Secrets of Magic on Game Trade Mag #255


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

201 to 245 of 245 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nick1wasd wrote:
Do we know if Clerics are finally getting a 3rd subclass? Because just the existing 2 is sorta sad and derpy when all other spell casters have at least twice that amount. I'm also quite excited to be vain and set my PFP to the new Seltyiel art, because the rough sketch is really good!

Don’t forget about deity though. Adding spells to your divine list, plus a skill proficiency, and a weapon skill is a decent amount, and is probably counted as about half a class path (with doctrine being the other half).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I would assume the 3rd cleric class path will happen when they have a good idea what it would be. Doing class paths for the sake of numbers is silly, and one of the issues with the cleric is that the warpriest and cloistered clerics are somewhat antipodal within "cleric."

Wayfinders

3 people marked this as a favorite.

A nonzero amount of people are clamoring for the inquisitor to come back as a doctrine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dont think inquisitor should be a cleric doctrine. I think it will probably use the Magus chassis for martial and spellcasting or be a class archetype for the investigator. either way its judgement/banes will be focus spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Given that we have a caster doctrine and a martial doctrine I guess the obvious third option would be a "skills" doctrine. I guess you could call that the Inquisitor, but that only really makes sense in connection to PF1; Evangelist might make more sense, perhaps.


My mind boggles what that would look like though. Since warpriests are on the support chassis, I’m not sure what proficiencies/features they’d switch out.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It would be kind of cool to get both options. Maybe unrealistic, but it would give people options, and I feel like class archetypes probably won't take much page space for what they offer.

Something like flexible casting on a wizard let's someone be similar to 1e arcanist (from what I've read, I'm not super familiar with arcanist), but I'm sure we'll get an actual arcanist eventually. A class archetype Inquisitor and an actual Inquisitor class could give players different ways of playing one, with small differences (maybe one would have better casting, the other more martial? Idk).


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gaulin wrote:

It would be kind of cool to get both options. Maybe unrealistic, but it would give people options, and I feel like class archetypes probably won't take much page space for what they offer.

Something like flexible casting on a wizard let's someone be similar to 1e arcanist (from what I've read, I'm not super familiar with arcanist), but I'm sure we'll get an actual arcanist eventually. A class archetype Inquisitor and an actual Inquisitor class could give players different ways of playing one, with small differences (maybe one would have better casting, the other more martial? Idk).

I doubt we'll get an Arcanist class, flexible preperation was pretty much the whole point.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Gaulin wrote:

It would be kind of cool to get both options. Maybe unrealistic, but it would give people options, and I feel like class archetypes probably won't take much page space for what they offer.

Something like flexible casting on a wizard let's someone be similar to 1e arcanist (from what I've read, I'm not super familiar with arcanist), but I'm sure we'll get an actual arcanist eventually. A class archetype Inquisitor and an actual Inquisitor class could give players different ways of playing one, with small differences (maybe one would have better casting, the other more martial? Idk).

I doubt we'll get an Arcanist class, flexible preparation was pretty much the whole point.

That's pretty much it. The only other thing they had going for them was spell exploits and burning spell slots to fuel spell exploits.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

And exploits are another talent mechanic which is what eventually evolved into class feats.

TBH I'm surprised we haven't seen more Arcanist Exploits end up as wizard or sorcerer feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe we will in SoM.


Nah Arcanist is more than the preparation. Most of its exploits were very unique and would be enough to make a class of their own. Just need to add some other feats to round out the levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A new cleric doctrine would certainly be neat, but I'm clamoring for some Druid orders. Desert, Fire, and Death druids are my cup of tea.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Add me down for team-make exploits into feats for wizards and sorcerers and witches. I don't think we need a new silo for the feats they'd become, and those classes often have people least excited by their feats.

A lot more feats for the 6HP spellcasting classes would make a lot of people enjoy them more I suspect.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Full agreement, especially if they lean into wizard feats as much as possible.

