paizo.com Recent Posts in 2edition vs current bookspaizo.com Recent Posts in 2edition vs current books2018-08-02T18:00:08Z2018-08-02T18:00:08ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: 2edition vs current booksThe Raven Blackhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v6u5&page=2?2edition-vs-current-books#702018-06-18T16:39:26Z2018-06-18T16:39:26Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">AnimatedPaper wrote:</div><blockquote><div class="messageboard-quotee">AnimatedPaper wrote:</div><blockquote><span class=messageboard-ooc>Tangentially, we have the spiritualist for an occult version, summoner would be arcane, Hunter as primal, I wonder if there will be a divine variant? Or will the summoner be the divine version, and they make a new arcane spin?</span> </blockquote>For instance, I realized that thematically, we don't have a golem master/artificer class, so that could be the fourth version. Other alternates: a leshy-master, fey companion, undead companion, something that builds on the familiar rules instead of animal companion, or a class that allows you a cohort from level 1 that is simply called "leadership feat." </blockquote><p>The Summoner's design concept was to include all this : be the "buddy" class, whatever the flavor and specifics of your buddyAnimatedPaper wrote:AnimatedPaper wrote:Tangentially, we have the spiritualist for an occult version, summoner would be arcane, Hunter as primal, I wonder if there will be a divine variant? Or will the summoner be the divine version, and they make a new arcane spin?
For instance, I realized that thematically, we don't have a golem master/artificer class, so that could be the fourth version. Other alternates: a leshy-master, fey companion, undead companion, something that builds on the...The Raven Black2018-06-18T16:39:26ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: 2edition vs current booksTholomyeshttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v6u5&page=2?2edition-vs-current-books#692018-06-18T13:02:19Z2018-06-18T13:02:19Z<p>Personally I agree with a lot of the advocation for combining or archetypes, but I feel like there are a few I'd actually like to split:</p>
<p>Cavalier comes immediately to mind, as it is probably the class that I feel like the design team dropped the ball on the hardest, in figuring out what that class was supposed to be: Was it the mounted charger? Was it the Teamwork guy? Was it supposed to be focused on honorable single combat with challenge? Was it a slapdash "here's a pseudo-paladin, without alignment baggage"? I feel like in order to do a cavalier right, each of these aspects have to be split apart and grown into their own thing. </p>
<p>Likewise, I think the bard should be split. Sure there should still be a "Bard" class, but I don't think it should be trying to do as much as it is now. I could be wrong, but I'm suspecting that 2/3rds casters will be gone in 2e, due to the way spell scaling and spell points work, and I think in such an environment, there are two options for the Bard: Full Occult caster, with feat options for the iconic performance features or Spell-point class focused on skills and using spell point abilities as Performances. Whichever they don't take as the bard is going to be one that I think will need a home in later books. Maybe the "performance" aspect won't be flavored the same. (i.e. an occult caster, would have performance options just flavored as more occult stuff, or the skill-and-spell-point guy could just be a new shadow dancer/arcane trickster), but I think we'll see the bard get less Jack-of-all-Tradesy.</p>Personally I agree with a lot of the advocation for combining or archetypes, but I feel like there are a few I'd actually like to split:
Cavalier comes immediately to mind, as it is probably the class that I feel like the design team dropped the ball on the hardest, in figuring out what that class was supposed to be: Was it the mounted charger? Was it the Teamwork guy? Was it supposed to be focused on honorable single combat with challenge? Was it a slapdash "here's a pseudo-paladin, without...Tholomyes2018-06-18T13:02:19ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: 2edition vs current booksAnimatedPaperhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v6u5&page=2?2edition-vs-current-books#682018-06-17T15:54:24Z2018-06-17T15:44:49Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Captain Morgan wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Steve Geddes wrote:</div><blockquote><p> While I like the idea of minimal classes being expanded via player customisation of flexible chassis, in my view the plethora of classes is one of the defining features of Pathfinder as a system.</p>
