Like someone said upthread these archetypes could provide ways to staple kineticist, psychic, occultist, ect. analogues into existing classes. It's a bit of a downer for people who wanted full classes, but the upside would be the door being wide open for more completely new classes down the road. I'm most curious if class archetypes will remove base class features on a case by case method or some standardized method regardless of class
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like it has to either be case-by-case or restricted to HIGHLY similar classes. Starfinder Archetypes showed that standardized archetypes are a bit of a spitshow.
Another option would be 5e-like more limited number of spells prepared. But that would probably need to be a pretty tight limit, lest the arcanists become more flexible than the spontaneous casters.
This seems the most likely to me, and I really don't mind it becoming more flexible than spontaneous casters (via all spells being "signature", for example), so long as spontaneous casters get something cool and useful of their own. (The issue in 5E was that Bards were versatile and strong like in PF2, able to steal spells from other lists, but Sorcerers mostly only had Twinned Spell, cantrip-centric Quickened Spell, and Silent Spell to make up for having the weaker casting style and the lowest spells known of any caster in the game.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe they'll change it in the book though, we'll have to see.In the CRB (or was it in the Game Master guide?) there is an entry about future class archetype, they'll change class features at the cost of locking out your level 2 class feat.Lemme see...
"It may be possible to take a class archetype at 1st level if it alters or replaces some of the class’s initial class features. In that case, you must take that archetype’s dedication feat at 2nd level, and after that you proceed normally. You can never have more than one class archetype."
Page 219. Looks like ya got me there.
The archetype itself could give you a class feat or class feat equivalent choice at 2nd level, making it more of a technicality.
I say that because it's the exact kind of thing they would have done in PF1 if they had accidentally painted themselves into a rule corner.
Not yo mention how every archetype currently works. You get access to the archetypes feats, and also the dedication itself gives a benefit equivalent to a feat. Including sometimes just giving you a feat.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like it has to either be case-by-case or restricted to HIGHLY similar classes. Starfinder Archetypes showed that standardized archetypes are a bit of a spitshow.
I think the Starfinder archetypes showed the danger of trading very different chunks of the class budget out via a standardized archetype making it very hard to design general archetypes at an appropriate power level - a Soldier traded a much smaller chunk of their power than most other classes. That'll still be somewhat true in PF2 - a class feat isn't equal value to everyone, with most of the casters having less powerful feats by most views I've seen, but it's way closer than Starfinder.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Three action scorching ray.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Three action scorching ray.
I just started spontaneously salivating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer a friend eidolon !
I knew barney was an eidolon I knew it!
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt that an archetype is intended to replace the kineticist, and probably not the occultist either.
My reading of elementalism as a concept is that it's probably designed to offer character options that offer support for strictly using one element by overcoming the drawbacks of that playstyle-- helping to pierce immunities and resistances, offering bonuses for that degree of specialization, and so forth.
I could be wrong about that, but I'm guessing they know 'not a spellcaster' is a big part of the appeal of the kineticist, and that people want to see more dedicated occult classes in the game eventually.
The only way to make kineticist an archetype, based off everything I've heard, would be if the archetype was intended for martials and piggybacked off their proficiency, but replaces weapon strikes with elemental blasting stances and focus powers, which I guess is technically something Monk already has in their wild winds stance... actually I guess it would be a reasonable Class Archetype for them, given how everything I've seen with the kineticist makes them seem a lot like Monks (ditto for the ATLA bender comparisons).
The other thing reading this thread is making me realize, is that a handful of posters have gotten it into their heads that PF2e is so fundamentally broken, that every new book needs to be the book that corrects the problems, but since the game isn't actually broken, they're never going to get it (short of deep errata, as was mentioned in the product thread.) Would a 5% increase really have 'fixed' anything?
I'm sure there will be some stuff in the book to make various magical playstyles comfier to play, especially as a specialty, but its probably less of a direct change. Even right now, the 'strong' playstyle for single target spell attacks costs resources and tacks an extra action on for the strength increase, I'd expect to see variations on that theme-- I think my proposed meta magic that lets them roll twice and take higher at the cost of the third action and not being able to apply other meta magic would be pretty fitting, since it would be within the bounds of the current system's math (you can already do it with True Strike, this would just free your lower level slots back up) and it would help against higher level targets which is where the current balance 'feels' worst.
