Save the Date!

The occultist was one of my favorite classes both thematically and mechanically in 1e, I would love to see them return in some manner. If the theme continues to exist in some manner, even if under a different name, or as an archetype or subclass I would be okay but would love a class.

( tbh I always found the Psychic to be really weak thematically and felt like it mostly existed to be the 9th level psychic caster class. I could see combining several of the occult classes to create a more holistic class with a stronger theme, or at least very strong thematic subclasses)

The two things I think are important to preserving the themes of the occultist in PF2e.

- You are very good at focus spells, probably the best.
- You can do object reading, magic circles, binding, etc.

One thing I realized lately about talismans, for those theorizing that a new class could make those a major feature, is that... They're not very good. They're fun little rewards, but very very niche and specific. So if a class does come that's centered on them, they would need a lot more support. Just my opinion.

"Talisman Crafter" feels like a thing you could make an opt-in part of a class (like the Ranger and snares) but it'd be pretty underwhelming as a main focus.

The Talisman Dabbler dedication already provides several abilities playing with Talismans. Now, each Talisman has a school and a level. Maybe an Occultist could use them in unexpected ways to cast spells.

But I do not expect a Caster at this point.

I hope for some Prepared martial myself.

The only thing Talismans really need to be just GREAT is for a PC to have the ability to use their effects without needing to meet their Training Requirements (Ex Master in Arcana, Expert in Medicine, Expert with the affixed Weapon) and suddenly you have several dozen items with varying utility that you could (maybe) prepare daily which have really neat effects that aren't in the wheelhouse of a Scroll or Focus Spell.

This can help sidestep the HUGE Skill Training "Tax" that effectively prevents MOST Talisman from being useful to any one Character (Other than some Rogues who really just focus on getting a ton of Skills) which is one of the main reasons, I feel, that more people haven't fallen in love with them, hell, on the whole, they're harder for most PCs to meet the requirements for than Multiclass Archetype Feats.

We're getting closer! I'm so excited by all this speculation, I can also see that people are really raring for an occultist, so while I personally don't expect that its on the menu for the 5th, I imagine we'll see it (in renamed form or not) at some point in the future.

I'd personally be open to the idea of a generic Medium/Psychic that had class paths that reflect the concept space of 'psychic energy imbued in objects' as well as other things, all built into a prepared occult caster.

Yeah, nobody should be holding their breath for ANOTHER Spellcaster Class after the last 4 out of 6 Classes that were released prior to these books were all Spellcasters.

If they are both fully or at least PARTIALLY Martial Characters that would bring things back into Spellcaster/Martial Parity for the system at large.

That's why I'm thinking the whole Inventor/Engineer + Diplomat/Dignitary plus or minus a POSSIBLE Stranger/Drifter Class is most likely. The Secrets of Magic is doing to decidedly lean into spellcasting and I expect the book these two new Classes to come from to do the polar opposite.

Secrets of War for Pathfinder Second Edition.

I'm thinking there is room for a "primary martial, very good at focus spells" here, since that was an option in the Magus playtest survey. It wasn't the option chosen *for the Magus* but it wouldn't be a bad fit for the occultist.

I'm thinking there is room for a "primary martial, very good at focus spells" here, since that was an option in the Magus playtest survey. It wasn't the option chosen *for the Magus* but it wouldn't be a bad fit for the occultist.

In general, I feel like there's a lot more that can be done with focus points-- I'd love to see more classes with the Oracle's enhanced focus progression for instance.

We're getting closer! I'm so excited by all this speculation, I can also see that people are really raring for an occultist, so while I personally don't expect that its on the menu for the 5th, I imagine we'll see it (in renamed form or not) at some point in the future.

I'd personally be open to the idea of a generic Medium/Psychic that had class paths that reflect the concept space of 'psychic energy imbued in objects' as well as other things, all built into a prepared occult caster.

