Do you think they’ll do a mesmerist?

[Chromantic Durgon <3]

I really enjoyed the P1 mesmerist and I was wondering to myself if they’d ever do one.

Or if they’d try to wrap it into the bard, like they did with the spiritualist wrapping it into the summoner.

[QuidEst]

The playtest Psychic had a Mesmerist-like feat that got cut.

I'm not really expecting it back, though. Mesmerist had a pretty big focus on what would be considered incapacitation effects in PF2, which gets a lot more benefits just from having more top-level slots. Their gaze feature was a way to make up for the lower DCs of a 2/3 caster, which is no longer an issue. Mostly, it's implanted tricks. They could make that into a class, or it could become a line of occult-exclusive spells.

[Squiggit]

In addition to what QuidEst mentioned, the Mesmerist was also a pseudo-martial character, which puts it in an awkward spot since those largely don't exist in PF2.

It could be a sort of occult answer to the Magus, because we could probably use more wave casters and hybrid martials, but maybe not.

... In general I'd say I don't see it having a high chance of returning, but people said the same thing about swashbucklers, investigators, gunslingers, and psychics.

So who can say.

[YuriP]

Yep. We maybe have something in the future.

I agree with Squiggit about Wavecasters (Bounded Casters) because we are in a situations we only have a few of them (just Magus and Summoner) and this still a little explored part of the system that we still have much space to grow (IMO thaumaturge and psychic pressed some limits in what we can have with the main currently chassis of martial and casters).

Paizo currently is exploring another point of class chassis with Kineticists what's open new door too. I hope they may explore more options with these non-convetional chassis. We still don't know how will be the Kineticist but for Wavecasters in general they was well receipt by PF2 comunit in general and mesmerist is one of many concepts that can be made with wavecasting that aren't still explored.

[Phntm888]

Mesmerists were in a weird spot as a kind of Occult hybrid class. I think there's a design space there, I'm just not sure how you implement it within the PF2 paradigm. Something like the Hypnotic Stare ability is probably out, just based on the math. Maybe you make it a Wavecaster, and the Mesmerist Tricks become Focus spells? Magus Class Archetype that swaps spellcasting type to Occult and turns Spellstrike into Painful Stare, or a Class Archetype that can be used with any caster that gives a more limited spell list, similar to the Elementalist? It kind of depends on what you consider to be the defining feature(s) of the PF1 class, and how well you can translate those into PF2.

[Arachnofiend]

The Mesmerist was extra weird compared to the other 6th level casters because it was designed to tank saves hard enough that it could mimic a full caster's DCs with weaker normal progression. Maybe it'll come back if Paizo decides we need a class dedicated to mind-affecting stuff as much as the Kineticist is dedicated to blasting. The Captivator archetype exists to capture the theme of the Mesmerist but there could easily be mechanical room for a full class.

[QuidEst]

Maybe this is just a personal view of the class, but Mesmerist would have a hard time justifying itself as a wavecaster.

When you play a Summoner, an eidolon can definitely fulfill the fantasy of summoning better than three extra top-level summoning slots per day from a Conjurer. It's at-will, it's customizable, and it's stronger than a summons.

When you play a Magus, delivering spells through your sword can definitely fulfill the fantasy of battle magic better than three extra top-level evocation slots from an Evoker. It adds weapon damage, accuracy runes, and allows for all the melee accuracy boosters that ranged blasts wouldn't get.

But for Mesmerist, it's hard to come up with something that really lets you feel like a better mind-manipulator than the three extra top-level enchantments from an Enchanter. They could be expending three slots every day just to have three permanently charmed on-level creatures before touching the slots a wave-caster would have. Incapacitation hits what Mesmerist generally does pretty hard.

[keftiu]

I expect feats and/or a class archetype for the Psychic more than a 2e Mesmerist class.

[Chromantic Durgon <3]

My first instinct was also a bounded caster as well, using the hypnotic stare as a way to soften up whatever they’re staring at to compensate for the short fillings they have vs a full martial.

Their equivalent of the impact of casting a spell through their sword, like a magus, would be the painful stare feature I suspect.

Then I think the other element would have to be implanted tricks, making them sort of, the official illusionist class.

