Stop trying to reinvent the wheel with Magus and Summoner


Secrets of Magic Playtest General Discussion

51 to 100 of 415 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Verzen wrote:
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.

And you're never going to get that customization if the Summoner becomes a regular spellcaster and the Eidolon becomes an animal companion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Verzen wrote:
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.
And you're never going to get that customization if the Summoner becomes a regular spellcaster and the Eidolon becomes an animal companion.

what makes you say that?

we dont have that customization now. the cognitive follow through here seems lacking. a has no corelation on b.

Sczarni

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Who said i want the Summoner to be a regular spell caster snd the Eidolon a regular AC? I'd rather erase the spellcasting entirely and focus on eidolon customization, summoning, synthesis.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:


what makes you say that?

Because we already know what animal companions and other support features bolted onto full casters look like. So when the OP specifically asks for the Eidolon to be more like an animal companion and for the Summoner to have "strong casting ability" we can get an idea of what that would look like with the way Paizo balances casters.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:


what makes you say that?
Because we already know what animal companions and other support features bolted onto full casters look like. So when the OP specifically asks for the Eidolon to be more like an animal companion and for the Summoner to have "strong casting ability" we can get an idea of what that would look like with the way Paizo balances casters.

I musta missed it... where did the OP say they want the Eidolon to be a regular AC?


Squiggit wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:


what makes you say that?
Because we already know what animal companions and other support features bolted onto full casters look like. So when the OP specifically asks for the Eidolon to be more like an animal companion and for the Summoner to have "strong casting ability" we can get an idea of what that would look like with the way Paizo balances casters.

There's more possibilities than making them full casters or keeping them how the playtest has them. Why not have them be 9th lvl casters that have 2 spell slots per spell lvl? Is keeping low level spell slots going to break the game or will it just give these classes more to do?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
kripdenn wrote:
Why not have them be 9th lvl casters that have 2 spell slots per spell lvl? Is keeping low level spell slots going to break the game or will it just give these classes more to do?

Heck, I'd be fine with the current slot but with you keeping a single slot from old levels: it's a real shame to lose out of those lower level slots for buffs, utility and such.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

im fine with the 4 spell slots, i dont think its the biggest issue overall. both classes have other issues that have nothing to do with its spell slots, and i dont think giving them more spell slots does anything to address them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing I don't think people are appreciating is that both the magus and the summoner run up against PF2E assumptions in a way that wasn't true in PF1E.

For the magus in PF1E, spell combat was a specialized kind of two-weapon fighting, complete with the -2 penalty to attacks, and spellstrike meant you replaced your touch attack (very likely to hit) with your weapon attack (which sometimes could miss, especially since your base attack was behind a full martial and you might be taking a -2 from spell combat). In PF2E, two-weapon fighting no longer lets you get off two attacks at your highest bonus for the price of one, and spells with attack rolls are balanced on the assumption that you are targeting normal AC. Not to mention that now any character can natively get off one Strike and cast a 2-action spell in the same round. So you have to "reinvent the wheel" on spellstrike.

For the summoner in PF1E, you had what amounted to a super-powered animal companion, or a long-term summoned monster. PF2E downgraded the power of animal companions and summons with the minion rules. The summoner intentionally breaks the minion rules, and a lot of the class design reflects an effort to make that work. That wasn't an issue in PF1E.

Likewise spellcasting. Both the magus and the summoner had their own spell list in PF1E, which meant that the power of a spell slot could be precisely calibrated based on the needs of the class. They had 6th-level casting, which doesn't exist in this edition (perhaps in part because spell lists aren't customizable).

That's not to say every aspect of how these came out works. I personally don't like the 4-slot casting; Striking Spell needs to be revised to be less situational or made into a much less central feature of the class; and while I like the basic mechanics of the summoner, I do think it needs some fine-tuning. That's what the playtest is for. But there's going to be a lot of reinvention and substantially different mechanics regardless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fact of the matter for me is pretty simple.

I'm looking for a new game if any of the following makes it in:

4 spell slot classes. Too boring and limited.

Super limited spell striking. Spell Striking was the main draw of the Magus class in PF1. It's a pointless class without round to round spell striking. Weaving combat and spells into a combat style was very cool. 4 slots will not allow it.

Eidolon as a summoner-eidolon hybrid creature with shared hit point pool and actions. Terrible idea conceptually and mechanically.

I'm sending up the flag now I like did when 4E was making terrible design decisions. My group left 4E when it chose a terrible direction for the game and we'll do the same if the PF2 team makes a bunch of terrible design decisions.

Right now the summoner and magus feel like 4E level of terrible. I'm hoping they don't stay on this path and ruin PF2 for me. So far I like it, but this is looking like a class design car wreck that some people seem to think is ok.


Verzen wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:


what makes you say that?
Because we already know what animal companions and other support features bolted onto full casters look like. So when the OP specifically asks for the Eidolon to be more like an animal companion and for the Summoner to have "strong casting ability" we can get an idea of what that would look like with the way Paizo balances casters.
I musta missed it... where did the OP say they want the Eidolon to be a regular AC?

I do want it to play more like an animal companion meaning it is an independent creature with it's own skills, abilities, intelligence, hit point pool, actions, and the like.

And the summoner himself is at least as good a caster as a multiclass caster with a breadth feat. Say 2 spells up to lvl 7 and 1 spell level 8 and 9.

None of this 4 spells ever rubbish.

Or this shared hit point pool and action weird thing that is like a monk in 2 bodies.

That is not fun.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

4 slots seems unlikely to stay around.

Striking Spell is almost certainly getting some kind of buff- otherwise it's literally not worth using.