Please please please make this happen, Paizo. I love the idea of Psychic characters and have flavored an Aberrant Sorcerer as such but a dedicated psychic class would be awesome

That said I do agree these classes are almost certainly martials since it's coming so soon after the de facto magic book

It wouldn't be the end of the world but for me one of the appeals of the Occultist was that you weren't explicitly creating the objects you interacted with. The flavor of things like the reliquarian and haunt collector gathering up spooky magic they find to empower themselves is really great and you lose some of that if it's just an artificer instead.

Yeah, if there's going to be a "plain ol' trinkets" class that's fine, but that's not the occultist. A big part of thematic appeal of the class to is that you get to be "the frogurt is also cursed" guy.

Like object reading for people who are decent at improv is an infinite source of roleplaying prompts, as they tell the secret spooky history of every random object in the room.

That is pretty much how I play my champion of Nethys with a background in fortune telling.

Unicore wrote:

I think we could use an items and equipment focused book [...]

Speculations about a "Secrets of Equipment" book has been floated a couple of times in this thread, but am I misremembering, or didn't Eric Mona specifically say that they wouldn't be doing those types of "ultimate books" past Secrets of Magic?

My idea for an equipment focused book would be more like the Technology Guide than Ultimate Equipment. Multiple sections, each focusing on a different group of items (Consumables, Invested items, Vehicles and Mounts, Runes and item enhancers, Futuristic Items, Guns). Let there be examples of each, but also discussions of how each type affect the game world and optional rules systems associated with each to make that type more or less impactful on a campaign.

I could certainly see the Inventor class I keep touting, but also an Occultist easily enough. The investment system originated with the Occultist after all; I can't imagine a better way to bring that class, or something close enough to cover the same mechanical ground, into PF2 that in a book that discusses how to make the investment system more or less impactful.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Sporkedup wrote:

DrakoVongola1 wrote:

What's a Harrower?

I think in 2e concepts it would be a prepared occult caster with an emphasis on using the harrow deck (kind of like tarot, I think). I'm not sure if folks' concepts have it at a full caster, though.

Someone whose schtick involves "shuffling a deck of cards, then dealing them" probably shouldn't be a *prepared* caster.

A full Harrowed class would probably play like a super-charged version of the Ancestors Oracle. Randomized routine every round but you get rewarded big time for playing the hand dealt to you.

I would also expect massive use of the fortune/misfortune system. Like an ability called "Vision of Doom" that lets you turn an enemy's failure into a crit failure.

I could see it not having spells at all, but merely skill actions and some magic-like powers.

The plot twist is this really is Arcanist and the new class actually is Warlorde

Fixed that for you w/ old world spelling!

Cardamom: Part Harrow, all hugs.
Cerebite: Brain eating psychic class.
Muppetyr: Froud meets Henson. Again.
Gravitas: Undead speaker.
Aracnist: Not quite a spider Arcanist.
Anarcist: Revolutionary Arcanist.
Endlesst: Undying mnemonicist.
Pyrelock: Nuff said.

Honestly these occult/psychic/supernatural/paranormal concepts really deserve their own book.

And I want the equipment book too.

It’s amazing how speculation can lead to a more distant horizon. I feel like there’s so much room for growth after reading some of these ideas. Which is interesting considering how many class concepts have opened up in just one big options book.

So when they said “January 5th”, what time January 5th

Mr Sayre, please, may we have one more clue before the playtest goes live?

So when they said “January 5th”, what time January 5th

Paizo office hours are 10 am Pacific Standard Time until 5 pm PST

10 am PST is 6 pm UTC. So, sometime between 6 pm Tuesday and 2 am Wednesday, UTC.

(In the US, 10 am PST is 1 pm EST that same day)

Don't they have a normal blog post time?

Honestly these occult/psychic/supernatural/paranormal concepts really deserve their own book.

And I want the equipment book too.

It’s amazing how speculation can lead to a more distant horizon. I feel like there’s so much room for growth after reading some of these ideas. Which is interesting considering how many class concepts have opened up in just one big options book.

