| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was thinking today about starfinders new class playtest that was dropped (the evolutionist, extremely cool concept) and it made me realize that maybe we could get a 2e playtest earlier than I thought. Gencon seemed like a good bet to me, as it would be after SoM and directly following GnG (not GaG, yw Micheal Sayre). But gencon is usually end of July, and the timing of a convention shouldn't push the whole release schedule of paizo, right? Even SoM was supposed to be released at the end of July before delays that were beyond paizos control.
So, place your bets, when will a new playtest be announced? I'm thinking/hoping next month for an announcement.
Designer
|
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
[...]directly following GnG (not GaG, yw Micheal Sayre). [...]
You don't get quality results like this if you don't put in the work! Thanks :)
But gencon is usually end of July, and the timing of a convention shouldn't push the whole release schedule of paizo, right?
Without actually commenting on any potential/theoretical playtests that may or may not be in the pipeline, it's worth noting that GenCon is not "a" convention, GenCon is "the" convention, like E3 for video games. It would be difficult to overestimate its influence on board games and ttRPGs without overshooting into absurdity.
[...]directly following GnG (not GaG, yw Micheal Sayre). [...]You don't get quality results like this if you don't put in the work! Thanks :)
But gencon is usually end of July, and the timing of a convention shouldn't push the whole release schedule of paizo, right?Without actually commenting on any potential/theoretical playtests that may or may not be in the pipeline, it's worth noting that GenCon is not "a" convention, GenCon is "the" convention, like E3 for video games. It would be difficult to overestimate its influence on board games and ttRPGs without overshooting into absurdity.
That's fair. I think mark said something sort of similar (nothing about playtest, just that gencon is very influential) during paizocon. It would surprise me if a playtest was delayed a few months because of it, but it is understandable and I defer to paizos judgement, of course. I do wonder why starfinder is different in this regard, however.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, given how important GenCon is, even if Paizo won't be there physically, it's still an important event for them to showcase their products even online. I wouldn't expect to see the playtest (if there is one) before they announce the book at GenCon.
As for what to expect, I hope they continue the trend of a returning class and a new concept. Seeing the Inquisitor come back would be a huge plus for me, as well.
I have been thinking about for quite a while now, too. Note that the Starfinder announcement yesterday is exactly 2 weeks prior to the actual start of the playtest and ends a week after GenCon on the 24th. In the past, playtest announcements have had a similar timeframe (not always exactly, but close enough). GenCon is 16-19 September this year and the Starfinder playtest ends within a week after the end of GenCon. So, if a Pathfinder playtest announcement, say for an as-of-yet unannounced Pathfinder RPG book, were to be announced GenCon weekend, there would be plenty of time for the playtest to begin a couple of weeks later without having any overlap with the Starfinder playtest by about a week or more.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a convoluted theory that makes me almost certain one of these will be Kineticist.
I have a convoluted theory that makes me almost certain one of these will be Kineticist.
Just for funzies (nothing to do with me dieing of anticipation for kineticist), would you care to share said theory?
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a convoluted theory that makes me almost certain one of these will be Kineticist.Just for funzies (nothing to do with me dieing of anticipation for kineticist), would you care to share said theory?
Guns & Gears adds two tech classes and details Alkenstar, Book of the Dead has a heavy emphasis on Geb (being partly written by him), and if we really stretch, then Secrets of Magic is a valuable text for any PC from Nex - neatly covering every part of the Impossible Lands in advance of (I hope!) a book on the region and/or a tie-in AP… with the exception of Jalmeray, famed for both elemental magics and Vudrani occultism. The former would be Kineticist, the latter would be a non-Bard occult class, which we desperately need.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guns & Gears adds two tech classes and details Alkenstar, Book of the Dead has a heavy emphasis on Geb (being partly written by him), and if we really stretch, then Secrets of Magic is a valuable text for any PC from Nex - neatly covering every part of the Impossible Lands in advance of (I hope!) a book on the region and/or a tie-in AP… with the exception of Jalmeray, famed for both elemental magics and Vudrani occultism. The former would be Kineticist, the latter would be a non-Bard occult class, which we desperately need.I have a convoluted theory that makes me almost certain one of these will be Kineticist.Just for funzies (nothing to do with me dieing of anticipation for kineticist), would you care to share said theory?
