I am very curious if any of the developers have commented on whether the general design goal of PF2 is that they are going to continue to release new base classes with some amount of frequency, with an end goal of having as many base classes as they possibly can (that all feel interesting and unique, obviously), or if the goal is to have as few classes as necessary that can represent every character concept at its most basic level and then have archetypes fill in all the different kind of flavor?
For a class based system, I could see either design principle working, but it seemed like 1st edition got stuck in the middle of these two and I have some concerns that, due to legacy, PF2 is going to end up in the same boat.
For example:
It could be very easy to have a game where pirate was a distinct enough identity to justify its own class. It could be an almost hybrid class of the swashbuckler and the gunslinger. But, I am also perfectly fine with Pirate being a more flexible archetype that fits over many more basic molds. Personally I feel like the same could be true of most of the hybrid classes (including the swashbuckler) and even many of the core classes like ranger and paladin and probably even monk.
I would like to know if 1. the developers are trying to lean into the idea that the CRB is going to cover most of the classes they intend to introduce to the game, with expansion material being feats and archetypes. 2. They have maybe another 8-10 classes planned and that it is (the middle path). 3. They plan on having new classes be a continuing expansion model?
Another big concern I have if they do plan on having more and more classes is that archetypes that later become classes creates some really confusing and messy redundancy. Which ever direction they go, I hope they commit to waiting to release options until they know where those options are headed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see variation come mostly through archetypes. I do not think the core classes will be enough to cover everything. But I think you could include maybe another 10, and then branch out with general and class specific archetypes and a good number of feats.
For example, I do not think you can easily do an Arcanist or Summoner through just an archetype. I think a new type of casting probably requires a new class. But something like a ninja or slayer probably could just be archetypes.
They have said there will be more base classes introduces as we go along however we may not see all of them from 1e. (The hybrid classes were ones that were called out as some of them possibly not being necessary anymore). For example Bloodrager was mentioned as something that you might just be able to do with the multiclassing rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Practically the first thing I requested on these forums was for Paizo to not release new core classes with anything like the same regularity as they did in PF1. Few would deny that the APG brought a lot of good stuff, and there was plenty to like in eg Ultimate Combat. But by the end there were a stupid number of classes. Without meaning to critique the actual design of any of them, they simply weren't necessary.
What we've seen so far looks like consolidation, where each class covers a wider set of character styles: the Cavalier has been rolled into Fighter, Ninja into Rogue, etc. Further customisation is then provided by backgrounds, archetypes and feats, letting each character be unique without having to publish a hundred classes and a thousand archetypes. I approve of this. Not least because, as you noted, it leads to a dangerous temptation to re-use words.
Even so, Paizo make their money from rulebooks, so they're going to have to find some excuse to publish a new book of some sort regularly. If those books don't have classes and archetypes, what do they have?
@Sadie - these are great points. Here are my thoughts on it.
Personally, I'd rather see the developers run with the flexibility of archetypes and feats and dial back the number of classes, but make sure that multi-classing stays flexible and easy to do. In my perfect class-based game, I'd try to dial that back to relatively simple Fighter, Arcane caster, Divine caster, and Expert. I could see entry level archetypes for each of these classes that could easily provide all of the abilities and flexibility of other classes, including changing spell lists, casting attribute, proficiencies, and saves, but they wouldn't be necessary to build a basic character in each class. Ironically, to me, this would be playing back to the earliest traditions of D&D, and building up from the games origins, learning from all of the editions since and using the best of what is new on the older chassis.
But people are wildly attached to the expanded classes that have come out and they will be really upset if their favorite class is now an archetype, which is why I wonder if Pathfinder is not better served by keeping classes relatively narrow but more of them, using archetypes for just some very generic flexibility in feat types that fit into specific sets of groups (lets make one group of naval feats and make that accessible to all classes with class feats that might serve on a boat, for example).
What I don't want to see, but seems like it is happening, is that some classes are getting made more generic with the expectation that archetypes will provide focus, while some classes are staying incredibly specific and the justification for the specificity is "legacy," which feels incredibly disappointing to me.
I feel like it's a good idea to revisit all of the PF1 classes just for ease of conversion for the various PF1 adventures.
Like the boss of one AP is a Swashbuckler, and it's going to be much easier to just rebuild him once we get a PF2 Swashbuckler class instead of having to figure out how to rebuild him as a charismatic fighter.
