“Golarion exists in a world where there are 4 traditions of magic. Elemental magic, especially elemental specialization, is very much the domain of primal magic, and there are a lot of casters who do that well. Wizards are arcane casters. They dabble in many other types of magic, but can’t really specialize in magics from other traditions.”
Is pretty simple, honest and direct.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of my players are new to pathfinder. Everyone was able to get their concepts at least underway by level 1 or 2. Ive actually been saying how the concepts are important. I have not been saying in this thread any criticism of the concepts available, just that them being distinct is important. When you either hit your concept or find something else you like better you have more fun playing the character. Also some of us only play 1 game ever large amount of time like 6 months or a year. So playing the concept you wanted can be a big deal if you only play this game with one group and thats the game your group is playing for an extended period of time.
One of them wanted to be a druid with dnd expectations in mind the only player thats played ttrpgs before. Some shock for him. Wanted to be good at shapeshifting but picked leaf order at level 1 because that concept was more important to him than having shapeshifting as early as possible. Picked up untamed order with order explorer at 2.
Another wanted to based her character off of her final fantasy character and had 2 design expectations. Can dual wield and can heal. So what can I do approach. Cleric of sarenrae and picked up dual weapon warrior archtype.
Next wanted to craft things and tank. Again what can I do. This one was easy. Dwarf paladin of Torag
Next two had a story first approach. Ended up as an animal bear barbarian virga may changeling, at level two picked up a druid archtype to fit having one hertiage from one parent and another from the other.
Next had an idea in mind of a stealthy ranger type thats good at lying. Built the story around it and made a halfling outwit ranger
Next saw goblin as an option and knew she wanted to make one. Saw witch in the book and was decided. Had the most difficulty with the patron choice too many looked good to her, way to on the remaster witch by the way. Settled on resentment.
We now have a 7th wanted to be a dark elf. Picked mastermind rogue. The ancestry was something he had in mind without seeing the options but classwise I think he went about making a pathfinder character by looking at the options and taking what interested him.
Different approaches to making a character but hitting that concept is important for having a good time at the table. If one of my players wanted to be a specific element wizard, i might ask if the wizard part of it is important to them and if its not suggest looking at the kineticist. But if it is i would suggest a wizard.
One thing to note is that a player does not need to play the full breadth for the class to have fun. Usually its enough as long as they are hitting their concept and contributing to the team.
No class, not even a wizard should be solving all the problems all the time.
The GM IMO is responsible for putting together a game that challenges and engages the pc’s they have not pc’s in general.
If the party cannot achieve something needed for the story to progress because the wizard didnt prepare the right spell then it is the GMs fault. There should always be multiple ways forward and never put progress on a single class’s shoulders.
I'm probably missing the point and going on a tangent, but I'd think an "elemental wizard" is either a witch with the Primal spell school or a druid. Like, the priority is just "prepares their spells with some flexibility" and "highly intellectual", right? Witches and wizards are Int-based, druid is Wis-based. Both are facets of what we actually think of as "intelligence". (So is Charisma, but that's more controversial for some people.)
Honestly, flavoring druids as being more Gandalf/wizardy sounds pretty sick to me. Druids don't have spellbooks by the rules, but you could flavor the spell lists they choose from as simply being the spells they know, and their period of communing with nature can be about searching for the right reagents, concocting inks and pigments from berries and beetles. You can give them a journal where they take notes on their observations. The spellbook doesn't have to mechanically be the source of their spells, because most stories about wizards don't actually treat the spellbook as the source, either. Wizards are just very wise magic-users who rely on lore, learning and wisdom. Doesn't have to be a book. Sparrowhawk doesn't need to lug around a big tome, because he just has the language of magic in his head by now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being "better at fire" doesn't require you to have more DPR, it mainly means being able to use fire for more things so you're not suffering for daring to stay in theme. The kineticist class handles this pretty well, but does so by making you pay to break theme. For classes that start with everything, you'd need to give them the ability to use their theme for more things while clamping down on theme breaks.
A fire wizard might be able to convert cold to fire, but will gain cold vulnerability if they use cold to try and accomplish something less fire-friendly.
I thought the PF1 wizard and the wizard/magic user through most of D&D fit well the fantasy concept of the most powerful character in the room at higher level.
The concept of Gandalf, Merlin, Alanon, Raistlin, and the like is the caster/wizard/magic user is the most powerful and dangerous character in the story, especially in a group. Their discipline takes far longer to learn, but once learned at a high level it is power in the extreme, far beyond what a swordsman or other types of casters can wield.