*dons tinfoil*
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guns & Gears adds two tech classes and details Alkenstar, Book of the Dead has a heavy emphasis on Geb (being partly written by him), and if we really stretch, then Secrets of Magic is a valuable text for any PC from Nex - neatly covering every part of the Impossible Lands in advance of (I hope!) a book on the region and/or a tie-in AP… with the exception of Jalmeray, famed for both elemental magics and Vudrani occultism. The former would be Kineticist, the latter would be a non-Bard occult class, which we desperately need.I have a convoluted theory that makes me almost certain one of these will be Kineticist.Just for funzies (nothing to do with me dieing of anticipation for kineticist), would you care to share said theory?
I can dig it. Pew pews and spooky class would do me good. Hopefully I can work a psychic out of the occult class. occult sorcerer works if you pick the right spells but I want a 3 slot class so there's room for class features and focus spells.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only flaw in my logic is that it doesn’t somehow give me back my beloved Inquisitor :P
Guns & Gears adds two tech classes and details Alkenstar, Book of the Dead has a heavy emphasis on Geb (being partly written by him), and if we really stretch, then Secrets of Magic is a valuable text for any PC from Nex - neatly covering every part of the Impossible Lands in advance of (I hope!) a book on the region and/or a tie-in AP… with the exception of Jalmeray, famed for both elemental magics and Vudrani occultism. The former would be Kineticist, the latter would be a non-Bard occult class, which we desperately need.I have a convoluted theory that makes me almost certain one of these will be Kineticist.Just for funzies (nothing to do with me dieing of anticipation for kineticist), would you care to share said theory?
Aren’t we getting both elemental monks and the blueprint for genie binders in SoM? If there’s even a smidgen of occult Magic, Jalmeray feels pretty well covered as far as options needed to build a character from there.
Elemental monks, yes.
Genie or elemental eidolons specifically, no. It's probably the biggest gap in the ten default eidolons, but you can probably still do a decent approximation with a Dragon or Fey eidolon and a careful selection of evolution feats.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ruby Phoenix has a team of Jalmeri kineticists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the latter would be a non-Bard occult class, which we desperately need.
We have the witch as a non-bard occult spellcaster. I think we have more occult bloodlines and patrons for Sorcerer and witch than primal options. I just don't see that we desperately need another occult caster more than any other kind.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
the latter would be a non-Bard occult class, which we desperately need.We have the witch as a non-bard occult spellcaster. I think we have more occult bloodlines and patrons for Sorcerer and witch than primal options. I just don't see that we desperately need another occult caster more than any other kind.
I don’t think of Sorcerer or Witch as “occult classes,” because of their broader flavor, and Bards are more connected to their music than a lot of the broader themes of the occult spell list. This game needs - in my opinion - a class that communicates occult to the player the same way that druid and cleric embody primal and divine.
Something psychic-y, basically. I’d also welcome the proposed Occultist change to Antiquarian.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only flaw in my logic is that it doesn’t somehow give me back my beloved Inquisitor :PLittle or but, how would you replicate it with the currently available classes?
I think the Wit Ranger with Cleric Dedication can do certain aspects. Especially if your GM lets you use Religion instead of Nature in any of the Ranger class features/feats you take.
But it really depends what you want from an inquisitor. Might be easier to decide the story inspiration, and build your own, rather than try to build a 1e inquisitor.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
After the gunslinger and magus, I don’t think I’ve heard more requests for any other class than the kineticist. Also, with how many people request blaster focused casting, it seems like a smart move to direct that through the kineticist. It seems like a win/win.