<p>I wonder if “preserving the feel of the game you love” is going to include aesthetic considerations such as this. </blockquote>Oh, I'm sure there will be plenty of classes. I just don't think they all should be the same classes as last time. </blockquote><p>Neither do I, but I do want every PF1 class to at least be an archetype or an obvious build within a class (or even just a class feat in the case of something like the Magus or Brawler, named after the class in question). Once that is mostly accomplished, I look forward to seeing what else they can accomplish within similar lines, and also of course what they can do that steps further beyond PF1. Edit: Although the point about waiting for the meta to settle is well taken. You're right, that would be the smart thing to do from a balance stand-point, but rushing on ahead would be the thing to do from a "stave off the raging hordes" standpoint.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">AnimatedPaper wrote:</div><blockquote><span class=messageboard-ooc>Tangentially, we have the spiritualist for an occult version, summoner would be arcane, Hunter as primal, I wonder if there will be a divine variant? Or will the summoner be the divine version, and they make a new arcane spin?</span> </blockquote><p>For instance, I realized that thematically, we don't have a golem master/artificer class, so that could be the fourth version. Other alternates: a leshy-master, fey companion, undead companion, something that builds on the familiar rules instead of animal companion, or a class that allows you a cohort from level 1 that is simply called "leadership feat."Captain Morgan wrote:Steve Geddes wrote:While I like the idea of minimal classes being expanded via player customisation of flexible chassis, in my view the plethora of classes is one of the defining features of Pathfinder as a system.
I wonder if “preserving the feel of the game you love” is going to include aesthetic considerations such as this.
Oh, I'm sure there will be plenty of classes. I just don't think they all should be the same classes as last time. Neither do I, but I do want...AnimatedPaper2018-06-17T15:44:49ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: 2edition vs current booksCaptain Morganhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v6u5&page=2?2edition-vs-current-books#672018-06-18T23:03:25Z2018-06-17T12:55:59Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Steve Geddes wrote:</div><blockquote><p> While I like the idea of minimal classes being expanded via player customisation of flexible chassis, in my view the plethora of classes is one of the defining features of Pathfinder as a system.</p>
<p>I wonder if “preserving the feel of the game you love” is going to include aesthetic considerations such as this. </blockquote><p>Oh, I'm sure there will be plenty of classes. I just don't think they all should be the same classes as last time.Steve Geddes wrote:While I like the idea of minimal classes being expanded via player customisation of flexible chassis, in my view the plethora of classes is one of the defining features of Pathfinder as a system.
I wonder if “preserving the feel of the game you love” is going to include aesthetic considerations such as this.
Oh, I'm sure there will be plenty of classes. I just don't think they all should be the same classes as last time.Captain Morgan2018-06-17T12:55:59ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: 2edition vs current booksSteve Geddeshttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v6u5&page=2?2edition-vs-current-books#662018-06-17T15:26:38Z2018-06-17T09:44:16Z<p>While I like the idea of minimal classes being expanded via player customisation of flexible chassis, in my view the plethora of classes is one of the defining features of Pathfinder as a system.</p>
<p>I wonder if “preserving the feel of the game you love” is going to include aesthetic considerations such as this.</p>While I like the idea of minimal classes being expanded via player customisation of flexible chassis, in my view the plethora of classes is one of the defining features of Pathfinder as a system.
I wonder if “preserving the feel of the game you love” is going to include aesthetic considerations such as this.Steve Geddes2018-06-17T09:44:16ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: 2edition vs current booksNeriathalehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v6u5&page=2?2edition-vs-current-books#652018-06-18T23:02:27Z2018-06-17T08:26:00Z<p>I had a really brief conversation with Eric Mona at UK Games Expo about the other classes (specifically Magus) and his comment was that whilst you could build a fighter-wizard with the base PF2 rules, it wasn't the Magus replacement, because it didn't fill the same style niche.</p>
<p>So (if I understood correctly) they were thinking about/planning on releasing new versions the other classes to fit their flavour and thematic roles, though these might get tweaked mechanically, just as the alchemist has.</p>I had a really brief conversation with Eric Mona at UK Games Expo about the other classes (specifically Magus) and his comment was that whilst you could build a fighter-wizard with the base PF2 rules, it wasn't the Magus replacement, because it didn't fill the same style niche.