My question was more what would be there version of bloodlines/patrons etc etc

There could be ones that worked in melee and others that allowed others to gain from their painful stare damage.

[Squiggit]

QuidEst wrote:

Maybe this is just a personal view of the class, but Mesmerist would have a hard time justifying itself as a wavecaster.

When you play a Summoner, an eidolon can definitely fulfill the fantasy of summoning better than three extra top-level summoning slots per day from a Conjurer. It's at-will, it's customizable, and it's stronger than a summons.

When you play a Magus, delivering spells through your sword can definitely fulfill the fantasy of battle magic better than three extra top-level evocation slots from an Evoker. It adds weapon damage, accuracy runes, and allows for all the melee accuracy boosters that ranged blasts wouldn't get.

But for Mesmerist, it's hard to come up with something that really lets you feel like a better mind-manipulator than the three extra top-level enchantments from an Enchanter. They could be expending three slots every day just to have three permanently charmed on-level creatures before touching the slots a wave-caster would have. Incapacitation hits what Mesmerist generally does pretty hard.

I don't think that would be a huge problem. Even in PF1 the Mesmerist was somewhat mediocre as an enchanter (and being an enchanter was somewhat of an awkward specialization anyways).

A hypothetical PF2 class could instead lean into the debuffs and damage aspect of Stare, which was mostly the more compelling aspect of the class anyways. Pseudo-martial and debuff-y is underutilized design space anyways.

[Ascalaphus]

I can see sort of the outline of a class like an occult flavored magus, with stare instead of arcane cascade. Add some good focus spells to even out the bounded casting.

[Chromantic Durgon <3]

Maybe the subtypes would be something like, a hypnotist (that leaned into manifold tricks and was like a buffer) a trickster, (that leaned into illusions) a sadist type (that leaned into painful stare) and an enchanter type, that leans into enchanting.

They’d have a basic debuff stare

Manifold tricks could be buffs they put on their allows by fixing them with the stare

Painful stare would increase the damage against the stare victim

They could layer extre negative effects onto the stare

And have some sort of illusion and enchanting based focus powers.

[Alchemic_Genius]

Personlly, I could see mesmerist being similar to the Thaumaturge, where it's a cha based martial that gets mystical occult abilities; though rather than dabbling in all traditions, they are purely occult.

Looking at the 1e class, I think the main aspects was the stare, the tricks, and the spells. I think the 2e would be like the monk, ranger, and champion where they get in house focus spells to cover the magic, the stare is the key offensive ability, and tricks are support abilities. This provides the chassis for a martial with a that supports their allies with neat reactions; debuffing an enemy with focus spells and the stare, and have the combat capability the og class had. An in house feat chain similar to Capitvator (but an actual spell list rather than innate spells) to pick casting as an opt in thing can help get more magical feeling for those who want it; or it could simply be left to the perview of multiclassing.

I feel like the stare could be something simple at first, like making the target tak a penalty to AC, Will, and Perception, and then adding on thing like painful stare that adds on extra damage to each source of damage they take; making them essentially a reverse bard. I think making the stare help everyone, and not just the mesmerist, makes it a more interesting gimmick that allows for support play; otherwise the stare would basically be them playing catch up in accuracy; which, as we've seen from various alchemist threads, doesn't seem to satisfy many people

[Chromantic Durgon <3]

I hope this one of the threads game devs decide to lurk lol

[CynDuck]

Honestly I think a mesmerist themed implement for the thaumaturge could work, like a swinging pocketwatch or similar object used for hypnosis.

[Ravingdork]

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

Do you think they'll do a mesmerist?

I hope not. It seems redundant to what we have now, and far too niche. I just don't see how it could be pulled off well as it's own classs.

CynDuck wrote:

Honestly I think a mesmerist themed implement for the thaumaturge could work, like a swinging pocketwatch or similar object used for hypnosis.

That'd be cool though.

[pixierose]

I feel like a good concept to mine ideas for a Mesmerist is the vexing daredevil archetype from 1e. Using Illusions, stares, and enchantments for debuffs and to accent martial prowress.

The mesmer from Guild wars 2 might have some good potential as well.

