Should Themed Casters Be Better Supported?

[3-Body Problem]

It seems that Paizo believes that the correct way to play a caster is to pick the greatest hits, memorize the bestiary, and generally have a very particular spread of spells in order to meet the needs of the game's tight math.

This is supported by the following quote by Michael Sayre:

Quote:

That would actually make the math more complex and confusing, and it would mean that instead of helping guide people into how play casters, it would create the mistaken impression that they should play like martials.

The shadow signet allows you to target saves instead of AC, which helps people learn that pretty much every monster in the game has at least one low save, which in turn encourages diversifying your spell list (and a diverse spell list is something that many/most/all casters assume, especially wizards).

If you used a potency rune instead, it could only apply to spell attack rolls, but not spell DCs. This would break one of the fundamental structures in the game when it comes to how checks and DCs are determined, making the advancement less intuitive and more complex, and it would have the FOMO knock-on of making people think that the "proper" way to play a caster is to focus on spells that use spell attack rolls, since those are the spells that get item bonuses.

So the shadow signet pushes the caster towards doing the thing that all casters should be doing: learning how to identify enemies' weakest defense and deploying a spell that targets it. A well-built caster won't need a shadow signet at all, because they'll deploy a spell that targets the weakest defense without needing the hack.

So the shadow signet essentially serves two purposes-

Help guide people into understanding how to play a spellcaster

Provide some additional support for spell attack spells if a player wants to focus on them more than the base engine of the game assumes they will.

As a player gets more experience with spellcasters, they should begin to see things like how staves and scrolls are the equivalent of swords and shields for martials; where a fighter wants to progress their base bonus and damage die, the wizard wants to expand their repertoire and be ready to leverage their significantly broader toolbox towards whatever best suits the situation.

The kineticist, then, is more of a middle ground. It simply can't have the breadth of options that a true caster has, but it can offensively target more defenses than a typical martial. It's able to be that "I only memorize fireball" version of a spellcaster who can hyper-specialize and gain higher accuracy bonuses because none of its abilities hit quite as hard as a spell slot, and it's okay that it gains items that push it towards more of a martial playstyle because it's designed to accommodate that. It doesn't have the break point a wizard would have where adding item bonuses would distort the math so heavily on a well-played wizard with strong system mastery that we'd find ourselves back in an era of caster dominance, and so it also doesn't need to create as many workarounds or dictate other system dynamics in a way that over-complicates the game and creates increasingly difficult-to-bridge gaps based on system mastery.

This design ethos makes casters boring and makes themed casters far behind the curve. So many of your spell slots at each level are basically locked in because the tight math means it's very easy to tell which spells are worth taking and which aren't.

Beyond that, you know that as a caster you are expected to pack spells to meet all of the following needs:

1) At least 1 spell in your top 2 spell ranks that targets each save, targeting AC is optional and requires that you have a source of True Strike.
2) That every spell you prepare does something on a failure because only your highest spell slots matter and spells that can whiff can lead to a TPK.
3) That while doing the above you will still bring debuffs and battlefield control to the table.
4) That you still find room to pack some buffs/utility in because everybody loves a caster handing out buffs so they can shine at doing their thing more effectively.

This idea that the correct way to play a caster is to only take the specific meta spells and maybe sprinkle in some flavor is basically forced on Paizo by their own design choices. Getting rid of class-specific spell lists, tying spell effects to the slot rather than the caster's level, and not allowing "problem-solving" spells to actually bypass problems contribute to why the standout spells are what they are.

These issues won't be fixed by the remaster - I expect that they might be made worse given that the design team seems so confident that they "get" the system - but please can we make it so there aren't so many godawfully useless spells clogging up the book.

Fix incapacitation spells so they aren't essentially spells that only the GM gets to feel good casting. Let damage-dealing spells, especially single-target spells, feel good without locking yourself into True Strike and waiting for your martials to tee the BBEG up for you. Let utility spells actually solve issues again so casters don't feel nerfed for preparing them instead of waiting until they are cheap enough to be grabbed as scrolls.

I want more support for casters who want to be a summoner (generally a complete waste of time and spell slots beyond bringing in a flank buddy for a round or two), a necromancer (still almost entirely unsupported), a blaster (who gets to be a full caster and not something new entirely), a utility specialist (this would require spells be allowed to outright solve problems again).