My guess is that spell attacks are currently balanced around high damage rolls and AC being easy to debuff (flatfooted is very plentiful, and stacks with fear) as well as benefiting from True Strike, Hero Points, and etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm currently trying to play an ice/water sorcerer, so those kind of options will be pretty welcomed ! (if my dm allows those rules)
I will put my predictions here.
- Elementalist: Basically instead of using a tradition to pick your spells you use the Elemental traits, like Fire, Water and so on and with the benefits of Dangerous Sorcery
- Around the same stuff for the emotion stuff but instead it goes after the emotion and mental trait.
- The flexible caster might be the 2 prepared spells per spell level but with a single signature spell (total, not per spell level like spontaneous) that you can select when you prepare the spell, might have feats that gives you more.
I would expect the elemental rule to give you a list of spells that change element to fit the one you chose. Like the elemental bloodline for sorcerer.
Frostball, Lightningball etc to replace Fireball...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would expect the elemental rule to give you a list of spells that change element to fit the one you chose. Like the elemental bloodline for sorcerer.
Frostball, Lightningball etc to replace Fireball...
Lets hope it's MORE exciting than the Elemental bloodlines "The damage is bludgeoning or fire, according to your elemental type". If all my cool lightning and cold spells deal bludgeoning, I'm out. :P
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lets hope it's MORE exciting than the Elemental bloodlines "The damage is bludgeoning or fire, according to your elemental type". If all my cool lightning and cold spells deal bludgeoning, I'm out. :PI would expect the elemental rule to give you a list of spells that change element to fit the one you chose. Like the elemental bloodline for sorcerer.
Frostball, Lightningball etc to replace Fireball...
Honestly, that was a real misstep, I let a sorcerer in my games use it with cold instead and it was perfectly fine. The damage types should have been varied-- heck, air could have been slashing, earth bludgeoning, and water piercing, at least, and we should have had more elements too, like cold, lightning, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lets hope it's MORE exciting than the Elemental bloodlines "The damage is bludgeoning or fire, according to your elemental type". If all my cool lightning and cold spells deal bludgeoning, I'm out. :PI would expect the elemental rule to give you a list of spells that change element to fit the one you chose. Like the elemental bloodline for sorcerer.
Frostball, Lightningball etc to replace Fireball...
Ahah yeah. Tbh elemental should have been: Water is piercing or bludgeoning (water spikes), earth bludgeoning or non-lethal, wind bludgeoning or slashing (wind blades).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing reading this thread is making me realize, is that a handful of posters have gotten it into their heads that PF2e is so fundamentally broken, that every new book needs to be the book that corrects the problems, but since the game isn't actually broken, they're never going to get it (short of deep errata, as was mentioned in the product thread.) Would a 5% increase really have 'fixed' anything?I'm sure there will be some stuff in the book to make various magical playstyles comfier to play, especially as a specialty, but its probably less of a direct change. Even right now, the 'strong' playstyle for single target spell attacks costs resources and tacks an extra action on for the strength increase, I'd expect to see variations on that theme-- I think my proposed meta magic that lets them roll twice and take higher at the cost of the third action and not...
I dont think anyone in this thread has said that the system is broken without this book giving us item bonuses to spell attacks. But i really dont see how giving spellcasters item bonuses is some massive faux pas that the designers are so set against.
Considering every other attack, saving throw or skill check in the game has access to item bonuses. It just makes it mindboggling to me that the mechanic that has a limited amount of resources a day has a weaker chance to hit than the unlimited resources of martials.
Lots of other things have a dynamic where more damage is contrasted with a higher chance to hit, and casters overall have a much easier time targeting different defenses and weaknesses.
