I never played with any of the 1e Occult classes, but this one has really caught my eye for how flavorful and weird it is. Do you think it could function within a 2e framework? I’m desperate for a spooky weirdo with fun toys to play as!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably an Occult prepared caster, with its name changed to prevent some strange confusions, I think.
Alternate names like the "Antiquarian" were proposed IIRC.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My preference for the Occultist would be to be "the focus caster nonpareil". Like take the "martial with focus spells" base chassis, and spend the entire class budget on being better at focus spells than anybody else.
I feel like if you can let the Occultist have a wider array of focus spells, and being able to cast them more efficiently than 1 focus/spell via implements and you can really recreate a lot of the feel of the PF1 class. Barring the silksworn, the 1e Occultist knew very few spells so I don't think they need spell slots.
I'm sure I heard somewhere that they were now focusing on coming up with new classes for 2e instead of converting 1e classes. Could be wrong though.
I wonder if it could go the way of the cavalier and comeback as an archetype?
|
After seeing what they are doing with Magus/Summoner casting, I would also expect them to be "wave casters" using the occult spell list for their spell slots. Then as many have suggested in previous threads, they could use a wide range of and have a larger resource pool for focus spells that have a more broad arcane feel for their focus powers. They could also give the benefit of scaling resonant powers based on how exhausted your focus spells are. As much as I don't see much mechanical similarity between 1e Occultist focus powers and 2e focus powers, people do seem to be stuck on correlating the term and the class together and it would be an interesting direction to go. Curious if Paizo would stick with the limited schools of magic like the original Occultist. It seems like something people don't often mention about the class but it seemed to be a significant feature that both limited the class but also made it even more fun to build around.
Not sure if Paizo has said they are done with converting classes altogether but I'm also pretty confident I've heard/read them say they will be focusing on new classes. Maybe more of a 50/50 if not leaning toward new classes.
Check this thread out if you'd like more ideas people have thrown around.
Personally, I'd prefer the Occultist to be converted into a orepared full caster with and array of focus spells for summoning, protecting, and binding extraplanear creatures. My favorite times using the occultist was employing their weird psychic powers (I used the object reading exploit every session; the DM loved it as a way to drop hints, and the party though it was super cool).
I think some easy focus abilities would be a focus spell that works like protection and heightens to circle of protection, one that makes a barrier thats impassable to a designated creature type, and one that works similar to the eldritch reseachers summon entity ability, but have it focused on answering questions or performing non combat favors, or maybe work like consult the spirits, but more repeatable.
I think as far as integrating item baaed abilities, they can be given class feats that give an object familiar or arcane bond type ability and maybe some stuff that let them enhance the DCs of magic items to their own class DC if better than the item's. Additionally, making the focus spells require focus components helps maintain the importance of casting implements in the flavor of the class.
|
No thanks, I hated the flavor, the crunch, and the cheese of the class in 1e and have no interest in seeing it return just like the Arcanist.
People are allowed to like or dislike what they please so no digs on anyone who likes the 1e Occultist in the least, I just wanted to get my opinion out there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No thanks, I hated the flavor, the crunch, and the cheese of the class in 1e and have no interest in seeing it return just like the Arcanist.
People are allowed to like or dislike what they please so no digs on anyone who likes the 1e Occultist in the least, I just wanted to get my opinion out there.
Could’ve just as easily not clicked on the thread, as the topic is “how would you do it,” not “do you want it.”
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry... that's just not, go back and read your own post, you asked if you thought it could work within the 2e framework and I don't think it can, nor should it.
This isn't one of those "if you have nothing nice to say" moments, you opened the floor for discussion and my 2 copper pieces here is simply that the Occultist isn't appropriate for what 2e is doing, hell, it wasn't even appropriate for 1e either but at that point in the game it didn't matter because power creep, and niche theft was baked into the system from the very start.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure I heard somewhere that they were now focusing on coming up with new classes for 2e instead of converting 1e classes. Could be wrong though.
I wonder if it could go the way of the cavalier and comeback as an archetype?
Specifically, they want to do new things alongside old things at a greater rate as they go forward, it was brought up in reference to the Inventor IIRC and questioning what classes we'd see in the future. So it wouldn't be nuts to see another set of 1 old and 1 new, or something along those lines.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Great flavor and amazing mechanics in 1e.
If they do a 2e version I hope that whatever they do they don't make a full caster.