[Kekkres]

I think mesmerist could do well as a bard class-archetype, give it a unique muse, psychic casting, and some spooky feats and composition spells and you are mostly there

[YuriP]

For those who don't care to use 3rd party there's also the Legendary Mesmerist.
Some people may consider the Legedary's classes sometimes a bit OP but in practice I never saw them breaking a game so can be an option for you.

[Sanityfaerie]

Personally... I just don't feel like there's enough there for a class. Archetype? Sure. Class Archetype? Sure. Fold it into one of the other classes with a combination of path and a few feats or something? All of those seem good. I just don't see "person who hypnotizes people" as having quite enough heft behind it for a full class flavor-wise, though... and the crunch niche that it used to have doesn't really fit with how PF2 is handling things mechanically.

If I had to guess one I'd say Archetype, if only because i can imagine mesmerism being something that's practiced by bards, psychics, investigators, thaumaturges, and possibly even the occasional witch. Possibly even make it an archetype+, where you get a generally available archetype, a few magical items that support it, and class paths for a few different classes that lean into it as well. Spreads the love around a bit, while not requiring nearly as much work as a full class.

Now, I'm not going to state with absolute certainty that they won't do mesmerist as a class... but I'm pretty sure they won't.

[Squiggit]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

I just don't see "person who hypnotizes people" as having quite enough heft behind it for a full class flavor-wise

I mean, that was only the tiniest corner of the class in PF1 anyways, so it's not a big deal that one component couldn't hold up a class. The class was a semi-martial with an emphasis on debuffing and finesse and weaponizing occult magic and support abilities alongside swordplay that does not really exist in any communicable way in PF2. There's plenty to do there.

I also think it's pretty unlikely, but we got swashbucklers and investigators and witches and psychics, so I think it's hard to rule out out of hand.

[Prince Setehrael]

I kind of like the idea of the Mesmerist being absorbed into a sub path of the Psychic - The Mesmeric Gaze.

Add a few feats and some cantrips and focus spells and it fits.
At least it does when I think about it.

[Unicore]

I respect that some people really like PF1 class and that there is open design space for a martial debuffer/controller with some enchant magic.

I very strongly feel like the narrative of the PF1 class was leaning way too hard into the yuk side of enchantment magic and felt very much like an NPC villain class in tone and flavor. There is a good reason for charm/control enchantment spells to mostly be incapacitation spells and not be reliable spells to fill your slots with and try to cast in every encounter. Some tables will pretty much set a rule against players casting charm spells or domination under any circumstances because of issues around consent.

Again, I do think the debuffing stuff could make for a cool class. I just urge caution from bringing back the narrative elements of creepy manipulator, the character class.

[Leitner]

Unicore wrote:

I very strongly feel like the narrative of the PF1 class was leaning way too hard into the yuk side of enchantment magic and felt very much like an NPC villain class in tone and flavor. There is a good reason for charm/control enchantment spells to mostly be incapacitation spells and not be reliable spells to fill your slots with and try to cast in every encounte

You are addressing two different situations here. From a gameplay balance standpoint a lot of these spells are(and should be) incapacitate. Because boss fights ending in a single round is(often, not always) narratively unsatisfying. Things like sleep hex, color spray, etc that could notoriously destroy boss fights before they started were a balance issue.

Then your claim that enchantment magic is yuk. Well, this doesn't really warrant a response, but sure, lets argue for a second that burning your enemy to death(via fireball, blistering invocation, etc) is somehow morally more desirable than the mesmerist enchantment spells. Even if you take that assumption as fact, the player should still have the options of playing the character. Playing an evil character is a perfectly valid choice, equally valid to a white knight holy paladin dedicated to ending whatever ill they deem most important in the world.

[Ascalaphus]

The fact that a lot of the incapacitation spells are enchantment (and, many enchantment spells are incapacitation) might also be a good starting point for class design. After all, there's a problem here that existing classes aren't handling super gracefully.

"X can't be done well by existing classes" is useful when trying to figure out where the design space for a new class is.

So a mesmerist might take a bunch of these ideas that are currently hedged behind the incapacitation fence, rebalance them so they don't need to be incapacitation, and be able to do them more times per day.

[Temperans]

The people saying that Mesmerist was just about mind control are have always been wrong and didn't actually read the class properly.