As I mentioned there most likely is a real balance to it.
|
|
Not to mention the fact that if they added a new class of Equipment that did add an Item Bonus to Spell Attack Checks/Rolls it would either need to be next to free so that all Spellcasters can access it fairly or otherwise, every Spellcaster will end up having to eat a sizable chunk of the extra Coin they usually spend on OTHER Magic Items like Scrolls, New Spells added to their List, Consumables etc.
It could easily be the difference between having your Wizard who has 20 non-cantrip available Spells in their Spellbook and zero consumables but with a +1 to hit with a half-dozen of those spells when wielding the Wand or whatever it will be and that of the Wizard with 50 available Spells in their Spellbook and a bag of holding full of backup scrolls and potions who does not have that bonus.
The other thing reading this thread is making me realize, is that a handful of posters have gotten it into their heads that PF2e is so fundamentally broken, that every new book needs to be the book that corrects the problems, but since the game isn't actually broken, they're never going to get it (short of deep errata, as was mentioned in the product thread.) Would a 5% increase really have 'fixed' anything?I'm sure there will be some stuff in the book to make various magical playstyles comfier to play, especially as a specialty, but its probably less of a direct change. Even right now, the 'strong' playstyle for single target spell attacks costs resources and tacks an extra action on for the strength increase, I'd expect to see variations on that theme-- I think my proposed meta magic that lets them roll twice and take higher at the cost of the third action and not...
I dont think anyone in this thread has said that the system is broken without this book giving us item bonuses to spell attacks. But i really dont see how giving spellcasters item bonuses is some massive faux pas that the designers are so set against.
Considering every other attack, saving throw or skill check in the game has access to item bonuses. It just makes it mindboggling to me that the mechanic that has a limited amount of resources a day has a weaker chance to hit than the unlimited resources of martials.
Lots of other things have a dynamic where more damage is contrasted with a higher chance to hit, and casters overall have a much easier time targeting different defenses and weaknesses.
As I mentioned there most likely is a real balance to it.
From my own experience, when we faced a clay golem, my sorcerer was the only one able to deal actual damage to the thing. Without him, they would have wiped.
Because I could deal cold and water damage (bludgeoning but water trait) it triggered its weaknesses and dealt massive damage to it. So even with save spells it was super effective.
I definitely don't think any new casting options are meant to replace old classes, just a bit of a bigger bandaid for missing classes. I think one of the main reasons people aren't making the jump to 2e (just from what I've read from forums and posts) is that their classes aren't made yet, maybe this is meant to help with that a little. Just until the actual classes come out. I don't think anything but an actual kineticist by paizo is going to scratch my itch for that class, but my earth elemental sorcerer is pretty cool in his own way, and bring able to use pure elemental magic could be really cool.
I wonder, about elemental casting specifically, if it's using the magic of whatever's around you, instead of creating a certain element? Or is that what geomancy is?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
From my experience in campaigns that use houseruled spell attack items as well as campaigns without it, spell attack item bonuses don't make non-cantrip attack spells worth it anyways. Saving throw spells will always be more consistent, and when you're working with a limited resource consistency is what you want.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
From my experience in campaigns that use houseruled spell attack items as well as campaigns without it, spell attack item bonuses don't make non-cantrip attack spells worth it anyways. Saving throw spells will always be more consistent, and when you're working with a limited resource consistency is what you want.
.
And for those that do want more spell attacks it sounds like anybody is gonna be able to make a true strike staff now. I'm in the acceptance stage now for no accuracy boost for casters. I'm just hoping that the class archetypes are mechanically interesting
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of other things have a dynamic where more damage is contrasted with a higher chance to hit, and casters overall have a much easier time targeting different defenses and weaknesses.As I mentioned there most likely is a real balance to it.
Surely the fact that the spells are limited and usually cost 2 actions to cast once is more than enough of a balance for targeting enemy weaknesses?
We're also talking about attack spells that do nothing on a miss. A spellcaster using limited resources, 2 action cost, no effect on a miss and and no item bonus doesn't sound like a fair trade for hitting a weakness. Why risk a spell attack roll when save spells will do the job for me with a better chance to hit?
But im tired of going round and round on this issue. ive fixed it with homebrew and would much rather talk about the things that are actually in this cool book!