These two issues are deliberate low rolls for the playtest. They know that it'll need to be buffed. They're just seeing where the weaknesses lie and what people want it to grow into. The sky isn't falling.

For the record, I think that Summoners and Eidolons sharing HP is genius, and I'll be disappointed if we don't see it in the final version. It's a simple mechanic that means so much in terms of flavour and ease of management. Only having to track a single HP pool and conditions is very useful for a class that already has distinct abilities, attacks, saves, AC, and skill modifiers between the two bodies.

Deriven Firelion wrote:
My group left 4E when it chose a terrible direction for the game and we'll do the same if the PF2 team makes a bunch of terrible design decisions.

You're going to need to be more specific about your comparisons. 4E failed due to homogeneity between classes, slow combat, an overly gamist presentation, and balance that was so tight that there was a ritual to turn money into the exact magic items you wanted (and needed for the math to work). PF2E draws a huge amount of inspiration from 4E, and has either avoided or fixed each of these issues.

I've already explained that playtests are deliberately weak (which would be apparent from glancing at the playtest Investigator) compared to the final version, so what exactly is your concern from a game design perspective?


13 people marked this as a favorite.

While both classes unarguably need work and tweaking (that is why we playtest) I kind of like the trajectory of the PF2 Magus and Summoner more than the PF1 versions of those classes.


TheGentlemanDM wrote:

4 slots seems unlikely to stay around.

Striking Spell is almost certainly getting some kind of buff- otherwise it's literally not worth using.

These two issues are deliberate low rolls for the playtest. They know that it'll need to be buffed. They're just seeing where the weaknesses lie and what people want it to grow into. The sky isn't falling.

For the record, I think that Summoners and Eidolons sharing HP is genius, and I'll be disappointed if we don't see it in the final version. It's a simple mechanic that means so much in terms of flavour and ease of management. Only having to track a single HP pool and conditions is very useful for a class that already has distinct abilities, attacks, saves, AC, and skill modifiers between the two bodies.

Deriven Firelion wrote:
My group left 4E when it chose a terrible direction for the game and we'll do the same if the PF2 team makes a bunch of terrible design decisions.

You're going to need to be more specific about your comparisons. 4E failed due to homogeneity between classes, slow combat, an overly gamist presentation, and balance that was so tight that there was a ritual to turn money into the exact magic items you wanted (and needed for the math to work). PF2E draws a huge amount of inspiration from 4E, and has either avoided or fixed each of these issues.

I've already explained that playtests are deliberately weak (which would be apparent from glancing at the playtest Investigator) compared to the final version, so what exactly is your concern from a game design perspective?

4E failed because of bad design decisions because they didn't listen to the fan base that was sending up the clear flags that things were not right. They could have fixed 4E D&D by listening to fans of the game. But the 4E design team decided to tell the fans they were wrong and that they were right. That was their real mistake.

The biggest mistake any company in a field like Paizo is in or period is not listening to their customers. Not the ones who tend to go along with whatever they want to do. And not the people who nitpick anything. But the fans who send up the clear red flags something is wrong like I'm doing now. The ones who stayed around for long run in PF1 and liked most of the game.

That's what 4E did wrong. You can point to elements as much as you want. But ultimately it came down to not listening to the fans of the game even when it goes against the beliefs of the design team.

It happens to all types of companies. It happened to Coke when they tried to make a Pepsi version of coke, but finally went back to what is now known as Classic Coke. It happened to 4E D&D. It happens to a lot of video game companies. It happens to clothing brands. And car companies. That's why I'm glad Paizo does these play tests. At least they're giving themselves a chance to fix things before they go wrong.

You gotta respect fans of the game who have been with you for the long haul and stuck around for the ride. When they tell you something is bad, definitely listen.


Funny enough I went into this incredibly excited for the Magus, and instead convinced my DM to let me try the Summoner with a couple of small tweaks (Eidolon expert unarmored at 1 and regular spell proficiency progression). I think both need work (especially the Magus) but I think the ideas presented are sound.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Keep trying new things Paizo!


16 people marked this as a favorite.
TheGentlemanDM wrote:
You're going to need to be more specific about your comparisons. 4E failed due to homogeneity between classes, slow combat, an overly gamist presentation, and balance that was so tight that there was a ritual to turn money into the exact magic items you wanted (and needed for the math to work). PF2E draws a huge amount of inspiration from 4E, and has either avoided or fixed each of these issues.

The fact it was planned around having a companion piece of software (Gleemax) that didn't end up happening due to...unfortunate circumstances didn't help either.

Deriven Firelion wrote:


You gotta respect fans of the game who have been with you for the long haul and stuck around for the ride. When they tell you something is bad, definitely listen.

As a "fan of the game who has been with Paizo for the long haul and stuck around for the ride", I can say I would not give the book a second look if it was "wizard with martial proficiencies and spellstrike" and "animal companion druid with an outsider skin". That's just so utterly uninteresting to me that I barely would give it a first look.

Bard, sorcerer, swashbuckler, investigator, ranger, champion - all these diverge heavily from their PF1 incarnations, and are all the better for it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The main problem with the magus is that PF2 is different from PF1 in ways that specifically makes the PF1 magus playstyle not work at all. Some examples:

* In PF1, magic was very powerful, so being able to combine even lower-grade magic with fighting was a power move. In PF2, magic is much weaker than in PF1, to the point where you look at an ability letting you combine magic and fighting and go "Why would I do that instead of just fighting more?"

* In PF1, someone with both magical and martial abilities would usually need to decide which one to do in any given round, so the ability to mix them was novel and powerful. In PF2, it's something anyone can do.

