Poll: What Classes Need More Love

Hey 1e Pathfinder Peeps, we have an important question for you.

Which official Pathfinder 1e classes need more love?

We at JBE are hard a work on the Book of Beasts: Character Codex Subscription, but that is for GMs. We are looking at some support for players as well. We've done plenty with races, and now we're looking at more class support. We want to know if you are interested (and please tell us if you are not interested at all) and, if so, which classes. We're sticking with official Pathfinder classes, so no 3rd party classes and no classes like the Vampire Hunter.

Respectfully, I think all the official classes already have support coming out the wazoo. I don't think any of them need any more.

EDIT: To be more helpful:
If I were choosing official classes that could use more stuff: the occultist, the psychic, and the spiritualist. Just from vague impressions, they don't seem to receive as much support as the kineticist, mesmerist, and medium.

The occultist in particular is always going to be well-served having a redesign so it's not based on the legacy magic schools of D&D (i.e. Conjuration, Transmutation, etc). (Wizard could also benefit from this.)

Here is a related thread.

Respectfully, I think all the official classes already have support coming out the wazoo. I don't think any of them need any more.

Honestly, this is the feedback I'm looking for.

EDIT: To be more helpful:

If I were choosing official classes that could use more stuff: the occultist, the psychic, and the spiritualist. Just from vague impressions, they don't seem to receive as much support as the kineticist, mesmerist, and medium.

The occultist in particular is always going to be well-served having a redesign so it's not based on the legacy magic schools of D&D (i.e. Conjuration, Transmutation, etc). (Wizard could also benefit from this.)

I appreciate it, but I'm not looking to start a series for 3 classes.

Antipaldin has the issue that it doesn't fit into the average table. A few official archetypes addressed that somewhat (tyrant, insuinator), but there might be room for another one. Especially smite good is a class feature that is hard to use in a classic heroic campaign.

Ranged weapons beside bow and crossbow could use more support. Especially thrown weapons are hard to build a character around, unless you are willing to take a very specific swashbuckler archetype.

Personally I am not happy with the shaman: Its two base classes are really cool, but the hybrid class is a clunky mess with reduced and delayed choices.

I am still dreaming of a supernatural ability user: Get a limited amount of abilities from a sandbox, and use them all day. Kineticist is somewhat close, but focuses too much on blasts and is forced into chosing an element instead of different concepts.

Finally, I think several archetypes should be dissolved into feats. It's a bit of a pity to decide between mobile fighter and two-weapon fighter, for example - I'd like the cool stuff from both.

What would be nice is more archetypes that trade 0-9 casting for 0-6 casting but add more customizable class abilities.

I'll echo the Occultist, and more broadly the psychic classes in general.

I think the Swashbuckler and Gunslinger need something to make them more than dip-classes. Specifically they need non-combat abilities to help them stay relevant outside their niche.

Also I can't remember who said it (Derklord I think?) But some classes lack "charqcter defining choices" - A Witch chooses Hexes, an Alchemist chooses discoveries, a Paladin chooses Mercies and a Barbarian chooses Rage Powers, but the Gunslinger and Swashbuckler don't get any choices as they level up. Every Gunslinger is the same as every other Gunslinger and every Swashbuckler is the same as every other Swashbuckler (besides archetypes, but then other classes have archetypes AND other choices). Clerics and Wizards suffer a bit from this (their choices are all made at level 1), but since their main schtick is spells it's less noticable.

We want to know if you are interested (and please tell us if you are not interested at all)

I can't say that I would pick these up if made. Theres plenty of Paizo content I haven't got around to reading yet. Maybe if I read a good review or something I might change my mind.

Also I can't remember who said it (Derklord I think?) But some classes lack "character defining choices" - A Witch chooses Hexes, an Alchemist chooses discoveries, a Paladin chooses Mercies and a Barbarian chooses Rage Powers, but the Gunslinger and Swashbuckler don't get any choices as they level up. Every Gunslinger is the same as every other Gunslinger and every Swashbuckler is the same as every other Swashbuckler (besides archetypes, but then other classes have archetypes AND other choices).