D&D captured this fairly well through most editions. D&D always had its super powerful magic user/wizards like Bigby and Mordenkainen in early D&D and the powerful archmagi of Forgotten Realms.
The wizard/mage/magic user concept to me has always been their position in the power hierarchy at the very top. In stories, you can have apprentice casters which can be quite weak and sometimes comedy. But the masters of the arcane are the supreme power in the world. No one is stronger than Gandalf other than his own kind up to the Dark Lord. No one is on par with Merlin except other casters. Bayaz is a supreme power moving the wheels of the world in The First Law series. Alanon in Terry Brooks series is similar.
Wizards are supposed to stand at the very top of the world power hierarchy. D&D/PF had done that for years once they slogged through the low levels.
PF2 is based on balance, so very hard to have the wizard in its proper place in the power hierarchy in a game focused on balance because stories, movies, and the like are pretty far from concerned with balance. So have an easier time placing the wizard/caster type in their proper place in the power hierarchy of fiction.
That's how I've often looked at this game in regards to the class fantasy. Does this class fit their place in the world hierarchy of fantasy storytelling?
Animea/manga throws this way off as D&D/PF was built more on the traditional fantasy and mythology hierarchy, but now anime/manga made everyone fantastic and sort of magical. PF2 seems to built more along those lines.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am quite happy for the hierarchy to be nullified, as it mainly serves to reduce story potential. Rituals, pacts with ancient forces, and other larger-scale actions can still rock a kingdom without being limited by class features.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I have long been of the opinion that "The Wizard is at the peak of the power hierarchy" is simply bad game design (*and* world-building.)
The specific comparison in the OP is relevant to me because not that long ago I had a player approach me wanting to riff on her Frost Mage from Warcraft and it was a bit of a struggle.Between the Winter Witch, the Cold Dragon Sorcerer, and the Wizard, you struggled to deliver a "cold-based" Wizard?Yes, all of those were pretty bad at it. Specialization sucks too much, resource limitations were stifling, and in general they just failed to adequately encapsulate what they were looking for.
The big issue here isn’t that specialization sucks. You can absolutely build a specialized character who’s still a functional and useful character. For example plenty of people get away with building martials who focus on nothing but weapon damage despite it not necessarily being the most optimal choice. Likewise you can definitely build a Fire-themed caster (as long as you clear with your GM that this isn’t a “we’ll be hunting devils 90% of the time” game) who can target Reflex + Fortitude + AC with a variety of damaging and debuffing options and hit all the balance expectations of a caster.
The issue with ice mage specifically is that there just aren’t that many spells to work with the theme. Until rank 5, you literally don’t even have enough spells to fill out all of your spell Repertoire with if you’re a Spontaneous caster. That’s not an issue with specialization it’s an issue with ice mage specifically
Build a Fire mage or a Lightning mage or an Earth mage or a Force mage and you’ll end up with a functional character. Optimal? No. “Good enough”? Often yeah, unless your GM and you really aren’t on the same page about what this campaign’s gonna be.
But with ice mage you’re forced into picking a specific class/subclass that fits that theme (like Silence in Snow like Unicore mentioned) and you still feel like you aren’t even close to making use of your main class feature (Spellcasting).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am quite happy for the hierarchy to be nullified, as it mainly serves to reduce story potential. Rituals, pacts with ancient forces, and other larger-scale actions can still rock a kingdom without being limited by class features.
I'm ok with it too as no one really role-played that character well. Mostly it was just a chance to be the most powerful and break the game than playing the role of a world mover who only steps in when needed for some great deed or deeds. Sort of like no one wants to be Frodo either which is less problematic because Frodo was at the bottom of the power scale, but still somehow managed to be the hero the world needed. No one argues they wish there was a class that better emulated Frodo.
Maybe with that fantasy role gone and PF moving away from D&D, they can focus more on turning the wizard into something else or just getting rid of it. There are far more specific class fantasies with casters like people are talking about above with fire mages or necromancers. Maybe they can build types of wizards versus this generic catch all caster and better build the base chassis for specific types of casters.
Since this move is recent, plenty of time for them to decide how to make a generic caster chassis with more specific roles within the world.
If anything the Remaster and forced movement off the D&D base should open up design possibilities that didn't exist or weren't thought of prior. They can go their own way with input from the community.
I think it's fairly easy to understand. A player has an idea for a theme and they want to find ways to realize that theme.
But there are multiple ways to make a frost wizard in PF2. So it doesn't have to do with a theme and a way to realize that theme, it's a theme and "something else" and a way to realize that theme and that "something else".