Get back to each class as a specific list of spells known so you don't have to balance every caster feat and class ability around comboing with every single spell. Bring back caster level as a meaningful boost to spell effects so 2/3rds classes can exist again (wave casting feels like a failed experiment).

Sorry for the rant, I just strongly dislike what we've seen regarding casters.

[Martialmasters]

Boring is purely subjective, best to edit that clarification because I love being a toolbox caster and I often feel I still have a theme, I'm just not one tricking.

Kineticist is an example of a themed caster. Albeit resourceless . So I guess you can look at that.

[Squiggit]

Yep. Themed casters have been a failure point of d20 for a long time. Would be nice if there was more room for them.

[aobst128]

Agreed except for class specific lists. I like the 4 traditions.

[Temperans]

Martialmasters wrote:

Boring is purely subjective, best to edit that clarification because I love being a toolbox caster and I often feel I still have a theme, I'm just not one tricking.

Kineticist is an example of a themed caster. Albeit resourceless . So I guess you can look at that.

Congrats the Toolbox Themed caster is the only successful themed caster in the game. I really do hope you enjoy it.

[Easl]

Martialmasters wrote:

Boring is purely subjective, best to edit that clarification because I love being a toolbox caster and I often feel I still have a theme, I'm just not one tricking.

Same here. I find breadth over power very fun. But to be fair to the blaster-lovers, I do think Paizo could do a lot better with attack spells.

IMO they could probably drop 90% of them and yet give casters *more* attack spell options by creating one template for each level - a 'build-a-bear' type option. So for example, the one and only 'cantrip attack spell' version might be: start with 2d4 damage (your choice of type) at 30' range and a heightening progression, and then add three of these features:
1. change roll to vs. a save
2. +30' range (you can take this option multiple times)
3. +1d4 damage
4. change to "cone," "line," etc. This halves the final range.
5. Spell does half damage on failure.
6. Spell does 1 bleed, splash, or persistent damage of it's damage type (you can take this multiple times, but only to add another effect, not to increase the damage from it)
Etc.

The template at higher levels would be higher base damage and include more interesting ideas (chaining, multitype, ignoring hardness, etc.) but use the same basic build-a-bear concept.

This would allow each PC caster to create their own unique repetoire of attack spells, remove the need for constantly creating new spells in new supplements, and be much much easier to balance. And not that I tihnk it's necessary, but if they want to address the complaints about how casters have nothing equivalent to striking and potency runes, you could add "+1/3 level (round down) to attack roll" as one of the options.

[PossibleCabbage]

Squiggit wrote:

Yep. Themed casters have been a failure point of d20 for a long time. Would be nice if there was more room for them.

Yeah, I can't think of a single game in this entire family of games where "themed casters" were anything but a seriously suboptimal choice. It's sort of at odds with the whole concept of "vancian casting" which is why, I guess, the Kineticist works for "I'm the fire guy, I hit you with fire."

[3-Body Problem]

Martialmasters wrote:

Boring is purely subjective, best to edit that clarification because I love being a toolbox caster and I often feel I still have a theme, I'm just not one tricking.

Aside from healer what other themes are officially supported without the need for a class that has only just been released?

Quote:

Kineticist is an example of a themed caster. Albeit resourceless . So I guess you can look at that.

That is not a caster. That is a martial character in cosplay.

[Pieces-Kai]

I feel the only caster that probably approaches closely to being somewhat themed is the Psychic but still is a bit off. I doubt we will ever get thematic subclasses for existing casters in PF2e but I hope if we ever get a PF3e they really try and make that happen

[3-Body Problem]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Yep. Themed casters have been a failure point of d20 for a long time. Would be nice if there was more room for them.

Yeah, I can't think of a single game in this entire family of games where "themed casters" were anything but a seriously suboptimal choice. It's sort of at odds with the whole concept of "vancian casting" which is why, I guess, the Kineticist works for "I'm the fire guy, I hit you with fire."

I disagree. You could make extremely usable damage-dealing builds in 3.x.

The Mailman

[aobst128]

3-Body Problem wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

Boring is purely subjective, best to edit that clarification because I love being a toolbox caster and I often feel I still have a theme, I'm just not one tricking.

Aside from healer what other themes are officially supported without the need for a class that has only just been released?

Quote:

Kineticist is an example of a themed caster. Albeit resourceless . So I guess you can look at that.

That is not a caster. That is a martial character in cosplay.