I think this ties into a question discussed elsewhere: what exactly is an "archetype" now? I made the argument, from its mechanical setup and from the examples given, that a word like "path" might better describe the new archetype system, in that it represents what a character is doing with their life now: being a Pirate, being a Gray Warden, being a Hellknight etc. It certainly doesn't look like archetypes are specialised versions of classes, narrowing their focus.
You're right that the outcry if Paizo decide not to revisit popular classes would be substantial. No matter that a PF2 Swashbuckler would bear no resemblance at all to the PF1 Swashbuckler, people will still want to have it. There are at least 10 of the expanded classes that are so well loved that they're practically guaranteed to resurface.
My own statistics from running a character sheets site suggested that, for the first three months of this year:
1 Wizard 5.3%
2 Cleric 5.1%
3 Fighter 5.0%
4 Rogue 4.6%
5 Ranger 4.2%
6 Sorcerer 4.1%
7 Druid 3.9%
8 Barbarian 3.5%
9 Bard 3.5%
10 Alchemist 2.5%
11 Paladin 2.4%
12 Magus 2.1%
13 Gunslinger 2.1%
14 Oracle 1.7%
15 Monk 1.6%
16 Swashbuckler 1.6%
17 Inquisitor 1.3%
18 Summoner 1.3%
19 Witch 1.3%
20 Unchained Rogue 1.3%
21 Unchained Monk 1.0%
22 Slayer 1.0%
23 Arcanist 1.0%
24 Bloodrager 0.9%
25 Warpriest 0.9%
26 Hunter 0.9%
27 Soldier 0.9%
28 Mechanic 0.9%
29 Brawler 0.8%
30 Investigator 0.8%
(These numbers include both Starfinder and D&D 3.5 as well, and are of course approximate)
From this it's easy to see why Alchemist is in core now - it beats several of the core classes. My guess would be that the Magus, Gunslinger, Swashbuckler, Witch and possibly Oracle are high on the list for a PF2 expansion. On the other hand I'd expect the Inquisitor, Summoner, Slayer and Arcanist to be supported by the revise core classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it depends greatly on the class. Swashbuckler is one I'd toss into the archetype pile (or not even that, and just make single weapon and no armor viable for fighters, rogues and similar classes)
Similarly, clerics, oracles, paladins and warpriests are just flavor text and a couple cleric feats to me, while the arcanist is incredibly redundant and should just be cut. Same with cavalier/samurai: they're fighters with set feat choices and inaccurate name tags
Ranger/hunter/slayer depends entirely on the implementation of ranger. If pet+ weapon style + the horror that is favored enemy/terrain (either useless or ridiculous depending on GM and adventure) remain the focus of the class, then the other two classes are necessary to get martial wilderness warrior and a non-druid mystic pet class in play.
I'd like a more diverse and robust array of classes (rather than hybrid variations on the same handful of themes) but at the moment the focus on classes seems to be buying back basic abilities with feats.
|
I would like to see ALL of the "Hybrid" Classes completely eliminated.
I see no reason to make make a Ninja, Samurai, Investigator, Brawler, etc when these things can VERY easily be handled by Archetypes and expanding the available Class Feats for the Base Classes.
The same thing goes for Gunslinger, we don't need a Class dedicated to this anymore now that we can choose to pickup the Class Abilites that we specifically want once we get the Initial Archetype Feat, I don't see any reason to fill another 8 pages of a Hardcover Book for a Class that can be easily broken down into 5-10 Archetype Feats.
Some classes that stand out to me as being unique enough to warrant a proper Class:
Shifter
Kineticist
Oracle
Summoner
Shaman
Witch
Vigilante
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with Vigilante.
Vigilante can be handled by a few new skill feats and a short archetype for stuff like Dual-Identity and the Sudden Appearance/Frightening Appearance chain. And tattoo chamber. Otherwise we need at least two vigilante classes, to allow for the caster ones.
You might be right about shifter, but I think 2/3s of it can be handled by Monk class feats. It'd be a weird looking monk, no question, but much of the framework is the same. Problem is that they didn't lean into mystic warrior as a theme for the monk, making it just an option, so it isn't as well supported as I would prefer.
Hunter and Spiritualist could probably use their own classes, but I'll wait to see how broad they write the summoner. There's a possibility that class could support all three of those, plus a few new options.