2e full casters are where flavor and interesting mechanics go to die. The chassis just physically can't support what the Occultist is supposed to represent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel Occultist is getting hit with the Uncommon tag. Object Reading can be tough for a GM to deal with if they're not prepared for it, I speak from experience.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry... that's just not, go back and read your own post, you asked if you thought it could work within the 2e framework and I don't think it can, nor should it.
This isn't one of those "if you have nothing nice to say" moments, you opened the floor for discussion and my 2 copper pieces here is simply that the Occultist isn't appropriate for what 2e is doing, hell, it wasn't even appropriate for 1e either but at that point in the game it didn't matter because power creep, and niche theft was baked into the system from the very start.
“Do you think it could work in 2e?” really isn’t answered by “I hate it.”
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They could always make object reading an uncommon class feat rather than making the entire class uncommon.
Eeeeeeh, I feel something that iconic to occultist shouldn't be under the lock and key of feats.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel Occultist is getting hit with the Uncommon tag. Object Reading can be tough for a GM to deal with if they're not prepared for it, I speak from experience.
Object Reading is already a common 1st level occult spell in the Advanced Player's Guide. I can't see a similar ability as a class feature being a reason the entire class would be made uncommon. I could see it being uncommon for setting reasons however, not that I would be for it.
|
|
I feel Occultist is getting hit with the Uncommon tag. Object Reading can be tough for a GM to deal with if they're not prepared for it, I speak from experience.
I feel that many Investigator abilities in PF2 are already in this territory.
Also I thought people considered the Kineticist as the one that should be all about Focus spells in PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
“Do you think it could work in 2e?” really isn’t answered by “I hate it.”I'm sorry... that's just not, go back and read your own post, you asked if you thought it could work within the 2e framework and I don't think it can, nor should it.
This isn't one of those "if you have nothing nice to say" moments, you opened the floor for discussion and my 2 copper pieces here is simply that the Occultist isn't appropriate for what 2e is doing, hell, it wasn't even appropriate for 1e either but at that point in the game it didn't matter because power creep, and niche theft was baked into the system from the very start.
But it is answered by, "I don't think it worked in 1e to begin with".
Anyway, I loved Occultist, but I suspect that the parts I enjoyed most may not carry over. Being able to summon up a disposable familiar, the divination ability to ask objects questions, and saving money on magic items by just using resonant powers- all things that I think PF2 would frown on. Fortunately, Object Reading is central to the class itself, so I don't see that going anywhere.
I think it would be cool if they could use Object Reading during their Refocus activity.
I don’t know how interesting or balanced a focus focused class would actually be. It would be pretty easy to place limits around what you use your focus pool on, but it just doesn’t grab me. Besides, the Oracle already is playing in that pool, so making a new class that does a similar thing might dilute both concepts.
Could be wrong, it could be awesome, but I don’t see that as a base. I think the investiture system they tried to make happen during the playtest might be a more likely base for the class.
Agreed on it not needing to be a full caster.
I'd like to see 2e Occultist having mechanics surrounding Talismans, Focus Spells, and Invested Items to capture the equipment-focus on the 1e class. Focus powers are a part of it, but so is investing in items to draw power from them. Talismans also feel fitting for the occultist, though I can't point to exactly why I feel that way. It feels like it wants to be an equipment-focused class similar to how Inventor and Alchemist are defined by gear, but focused on magical gear.
Also, I don't think I need to see spellcasting in the 2e version more advanced than focus spells. Wave casting would be fine, it doesn't feel core to the concept but does feel fitting enough to put the class on firm footing mechanically. Full casting would feel weird, especially since the 1e occultist had a rather restrictive take on spellcasting with them having to specifically unlock schools of magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure I really agree that the Oracle particularly engages with that concept though. Oracle uses focus spells just like anyone else. Your curse is connected to how much focus you spend, but in terms of actually being 'focus specalists' all they really do is get the refocus feats for free.
I don’t know how interesting or balanced a focus focused class would actually be. It would be pretty easy to place limits around what you use your focus pool on, but it just doesn’t grab me. Besides, the Oracle already is playing in that pool, so making a new class that does a similar thing might dilute both concepts.
Could be wrong, it could be awesome, but I don’t see that as a base. I think the investiture system they tried to make happen during the playtest might be a more likely base for the class.
Agreed on it not needing to be a full caster.