So (if I understood correctly) they were thinking about/planning on releasing new versions the other classes to fit their flavour and thematic roles, though these might get tweaked mechanically, just as the alchemist...Neriathale2018-06-17T08:26:00ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: 2edition vs current booksFuzzypaws (alias of Bug Underfoot)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v6u5&page=2?2edition-vs-current-books#642018-06-17T15:35:25Z2018-06-17T07:52:16Z<p>I personally think some of the classes could stand to be combined. There is no need to have both a swashbuckler <i>and</i> a gunslinger, when instead you can just have one panache/grit based class that has some common abilities and deeds and then some different deeds based on the character's signature weapon group. There is no need for summoner to be a separate class from the spiritualist. There is no need for a ninja or samurai when they can be archetypes or even just folded into the available feats for other classes.</p>I personally think some of the classes could stand to be combined. There is no need to have both a swashbuckler and a gunslinger, when instead you can just have one panache/grit based class that has some common abilities and deeds and then some different deeds based on the character's signature weapon group. There is no need for summoner to be a separate class from the spiritualist. There is no need for a ninja or samurai when they can be archetypes or even just folded into the available...Fuzzypaws (alias of Bug Underfoot)2018-06-17T07:52:16ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: 2edition vs current booksAnimatedPaperhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v6u5&page=2?2edition-vs-current-books#632018-06-17T00:27:28Z2018-06-17T00:27:28Z<p>I could see the hunter being another “take” on the summoner chassis, although hopefully they’ll rename it.</p>
<p>So yeah, there’s definitely room to explore the concept, even if no major characters are members of it.</p>
<p><span class=messageboard-ooc>Tangentially, we have the spiritualist for an occult version, summoner would be arcane, Hunter as primal, I wonder if there will be a divine variant? Or will the summoner be the divine version, and they make a new arcane spin?</span></p>I could see the hunter being another “take” on the summoner chassis, although hopefully they’ll rename it.
So yeah, there’s definitely room to explore the concept, even if no major characters are members of it.
Tangentially, we have the spiritualist for an occult version, summoner would be arcane, Hunter as primal, I wonder if there will be a divine variant? Or will the summoner be the divine version, and they make a new arcane spin?AnimatedPaper2018-06-17T00:27:28ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: 2edition vs current booksCaptain Morganhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v6u5&page=2?2edition-vs-current-books#622018-06-16T20:42:32Z2018-06-16T20:42:32Z<p>Yeah... while I don't personally love the summoner, it does serve a fairly distinct role which is basically a trope by now.</p>Yeah... while I don't personally love the summoner, it does serve a fairly distinct role which is basically a trope by now.Captain Morgan2018-06-16T20:42:32ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: 2edition vs current booksDeadmanwalkinghttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v6u5&page=2?2edition-vs-current-books#612018-06-18T13:45:43Z2018-06-16T20:38:34Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">PossibleCabbage wrote:</div><blockquote>I feel like my biggest issue with the Summoner was that I didn't like it's thematic niche at all. "Schlub with a super powerful alien being who does whatever they say" isn't really a fictional archetype I have encountered anywhere other than Pathfinder, and "binding one's soul to an outsider" seems like an incredibly dangerous and short-sighted thing to do.</blockquote><p>Uh...Aladdin? The master of any powerful demon in any form of fiction? A lot of shamans defined by their totem spirit? I could also throw a lot of anime references here, but most of them I'm not personally a fan of so that'd require research. Nevertheless, I can think of a number of people who are defined by their bound spirit companion (or something best represented as such in Pathfinder, anyway).PossibleCabbage wrote:I feel like my biggest issue with the Summoner was that I didn't like it's thematic niche at all. "Schlub with a super powerful alien being who does whatever they say" isn't really a fictional archetype I have encountered anywhere other than Pathfinder, and "binding one's soul to an outsider" seems like an incredibly dangerous and short-sighted thing to do.