I would be very interested in a new psychic class that was either a spontaneous wave caster with only 1 spell known per level, but 3/4 castings of it per day, (so 7/8 spells per day past level 3, but all top 2 levels) with strong, caster focused focus powers, or a whole new kind of casting mechanic. It would be neat if it could use focus powers spells to empower specific cantrips for 1 minute and then could do cool stuff with telekinetic projectile, shield, and then maybe a new movement cantrip. A book of Psychic/self discipline feats and powers (rather than specifically occult) could be a great way to add in some more mystical tradition class feats for a bunch of martial classes as well
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Elemental monks, yes.
Genie or elemental eidolons specifically, no. It's probably the biggest gap in the ten default eidolons, but you can probably still do a decent approximation with a Dragon or Fey eidolon and a careful selection of evolution feats.
Agreed, that’s why I said blueprint. It is a strange gap to me, but I’m sure they have reasons. Hopefully it’ll be covered fairly quickly, perhaps in a Lost Omens book.
Ruby Phoenix has a team of Jalmeri kineticists.
Which team is that? The closest I can find is the pair of elementalist monks on page 48 in the first book, and Arms of Balance who are also elementalist monks. And not Jalmeri, so I didn’t think you meant them.
I would have a petty big problem if either turned out to be stand ins for Kineticists. Elementalist Monks of the Houses of Perfection are such a huge part of Jalmeri lore.
Don’t get me wrong, I would love for Kineticists to be coming soon, but I don’t think they are particularly needed to cover Jalmeray.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now that we have Magus, Summoner and Gunslinger, I think the Kineticist, the Occultist and the Inquisitor are the ones that get the most requests.
Personally, I would love to see a Commander/Warlord/Tactician class (with the Marshal Archetype being what the Martial Artist is to a Monk).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After the gunslinger and magus, I don’t think I’ve heard more requests for any other class than the kineticist. Also, with how many people request blaster focused casting, it seems like a smart move to direct that through the kineticist. It seems like a win/win.
I would be very interested in a new psychic class that was either a spontaneous wave caster with only 1 spell known per level, but 3/4 castings of it per day, (so 7/8 spells per day past level 3, but all top 2 levels) with strong, caster focused focus powers, or a whole new kind of casting mechanic. It would be neat if it could use focus powers spells to empower specific cantrips for 1 minute and then could do cool stuff with telekinetic projectile, shield, and then maybe a new movement cantrip. A book of Psychic/self discipline feats and powers (rather than specifically occult) could be a great way to add in some more mystical tradition class feats for a bunch of martial classes as well
I really seeing Inquisitor going the route of the champion and ranger. Removing the spell list and rely on Focus Points for spell like abilities.
I've made an Inquisitor like character using a ranger. I focused my skills more around Intimidation and Religion. While RPing from there.
If Paizo does want to put more spell casting into it, I can see them going a similar path as the Magus.
I just hope its not an Archetype like they did with the Cavalier, I believe the Inquisitor is to rich of a class to be just tacked on as an add on to another class.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see Kineticists, that'd be fun. As long as it uses Focus and doesn't create another "totally not Focus" mechanic I think it could be great, definitely enjoyed the class in 1e (although it was a little convoluted to build compared to how easy it played).
I think Kineticist would be great for trying some new things for the system to test them out, like class restricted skill feats similar to some of the abilities they had in 1e. Maybe even more class feats for multiple classes (I could see some mages imitating infusions). Also an opportunity to make the more iconic abilities available at lower levels.
Elemental monks, yes.
Genie or elemental eidolons specifically, no. It's probably the biggest gap in the ten default eidolons, but you can probably still do a decent approximation with a Dragon or Fey eidolon and a careful selection of evolution feats.
Agreed, that’s why I said blueprint. It is a strange gap to me, but I’m sure they have reasons. Hopefully it’ll be covered fairly quickly, perhaps in a Lost Omens book.
Ruby Phoenix has a team of Jalmeri kineticists.Which team is that? The closest I can find is the pair of elementalist monks on page 48 in the first book, and Arms of Balance who are also elementalist monks. And not Jalmeri, so I didn’t think you meant them.
I would have a petty big problem if either turned out to be stand ins for Kineticists. Elementalist Monks of the Houses of Perfection are such a huge part of Jalmeri lore.