* PF1 magi had lots of low-level spells that, because of scaling, still had useful effects at higher levels. PF2 magi don't have low-level spells available, and even if they did they don't scale with spell level so they'd be less useful.

I think the solution is to focus less on the "hit really hard" aspect of Striking Spell, because it seems like it's going to be nigh-impossible to get that to a point where it is useful on its own while also not exploding when given proper support. Instead, give the magus spells and/or feats that let them use magical powers to control the battlefield in manners that let them bring their martial skills to bear in efficient ways. Move themselves and opponents around, create burning ground where they move, immobilize opponents, strike with their weapons in an area, strike two opponents with a short-range teleport in between them, and stuff like that.

Spell striking could be replaced with a sort of "arcane power attack". Something like:

Energized weapon (action)
Choose one energy type. Until the end of your turn, your strikes deal 1d8 extra damage of that type.

Add in some appropriate scaling, and that gives you the flavor of imbuing your weapon with magic without getting into actual spellcasting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheGentlemanDM wrote:

4 slots seems unlikely to stay around.

Striking Spell is almost certainly getting some kind of buff- otherwise it's literally not worth using.

These two issues are deliberate low rolls for the playtest. They know that it'll need to be buffed. They're just seeing where the weaknesses lie and what people want it to grow into. The sky isn't falling.

For the record, I think that Summoners and Eidolons sharing HP is genius, and I'll be disappointed if we don't see it in the final version. It's a simple mechanic that means so much in terms of flavour and ease of management. Only having to track a single HP pool and conditions is very useful for a class that already has distinct abilities, attacks, saves, AC, and skill modifiers between the two bodies.

Deriven Firelion wrote:
My group left 4E when it chose a terrible direction for the game and we'll do the same if the PF2 team makes a bunch of terrible design decisions.

You're going to need to be more specific about your comparisons. 4E failed due to homogeneity between classes, slow combat, an overly gamist presentation, and balance that was so tight that there was a ritual to turn money into the exact magic items you wanted (and needed for the math to work). PF2E draws a huge amount of inspiration from 4E, and has either avoided or fixed each of these issues.

I've already explained that playtests are deliberately weak (which would be apparent from glancing at the playtest Investigator) compared to the final version, so what exactly is your concern from a game design perspective?

I mean, the new classes are already suffering by lacking a full spell slot per level, no 10th level spell slots, reduced spell proficiencies, and no bonus slots whatsoever. Wizards/Sorcerers usually have 3-4 slots per level, and Clerics, Druids, and Bards have 3 as well, and these all have full spellcasting progression and other utilities in their kits. Clerics have Domains and Fonts. Druids have Focus Powers and Orders. Bards have OP broken Compositions that break math worse than anything in the game. Wizards have schools with solid counterspell and metamagic feats, Sorcerers have Bloodlines with flexible casting types. What should a Magus or Summoner have to compete with them that's different from what's already available?

Some of the focus powers aren't bad (1 action self-haste for Magus is strong, even if a bit late), but there definitely needs to be a draw similar to Compositions or Domains for Magi to function. Striking Spells is just a "This is here to make this combo work" mechanic, and it's basically just a worse Channel Smite as it stands. The fact a Warpriest is better at delivering spells (even though they aren't actually casting spells per RAW) than the Magus is a huge design flaw, even if the Warpriest is only ever delivering Harm/Heal to their targets.

As for them sharing HP, I disagree. Even if it seems cool thematically, you're twice as vulnerable compared to someone with an animal companion; ACs can be replaced within a week, no cost or anything. Your Eidolon dies, and you die and become a liability to the group as a result, especially with only 4 spell slots to work with and no other benefits besides "muh Eidolon". Compare with a spell like Shield Other, this is basically a worse version of that permanently cast on you and your Eidolon, which is just garbage and pointless.

You need to be given more than some creature template to a permanent summon (which is just as weak as Animal Companions, BTW), with some basic powers that are Charisma-based, to make a penalty like that worth it. Right now, with reduced HP and not-so-great defenses with mediocre offenses that require pumping your primary attribute just to keep it effective, it's a complete crapshow.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

I always think it's a little silly when people say that they're going to abandon the game because a single new thing they don't like the design of gets released. Like, I absolutely loathed the design of the 5e Artificer, and would rant about it to whoever would listen. But I didn't leave the game over it, and when I did end up leaving the game, it was because I was fed up with base design decisions in the PHB. If you end up disliking the game, or if you do already, I don't think the quality of a couple new classes that comes out in a book a year from now is going to change that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Salamileg wrote:
I always think it's a little silly when people say that they're going to abandon the game because a single new thing they don't like the design of gets released. Like, I absolutely loathed the design of the 5e Artificer, and would rant about it to whoever would listen. But I didn't leave the game over it, and when I did end up leaving the game, it was because I was fed up with base design decisions in the PHB. If you end up disliking the game, or if you do already, I don't think the quality of a couple new classes that comes out in a book a year from now is going to change that.

You see thats exactly why I said what I said. I have continued to look at PF2e because I was hopeful that maybe the classes will get better. "Maybe it was just a fluke". "Maybe they will fix the problems next time".

But after seeing the playtest I have lost some of that hope for the base system and its has been replaced with worry. If the classes really end up with the same mistake all over again, its just better if I leave the game behind.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
My group left 4E when it chose a terrible direction for the game and we'll do the same if the PF2 team makes a bunch of terrible design decisions.

I left 5e after the playtest was over and NEVER looked back.

