JiCi wrote: BotBrain wrote: Deriven Firelion wrote: What classes could they add stuff too?
Wizard. Wizard could always use some upgraded schools. An unchained wizard divorced from the current paradigm would be great too with spontaneous casting and any school-type attachment. More Thesis would be nice as well. Some that give some bang for the buck.
Champion: Champion base chassis is great. Feats could use some punching up. They have some boring, useless feats.
Magus: Add some magus feat options.
Sorc: Could use some more cool feats using the bloodline. Explosion of power is the main useful one right now.
Psychic: Really needs some better feats. They probably need a full rework.
Animist: This class looks very feat lite. They could use more feats.
Witch: Maybe witch could use some feats.
Oracle: Could use some more feats and mysteries. Maybe rework some of the weaker focus spells.
What other classes have weak or limited feat options?
Magus NEEDS duel wielding support. Come on, it'd be so cool. What we need is "emotional spellcasting", exactly how psychic spellcasting worked in Occult Adventures.
Basically, some spellcasters substituted both verbal AND somatic compenents with emotions, removing the need to gesture and/or speak. The drawback is how any emotion-based and mind-affecting effects neutralized those spells, IIRC. Woof, no, definitely don't want that again. It meant low-level spells could shut down casting for multiple days because suddenly dropping additional effects onto effects not balanced around that causes issues.
QuidEst wrote: JiCi wrote: BotBrain wrote: Deriven Firelion wrote: What classes could they add stuff too?
Wizard. Wizard could always use some upgraded schools. An unchained wizard divorced from the current paradigm would be great too with spontaneous casting and any school-type attachment. More Thesis would be nice as well. Some that give some bang for the buck.
Champion: Champion base chassis is great. Feats could use some punching up. They have some boring, useless feats.
Magus: Add some magus feat options.
Sorc: Could use some more cool feats using the bloodline. Explosion of power is the main useful one right now.
Psychic: Really needs some better feats. They probably need a full rework.
Animist: This class looks very feat lite. They could use more feats.
Witch: Maybe witch could use some feats.
Oracle: Could use some more feats and mysteries. Maybe rework some of the weaker focus spells.
What other classes have weak or limited feat options?
Magus NEEDS duel wielding support. Come on, it'd be so cool. What we need is "emotional spellcasting", exactly how psychic spellcasting worked in Occult Adventures.
Basically, some spellcasters substituted both verbal AND somatic compenents with emotions, removing the need to gesture and/or speak. The drawback is how any emotion-based and mind-affecting effects neutralized those spells, IIRC. Woof, no, definitely don't want that again. It meant low-level spells could shut down casting for multiple days because suddenly dropping additional effects onto effects not balanced around that causes issues. And don't forget, Demoralize has the Emotion trait. Having a style of spellcasting be shut down by one of the most widely used actions in the game doesn't seem like a terribly viable style of spellcasting.
Then how would you cast spells with both hands full?
Psychic spellcasting allowed you just that PLUS being fully armored.
Maybe have some resistance to emotion effects so you don't cower everytime?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
JiCi wrote: Then how would you cast spells with both hands full?
Psychic spellcasting allowed you just that PLUS being fully armored.
Maybe have some resistance to emotion effects so you don't cower everytime?
Uh, did you miss that you can always cast with hands full in PF2e? And that psychics do have psychic spellcasting, replacing verbal components premaster with a concentrate component and material with somatic - that doesn't do anything anymore, but certainly did make the tiny handful of premaster spells that needed a hand for the material component not need it.
In other words, it already exists
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Ryangwy wrote: JiCi wrote: Then how would you cast spells with both hands full?
Psychic spellcasting allowed you just that PLUS being fully armored.
Maybe have some resistance to emotion effects so you don't cower everytime?
Uh, did you miss that you can always cast with hands full in PF2e? And that psychics do have psychic spellcasting, replacing verbal components premaster with a concentrate component and material with somatic - that doesn't do anything anymore, but certainly did make the tiny handful of premaster spells that needed a hand for the material component not need it.
In other words, it already exists And rules like Arcane Spell Failure have never been a thing in 2E; casters have been able to cast in heavy armor from the jump with no issue.
Spellcasting only requires you to "make gestures," and only requires you have a suitable appendage, per the Manipulate trait.
Back in the Legacy edition, the Somatic Component had a clause that "You can use this (Somatic) component while holding something in your hand, but not if you are restrained or otherwise unable to gesture freely."
I think it's a total mistake to try to recreate how old games defined psychic power, because it was pretty much exclusively just "cast differently". I think Paizo class design has evolved to a point where they really want to hit story tropes and unique design space in new classes.
If they ever play into "emotional magic" as a class concept, I could see it resembling the D&D 4e Ardent class. The Ardent was the charisma-based wild emotions themed psychic class. The class came with a very unique core concept- you absorb and project the emotions of others on an unconscious level, and you learn to train it to inspire your party.
I've always been impressed by how clean and well designed that class pitch is. The idea of a class built around emotion and the way it changes people is great! It's chock full of roleplay potential and lets you create all sorts of unconventional characters.
Plus, the mechanics feel immediately obvious and evocative: your rage power makes your allies hit more recklessly, while your fear powers make your enemies debuffed. You make allies feel so giddy that they can shrug off damage psychosomatically, or calm their emotions to defend them against mental effects.