The kineticist is definitely closer to a caster than a martial in how they interface with combat. You can think of their feat list as their spell list, which is pretty close to that idea of a class based spell list

[PossibleCabbage]

"Damage" is not a theme. "Save-or-die" is not a theme. There were all sorts of casters in PF1 who could specialize in making one particular spell devastatingly effective by pumping numbers as high as they could go, but these weren't "themed casters" except insofar as we could do a backformation of a theme from "nobody can beat my suffocation, mass DC so I guess I'm the strangler".

Themed caster would be like "I'm the lightning person" or "I specialize in pits and walls" or "I confused and befuddle my enemies" and these are things that are better accomplished with any tool besides "vancian casting."

[aobst128]

If more casters are like the kineticist, I'd be happy is what I'm concluding. The small spoilers about the hypothetical shaman are fairly promising too if anyone recalls them. Simply trading in your spell slots during daily prep for specific all day boons and buffs could make for some good themed builds. Can't screw up a spell list if you don't have any slots to cast them with lol.

[Squiggit]

3-Body Problem wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Yep. Themed casters have been a failure point of d20 for a long time. Would be nice if there was more room for them.

Yeah, I can't think of a single game in this entire family of games where "themed casters" were anything but a seriously suboptimal choice. It's sort of at odds with the whole concept of "vancian casting" which is why, I guess, the Kineticist works for "I'm the fire guy, I hit you with fire."

I disagree. You could make extremely usable damage-dealing builds in 3.x.

The Mailman

Mailman is a good build, but I'd hesitate to really call it a themed caster. It's more like a specific build that happens to take advantage of a specific line of dubiously designed spells, which is more or less the same criticism being directed at PF2. Even the mailman still wants to diversify their options in terms of both elemental damage sources and secondary tricks.

[Pieces-Kai]

I'm going to say the bigger restriction for themed casters is how the developers think casters should work in their system (they seem to lean towards tool box) and how subclasses only have slight benefits to reinforce the theme imo

[Squiggit]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Themed caster would be like "I'm the lightning person" or "I specialize in pits and walls" or "I confused and befuddle my enemies" and these are things that are better accomplished with any tool besides "vancian casting."

Vancian casting is only half the problem. It's definitely not an ideal system for anything and one of PF's bigger albatrosses.

But a lack of options to specialize in the first place stands out. You can't really 'build' a themed caster in PF2 because almost no spellcaster has options that exist to guide you along a theme. The options just don't exist at all like they do for other classes.

PF2 also is designed with the expectation that spellcasters employ a wide toolkit that other classes don't necessarily have. The wizard casting Lightning Bolt is a weaker character because Paizo is aware that he could be casting Slow instead. The fact that he isn't and never will cast Slow doesn't matter to this balancing paradigm. Spells could be balanced on their own merits instead, though.

Both of these facts of the system could change without abandoning vancian casting (although abandoning vancian casting would be better for everyone, obviously).

[Temperans]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

"Damage" is not a theme. "Save-or-die" is not a theme. There were all sorts of casters in PF1 who could specialize in making one particular spell devastatingly effective by pumping numbers as high as they could go, but these weren't "themed casters" except insofar as we could do a backformation of a theme from "nobody can beat my suffocation, mass DC so I guess I'm the strangler".

Themed caster would be like "I'm the lightning person" or "I specialize in pits and walls" or "I confused and befuddle my enemies" and these are things that are better accomplished with any tool besides "vancian casting."

I say that if you are able to make pit spells workout and most of your spells are dedicated to pit spells, then your theme is indeed "being good at pit spells". If you are focusing on electric spells and thus most of the spells you pick are electrick spells or modified electric spells, then your theme is "electric spells".

The idea that "oh you just use this one spell therefore you are not really doing a theme" is just silly. It is even more silly when you consider that "only do one spell and does it well" is itself a theme. Just like One Punch Man's theme is "punching" and he does punching really well. Or would you say that he is not "themed enough" because he only punches?

[PossibleCabbage]

I mean, the Wizard is definitely designed to be "the person with a big toolbox that they can pick the right tool for the job". That's what it's designed to be.

If we want to make "Good ol'rock, nothing beats rock" as a character for varying definitions of "rock" you are simply better doing that with any class other than the existing "caster" classes (the Kineticist manages this for elemental themes, but there are other themes out there.)

