|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, with a new edition comes the chance to promote some classes to core, or demote some to archetypes or supplemental rulebooks.
With that said, what 4 classes do you most want to see in the core rulebook?
Bard - The classic does-a-bit-of-everything class and a potent force multiplier in 1e.
Kineticist - One of the most popular classes from OA, and an early chance to work out some of the class's quirks. Gather power could work in interesting ways with the new actions system that's been teased.
Oracle - Always liked the curse, mystery, and revelation system better than the boring old domain system.
Monk - Do not forget to put the number one option for unarmed, unarmored ass-kicking in the core book.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Haven't they already announced that PF2E core is PF1E core + Alchemist?
Haven't they already decided on the core classes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They have.
However, I would still like to see the warlock as a core Pathfinder class. It is perhaps my favorite class of 3.5 and 5E. Would love to see a PF2E version.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or, in long form ...Can we get a list of the classes they chose as core?The Second Edition rulebook includes all of the core classes from the First Edition Core Rulebook, plus the alchemist.
- Alchemist
- Barbarian
- Bard
- Cleric
- Druid
- Fighter
- Monk
- Paladin
- Ranger
- Rogue
- Sorcerer
- Wizard
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My wishlist:
Integrate Arcanist into Wizard and Oracle into Cleric. I don't know how spellcasting will work yet, but if there is a spontaneous/prepared dichotomy, these 4 classes are easiest to merge. Lord, Arcanist is presently basically a better Wizard anyway, and its thematically similar enough to find a way to blend the monotheism of the cleric with the poly- or plain ol' theist oracle. These two sets of classes mostly work the same now, and IMO it would be a good place to upgrade them together.
I honestly would like to see the druid trend more toward what we saw with the shifter, rather than being a control spell tree-cleric who can polymorph.
Kineticist is a definite one I would like to see promoted to Core. With just some re-flavoring (maybe even taking some oracle flavor), it can fit that Warlock itch, and give us a magical non-spellcasting blaster that made folks fall in love with the 3.5 Warlock.
I'm really interested, though, in what happens to the fighter and rogue, our plainest of jane classes. Fighter has Brawler, Cavalier, Gunslinger, Vigilante, and Swashbuckler all sort of spun off in one way or the other. That's basically 6 different fighter classes. Will the new edition make the fighter more interesting by bringing these newer versions into the fold, or will we just see more of the same 3-4 iconic fighter feat tax styles? Rogue, ninja, and slayer all all waiting in the wings to see if they'll get similar treatment.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really interested, though, in what happens to the fighter and rogue, our plainest of jane classes. Fighter has Brawler, Cavalier, Gunslinger, Vigilante, and Swashbuckler all sort of spun off in one way or the other. That's basically 6 different fighter classes. Will the new edition make the fighter more interesting by bringing these newer versions into the fold, or will we just see more of the same 3-4 iconic fighter feat tax styles? Rogue, ninja, and slayer all all waiting in the wings to see if they'll get similar treatment.
Hopefully they go the route they did with the Starfinder Soldier.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I would have been content with the following as core classes:
* Artificer: Craft bombs, mines, poisons, potions, turrets, and all kinds of alchemical nonsense in your very own inn room/ass-smelling basement/mad scientist's laboratory! Be your own test subject guinea pig unwilling victim control group!
* Fighter: You're good at killing things. Really, really good at killing things. So good you're developing your own unique, if rough, fighting style, complete with stances, powered-up combat maneuvers, and the Plain Old Honest to Aeon Longsword Through The Heart.
* Mage: Every mage since the days of Melf, Tenser, and Mordenkainen knows Read Magic and Magic Missile by heart. They're to mages what Billy Joel is to 21st century humans-- stuff everyone knows. But mages get the powers of the elements, powers to give their opponents the shaft, and really just make fighting your group of heavily-armed ruffians really not worth it.
* Monk: Unarmed, unarmored, wise, scholastic, agile, brave, clean, and reverent and quite capable of beating your ass. The monk is high-risk, high-reward, which is what tabletop RPGs need-- you are competent as it is at full health, but you get better as you run closer to defeat.
* Mystic: Somewhere between the mage and the fighter in terms of ability to cast spells and fight, but the mystic's quite capable of doing both-- often at the same time, just like the magus of years ago!
* Priest: "Waah, my name's Regdar and I got a minor booboo," SUCK IT DOWN, I've got better things to do than waste spell slots on Cure Wounds! I've got the Lay on Hands I "liberated" from that paladin, I can smite in the name of my god, I've got spells based on my god's spheres of influence, and I can channel divine energy to make undead melt into blood! THAT'S what it's like to be chosen to be a deity's champion!
