| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I recently came across my old PF2 playtest thread again, and I figured I'd pull out some of the thoughts and take a look at things a few years on.
Customization:
Not sure about the line that you'll have more customization in 2.0 than 1.0, unless you're only comparing with the CRB (which lacked archetypes and traits). The reason is that it sounds a little like "class feats" might be doing double-duty as "feats" and "discoveries/talents/etc.". However, I could be wrong there! I saw traits mostly get used for class skills, so I'm willing to consider that balancing with getting to pick some or all of your initial skill specializations, and there's also a background to boot. I don't know where bloodline-type selections fit into all this, though.
Free archetype has proven to be pretty important for making characters feel properly customized, but it's also a lot more common than I would have expected at the outset. With that in place, I'm much happier with the level of customization available. Versatile heritages pull a surprising amount of weight there for me.
What I'll miss:
- Easy access on getting charisma instead of wisdom for most will saves (just one trait!). Wise characters are less fun, but I still don't want necessarily murderate the party.
- Wolf companion on my arcane caster. We'll miss you, Waya.
- Tons of content, initially. Lots of races, lots of archetypes. Won't miss most feats, though. For those using online sources, there really wasn't a good way to avoid a firehose of feat options to have to sift through.
- Occult classes. I really felt these added a lot to the flavor of Pathfinder, and my games generally included them.
- Bloodrager. Coolest martial.
- Sneaky casting, even if it takes a lot of work.
- Degrees of success helped a lot with not worrying so much about will saves. I'm fine dumping wisdom because a crit-fail is usually required to end up in a situation as bad as a regular PF1 failure.
- Free archetype to the rescue! I was able to build Yelis and Waya just fine.- As expected, the content caught up eventually. Once we got Dark Archives, I finally stopped missing PF1's breadth of options so much, and Rage of Elements helped settle me firmly in PF2 by giving me some variety. The huge range of playable ancestries in PF2 is amazing, especially including how much more fleshed out some options are.
- Occult classes is still a bit of a rough patch. Psychic is a lot worse off in terms of flavor and power in PF2, and there's nothing meaningfully like the Mesmerist or Spiritualist (sorry, the two occult eidolons do not cut it). Thaumaturge is a worthy thematic successor to Occultist, fortunately! Kineticist stands on equal footing. (And sorry to Medium, but post-playtest, it wasn't really worth much consideration.)
- We got a "bloodrager", and it's interesting enough, but it's definitely not the cool range of character options that PF1's bloodrager represented. If PF2 suddenly got a lot cooler about releasing a wide range of monstrous Barbarian instincts, we'd be getting somewhere, but we only got two new non-bloodrager ones.
- The remaster did a lot for sneaky casting, and I really appreciate it! Two feats cut down to one, no skill check, and some spells are inherently subtle. Huge win for PF2.
The two things I'm sad to not get for Pathfinder 1.0 first party:
- Rakshasa bloodline for Bloodrager. I feel like it's a really natural combination.
- The Harrowed Medium. I know it had eventually fallen to "likely never happening", but still sad to see it go. That said, I got to play the playtest version, and that'll be enough.
At this point, I'm far enough removed from PF1 that these magically appearing wouldn't move the needle for me. I would absolutely read the full Harrowed Medium list for old time's sake and character inspiration, though.
Stuff I'm glad we get another shot at!:
- Rakshasa bloodline for Sorcerer. It was a little sad to have almost all the powers be spells.
- Sorcerers and Clerics. Maybe a little more in the skills department this time?
- Rogue. I would love the Operative's "decent with weapons" and "probably broken with skills, like, all of them, yes including every single profession at once if you build for it."
- New classes! As much as I want to see some of my favorite old classes show up, it'll be really cool to see what new ones we get.
- Magus. I hate Magus, but it's because every Magus just casts one spell. I don't even want to play it, I'm just looking forward to it not being annoying when it shows up.
- Familiars, at least the fluff bits. I want my cat to talk at first level so that I can give them a memorable and charming personality that overshadows my wizard. I don't want to have private chats that I have to wait until fifth level for.
- Sneaky casting. Really, just thinking about how that needs to work from the get-go would be really handy.
- Skill balance/stacking. The range of skill values a PC can have is ludicrous, as seen by the "Can I get +100 diplomacy?" type threads.
- No rakshasa options of any sort so far. They've been remastered to something very different, so I'd be curious to see what those options would look like now.