Since the paradigm of Pathfinder 2nd edition is that feats are supposed to be things that give you a new option for "something you can do." Whereas "making you good at the things you're supposed to be good at" is a function of class features (i.e. why champions are tough, monks are fast, and fighters are accurate). Since existing classes don't let you "build for a theme" through class features, and feats are never math boosters like they were in 3.x, then if you want themed characters that aren't presently supported then you need new classes.

[3-Body Problem]

aobst128 wrote:

The kineticist is definitely closer to a caster than a martial in how they interface with combat. You can think of their feat list as their spell list, which is pretty close to that idea of a class based spell list

I disagree. A character built using Path of War rules from PF1 wasn't a caster and didn't have spells even if they had some maneuvers that were templated in a similar way.

A caster uses spells, not feats that kind of almost replicate spells.

[Dragonchess Player]

3-Body Problem wrote:

I want more support for casters who want to be a summoner (generally a complete waste of time and spell slots beyond bringing in a flank buddy for a round or two), a necromancer (still almost entirely unsupported), a blaster (who gets to be a full caster and not something new entirely), a utility specialist (this would require spells be allowed to outright solve problems again).

PF2 does provide support for the following:

1) Summoner (not the class of the same name) - spells like summon lesser servitor and summon anarch/axiom/celestial/fiend are OK (or summon animal/plant or fungus, summon fey, and summon elemental for other spell lists), but I'm guessing the "issue" has to do with sustaining the summon spell preventing the caster from "flooding the battlefield" with summoned creatures. PF1 summons were also less "powerful" than a typical PC at the level they were available; as I stated last month:

Quote:

The primary use of summoned creatures is tactical. They should be used to generate flanking, block enemy movement/draw attacks, impose conditions, exploit weaknesses, and/or to provide special abilities; they aren't a replacement for a combat-focused PC, but are very good at making the PCs' lives easier and often reducing the amount of healing needed.

2) Necromancer - the Book of the Dead (including the hallowed necromancer and reanimator archetypes), plus an entire 6-part AP set in Geb that elevates the PCs to Blood Lord status, hardly counts as "almost entirely unsupported."

3) Blaster - the psychic, especially with The Distant Grasp or The Oscillating Wave (or possibly The Tangible Dream) conscious mind, is possibly the best blaster caster in PF2. Druids, some oracles, and some sorcerers can also be pretty good at blasting. Just like in PF1, overspecializing in a single element/type of damage (a "one-trick pony") can cause problems against enemies that have resistances/immunities but that's a different argument.

4) Utility specialist - which specific "problem solving spells" do you feel are missing? Have you checked out the PF2 rituals? Rituals are where many of the "spells" that are cast outside combat or have long-term effects exist in PF2; they don't even require someone to have the Cast a Spell class feature!

[Silver2195]

I also prefer the idea of themed casters to generalist ones, but many of your proposals seem more like PF3 things than Remaster things.

Having said that, I think the PF2 framework has room for more classes with more specifically themed supernatural powers (even if they aren't "casters" in the normal D&D sense), like the Kineticist. The obvious one would be a Shifter class. You could also have a "Warper" class that manipulates space, maybe a "Gray Necromancer" class that manipulates positive and negative energy, and maybe something like a Captivator as a class instead of an archetype (the tricky thing would be making it not just a worse version of a Psychic or Bard).

I think tightly-themed casters were generally suboptimal even in 3.x; it's just that 3.x full casters were so overpowered that themed ones were still reasonable options. Note that the only "Tier 3" full caster classes were the Shugenja and Healer, the most clearly themed ones.

[Squiggit]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, the Wizard is definitely designed to be "the person with a big toolbox that they can pick the right tool for the job". That's what it's designed to be.

If we want to make "Good ol'rock, nothing beats rock" as a character for varying definitions of "rock" you are simply better doing that with any class other than the existing "caster" classes (the Kineticist manages this for elemental themes, but there are other themes out there.)

I mean yeah, this whole thread is complaining about that specific restriction. The Kineticist is nice, but it functions differently, and we're realistically never going to get a "pit class" or any of the other themes you mentioned.

There's no reason spellcasting and specialization need to be mutually exclusive, it's just how Paizo prefers to design mages, so it seems reasonable for people to express their desire to see it changed.

Quote:

Since existing classes don't let you "build for a theme" through class features, and feats are never math boosters like they were in 3.x, then if you want themed characters that aren't presently supported then you need new classes.