Salamileg wrote:
I always think it's a little silly when people say that they're going to abandon the game because a single new thing they don't like the design of gets released.

But that's the thing: who says they've liked everything so far? What if they have been holding on waiting for things to get better and things seem to be getting worse for them? I think it's silly to assume it's JUST a single new thing.

Salamileg wrote:
If you end up disliking the game, or if you do already, I don't think the quality of a couple new classes that comes out in a book a year from now is going to change that.

Ever hear of the phrase 'straw that breaks the camels back? If you leave a game, SOMETHING precipitated it: why is it hard to imagine that it could be that your favorite class comes out all wrong for you and you where already on the fence?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Exactly Graystone.

My 4 favorite classes from PF1 are Swashbuckler, Magus, Summoner, and Kineticist.

Swashbuckler gave me a bit more hope after seeing the bad state of casters and no solution in multiple books. And now seeing Magus and Summoner and its just sad.

If they mess up Magus and Summoner I dont want to see how Kineticist gets messed up.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Salamileg wrote:
I always think it's a little silly when people say that they're going to abandon the game because a single new thing they don't like the design of gets released. Like, I absolutely loathed the design of the 5e Artificer, and would rant about it to whoever would listen. But I didn't leave the game over it, and when I did end up leaving the game, it was because I was fed up with base design decisions in the PHB. If you end up disliking the game, or if you do already, I don't think the quality of a couple new classes that comes out in a book a year from now is going to change that.

To a point, it is. But PF2 is early in its development compared to PF1.

PF1 was okay with the CRB, and continued to increase in likability, flexibility, and playstyle when APG, ACG, UM, etc. was released, as a lot of the newly released content was new and fleshed well with the current rules, to the point of greatly changing the game to something much, much more. Archetypes, variant multiclassing, etc. All greatly changed the name of the game compared to D&D, for the better, and for some years it was going strong, since Wizards' 4E was scrapped and they needed time to make 5E. It wasn't until releases like Occult Adventures, Ultimate Intrigue, etc., plus the release of 5E, where it began declining, and Ultimate Wilderness/Planar Adventures took it back beneath ground, because let's face it, a lot of the content they advertised in that book was lackluster and subpar compared to classes like PF1 Oracle, Inquisitor, Magus, etc. Not to mention neat equipment items and extreme customization. The APs are still valuable yet, mostly because their well written structure and ability to convert on the fly for PF2 is still good, so on that front, PF1 will still always be a success. (A lot of the AP books are still worth a lot of money if you try to buy them from Paizo or from other online stores, like Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition, the complete Curse of the Crimson Throne AP book, Kingmaker, etc., and with a bit of work can be made to work with current PF2 rules.)

But compare when PF1 started going south compared to what people believe is happening to PF2 much sooner. PF1 didn't start going real bad until several years in its path, when some of the design choices started being repetitive or nonsensible. To some people, PF2 is starting to go bad now with the playtest, with designs they find to be poor. If PF2 is already starting to go bad, in their eyes, should they really invest more money in a product they find to not improve or match their standards of play?

I don't think these classes are too far gone to fix into something that's more fun and workable with the current rules, which I hope Paizo does correctly when the book actually releases (which is where the true judgements should be placed, not here, in the playtest). Some do, though, and if this is what they have to look forward to with further releases, I might not blame them for packing up and finding a different game to suit their needs. After all, it's their entertainment, time, and money.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
But compare when PF1 started going south compared to what people believe is happening to PF2 much sooner. PF1 didn't start going real bad until several years in its path, when some of the design choices started being repetitive or nonsensible. To some people, PF2 is starting to go bad now with the playtest, with designs they find to be poor. If PF2 is already starting to go bad, in their eyes, should they really invest more money in a product they find to not improve or match their standards of play?

All systems have their naysayers. Many of those who appear to be naysaying never truly committed to the system to begin with, or aren't the people that the system appeals to. PF2E has more broad appeal than PF1E, but it's still not going to be everyone's cup of tea. To those who haven't liked PF2E from the beginning, this probably won't be the book that changes that.

This is not to say that doubts and concerns should be ignored- there are plenty of legitimate problems with both these classes. But instead of decrying the failure of the game, we should instead seek to constructively improve it while we can. And given that this is a playtest, this is the time to enable improvement.

It's also worth noting that the playtest is DELIBERATELY underpowered.

With playtest material, you can either overly strong options that appeal to people and generate excitement up front, at the risk of disappointment when the final version receives necessary nerfs, or you can have weak options that generate a number of ideas on how to bring the final version up to par. 5E's Unearthed Arcana uses the former to great success with subclasses and other options, but for an entire class and new class framework, risking disappointment due to it being overpowered to begin with is something they want to avoid, and thus they're playing this safe.


Staffan Johansson wrote:

The main problem with the magus is that PF2 is different from PF1 in ways that specifically makes the PF1 magus playstyle not work at all. Some examples:

* In PF1, magic was very powerful, so being able to combine even lower-grade magic with fighting was a power move. In PF2, magic is much weaker than in PF1, to the point where you look at an ability letting you combine magic and fighting and go "Why would I do that instead of just fighting more?"

* In PF1, someone with both magical and martial abilities would usually need to decide which one to do in any given round, so the ability to mix them was novel and powerful. In PF2, it's something anyone can do.

* PF1 magi had lots of low-level spells that, because of scaling, still had useful effects at higher levels. PF2 magi don't have low-level spells available, and even if they did they don't scale with spell level so they'd be less useful.