Sometimes two action is a benefit, if the damage scales according to action cost-- if the spell attack does enough damage in a single MAPless roll, it could be superior to having to swing again in a -5 scenario.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
From my experience in campaigns that use houseruled spell attack items as well as campaigns without it, spell attack item bonuses don't make non-cantrip attack spells worth it anyways. Saving throw spells will always be more consistent, and when you're working with a limited resource consistency is what you want.
Yeah, spell attack spells are usually more of a higher risk/higher reward balance, and a lot of people prefer lowering the risk on consumable resources.
|
Yes elementalist would not (or at least shouldn't) be Kineticist. I still don't get why people are trying to shoe horn Kineticist into any elemental stuff. Also related, Monk and Witch used to have a kineticist archetype. Monk replaced many abilities for utility talents and kinetic blast. Witch replaced hexes and familiar for kinetic blast and infusions.
I really do hope that Paizo doesn't just port Kineticist as an archetype. I feel like most kineticist fans would not like it either.
Yeah, I would prefer these class archetypes to not be the final answers to PF1 classes either, unless the original class concept can easily be covered by an archetype like Vigilante. That being said, I am totally happy if Paizo wants to give us lighter versions of PF1 classes in the form of archetypes to hold us over and help start filling out those concepts more until the full PF2 class versions can be released.
From my experience in campaigns that use houseruled spell attack items as well as campaigns without it, spell attack item bonuses don't make non-cantrip attack spells worth it anyways. Saving throw spells will always be more consistent, and when you're working with a limited resource consistency is what you want.Yeah, spell attack spells are usually more of a higher risk/higher reward balance, and a lot of people prefer lowering the risk on consumable resources.
There isn't that many attack spells either too, Magus will likely be the best caster for those. And they take risks for that.
There might not be spell attack bonus items but this could be fixed easily with meta-magic feats. A metamagic feat that gave you +1 or 2 to hit on spell attacks would fix a lot of the problem without having to create items and or replace/stack with true strike.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
There might not be spell attack bonus items but this could be fixed easily with meta-magic feats. A metamagic feat that gave you +1 or 2 to hit on spell attacks would fix a lot of the problem without having to create items and or replace/stack with true strike.
Anything that would change the fundamental math at this point would need to be done via deep errata, 'cause to do it via feats or items would introduce the type of power creep and "mandotory choices/trap choices" they're trying to avoid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flat +1's I hope don't happen, unless they are at an action cost or some other trade off. I also hope that we get a bunch more metamagics for a variety of situations, even if they're just for cantrips (like targeting a line or a burst, dealing persistent damage, comboing with a athletic skill check, just fun stuff).
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
There might not be spell attack bonus items but this could be fixed easily with meta-magic feats. A metamagic feat that gave you +1 or 2 to hit on spell attacks would fix a lot of the problem without having to create items and or replace/stack with true strike.
Spending an extra action to get a +2 to hit is in-line with some options martials get, after all.
I don't see why "take time to aim" is a thing you can only do with (cross)bows and firerarms and not like "magic".
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anything that would change the fundamental math at this point would need to be done via deep errata, 'cause to do it via feats or items would introduce the type of power creep and "mandotory choices/trap choices" they're trying to avoid.
Then they failed horribly right out of the gate: runes on weapons and armor are a thing after all.
And for those that do want more spell attacks it sounds like anybody is gonna be able to make a true strike staff now. I'm in the acceptance stage now for no accuracy boost for casters. I'm just hoping that the class archetypes are mechanically interesting
True Strike is why we can't have nice things... :P
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anything that would change the fundamental math at this point would need to be done via deep errata, 'cause to do it via feats or items would introduce the type of power creep and "mandotory choices/trap choices" they're trying to avoid.Then they failed horribly right out of the gate: runes on weapons and armor are a thing after all.