As I said elsewhere, wizards picked up the magical researcher flavor from arcanists. Let’s see it in action.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have a feeling that SoM will do a lot of those things. Exploits as feats could use the focus mechanic to give casters something extra or just make them work off cantrips as in "burn a cantrip to do this."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah I hope they do become Wizard class feats, or i guess maybe some of them could be specific to the flexible preparation archetype(s)


I wonder if additional class feats are a thing in SoM. It might just be class archetypes in the book.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
WWHsmackdown wrote:
I wonder if additional class feats are a thing in SoM. It might just be class archetypes in the book.

Yeah, it doesn't say that any are included, but it could have some, we might find out later this month during Paizocon.

Edit: Other than the class archetype feats, and the feats for the new classes, and their multiclassing dedications, obviously.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Nah Arcanist is more than the preparation. Most of its exploits were very unique and would be enough to make a class of their own. Just need to add some other feats to round out the levels.

LMAO - What are you talking about T? The Arcanist was literally the "give this one spellcaster access to nearly every feature that other spellcasters have" class. Sure they had to invest in one to five archetypes and choose the options they wanted with their Exploits but they poached nearly 80% of its features directly from every other spellcaster class that came before it. The Arcanist was, in my mind, the point where Paizo decided to just give up and jump the shark in terms of balance and class niche protection. The last thing I would call ANY of it's Exploits is unique, in many cases they were just copy/paste versions of Druid/Sorcerer/Magus/Kineticist/Cleric/Witch/Summoner abilities packaged as an Exploit.

If the Arcanist comes back to PF2 it will look NOTHING like it did in 1st edition because it has no self-enclosed identity, much like a pile of lego bricks you can do really cool stuff with it but you did so by grabbing handfuls of bricks from every other playset you own.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Arcanist to me is the "figuring out how to break the rules of magic" class. I think you can preserve that in ways that aren't "a specific way of casting". Like there's a reason arcanist class feats in PF1 were called exploits.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah but I also think a lot of that can be subsumed into the Wizard or Sorcerer conceptually and mechanically.

The arcanist was interesting because the core Wizard was pretty feature barren, but in PF2 casters are pretty standardized and the thing that made the PF1 arcanist stand out is just something everyone gets now.

Themetricsystem wrote:
The last thing I would call ANY of it's Exploits is unique, in many cases they were just copy/paste versions of Druid/Sorcerer/Magus/Kineticist/Cleric/Witch/Summoner abilities packaged as an Exploit.

Yeah, real shame the Arcanist so blatantly ripped off the kineticist class that came out a year later.


Wait what? Are you seriously going to tell me Arcanist exploits were just copying when nearly every single one was unique to arcanist?

Arcanist counterspell exploits? Unique.
Arcanist primal/wild magic manipulation exploits? Unique.
Arcanist flexible metamagic exploits? Unique.
Arcanist flexible polymorph exploits? Unique.
Arcanist outer rift exploits? Unique.
Arcanist spell drain/copy exploits? Unique.
Arcanist quick study, spell thinker, etc? Unique.
Arcanist magic item consumption exploits? Unique.
Etc.

The only things that were "copies" were the basic blast exploit (cause basic) and the School/Bloodline understanding.

But I will agree Squiggit, everyone having access to things that are closer to Arcanist exploits makes the Arcanist stand out less. But there is still a lot that the Arcanist can bring in.


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

I *HATED* that the Arcanist tried to be the cool guy wizard who doesn't play by the rules like a loser, like all the scrub regular wizards have to.

If there is a way to break the rules of magic, it's going to be a freaking Wizard who does that. PC wizards 100% aren't the "by the book" archetype. More often than not they're the "pursue knowledge and power at any cost" archetype. No chance they'll ignore loopholes if they find them.


That is what arcane discovery was thou?

Arcanist exploits were based on the fact they had trace of a Sorcerer's bloodline; That is why they used Cha to power their pool. Not so much on their knowledge, which affected their spellcasting. Although Magaambyan Arcanist was based on study.

* For people who don't know: Magaambyan Initiate Arcanist (and the linked PRC) is the origin of the Magaambian Attendant and Speaker archetypes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

From an epistemological perspective, wizards are constructivists and arcanists are pragmatists.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Wait what? Are you seriously going to tell me Arcanist exploits were just copying when nearly every single one was unique to arcanist?