I like that a lot more than just... "you cast differently".
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder does already have emotion casting, on that note. It's from the Cathartic Mage archetype.
As for the psychic, I wonder what they'll do from the change from a verbal to a mental component.
The remaster sort of made it to where all spells seem to involve an utterance of sound and a gesturing. But it is a bit vague on exactly how it is adjudicated. One would assume that the concentrate trait requires an utterance, and the manipulate trait requires a gesture, but the silence spell says that all spells with the exception of subtle spells are not castable in an area of silence, and since there are spells that lack both the concentrate and subtle traits, that means that these spells involve making a sound to cast, while not needing to concentrate (example: Blood Vendetta, Crimson Breath, 1-Action Heal, 1-Action Harm, Mark for Blood, Mutilate, Pet Cache, 1-Action Scintillating Pattern, Spell Riposte, Spirit Ward, Thoughtful Gift, Time Beacon, Utter Destruction, Wrathful Storm). So unless that aspect of the silence spell is in error, then these spells would require noise to be made.
I take it that means that the psychic could potentially say that you do not need to produce sound to create a spell, but the spell itself would still produce sound as well as other obvious manifestations, essentially giving you immunity to the silence effect.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Didn't Battlecry! HAVE a ton of of new feats for existing classes and stuff? I always find it odd when this is brought up as an either or thing.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zoken44 wrote: Didn't Battlecry! HAVE a ton of of new feats for existing classes and stuff? I always find it odd when this is brought up as an either or thing. Well, looking at the "Batlecry! Martials and New Feats!" thread it looks like THE martial book has no new feats for fighters, barbarians, and rangers.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
but feats for an existing martial archetype, feats for three martial classes (the Inventor and the Thaumaturge and the Champion.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
But if there were more room, maybe fighters, barbarians, and rangers would have gotten stuff too. I'm just saying it's not like people can't want more options than they're getting, and it's pretty fair to expect that to be possible with only one class per book.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
WatersLethe wrote: But if there were more room, maybe fighters, barbarians, and rangers would have gotten stuff too. I'm just saying it's not like people can't want more options than they're getting, and it's pretty fair to expect that to be possible with only one class per book. I don't think there's any credible evidence for this to be true. We've had rulebooks with fewer classes in them. Even the rulebooks with two classes have a decent amount of extra space in them.
Most of that space gets spent on archetypes.
We have literal hundreds of archetypes and some classes have gotten only a couple new feats since they were first printed.
I think it's just as, if not more reasonable, to expect that a book with only one class will just spend those extra ten pages on more archetypes, because that's what Paizo has historically done.
Or conversely, we could get more class options even in two class books if we just cut back on archetype bloat, but Paizo doesn't seem to want that.
It's not that it isn't a valid criticism, but I think the new class vs more stuff for old classes is a false dichotomy because there's been plenty of room to do both and Paizo just hasn't wanted to.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
That's fair. Archetypes have seen the preponderance of development.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit said what I meant better than I did. I do agree more stuff for older classes would be cool (Personally I want a Starfinder book that introduces new Starfinder options for Pathfinder classes)
|
8 people marked this as a favorite.
|
More class feats would be great, but even more needed are more ancestry feats (come on, many have got only a single choice in the upper brackets), and my pet peeve: alternative (or even complementary) focus spells for stuff like domain and arcane schools.
I think a book of 'meat' like this would sell well, even without having a clear theme to it.
We get a ton of archetypes... But most of them are so damn hecking specific that the majority of players when pick one they are likely from the advanced players guide.
I would love something like a pyromancer archetype per example that give a few fire focus spells and maybe even add a few fire spells to your spell list, but no, have to be the archetype where you sneeze on crystals so your strikes gain the cold trait during the new moon.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Kyrone wrote:
I would love something like a pyromancer archetype per example that give a few fire focus spells and maybe even add a few fire spells to your spell list, but no, have to be the archetype where you sneeze on crystals so your strikes gain the cold trait during the new moon.
I agree, the snootokryomancer is a little too specific. However, you have to admit the boost to damage is great if you have darkvision to see during that darkest of nights. Smurfalicious!
Then what would you want out of a TWF Magus?
Be able to use 2 Spellstrikes per round as a 3-action option?
Kinda OP IMO ^^;
I could see storing one Spellstrike per weapon, lasting 1 round per level (or similar).
JiCi wrote: Then what would you want out of a TWF Magus?
Be able to use 2 Spellstrikes per round as a 3-action option?
Kinda OP IMO ^^;
I could see storing one Spellstrike per weapon, lasting 1 round per level (or similar).
Maybe 3-action option to double Strike and, if both hits, a penalty for save spells.
The Raven Black wrote: JiCi wrote: Then what would you want out of a TWF Magus?
Be able to use 2 Spellstrikes per round as a 3-action option?
Kinda OP IMO ^^;
I could see storing one Spellstrike per weapon, lasting 1 round per level (or similar).
Maybe 3-action option to double Strike and, if both hits, a penalty for save spells. or vice-versa...
If you spellstrike first, any regular Strike gets a bonus, imposes a penalty... or on a critical success, recharge your Spellstrike.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