And I think it's where your player's expectations were unrealistic. Yes, you have a frost wizard in PF2, it works the PF2 way. Now if you want a frost wizard that work like a WoW frost wizard... well, different games, different worlds, different mechanics.
I personally think that a Winter Witch with Frostbite, Purifying Cubicle, Moonlight Ray, Ice Storm and Howling Blizzard totally grasps the concept. As a GM, you just avoid cold resistance/immunity (as it would be highly frustrating to your player) and you're set.
I can even see myself turning Fireball into Frostball if the player really wants it. It's a minor change (far more minor than moving a class key attribute).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would let the player reskin a bunch of spells as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The specific comparison in the OP is relevant to me because not that long ago I had a player approach me wanting to riff on her Frost Mage from Warcraft and it was a bit of a struggle.Between the Winter Witch, the Cold Dragon Sorcerer, and the Wizard, you struggled to deliver a "cold-based" Wizard?Yes, all of those were pretty bad at it. Specialization sucks too much, resource limitations were stifling, and in general they just failed to adequately encapsulate what they were looking for.
The big issue here isn’t that specialization sucks. You can absolutely build a specialized character who’s still a functional and useful character. For example plenty of people get away with building martials who focus on nothing but weapon damage despite it not necessarily being the most optimal choice. Likewise you can definitely build a Fire-themed caster (as long as you clear with your GM that this isn’t a “we’ll be hunting devils 90% of the time” game) who can target Reflex + Fortitude + AC with a variety of damaging and debuffing options and hit all the balance expectations of a caster.
This is what I mean when I said that the issue is when a character concept really flies in the face of the narrative lore of the world though. Like there are some cool options for arcane casters that use frost magic a lot, or INT casters that deal with thermal energy...but there is no elemental plane of ice. Even the Warcraft frost mage I think is really just an elemental water caster, so I imagine the ice focus was probably more a visual effect combined with trying to create a limited range of actions that a video game class needed to accommodate...not really good justifications to try to emulate too closely in a Table Top RPG.
But even so, Pathfinder infinite has a number of additional elemental focused options for any player or GM that is looking to solve the issue at the character class level. It just doesn't make sense to me for the game to have to provide options for things that don't make sense within the lore of the game world.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you elaborate on what about it rubs you the wrong way? As I said before, some of my players have found it a much better kit for making themed casters than the Wizard, so I'm curious to see why it's not working for some people. Is it the constitution?I can give you my answer:
First, Kineticists don't cast spells. You can reframe it but tons of mechanics around spells don't interact with the Kineticist: no Metamagic, no spellcasting components, you need a feat to use staves and wands, etc... There will be moments where it will be obvious.
I don't understand why the developers decided Impulses would not be spells. Perhaps it is a holdover from Pathfinder 1st Edition, in which the kineticists abilities were non-spell Kinetic Blast and Wild Talents. On the other hand, the PF1 monk's ki pool for making special attacks became a focus pool for casting focus spells in PF2, so the argument that the PF1 version lacked spells is weak.
Impulses
An impulse is a special type of magical action available to kineticists, allowing them to wield or shape their element into diverse and powerful forms. To wield an element, you must have your kinetic aura active and have a free hand, as described in the impulse trait. You automatically gain the Elemental Blast and Base Kinesis impulses, and your kinetic gate selection gives you additional impulse feats. You can select more impulse feats with kineticist class feats, and at higher levels, you'll automatically get more with the gate's threshold class feature. You can select an impulse feat only if it matches one of your kinetic elements.Impulses are magical, and though they aren't spells, some things that affect spells also affect impulses. Abilities that restrict you from casting spells (such as being polymorphed into a battle form) or protect against spells (such as a spell that protects against other spells or a creature's bonus to saves against spells) also apply to impulses.
The rules could avoid that second paragraph if the first sentence said, "An impulse is a special type of spell available to kineticists, allowing them to wield or shape their element into diverse and powerful forms." An impulse is very similar to a cantrip, a spell that can be cast without costing a spell slot or a focus point, except that it has an added requirement of an active kinetic aura of a matching type. Why not define impulse as a fourth type of spell alongside slotted spells, focus spells, and cantrips?
And, surprisingly, Paizo could easily change impulses to spells. Rage of Elements was published as compatible with the Remaster, but it was pre-Remaster. Thus, it would be feasible to republish kineticist in a Remastered version, in some later rulebook named something like Advanced Class Guide. A Remastered kineticist could be a spellcaster.