Arcanist counterspell exploits? Unique.
Arcanist primal/wild magic manipulation exploits? Unique.
Arcanist flexible metamagic exploits? Unique.
Arcanist flexible polymorph exploits? Unique.
Arcanist outer rift exploits? Unique.
Arcanist spell drain/copy exploits? Unique.
Arcanist quick study, spell thinker, etc? Unique.
Arcanist magic item consumption exploits? Unique.
Etc.

The only things that were "copies" were the basic blast exploit (cause basic) and the School/Bloodline understanding.

But I will agree Squiggit, everyone having access to things that are closer to Arcanist exploits makes the Arcanist stand out less. But there is still a lot that the Arcanist can bring in.

A whole lot of the stuff you've just listed has already been absorbed into the wizard chassis in PF2, or else are rules that don't yet exist in PF2 or else are stuff that all classes can do.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Man I feel like this is the first time in a while so many people are agreed that a class doesn't need to be made. But still, arcanist could be revamped in a way similar to swashbuckler and investigator were. It doesn't have to be a carbon copy of the original.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Anything could happen, but if the flavor and many of its notable exploits are absorbed by the wizard, and it's other key mechanic is just something any prepared class can do, what is left to hang on it?

Even the name is kind of awkward, given the update to traditions instead of class spell lists.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Gaulin wrote:
Man I feel like this is the first time in a while so many people are agreed that a class doesn't need to be made. But still, arcanist could be revamped in a way similar to swashbuckler and investigator were. It doesn't have to be a carbon copy of the original.

Ironically, I feel like Swashbuckler and Investigator (Gunslinger too) were also classes that I saw a lot of people agree would never show up again.


Squiggit wrote:
Gaulin wrote:
Man I feel like this is the first time in a while so many people are agreed that a class doesn't need to be made. But still, arcanist could be revamped in a way similar to swashbuckler and investigator were. It doesn't have to be a carbon copy of the original.
Ironically, I feel like Swashbuckler and Investigator (Gunslinger too) were also classes that I saw a lot of people agree would never show up again.

I remember people saying that about swashy and slinger, but not so much the investigator, which was odd, because of those three I was betting investigator would have been folded into a rogue racket while the other two might have been made.

I guess I was still right in a way. We did get Mastermind.


Yeah people always says that something shouldn't be a class cause another class exist. But its all a matter of what Paizo can make.

And I 100% believe that Paizo can make Arcanist work. Specially because what people say has been taken by the Wizard is at best inspired by Arcanist. Which Paizo has shown multiple times that classes can 100% share some feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

I *HATED* that the Arcanist tried to be the cool guy wizard who doesn't play by the rules like a loser, like all the scrub regular wizards have to.

If there is a way to break the rules of magic, it's going to be a freaking Wizard who does that. PC wizards 100% aren't the "by the book" archetype. More often than not they're the "pursue knowledge and power at any cost" archetype. No chance they'll ignore loopholes if they find them.

That's just it though, Wizards are the casters *are* the rule users. They have no innate, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants capability for magical talent (i.e. no spontaneous capabilities). Instead, they are trying to *find* the rules and work within them to the greatest extent possible.

Meanwhile, Sorcerers and their ilk run purely on innate capability, but are fully *bound* by that capability. If they can't do it naturally, through the power coursing through their veins, then they can't do it at all, no matter how many textbooks the point-hatted-ones yell and scream about. Sure, you can Levitate without having ever studied it, but you've got no idea how to summon a Fireball even though the power management basics are all fundamentally identical according to the books.

So, in comes the Arcanist, who took their innate capabilities and studied the textbooks and managed to use their spontaneous power as a fuel, directing it into the spells of their choosing through a little preparation, just like they learned at school.

*shrug* The fluff works for me...


One of my Arcanists was like that. He was the third of his name. The first was a wizard who studied magic all out. The second a sorcerer born with magic from his fathers study. The third being the arcanist, who wanted to expand where his father was content. Break the rules, enhance his power, see what's out there for magic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think they absolutely could make it work. I'm not sure if they should. So far, all the classes have some pretty strong thematic places, drawing from culture and media. You can draw easy, distinct comparisons pretty easily to existing characters.