Themetricsystem I am very glad to see you actually state that despite being a Hybrid class Shaman is unique enough to warrant a class. Its one of my favorite classes, and most definitely feels distinct enough from its parent classes and the core classes to stand on its own, at least imho.
In my opinion some other classes I would Love to see along the line are Shifter with a Proper Implementation this time, Slayer, Hunter, Kineticist, and Occultist. Though I'm sure there will more than likely be an Occult Adventures book somewhere down the line for Occultist and other classes, like the Psychic.
Vigilante I say why split it up? There's a number of great options in the Vigilante Talents & the Social Talents that's more than just skill feats... Though covering it in an archetype or a few could be an idea...
It seems apparent to me that there is a strong interest in Paizo continuing to create new classes, and I just don't see people get that fired up about new archetypes and the flexible modularity of archetypes. So it seems likely, from a sales perspective that making new classes will continue to be profitable, as long as those classes don't feel completely broken or shattering of the game.
At the same time, PF1 is a game coming apart at the seams at this point with redundant options. Personally, I am hoping PF2 avoids replicating this somehow, but that seems difficult if the fan base wants everything they had before, as soon as possible, without adequate playtesting. My hat is off to the developers for at least waiting on reintroducing gunpowder back into the game while working on new mechanics.
In the end, as long as Paizo continues to put out top class adventures and adventure paths for pathfinder, it will keep my attention for this game, but it seems like the class design of PF2 is more of a hard reset on the option bloat of PF1 with a couple of pruned branches, than it is an attempt to fix the underlying issue. I guess if it lasts a good 5-10 years as a system, then that will probably be good enough.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't say I have strong feelings about any specific class or archetype, as long as they keep the option bloat under control.
I'm increasingly convinced that, while I like the new archetypes, the name "archetype" isn't right for them. They should be called something else - "profession", "dedication", "path", something like that - leaving the option open for them to release actual archetypes in a future book that are more class-specific, or at least functionality-specific (eg must have spellcasting, must have certain weapon proficiencies, etc).
I believe there will be class-specific archetypes, they have only previewed a Universal and Prestige archetype.I can't say I have strong feelings about any specific class or archetype, as long as they keep the option bloat under control.
I'm increasingly convinced that, while I like the new archetypes, the name "archetype" isn't right for them. They should be called something else - "profession", "dedication", "path", something like that - leaving the option open for them to release actual archetypes in a future book that are more class-specific, or at least functionality-specific (eg must have spellcasting, must have certain weapon proficiencies, etc).
Yes, but if the class-specific archetypes are built with the same mechanism as the general archetypes, then they're restricted in how they can interact with the base class. They can't, for example, take away a domain or spell school in order to swap in another ability. That's a really strict limit on the designers, even with PF2 classes shifting so many of the class features into feats.
I think a couple of new classes will get made, most can probably be turned into feat collections or archetypes or multiclassing outcomes or whatnot. The class ladder design sounds standardised enough that making new classes shouldn't be super duper hard, but at the same time the main classes seem to actually be able to cover a massive bunch of concepts.
Personally I think that not needing to make loads of classes is good design, provided that ideas can be met.
The fun thing about these threads is that I am pretty sure every single player invested in Pathfinder has there own list of classes they think are "essential" and should show up in PF2, and how very different those opinions are between folks.
Anyway, I suspect that they will probably stay somewhat consistent with their current policy regarding new releasing new classes. I can definitely see archetypes being toned down somewhat. The new archetype system for instance allows, say...one generic theme archetype to apply to multiple classes. So rather than creating 10 pirate themed archetype s for a bunch of classes, you just take a normal class and select this archetype. We have seen quite throughout PF a lot of archetypes that function like this...think of all the gun using or vigilant themed archetypes.
For me, new classes are all about: Can I play this character at first level without ignoring class elements or having to hyper-optimize and look for obscure options, and still be effective? There might very well be some existing classes that in PF 2 that will not be needed because I can do this at level one. For instance, if I can play a non mystical martial artist, ala say Van Dame or Chuck Norris, using a fighter, and still be perfectly effective, We can skip the brawler. But if the fighter class can't handle unarmed combat super well, than maybe we do.
