Classes that could benefit the most from a complete root overhaul?


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Which classes are you most excited to see remade from a fresh foundation? For me its the witch. I despereately want a witch that gets proper support for non evil flavoured abilities and abilities that are useful for pcs as well as long term debilitating status effects that are useless in combat but great things to hit your players with. I want the witch alto be as viable as a protagonist as an antagonist.


wizard, sorcerer and our resident sasuke uchiha magus. That's all for me to be happy for future classes


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to see Fighter rebuilt with a chassis similar to avenger vigilante: powerful combat talents alternating with social/utility talents. Of course, without all the renown and dual identity baggage.

Get a bit of balance between game phases (combat/exploration/social) to round out the Fighter package rather than jamming them into combat only.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm excited for non-lawful monks!

Also, I think Skalds have really cool flavor, but I feel like the class is just so dependent on the rest of the party's builds. It would be cool to see it redesigned so that you could bring a Skald into any random party and not feel like you're losing your main ability.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'd like to see Sorcerers and Wizards feel way more different than they do now. Give one of them SOMETHING big! I'd also love to see Clerics become more Charisma based, to reflect how they use passion and the word of their desity to convert others to their cause.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I want Martial Flexibility built in core fighter.
Not as a hybrid class. Not as an optional archetype.
As a core feature.

Fighter, the master of fighting, capable of adapting to any opponent and use any weapon, technique and maneuver is effective for a given situation.
A character that can always fight effectively, because that's what they do: fighting, at its finest.

EDIT:
That said, I'll be perfectly OK with a dumbed down archetype for new players, much like the Champion Fighter from 5E. As long as it's not the default.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

I want Martial Flexibility built in core fighter.

Not as a hybrid class. Not as an optional archetype.

As a core feature.

Fighter, the master of fighting, because he can adapt to almost anything

The main problem with Martial Flexibility is that it requires a huge degree of system mastery. I would never recommend Brawler to a brand-new player, because it's just too difficult for them to use effectively. If Martial Flexibility was a core feature of the Fighter class, then the same build played by a newbie would be underpowered compared to if it were played by a veteran. Which is NOT what you want when trying to attract new players - "I know your dude wasn't very good in combat, but spend two more years learning the rules and you'll be doing great!"

Edit: Ninja'ed, I see you've addressed this now... I would still say that the pre-gen at least shouldn't have Martial Flexibility.


RumpinRufus wrote:
The main problem with Martial Flexibility is that it requires a huge degree of system mastery

I'll be perfectly OK with a dumbed down archetype for new players, much like the Champion Fighter from 5E.

As long as it's not the default.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Id wait to see what feats look like before asking for martial flexibility. I like the concept if the system mastery required to execute it was a lot less intense

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Adding Stamina and Combat Tricks to fighters would be enough for me.

For Witches, the Hex system needs a serious overhaul though. Supernatural makes them overpowered. Unlimited uses per day makes them overpowered. SAD class makes them overpowered. Unclear definition of how Cackle is used, can make them overpowered by, for all intents and purposes, making a saving throw being meaningless.


I want to see fighters not just be able to hit stuff, but to SMASH stuff. I want them to be able to do other things than just hit stuff harder as they get better; I want them to be able to cause environmental effects by hitting the ground with their fists and cause rocks flying everywhere, like the Hulk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) Full casters, especially prepared ones, could use less flexibility: having access to the entire spell list just provides so many auto-win buttons. Further, nerfing the wizard and cleric on breadth is actually a win for them on flavor - a narrower focus on one's magical tradition/schools or domains means greater differentiation between them. Someone who studies to become a necromancer probably shouldn't learn how to teleport by default, and a priest of fluffy kittens probably shouldn't have default access to turning corpses into blood-bombs. Schools and domains are already built into the system, so this isn't even an increase in complexity, just a bonus to balance and flavor.

(The fact that the spell lists are getting consolidated further could mean that they're not going in this direction, or it could mean they're already introducing more elements into determining what spells you're allowed to cast, exactly, so who knows.)

Additionally, most spellcasting classes could do with becoming a little MADder. Maybe key spell DCs to Charisma, extra spells known to Intelligence, and concentration checks to Wisdom, or something like that.