Impulse as spells would open up more design space. New classes could have other kinds of auras besides elemental. A priestly class could pray for a holy aura that enables divine impulses. A sorcerer class archetype could swap out bloodlines for rituals that enable impulses rather than bloodline focus spells. Well, we would have to call the rituals something else, such as rite or invocation, since officially rituals take a full day to cast, but regardless of the name they could part of daily preparations and maybe the impulse sorcerer could swap to a different ritual aura in ten minutes while deep in a dungeon.
Then, you don't have the out of combat utility of spellcasters. You can't make someone invisible unless you are specifically an Air Kineticist with the proper Impulse. You can't breath underwater unless you pay a feat. Sure, casters can't do everything, but they all have a breadth of out of combat abilities. And it's defining them somehow, magic is not just about blasting enemies. As Impulses cost feats, it's hard to have even a single utility spell as a Kineticist. Kineticists are just about blasting things.
The kineticists in my games have had utility. The air kineticist in the playtest was able to lift the party over a poisonous river and send messages a mile way. The leshy water-and-wood kineticist in my A Fistful of Flowers mini-campaign had a backstory about creating gardens with her powers, and I let her bend the rules to create fog to hide the party. When she expanded her elements to include earth, she created a barrier for battlefield control.
Most spontaneous casters have a limited spell repertoire, so they learn utility spells for common situations rather than rare situations such as underwater adventuring. The prepared casters typically require fresh daily preparations to pull in unexpected utility spells ("I will cure you tomorrow morning when I pray for Remove Disease."), so their versatility requires a delay in the adventure.
The bigger issue is that learning impulses, just like learning focus spells, requires a feat.
Impulses themselves. For example, there's no Lightning Bolt for the Kineticist. No healing (real one). Even if you can find something that looks like a Fireball, it's still rather different. No Detect Magic. So many spells that are defining magic in the world of Golarion.
Occult and divine casters lack Lightning Bolt, too. Focus-spell casters, such as champions, don't have Lightning Bolt or Detect Magic either. But I don't see the problem. Impulse casters will have a different niche than spell-slot casters.
Lots of small mechanics. You are trained with armors unlike a lot of casters, you survive easily in the frontline unlike most casters (you should actually tank damage with the other martials), etc...
Overall, besides Impulses having commonalities with spells, the Kineticist is a martial and doesn't take a caster slot in the party because it doesn't do caster things. I expect something very different from an Elemental Wizard, an actual mastery of magic to start with.
Bards and oracles are primary spellcasters trained in light armor. Warpriest clerics and druids are primary spellcasters trained in medium armor. Magus is a wave spellcaster trained in medium armor. Only cloistered clerics, psychics, sorcerers, witches, and wizards are unarmored primary spellcasters, with summoner as the unarmored wave caster. This is a matter of the fighting style designed into a class, not a requirement for a class to feel like a spellcaster. I could imagine an ice wizard conjuring Ice Armor or a wizard conjuring Mystic Armor.
The fighting-style issue could bring us back to the original theme, how different magical classes use magic differently. Is the spellcaster untrained in sword and armor and wants to stand safely away from the front line? Or is the spellcaster using spells that are close up and has prepared for fighting on the front line? Divine spells have more buff spells than damage spells, so the style of some divine spellcasters is to buff themselves and fight with weapons. Wild-shape druids who morph their hands into claws also have to be close up to take advantage of that spell. Kineticists have multiple styles due to multiple elements, and some need that light armor for their fighting style.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why the developers decided Impulses would not be spells. Perhaps it is a holdover from Pathfinder 1st Edition, in which the kineticists abilities were non-spell Kinetic Blast and Wild Talents. On the other hand, the PF1 monk's ki pool for making special attacks became a focus pool for casting focus spells in PF2, so the argument that the PF1 version lacked spells is weak.
IMO was to desynergize with other classes/archetypes. This is the only reason to justify impulses not being spells, to disallow then benefit or get benefited from other non-kineticists feats/features.
This way prevents for example impulses of being used as for example with a Magus' SpellStrike preventing what already happens with psychic cantrips.
Then, you don't have the out of combat utility of spellcasters. You can't make someone invisible unless you are specifically an Air Kineticist with the proper Impulse. You can't breath underwater unless you pay a feat. Sure, casters can't do everything, but they all have a breadth of out of combat abilities. And it's defining them somehow, magic is not just about blasting enemies. As Impulses cost feats, it's hard to have even a single utility spell as a Kineticist. Kineticists are just about blasting things.The kineticists in my games have had utility. The air kineticist in the playtest was able to lift the party over a poisonous river and send messages a mile way. The leshy water-and-wood kineticist in my A Fistful of Flowers mini-campaign had a backstory about creating gardens with her powers, and I let her bend the rules to create fog to hide the party. When she expanded her elements to include earth, she created a barrier for battlefield control.