- Can't say I care for Clerics at all still. Sorcerers having a broader range of skills is nice. The... less narratively powerful casting means I don't play them too much, but I had a blast with one in a one-shot.- Rogues definitely aren't treading in Operative's shoes. Getting off-guard is still just too annoying for me to bother with the class. Thaumaturge and Operative are more enjoyable skillmonkeys for me.
- Thaumaturge is the big hit from the new classes for me. Exemplar really fumbled it by dropping the domain spells. I'm hugely excited for Commander at the end of next month!
- PF2 Magus feels so much better to be around. Night and day. I even played one for a one-shot, and had a good time of it, reach reactive strike combat aside.
- Being able to get a talking familiar is huge. It's still hard to keep them present in a roleplay, but it makes a big difference to at least be able to have them talk. They're less impactful than familiar archetypes from PF1, but that's okay.
- It took for the remaster to get solid sneaky casting, but as mentioned before, it's good to have these rules baked into the system now.
- Skill balance really is a lot better.
Stuff that excites me about the new system so far:
Setting aside the fact that my players will probably feel a lot more chill with the system,
- Illusions have built-in defenses against Detect Magic. All right!
- More interesting cantrips! Shield as a one-turn AC bonus cantrip is pretty neat, and an emergency option to reduce damage by 4 is nice. Would be cool if it scaled, but I get why it might not. Acid Splash is evocation (viva la school delineation and balance!) and actually hits a splash radius.
- Quick personal healing.
- The flexibility of the action economy.
- Illusions are my favorite thing about PF2 magic. They're not automatically foiled by a low-level cantrip, and there's more interesting variety.
- Six years in, I think we've hit a good point for cantrip variety. I wish we got another one or two on a caster by default, actually. Combat cantrips are a bit too mixed in "are they actually good or not", but I'm more concerned with the out-of-combat ones, and we're well-stocked with options.- I do NOT miss the Wand of CLW.
- Three action economy kicks butt.
Character concepts I'm going to try to represent with core classes:
- Mover and shaker whose firm and trustworthy handshake is actually how he delivers charm effects. (Currently: Enchanter Wizard, Charm subschool, into Enchanting Courtesan.) Preferably with a tabby cat familiar named Tuna. Bonus points if Tuna can call him "Boss" in an endearing manner.
- Comedic actress and effortless expert at more or less everything (at least when it's funny). (Currently: Operative, Spy specialization. Alternatively, Kitsune Phantom Thief Rogue with Bard VMC and all the tails.) Preferably with the ability to change her face on a whim.
- Misanthropic alchemist and actual fire-eater. (Currently: Tiefling Alchemist.) Preferably with at least fire resistance of five without being a goblin.
- I would not try to build Peter in PF2 at all. The incapacitation trait shuts any kind of charm build down hard.
- At-will face changes just aren't possible in PF2. Ancestries cap out at 3/day on that. Being good at a lot of skills isn't really going to happen either. I've given Com a try or two in PF2, and it didn't work great.- Voror does work well in PF2. Alchemist does a good job of giving a variety of things, and picking up the Eat Fire cantrip does a better job of representing his schtick than anything in PF1. A solid win here! (Not a good character to actually play, given how antisocial he is, but that's fine. He made an NPC cameo.)
In general, approaching PF2 with new character ideas or interpretations has paid off a lot better than trying to convert the greatest hits.
I had a dream that a friend got a playtest copy. It included Spiritualist, which had an archetype called Bone-Sworn Mystic. The archetype traded out the phantom for a skeleton animal companion.
Well, we've gotten skeletal undead companions as an option, so I think this could be built pretty solidly using Animist with Seer.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
- Rogues definitely aren't treading in Operative's shoes. Getting off-guard is still just too annoying for me to bother with the class. Thaumaturge and Operative are more enjoyable skillmonkeys for me.
Excuse me but pardon? What do you mean getting Off-Guard is annoying as a rogue? If you are using any melee weapon which qualifies for sneak attacking then all you need to do is flank with your allies. Not only are you triggering Sneak Attack but giving the Monster a nice -2 to their AC state which is very, very useful for everyone involved rather that be a Rogue, Barbarian, Fighter or even a Magus. They all benefit from the penalty you provide to the enemy. Perhaps I am just confused and do not fully understand it.