Yes, but if the class-specific archetypes are built with the same mechanism as the general archetypes, then they're restricted in how they can interact with the base class. They can't, for example, take away a domain or spell school in order to swap in another ability. That's a really strict limit on the designers, even with PF2 classes shifting so many of the class features into feats.I believe there will be class-specific archetypes, they have only previewed a Universal and Prestige archetype.I can't say I have strong feelings about any specific class or archetype, as long as they keep the option bloat under control.
I'm increasingly convinced that, while I like the new archetypes, the name "archetype" isn't right for them. They should be called something else - "profession", "dedication", "path", something like that - leaving the option open for them to release actual archetypes in a future book that are more class-specific, or at least functionality-specific (eg must have spellcasting, must have certain weapon proficiencies, etc).
Ok, this is just flat wrong. There's literally no reason they can't make a class locked devotion feat that you have to take at level 1 that says "swap sneak attack for some other thing" along with whatever other abilities it gives you. The fact that nothing in the playtest rules does this does not mean that nothing can ever do this, it just means that they didn't want to spend page space on it in a playtest because every archetype in PF1 has always worked that way so they're pretty clear on how to design those types of archetypes and don't need feedback on it.
I really hope that PF2 doesn't just rehash PF1 classes. Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of PF1 classes and would like to see them carry over, but not as much as I would prefer getting new content. Maybe have a big push to get a lot of them out in one of the early hardbacks, or mix them in with new ones gradually. But I definitely want to see some new stuff and not just the same lineup in a new light.
I really don't see that having overlap with classes and archetypes as a bad thing. You have the dedicated class for when you want to go all in and archetypes if you want to add a flavour of that class to another. There is room for both IMO.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Yes, but if the class-specific archetypes are built with the same mechanism as the general archetypes, then they're restricted in how they can interact with the base class. They can't, for example, take away a domain or spell school in order to swap in another ability. That's a really strict limit on the designers, even with PF2 classes shifting so many of the class features into feats.I believe there will be class-specific archetypes, they have only previewed a Universal and Prestige archetype.I can't say I have strong feelings about any specific class or archetype, as long as they keep the option bloat under control.
I'm increasingly convinced that, while I like the new archetypes, the name "archetype" isn't right for them. They should be called something else - "profession", "dedication", "path", something like that - leaving the option open for them to release actual archetypes in a future book that are more class-specific, or at least functionality-specific (eg must have spellcasting, must have certain weapon proficiencies, etc).
I have the same concern. I feel like the "swapping out feats" thing is interesting and useful, but it seems like it's missing the point of what an archetype was in PF1.
It's like those Barbarian "archetypes" that just said, "take this list of rage powers, but don't swap out any class features." No one bothers with them because they are just built into the base class in the first place!
I'm increasingly convinced that, while I like the new archetypes, the name "archetype" isn't right for them. They should be called something else - "profession", "dedication", "path", something like that - leaving the option open for them to release actual archetypes in a future book that are more class-specific, or at least functionality-specific (eg must have spellcasting, must have certain weapon proficiencies, etc).
Agreed, I keep wondering why they didn't just call them "Dedications." I'm willing to see how this idea plays out (it seems sound, but I'm trying not to let my fanboyism run away with me), but they don't really resemble archetypes from PF1.
I'm very much hoping there's a dedication for each core class that grants its class feats and some of its base abilities to other classes. I know some think this is how we're getting multiclassing, which might be suboptimal from that perspective, but really I just think it's an easy way to handle hybrid classes and more character types. Like a Monk dedication could be the arcehtype that provides all classes with a strong unarmed option (and would justify the pared down "martial artist with options to weapon and ki strike" version we see). Give lethal damage to unarmed attacks, 1d4 damage, and unarmored bonus. Possibly a signature skill, but that might be enough.
I really don't see that having overlap with classes and archetypes as a bad thing. You have the dedicated class for when you want to go all in and archetypes if you want to add a flavour of that class to another. There is room for both IMO.
I said in the main thread, but I'd be pretty interested if any dedication archetypes wind up so popular they make a full class out of them.
Ok, this is just flat wrong. There's literally no reason they can't make a class locked devotion feat that you have to take at level 1 that says "swap sneak attack for some other thing" along with whatever other abilities it gives you. The fact that nothing in the playtest rules does this does not mean that nothing can ever do this, it just means that they didn't want to spend page space on it in a playtest because every archetype in PF1 has always worked that way so they're pretty clear on how to design those types of archetypes and don't need feedback on it.