Here's about what I'd expect:
Martial progression and weapons, d8, medium armor, spontaneous Int-based occult wave caster, gets a focus spell for object reading, starts with one implement, picks up another at 7th (when Magus gets whatever their extra casting feature is), and a third implement whenever it fits. Each implement gives a strong focus spell and has another available for a feat at 8th or something, and grants 1/day 1-action "regain a focus point" like the familiar ability.
I'd like for each implement to come with a passive ability of some sort, but PF2 really doesn't care for passives. Hmm. Maybe something like a related skill feat; I dunno.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
“Magus, but with a focus on cool magic items and occult weirdness” feels like a fine class to me - and it could be friends with the actual Magus and an eventual 2e Inquisitor in that regard, I hope!
Champion and Ranger the only classes that have the biggest, old features locked behind feats. Even then Champion still gets divine ally and lay on hands for free in addition to their new reactions. Ranger meanwhile has adopted Slayer's target mechanic.
Fighter, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Investigator, Monk, Oracle, Rogue, Sorcerer, Swashbuckler, Witch, and Wizard all get some if not all of their major, old features (or equivalents to those old features) without spending feats. Now granted some get more features for free than others but Sorcerer isn't spending a feat for a bloodline.
Based on how Paizo has been doing things a 2E incarnation of Occultist getting read object without spending a feat is very likely. It's a big part of the class thematically and can be a big part of the class mechanically depending on the GM. That said I can easily see it having some feats to upgrade it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the Magus playtest survey they asked what version of the class we would prefer with one of the options something like "a martially adept class without spell slots, but very good at focus spells" so they have a version of that sort of thing in some alpha document somewhere.
Considering the whole inspiration for the focus system to begin with was the occultist (whose 1e metacurrency was "mental focus") it would not be hard to see this made into something like the occultist.
Not sure I really agree that the Oracle particularly engages with that concept though. Oracle uses focus spells just like anyone else. Your curse is connected to how much focus you spend, but in terms of actually being 'focus specalists' all they really do is get the refocus feats for free.
I would consider getting bonus effects when using focus spells and getting the refocus feats for free to be the bare minimum that a class based on the focus spell system would feature, both of which are part the oracle class mechanics.
So if you don’t mean those two things when you’re talking about a focus class, what do you imagine a class that spins around focus spells to have?
In the Magus playtest survey they asked what version of the class we would prefer with one of the options something like "a martially adept class without spell slots, but very good at focus spells" so they have a version of that sort of thing in some alpha document somewhere.
Sure. It’s labeled “champion”. Monk and Ranger to a much lesser extent. Possibly even “inventor” given how the unstable abilities were balanced.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the Magus playtest survey they asked what version of the class we would prefer with one of the options something like "a martially adept class without spell slots, but very good at focus spells" so they have a version of that sort of thing in some alpha document somewhere.Sure. It’s labeled “champion”. Monk and Ranger to a much lesser extent. Possibly even “inventor” given how the unstable abilities were balanced.
The champion spends some of its class budget on legendary in all armor, their reaction, and their divine ally. The Ranger and Monk don't even get focus spells outside of feats and spend parts of their class budget on things like Hunter's Edge and the Monk's speed, action economy, and defenses. The Inventor puts a huge part of its class budget into its innovation (though we haven't seen the final version yet).
Give me the class that has tops out at Master in Martial weapons and medium armor, and MME saves, which spends almost the entirety of its remaining class budget on focus spells and things that make them really good at focus spells and I'll be happy. You don't even have to call it the Occultist.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know that it's "possible" to spend the entire class budget on master weapon progression plus focus spells. You'd end up with a class that spends a lot of combat doing nothing interesting, and martial progression doesn't actually do anything until fifth level. You need something like sneak attack to spice combat up a bit, some way to reliably get two focus points per combat at level one (so that at least half your combat rounds involve a class feature), or something like wave casting to supplement your focus spells. And reliably getting two focus points per combat at first level seems like the kind of thing where you might as well make it something other than focus points.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could see it.
1> Remember that the dev's created the rules and can change or break them. I can see a class with 4 or even 5 max focus.2> Focus Cantrips
3> Cleric, Druid, Monk, Ranger, Sorcerer, & Witch get refocus 2 as a 12 level feat and refocus 3 as an 18 level feat. So if a classes full focus is focus spells it seems reasonable that they could get rf2 @ 7th, rf3 @ 13th, and rf4 @ 18 or 20. As a class feature rather than a feat.