* Rogue: You were never here, were you? Nah, you were always there, watching and waiting for the perfect opportunity. Whether through fancy footwork, a charming smile, or having the Dark One's own luck on your side, rogues always have what they need to reach out and touch someone. (In the back.) (Of the head.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- Monk
- Rogue
I'd really prefer they start with the Unchained monk and the ACG slayer as the foundation for the PF2E versions. These two classes really need to be full BAB in PF2E.
I'd really prefer they start with the Unchained monk and the ACG slayer as the foundation for the PF2E versions. These two classes really need to be full BAB in PF2E.
- Monk
- Rogue
+1
I'd really prefer they start with the Unchained monk and the ACG slayer as the foundation for the PF2E versions. These two classes really need to be full BAB in PF2E.
- Monk
- Rogue
While I agree, I have not true idea about what direction they are going with these classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see the Arcanist replace the Wizard and the Sorcerer. I like the mechanics better, and I think it is a bit more new player friendly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But, apparently Damiel did not make the cut.Damiel is my favorite iconic, though. :(
Perhaps Damiel did make the cut, but just isn't an elf anymore. Maybe a mutagenic experiment gone wrong (or right)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps Damiel did make the cut, but just isn't an elf anymore. Maybe a mutagenic experiment gone wrong (or right)?But, apparently Damiel did not make the cut.Damiel is my favorite iconic, though. :(
Goblins are overpowered!
I agree, I never saw a reason to go Wizard or Sorcerer once I saw Arcanist. It felt more like an Arcane caster should work
You could make Int or Cha a choice a first level that slightly alters how they learn/retain spells, in order to emphasize the bloodline flavor.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My personal wishes:
- PLEASE give clerics some mechanical use for cha beyond skill bonuses. Clerics have always been wise, but also often charismatic...RP-wise, charisma is needed to evangelize and convince people of the virtues of your faith, so I do NOT want Cha to become the go-do dump for Clerics, and I want a cleric who wants to invest in cha/be an evangalist not be mechanically punished for doing so.
- No more limited spells known for sorcerers. You heard me. If all other casters are going to cast like an arcanist while sorcs are still limited by spells known...they will suck. HARD. Thus, if this is the route they go as-inspired b y 5e, I think an ideal solution may be to let them prepare spells like a wizard or cleric/have arcanist style casting...but with less spells prepared than a wizard, cleric etc..(like, say, the wizard or cleric having a max of 30 + spells prepared while the sorc only has max of 15 prepared at the same level.) However, in return for being able to prepare less spells, Sorcs will get more spell slots, including higher level spell slots. With spells not scaling as well into higher levels, this will retain the theme of sorcs having more "raw power" (due to more higher level spell slots being a lot more valuable than having lots of spells prepared, but less high level slots, due to spells not scaling as well into high levels) but less "variety" without actually shackling them with limited spells known and therefore just making them straight up worse than wizards (who presumably have arcanist-style casting)
Conversely, if the limited known spells must stay, then at least merge kneticist and summoner into the sorcerer class, letting a sorc choose between having powerful at-will magical abilities to supplement their limited casting (in the same vein as a 3.X warlock or kneticist in 1e PF), or having a summoner/spiritualist-style pet to do the same (which would allow for the sorc not to always be forced into a blaster/dpr role for players who want to play the class as something other than as blaster.) If the limited known spells MUST stay, then at least giving the sorc the option to have some some very strong at-will magical powers or an eidolon would help to compensate for their casting being WAY worse when everybody else has arcanist casting.
Likewise, if the eidolon route will be a possibility for a sorc, I would like it if they can get more summoning/pet options, as well as necromancy options, so they can be the ultimate pet hoard master class. That would also help them compensate majorly for being royally shafted casting-wise compared to other casters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The inquisitor. One of the more balanced, amazing, awesome classes out there, hands-down.
For rogue, I hope it turns into an Expert class, or a Debuffer class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magus. That is all I want to be added to core.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pitch the 3.5 relics, bring them back in a future book as 'Classic Classes Revisited' or somewhat.
Inquisitor, Alchemist, Oracle, Cavalier, Warpriest, Slayer, Vigilante, Shifter, Kineticist, Spiritualist, Occultist, Magus, Soldier.
Why do we have to retread the retreads? BE BOLD, PILOT!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Classes I would be fine without returning, at least as a specific class: Magus (one can just do the magus schtick with any class now), Gunslinger, Swashbuckler, Summoner, Warpriest, Brawler, Shaman, Cavalier, Arcanist, Investigator, Vigilante, Witch, Psychic.
Classes I would very much like to see return or at least be closely modeled by a new class: Oracle, Inquisitor, Occultist, Bloodrager, Kineticist.
Oracle.
Magus.
Please, a d6 Priest class with prayer books!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pitch the 3.5 relics, bring them back in a future book as 'Classic Classes Revisited' or somewhat.
Inquisitor, Alchemist, Oracle, Cavalier, Warpriest, Slayer, Vigilante, Shifter, Kineticist, Spiritualist, Occultist, Magus, Soldier.