- Rogues definitely aren't treading in Operative's shoes. Getting off-guard is still just too annoying for me to bother with the class. Thaumaturge and Operative are more enjoyable skillmonkeys for me.Excuse me but pardon? What do you mean getting Off-Guard is annoying as a rogue? If you are using any melee weapon which qualifies for sneak attacking then all you need to do is flank with your allies. Not only are you triggering Sneak Attack but giving the Monster a nice -2 to their AC state which is very, very useful for everyone involved rather that be a Rogue, Barbarian, Fighter or even a Magus. They all benefit from the penalty you provide to the enemy. Perhaps I am just confused and do not fully understand it.
Hmmm... definitely put that poorly; let me give that another go. "The feeling of obligation to always get off-guard is annoying to me." I dislike having additional stakes tied to off-guard. For the other classes, I'm fine moving up and attacking without flanking, knowing I'm doing my part in setting up an ally to get it. As a Rogue, I'm not just missing out on the lower AC, but a decent chunk of damage too. The result is that getting off-guard goes from a nice thing to a necessary chore. I dislike feeling like I need to constantly be sneaking around so that I can get off-guard even on a good initiative roll, or delaying initiative so that I'm the one attacking with flanking instead of my ally.
At the end of the day, sneak attack feels like damage I'm owed, not a bonus. Thus, not getting it is disappointing, but getting it isn't rewarding. The class's feats really lean into underhanded combat rather than anything impressive out of combat. Thaumaturge with broad knowledge checks, Tome to specialize in whatever skills I need, the reliability of Implement's Empowerment, and the out-of-combat versatility of free scrolls, does what I want from Rogue better than Rogue does. Extra skill feats are nice and all, but I'm already usually taking some skill feats that never actually come up.
Rogue is a dirty fighter first and foremost, and a trickster as a distant second. I've only really got any interest in that second part.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe you should take Gang Up, which allows you - and your ally - to flank whenever you and an ally are in reach.
Or try a ruffian, who can set up off-guard with trip and/or grapple.
Yeah, Gang Up is exactly the sort of thing that addresses my issues with getting off-guard. It makes it easier, and helps allies out at the same time. The wait to 6th, and not having anything that speaks to me for 1st and 4th levels, is what keeps me from taking that as the fix. I don't want to be spending feats on building up a dirty fighting style or slipping around in combat, but that's what Rogue is for.
(Relatedly, I'm really looking forward to Envoy in SF2, since that has double skills with flexible skill feats, more out-of-combat features, a less conditional combat style, and feats more in line with my flavor of choice.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who joined with the Remaster and was very not on board at the launch of the edition, I am kinda happy that I joined just a year and some ago. I missed a lot of the jank of the initial release. For example, I would have been quite unhappy with the Swashbuckler in its released form and now I even wrote a guide to the Remastered Swashbuckler, because it is such a good class now and hits all the spots I've always wanted from the class concept.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Relatedly, I'm really looking forward to Envoy in SF2, since that has double skills with flexible skill feats, more out-of-combat features, a less conditional combat style, and feats more in line with my flavor of choice.
Same.
If PF2 removed Rogue to split it up and replace it with Operative and Envoy, I would be playing Envoy every time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who joined with the Remaster and was very not on board at the launch of the edition, I am kinda happy that I joined just a year and some ago. I missed a lot of the jank of the initial release. For example, I would have been quite unhappy with the Swashbuckler in its released form and now I even wrote a guide to the Remastered Swashbuckler, because it is such a good class now and hits all the spots I've always wanted from the class concept.
I tried a Swashbuckler early on, and the remaster really helps address all the issues I had when I played it, yeah. I don't mind having been around for the full journey myself, but it's certainly convenient to get in once things have gotten a few coats of polish.
Same.
If PF2 removed Rogue to split it up and replace it with Operative and Envoy, I would be playing Envoy every time.
Yep, absolutely. I do expect I'll eventually play out enough variations of it to be done with it, but it looks like it sets a great standard for future skill classes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To speak specifically to the at-will face change thing, I remain kind of annoyed by Astrazoan in SF2e given how... Oppressively limited most shapeshifting in PF2e is by comparison? Astrazoan is getting to just do nearly everything I might have wanted from something like Kitsune, plus a couple bags of chips and some soda, far earlier and for less investment. Sure, "Starfinder 2e has different balance assumptions" and "just homebrew it", but that feels like kind of a copout given how heavily compatibility is touted.