Uh...Aladdin? The master of any powerful demon in any form of fiction? A lot of shamans defined by their totem...Deadmanwalking2018-06-16T20:38:34ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: 2edition vs current booksPossibleCabbagehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v6u5&page=2?2edition-vs-current-books#602018-06-16T20:32:05Z2018-06-16T20:32:05Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deadmanwalking wrote:</div><blockquote><p>A Class entirely built around their super cool pet seems like a reasonable thematic and mechanical niche that doesn't quite seem to be there yet, nor do Outsider companions. You could theoretically do them with an Archetype or something...but of what? No other Class is really very close either mechanically or thematically.</p>
<p>Summoner's issues and reasons for banning were all almost entirely mechanical, and thus don't seem like a good reason to not build a new, more mechanically balanced, version.</blockquote><p>I feel like my biggest issue with the Summoner was that I didn't like it's thematic niche at all. "Schlub with a super powerful alien being who does whatever they say" isn't really a fictional archetype I have encountered anywhere other than Pathfinder, and "binding one's soul to an outsider" seems like an incredibly dangerous and short-sighted thing to do.
<p>Having an animal companion, or being haunted by some ghost that has a reason to bother you works for me, even if I'm not generally a fan of characters who are "two half-strength characters" because they're a pain. But Outsiders are a sufficiently diverse and dangerous lot that a unified chassis for "you're tight with an outsider" doesn't really work for me.</p>
<p>So personally I'd rather see the Summoner represented with specific spiritualist archetypes (e.g. "you are haunted by a genie, not a ghost") than a thing unto itself. But if we left "pet classes" behind entirely, I wouldn't mind.</p>Deadmanwalking wrote:A Class entirely built around their super cool pet seems like a reasonable thematic and mechanical niche that doesn't quite seem to be there yet, nor do Outsider companions. You could theoretically do them with an Archetype or something...but of what? No other Class is really very close either mechanically or thematically.
Summoner's issues and reasons for banning were all almost entirely mechanical, and thus don't seem like a good reason to not build a new, more...PossibleCabbage2018-06-16T20:32:05ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: 2edition vs current booksDeadmanwalkinghttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v6u5&page=2?2edition-vs-current-books#592018-06-16T20:13:52Z2018-06-16T20:13:52Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">PossibleCabbage wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Deadmanwalking wrote:</div><blockquote>The list of Classes that need to be converted is actually really short:</blockquote><p>Do we really need the Summoner back? It seems like relatively little would be lost without it, in case they decided to streamline "pets" significantly in the core.
<p>Like in PF1 it was likely the 2nd most banned class (possibly most depending on how we consider gunslinger bans which were rescinded after the Bolt Ace was printed, but only for that archetype), and I can't think of many "important people on Golarion" who had that class.</p>
<p>I agree with the rest of your list. </blockquote><p>A Class entirely built around their super cool pet seems like a reasonable thematic and mechanical niche that doesn't quite seem to be there yet, nor do Outsider companions. You could theoretically do them with an Archetype or something...but of what? No other Class is really very close either mechanically or thematically.
<p>Summoner's issues and reasons for banning were all almost entirely mechanical, and thus don't seem like a good reason to not build a new, more mechanically balanced, version.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Captain Morgan wrote:</div><blockquote> If anything, I think I'd want the Investigator to get MORE from items rather than just replacing them. Having tools appropriate to the task at hand seems very appropriate for the class. </blockquote><p>Well, if they go the Alchemist's route and make them Resonance-heavy, you could combine the two and let them spend Resonance to temporarily upgrade an item to give a Skill boost.