Or Paizo could just give characters options to specialize. Like it's really not that hard. A big chunk of martials are built around feats and features that improve specific combat styles to the exclusion of others, so it's clearly not as out of bounds as you think it is.

[Pieces-Kai]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, the Wizard is definitely designed to be "the person with a big toolbox that they can pick the right tool for the job". That's what it's designed to be.

If we want to make "Good ol'rock, nothing beats rock" as a character for varying definitions of "rock" you are simply better doing that with any class other than the existing "caster" classes (the Kineticist manages this for elemental themes, but there are other themes out there.)

Since the paradigm of Pathfinder 2nd edition is that feats are supposed to be things that give you a new option for "something you can do." Whereas "making you good at the things you're supposed to be good at" is a function of class features (i.e. why champions are tough, monks are fast, and fighters are accurate). Since existing classes don't let you "build for a theme" through class features, and feats are never math boosters like they were in 3.x, then if you want themed characters that aren't presently supported then you need new classes.

I actually think Wizards are perfect examples of interesting way to do themed casters like I do not think Remaster will at all deliver but the School of Mentalism is interesting because focuses on a wizard who studied to be good at spells that to do mental stuff problem it isn't really reinforced mechanically and a universalist can pick the spells a Mentalist gets and be just as good as them with it

[aobst128]

3-Body Problem wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

The kineticist is definitely closer to a caster than a martial in how they interface with combat. You can think of their feat list as their spell list, which is pretty close to that idea of a class based spell list

I disagree. A character built using Path of War rules from PF1 wasn't a caster and didn't have spells even if they had some maneuvers that were templated in a similar way.

A caster uses spells, not feats that kind of almost replicate spells.

Pf1 hardly matters with this comparison. In terms of what you're doing with your actions and how you manage in combat, I posit kineticist is closer to a caster than a martial. That's not to say that it is a caster in fact, but that it's definitely not a martial. The playtest was a martial. Not this one.

[3-Body Problem]

Dragonchess Player wrote:

PF2 does provide support for the following:

1) Summoner (not the class of the same name) - spells like summon lesser servitor and summon anarch/axiom/celestial/fiend are OK (or summon animal/plant or fungus, summon fey, and summon elemental for other spell lists), but I'm guessing the "issue" has to do with sustaining the summon spell preventing the caster from "flooding the battlefield" with summoned creatures. PF1 summons were also less "powerful" than a typical PC at the level they were available; as I stated last month:

These spells are also terrible. As bad as animal companions are even they scale better into higher levels than the useless summoning spells. Trying to use the current suite of summoning spells is a massive nerf to character effectiveness.

Quote:

2) Necromancer - the Book of the Dead (including the hallowed necromancer and reanimator archetypes), plus an entire 6-part AP set in Geb that elevates the PCs to Blood Lord status, hardly counts as "almost entirely unsupported."

So a Necromancer that wants to play as a pet class with raised undead is properly supported now? If it isn't I'll say my point stands.

Quote:

3) Blaster - the psychic, especially with The Distant Grasp or The Oscillating Wave (or possibly The Tangible Dream) conscious mind, is possibly the best blaster caster in PF2. Druids, some oracles, and some sorcerers can also be pretty good at blasting. Just like in PF1, overspecializing in a single element/type of damage (a "one-trick pony") can cause problems against enemies that have resistances/immunities but that's a different argument.

But not Evokers who should be the kings of evocation magic.

Also, good still means worse at damage than a fighter with a maul while being resource capped and running the risk of whiffing on your spells in a way that martial DPS never has to worry about.

Quote:

4) Utility specialist - which specific "problem solving spells" do you feel are missing? Have you checked out the PF2 rituals? Rituals are where many of the "spells" that are cast outside combat or have long-term effects exist in PF2; they don't even require someone to have the Cast a Spell class feature!

As an example look at how useless Charm Person is now. If you were dumb enough to take it it probably fails against anything you'd generally want to use a spell on.

The fact that your skill check bypassing and social spells don't work now just means you don't take them. Nobody wants a tool they can't rely on.

[Martialmasters]

Temperans wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

Boring is purely subjective, best to edit that clarification because I love being a toolbox caster and I often feel I still have a theme, I'm just not one tricking.

Kineticist is an example of a themed caster. Albeit resourceless . So I guess you can look at that.

Congrats the Toolbox Themed caster is the only successful themed caster in the game. I really do hope you enjoy it.