Most spontaneous casters have a limited spell repertoire, so they learn utility spells for common situations rather than rare situations such as underwater adventuring. The prepared casters typically require fresh daily preparations to pull in unexpected utility spells ("I will cure you tomorrow morning when I pray for Remove Disease."), so their versatility requires a delay in the adventure.
The bigger issue is that learning impulses, just like learning focus spells, requires a feat.
The kineticists in my games have had utility. The air kineticist in the playtest was able to lift the party over a poisonous river and send messages a mile way. The leshy water-and-wood kineticist in my A Fistful of Flowers mini-campaign had a backstory about creating gardens with her powers, and I let her bend the rules to create fog to hide the party. When she expanded her elements to include earth, she created a barrier for battlefield control.
Most spontaneous casters have a limited spell repertoire, so they learn utility spells for common situations rather than rare situations such as underwater adventuring. The prepared casters typically require fresh daily preparations to pull in unexpected utility spells ("I will cure you tomorrow morning when I pray for Remove Disease."), so their versatility requires a delay in the adventure.
The bigger issue is that learning impulses, just like learning focus spells, requires a feat.
I agree. I saw Kineticists using or trying to use their impulses out-of-enconters many times. Including this is pretty easier to explain. Due their resource limitless characteristics the Kineticist players tries to use their Impulses in exploration/downtime more because the don't get the resource pressure that casters get. It's not like this wasn't easier to do with normal spells and magic items but it's pretty common for casters to try to save these resources to some more dangerous/emergencial situation while kineticists doesn't have this worry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually a strong proponent of the idea that one way to solve the elemental specialist problem is just to publish numerous elemental spells that cover a significant diversity of roles, and that this works well in a game that's always looking to publish another spell. To some extent this is also a matter of reflavoring, if your Fear spell induces a terrifying sense of drowning, or the panic of freezing to death, you have a spell that fits onto a Hydromancy or Cryomancy oriented kit respectively and happens to give you a tool that isn't just cold damage or whatever.
But on the flipside, I also like noodly little niches, to me subclass/archetypes that qualify a main class are cool-- they're little pegs that as a player I can hang my personal hat on in the context of my group, and they work great for my sense of expressive identity-play. I love the idea that a new subclass coming out could be 'my' way of engaging with a class or concept or whatever, in contrast to what my friend did with the same general area, I thrive on that sense of ownership, and it's a good fit for RPGs because you play the same build for so long.
Bards and oracles are primary spellcasters trained in light armor. Warpriest clerics and druids are primary spellcasters trained in medium armor. Magus is a wave spellcaster trained in medium armor. Only cloistered clerics, psychics, sorcerers, witches, and wizards are unarmored primary spellcasters, with summoner as the unarmored wave caster. This is a matter of the fighting style designed into a class, not a requirement for a class to feel like a spellcaster. I could imagine an ice wizard conjuring Ice Armor or a wizard conjuring Mystic Armor.Lots of small mechanics. You are trained with armors unlike a lot of casters, you survive easily in the frontline unlike most casters (you should actually tank damage with the other martials), etc...
Overall, besides Impulses having commonalities with spells, the Kineticist is a martial and doesn't take a caster slot in the party because it doesn't do caster things. I expect something very different from an Elemental Wizard, an actual mastery of magic to start with.
Yes, including after remaster clerics and druids can easily get access to heavy armors and shield allowing then to become competitive front-liners with most martials. OK their armor progression is lower than martials but specially in lower levels they are pretty resistant to take even the frontlines and in higher levels they good a good amount of defensive spells. They won't become so tanky as a martial or an earth kineticist but they are far from glass cannons. So I can see the kineticist high con and HP and high AC as a good defensive power but I don't see druids, clerics and even oracles as glass cannons.
Lots of things
I've just listed all the differences between a Kineticist and a wizard. There are many. Now, some may be fine for some players and not for others. But considering the sheer amount of differences I don't think many people consider a Kineticist can pass as a wizard.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Because putting out new under-reviewed content at a fast and reckless rate is a big part of how RPGs become worse over time," right? I mean, that feels like an easy one.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are things that you can build in PF1 that you can't build in PF2, but there are just as many things you can build in PF2 that would at best be a terrible idea to build in PF1.
Which set of options you're happier with probably has a lot to do with "which class fantasies are the ones you resonate with."