<p>That might trespass a little on territory they're saving for the Occultist, of course, but then a little overlap isn't always a bad thing.</p>PossibleCabbage wrote:Deadmanwalking wrote:The list of Classes that need to be converted is actually really short:
Do we really need the Summoner back? It seems like relatively little would be lost without it, in case they decided to streamline "pets" significantly in the core. Like in PF1 it was likely the 2nd most banned class (possibly most depending on how we consider gunslinger bans which were rescinded after the Bolt Ace was printed, but only for that archetype), and I can't think of...Deadmanwalking2018-06-16T20:13:52ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: 2edition vs current booksCaptain Morganhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v6u5&page=2?2edition-vs-current-books#582018-06-16T20:01:38Z2018-06-16T20:01:38Z<p>If anything, I think I'd want the Investigator to get MORE from items rather than just replacing them. Having tools appropriate to the task at hand seems very appropriate for the class.</p>If anything, I think I'd want the Investigator to get MORE from items rather than just replacing them. Having tools appropriate to the task at hand seems very appropriate for the class.Captain Morgan2018-06-16T20:01:38ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: 2edition vs current booksMekkishttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v6u5&page=2?2edition-vs-current-books#572018-06-16T20:01:34Z2018-06-16T20:01:34Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
I wonder how they'll handle something fluff-heavy like Inner Sea Gods? The obvious thing to do is reprint all the fluff while updating / changing all the crunch, but that much duplication will sit poorly with those who own PF1 ISG. OTOH, PF2 players who don't own PF1 ISG will need <i>something</i> to tell them the lore of the gods. </blockquote><p>Looking at released Pathfinder content, Inner Sea Gods is largely duplication of Gods and Magic.
<p>Inner Sea World Guide is largely duplication of Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, which is largely duplication of Pathfinder Chronicles Gazetteer.</p>
<p>There are several other examples: Book of the Damned comes to mind.</p>
<p>Given how each of these apparently sold well (Inner Sea World Guide is amazing!), I would be surprised if this trend isn't going to continue.</p>
<p><i>If the new system is able to support it.</i></p>Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:I wonder how they'll handle something fluff-heavy like Inner Sea Gods? The obvious thing to do is reprint all the fluff while updating / changing all the crunch, but that much duplication will sit poorly with those who own PF1 ISG. OTOH, PF2 players who don't own PF1 ISG will need something to tell them the lore of the gods.
Looking at released Pathfinder content, Inner Sea Gods is largely duplication of Gods and Magic. Inner Sea World Guide is largely duplication of...Mekkis2018-06-16T20:01:34ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: 2edition vs current booksPossibleCabbagehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v6u5&page=2?2edition-vs-current-books#562018-06-16T20:00:18Z2018-06-16T20:00:18Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deadmanwalking wrote:</div><blockquote>The list of Classes that need to be converted is actually really short:</blockquote><p>Do we really need the Summoner back? It seems like relatively little would be lost without it, in case they decided to streamline "pets" significantly in the core.
<p>Like in PF1 it was likely the 2nd most banned class (possibly most depending on how we consider gunslinger bans which were rescinded after the Bolt Ace was printed, but only for that archetype), and I can't think of many "important people on Golarion" who had that class.</p>
<p>I agree with the rest of your list.</p>Deadmanwalking wrote:The list of Classes that need to be converted is actually really short:
Do we really need the Summoner back? It seems like relatively little would be lost without it, in case they decided to streamline "pets" significantly in the core. Like in PF1 it was likely the 2nd most banned class (possibly most depending on how we consider gunslinger bans which were rescinded after the Bolt Ace was printed, but only for that archetype), and I can't think of many "important people...PossibleCabbage2018-06-16T20:00:18ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: 2edition vs current booksDeadmanwalkinghttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v6u5&page=2?2edition-vs-current-books#552018-06-16T19:50:19Z2018-06-16T19:50:19Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Captain Morgan wrote:</div><blockquote>I certainly wouldn't complain about getting the Investigator, but I think like the Magus it will benefit from its component classes being tested pretty thoroughly. I'm guessing Inspiration will pretty much be scrapped and replaced with something else. Mechanically, it seems too potent with the crit system, and I feel like 5e has pretty much cornered the market on the word as a game term.</blockquote><p>Inspiration would definitely need to drastically change if it were to be included, yes. But it's hardly a defining feature, just a component of the 'good at skills' defining feature (the other two defining features being 'alchemy like an Alchemist, but without bombs being a big thing' and 'Int-based combat buff')...and being good at skills can be managed in various ways.