Don’t get me wrong, I would love for Kineticists to be coming soon, but I don’t think they are particularly needed to cover Jalmeray.
I don’t think the suggestion is that they are needed for jalmery. More the other way around. A book is needed to tie Kineticists to and it just so happens the next four classes are tied to nations close by
I don’t think any occult type book will be tied to jalmery. But I also don’t think kineticists would necessarily be in an occult book anyway . They really stuck out like sore thumbs in the 1E book. Really didn’t fit . I doubt they will get magic via astral plane this time which seemed to be what the lore suggested before
They are more likely in a nature book with a shaman of some kind. Or dedicated spontaneous primal caster if that is what the design team feels needs exploring
And an occult focused book could have occultist and a form of inquisitor that takes on monster Hunter ? Although such a book could equally have investigator and ranger options to cover this area and a bard option to make them “anti bards” (mesmerist )
Now that we have Magus, Summoner and Gunslinger, I think the Kineticist, the Occultist and the Inquisitor are the ones that get the most requests.
Personally, I would love to see a Commander/Warlord/Tactician class (with the Marshal Archetype being what the Martial Artist is to a Monk).
What “leadership styles” would you envision ? Beyond inspirational and dread that currently exist ?
I'd like to see Kineticists, that'd be fun. As long as it uses Focus and doesn't create another "totally not Focus" mechanic I think it could be great, definitely enjoyed the class in 1e (although it was a little convoluted to build compared to how easy it played).
I think Kineticist would be great for trying some new things for the system to test them out, like class restricted skill feats similar to some of the abilities they had in 1e. Maybe even more class feats for multiple classes (I could see some mages imitating infusions). Also an opportunity to make the more iconic abilities available at lower levels.
What is/are the other “totally not focus” mechanics?
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am super curious about what's in the pipeline for next year's gencon release now that we have (in the next couple months) the Summoner, Magus, and Gunslinger and Inventor.
Those were some of the biggest requests people had, obviously Kineticist is the class with the next biggest fanbase, but I'm more curious about what else we might get-- psychic stuff is up on my group's list, but I'm personally still really excited at the prospect of what Michael Sayre was spitballing in a earlier thread, a Shaman that goes back to basics to be more heavily inspired by real world shamanic traditions.
There's so many flavors for that, from so many parts of the world-- ranging from like Hoodoo to ancient Miko, and so forth, and Paizo have really proven lately they have the resources and organizational chops to make sure it gets handled well.
Specifically, to differentiate it from Clerics and Druids, I'd want to see a focus on induced trances as a mechanic, mechanically kind of like a Barbarian rage for Spellcasters, or even a bigger role of determining a small spell list you have access to-- potentially even crossing lists, where you pick up differing trances from feats and they give you different spells, but you have to be in that trance to use those spells and you have to spend your actions to switch between them (with later feats letting you do crazier stuff like splice) the emphasis on trance states and spirit possession is something that crops up in a lot of real world traditions, that magic in Pathfinder doesn't really do.
Its very much worthy of its own class identity, because its a very different kind of magic than what Clerics and Druids do, and it can cover a multicultural profusion of concepts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I most def would want to see Kineticist using focus points, I feel like every time we have a class people get arbitrarily annoyed at focus points for no reason, but focus points are a fantastic mechanic and they should be used wherever they fit well.
Maybe like a full martial (they would have a martial's weapon proficiency for their basic blasting) that can spend focus points for bigger bursts of power and shaping, give them the oracle's focus progression maybe, and more ways to manipulate focus in their feat progression?
But focus points are a lot like Encounter powers from 4e, and this kind of design worked super well for the 4e elementalist and stuff, and it gave us a simple magic character, who had a lot of powerful at-will stuff, but who could still draw deeper.
I most def would want to see Kineticist using focus points, I feel like every time we have a class people get arbitrarily annoyed at focus points for no reason, but focus points are a fantastic mechanic and they should be used wherever they fit well.
Maybe like a full martial (they would have a martial's weapon proficiency for their basic blasting) that can spend focus points for bigger bursts of power and shaping, give them the oracle's focus progression maybe, and more ways to manipulate focus in their feat progression?