Wizards already had a specialization mechanic in D&D, in the old days. You chose a school of spells you were good at and lost access to one or two others.
As someone mentioned before Wizards could be grouped by specialization, necromancer, evoker, enchanter, illusionist, etc.
Perhaps someday we could get classes that fully support more focused "wizards". Until then, we could get some archetypes like shadow caster and reanimator that can give more of that focus and flavor.
The new Thasilon mage AT might do that.
People are rather mixed on elementalist, but we could still get an illusion focused AT, expand what illusion spells can do and perhaps a powerful focus illusion.
An enchantment AT that could let you cast a buff as a reaction.
A summoning/minion AT that gives you a focus spell summon.
There's ways of getting those niche flavor ideas covered mechanically even if your class doesn't exactly have room for it.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer my hobby to not be a second job.
The decision to have 4 traditions of magic is a significant narrative departed that required changing what a wizard looked like. The Primal and Occult traditions both covered a lot of space already occupied in PF1, they didn’t just add purely new spells and ways of being a caster. Paizo has repeatedly doubled down on putting the elemental planes in the Primal tradition wheelhouse. The elementalist archetype is the thing that was made to enable these “Wizard of the elements” fantasy spaces, they even expanded it once already. Things like “I only do one damage type” don’t really feel like a necessary fantasy to indulge in PF2 because they are narrative constraints players can already choose to do, run against the game’s general design, so really require GM support more than game design support, and don’t engage with the world building narrative that was the foundational of making PF2 in the first place.
I get the desire to say, “a kineticist is not a wizard,” that is narratively and mechanically true. It also isn’t a statement that needs to be any further addressed because you can build INT based full casters that cast spells around a theme. Some the ideas are sparse on options and could maybe use some additional spells, but that is a decision at the Paizo company level that should be guided by the narrative direction of Golarion, not some players’ desire to port in characters from other IPs. That is very much more the point of having such an open access, easy to mod system that 3rd parties can publish into.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
[T]hat is a decision at the Paizo company level that should be guided by the narrative direction of Golarion, not some players’ desire to port in characters from other IPs.Is it unreasonable to expect characters designed for Golarion as it existed in PF1 to have a home in PF2?
If you expect them to have the same level of power, yes.
[T]hat is a decision at the Paizo company level that should be guided by the narrative direction of Golarion, not some players’ desire to port in characters from other IPs.Is it unreasonable to expect characters designed for Golarion as it existed in PF1 to have a home in PF2?
Resource priorities are a consideration Paizo must contend with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[T]hat is a decision at the Paizo company level that should be guided by the narrative direction of Golarion, not some players’ desire to port in characters from other IPs.Is it unreasonable to expect characters designed for Golarion as it existed in PF1 to have a home in PF2?
What PF1 characters are we talking about right now? Ithe frost mage example was from Warcraft
[T]hat is a decision at the Paizo company level that should be guided by the narrative direction of Golarion, not some players’ desire to port in characters from other IPs.Is it unreasonable to expect characters designed for Golarion as it existed in PF1 to have a home in PF2?
How many characters from FR have been the same from AD&D to 5e? They tried a few times to explain the changes and the reception was pretty poor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, honestly, if you're up for the extra work of curating and rebalancing official content--something most of us would just as soon avoid--you're probably skilled and with enough time to just make the stuff yourself. Not that it's remotely just as easy, but it seems like a more reasonable assumption than "everyone should have to worry about curating official Paizo content, because there's no consistent standards of quality".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I like about the pf2e approach is with fewer classes there is less bloat. Using archtypes to get some of the more niche concepts accross.
There are still gaps in the hybrid caster fighter space, magus and warpriest are the current chassis that allow this kind of character but there is room for concepts that hit occult and primal traditions. Is the bloodrager going to be the new chassis for primal magic fighting hybrid? Probably more towards fighting than casting?
It might end up being a new favorite for me if it is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm really obsessed with is a caster class archetype with more of a martial focus, but I'm not sure that they're ever going to be able to really put it together the way I want. Magus just isn't quite what I envision. Wizard/witch with fighter multiclass is close, but not there. Animist with the battles-themed spirit is very, very close, and might be the template for what I envision if I ever try to build it.
|
"If PF2 is meant to be better why does it have less options than the old version? I miss when we got more rules in more frequent chunks.""Because PF2E has been out for five years, and isn't expressly backwards compatible with D&D 3.0/3.5 like PF1E was, which was also out for ten years" would be my guess, at least in part.“Golarion exists in a world where there are 4 traditions of magic. Elemental magic, especially elemental specialization, is very much the domain of primal magic, and there are a lot of casters who do that well. Wizards are arcane casters. They dabble in many other types of magic, but can’t really specialize in magics from other traditions.”