I think the solution is to focus less on the "hit really hard" aspect of Striking Spell, because it seems like it's going to be nigh-impossible to get that to a point where it is useful on its own while also not exploding when given proper support. Instead, give the magus spells and/or feats that let them use magical powers to control the battlefield in manners that let them bring their martial skills to bear in efficient ways. Move themselves and opponents around, create burning ground where they move, immobilize opponents, strike with their weapons in an area, strike two opponents with a short-range teleport in between them, and stuff like that.

Spell striking could be replaced with a sort of "arcane power attack". Something like:

Energized weapon (action)
Choose one energy type. Until the end of your turn, your strikes deal 1d8 extra damage of that type.

Add in some appropriate scaling, and that gives you the flavor of imbuing your weapon with magic without getting into actual spellcasting.

I think PF2 already has ways to alleviate the issues you bring up.

Regarding the lack of spell scaling. There's already cantrips and focus spells. If striking spell with a cantrip was a decent option instead of being worse than just attacking twice, the magi's lack of spells would be less bad. And if the magus got a focus spell they could use with striking spell instead of a focus spell that was only useful for 6 levels, that would be even better for fixing this.
I don't think there's any class that could mix spells and martial abilities like a magus possibly could. The closest is probably a warpriest of battle oracle but both of these are divine casters. A martial class multiclassing into spellcasting, on the other hand, is behind on their spell progression, e.g. they only get 6th level spells at 8th level.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Not liking a game or a class or even it being enough to push you out of a game is fine and whatever, but the absurd ultimatums and overreaching declarations are more eye rolling than productive and I don't see how the thread would somehow be worse if the OP had approached it from a more genuine and constructive perspective.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
PF1 didn't start going real bad until several years in its path, when some of the design choices started being repetitive or nonsensible.

That's some interesting revision.

Most of the worst design choices in PF1 were pretty early in its life. UW was a bad book, but by and large late PF1 delivered vastly better content than early PF1.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheGentlemanDM wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
But compare when PF1 started going south compared to what people believe is happening to PF2 much sooner. PF1 didn't start going real bad until several years in its path, when some of the design choices started being repetitive or nonsensible. To some people, PF2 is starting to go bad now with the playtest, with designs they find to be poor. If PF2 is already starting to go bad, in their eyes, should they really invest more money in a product they find to not improve or match their standards of play?

All systems have their naysayers. Many of those who appear to be naysaying never truly committed to the system to begin with, or aren't the people that the system appeals to. PF2E has more broad appeal than PF1E, but it's still not going to be everyone's cup of tea. To those who haven't liked PF2E from the beginning, this probably won't be the book that changes that.

This is not to say that doubts and concerns should be ignored- there are plenty of legitimate problems with both these classes. But instead of decrying the failure of the game, we should instead seek to constructively improve it while we can. And given that this is a playtest, this is the time to enable improvement.

It's also worth noting that the playtest is DELIBERATELY underpowered.

With playtest material, you can either overly strong options that appeal to people and generate excitement up front, at the risk of disappointment when the final version receives necessary nerfs, or you can have weak options that generate a number of ideas on how to bring the final version up to par. 5E's Unearthed Arcana uses the former to great success with subclasses and other options, but for an entire class and new class framework, risking disappointment due to it being overpowered to begin with is something they want to avoid, and thus they're playing this safe.

I'm of the opinion that the naysayers have already said their peace when the whole game was in a year-long playtest, and moved on to something else. This is more of a vocal minority expressing their outrage at the current publication without the knowledge of this being deliberately nerfed.

And to be honest, I don't think this was made underpowered for playtest purposes. I genuinely believe that Paizo wants to publish a class that has few, scaling spell slots, because they might not want Summoners or Magi to have nearly as much spell power or flexibility as the other pure casting classes. Simply because other than previous product releases, I don't see any indication that their playtest intent was to test weaker/newer stuff to test applications.

I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. But it's hard to say what precisely the goal of the playtest is besides gauging how fun it is to play or how balanced it appears, or if the published mechanics are workable.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have confidence in Paizo's ability to make the class playable after seeing the difference between the playtest Investigators and the final version.

If they do commit to 2/2 casting, we should receive enough power through other abilities to compensate. Certainly we've given them enough ideas.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
If they mess up Magus and Summoner I dont want to see how Kineticist gets messed up.

Don't go holding your breath for Kineticist, I don't think it's ever going to be recreated by Paizo itself since Legendary Games got the full blessing of the Golem to release their own version of it with the name and flavor fully intact.

That said the version that KG wrote is really well done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

Not liking a game or a class or even it being enough to push you out of a game is fine and whatever, but the absurd ultimatums and overreaching declarations are more eye rolling than productive and I don't see how the thread would somehow be worse if the OP had approached it from a more genuine and constructive perspective.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
PF1 didn't start going real bad until several years in its path, when some of the design choices started being repetitive or nonsensible.

That's some interesting revision.

Most of the worst design choices in PF1 were pretty early in its life. UW was a bad book, but by and large late PF1 delivered vastly better content than early PF1.

A fair point. As I said, the classes aren't so bad that they can't be saved (unlike PF1 Shifter), but it really boils down to how much Paizo will be changing (or at least willing to change) the classes until the final product, or if we will even get a glimpse as to what those changes are. Time will tell for sure, maybe a blog post for predictions if we're lucky. But like with previous playtests, there are certain parameters that are most likely not going to change. Will Striking Spells change drastically, or only a bit? What about their feats and focus powers? What about proficiencies? After all, the agile Magus is looking to be a thing of the past, which was its primary build choice back in PF1.