<p>All that said, I could see Inspiration still existing in some form. The version that leaps immediately to mind would give a bonus that doesn't stack with item bonuses, so it doesn't mess with core game math, just lets you be occasionally as good on your secondary skills as if you had an Item buff to them. That might or might not work very well thematically, though. There are probably other options to reflect the whole 'burst of genius' thing, too (the ability to grab Skill Feats on the fly, or at the beginning of the day like a Fighter grabs Fighter Feats, for example).</p>Captain Morgan wrote:I certainly wouldn't complain about getting the Investigator, but I think like the Magus it will benefit from its component classes being tested pretty thoroughly. I'm guessing Inspiration will pretty much be scrapped and replaced with something else. Mechanically, it seems too potent with the crit system, and I feel like 5e has pretty much cornered the market on the word as a game term.
Inspiration would definitely need to drastically change if it were to be included,...Deadmanwalking2018-06-16T19:50:19ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: 2edition vs current booksCaptain Morganhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v6u5&page=2?2edition-vs-current-books#542018-06-16T19:42:02Z2018-06-16T19:42:02Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">AnimatedPaper wrote:</div><blockquote><p> While everything you say is true, Captain, there's still a certain benefit to actually taking the time to crank out the classes, and do the mixing and matching necessary at an official level.</p>
<p>I agree that the new modularity and action economy is going to render many classes either redundant or able to be approximated with some tweaks. I even pointed out that Gunslingers and Vigilantes would be prime candidates for becoming archetypes, some others will be able to be approximated by allowing classes to pick up other class's feats; a bloodrager could just be a barbarian that can pick sorcerer class feats, a bard might just need the Contagious rage feat and a basic rage ability instead of inspiration to make a skald.</p>
<p>None of that matters. People are going to want to have their classes as soon as possible, If the changes are fairly minor, and don't disrupt the core game and wind up being only a page or two (a couple new class feats, with a note listing which core class feats you also get access to), so much the better.</p>
<p>I feel that, rather than take up all the design ground, this will clear the creative decks. Instead of demanding to know where their witch is, when is the arcanist going to be updated, players can look forward to what ELSE the developers can come up with when they put out Ultimate Arcane. </blockquote><p>I think you are correct that people will WANT the classes as soon as possible, but I'm not sure I agree Paizo should actually put them out as soon as possible. I think their reasoning on holding back the gunslinger (and guns) was sound, and there are several classes that I think will be better if the game has some time to mature— developing a meta, if you will. The Magus springs to mind. I think action economy will always be the most defining feature of the Magus, and I think it deserves to have people play some melee casters in the default system for a while to see what shortcomings need fixing.
<p>Now, stuff like the Oracle probably doesn't need as much ironed out. The Occult classes seem like they should be able to stand on their own, though I feel like the Bard (and its potential Occult spell list) will need to be examined. </p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>I mostly agree in terms of what Hybrid Classes should get remade (Shaman and maybe Bloodrager...the rest don't seem necessary), but I'll actually say I think there's also a place for Investigator. Replacing a Rogue's non-skill Features with some of those an Alchemist gets (daily alchemical items) and possibly an Int-based combat style ala Studied Combat seems pretty viable to me as a Class, or at least an Archetype.</blockquote><p>I certainly wouldn't complain about getting the Investigator, but I think like the Magus it will benefit from its component classes being tested pretty thoroughly. I'm guessing Inspiration will pretty much be scrapped and replaced with something else. Mechanically, it seems too potent with the crit system, and I feel like 5e has pretty much cornered the market on the word as a game term.AnimatedPaper wrote:While everything you say is true, Captain, there's still a certain benefit to actually taking the time to crank out the classes, and do the mixing and matching necessary at an official level.