Thanks for the incorrect read and bad faith take

[Temperans]

Squiggit wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Themed caster would be like "I'm the lightning person" or "I specialize in pits and walls" or "I confused and befuddle my enemies" and these are things that are better accomplished with any tool besides "vancian casting."

Vancian casting is only half the problem. It's definitely not an ideal system for anything and one of PF's bigger albatrosses.

But a lack of options to specialize in the first place stands out. You can't really 'build' a themed caster in PF2 because almost no spellcaster has options that exist to guide you along a theme. The options just don't exist at all like they do for other classes.

PF2 also is designed with the expectation that spellcasters employ a wide toolkit that other classes don't necessarily have. The wizard casting Lightning Bolt is a weaker character because Paizo is aware that he could be casting Slow instead. The fact that he isn't and never will cast Slow doesn't matter to this balancing paradigm. Spells could be balanced on their own merits instead, though.

Both of these facts of the system could change without abandoning vancian casting (although abandoning vancian casting would be better for everyone, obviously).

This. Although I think vancian casting should stay and a class like Psychic being more freeform like kineticist. The issue with PF2 is that they lack both the spells and abilities to support themes.

Yeah there are a ton of weird and fancifully mamed spells, but most of those spells are extremely niche or bland in execution. So themes just don't work for making the theme work. Similarly, for all the potential of interesting feats and items and ways to manipulate spells PF2 is actually incredibly bland and uninspired in what they actually choose to do.

Want a great example? Elementalist archetype. Here you have an archetype who should make the theme of "a single element caster" awesome, and yet all the feats are so darn bland. Another example? There are so many staves and all are themed, yet most of them will never be used because they aren't staff of divination; Even if they did they really do nothing to make you better at execution a theme outside of "I don't get X spell in my tradition".

[Martialmasters]

3-Body Problem wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

Boring is purely subjective, best to edit that clarification because I love being a toolbox caster and I often feel I still have a theme, I'm just not one tricking.

Aside from healer what other themes are officially supported without the need for a class that has only just been released?

Quote:

Kineticist is an example of a themed caster. Albeit resourceless . So I guess you can look at that.

That is not a caster. That is a martial character in cosplay.

They have caster chassis in terms of offensive progression

[Temperans]

Martialmasters wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

Boring is purely subjective, best to edit that clarification because I love being a toolbox caster and I often feel I still have a theme, I'm just not one tricking.

Kineticist is an example of a themed caster. Albeit resourceless . So I guess you can look at that.

Congrats the Toolbox Themed caster is the only successful themed caster in the game. I really do hope you enjoy it.

Thanks for the incorrect read and bad faith take

I was not saying that in bad faith. I really do hope you enjoy it because its a very well supported theme.

[3-Body Problem]

Martialmasters wrote:

They have caster chassis in terms of offensive progression

How can you call something a caster when it literally cannot use spells?

[Martialmasters]

Temperans wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

Boring is purely subjective, best to edit that clarification because I love being a toolbox caster and I often feel I still have a theme, I'm just not one tricking.

Kineticist is an example of a themed caster. Albeit resourceless . So I guess you can look at that.

Congrats the Toolbox Themed caster is the only successful themed caster in the game. I really do hope you enjoy it.

Thanks for the incorrect read and bad faith take

I was not saying that in bad faith. I really do hope you enjoy it because its a very well supported theme.

My illusionist Arcanist is both themed and toolbox

My gun priest is both themed and tool box

My wild shape druid I'd both themed and tool box

[aobst128]

3-Body Problem wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

They have caster chassis in terms of offensive progression

How can you call something a caster when it literally cannot use spells?

It can if you want it to through kinetic activation. They can even prepare staves. Even without that though, Impulses act essentially like spells in how they interface with the games math. That's the main comparison.

[Martialmasters]

3-Body Problem wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

They have caster chassis in terms of offensive progression

How can you call something a caster when it literally cannot use spells?

If your sole definition of spell is a spell slot I don't know what to tell you.

Timberland sentinel is protector tree as one example

They get a feat that lets them use magical gear

In their description is says how their blasts and spells are influenced by similar things that affect spells

[PossibleCabbage]

3-Body Problem wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

They have caster chassis in terms of offensive progression

How can you call something a caster when it literally cannot use spells?

Because they are quite literally a magic-user?