But focus points are a lot like Encounter powers from 4e, and this kind of design worked super well for the 4e elementalist and stuff, and it gave us a simple magic character, who had a lot of powerful at-will stuff, but who could still draw deeper.
The unpopular add on to this would be to make burn function like the oracle curse
Didn’t the playtest oracle get to spend points normally or choose to raise their curse to get the focus spell for “free”. I am disappointed this didn’t stay and could perhaps see this being how burn works
And perhaps they can go like the oracle and make the “burn” be thematically linked to the element as well like the oracle? Earth one becomes clumsy and perhaps slower as the overcharge of earth starts to take over . Etc
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest question should be, should a kinetecist blast counts as spells or a special type of weapon. If it's spell progression my biggest concern would be its proficiency progression compared to other casters of its types and then spellcasting dedications. I would want kinetecists to be closer to martial in progression but thematically it makes sense they are similar to spells in someway. I would also wnat to see kinetecists make use of focus spells as well as other unique mechanics.
One class I would like to see is a class based off of 1es original idea for the Medium, with perhaps class feats being named after or based after the harrow deck cards and suites. ( as well as other options for feats)
I would love to see the Shamn return especially with the way The-Magic-Sword described it. I think Rivethun feats would be super relevant to a class like that.
I think a Bloodrager with wavecasting would be really cool but understand thematically it can probably be fulfilled via barbarian with sorcerer dedication.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What “leadership styles” would you envision ? Beyond inspirational and dread that currently exist ?Now that we have Magus, Summoner and Gunslinger, I think the Kineticist, the Occultist and the Inquisitor are the ones that get the most requests.
Personally, I would love to see a Commander/Warlord/Tactician class (with the Marshal Archetype being what the Martial Artist is to a Monk).
Easy enough if you look at the old 4E Warlord class. I've homebrewed a Warlord class myself inspired by the original class. You could have an official Tactician/Commander class have a different key ability score (Charisma, Intelligence, or Wisdom) depending on their type of leadership. An inspiring/dread Commander uses Charisma. A tactician, chess like Commander uses Intelligence. Lastly, a more commando type Commander could rely on Wisdom.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I most def would want to see Kineticist using focus points, I feel like every time we have a class people get arbitrarily annoyed at focus points for no reason, but focus points are a fantastic mechanic and they should be used wherever they fit well.
Maybe like a full martial (they would have a martial's weapon proficiency for their basic blasting) that can spend focus points for bigger bursts of power and shaping, give them the oracle's focus progression maybe, and more ways to manipulate focus in their feat progression?
But focus points are a lot like Encounter powers from 4e, and this kind of design worked super well for the 4e elementalist and stuff, and it gave us a simple magic character, who had a lot of powerful at-will stuff, but who could still draw deeper.
In my experience, people get mad at focus points because it means they can do whatever their cool ability is once a fight for most of the game. It didn't help that increasing focus points can feel like a tax as well regardless of how useful other focus spells are. Even if you hit your cap of 3 early, recovering 1 point per encounter is frustratingly limited. It stops feeling bad once you hit the upper levels and take the recover 2 points feat but even then there's a (much smaller) group of people mad at the feat tax on recovery.
Implementation will likely to be to put them on monk progression with focus spell DCs keyed to primal and treat some powers like metamagic to keep the action cost modification of the 1e version and the bigger powers tied to focus points and burn.
What is/are the other “totally not focus” mechanics?I'd like to see Kineticists, that'd be fun. As long as it uses Focus and doesn't create another "totally not Focus" mechanic I think it could be great, definitely enjoyed the class in 1e (although it was a little convoluted to build compared to how easy it played).
I think Kineticist would be great for trying some new things for the system to test them out, like class restricted skill feats similar to some of the abilities they had in 1e. Maybe even more class feats for multiple classes (I could see some mages imitating infusions). Also an opportunity to make the more iconic abilities available at lower levels.
