to be a martial class with some spellcasting but both the Summoner and the Eidolon seems kind of repetitive as mentioned above.

Also all 4 Eidolons feel mostly the same I kinda wish we got to allocated the initial 4 Ability Boosts to the Eidolon to give them a bit more flexibility. Maybe a support ability like Animal Companions have?

Maybe let Act Together allow you and the Eidolon to cast a single two action spell, I mean they are the source of your magic why shouldn't they be able to help you cast a spell (fluffwise?). Although I'm sure that could bring up a host of other issues.

[Dubious Scholar]

I think the biggest issue with Boost Eidolon may just be that with few other options it feels like a default, rather than a "Sic 'em boy!" moment. The damage scaling isn't awful for what it is (IF you're getting two attacks out of it). But it feels like a "always do this" instead of something you set up for.

And that may also partly be that you can't do a turn of Cast Spell, Eidolon Stride, Eidolon Strike, while that's the basic animal companion routine. (Also, shared MAP means it's much less attractive to do it anyways, but)

[graystone]

Dubious Scholar wrote:

I think the biggest issue with Boost Eidolon may just be that with few other options it feels like a default, rather than a "Sic 'em boy!" moment. The damage scaling isn't awful for what it is (IF you're getting two attacks out of it). But it feels like a "always do this" instead of something you set up for.

I don't really agree as they need that boost to keep damage up. Without it, you might as well have an animal companion instead.

Dubious Scholar wrote:

And that may also partly be that you can't do a turn of Cast Spell, Eidolon Stride, Eidolon Strike, while that's the basic animal companion routine. (Also, shared MAP means it's much less attractive to do it anyways, but)

What feels bad is that the action enhancers also eat up actions: Act Together sounds great until you want to Summon something or any other activity that takes 3 actions: you can only take a 1 action activity and a 2 action one.

[Dubious Scholar]

Act together maybe should just have "you may spend an extra action on X for you or your eidolon to take 2 actions instead" then.

[Angel Hunter D]

Yeah, I think the limit on activities with the Tandem options is the biggest problem with the class right now. It just stops you from doing so much.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Squiggit wrote:

Hard disagree on a lot of fronts. A Paizo that's unwilling to innovate and try new things is a company I'm definitely not interesting in. Imagine if every class in PF1 looked like the CRB classes because they didn't want to "reinvent the wheel." Sounds miserable.

Turning them into generic spellcasters, with the way PF2 does spellcasters, sounds awful and like it would suck much of the flavor out of the classes and throwing around hyperbolic buzzwords like "disaster" constantly doesn't make that sound any more fun.

I don't agree with the radical view of the OP, but I do agree with the basis behind it, in that the new spell progression seems weird and not very intuitive or appreciable from a balance and sense standpoint.

The spell progression table had me confused, and with the Spells being so limited, it literally turns the Magus and Summoner into cantrip practitioners and focus fanatics. They can only ever have 4 slots at a time is silly design for someone who is supposed to be some super awesome variant spellcaster, since even a Magus who can debuff with spells like Slow or Phantasmal Killer at their head would still be welcome and meaningful gameplay, and Summoners, as they stand now, have a dead primary attribute since their bread and butter is healing and buffing, both just like in PF1.

We had a Magus in PF1 who enjoyed being able to bring Wizard versatility and blasting to the table while at the same time being able to go toe to toe with their spellcasting, the only parts they hated were the convoluted rules for their main schtick (which is mostly fixed in PF2, but still too action-reliant for my tastes). Also had a Summoner that required our GM to nerf them to make them not so strong of a buff bot, yet even then the Eidolon was very strong and useful in that group without having to sacrifice actions or own HP to make effective.

Paizo can reinvent the wheel for classes all they want. They should be told if it starts to look like a trapezoid, though, and in my opinion, it currently is starting to if this is the final product.