The 5 key parts of the class were:
1) The ability to provide a constant debuff that was hard to resist. Said debuff did not consume the Mesmerist actions and worked like PF2 Ranger's Hunt Prey.

2) A wealth of utility spells from most schools of magic, not just enchantment and illusion. Their weakest school was evocation followed by conjuration.

3) The ability to grant themselves or a willing ally a special trick at any distance with no action cost. Given them things like an extra move action, a better save, goading, mirror image, temp HP, condition mitigation, etc. This ability is what Champion's Reaction wish they could be.

4) The ability to participate as a martial comparable to a Rogue, Investigator, Thaumaturge. More specifically, their debuff should make it so they can stand in melee or range with no issue. Their painful stare should be a small boost in damage to one attack, but have no cost.

5) The ability to get more out of spells with an HD limit. In PF2 that would probably also be making it easier to use incapacitate spells.

[Unicore]

I think reading closely the narrative purpose of the PF1 class is a good idea:

mesmerist wrote:

Experts at charm and deceit, mesmerists compel others to heed their words and bend to their will. Psychic powers, primarily those of enchantment and illusion, give mesmerists the tools they need to manipulate others—usually for their own personal gain. The very gaze of a mesmerist can hypnotize someone into following his whims. Mesmerists frequently form cults of personality around themselves, and they develop skills and contingency plans in case their ploys are discovered. They draw their magic from the Astral Plane, and many consider their minds to be conduits to enigmatic spaces others can’t comprehend.

I have no problem with platers making evil characters. Session 0 is important and players should talk about tone and their comfort ability with having characters with potentially oppositional motivations, and what motivates them to work together, but I don’t need to make any decisions for what will be fun for different groups.

My problem with the PF1 Mesmerist is that it was narratively constructed to be be evil, and a kind of evil that I think has a very strong capacity to undermine the values of gaming for all and cooperative gaming. Mechanically, I think a more martially oriented battle field controller that isn’t actually controlling/changing the battlefield but influencing enemies is interesting, but if it requires running with “Anti-Consent” the character class, then it has a high probability of being a class that invites combative play styles into a cooperative game, even without getting into moralistic arguments about enchantment magic generally.

[Temperans]

You need to recheck what "anti-consent" is cause man is itbway off base, specially in this game.

The tricks require a willing target, the spells are no different from any other target, the class description is basically "I am very charismatic and use it for my goals".

Before you start accusing Mesmerist point your eyes at Bard that literally has a focus spell to turn creatures into minion. Not to mention all the other mental effects they have. Heck, you can literally point your eyes at captivator archetype, all the evil gods, all the evil archetypes, etc. Might as well also point your eyes at all the diplomacy, bluff, and intimidate skill feats and uses.

You are saying this class that at no point says its evil as being evil. When you can right now play a thief (stealing is evil), barbarian (usually seen as evil), assassin (usually seen as evil), hellknight (often evil), etc. But this class is somehow different?

[Squiggit]

Unicore wrote:

then it has a high probability of being a class that invites combative play styles into a cooperative game

I don't see how 'debuffs enemies and buffs allies while swinging a sword' inherently invites combative play styles.

The emphasis on support abilities points in the exact opposite direction, tbh.

[Ravingdork]

The last thing we need is a class for "form[ing] cults of personality around themselves." We've got way too much of that in the real world. Such as class would only embolden problematic players into being even more problematic.

[Chromantic Durgon <3]

I have to say I’ve always found the line in the sand people draw over charm spells quite odd.

People build characters that are designed to suck the life force out of people

Characters that raise peoples friends corpses and have said corpses kill said friends

Characters designed to burn the skin off someone’s bones

Or assassinated someone before they ever see you coming

Or literally scare someone to death

But for some reason coercing someone into letting you into a locked cabinet, or a prison or to fight their boss for you is the line.

I fail to see why that character is any more inherently evil than the others I mentioned.

I know some people draw a direct line between “character with enchanting” to “will use this character to coerce sex out of NPCs” but that seems like a massive failure to trust your players, unless you know that’s exactly what they’re planning to do.

And even so, players make murderers every day.

[Jacob Jett]

Indeed. The murder hobo analogy is more accurate than it likely should be. IMO a mesmerist would be fine. My preference would be for an archetype rather than a class.