If those two classes mechanics could apply to a much broader variety of weapons, like a Bow or Crossbow or Sling or even Thrown Dagger-using 'Gunslinger' or a Whip or Spear or Paired Dagger or Staff-using 'Swashbuckler,' that might give them the feel of more variety.

Part of me is now thinking we should bite the bullet and just merge Gunslinger and Swashbuckler into a "Musketeer" class. But I'm guessing that's beyond the scope of this thread.

MrCharisma wrote:

Also I can't remember who said it (Derklord I think?) But some classes lack "character defining choices" - A Witch chooses Hexes, an Alchemist chooses discoveries, a Paladin chooses Mercies and a Barbarian chooses Rage Powers, but the Gunslinger and Swashbuckler don't get any choices as they level up. Every Gunslinger is the same as every other Gunslinger and every Swashbuckler is the same as every other Swashbuckler (besides archetypes, but then other classes have archetypes AND other choices).

If those two classes mechanics could apply to a much broader variety of weapons, like a Bow or Crossbow or Sling or even Thrown Dagger-using 'Gunslinger' or a Whip or Spear or Paired Dagger or Staff-using 'Swashbuckler,' that might give them the feel of more variety.

Gunslingers and Swashbucklers do have class features (deeds) that cost points from their class pool (grit/panache). The diference is that they don't choose deeds, they just get all of them.

Ironically if they had to choose 1 deed every odd level they'd end up with less deeds but they'd feel more personalised and wouldn't seem as bland. So the easiest fix is to make deeds something you choose rather than something you just get wholesale.

(EDIT: This got long, soo ...)

I'm sure there are other classes who could use some more interesting choices (heck, Clerics make all their choices at level 1, and don't even have to choose spells to learn), but those 2 classes especially could use some love.

It seems to me that something covering Witch Patrons would be good. Very scant information about these at the moment.

The fact that the spiritualist class is basically unplayable as written makes it a good candidate.

Antipaladin could at minimum use clarification that they can use paladin feats (or just create your own version) so they're not so starved for options...

I love 3rd party content, but I'm almost clueless as to what does and does not fall under your purview. With that in mind, all of the classes could use more love in the sense that it would be nice to see a variant approach to archetypes that would allow for a more fluid mix and match of features then is currently possible.

I'll also shout out for the druid. I know it's arguably one of the most powerful classes in the game, I'd just love to see it, and any other critter friendly classes have more access to a greater variety of animals or other creature types. Not so much about raw power, as flavorful or utility choices. It's not a tremendous need, but there is some room for expansion.

I don't particularly love the class, but why not something like
Vampire Hunter?

Sorry, last thought, don't know if archetypes are even something you all work with, but more options or archetypes that allow for any class to work of of different key stats could be interesting.

My favorite class has been the shifter since I got my hands on the Ultimate Wilderness. Unfortunately it greatly lack luster with many of its abilities done better by the druid or ranger and the things it gets right are disappointingly limited. I think of any of the classes the shifter deserves to have any amount of viability and love.

I don't particularly love the class, but why not something like Vampire Hunter?

To make life easy for my company, we stick to the RPG line hardcovers. The license allows us to directly reference them and say that such and such is from X book. We actually can't do that with the Vampire Hutner class. Sure we can copy the thing wholesale and repackage it as our own so we can expand upon it and alter it in our own way, but we don't like to do that.

There are a few exceptions to this rule that we chose to do, but we are very deliberate about that. The Technology Guide is one such example. We made technological items that were inline with that book and used a few feats from there to create such items. However, since we couldn't just put a TG superscript next to it and say in the intro that if there's a TG superscript, it references the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Technology Guide. So we just reprinted them. We didn't like doing that but we did not feel that we had a better option.