Why do we have to retread the retreads? BE BOLD, PILOT!
Agree. It would also distance yourself from 5th ed which would be a good thing.
Especially with the Alchemist, Inquisitor, Oracle, and Magus which are some of the most original and best classes designed by paizo.
And while you're at it also include a dwarf based archetype for oracle based on wisdom. :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whats wrong with fighting-man, thief, and magic user?
I'm really interested, though, in what happens to the fighter and rogue, our plainest of jane classes. Fighter has Brawler, Cavalier, Gunslinger, Vigilante, and Swashbuckler all sort of spun off in one way or the other. That's basically 6 different fighter classes. Will the new edition make the fighter more interesting by bringing these newer versions into the fold, or will we just see more of the same 3-4 iconic fighter feat tax styles? Rogue, ninja, and slayer all all waiting in the wings to see if they'll get similar treatment.Hopefully they go the route they did with the Starfinder Soldier.
This is my hope as well. Normally fighters don't interest me but just out of the gate starfinder soldiers have enough options to be really interesting even without using an archetype. One thing I really liked about starfinder is all of the classes had pretty good options just within the class itself for customization.
I also suspect they wind up doing weapon damage more similar to how starfinder does so more scaling for all classes so the martial classes just don't get left in the dirt power wise or wind up having to do insane flurrying multi attack patterns.
I’ve mostly been playing occult classes. I’d love to have them show up earlier, but I understand that might be unrealistic given psychic magic would need tinkering under the system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, I never saw a reason to go Wizard or Sorcerer once I saw Arcanist. It felt more like an Arcane caster should work
You're right. Wizard and Sorcerer might work better now as Arcanist archetypes (see "Blood Arcanist").
I’ve mostly been playing occult classes. I’d love to have them show up earlier, but I understand that might be unrealistic given psychic magic would need tinkering under the system.?
Couldn't the same component substiution work in both places? A bigger issue would be that the Occult classes have an extra slew of mechanics mostly independent from normal spellcasting (mental focus/utility talents/mesmerist tricks). Of course, that's why I like those classes: I like complexity.
Well, yeah, but a thought component would sort-of count as two components, with the “move” action for concentration. Since it tinkers with components, I wouldn’t expect it too early, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want the Warpriest, it is one of my favorite classes ever. Replacing the Paladin with it (which I know won't happen) or replacing the Paladin's abilities with the Warpriest's (and removing their restrictions) would make my day. Even having a code for the Paladin, but that code changes based on what alignment they have (which can be any alignment) would be amazing.
One huge thing I'd like to see pathfinder borrow from 5e is cantrips leveling up with the player. Makes a caster feel like at lower levels they can do something worthwhile.
I was really reluctant about this before trying 5E. I prefer vancian and dont like unlimited spell casting. What I found in practice is that the cantrips do about a crosbows worth of damage, but allow for more interesting spell selection in exchange. Cantrips also carry forward as the player levels and doesnt become an obsolete option. Now if controlling wasnt such a waste of time in 5E.......
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would like to see some more love for spont classes - oracle would have been very appreciated as a core. Having spent the past year trying to introduce kids to the game and watching the spont classes flourish while they struggle to keep the prepared classes straight, I can say that spont casters are much friendlier to beginners.
|
|
So what I would personally like to see would be the following list of base classes and archetypes
Alchemist - gunslinger as an archetype
Barbarian
Bard - skald/mesmerist archetypes
Cleric - druid/oracle/shaman archetypes
Fighter - swashbuckler/slayer archetypes
Monk - brawler archetype
Champion - cavalier/paladin/warpriest archetypes
Ranger - hunter/inquisitor archetypes
Rogue - investigator/vigilante archetypes
Arcanist - wizard/sorcerer/witch archetypes
Kinetisit
Shifter
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The inquisitor should stay. I love that class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The inquisitor should stay. I love that class.
It will, unexpectedly, show up.
Whats wrong with fighting-man, thief, and magic user?
1.) No cleric.
2.) We don't need any of your new-fangled, easy-mode, "thief" characters. Want to sneak around? Role-play it!
[I'm not serious.]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I'm disappointed at keeping the '3e Eleven,' I understand the continuity rationale behind it.
That said, I really hope for some serious departures from the 3e versions and an integration of all the ideas/ lessons from the base classes, hybrid classes, and unchained. Most of the 3e classes need to be far more than 'backwards compatibility' ever allowed them to be,
For example... studied target rather than favored enemy. The latter is always and forever a terrible mechanic- tells the player it's a failure if they don't run into said enemy all the time, and goes off the RNG if they do.
And Paladins need to reflect the Paladins that actually exist in PF products, not idealized nostalgia of someone else's idealized nostalgia.
Im ok with their list actually, but i hope they dont take long to start adding pet classes back, it is pretty much all i play with exceptions made to familiars and some builds with ACs.