But what Martialmasters is pointing out that is that the Kineticist's progression in "class DC" (aka what they use to hit and for DCs) is precisely the same as the Wizard's spellcasting proficiency progression: Expert at 7, Master at 15, Legendary at 19. (Martials get expert at 5, Master at 13).

[3-Body Problem]

Martialmasters wrote:

If your sole definition of spell is a spell slot I don't know what to tell you.

Timberland sentinel is protector tree as one example

They get a feat that lets them use magical gear

In their description is says how their blasts and spells are influenced by similar things that affect spells

By that logic, you can theme anything to be a caster. A ranger that focuses on bows can claim to be a 5e-style warlock that needs a specific focus for his Eldritch Blasts.

Spellcasters cast spells without needing to activate a magic item or take specific feats/archetypes to enable their magical abilities.

[Easl]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

If we want to make "Good ol'rock, nothing beats rock" as a character for varying definitions of "rock" you are simply better doing that with any class other than the existing "caster" classes (the Kineticist manages this for elemental themes, but there are other themes out there.)

I suppose the Signature Spell class feat(s) and Focus point spells were supposed to allow for "Good ol'rock" style casters, but it didn't really work out that way. Maybe if they gave casters 10 focus points they'd take a "good ol'focus spell" approach.

[3-Body Problem]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Because they are quite literally a magic-user?

But what Martialmasters is pointing out that is that the Kineticist's progression in "class DC" (aka what they use to hit and for DCs) is precisely the same as the Wizard's spellcasting proficiency progression: Expert at 7, Master at 15, Legendary at 19. (Martials get expert at 5, Master at 13).

They're no more magical than a Path of War character was in PF1. Having some trappings that look like spells but no way to easily cast or interact with actual spells doesn't make you a spellcaster.

[aobst128]

3-Body Problem wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

If your sole definition of spell is a spell slot I don't know what to tell you.

Timberland sentinel is protector tree as one example

They get a feat that lets them use magical gear

In their description is says how their blasts and spells are influenced by similar things that affect spells

By that logic, you can theme anything to be a caster. A ranger that focuses on bows can claim to be a 5e-style warlock that needs a specific focus for his Eldritch Blasts.

Spellcasters cast spells without needing to activate a magic item or take specific feats/archetypes to enable their magical abilities.

You know, I made a scroll thaum with mind smith dedication that was ultimately flavored as a magician through the use of their wand, scrolls, and uncanny mind smith attacks. They were definitely a martial but what you're describing can work. This doesn't really have much to do with the comparison of kineticists to casters though.

[Themetricsystem]

I'm not too sure, despite how popular DSP was, that you're going to win to many arguments pointing toward the 3rd party Path Of War book as proof of anything at all, they remodeled the entire freaking house when it comes to how Martials lived and breathed and essentially worked as a replacement for a good 1/3rd of the Classes of the game which made it essentially incompatible with the best part of that system, the customization afforded by way of Archetypes.

[3-Body Problem]

Themetricsystem wrote:

I'm not too sure, despite how popular DSP was, that you're going to win to many arguments pointing toward the 3rd party Path Of War book as proof of anything at all, they remodeled the entire freaking house when it comes to how Martials lived and breathed and essentially worked as a replacement for a good 1/3rd of the Classes of the game which made it essentially incompatible with the best part of that system, the customization afforded by way of Archetypes.

It was merely an example of showing how you can build something to be more like a spellcaster and still have it end up being not at all a spellcaster. BoNS and PoW were both basically attempts to make martial spellcasters and I really wish they'd caught on so we could get cooler martial classes and not have to nerf spellcasters as much as they have been.

[WatersLethe]

Themed casters in the sense that people are talking about here (e.g. "lightning guy") demand a mechanical payoff for restricting themselves to a subset of spells that are of varying effectiveness. It's very hard to give a one size fits all mechanism for facilitating that tradeoff. You need class features and spell lists customized for each, which is a tall order.

I'm wondering what's the most elegant way to attach a custom themed/restricted spell list to a suitably compensated chassis. Kineticist might be the best answer for elemental focused casters. I think Staves posess some potential for tacking on customized spell lists (and point pool mechanics which can be fun to play around with). Bloodline and Deity spells are also something to consider as an existing mechanism for handing out spells.

[Temperans]

WatersLethe wrote:

Themed casters in the sense that people are talking about here (e.g. "lightning guy") demand a mechanical payoff for restricting themselves to a subset of spells that are of varying effectiveness. It's very hard to give a one size fits all mechanism for facilitating that tradeoff. You need class features and spell lists customized for each, which is a tall order.