[Unicore]

"Anti-consent" in this context is not inherently or explicitly sexual. It means a character based around forcing other characters to act in ways that are against their will. For many players, the difference here is that undead monstrosities are clearly in the realm of fiction while, people who manipulate others, lie to everyone around them whom they see as lesser minds (in the class description of Mesmerist) and form cults of personality around themselves are something that a lot of people do have real life experience with.

I am also sympathetic to the weirdness of drawing a line behind using magic to accomplish this vs. skills, but the "yuk" factor of the mesmerist isn't limited to magical manipulation. In fact, if they went a more martial direction with the class, it seems like it would probably largely be skill based, or "magic" in a similar way to the Thaumaturge.

These things are not either/or situations and a fair bit of it already exists in the game. I love PF2 personally and wouldn't stop playing it if a mesmerist with the same narrative as the PF1 version came into the game, but I have a feeling we would start getting a lot more posts about problematic players and the yuk factor of Enchantment magic if there was a class dedicated to making a relatively suboptimal play style viable against higher level enemies.

[Temperans]

You say "oh undead are magical/fantasy but being manipulative is not". You know what also magical/fantasy? People getting beat up (monk), cut (fighter), stabbed (rogue), shot (gunslinger), etc.

I don't get the "you will see more problem players" thing when you can literally make that type of character right now just using a basic bard.

[Unicore]

Where in the bard’s narrative that your source of power is bending other people’s will to your own? Yes it includes some references to manipulator and charismatic leader, but it doesn’t make those things central to the character class and the class mechanics are not focused on that identity.

[HumbleGamer]

Bard: "... and that's why, at the end of the day, I got summoned three times by the HR "

[Arachnofiend]

Notably the Captivator archetype already has a description of what being a good person who is specialized in enchantments looks like:

Quote:

Good captivators use their gifts and skills to bring people together. They might turn a would-be tavern brawl into a night of sharing drinks and telling stories. They might offer encouragement to those facing depression or doubt. They excel at ending conflict peacefully and efficiently, leaving everyone around them happier. When faced with violence, they use their magic to quickly subdue or enthrall enemies while minimizing harm to their companions.

So it seems to me that this is a solved problem.

[Chromantic Durgon <3]

Unicore wrote:

"Anti-consent" in this context is not inherently or explicitly sexual. It means a character based around forcing other characters to act in ways that are against their will. For many players, the difference here is that undead monstrosities are clearly in the realm of fiction while, people who manipulate others, lie to everyone around them whom they see as lesser minds (in the class description of Mesmerist) and form cults of personality around themselves are something that a lot of people do have real life experience with.

But as temp says, knife crime exists in the real world, guns exist in the real world, thieves exist in the real world.

So I don’t by the real world line drawing thing. Plenty of characters do things that exist in the real world and are horrific.

Maybe no-ones been attacked by a zombie, but people have definitely been shot at, stabbed and robbed blind.

And Deception, diplomacy and Intimidation are both skills other classes can already easily focus on and role play them anyway they want.

And magical mind control is just as disconnected from the real world as zombies.

Also I don’t buy the “mesmerist are inherently evil and other classes aren’t”

They’re inherently deceitful and manipulative, but that doesn’t mean they can turn those skills towards the greater good.

No more than a barbarian is a raged fuelled murder engine. If we can accept that can be turned to good ends, why can’t a mesmerist?

[Spamotron]

I think the fluff of the 1E Mesmerist is a product of the early to mid-2000's Edge that resulted in things like Hook Mountain Horror and the Cult of the Dawnflower and labeling a bunch of countries and NPC's who's actions were clearly evil as neutral. Paizo is in a very different place now and if they do the Mesmerist the fluff will likely be much more tasteful.

[Temperans]

Spamotron wrote:

I think the fluff of the 1E Mesmerist is a product of the early to mid-2000's Edge that resulted in things like Hook Mountain Horror and the Cult of the Dawnflower and labeling a bunch of countries and NPC's who's actions were clearly evil as neutral. Paizo is in a very different place now and if they do the Mesmerist the fluff will likely be much more tasteful.

Regarding that, I think it has more to do with Paizo not really caring at that point? Back then there was a much lesser focus on making things "safe for everyone" and more "the world is dark, dangerous, and scary and you are just a small part of it".