And for those that do want more spell attacks it sounds like anybody is gonna be able to make a true strike staff now. I'm in the acceptance stage now for no accuracy boost for casters. I'm just hoping that the class archetypes are mechanically interestingTrue Strike is why we can't have nice things... :P
Completely agree. I can see why, and am fully on board with not getting items that increase save DCs. That said, since they have spells with the Attack trait and that need to hit vs. AC to do anything, they should give them the opportunity to improve the same way weapon runes let martials improve.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The math has been cracked on the idea of Spell Attack runes for a good while now, and they would work just fine.
I wouldn’t want to see anything more than a +1/+2 to spell DC’s within very specific capacities. I.e a Spell Focus style feat, but literally per spell and not type of spell.
Do we have any more information on the release date? I’ve read some conflicting info.
Pretty sure Mark confirmed there's no game math changes in this book at the top of page 2.
I figured he was talking about items otherwise any spell attack fixes that may be available for Magus, Summoner or Archetypes in the terms of feats are also ruled out.
A +2 to hit at the cost of a feat and an action is reasonable and hardly power creep and won't stake with Truestrike until level 20 if you have the right level 20 feat and at that point who cares.
Looks like I will continue having to homebrew so I don't keep getting people rerolling away from casters (particularly wizards) since the vaunted utility rarely makes a difference and getting minimal effect for limited resources while coupled with the worse survivability in the game isn't fun for a lot of people.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anything that would change the fundamental math at this point would need to be done via deep errata, 'cause to do it via feats or items would introduce the type of power creep and "mandotory choices/trap choices" they're trying to avoid.Then they failed horribly right out of the gate: runes on weapons and armor are a thing after all.
Fundamental armor/weapon runes are in the CRB, and were decided based on player feedback in the playtest. It's not like they were invented in the APG or a later supplement to fix broken math for them later on. THAT'S what they're trying to avoid.
Like, c'mon.
The math has been cracked on the idea of Spell Attack runes for a good while now, and they would work just fine.
It's not a matter of including them in themselves that's the problem. It's including them in a later supplement rather than the CRB is the problem. Even if the math was cracked, setting the precedent that the fundamental math of the game can be changed in a later book is something they are just not interested in doing at this current time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fundamental armor/weapon runes are in the CRB, and were decided based on player feedback in the playtest. It's not like they were invented in the APG or a later supplement to fix broken math for them later on. THAT'S what they're trying to avoid.
Like, c'mon.
When and where doesn't matter if your position is that they where trying to avoid "mandatory choices/trap choices": as you have said, they in fact purposely added them in so it can't be both. I mean, come on. ;)
If they get enough feedback like they did for runes, doesn't it seem impossible that the same decision could happen. I don't see why the book it's in matters.
It's not a matter of including them in themselves that's the problem. It's including them in a later supplement rather than the CRB is the problem. Even if the math was cracked, setting the precedent that the fundamental math of the game can be changed in a later book is something they are just not interested in doing at this current time.
Myself, I don't see the issue. Now, they might not be interested in doing so, but I don't think either of us are qualified to say so one way or the other.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sort of feel like this is the wrong thread to keep going on this topic, since we already have an answer, but... I think that reaction is a bit hyperbolic. A feat or item that provides a minor and potentially conditional bonus to a small handful of niche spells isn't really fundamentally breaking the game's math as suggested, nor is it particularly unprecedented to have options like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious about what spellhearts actually do. Like a fire spellheart gives a fire spell, adds one dice of damage to fire spells, and gives 5 fire resist? Idk I'm spitballing here. Really interested to see what the heck they are
Maybe it'll depend on the item and other factors. I could see it be a choice depending on the item, like an armor could give you a resistance, or a reaction on getting hit once per day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious about what spellhearts actually do. Like a fire spellheart gives a fire spell, adds one dice of damage to fire spells, and gives 5 fire resist? Idk I'm spitballing here. Really interested to see what the heck they areThis is what I'm expecting. Not outright +1 item bonuses to spells, but something that improves a small subset that you want to focus on. Sort of like property runes maybe, but for your magic.
Come to think of it, it's kinda funny how they introduced Talismans as consumable option for martial, but in didn't add anything for casters in turn that's equivalent to property runes.
So yeah, those spellhart-thingies might be meant to close that gap.