I mean, PF1 core wasn't as good or customizable as PF2 core. But PF1 APG really changed the game with Archetype mechanics, different favored class bonuses, etc. Combined with newer classes like Oracles, Inquisitors, and so on, with strong and versatile variant options, it made Pathfinder a game so much better than 3.X, with the future books (up to Occult Adventures IMO) only capitalizing on those design choices. The ball got dropped because of confusion in rules plus lackluster design and power levels with the new publications, perhaps in fear of overzealous power creep.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
4E failed because of bad design decisions because they didn't listen to the fan base that was sending up the clear flags that things were not right.

4e failed to make £50m per anum with a clear growth path to £100m. By that metric, every RPG ever published has failed. By any normal metric it was stupendously successful.

_
glass.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Exactly Graystone.

My 4 favorite classes from PF1 are Swashbuckler, Magus, Summoner, and Kineticist.

These classes all have something in common, and I don't think it's something that the developers plan to support.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
GM OfAnything wrote:
Temperans wrote:

Exactly Graystone.

My 4 favorite classes from PF1 are Swashbuckler, Magus, Summoner, and Kineticist.

These classes all have something in common, and I don't think it's something that the developers plan to support.

What do they all have in common?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Staffan Johansson wrote:
I think the solution is to focus less on the "hit really hard" aspect of Striking Spell, because it seems like it's going to be nigh-impossible to get that to a point where it is useful on its own while also not exploding when given proper support. Instead, give the magus spells and/or feats that let them use magical powers to control the battlefield in manners that let them bring their martial skills to bear in efficient ways. Move themselves and opponents around, create burning ground where they move, immobilize opponents, strike with their weapons in an area, strike two opponents with a short-range teleport in between them, and stuff like that.

Favorite comment so far. This is kind of how I always imagined Magus should play in a 2e game: a martial warrior who uses combat-oriented magic creatively to give them a fighting edge, and enhance their own natural abilities. Magically extending their blade for a turn when an opponent is just out of reach (or they want to stay out of reach), casting an illusory duplicate opposite of their foe to get a possible flanking bonus, or channeling magic into other tools they own, like shields or grappling hooks, to give them a magical boost when a tense situation demands it.

When I picture Magus, I picture a teleporting, spellslinging Final Fantasy hero. I'm not sure how feasible that would be with this current model.

Silver Crusade

Verzen wrote:
GM OfAnything wrote:
Temperans wrote:

Exactly Graystone.

My 4 favorite classes from PF1 are Swashbuckler, Magus, Summoner, and Kineticist.

These classes all have something in common, and I don't think it's something that the developers plan to support.
What do they all have in common?

I'm not the OP but I'd guess that they are all considered to be on the high end of the power scale.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Opsylum wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
I think the solution is to focus less on the "hit really hard" aspect of Striking Spell, because it seems like it's going to be nigh-impossible to get that to a point where it is useful on its own while also not exploding when given proper support. Instead, give the magus spells and/or feats that let them use magical powers to control the battlefield in manners that let them bring their martial skills to bear in efficient ways. Move themselves and opponents around, create burning ground where they move, immobilize opponents, strike with their weapons in an area, strike two opponents with a short-range teleport in between them, and stuff like that.

Favorite comment so far. This is kind of how I always imagined Magus should play in a 2e game: a martial warrior who uses combat-oriented magic creatively to give them a fighting edge, and enhance their own natural abilities. Magically extending their blade for a turn when an opponent is just out of reach (or they want to stay out of reach), casting an illusory duplicate opposite of their foe to get a possible flanking bonus, or channeling magic into other tools they own, like shields or grappling hooks, to give them a magical boost when a tense situation demands it.

When I picture Magus, I picture a teleporting, spellslinging Final Fantasy hero. I'm not sure how feasible that would be with this current model.

One thing I wonder is how well the Magus could be served by being the master of the alternative delivery method of hurt. I.e., he's in a scenario where his sword attacks are just as harmful to a bad guy as anyone else's. The problem is that he can't get through this particular bad guy's AC. Solution? He literally casts "Blade". And now, the bad guy has to roll a Reflex, Fortitude, or maybe even Will save (whichever he specifically is weakest at, learned after trial and error maybe) or get a sword to the face.

And then the reverse would be a scenario where a bad guy has some kind of vulnerability to a damage type you have cantrips or slotted spells for, but his saving throw against those spells is particularly good. Solution? Put the spell into your sword and attack his AC and let that one single roll (i.e., not a weapon attack roll followed by a normal saving throw) determine success or failure.


pauljathome wrote:
Verzen wrote:
GM OfAnything wrote:
Temperans wrote:

Exactly Graystone.

My 4 favorite classes from PF1 are Swashbuckler, Magus, Summoner, and Kineticist.

These classes all have something in common, and I don't think it's something that the developers plan to support.
What do they all have in common?
I'm not the OP but I'd guess that they are all considered to be on the high end of the power scale.

Magus, Summoner? Sure.

Kineticist is very well balanced imo, and Swashbuckler is generally considered on the lower power end despite how much fun it is.

I think they all have weird quirks that are difficult to support directly in PF2, but I wouldn't say they all share one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Opsylum wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
I think the solution is to focus less on the "hit really hard" aspect of Striking Spell, because it seems like it's going to be nigh-impossible to get that to a point where it is useful on its own while also not exploding when given proper support. Instead, give the magus spells and/or feats that let them use magical powers to control the battlefield in manners that let them bring their martial skills to bear in efficient ways. Move themselves and opponents around, create burning ground where they move, immobilize opponents, strike with their weapons in an area, strike two opponents with a short-range teleport in between them, and stuff like that.