Is pretty simple, honest and direct.
That runs hard into the objection, "But I was able to build this in PF1, why are my options so limited now?"
It's not even particularly true that we're getting less content in PF2 - more pages of content are being printed than there were in PF1, it's just in larger and more thematically-focused books, so there's a bit of a feast-or-famine effect depending on if a book appropriate for the specific area you're looking at has been released or not. Guns and Gears means there's probably more steampunk-esque tech in PF2 than there ever was in PF1, but PF2 hasn't yet published a book on dragons, so we have less dragon content than PF1.
I'd also comfortably say there are more options that you can reasonably use to build a character in pf2 than pf1 for most tables nowadays - so much of the pf1 content was functionally unusable at a table of moderate or higher optimization, which really limited the actual functional build variety.
Looking at this discussion and ones like it, I think there's basically two key tension points between some players' expectations and PF2e's design:
So effectively, while PF2e is designed to accommodate a huge range of character fantasies, it doesn't accommodate every single possible character fantasy equally, and that's okay. It could be interesting to imagine a hypothetical future edition that has no niche protection and few to no hard counters whatsoever, which would allow for more freeform character-building and specialist magic-users, but in the meantime it's probably still possible to accommodate more players through class archetypes, which have the potential to recast a class's niche and thereby redefine what strengths it can have.
In theory, there are likely as many possible class archetypes as there are specific character fantasies, so it'd likely still be impossible to perfectly satisfy every player, but there's likely value in identifying the broad fantasies that a lot of players want out of 2e and that are kind of adjacent to classes we have already: as I understand, we're going to get a divine gish class archetype for the Cleric soon, and along similar lines it could be possible to have a Magus class archetype that'd let the class swap out their tradition, and possibly more caster class archetypes that'd take away some of their versatility and give them equivalent strengths. I'm certainly not the only one to think that there's a lot of untapped potential in class archetypes, and that could be a way of enabling more distinct character fantasies without having to come up with brand-new classes each time.
That's news to me! Do you know how it's going to be different from warpriest or champion? Warpriest is already fighty and champion has the 'holy warrior' thing covered.
I'll have to look for a more specific source, but we're getting at least 6 class archetypes with War of Immortals and Divine Mysteries. One of those is the Battle Herald Cleric, which as I understand is set to be effectively a Warpriest who gives up their Divine Font in exchange for even more martial power. They'd be distinct from the Champion still, as you'd still have spell slots, but it would probably be closer to a 50/50 or 60/40 caster/martial split, rather than the current 70/30 approximate split.
Possible, yes, but I haven't heard that this is actually coming. Have you? If so, could you share or link to that?
I'm torn about this one. On one hand, great idea. On the other, so easy to homebrew that I'd almost rather have Paizo staff working on new content that is much harder for me to put together on my own. After all, it's not like we need the company to tell us how to select spells from the primal list instead of the arcane one. If a table wants to do that, how many text sentences supporting a good mechanical "how" do they need to make it work? Seems close to zero.
There's no upcoming Magus class archetype that I know of. If you do want to try a non-arcane Magus, I homebrewed a one-page class archetype that should let you do just that. I do very much agree that it's fairly easy to homebrew a non-arcane Magus, though with that said I think there are a couple of hidden pitfalls to watch out for, namely the immense downgrade in versatility that comes from switching out of the tradition with the most spells, and specifically the most attack spells and cantrips. You'd probably want Expansive Spellstrike to compensate, but then that I think would require additional rejigging due to the Magus's weak spell DC and inherent MADness when trying to make use of their spellcasting modifier, both of which they can normally bypass with Spellstrike. On a more positive note, having a non-arcane Magus could be a sterling opportunity for brand new, non-arcane hybrid studies, which my brew didn't attempt. Maybe in a future iteration...
Again, possible. Again, I haven't heard anything supporting that it's happening. Have you? If so, please share! Unlike the other two options, I'm a little skeptical Paizo even wants to expand archetypes in this way.
Paizo actually already attempted this twice with the Elementalist and Runelord archetypes, neither of which were terribly successful. In both cases, the archetypes give up a ton of versatility for what ultimately doesn't feel like huge gains in power, so they're not amazingly popular. I don't know of any upcoming class archetypes that will attempt the same thing, though I hope for more in the future.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, but the presumption here is some player has asked for the switch. So other than informing them of the potential pitfalls, I'm not sure the GM is on the hook to fix anything. Caveat emptor.