My thoughts on at-will face or appearance change:
Yeah, that isn't something that the game rules allow. At least not without checks and risks of failure - and that automatic and insurmountable success at disguise may be what people are actually feeling is lacking.
Without houserules, the best option is actually not even magic. The Impersonate action of the Deception skill allows (with GM discretion) for changing to a generic disguise in an unspecified amount of time less than 10 minutes. But that still requires a skill check.
There are some things at higher levels that can manage this. Things like the Hex Focus spell Deceiver's Cloak (which can be gotten by a Witch base class at level 6 or from Witch archetype at level 12). It isn't quite at-will, but being a Focus spell used in Exploration, it is pretty close... and it still requires the skill check from Impersonate. The benefit is that it can be cast in 4-6 seconds (Depending on if you can and want to use Metamagic to add the Subtle trait to the casting) and can be done without a disguise kit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To speak specifically to the at-will face change thing, I remain kind of annoyed by Astrazoan in SF2e given how... Oppressively limited most shapeshifting in PF2e is by comparison? Astrazoan is getting to just do nearly everything I might have wanted from something like Kitsune, plus a couple bags of chips and some soda, far earlier and for less investment. Sure, "Starfinder 2e has different balance assumptions" and "just homebrew it", but that feels like kind of a copout given how heavily compatibility is touted.
I can understand that feeling, sure- I had a similar initial reaction before I got to actually read it myself. But I would much rather have Starfinder 2e thrive on its own terms, and give me somewhere to play an at-will shapeshifter in fun ways. I don't need to feel bad about astrazoans getting to do it just because kitsune can't; I just need to come up with some fun astrazoan characters, like an operative that shapeshifts into a drone to make another member of the party look like a mechanic instead of whatever their real class is.
I think they also struck the sort of balance I want- an astrazoan can look like somebody, in the same way that there are hundreds or thousands of people that look like, say, Brad Pitt. People aren't going to assume that they're actually Brad Pitt, though. Then there's an uncommon feat to be able to reliably imitate a specific person with fewer required checks to fool people.
If I ever really need to, it's trivial to go to a GM and ask to reflavor an astrazoan's kitsune disguise as their "true" form, or even spend a feat on getting access to kitsune feats.
As for compatibility, I don't consider that a copout. The big point is that I can go find a PF2 GM or PF2 players for an SF2 game. Grabbing something cross-system will have balance issues, and "shapeshifting alien starfish are much better shapeshifters than mystical foxes" is a fair balance difference.
My thoughts on at-will face or appearance change:
Yeah, that isn't something that the game rules allow. At least not without checks and risks of failure - and that automatic and insurmountable success at disguise may be what people are actually feeling is lacking.
Without houserules, the best option is actually not even magic. The Impersonate action of the Deception skill allows (with GM discretion) for changing to a generic disguise in an unspecified amount of time less than 10 minutes. But that still requires a skill check.
There are some things at higher levels that can manage this. Things like the Hex Focus spell Deceiver's Cloak (which can be gotten by a Witch base class at level 6 or from Witch archetype at level 12). It isn't quite at-will, but being a Focus spell used in Exploration, it is pretty close... and it still requires the skill check from Impersonate. The benefit is that it can be cast in 4-6 seconds (Depending on if you can and want to use Metamagic to add the Subtle trait to the casting) and can be done without a disguise kit.
Thanks for the reminder about Deceiver's Cloak! I have a habit of forgetting it because it's on an intelligence-based class rather than a charisma-based one, but spending one focus point for an hour of third-rank Illusory Digsuise is really quite good.
Mechanically, Quick Disguise at Master proficiency does what I want. Mundane disguises just feel like they're more limited in what one can reasonably ask to attempt, and like there are more bits of evidence to worry about.
My thoughts on at-will face or appearance change:
Yeah, that isn't something that the game rules allow. At least not without checks and risks of failure - and that automatic and insurmountable success at disguise may be what people are actually feeling is lacking.
Without houserules, the best option is actually not even magic. The Impersonate action of the Deception skill allows (with GM discretion) for changing to a generic disguise in an unspecified amount of time less than 10 minutes. But that still requires a skill check.
There are some things at higher levels that can manage this. Things like the Hex Focus spell Deceiver's Cloak (which can be gotten by a Witch base class at level 6 or from Witch archetype at level 12). It isn't quite at-will, but being a Focus spell used in Exploration, it is pretty close... and it still requires the skill check from Impersonate. The benefit is that it can be cast in 4-6 seconds (Depending on if you can and want to use Metamagic to add the Subtle trait to the casting) and can be done without a disguise kit.