We are not a reprint company. We don't make it a habit to take other people's work and put it in our own with appropriate OGL citations, taking a shortcut to success. If we do, it is because it is because there is little or no other choice. We'd rather reference other people's work, encouraging you to buy their work; we feel that good work should be rewarded and we should not try to muscle in on their blood, sweat, and tears.

What would be nice is more archetypes that trade 0-9 casting for 0-6 casting but add more customizable class abilities.

To me, this sounds like you need a different base class than an archetype. Something like a magus/witch hybrid class or a bard equivalent of a shaman?

This does bring up an interesting point. I'm hearing some interest, but not overwhelming interest. Would people be more interested in new base classes? If we made a witch version of ranger or converted the D&D 4e warlord to PF 1e or made a duskblade or a pyrorager or FF2 (or IV, however you call it) dragoon.

Does this sound more interesting to people?

My favorite class has been the shifter since I got my hands on the Ultimate Wilderness. Unfortunately it greatly lack luster with many of its abilities done better by the druid or ranger and the things it gets right are disappointingly limited. I think of any of the classes the shifter deserves to have any amount of viability and love.

I'll be honest, I thought the shifter did not get the love and development time it deserved. Excellent concept, not the best execution. It could use an unchaining.

Does this sound more interesting to people?

At a certain point asking for new options for existing classes can turn into asking for whole new classes. Example that's just been mentioned: the Shifter. Not sure there's anything that can be given to that class that will fix its mediocre-ness without ending up almost being a complete rewrite (and Legendary Games already did one of those, anyway).

I think there's certainly some design space in making what are essentially new versions of existing full-caster classes with reduced spellcasting but increased class features: I find Inquisitor and Warpriest spark more ideas than the Cleric, the Magus and Summoner to Sorcerer and Wizard. (About the only full-caster I think works on its own is Druid, and that may speak more to its potential-OP status.)

I still think there's room for conceptual love of the full caster classes. Spontaneous usually feel like they have more "defining" choices. Maybe some options that greater limit or hamper spell choice while adding features that distinguish different concepts could be good. Basically, make a cleric have to focus in on a set of spells as opposed to the whole list ( though not as restricted as the oracle) then give more variety, choices, or impact to domain and other features.

I didn't say that very well, but I hope the intent is clear.

Frankly, while I love archetypes, Paizo's introduction of the mechanic has confused for me when a class should be new, and when it should just be an archetype.

Dittoing the shifter needs love crowd.

Basically, make a cleric have to focus in on a set of spells as opposed to the whole list (though not as restricted as the oracle) then give more variety, choices, or impact to domain and other features.

A cleric variant that had a spell list limited to the spells granted by their god's domains and subdomains, and either cure or inflict spells, would make for a huge difference. (Or having to use 2 slots to prepare cleric spells outside this selection, like a specialist Wizard prepping a spell from a restricted school?)

Some sort of Mesmerist touch treatment or Paladin mercy abilities might be necessary to allow for more healer utility, though, because of the large number of specialized cures (like remove curse or remove disease or remove poison or remove blindness/deafness or lesser/greater/restoration) that become increasingly necessary...

This kind of bifurcates for me into ‘classes that are pretty much unplayable as is and need major overhauls’ vs. ‘classes that are playable, but are lacking content’.

For the first, shifter, spiritualist, and psychic are three big ones. Psychic is particularly worthless.

For the latter, as above, gunslinger and swashbuckler have almost no class options. Advanced Class Guide classes in general are very functional, but they never really followed up with much additional content. Medium is functional, but you can only generally use one spirit, and Champion is great and the others are bad. Really, Medium is mostly just ‘the good Occultist archetype.’

Seems like most Occult classes aren't that great, with Kineticist being somewhat of an exception (though I've heard complaints about it, too).