I agree that the new modularity and action economy is going to render many classes either redundant or able to be approximated with some tweaks. I even pointed out that Gunslingers and Vigilantes would be prime candidates for becoming archetypes, some others will be able to be...Captain Morgan2018-06-16T19:42:02ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: 2edition vs current booksDeadmanwalkinghttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v6u5&page=2?2edition-vs-current-books#532018-06-16T19:11:11Z2018-06-16T19:11:11Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">AnimatedPaper wrote:</div><blockquote>Again, even a very basic "to emulate a bloodrager, use a barbarian but allow your players to select sorcerer class feats; here's a new totem and a couple class feats that help make that work" would be acceptable, if it truly lets you pull off the character concepts. </blockquote><p>We have no idea how multiclassing works. It's very possible that multiclasssing resembles this more than it does PF1 multiclassing. We really need to wait until we hear more about multiclassing before figuring out how this sort of thing works.AnimatedPaper wrote:Again, even a very basic "to emulate a bloodrager, use a barbarian but allow your players to select sorcerer class feats; here's a new totem and a couple class feats that help make that work" would be acceptable, if it truly lets you pull off the character concepts.
We have no idea how multiclassing works. It's very possible that multiclasssing resembles this more than it does PF1 multiclassing. We really need to wait until we hear more about multiclassing before figuring...Deadmanwalking2018-06-16T19:11:11ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: 2edition vs current booksAnimatedPaperhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v6u5&page=2?2edition-vs-current-books#522018-06-18T12:43:50Z2018-06-16T18:46:31Z<p>Speaking personally, I would be extremely disappointed if they said "Just multiclass" and leave it at that. One of the reasons I <i>like</i> pathfinder is that they incentivize staying in the same class from 1-20. I wouldn't have been sorry to see multiclassing go away entirely.</p>
<p>Again, even a very basic "to emulate a bloodrager, use a barbarian but allow your players to select sorcerer class feats; here's a new totem and a couple class feats that help make that work" would be acceptable, if it truly lets you pull off the character concepts.</p>Speaking personally, I would be extremely disappointed if they said "Just multiclass" and leave it at that. One of the reasons I like pathfinder is that they incentivize staying in the same class from 1-20. I wouldn't have been sorry to see multiclassing go away entirely.
Again, even a very basic "to emulate a bloodrager, use a barbarian but allow your players to select sorcerer class feats; here's a new totem and a couple class feats that help make that work" would be acceptable, if it...AnimatedPaper2018-06-16T18:46:31ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: 2edition vs current booksDeadmanwalkinghttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v6u5&page=2?2edition-vs-current-books#512018-06-18T22:53:21Z2018-06-16T18:23:13Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">ChibiNyan wrote:</div><blockquote> I believe they said around the time the playtest was first announced that "ALL" classes will be ported, and they will try to do it soon-ish. Except Gunslinger I guess, which was said to require more playtesting. </blockquote><p>What they actually said, IIRC, was that they would make it possible to build any <i>character</i> you could've in PF1 as quickly as they could arrange it to be so.
<p>That definitely involves converting Races to Ancestries, but does not necessarily involve a 1 to 1 Class conversion. There are definite indications with Barbarians having Totems that can represent a bloodline and mention that they can multiclass for spellcasting, that you might easily be able to build many Bloodragers as straight Barbarians with maybe a bit of multiclassing into Sorcerer, just as one example.</p>ChibiNyan wrote:I believe they said around the time the playtest was first announced that "ALL" classes will be ported, and they will try to do it soon-ish. Except Gunslinger I guess, which was said to require more playtesting.
What they actually said, IIRC, was that they would make it possible to build any character you could've in PF1 as quickly as they could arrange it to be so. That definitely involves converting Races to Ancestries, but does not necessarily involve a 1 to 1 Class...Deadmanwalking2018-06-16T18:23:13Z