2) As Cellion mentioned above, noncasters, especially Fighters, need some out-of-combat support. The suggestion to give them something like social Vigilante abilities isn't half-bad; these could also key off of background and/or archetype. Skill unlocks (assuming Fighters get decent skills this time around, etc) are also a good step in this direction, although obviously this isn't a matter of class design per se, and everything depends on the details.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

I want Martial Flexibility built in core fighter.

Not as a hybrid class. Not as an optional archetype.
As a core feature.

As one of say 3 "archetypes" of fighter (similar to how 5E does it), this could be very viable. But for ALL fighters? No.


Carl Cramér wrote:
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

I want Martial Flexibility built in core fighter.

Not as a hybrid class. Not as an optional archetype.
As a core feature.
As one of say 3 "archetypes" of fighter (similar to how 5E does it), this could be very viable. But for ALL fighters? No.

It's ok, that's just my preference after all


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Everyone that doesn't have a modular talent system should get one. I think this is actually happening based on the idea of "class feats" in the blog post but it's worth restating.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, what I'd REALLY like to see is ALL classes scrapped, and new classes built from the ground up on what fantasy archetypal hero roles you want in your games, without any prior D&D baggage whatsoever (e.g., "but x class has to be able to turn undead or it's not x class!"). You might end up with some stuff similar to prior classes (e.g., fighter is pretty universal, although various stats and sacred cows might be removed for different systems), but also maybe something different (perhaps a holy warrior, but nothing resembling a paladin).

I know this isn't happening--that they are keeping the core classes as they were in 1E (in name at least and I presume in at least broad themes). Personally I'd rather they be bold and just be unafraid to overhaul stuff utterly (IIRC some systems in 1e didn't turn out as good as they could have because they were too worried about losing some 3.x compatibility, and I don't want them to make the same mistake going from 1e to 2e) --- but I know that others would be turned off by this immensely and it'd be a huge risk, so.

(Just needed to get that off my chest)

Presuming it is indeed alchemist + core classes, what needs an overhaul?
- Really want paladin rejiggered into something perhaps still code based but not so strictly alignment based. Combining Cavalier and Paladin into one concept, with smething like the cavalier orders replacing paladin code.

- Make sorcerers and wizards feel even more different, not just different ways to cast arcane spells. Play up the scholarly sagey stuff for wizards and the wild blood-borne magic stuff for sorcs.

- Alchemists - Don't need a total retooling, but I hate alchemist bombs. They just aren't my favorite flavor of fantasy. If we have to have them core I hope there's a few different options for that feature (i.e., keep bombs as an option 'cause I'm sure many do like them, but also add other alternatives, like the way the vivisectionist archetype gets sneak attack instead).

The Exchange

I would like to see new takes on the following classes:

Cleric - More powers from domains. Balance out domain powers so that more traditionally good alignmed domains are on par with more combat/evil domains like war, death, fire & madness for example

Druid- Either make animal companions scale or drop them

Fighter - Get rid of huge set bonuses. Don't want to roll 1D8+40. Would rather roll 4D8+8

Monk - Reduce dependency of + weapons to hit. Monks should be able to keep up in melee without amulets of mighty fists and other such nonsense

Paladin - Reduce power of smites. Increase defensive buffs such as save bonuses, laying on of hands. Bring back perpetual protection from evil

Rangers- Replace favored enemy with something useful. Make two weapon fighting and archery better for rangers than any other class. Eliminate animal companions. Make outdoor skill feats really work for them

Rogue - Eliminate evasion. Make uncanny dodge work for them like 5E. Allow finess to apply 1.5x bonus to hit and eliminate the damage bonus for Dex to meele weapons. Give them lots of mobility related feats

Sorcerer - Keep spontaneous casting. Make bloodline powers like claws last longer. Allow sorcerers to damage themselves to recover spells or spell points. Grant more known spells per level.

Wizards - Make school specializations stronger and mover diverse. Grant more spells researched per level.


khadgar567 wrote:
wizard, sorcerer and our resident sasuke uchiha magus. That's all for me to be happy for future classes

Damn. I had like three Shocking Grasp Kensai in my player group the last 5 years and I never saw the ressemblance. You are so right. That one build ruined in my mind ^^


Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
I'd like to see Sorcerers and Wizards feel way more different than they do now. Give one of them SOMETHING big!

I'd kind of like Wizards to feel more "you have to do at least an advanced degree's worth of study to get this good at this stuff" but I am not well seeing how to make that compatible with them being playable as adventurers.