So when they said “January 5th”, what time January 5th

Only roadblock I can see is their stance that they don’t want to redo PF1 books. I think UI, OA, HA, and UW fit their campaign enhancing paradigm, but they may shuffle stuff around to avoid retreading the same ground.

Oh! Just thought I an idea, Metamorph is 8 letters ..... Oh wait no it's 9.

Metamorph is a good alternative name for shifter if we ever get something like that though

I'm half asleep and got excited for a moment.

Metamorf incoming

Don't they have a normal blog post time?

No

Emissary, Explorer, Sentinel, Survivor, Nobleman, Helmsman, Watchman, Beastman, Toughman, Henchman, Sidekick, Seafarer, Criminal, Golemist, Runesage, Wildmage, Runelord, Inksmith

:P

Oh God! I just realized that TikToker is 8 letters.

Dictator

The class that dictates how other characters act. Sure to grant you the deep love and respect of both fellow players and the GM.

Am I the only one who wouldn't mind a commoner class? Not only is it good for Joe the Commoner campaigns, but I can make NPCs that go around with the party and level up but never outshine, or someone can play an underdog character that stays true to their roots.

Truly fleshed out NPC classes could be a useful part of the game.

Heck, a commoner class that let you explicitly play as the impressionable farm boy who goes on an adventure and gains a variety of different skills would be rad. Could even add a mechanic into the class that lets you change your class if your character decides to focus up at last.

I don't know, I love outside the box designs.

Am I the only one who wouldn't mind a commoner class?

Not the only one, but enough of people would mind that the playtest feedback would probably be "switch the class" because the use is so niche. It seems outside the box enough to be a better third party candidate, and the homebrew is as easy as "martial progression in simple weapons and light armor, and drop all class feats/archetypes only/custom downtime-focused class feats/give more ancestry and general feats".

Any chance we get a name reveal today before the PDFs are posted tomorrow?

Any chance we get a name reveal today before the PDFs are posted tomorrow?

That's my hope. Welcome to F5 day.

Am I the only one who wouldn't mind a commoner class? Not only is it good for Joe the Commoner campaigns, but I can make NPCs that go around with the party and level up but never outshine, or someone can play an underdog character that stays true to their roots.

Truly fleshed out NPC classes could be a useful part of the game.

Heck, a commoner class that let you explicitly play as the impressionable farm boy who goes on an adventure and gains a variety of different skills would be rad. Could even add a mechanic into the class that lets you change your class if your character decides to focus up at last.

I don't know, I love outside the box designs.

It's the kind of thing that could be useful in a GMG style book, but on the whole the scaling of the system makes a commoner weird as all hell. A 20th level commoner is not a commoner. Take a leaf out of Tasha's and call them sidekicks.

If you want to play as a commoner, use the level 0 rules from the GMG.

For the rest of us, we wouldn't want an entire class whose point is to be the secondary, weaker character.

I thought classes existing solely for NPC generation are a deprecated feature from first edition? Why are people wanting those back...

The way you handle your character being a person who was a commoner like a farmer, blacksmith, tailor or something is just take that as your Background.

I thought classes existing solely for NPC generation are a deprecated feature from first edition? Why are people wanting those back...

I mean, I could go on about how useful they are to me. Obviously people would be bummed if they showed up as one of the surprise playtest classes, though.

For me:

1. The "NPC classes" weren't always just for NPCs. The idea is that someone might like to try playing a weaker than normal character who exists in a big scary world but can still enjoy the scaling elements of the system. It's why the Joe the Commoner story was so much fun.

2. PF2 makes it possible to make NPCs without any class levels, but I really like having the scalability of the class structure. I have recurring NPCs in all of my games that the players often deal with over the course of many levels. Sometimes they bring them along with them as a hireling. It's useful to be able to have them level up, but not have to worry about the full options and strength of an actual class.