Masquerade Scarf helps too. It doesn't mean you can impersonate with no check, but the greater versions "I always have a disguise ready with almost no time investment" is pretty nice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanically, Quick Disguise at Master proficiency does what I want. Mundane disguises just feel like they're more limited in what one can reasonably ask to attempt, and like there are more bits of evidence to worry about.
Just want to put in that magic in PF2 isn't break the laws of reality like it used to be, high level skill feats are just as powerful as many spells.
For disguises it might be helpful to think of magic as CGI and skills as practical effects. Alone they can accomplish the same things but each have flaws.
Yeah, Greaer Masquerade Scarf is infinite two action casts of Illusory Disguise to look like a generic "not me" person. It's only (error?) heightened to rank 2, so it still only functions the same as rank 1 and would only really matter for the purposes of not getting pinged by the very lowest levels of Detect Magic.
As for compatibility, I don't consider that a copout. The big point is that I can go find a PF2 GM or PF2 players for an SF2 game. Grabbing something cross-system will have balance issues, and "shapeshifting alien starfish are much better shapeshifters than mystical foxes" is a fair balance difference.
I do not think it's incorrect that Astrazoan make sense to be better at it, when it's their entire gimmick to be "the shapeshifting ancestry". That doesn't really bother me. I just also don't think it's unfair of me to find that the feats other ancestries have usually just feel extremely undertuned, and Astrazoans being so freestyle with it just makes that feel more glaring. I don't mind some refluffing, I already have a refluffed Astrazoan idea in the pipe even, but I'm going to start narrowing my eyes when the opportunity costs don't even seem to pretend to feel remotely fair.
Like, "it can go on any ancestry!" doesn't dissuade me from thinking Beastkin Critter Shape is anything but insulting; or the Hybrid Form feats multiple ancestries have are even remotely worth any feat by themselves, let alone a level 5 feat of all things. To just pull two random examples.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yeah, I'd love for the other shapeshifters to get brought up to astrazoans' level. I hope we get an SF2 version of kitsune some day!
Yeah, Greaer Masquerade Scarf is infinite two action casts of Illusory Disguise to look like a generic "not me" person. It's only (error?) heightened to rank 2, so it still only functions the same as rank 1 and would only really matter for the purposes of not getting pinged by the very lowest levels of Detect Magic.
Yeah I don't know if that's an error or not at this point. It's weird for an item to heighten to a level that doesn't actually change how it works from its base version, but the item is still useful at least.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yeah, I'd love for the other shapeshifters to get brought up to astrazoans' level. I hope we get an SF2 version of kitsune some day!
They could also just fix some of the default PF2 options. We don't really need an "SF2 version" .. I mean it's the same system. There are just certain things that are undertuned that could use some quality of live improvements.
Oh yeah, I'd love for the other shapeshifters to get brought up to astrazoans' level. I hope we get an SF2 version of kitsune some day!They could also just fix some of the default PF2 options. We don't really need an "SF2 version" .. I mean it's the same system. There are just certain things that are undertuned that could use some quality of live improvements.
Do we need an SF2 version? Nah, of course not. But I know one of the devs enjoys them, there's precedent with android, ysoki, and human, and it seems likelier than an overhaul of PF2's shapeshifters this late in the game. It'd also come with some interesting lore, whereas I'm well-supplied with PF2 details.
Yeah, Greaer Masquerade Scarf is infinite two action casts of Illusory Disguise to look like a generic "not me" person. It's only (error?) heightened to rank 2, so it still only functions the same as rank 1 and would only really matter for the purposes of not getting pinged by the very lowest levels of Detect Magic.Yeah I don't know if that's an error or not at this point. It's weird for an item to heighten to a level that doesn't actually change how it works from its base version, but the item is still useful at least.
It's carryover from the pre-master version of the spell, which heightened to 2nd to provide smell and voice. Voice is now part of the base spell, and smell is no longer addressed.
To branch out a bit so I'm not just rambling about shapeshifting...
Free archetype has proven to be pretty important for making characters feel properly customized, but it's also a lot more common than I would have expected at the outset. With that in place, I'm much happier with the level of customization available. Versatile heritages pull a surprising amount of weight there for me.