Add in things like Surging Focus (cleric 8) and Familiar Focus and probably everyone will decide they're over powered because at level 20 they can do 4 level 10 spells every fight and possibly 6 level 10 spells in a boss fight.
1) I don't view max focus as a particularly big part of the issue, given anything above your refresh rate is 1/day. Relevant for low levels, I suppose.
2) You're right about focus cantrips. That could also be where they put the interesting combat buff part of the class. It feels like cheating a bit, because it doesn't interact with focus points, but that's what I think the class needs.
3) I agree about early improved refocus making sense, but it doesn't help out with that 1-4 slump that's the issue.
The familiar refocus option is what stands out to me as something the class could use as a model.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My pitch for the Occultist is that 10 minutes as part of refocusing, an Occultist can Invest Focus in Implements, which has a multiplier effect. Focus invested in, say, your Alteration Implement can be used to cast 2 of your alteration focus spells, but none of your other kinds of focus spells. Perhaps at higher level the multiplier could get higher, and you'd get some kind of passive bonus from investing into an implement.
The "Focus is more efficient with implements" concept fixes the multiclassing issue (the focus spells you'd get from other classes can't benefit from an the implement multiplier), and it does model the 1e version of the class where "generic mental focus" was more versatile but less potent.
I agree with using focus cantrips to fill out the Occultist list. You could even have multiple, but depending on what you invest you only get access to those 1-2 for the day instead of all 5 or whatever.
An alternative mechanic could be you have 5 investment points, if you put them all into one focus cantrips it is cast at level 5, or you could instead invest 1 point in 5 separate focus cantrips and you have all 5 for the day, but they are all cast at level 1. It adds some depth to the decision. Some FC are fine never heightening, while others will fall behind. Maybe you choose to only have your FC at level 4 instead of 5 because the diversity of choices is better than the benefit of that one extra damage dice.
|
|
I don't know that it's "possible" to spend the entire class budget on master weapon progression plus focus spells. You'd end up with a class that spends a lot of combat doing nothing interesting, and martial progression doesn't actually do anything until fifth level. You need something like sneak attack to spice combat up a bit, some way to reliably get two focus points per combat at level one (so that at least half your combat rounds involve a class feature), or something like wave casting to supplement your focus spells. And reliably getting two focus points per combat at first level seems like the kind of thing where you might as well make it something other than focus points.
BRING BACK LEGACY WEAPON!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My pitch for the Occultist is that 10 minutes as part of refocusing, an Occultist can Invest Focus in Implements, which has a multiplier effect. Focus invested in, say, your Alteration Implement can be used to cast 2 of your alteration focus spells, but none of your other kinds of focus spells. Perhaps at higher level the multiplier could get higher, and you'd get some kind of passive bonus from investing into an implement.
The "Focus is more efficient with implements" concept fixes the multiclassing issue (the focus spells you'd get from other classes can't benefit from an the implement multiplier), and it does model the 1e version of the class where "generic mental focus" was more versatile but less potent.
So to be clear: the basic idea of this Occultist would be a character that's casting focus spells most, if not all turns, since they have ways to "cheat" the usual restrictions on how many focus spells you get in a combat?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So to be clear: the basic idea of this Occultist would be a character that's casting focus spells most, if not all turns, since they have ways to "cheat" the usual restrictions on how many focus spells you get in a combat?My pitch for the Occultist is that 10 minutes as part of refocusing, an Occultist can Invest Focus in Implements, which has a multiplier effect. Focus invested in, say, your Alteration Implement can be used to cast 2 of your alteration focus spells, but none of your other kinds of focus spells. Perhaps at higher level the multiplier could get higher, and you'd get some kind of passive bonus from investing into an implement.
The "Focus is more efficient with implements" concept fixes the multiclassing issue (the focus spells you'd get from other classes can't benefit from an the implement multiplier), and it does model the 1e version of the class where "generic mental focus" was more versatile but less potent.
Some of these could be like 1 minute buffs, like transmutation to make you swole or hit harder, and divination to make you better at avoiding harm. You'll have the "competent frontliner" martial proficiencies, so you can fight a little too.
But yeah, I figure the basic concept of the class is that due to your connection to magically resonant stuff, you can cheat the normal focus rules.