That is where I see "arcanist as class" faultering. It still broadly overlaps with the Wizard and doesn't draw a distinct enough identity.


But arcanist is also one of the unique pathfinder classes. The thematic is easy to flesh out with more lore. The mechanical overlap is just because of the original nature of Arcanist as a hybrid. Swashbuckler was a hybrid of Fighter, but look Swashbuckler now is hardly similar to fighters. Why would Arcanist continue to overlap when they can expand the concept?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Yeah people always says that something shouldn't be a class cause another class exist. But its all a matter of what Paizo can make.

And I 100% believe that Paizo can make Arcanist work. Specially because what people say has been taken by the Wizard is at best inspired by Arcanist. Which Paizo has shown multiple times that classes can 100% share some feats.

I think they could create a good class with the Arcanist flavor, but I don't think it would end up looking much like the PF1 Arcanist mechanically for reasons that other people have already said.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah not expecting much on keeping the mechanics. The exact mechanics for Arcanist were very PF1. But I can see them adding consume spell and consume magic item to get back focus points in combat. Then most of the exploits just work more or less as PF2 feats.


Fair point.

Seems like those could be class feats, but I could also see a class be based around that dynamic.

I think I’d prefer some kind of scroll eater semi mystical flavor than the PF1 arcanist flavor. That seems a lot more interesting to me, and interacts with magic item rules in interesting ways.

Horizon Hunters

Will the wizards and other spellcasters who want to focus on summoning creatures gain some attention in this book?

When it comes to utility, the creatures summoned are very good at doing this job, but during combat the story changes. Even by the math of the game itself, a creature with 5 levels below the group is very weak. Imagine spending a level 10 slot to summon a creature 5 levels below the group.

I think of an archetype similar to the beastmaster. That would be cool.

Did the developers talk about anything about that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
I think I’d prefer some kind of scroll eater semi mystical flavor than the PF1 arcanist flavor. That seems a lot more interesting to me, and interacts with magic item rules in interesting ways.

You mean like the Time Eater Occultist?

I can honestly see Arcanist being the general case and then a Tome/Scroll/Aeon Stone Eater archetype showing up.

Ioun Stone Kineticist was very weird after all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Romão98 wrote:

Will the wizards and other spellcasters who want to focus on summoning creatures gain some attention in this book?

When it comes to utility, the creatures summoned are very good at doing this job, but during combat the story changes. Even by the math of the game itself, a creature with 5 levels below the group is very weak. Imagine spending a level 10 slot to summon a creature 5 levels below the group.

I think of an archetype similar to the beastmaster. That would be cool.

Did the developers talk about anything about that?

My hope is that the Summoner archetype's eidolon is balanced to be around the power of an animal companion. Making the archetype all about eidolon-as-a-minion would be a pretty straightforward way to satisfy that fantasy of a wizard with a demon companion while keeping the summoner itself as a class where most of the power budget is in the eidolon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it'd be neat to have Summon Spells that work similar to Form Spells, so there's no worry about fringe creatures throwing off the math (et al). Then we might see some decent, albeit generic, combat drones, maybe with different skins.
They could even be eidolons (or similar) w/ a set of options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Castilliano wrote:

I think it'd be neat to have Summon Spells that work similar to Form Spells, so there's no worry about fringe creatures throwing off the math (et al). Then we might see some decent, albeit generic, combat drones, maybe with different skins.

They could even be eidolons (or similar) w/ a set of options.

Agree 100%. I would say the reverse would also be cool, but I think it's a little late for that (form spells being able to turn into specific bestiary forms)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Castilliano wrote:

I think it'd be neat to have Summon Spells that work similar to Form Spells, so there's no worry about fringe creatures throwing off the math (et al). Then we might see some decent, albeit generic, combat drones, maybe with different skins.

They could even be eidolons (or similar) w/ a set of options.

So kind of like what they did in Starfinder with their summon spells?

201 to 245 of 245 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Secrets of Magic on Game Trade Mag #255 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.