The playtest version of Unstable.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The playtest version of Unstable.What is/are the other “totally not focus” mechanics?I'd like to see Kineticists, that'd be fun. As long as it uses Focus and doesn't create another "totally not Focus" mechanic I think it could be great, definitely enjoyed the class in 1e (although it was a little convoluted to build compared to how easy it played).
I think Kineticist would be great for trying some new things for the system to test them out, like class restricted skill feats similar to some of the abilities they had in 1e. Maybe even more class feats for multiple classes (I could see some mages imitating infusions). Also an opportunity to make the more iconic abilities available at lower levels.
That one, basically. Taking in a slightly bigger picture I think there was a missed opportunity for a Martial Focus mechanic that would have also benefited the Swashbuckler and Barbarian at the very least. While martials are a lot of fun, they also have more fractured/separate mechanics when compared to spellcasting classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather have burn show up properly again, rather than just using focus, but we'll see what we get when/if Kineticist rolls around.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really only meant for this thread to be about timing of the next playtest class - I am happy it turned into a kineticist thread somehow
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also given that touch attacks are not a thing have all the blasts do the same damage but different damage types based on element. (Pls no water == only bludgeoning)
Water having the “modular” trait would amuse me.
Let’s see. The energies are easy, they get the energy damage type.
Forceful for earth and agile for air seems interesting, though I’m sure there’s other ideas. Deadly for metal?
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't seem them releasing Kineticist until they can figure out how to do it without making half the community angry. The community is just to split on how to implement it.
Based on my experiences, this is applicable to every playtest class, except maybe Swashbuckler.
|
|
How would you do Deadly with spells?Also given that touch attacks are not a thing have all the blasts do the same damage but different damage types based on element. (Pls no water == only bludgeoning)Water having the “modular” trait would amuse me.
Let’s see. The energies are easy, they get the energy damage type.
Forceful for earth and agile for air seems interesting, though I’m sure there’s other ideas. Deadly for metal?
Require attack rolls?
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't seem them releasing Kineticist until they can figure out how to do it without making half the community angry. The community is just to split on how to implement it.Based on my experiences, this is applicable to every playtest class, except maybe Swashbuckler.
And it isn't generally half the community, its a handful of people on the forums. The survey data and the discussion on the forum often diverge, from what we've been told-- the designers are also pretty secure doing what they think is right, even when the forums have convinced themselves of some really specific necessity.
Actually there's a great Gamemaker's Toolkit episode on feedback that I think reflects how Paizo handles it too, generally they listen for what problems people have with the class, but not for what the solution to those problems should be. So if they put out a focus point version of the class, people might complain about the focus points themselves and lobby for a specific solution, but Paizo would be listening for what the actual underlying pain point is (if there even is one) and then tune or redesign accordingly, independent of what we claim is necessary, although sometimes they had either hit on the same idea we did as a possibility, or like our idea for fixing it and go for it.
Basically, this allows them to use our feedback to improve the class, but without letting us pressure them into designs that have issues, or are too focused on replicating the 1e iteration, or don't vibe with what they're trying to accomplish in the first place.
So the community being unable to agree doesn't really matter, because they don't design via community consensus-- making these choices (or reconciling them through design finesse, or taking yet another path entirely) is their job and prerogative.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
How would you do Deadly with spells?Also given that touch attacks are not a thing have all the blasts do the same damage but different damage types based on element. (Pls no water == only bludgeoning)Water having the “modular” trait would amuse me.
Let’s see. The energies are easy, they get the energy damage type.
Forceful for earth and agile for air seems interesting, though I’m sure there’s other ideas. Deadly for metal?
Kinetic Blasts are weird, and why its hard to port then over to PF2. Energy Blasts in PF1 were weaker but easier to hit. But since all attacks now hit the same and likely will have the same damage, you will need some other way to differentiate between energy/physical blasts.
The scaling is also part of the problem. Kineticist should deal as much damage as a martial at both ranged with regular blasts, and melee with kinetic blade/whip.
Its actually fairly easy, they can be ranged elemental unarmed attacks ala the Kitsune foxfire, but strong enough to keep up-- maybe using Martial Arts Stances as a model.