I'm wondering what's the most elegant way to attach a custom themed/restricted spell list to a suitably compensated chassis. Kineticist might be the best answer for elemental focused casters. I think Staves posess some potential for tacking on customized spell lists (and point pool mechanics which can be fun to play around with). Bloodline and Deity spells are also something to consider as an existing mechanism for handing out spells.

You can solve the issue with modifying how the spells work. But that requires that the mechanical base are deeper than they currently are.

[Pieces-Kai]

WatersLethe wrote:

Themed casters in the sense that people are talking about here (e.g. "lightning guy") demand a mechanical payoff for restricting themselves to a subset of spells that are of varying effectiveness. It's very hard to give a one size fits all mechanism for facilitating that tradeoff. You need class features and spell lists customized for each, which is a tall order.

I'm wondering what's the most elegant way to attach a custom themed/restricted spell list to a suitably compensated chassis. Kineticist might be the best answer for elemental focused casters. I think Staves posess some potential for tacking on customized spell lists (and point pool mechanics which can be fun to play around with). Bloodline and Deity spells are also something to consider as an existing mechanism for handing out spells.

I actually don't think you'd need customized spell lists but just class/subclass features that favor you using certain types spells based on trait like I think the system would need to be more geared towards than PF2e is but I think it is at least semi-achievable

[Captain Morgan]

I really, really don't see the need to try and turn casters into kineticists when the kineticist isn't even out. This feels like complaining that barbarians aren't compatible with archery to me. Just... Play a class that is.

[PossibleCabbage]

It's probably more constructive to discuss specific themes you'd like to play but don't feel like you currently have the tools to do so.

Particularly since if someone else knows how to build a character in that theme, we can help each other out here.

But like "support for niche themes" isn't a thing that only affects casters. Like there's not really support for "fighting with improvised weapons" yet.

[3-Body Problem]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

It's probably more constructive to discuss specific themes you'd like to play but don't feel like you currently have the tools to do so.

Particularly since if someone else knows how to build a character in that theme, we can help each other out here.

But like "support for niche themes" isn't a thing that only affects casters. Like there's not really support for "fighting with improvised weapons" yet.

I don't think Blaster, Summoner, Pet Necromancer, Holy DPS, etc. are overly niche given that they all came with better support on release in PF1 than they have half a decade into PF2

[aobst128]

As a tangent about the necromancer wizard, I find it funny how the flavor text of the school has to defend itself as something not entirely about raising the dead but then the very first focus spell you get is an undead support spell lol. Every other necromancy effect in the arcane list is just temp HP and life steal stuff.

[Pieces-Kai]

aobst128 wrote:

As a tangent about the necromancer wizard, I find it funny how the flavor text of the school has to defend itself as something not entirely about raising the dead but then the very first focus spell you get is an undead support spell lol. Every other necromancy effect in the arcane list is just temp HP and life steal stuff.

Now that spell schools are gone and they don't have to defend itself against raising the dead hope we get a necromancer subclass that is just all into spreading disease and grave robbing

[PossibleCabbage]

So Blaster- that's basically the kineticist. You're the guy who throws fireballs all day, and eventually you get to drop the sun on people. Seriously, if your concern is "spells that attack AC are a bummer and I just want to throw acid at people" give this class a chance- it's really fun.

Pet necromancer- Isn't that just the Undead Master archetype from Book of the Dead? You get an animal companion except it's an undead monstrosity, and it's as good as an animal companion. You could alternatively be a Summoner with an undead Eidolon.

Holy DPS is probably going to be a lot more viable now that alignment damage isn't a thing but we'll have to see the remaster.

[Martialmasters]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So Blaster- that's basically the kineticist. You're the guy who throws fireballs all day, and eventually you get to drop the sun on people. Seriously, if your concern is "spells that attack AC are a bummer and I just want to throw acid at people" give this class a chance- it's really fun.

Pet necromancer- Isn't that just the Undead Master archetype from Book of the Dead? You get an animal companion except it's an undead monstrosity, and it's as good as an animal companion. You could alternatively be a Summoner with an undead Eidolon.

Holy DPS is probably going to be a lot more viable now that alignment damage isn't a thing but we'll have to see the remaster.

But your not doing it the exact way they want

So it's not good enough