Now there is a greater (although not complete) focus on making things more child friendly.

[Eldritch Yodel]

I will say that arguing with people whether mind control thinga should make people uncomfortable seems... wrong. The key fact is even if it does not personally make you feel uncomfortable it is a touchy subject for enough people that it should be given the proper care (I mean, there's a reason "Reprehensible use of mind-control magic" is one of the five things listed as "things PCs should never do" in the Pathfinder baseline).
You don't debate whether something that makes people incredibly uncomfortable *should*, you just accept that it does and act accordingly. This shouldn't be a debate on whether the elements in the PF1 overly-edgy description that people have issues with are alright to base a class around and instead should be on whether you can avoid those things and still make the class work (honestly, with lots of the ideas in this thread I reckon there is room, all be it I feel a different name would be better with mesmerist perhaps as just a subclass, but that's a separate matter.)

[Ravingdork]

Eldritch Yodel wrote:

I mean, there's a reason "Reprehensible use of mind-control magic" is one of the five things listed as "things PCs should never do" in the Pathfinder baseline.

Ooh, I don't own the Pathfinder Baseline. Where can I buy that book?

[Jacob Jett]

Ravingdork wrote:

Eldritch Yodel wrote:

I mean, there's a reason "Reprehensible use of mind-control magic" is one of the five things listed as "things PCs should never do" in the Pathfinder baseline.

Ooh, I don't own the Pathfinder Baseline. Where can I buy that book?

It's in chapter 10(?) of the core rule book. A list of things that might be a bad idea. IMO, I try to GM by the rule: everyone comfortable in their skin. So yeah, avoiding things that make your players uncomfortable is a thing. However, a mesmerist could just as easily by a magical con person as something despicable and a non-magical con person could be just as skeevy as what would make folks uncomfortable.

[Eldritch Yodel]

Ravingdork wrote:

Eldritch Yodel wrote:

I mean, there's a reason "Reprehensible use of mind-control magic" is one of the five things listed as "things PCs should never do" in the Pathfinder baseline.

Ooh, I don't own the Pathfinder Baseline. Where can I buy that book?

As Jacob said, in chapter 10 of the CRB. It's pretty much just a small section that details the base assumptions everyone at a table should probably have on what should be handed with care/avoided unless specially agreed to by the party "party members shouldn't murder children" and "hitting on another PC without prior agreement might make the player uncomfortable"

[Doug Hahn]

So weird, my 1e projectionist mesmerist was a favorite by our local PFS community, I designed and printed vouchers for free palm or harrow readings at the table at every game; people would take them home and save them. Years later I know some people still have them. He was way more silly than creepy. I really miss Lens Lark.

The responsibility for good behavior is on the player, not the class.

[Temperans]

Eldritch Yodel wrote:

I will say that arguing with people whether mind control thinga should make people uncomfortable seems... wrong. The key fact is even if it does not personally make you feel uncomfortable it is a touchy subject for enough people that it should be given the proper care (I mean, there's a reason "Reprehensible use of mind-control magic" is one of the five things listed as "things PCs should never do" in the Pathfinder baseline).

You don't debate whether something that makes people incredibly uncomfortable *should*, you just accept that it does and act accordingly. This shouldn't be a debate on whether the elements in the PF1 overly-edgy description that people have issues with are alright to base a class around and instead should be on whether you can avoid those things and still make the class work (honestly, with lots of the ideas in this thread I reckon there is room, all be it I feel a different name would be better with mesmerist perhaps as just a subclass, but that's a separate matter.)

No one that I saw is debating the morals of mind control magic or wether it should be (un)confortable for people.

The debate is wether this one class is somehow worse for doing the same as other classes, but more focused and specialized on enchantment and illusions. By extension wether the class should or should not be made period. We have multiple archetypes and class that can already do what this class wants to do. Mesmerist would just be the specialist on it (enchantment and illusion) and have better tools to actually use them.

As for the "pathfinder baseline", I was about to make a long comment in response but honestly it was too much. The point I was going to make is that that section of the book is about how the GM can make things right for their table so that everyone at their table can have fun: That section is not saying that those things don't exist in the lore or mechanics; It is also not giving people the right to police how another table likes to do things. In the end classes are just a bundle of mechanics. It is up to the GM and player to determine what is allowed.