Sysryke wrote:

Basically, make a cleric have to focus in on a set of spells as opposed to the whole list (though not as restricted as the oracle) then give more variety, choices, or impact to domain and other features.

A cleric variant that had a spell list limited to the spells granted by their god's domains and subdomains, and either cure or inflict spells, would make for a huge difference. (Or having to use 2 slots to prepare cleric spells outside this selection, like a specialist Wizard prepping a spell from a restricted school?)

Some sort of Mesmerist touch treatment or Paladin mercy abilities might be necessary to allow for more healer utility, though, because of the large number of specialized cures (like remove curse or remove disease or remove poison or remove blindness/deafness or lesser/greater/restoration) that become increasingly necessary...

Clerics could use some kind of "Arcane Discovery"-like options. It's absurd the Wizard gets an Outsider buddy for free and a Cleric doesn't get his angel coworker.

Warpriests need more archetypes and a complete set of focused blessings!

This does bring up an interesting point. I'm hearing some interest, but not overwhelming interest. Would people be more interested in new base classes? If we made a witch version of ranger or converted the D&D 4e warlord to PF 1e or made a duskblade or a pyrorager or FF2 (or IV, however you call it) dragoon.

Does this sound more interesting to people?

Seems to me alotta the more well known PF1e 3pp classes tended to be based around some sorta niches/gimmicks, like the base classes of Dreamscarred Presses's Psionics, Akashic Mysteries, or Path of War and Drop Dead Studios' Spheres of Power or Spheres of Might; conversely, those very same niches/gimmicks tended to be disallowed at some tables for some reason or another, so mebbe just new base classes might be an easier thing to start with.

In terms of love, Necromancer has "romance" in the name. So really, we just have love to give.

And we love to give the gift of post-life opportunities!

For the first, shifter, spiritualist, and psychic are three big ones. Psychic is particularly worthless.

What's wrong with the Psychic? The one in my RotRL group seems to be doing fine!

Seems like most Occult classes aren't that great, with Kineticist being somewhat of an exception (though I've heard complaints about it, too).

I think the main issue with the Kineticist is that, as an at will elemental blaster without true spellcasting, it looks like it should be a simple class. But when you get into the details it is actually pretty damn complicated.

_
glass.

Seems like most Occult classes aren't that great, with Kineticist being somewhat of an exception (though I've heard complaints about it, too).

When you say "aren't that great", do you mean "need more support and weren't edited/playtested well enough"? Because I can get behind that.

But if you mean "aren't strong classes" then I've got news for you buddy.

When you say "aren't that great", do you mean "need more support and weren't edited/playtested well enough"? Because I can get behind that.

But if you mean "aren't strong classes" then I've got news for you buddy.

I mean "it seems the Occult classes are the ones most people are posting here about".

MrCharisma wrote:

When you say "aren't that great", do you mean "need more support and weren't edited/playtested well enough"? Because I can get behind that.

But if you mean "aren't strong classes" then I've got news for you buddy.

I mean "it seems the Occult classes are the ones most people are posting here about".

Ok cool =)

I haven't played many of them, but the Occultist and the Mesmerist have been pretty great in my experience.

But yes they could use a little more support, and some of the stuff in Occult Adventures clearly wasn't edited properly =P (I haven't looked in a while, but I remember a couple of discussions about abilities that just don't work as written).

I haven't played many of them, but the Occultist and the Mesmerist have been pretty great in my experience.

But yes they could use a little more support, and some of the stuff in Occult Adventures clearly wasn't edited properly =P (I haven't looked in a while, but I remember a couple of discussions about abilities that just don't work as written).

I have a similar issue with the Occultist as I do with the Wizard: its class-defining feature is designed around D&D's conception of spell schools. The Wizard, at least, has some alternatives (e.g. elemental schools), while the Occultist has maybe a few archetypes for using a different conception.

Poorly defined =/= weak.

Kineticists absolutely run rampant, especially if they use the same exact cookie cutter build everyone seems to be using...