I gotta echo this one, it kinda feels like without free archetype (and, truthfully, Ancestry Paragon and an additional "bonus level 1 skill feat for becoming trained" houserule) I don't think my usual gaming circles or I would have had nearly as much fun? I'm equally surprised that Free Archetype is as common or well regarded as it is.
PF2 Magus feels so much better to be around.
This one actually doesn't quite feel like it clicks with me, and I think it's just because whenever I see the frustration with 1e magus, I don't really feel like 2e magus actually learned all the right lessons from it's predecessor? 2e's version just seems to be doubling down on the importance of spellstrike's burst damage by tying even more of the kit into spellstrike, while downplaying everything else (to the point a lot of people actively ignore parts of its kit), and I just don't think that's really a healthy design if the goal is avoiding repetitive, samey builds and turns that stake it all on gambling for a big hit.
I do think 1e magus was a mess with too few "good" build paths, partially as a result of erratas that took away options, I just find the idea of it being "one-trick" within those builds sort of weird given the way 2e magus is designed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To branch out a bit so I'm not just rambling about shapeshifting...
Free archetype has proven to be pretty important for making characters feel properly customized, but it's also a lot more common than I would have expected at the outset. With that in place, I'm much happier with the level of customization available. Versatile heritages pull a surprising amount of weight there for me.I gotta echo this one, it kinda feels like without free archetype (and, truthfully, Ancestry Paragon and an additional "bonus level 1 skill feat for becoming trained" houserule) I don't think my usual gaming circles or I would have had nearly as much fun? I'm equally surprised that Free Archetype is as common or well regarded as it is.
PF2 Magus feels so much better to be around.This one actually doesn't quite feel like it clicks with me, and I think it's just because whenever I see the frustration with 1e magus, I don't really feel like 2e magus actually learned all the right lessons from it's predecessor? 2e's version just seems to be doubling down on the importance of spellstrike's burst damage by tying even more of the kit into spellstrike, while downplaying everything else (to the point a lot of people actively ignore parts of its kit), and I just don't think that's really a healthy design if the goal is avoiding repetitive, samey builds and turns that stake it all on gambling for a big hit.
I do think 1e magus was a mess with too few "good" build paths, partially as a result of erratas that took away options, I just find the idea of it being "one-trick" within those builds sort of weird given the way 2e magus is designed.
The goal of the magus is massive spellstrike crit damage. That's what every player I've ever seen play a magus likes and wants to do. Thus I think the majority of players want the magus focused on that big hit spellstrike and Paizo gave them what they wanted. The handful that want something else can play a caster and build for weapon use to accomplish some kind of varied casting or whatever they want. The magus feels a nice little niche for players that like big numbers and the image of that impactful weapon strike that is seething with powerful magical energy.
The balance point is about right. You want that big damage, you are going to be very focused on it.
The idea of a magus with SpellStrike is similar to that of a barbarian with rage. If you put several mechanical functions independent of rage, a good portion, if not most, of the barbarian players would complain, stating that the barbarian's focus has to be rage. If not, they would play as a fighter, at most with the barbarian archetype.
People who play the magus play for SpellStrike. If they wanted to play a martial with magical versatility, they would simply make a fighter with a caster archetype.
So at this point, I don't think Paizo made a mistake in focusing the magus on SpellStrike. The real problem with the magus is precisely that some things like SpellStrike triggering reactions and having an anti-synergy interaction with Arcane Cascade are what make many complain about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It could be cool for Paizo to make a magus class archtype that gives up spellstrike for a different kind of cast+
PF1 Magus had no subclasses, and I only saw builds with very cookie-cutter metamagic cheese. With PF2 Magus, right now I'm playing alongside somebody fighting with magical cloth who has grapple and trip options for variety. Sure, it's still very focused on Spellstrike, but they even addressed the "Magus with a staff of half a dozen Sure Strike castings" business.
And yeah, I've also enjoyed the ancestry paragon games I've played, in addition to the free archetype ones. That's a little less important to me in terms of customization, but still nice to have.
It could be cool for Paizo to make a magus class archtype that gives up spellstrike for a different kind of cast+If people want the 'buff gish', instead of the magus, the battle harbinger is a better base, I feel?
In any case, you're asking for, what, a 2 action activity to cast a spell on yourself then Strike (plus some complex recharge mechanism)? I tried browsing the spell list and started realising why that's harder than it seems. There are buff spells that target creatures, ones that target weapons, ones that don't have a target. But 'don't have a target' includes area spells that aren't buffs. And if you just target areas then you're taking things like Bless off the list which, hmmm.