[Capn Cupcake]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Hard disagree on a lot of fronts. A Paizo that's unwilling to innovate and try new things is a company I'm definitely not interesting in. Imagine if every class in PF1 looked like the CRB classes because they didn't want to "reinvent the wheel." Sounds miserable.

Turning them into generic spellcasters, with the way PF2 does spellcasters, sounds awful and like it would suck much of the flavor out of the classes and throwing around hyperbolic buzzwords like "disaster" constantly doesn't make that sound any more fun.

I don't agree with the radical view of the OP, but I do agree with the basis behind it, in that the new spell progression seems weird and not very intuitive or appreciable from a balance and sense standpoint.

The spell progression table had me confused, and with the Spells being so limited, it literally turns the Magus and Summoner into cantrip practitioners and focus fanatics. They can only ever have 4 slots at a time is silly design for someone who is supposed to be some super awesome variant spellcaster, since even a Magus who can debuff with spells like Slow or Phantasmal Killer at their head would still be welcome and meaningful gameplay, and Summoners, as they stand now, have a dead primary attribute since their bread and butter is healing and buffing, both just like in PF1.

We had a Magus in PF1 who enjoyed being able to bring Wizard versatility and blasting to the table while at the same time being able to go toe to toe with their spellcasting, the only parts they hated were the convoluted rules for their main schtick (which is mostly fixed in PF2, but still too action-reliant for my tastes). Also had a Summoner that required our GM to nerf them to make them not so strong of a buff bot, yet even then the Eidolon was very strong and useful in that group without having to sacrifice actions or own HP to make effective.

Paizo can reinvent the wheel for classes all they want. They should be told if it starts to look like a trapezoid, though, and in my...

Personally I'd be fine if the focus spells they had were more up to snuff. A Magus with focus spells as strong as domains or Oracle Mysteries would be a lot of fun but a +1 to your weapon that doesn't even work most levels? It's insulting.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Focus spells from Wizard schools would be neat, especially if they are eligible for Striking Spells.

Evocation Magus with Force Bolt able to stride, Striking Spells, Force Bolt into weapon, and strike, would make the reduced spell availability more tolerable.

They should take a page from Warpriest's Channel Smite ability for both simplicity and balance purposes.

[Captain Morgan]

I have no idea how a 2 action at will ability that combines a 2 action spell with a full powered strike on one attack roll could ever actually be balanced.

Or rather I do. The answer is Channel Smite: used with only a single spell that can already be cast as one action and doesn't do great damage for its level.

[graystone]

Captain Morgan wrote:

I have no idea how a 2 action at will ability that combines a 2 action spell with a full powered strike on one attack roll could ever actually be balanced.

Or rather I do. The answer is Channel Smite: used with only a single spell that can already be cast as one action and doesn't do great damage for its level.

Even is the only thing a 2 action Spellstrike did was allow you to use your weapon proficiency and bonuses to hit with the spell instead of an extra strike it'd be a win from what we have. Better stat bonuses and rune bonuses sure has an effect that'd be worth it and trading range for those is a fair balance to me.

[Vlorax]

What's the issue about the summoner primary stat?

Cha has a bunch of great uses in combat with demoralize, bon mot, create a diversion and plenty of ooc uses.

[graystone]

Vlorax wrote:

What's the issue about the summoner primary stat?

Cha has a bunch of great uses in combat with demoralize, bon mot, create a diversion and plenty of ooc uses.

And your 'pet' needs Con to not die and you need save and AC stats and people want to skill monkey them so you want more skills and...

So it's not that there isn't a lot of good things you can do with Cha, but that for this class it's most likely the least important after str. Then there is the fact you never have the actions to cast a spell so most times your DC's and rolls don't matter. I've found that you can do more with tanking Cha than maxing it.

[Martialmasters]

graystone wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

I have no idea how a 2 action at will ability that combines a 2 action spell with a full powered strike on one attack roll could ever actually be balanced.