The only way someone is going to be playing a non-arcane Magus right now is if they specifically go out of their way to enable that alternative via homebrew. For sure, the GM isn't required to do anything in particular, nor do they even need to allow that homebrew in the first place, but it would be to that player's disservice if the switch ended up creating a weak and uninteresting character, a significant risk when your get reduced to a smaller spell list and a smaller number of attack cantrips (literally only two if you go for the divine tradition). YMMV, but I would sooner veto a player's request for homebrew than grant it with some monkey's paw mentality that ultimately harms their gameplay experience, which is why I think it's important to note the pitfalls here when switching traditions as a Magus, and attempt more balanced tradeoffs when formulating homebrew to that effect.
The elementalist isn't the dedicated caster people regularly complain about (not having). Rather, it swapped non-elemental spells out for wider access across traditions to elemental spells. But it was still a "generalist" in the sense of accessing a wide range of elements. Higher levels actually gave wider access rather than any attempt to narrowing the focus in exchange for more power. And Runelord, while interesting, sliced the spell list pie very differently from what, again, the current requests for dedicated casters seem to focus on. So while you are right that Paizo has attempted specialist casters, outside of 'kineticist is our all-day magic blaster' they have IMO not attempted the dedicated one-element blaster caster that gets brought up thread after thread.
I certainly agree that neither archetype was an ultra-focused magic user, but both nonetheless significantly reduced the original caster's versatility. The Elementalist, while still able to access hundreds of spells, lacks major aspects of the arcane or primal lists that make them so strong, including lots of out-of-combat utility, primal's healing, summoning, and shapeshifting. Similarly, the Runelord locks you out of multiple schools of magic, so in both cases you are more of a specialist than the original class, if not an actual specialist still. Getting a few more spells adjacent in theme and function to what you already have and some alternate focus spells, or additional focus spells and martial polearm proficiency in the Runelord's case, still means you lose out significantly overall. Evidently, both were experiments in reducing the versatility of generalist casters in exchange for some benefit, and in my opinion neither experiment succeeded.
Paizo actually already attempted this twice with the Elementalist and Runelord archetypes, neither of which were terribly successful. In both cases, the archetypes give up a ton of versatility for what ultimately doesn't feel like huge gains in power, so they're not amazingly popular. I don't know of any upcoming class archetypes that will attempt the same thing, though I hope for more in the future.
I don’t think the Elementalist was really meant to fulfill the “narrowly themed blaster caster” fantasy. The Psychic and the Kineticist are the ones that fill those fantasies.
The Elementalist primarily seems to be there for players who want to play a blaster in a class that otherwise has less blaster support than they want. For example a Flames Oracle can use the Elementalist Archetype to swap out the Divine list for spells that support their playstyle more explicitly. A Battle Wizard can swap out of the flexibility of having the entire Arcane spell list to have better selection for their Curriculum spells.
I think ultimately the disconnect here is that Paizo simply isn’t willing to make an incredibly narrowly themed blaster that actually benefits from the full upsides of the Spellcasting subsystem. Wizards and Sorcerers have 4 spell slots per rank and most others have 3 per rank alongside bonuses from focus spells, Feats, and class features. Therefore every single caster, including dedicated blasters, must be balanced with the assumption that they’ll have 4 slots’ per rank worth of flexibility. This means that even within the context of blasting it’s expected that the caster can target AC + 2/3 Saves (or even 3/3), deal 2+ damage types (gaining a virtual benefit by bypassing Resistances and/or benefiting from Weaknesses), and inflict a couple conditions (blasters can often inflict Dazzled/Blinded, speed penalties, forced movement, and Slowed alongside their damage). If they mathed out the game so that someone who chooses not to use any of that flexibility is powerful, they’d also have mathed out the game so that anyone who does use that flexibility is busted
That’s why their solutions for narrowly themed blasters always end up gaining more of their power from outside of the fundamental subsystem that casters use. Elementalist isn’t meant to be a narrowly themed caster, it still plays with that fundamental subsystem and is balanced with that in mind.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So like you can absolutely build an intelligent ice caster, make a witch with the Silence of Snow patron, clinging ice is your hex cantrip, your familiar makes difficult terrain, and you can learn all the ice spells since they're on the primal list. The problem, I guess, here is that nothing you've done prevents you from learning fireball and lightning bolt or any worse at casting them.
But is that really a problem? I don't see why "I am an ice mage, I prefer to solve problems with ice" can't be on the level of "character preferences" and not "mechanics."