As for the name, if I may ask, what do you think is wrong about it?

* P.S. It would not surprise me at all if they give it the uncommon tag to make it extra clear that its up to the GM to allow it.

[Chromantic Durgon <3]

Eldritch Yodel wrote:

I will say that arguing with people whether mind control thinga should make people uncomfortable seems... wrong. The key fact is even if it does not personally make you feel uncomfortable it is a touchy subject for enough people that it should be given the proper care (I mean, there's a reason "Reprehensible use of mind-control magic" is one of the five things listed as "things PCs should never do" in the Pathfinder baseline).

You don't debate whether something that makes people incredibly uncomfortable *should*, you just accept that it does and act accordingly. This shouldn't be a debate on whether the elements in the PF1 overly-edgy description that people have issues with are alright to base a class around and instead should be on whether you can avoid those things and still make the class work (honestly, with lots of the ideas in this thread I reckon there is room, all be it I feel a different name would be better with mesmerist perhaps as just a subclass, but that's a separate matter.)

But the debate isn’t “should every body be okay with mind control at the table”

The debate is, should it be blanket never used as a class mechanic everywhere because it makes some people uncomfortable.

To me clearly the answer is no, because as I and others have already pointed out, mind control and class features based on coercion already exists and are popular in the game.

Certain tables don’t like it, they don’t have to use it, no-ones saying they do. People just disagree with the sentiment that a class shouldn’t exist because certain tables don’t one certain aspect of it.

And I don’t really appreciate the suggestion that anyone who disagrees the mesmerist should not be blanket written off is some how trying to ride ruff shod over anyone else’s feelings regarding a sensitive issue.

That’s not what people are doing and it’s pretty inflammatory to suggest otherwise.

[Jacob Jett]

Doug Hahn wrote:

So weird, my 1e projectionist mesmerist was a favorite by our local PFS community, I designed and printed vouchers for free palm or harrow readings at the table at every game; people would take them home and save them. Years later I know some people still have them. He was way more silly than creepy. I really miss Lens Lark.

The responsibility for good behavior is on the player, not the class.

The GM is the ringmaster. So ultimately it's on them to make sure everyone at the table is comfortable with the game.

[Unicore]

The debate is actually over whether Paizo the company will choose to invest resources in redeveloping the PF1 Mesmerist class.

My personal position is that the narrative of the PF1 class is not worth bringing over and is asking for attention over an aspect of the game neither Paizo nor gaming itself needs right now. Mechanically there could be something worth developing but it would need to come at the class from a very different narrative direction and that might still be inviting conversations into the game that Paizo staff might not be looking lead the way on. Maybe I am wrong, but “let’s develop a potentially very problematic class right after our game has garnered a whole lot of international attention,” isn’t feeling like the soundest move.

[Doug Hahn]

Unicore wrote:

The debate is actually over whether Paizo the company will choose to invest resources in redeveloping the PF1 Mesmerist class.

My personal position is that the narrative of the PF1 class is not worth bringing over and is asking for attention over an aspect of the game neither Paizo nor gaming itself needs right now. Mechanically there could be something worth developing but it would need to come at the class from a very different narrative direction and that might still be inviting conversations into the game that Paizo staff might not be looking lead the way on. Maybe I am wrong, but “let’s develop a potentially very problematic class right after our game has garnered a whole lot of international attention,” isn’t feeling like the soundest move.

I don't follow this for two reasons.

First, a player with bad intentions can already build a hugely problematic bard, wizard, captivator (Yes: Paizo is already including mesmer-like abilities In the game)… fighter… etc. Should they stop developing those, too, just because they have the potential to be problematic?

Second, you are proposing an extremely narrow view of how the class is/would be played — one that assumes players will only lean into the worst kind of trope. The 1e mesmerist also buffed allies with super unique tricks to help the party, made a great intrigue character, did illusions amazingly (not just enchantment!), and could get up to some seriously fun and 100% non-slimy hijinks with certain archetypes. Late stage 1e I don't think any of the mesmerists I played alongside were edgelord creeps. People made them fun and safe.