Or rather I do. The answer is Channel Smite: used with only a single spell that can already be cast as one action and doesn't do great damage for its level.

Even is the only thing a 2 action Spellstrike did was allow you to use your weapon proficiency and bonuses to hit with the spell instead of an extra strike it'd be a win from what we have. Better stat bonuses and rune bonuses sure has an effect that'd be worth it and trading range for those is a fair balance to me.

That would be objectively better than what we have currently.

[Verzen]

This is how Eidolon creation ought to go imo.

Create-your-own
Choose a creature type from the list
Animal
Astral
Beast
Celestial
Construct
Dragon
Elemental
Ethereal
Fey
Fiend
Fungus
Humanoid
Monitor
Ooze
Plant
Spirit
Undead

Pick a damage type for your 1d8 damage (B/S/P/acid/electricity/fire/cold/sonic/negative)

Pick a damage type for your 1d4 damage(agile) (B/S/P/acid/electricity/fire/cold/sonic/negative)

Stats for the Eidolon are as follows, 18/16/14/12/10/8. Arrange them how you see fit.

Level 1 - Pick a single monster ability from this list (lists monster abilities for level 1's)

Level 5 - Pick a single monster ability from this list (lists monster abilities for level 5's)

Level 10 - Pick a single monster ability from this list (lists monster abilities for level 10's)

Level 15 - Pick a single monster ability from this list (lists monster abilities for level 15's)

Level 20 - Pick a single monster ability from this list (lists monster abilities for level 20's)

And change each package to follow that same level scheme.

I think this would be incredibly balanced and would get what I want while maintaining what you want.

Thoughts?

[Martialmasters]

Verzen wrote:

This is how Eidolon creation ought to go imo.

Create-your-own
Choose a creature type from the list
Animal
Astral
Beast
Celestial
Construct
Dragon
Elemental
Ethereal
Fey
Fiend
Fungus
Humanoid
Monitor
Ooze
Plant
Spirit
Undead

Pick a damage type for your 1d8 damage (B/S/P/acid/electricity/fire/cold/sonic/negative)

Pick a damage type for your 1d4 damage(agile) (B/S/P/acid/electricity/fire/cold/sonic/negative)

Stats for the Eidolon are as follows, 18/16/14/12/10/8. Arrange them how you see fit.

Level 1 - Pick a single monster ability from this list (lists monster abilities for level 1's)

Level 5 - Pick a single monster ability from this list (lists monster abilities for level 5's)

Level 10 - Pick a single monster ability from this list (lists monster abilities for level 10's)

Level 15 - Pick a single monster ability from this list (lists monster abilities for level 15's)

Level 20 - Pick a single monster ability from this list (lists monster abilities for level 20's)

And change each package to follow that same level scheme.

I think this would be incredibly balanced and would get what I want while maintaining what you want.

Thoughts?

It doesn't adhere to paizos Golden calf. Aka budget blocks.

[Verzen]

Budget blocks? What do you mean?

[Elorebaen]

No matter the circumstance I think the general idea represented in the tittle of this thread is the wrong way to go. I hope Paizo turns up the creative juice to 11 and destroys the wheels!

[Verzen]

Elorebaen wrote:

No matter the circumstance I think the general idea represented in the tittle of this thread is the wrong way to go. I hope Paizo turns up the creative juice to 11 and destroys the wheels!

As it stands, many are NOT happy with the boring classes. These don't have unique flare at all.

[Martialmasters]

Elorebaen wrote:

No matter the circumstance I think the general idea represented in the tittle of this thread is the wrong way to go. I hope Paizo turns up the creative juice to 11 and destroys the wheels!

So far investigator is the only one of the knew classes that feels like they did this with.

Or succeeded rather. Could argue for Oracle as well though it's linear in a different way. And depends on your curse.

[Temperans]

Inventiveness does not mean you destroy everything that was built previously. Specially when that old system is what everyone liked in the first place.