Maybe there is a seed of a class there, but assuming all martial proficiency classes are bounded casting, what is the best spell to cast there? Heroism is divine/occult, but divine misses out on a lot of damage-increasing buffs and on the flipside a lot of occult buffs are defensive, non-heightening ones. Primal?
This is reminiscent of the pf1 warpriest, really, where you got to cast stuff like divine favor as a swift action.
However, I'm not really sure it makes sense here. Those spells sort of existed to compensate for being 3/4ths BAB as a divine caster playing in melee, and warpriest got to take less time to buff in exchange for having 6th casting. Those buffs just aren't needed in PF2E—the class being proposed here would, presumably, be a full martial.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, a summoner can already cast a spell + Strike with their eidolon with Act Together. I recently said in another thread that if Paizo releases a proper Synthesist class archetype for the summoner that would probably scratch a different itch for people that want to gish without spellstrike.
It could be cool for Paizo to make a magus class archtype that gives up spellstrike for a different kind of cast+If people want the 'buff gish', instead of the magus, the battle harbinger is a better base, I feel?
In any case, you're asking for, what, a 2 action activity to cast a spell on yourself then Strike (plus some complex recharge mechanism)? I tried browsing the spell list and started realising why that's harder than it seems. There are buff spells that target creatures, ones that target weapons, ones that don't have a target. But 'don't have a target' includes area spells that aren't buffs. And if you just target areas then you're taking things like Bless off the list which, hmmm.
Maybe there is a seed of a class there, but assuming all martial proficiency classes are bounded casting, what is the best spell to cast there? Heroism is divine/occult, but divine misses out on a lot of damage-increasing buffs and on the flipside a lot of occult buffs are defensive, non-heightening ones. Primal?
I mean I agree with you there.
I guess the word cast+ had some preloaded meaning I wasnt aware of.I wasnt thinking making a buffcaster class archtype for magus. I agree that space is covered pretty well by the battleharbinger. I have not been one of the folks bashing that class archtype.
But maybe a different kind of magus archtype that gives up spell strike could look like this. Cascade master?
-loses the spell strike feature and access to all spellstrike dependent feats and features like double spellstrike.
-Loses weapon specialization and greater WS
+ Gains arcane weapon specialization and greater arcane weapon specialization - while in arcane cascade stance gain the same damage bonuses weapon spec normally would have given as force damage or whichever other type you gained from arcane cascade. This is in addition to the benefits already given by arcane cascade.
+ Arcane cascade gains the following:
Can now be used as a free action after casting a slotted spell.
Level 5 arcane cascade provides a crit effect based on the damage type gained.
Level I dont know but higher? An improvement to hybrid study benefit (designed by someone actually good at designing balanced pathfinder stuff.)
+ level 11 or 13 actually? the magus archtype gains a quickened spell slot 2 ranks below their highest spell rank. The magic from this slot swells granting amazing alacrity. After casting a spell from this slot the magus archtype may make a strike as a free action. Or maybe studious spell slots become quickened slots instead of getting a new slot. Actually I think that sounds better becasue it limits what kinds of spells can be cast while gaining the free strike but also allows more uses of it that grows as the magus levels.
Then again maybe this isnt a magus at all anymore?
The magical cloth Magus is also weaker because you trade Spellstriking for other actions while can be less powerful of course. I have yet to see a magus not wanting to Spellstrike even if giving additional actions. The new improvised weapon Magus is considered weak because of the additional action tax of needing to draw a new weapon unless you use a very strict feat rotation. Leave the tripping and grappling to the Barbarian and Fighters and you focus on doing BIG BONKING DAMAGE!
For a hypothetical Cascade master magus class archtype a low level archtype feat could be something like favored element - chose a damage type from and you can have a list, when entering arcane cascade stance you can choose that element instead of force or other element granted.
PF1 Magus had no subclasses
Sorry, but this needs to be corrected.
There were essentially three (generally speaking) PF1 magus "subclasses":
1) The "baseline" (many variants, however) melee magus (either Str- or Dex-based, depending on the weapon; Dex tended to be more popular, as it also boosted AC);
2) the eldritch archer ranged magus applying Spellstrike to ranged attacks; and
3) the myrmidarch that could use Spellstrike in melee and with ranged attacks (often focusing on a thrown weapon).