I am very tempted to, at some point, run a campaign in which Wizards must be Lawful, Sorcerers must be Chaotic, and Sorcerers' use of powers derived ultimately from a bloodline rather than study and understanding have chances of failing in interesting ways (causing an unintended random spell effect of the same level for example) that gradually decline for each specific spell the more often you cast it, but that does seem rather a lot of additional book-keeping and I am aware this is not a net-plus for many people who aren't me.


Well, I know I'm not exactly following the thread here, but while I'm not sure about complete overhauls, I think the Fighter (sort of similar to what others have written) should be... Better, in a versatility sense. Honestly? I think it should be good at all saves. Shouldn't be the BSF. Should be the Fighter, overall best at COMBAT. My opinions, anyway.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Im going to disagree with the witch. She was my favorite class in PF1 after the bard. I dont see the inherent evil. Sometimes the good guys are antagonistic too!

Id like to see the cavalier get a revision. I really enjoyed the orders and flavor. Id like to see more abilities and archetypes that dont kneecap the cav without their mount.


khadgar567 wrote:
wizard, sorcerer and our resident sasuke uchiha magus. That's all for me to be happy for future classes

wasn't thrilled with that class anyway, but this had to make me chuckle.


Planpanther wrote:
I really enjoyed the orders and flavor. Id like to see more abilities and archetypes that dont kneecap the cav without their mount.

But kneecapping the horses as well is just cruel.

Grand Lodge

Tallow wrote:

Adding Stamina and Combat Tricks to fighters would be enough for me.

For Witches, the Hex system needs a serious overhaul though. Supernatural makes them overpowered. Unlimited uses per day makes them overpowered. SAD class makes them overpowered. Unclear definition of how Cackle is used, can make them overpowered by, for all intents and purposes, making a saving throw being meaningless.

Actually, what I thought made witches OP was Hexes + Full Caster and being SAD. If they remain full casters with hexes, keep the spells int. based and the hexes Cha. based or, for Scarred Witch Doctors, Con based. And, truthfully, I like the Supernatural aspect. But they do need to be reigned in, in terms of how effective they are vs. CR over CL. I don't mind ignoring SR, but a 1st level Witch should not be able to put a Pit Fiend to sleep.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

clerics...I would kind of like to see the divine obediences baked into the class (one of my favorite Pathfinder additions to the ruleset), and make thei spell lists much more tailored to different deities.


the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Planpanther wrote:
I really enjoyed the orders and flavor. Id like to see more abilities and archetypes that dont kneecap the cav without their mount.
But kneecapping the horses as well is just cruel.

LOL Who knows, maybe the horse DESERVED a good kneecapping. Some mounts are jerks. ;)


I love witches, but I would keep the "is it evil?" vibe. I'll just copy from my house rules, which is not a suggestion of crunch, just flavor, most of which I pulled from medieval descriptions of witch powers, then added a little home game fluff:
You have a patron that has marked you as their own (with a “witch’s mark”) and provides you with your powers. The personality of the patron is generally up to you. At times, you may need to make further deals with your patron, which results in additional marks. (The additional marks grant no additional powers.) In general, any time you make a new deal, it should be seen as punishment for your PC, but not for you, the player; you can dictate the terms of the deal the patron demands of you. You may want to work with your GM to figure out how to tie your patron to world mythos or incorporate punishments into plot points or quests.
Witches have a continuous spell-like effect, and generally obtain a familiar that can cast spells as a sorcerer. They also have some situational spell capabilities, like a seasonal spell, Evil Eye, Potions, and Poppets.
Choose a spell with a duration of at least one round that is beneficial, which will become a continuous effect on you, and of which your patron would approve. Every Witch’s first ritual is conducted during the Witching Hours of the first night of a new or full lunar moon, which occurs every 13⅔ days. The appearance of an inevitable Witch’s Mark will vary from witch to witch and from patron to patron. Violent patrons may leave a permanent claw mark, while more amorous ones might leave a hickey. Some leave more dramatic deformations (e.g. transformation of the witch into an old crone), others leave mild deformities (e.g., a blemish, mole, wart, or insensitive patch of skin), and yet others are practically undetectable (though witch’s marks can generally be detected with appropriate magic). The Witch’s Mark is imbued with a spell pleasing to your patron. The spell effect is continuous; you never need to actually cast it. When you advance a Witch Level, your Witch’s Mark does not, at least not until you perform a ritual during Witch’s Vigil (the hour before midnight) on the first night of a new or full lunar moon. You gain Seasonal Rites (dependent upon whether you are a Spring, Summer, Autumn, or Winter Witch), Evil Eyes, Poppets, and Witch's Brew powers as you advance levels. At higher levels, witches can gain powers associated with a Coven.