Yes, but if the class-specific archetypes are built with the same mechanism as the general archetypes, then they're restricted in how they can interact with the base class. They can't, for example, take away a domain or spell school in order to swap in another ability. That's a really strict limit on the designers, even with PF2 classes shifting so many of the class features into feats.
You're right. If they wanted to, they could write a feat that replaced or changed class feature, as part of an archetype. And since we haven't seen any of the class-specific archetypes in PF2 yet, it's possible they'll do just that. But what we've seen so far has led me to the impression that they won't. It's counter to the everything-is-a-feat philosophy, and to their goal of opening up more player freedom from fewer options.
But the final answer will have to wait until the playtest book.
Ok, this is just flat wrong. There's literally no reason they can't make a class locked devotion feat that you have to take at level 1 that says "swap sneak attack for some other thing" along with whatever other abilities it gives you. The fact that nothing in the playtest rules does this does not mean that nothing can ever do this, it just means that they didn't want to spend page space on it in a playtest because every archetype in PF1 has always worked that way so they're pretty clear on how to design those types of archetypes and don't need feedback on it.
Yes, but if the class-specific archetypes are built with the same mechanism as the general archetypes, then they're restricted in how they can interact with the base class. They can't, for example, take away a domain or spell school in order to swap in another ability. That's a really strict limit on the designers, even with PF2 classes shifting so many of the class features into feats.You're right. If they wanted to, they could write a feat that replaced or changed class feature, as part of an archetype. And since we haven't seen any of the class-specific archetypes in PF2 yet, it's possible they'll do just that. But what we've seen so far has led me to the impression that they won't. It's counter to the everything-is-a-feat philosophy, and to their goal of opening up more player freedom from fewer options.
But the final answer will have to wait until the playtest book.
Actually, the final answer will have to wait for PF2 itself, not the playtest. We already know the playtest book doesn't have any of this type of archetype. On the other hand, we also know that Mark Seifter has said they will probably make that sort of archetype eventually, just not in the playtest (and I expect not in the PF2 core rulebook, due to the need to do several of them for each class if you're doing them at all).
Well if you change the ninja enough like don't have it work on sneak attack and give it enough unique abilities it could still be its own class. I think its more so about how you design it.
Given the amount of system change they're doing, I'd rather they just go classless, or a "build your own class" system. I hate having to shoe-horn a character concept into somebody else's class framework. It never works out completely well, even with dozens of archetypes.
Harkening back to 3.5e a paraphrasing an actual discussion, "Oh boy, Healers get a Unicorn at high level. WTF? Its a normal, sane class and then wham, bam, a #$%*@ unicorn."
Given the amount of system change they're doing, I'd rather they just go classless, or a "build your own class" system. I hate having to shoe-horn a character concept into somebody else's class framework. It never works out completely well, even with dozens of archetypes.
Harkening back to 3.5e a paraphrasing an actual discussion, "Oh boy, Healers get a Unicorn at high level. WTF? Its a normal, sane class and then wham, bam, a #$%*@ unicorn."
I would be... interested in knowing which class this is. And how any sane DM manages to include that narratively if they weren't already aware of it!
I would be... interested in knowing which class this is. And how any sane DM manages to include that narratively if they weren't already aware of it!Given the amount of system change they're doing, I'd rather they just go classless, or a "build your own class" system. I hate having to shoe-horn a character concept into somebody else's class framework. It never works out completely well, even with dozens of archetypes.
Harkening back to 3.5e a paraphrasing an actual discussion, "Oh boy, Healers get a Unicorn at high level. WTF? Its a normal, sane class and then wham, bam, a #$%*@ unicorn."
You maybe posting in the wrong thread if you think unicorns are out of place, given that I was the one that started this thread.
You maybe posting in the wrong thread if you think unicorns are out of place, given that I was the one that started this thread."Oh boy, Healers get a Unicorn at high level. WTF? Its a normal, sane class and then wham, bam, a #$%*@ unicorn."I would be... interested in knowing which class this is.
You're a very nice unicorn, really. But you're not what the Healer character wanted. They didn't want an animal companion at all. They felt it was too "teenage-girly" for their concept. Not you though, you're not "teenage-girly" at all. You're rugged and intelligent. You would have made an excellent animal companion.
/yikes /phew ;) :)