Note, other non-magus classes had archetypes that could let them act as a pseudo-magus (arrowsong minstrel bard, ectoplasmist or phantom blade spiritualist, etc.).
I definitely had not intended to imply Spellstrike shouldn't be the focus, so I definitely misspoke there. I think the focus is relatively equal between editions, but the emphasis feels greater in 2e to me because of the nature of the design goal of an "off-turn" that has a relatively strict recovery of what is essentially an "action you borrow from the future". It's a good goal that I want them to continue exploring, but its current implementation just seems like it encourages unintended behaviors that result in an entirely new cookie cutter meme build. The way "Starlit Span with Psychic Dedication for Amped Imaginary Weapon that just ignores everything but spellstriking" is so often held up just feels a lot more egregious to me than shocking grasp scimitar (or longbow snowball eldritch archer) ever felt.
I strongly disagree with the notion that there weren't an equal number of viable (if still weaker) alternative build paths for 1e magus, even if the momentum of the "meta" is so overwhelming, but in the end that's kind of worthless to the now. In the present, I just wish that the "off-turn" parts of 2e's magus (conflux spells, cascade, regular spellcasting) could tie more smoothly together as either setup or recovery for its "on-turn" spellstrike burst, and the "best build" didn't involve stealing another class's focus spell while completely ignoring noticeable chunks of your actual class.
PF1 Magus had no subclassesSorry, but this needs to be corrected.
There were essentially three (generally speaking) PF1 magus "subclasses":
1) The "baseline" (many variants, however) melee magus (either Str- or Dex-based, depending on the weapon; Dex tended to be more popular, as it also boosted AC);
2) the eldritch archer ranged magus applying Spellstrike to ranged attacks; and
3) the myrmidarch that could use Spellstrike in melee and with ranged attacks (often focusing on a thrown weapon).Note, other non-magus classes had archetypes that could let them act as a pseudo-magus (arrowsong minstrel bard, ectoplasmist or phantom blade spiritualist, etc.).
That's fair- I shouldn't be discounting the archetypes, since that's where so much of PF1's class variation came from. If I'd actually seen any of that variation in practice, I probably wouldn't have disliked the class so much. But since I did only see the same thing again and again, I was left with a biased impression that has lingered to this day. It could easily be that the problem wasn't all that bad, and I was just one on the far end of the bell curve for experiencing repetitive Magus builds.
My subjective experience in PF2 is a broader variety of what a Magus looks like in play. The class no longer gets under my skin, and that's all I can ask for. It's definitely a biased and unreasonable thing, but pet peeves are like that. I should be clearer about that being the case, though!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cantrips are so much better in PF2, it does make spellstriking far more powerful round to round.
The problem with this idea is that at level 1, you literally trade in the entire main magus damage mechanic for 1 action a combat, if you use a slotted spell.But maybe a different kind of magus archtype that gives up spell strike could look like this. Cascade master?
-loses the spell strike feature and access to all spellstrike dependent feats and features like double spellstrike.
-Loses weapon specialization and greater WS
+ Gains arcane weapon specialization and greater arcane weapon specialization - while in arcane cascade stance gain the same damage bonuses weapon spec normally would have given as force damage or whichever other type you gained from arcane cascade. This is in addition to the benefits already given by arcane cascade.
+ Arcane cascade gains the following:
Can now be used as a free action after casting a slotted spell.
Level 5 arcane cascade provides a crit effect based on the damage type gained.
Level I dont know but higher? An improvement to hybrid study benefit (designed by someone actually good at designing balanced pathfinder stuff.)+ level 11 or 13 actually? the magus archtype gains a quickened spell slot 2 ranks below their highest spell rank. The magic from this slot swells granting amazing alacrity. After casting a spell from this slot the magus archtype may make a strike as a free action. Or maybe studious spell slots become quickened slots instead of getting a new slot. Actually I think that sounds better becasue it limits what kinds of spells can be cast while gaining the free strike but also allows more uses of it that grows as the magus levels.
Good point.
Change the proposed quickened spell slot feature to be level 1 with the following changes:You gain a quickened spell slot that can be filled with any spell you know. Spells cast from this slot allow you to strike as a free action. This slot is always the same rank of your highest spell slot. When your spell casting proficiency improves to expert you gain a second quickened slot and a third one at master.
Also at 13 your studious spell slots act like quickened slots granting the free action strike.
Hows that?