Bards. I brought this up in an earlier thread and hopefully I’ll get my wish. I just want to be able to customize the effects of my Bardic Performance so that I’m not always just Inspiring Courage for the same bonuses that every other Bard is giving. I’d like it if Bard Feats allow us to change or add abilities onto our Bardic Performance like how a Rogue can change their Sneak Attack, which would make each Bard unique and more flavorful.

Cleric (my favorite) to be able to make choices last level 1 . . .

Druid. Let me trade out Wildshape for an equally good Verminshape. And for Vermin Companions to be more viable. I want to be able to build my “Queen of the Spiders” Druid idea without needing to use multiple archetypes, alternate rules for animal companions, and use overpriced magic items from a random non-Core splat book all from different books JUST to make a severely gimped version of a Druid that matches up to my character concept.

Ranger: Make Favored Enemy work like the Slayer’s Studied Target. Or really just give it more of an identity beyond “Fighter without Weapon Specialization but with more Skills”.


Mbertorch wrote:
I think the Fighter (sort of similar to what others have written) should be... Better, in a versatility sense. Honestly? I think it should be good at all saves. Shouldn't be the BSF. Should be the Fighter, overall best at COMBAT. My opinions, anyway.

Agreed.

Essentially blend the Fighter, Monk, Rogue and Swashbuckler into a single class that can pursue different paths.

But that's far too great an overhaul for Paizo.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This may be a little OT, but I would like Wizards to have one archetype that covers all of the school specializations and OTHER archetypes that cover other cool concepts. I think Wizards in, for example Pillars of Eternity 2 (currently in Beta) get the short end of the staff because other classes get cool and varied "archetypes," but Wizards just get to specialize in the different schools.

More OT, the game could really benefit by toning the Cleric down dramatically on the baseline, making it an archetype of a Priest. The Priest, as a full caster, could be more in line with a Wizard or Sorcerer with weapon proficiencies (and probably with Light Armor), but the archetypes could add martial capabilities to build a Cleric. I don't think the Cleric needs more variation; I think it needs to be a specialized subset of a much more varied class (the Priest).


I've done the cleric/priest thing.

Cleric fans don't tend to take their favorite class being divided into a pure nonmartial priest and a midcasting battle cleric, but it works very well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bards needs more. I played a Bard in 5E and the gap with the Pathfinder version was just gigantic. You had something to do useful and tstong almost all the time.

In PF1 my go-to jack of all trades is the Mesmerist, awesome class design, fun flavor and strong abilities in most humanoid adventures.

I hope the new Bard will be in between.


kyrt-ryder wrote:


Essentially blend the Fighter, Monk, Rogue and Swashbuckler into a single class that can pursue different paths.

But that's far too great an overhaul for Paizo.

Thankfully, yes.

Not only that, I am beginning to suspect that the Fighter as is would be better split into multiple base classes.


the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


Essentially blend the Fighter, Monk, Rogue and Swashbuckler into a single class that can pursue different paths.

But that's far too great an overhaul for Paizo.

Thankfully, yes.

Not only that, I am beginning to suspect that the Fighter as is would be better split into multiple base classes.

I still fail to comprehend your desire for infinite narrow scope classes (granted as a GM who condenses all of 3.P into 3 'classes' in my home games I am at the polar opposite side of the spectrum)


kyrt-ryder wrote:


I still fail to comprehend your desire for infinite narrow scope classes (granted as a GM who condenses all of 3.P into 3 'classes' in my home games I am at the polar opposite side of the spectrum)

Fifty solidly built narrow-scope classes is fifty sets of abilities to test for trap options and game-breaking interactions, and design around well-defined and compelling flavour.

All those abilities (be they feats, class features of other sorts, multi-classing, whatever scale) available to mix and match is an astronomically vast number of combinations. Me finding that flavourless and unappealing is a subjective preference; but it being impossible to thoroughly test that many combinations for trap options and game-breakers is objective maths, because even ten interchangeable parts of the game get you into the billions of combinations, and every ten more multiply that by another billion-plus.