Favorite comment so far. This is kind of how I always imagined Magus should play in a 2e game: a martial warrior who uses combat-oriented magic creatively to give them a fighting edge, and enhance their own natural abilities. Magically extending their blade for a turn when an opponent is just out of reach (or they want to stay out of reach), casting an illusory duplicate opposite of their foe to get a possible flanking bonus, or channeling magic into other tools they own, like shields or grappling hooks, to give them a magical boost when a tense situation demands it.

When I picture Magus, I picture a teleporting, spellslinging Final Fantasy hero. I'm not sure how feasible that would be with this current model.

Well good news then, because the Magus already has a feat to teleport when it uses spell strike. The only issue is that it needs to spend a spell slot go use it, and it doesn't have many of those. But I feel the low number of slots is one of the most experimental parts of the playtest.

Most of the rest of what you're talking about would really just be feats or perhaps spells anyway. That doesn't have a ton of bearing on the class's core design. Actually, most of what y'all are asking for is already doable with existing spells.

So it basically sounds like you're advocating for dropping down to expert proficiency to gain more spell slots. Which seems viable, but leaves spell strike as the only thing that really distinguishs the class from other casters.


TheGentlemanDM wrote:
It's also worth noting that the playtest is DELIBERATELY underpowered.

Unless someone has a quote for that, its entirely speculation. It could be speculation based in experience or due to previous statements, but it is still speculation.

Also in the playtest forums, I've seen people attribute a lot of intent to the designers of which is also pure speculation. (Or maybe not, maybe these random people on the internet dm the designers on the reg and get responses. Who knows?)

We simply don't know and its of dubious worth to speculate. Testing with the material we have and providing feedback is the only real thing we can do.

*edit

Found this on the first page of the playtest document.

Secrets of Magic Playtest wrote:
These are early iterations of the new classes; some abilities might be a bit extreme or stretch some assumptions of the game, and the best way to find out if we’ve gone too far (or in the wrong direction)

I'm not sure I read that as deliberately under powered, but it satisfies my need for a caveat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing we can be confident of is that the Paizo philosophy on playtesting is if the design team has a disagreement on how something should be, then whatever is the most extreme version of whatever it is ends up being the one that gets playtested.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
pauljathome wrote:
Verzen wrote:
GM OfAnything wrote:
Temperans wrote:

Exactly Graystone.

My 4 favorite classes from PF1 are Swashbuckler, Magus, Summoner, and Kineticist.

These classes all have something in common, and I don't think it's something that the developers plan to support.
What do they all have in common?
I'm not the OP but I'd guess that they are all considered to be on the high end of the power scale.

LOL Only the summoner and MAYBE magus was high end of the power scale. The Swashbuckler was middle of the pack and kineticist was right alongside it.

I LOVED kineticist and not because I felt "OP"

I loved it for the flavor. I loved being a fire bender or water bender.

And their damage was meh. It wasn't the best. It wasn't the worst. The problem with Kineticist was that it was confusing to a lot of people. I played PFS and had to inform someone he can't use his kinetic healing all day. It drains him of his con (essentially) through burn. A lot of people didn't understand the burn mechanic. It made complete sense to me, but not everyone is me. And people assumed it was OP when they more or less misunderstood a lot of the rules behind it.


Verzen wrote:
A lot of people didn't understand the burn mechanic.

i don't think it was a matter of not understanding it but not liking it. Myself, it was one of the worst mechanics in the game as I have no desire in punching myself in the face to power up. I look at it much like the PF2 oracles curse which is as equally awful to me: you'll never see me use a revelation spell EVER as I'm take an archetype like blessed one to use my focus on.


Kasoh wrote:
TheGentlemanDM wrote:
It's also worth noting that the playtest is DELIBERATELY underpowered.

Unless someone has a quote for that, its entirely speculation. It could be speculation based in experience or due to previous statements, but it is still speculation.

Also in the playtest forums, I've seen people attribute a lot of intent to the designers of which is also pure speculation. (Or maybe not, maybe these random people on the internet dm the designers on the reg and get responses. Who knows?)

We simply don't know and its of dubious worth to speculate. Testing with the material we have and providing feedback is the only real thing we can do.

*edit

Found this on the first page of the playtest document.

Secrets of Magic Playtest wrote:
These are early iterations of the new classes; some abilities might be a bit extreme or stretch some assumptions of the game, and the best way to find out if we’ve gone too far (or in the wrong direction)
I'm not sure I read that as deliberately under powered, but it satisfies my need for a caveat.

My thoughts exactly. It's possible that it's pushed to underpowered lengths, but it's never actually stated or even implied anywhere outside of what we feel should be "just right."

The quote is a bit arbitrary with the usage of the words "extreme," or "stretch some assumptions," as we don't know what those extremities or assumptions precisely are. We can guess based on our personal feedback and how they act upon it (if at all, before the final product). But as it stands, it could mean just about anything. Or, it could mean everything, depending on how much they are willing to change, which might be up to and including the whole schtick of the class(es). But that is quite unlikely given how previous PF2 playtests have gone.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

Well good news then, because the Magus already has a feat to teleport when it uses spell strike. The only issue is that it needs to spend a spell slot go use it, and it doesn't have many of those. But I feel the low number of slots is one of the most experimental parts of the playtest.

Most of the rest of what you're talking about would really just be feats or perhaps spells anyway. That doesn't have a ton of bearing on the class's core design. Actually, most of what y'all are asking for is already doable with existing spells.

So it basically sounds like you're advocating for dropping down to expert proficiency to gain more spell slots. Which seems viable, but leaves spell strike as the only thing that really distinguishs the class from other casters.