They are effectively trying to fix what is not broken and ruining in the process if things dont change for the better.

Heck I might even give up PF2 if all the stories of PF1 will just be lost for the sake of misplaced "inventiveness".

***********************

Remember one of the goals was always being able to tell the same stories. Right now that will never happen.

[Squiggit]

Verzen wrote:

As it stands, many are NOT happy with the boring classes. These don't have unique flare at all.

Most of the biggest complaints are about numbers and tuning and certain mechanics being underdeveloped though, not with the basic ideas of the class. Stuff like more customization and better gameplay options are things that can be added onto and adjusted with the existing chassis (which is specifically built to give more room for stuff like that).

If we did what the OP wanted, the Summoner would be another generic PF2 spellcaster with a weak pet. I know that's not what you're looking for.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

It's also a niche that's already covered by the Witch class, as well as somewhat the Sorcerer and Wizard classes (though Witch is still the best in that regard). If we wanted a spellcaster with a stronger pet, Druid already covers this, and even non-spellcasters are better at it than spellcasters like the ones mentioned above.

I still think they need to make the Magus class simple and still retain the basic feel of a Wizard to it. While the Striking Spells ability is simple and to the point, it requires standing still and/or to be Quickened for it to be more viable in a combat situation, something that just doesn't seem appropriate for a combat system that rewards striding more than casting or repeatedly striking. Not to mention, having to make two attack rolls/saves for each effect is counterintuitive to simplicity and fairness.

They won't be as strong, with its reduced spellcasting scaling and spells per day, but I personally find that a Magus is no longer able to cast a 1st level Fear spell by 5th level because they lack a 1st level spell slot for some random reason to be offputting on both a balance and a storytelling level. After all, a lot of the mechanics from PF1 (delivering the spell and holding the charge in particular) need to be in place for the Magus to function, and outside of certain Synthesis choices or special Magus rules, that doesn't exist anymore.

Even moreso with a Summoner, who is supposed to be able to support with both Eidolon and spells simultaneously. The Eidolon might last all day as long as they don't just sacrifice it, but 4 spells period forces them into using a staff to maintain that, when a staff is meant more to diversify and expand your spell repertoire, not become mandatory to keep somewhat of a pace with other spellcasting classes.

I believe that if certain build/play styles were created with this in mind (and have it not be the standard), it'd be easier to balance that way, since it seems that the risk of power for certain builds (*cough*Synthesist*cough*) might be easier to balance by reducing spellcasting capabilities, as well as potentially switching around primary stats for the class to compensate for the radical change in playstyle.

[Verzen]

Squiggit wrote:

Verzen wrote:

As it stands, many are NOT happy with the boring classes. These don't have unique flare at all.

Most of the biggest complaints are about numbers and tuning and certain mechanics being underdeveloped though, not with the basic ideas of the class. Stuff like more customization and better gameplay options are things that can be added onto and adjusted with the existing chassis (which is specifically built to give more room for stuff like that).

If we did what the OP wanted, the Summoner would be another generic PF2 spellcaster with a weak pet. I know that's not what you're looking for.

No. The current chassis is not what I want. A boring pet that I can't modify or customize to be my own unique creation? No ty. The class might as well not exist for me.

[DrakoVongola1]

Martialmasters wrote:

Corbin-626 wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

I could home brew a better version of each that had more interesting things to do in and out of combat as well as not being overpowered in about 5 minutes.

I love when people say things like this. If you really think you can churn out classes in 5 minutes then why aren't you dominating the industry? I mean at that rate you are creating entire books worth of content in a day or 2.

When people say things like this, they are insinuating that the developers and designers have no clue what they are doing and are incompetent. And while you can deny it and say "I never called them incompetent" when you say you could do better in 5 minutes, that's really what you're saying.

You said it not me.

But I ain't denying it either

If it's so easy then go do it. Come on man, show us that amazing creative talent