That makes it seem pretty inarguable to me that we will get a mechanistically more solid game from the former than the latter. Does that make sense as a preference?

(The above paragraphs are preferences for Pathfinder, btw. Not the only thing I enjoy playing or running, but if I want flexibility on that scale and am not caring so much about balance I go to GURPS, which has more of it than Pathfinder could plausibly ever have.)

Give me fifty really good classes and well-characterised distinct Iconics for them, and I personally would be happy with those Iconics as the only playable characters; fifty Iconics is 62.5 million possible four-player party combinations (allowing duplicates, because I'm all for being able to play an all-Harsk party) and nobody's going to exhaust that set of options any time soon. I am aware that this is not an option I will get any traction trying to persuade the general community of, though.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It sounds like the role-playing aspect of crafting a unique person and portraying that unique individual as it experiences the world isn't important to you?

That's the entire reason I do rpgs. Without freedom and individuality there is nothing (to me)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Bard: Expanded Repertoire.

Cleric: Warmage casting, with a narrow base list and expanded Domains. Advanced Learning.

Druid: Tone spellcasting, shapeshifting, and animal companion way down; allow Druids to choose one to function at the PF1 level.

Monk:I don't know what I want; I just know that I want it. Full martial and flexible mundane/magical powers are a good start.

Rogue: Make them a full-martial class, like Ranger or Paladin.

Paladin: Multiple Oaths with separate, strict but clear Codes of Conduct.

Ranger: Spell-less as a core option. Make it include the Shifter class as a core option.

Sorcerer: Different, narrower spell list than Wizard, but broader Bloodline spell lists.

Wizard: Arcanist casting. Spell Mastery grants Spells Known.

Witch: Make. It. Core. Arcanist casting plus Spell Mastery. Make eldritch blast and its modifications into Hexes.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
It sounds like the role-playing aspect of crafting a unique person and portraying that unique individual as it experiences the world isn't important to you?

The second part, absolutely is important to me. The first.. well, I suspect my real-life beliefs about how little people actually are unique are too far a tangent, but they inform my being far more interested in new ways of playing a given character type within their constraints than creating entirely new ones. Think of how many ways there have been of playing Hamlet over the years, or how many different takes there have been on Batman. The constraints aren't limitations, they are enablers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FaerieGodfather wrote:

Bard: Expanded Repertoire.

Cleric: Warmage casting, with a narrow base list and expanded Domains. Advanced Learning.

Druid: Tone spellcasting, shapeshifting, and animal companion way down; allow Druids to choose one to function at the PF1 level.

Monk:I don't know what I want; I just know that I want it. Full martial and flexible mundane/magical powers are a good start.

Rogue: Make them a full-martial class, like Ranger or Paladin.

Paladin: Multiple Oaths with separate, strict but clear Codes of Conduct.

Ranger: Spell-less as a core option. Make it include the Shifter class as a core option.

Sorcerer: Different, narrower spell list than Wizard, but broader Bloodline spell lists.

Wizard: Arcanist casting. Spell Mastery grants Spells Known.

Witch: Make. It. Core. Arcanist casting plus Spell Mastery. Make eldritch blast and its modifications into Hexes.

I like good amount of this. By far though is the Druid part. I have a friend who wanted to play a Druid in Pathfinder solely for shapeshifting (before Shifter was a thing). But he ended up giving up, due to the sheer amount of options that a druid inherently has. It's just too much. Some people just want an animal companion, others just want to be able to morph, and so others just want nature-themed spells. I definitely think streamlining and toning it down is a good idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
It sounds like the role-playing aspect of crafting a unique person and portraying that unique individual as it experiences the world isn't important to you?
The second part, absolutely is important to me. The first.. well, I suspect my real-life beliefs about how little people actually are unique are too far a tangent, but they inform my being far more interested in new ways of playing a given character type within their constraints than creating entirely new ones. Think of how many ways there have been of playing Hamlet over the years, or how many different takes there have been on Batman. The constraints aren't limitations, they are enablers.

Completely opposite philosophies between us.

I do my best to foster creativity and agency in my players regarding their characters. The more invested the player is in their character and her identity and agenda the better.

This includes the goals the players pursue. One thing I hate is a gelatinous 'party identity' where everyone just goes along with everything without any individual pursuits.


kyrt-ryder wrote:


Completely opposite philosophies between us.