I'd rather see it have fewer spells (or, well, the four slots they get now seem fine, but fewer than a proper caster) and have class feats that let them do cool magical stuff without actually casting spells. Monsters often have magical abilities that aren't spells, there's no reason PCs can't. Heck, even other classes have supernatural abilities that aren't spells – things like the various Champion reactions, Smite Evil, most versions of Rage, and so on. You could do fun stuff with the action economy instead of resource management. Something like this, for example:

Lightning spear (2 actions) – Magus X
You unleash lightning from your weapon in a 30 foot line. Make a Strike against each target in the area. On a hit, you deal normal weapon damage, except all the damage is electrical. This counts as two attacks for your multiple attack penalty, but you don't increase the penalty until after the entire activity is resolved.

Or something like this:

Battle dance (3 actions) – Magus X
Stride, then Strike, then Stride, then Strike a second target, then Stride, then Strike a third target.

Or maybe:
Telekinetic Grasp (2 actions) – Magus X
You use telekinetic force to swiftly pull a target toward you. Target enemy within 30 ft must make a Fortitude save or be pulled into the nearest adjacent square.

These abilities all seem much more appealing to me than "cast a spell into my weapon, and then stab target to release spell."


Staffan Johansson wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

Well good news then, because the Magus already has a feat to teleport when it uses spell strike. The only issue is that it needs to spend a spell slot go use it, and it doesn't have many of those. But I feel the low number of slots is one of the most experimental parts of the playtest.

Most of the rest of what you're talking about would really just be feats or perhaps spells anyway. That doesn't have a ton of bearing on the class's core design. Actually, most of what y'all are asking for is already doable with existing spells.

So it basically sounds like you're advocating for dropping down to expert proficiency to gain more spell slots. Which seems viable, but leaves spell strike as the only thing that really distinguishs the class from other casters.

I'd rather see it have fewer spells (or, well, the four slots they get now seem fine, but fewer than a proper caster) and have class feats that let them do cool magical stuff without actually casting spells. Monsters often have magical abilities that aren't spells, there's no reason PCs can't. Heck, even other classes have supernatural abilities that aren't spells – things like the various Champion reactions, Smite Evil, most versions of Rage, and so on. You could do fun stuff with the action economy instead of resource management. Something like this, for example:

Lightning spear (2 actions) – Magus X
You unleash lightning from your weapon in a 30 foot line. Make a Strike against each target in the area. On a hit, you deal normal weapon damage, except all the damage is electrical. This counts as two attacks for your multiple attack penalty, but you don't increase the penalty until after the entire activity is resolved.

Or something like this:

Battle dance (3 actions) – Magus X
Stride, then Strike, then Stride, then Strike a second target, then Stride, then Strike a third target.

Or maybe:
Telekinetic Grasp (2 actions) – Magus X
You use telekinetic force to swiftly pull a target toward you. Target enemy...

Honestly I think I kind of agree with this. I'd still like to see Striking Spell fixed, but part of the problem in its current iteration is it doesn't have options. I think some more maneuvers with a magical spin on them would be pretty cool. Maybe not these exactly because they seem a touch overpowered, but this general thinking.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Verzen wrote:
A lot of people didn't understand the burn mechanic.
i don't think it was a matter of not understanding it but not liking it. Myself, it was one of the worst mechanics in the game as I have no desire in punching myself in the face to power up. I look at it much like the PF2 oracles curse which is as equally awful to me: you'll never see me use a revelation spell EVER as I'm take an archetype like blessed one to use my focus on.

I loved the burn mechanic, personally..

Also we are the exact opposite. I want to get to a greater curse ASAP as I view the benefits outweigh the cost.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, those are probably fairly high level, and might need a development pass for proper power level.

I could also see some feats branching off of the Energized Weapon I suggested in an earlier post. Something like:

Freezing Chill (1 action)
Requirement: Your last action was a successful Strike with a weapon energized with cold damage.
The target hit must roll a Fortitude save or be Slowed 1 for 1 round.

Ignite (1 action)
Requirement: Your last action was a successful Strike with a weapon energized with fire damage.
The target hit must roll a Reflex save or take Persistent fire damage equal to the number of fire damage dice added with energize weapon.

Shockwave (1 action)
Requirement: Your last action was a successful Strike with a weapon energized with sonic damage.
You push the target 5 ft.


Verzen wrote:
I want to get to a greater curse ASAP as I view the benefits outweigh the cost.

Hmmm... You clearly value things differently as I can't see any benefit coming close to the penalty.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Verzen wrote:
I want to get to a greater curse ASAP as I view the benefits outweigh the cost.
Hmmm... You clearly value things differently as I can't see any benefit coming close to the penalty.

Really?

+2 damage to weapon and unarmed damage rolls + fast healing = 1/2 your level during combat. That's pretty good. You just get -1 to AC and status penalty as a cost.

Or major curse...

Fast healing equal to level now and +6 damage bonus and +1 attack bonus to weapon rolls, but stupefied 2 as the cost.

Or tempest..

5 weakness to electricity but 5 resistance to fire and -2 to ranged against you. It also puts out persistent fire.

Then major gives the area around you to be rough terrain and an electricity damage shield.

Or flames.

You are effectively blind except your fire attacks dont get the concealment penalty. BUT You also get concealment and the major curse provides a 10 foot fire aura dealing 4d6 damage to anything caught in it.

I definitely think the penalties are worth the benefits and the benefits are thematically very cool. Oracle in PF2 is one of my favorite classes now.

51 to 100 of 415 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Secrets of Magic Playtest / General Discussion / Stop trying to reinvent the wheel with Magus and Summoner All Messageboards