I do my best to foster creativity and agency in my players regarding their characters. The more invested the player is in their character and her identity and agenda the better.

Oh, I agree entirely. I just find it works much better in practice to throw things out for players to start building characters on, and developing with their individual creativity, than to leave them floundering in a void. In GURPS I have to build a lot more of the world detail for characters to connect to myself. Pathfinder coming with alignment and well-defined classes is a real help here for me as DM and for most of the players I have met, and I favour it becoming more so.

Quote:
This includes the goals the players pursue. One thing I hate is a gelatinous 'party identity' where everyone just goes along with everything without any individual pursuits.

If you can balance that well with a party holding together, go you. And it's not as if it's particularly hard to come up with things that will engage one character more than another, or one player more than another, if you know them at all well.


GURPS and HERO are systems built around incorporating purely roleplaying elements of character into their mechanics, e.g., Disadvantages and Quirks with some Advantages and Perks applicable as well. Other game systems do/have as well with varying degrees of success.

The only time I am aware of that D&D/Pathfinder has distinctly incorporated mechanics that interact with roleplaying beyond "story XP awards" and "alignment" was in the late 2e Players Option books.

With that lone exception no mechanical reasons in D&D/Pathfinder, asides from alignment and maybe traits, have existed that encourage/reward roleplay other than doing so tickling one's fancy. Everyone's mileage will vary. ;)


The Mad Comrade wrote:


The only time I am aware of that D&D/Pathfinder has distinctly incorporated mechanics that interact with roleplaying beyond "story XP awards" and "alignment" was in the late 2e Players Option books.

I would count the relationship mechanics in Jade Regent under that heading.


the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
The Mad Comrade wrote:


The only time I am aware of that D&D/Pathfinder has distinctly incorporated mechanics that interact with roleplaying beyond "story XP awards" and "alignment" was in the late 2e Players Option books.
I would count the relationship mechanics in Jade Regent under that heading.

Those are not systemic, they are episodic, i.e., unique to Jade Regent. They also did not amount to very much.

When a character accepts a mechanical limitation on their behavior that antagonists can take advantage of, they should derive a mechanical benefit proportionate to the limitation.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to see Rogues get some love...maybe something to make them more viable in combat when sneak attacks/precision damage is not an option. Maybe make sniping a more viable combat option. Make Ninja an archetype instead of an alternate class. Make poisons not worthless. Make stealth actually useful beyond just scouting and out of combat utility.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've said it elsewhere but I'll say it again, even though it seems highly unlikely that they're actually going to do this: Paladin and Inquisitor, which are supposed to be exemplars of their philosophy or faith beyond even the normal priesthood, should be prestige classes instead of base classes.

Also sign me up for splitting Cleric into a d6 full caster type (I would have said 1/2 BAB, but apparently fractional BAB isn't a thing any more) and a d8 6/9 (7/10?) caster more highly martial type made from a remix of Cleric, Inquisitor, and Warpriest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cleric: Get some actual class features, to improve quality of archetypes (hopefully happening with the Class Feat system)

Fighter: Equivalents of Stamina and the Advanced Armour/Weapon Mastery abilities baked in, with the latter probably as Class Feats.

Paladin: Kept broadly the same, but with slightly tweaked verbiage on the Oath (mainly around associates), and better guidance for running one for the GM.

Monk: Gets three good saves back, but otherwise based off Unchained design.

Rogue: Gets a role which isn't going to get stepped on so heavily by follow-on classes (or archetypes).

Any class with AC or Familiars: These features scale better, at least in terms of hardiness.


Echoing the calls that clerics need more class features, which I'm confident the designers are looking at.

I'm less impatient for a witch in core. They never really inspired me, and I'm willing to see what they do with the core classes before I start adding extras. That said, I do hope the Shifter winds up rolled into either the Monk or Ranger. Thats one class that I think we can stand to see made into an archetype or three. Vigilante too. I love them, but with the new class feat system I can see the vigilante's social side, which is what made them vigilantes, becoming a series of class feats (or skill feats) that start with dual identity and renown and go on from there.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh yeah, how could I forget the Shifter? That needs a rework right out of the box . . . .


3 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Oh yeah, how could I forget the Shifter? That needs a rework right out of the box . . . .

The real question is will we have to wait 10 years and the end of pf2 going into pf3 before we get a new shifter for pf2?

1 to 50 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Classes that could benefit the most from a complete root overhaul? All Messageboards