3. The PF2 system would make NPC classes like Commoner *more* useful than in PF1. It would allow you to make sure your hirelings are on track with respect to saves, proficiency, etc while keeping them from taking the spotlight as a member of a full class.

4. A "commoner" class could be made such that it's an extension of the level 0 rules. I'm running a horror campaign that started at level 0 and the players flippin LOVED it. Their limited tools and capabilities meant they had to get creative and their fear for their lives was palpable. The moment they hit level 1 that was GREATLY diminished, now they're just as kickass as a normal party of their level.

WatersLethe wrote:

Am I the only one who wouldn't mind a commoner class?

Not the only one, but enough of people would mind that the playtest feedback would probably be "switch the class" because the use is so niche. It seems outside the box enough to be a better third party candidate, and the homebrew is as easy as "martial progression in simple weapons and light armor, and drop all class feats/archetypes only/custom downtime-focused class feats/give more ancestry and general feats".

"The adventuring class for someone that doesn't want to adventure" is a rough sell.

I liked NPC classes. I designed a couple of my own for my PF1 game's use. For PF2 I would personally prefer resources and page count be devoted to a more filled out NPC creation system, or even a specific side-kick system. Have an NPC gain appropriate proficiencies of their level, appropriate ancestry feats, and what amounts to 1 or 2 weird tricks (basically any of the special attacks we see on NPCs now), and you have a character that can hold their own but is clearly not on the level of the PCs.

We in fact see the bones of such a system with Eidolons and Animal Companions.

Hmmm So far we have two classes you have INT as a exclusivel key ability score( alchemist and investigator) that are not casters. Do you think we may see a a class for CHA or WIS who eventually aren't casters. I can see a luck manipulator who doesn't cast spells whose key ability is CHA.

I mean, wouldn't a commoner just be low tier everything on the monster creator chart? It seems like there is pretty much a system in place for all of that. Give them skill feats as you wish to make them feel right, but having everyone in town have to level up to get a crafter who could qualify to craft master items, or even just that character, was a deliberate departure from PF1.

Just a thought, a variant spelling of Marshal is Marshall. Eight letters.

Hmmm So far we have two classes you have INT as a exclusivel key ability score( alchemist and investigator) that are not casters. Do you think we may see a a class for CHA or WIS who eventually aren't casters. I can see a luck manipulator who doesn't cast spells whose key ability is CHA.

The theorizes Warlord class would likely use CHA use as their class ability score. Not sure what a WIS focused martial would look like

I personally would prefer a raw gunslinger to be WIS-focused. I mean, I'm generally annoyed that crossbow or other similar ranged attacks key off DEX instead of WIS. Keying firearms off WIS could make things a bit more interesting?

A starfinder Biohacker, except probably with more leeches than virology. "Let's have some fun with electricity!"

Hmmm So far we have two classes you have INT as a exclusivel key ability score( alchemist and investigator) that are not casters. Do you think we may see a a class for CHA or WIS who eventually aren't casters. I can see a luck manipulator who doesn't cast spells whose key ability is CHA.

These are more difficult to do because they require damage compensation in some form in order to work.

Without Devise a Strategem, the Investigator for instance would struggle a lot (and did combat wise in the playtest).

Not saying it can't happen, but it typically requires attention to the fact that they cannot max an attack-based stat (which in the case of a non-caster, is a big deal).

Having it as a primary makes the mental a requirement instead of an option, whereas in instances like the Champion/Swashbuckler where it's encouraged but optional.

I mean, wouldn't a commoner just be low tier everything on the monster creator chart? It seems like there is pretty much a system in place for all of that. Give them skill feats as you wish to make them feel right, but having everyone in town have to level up to get a crafter who could qualify to craft master items, or even just that character, was a deliberate departure from PF1.

It'd be closer to a PC class with fewer proficiencies. One that you can level up with the click of a button in HeroLab, or even give the party control over leveling without worrying about crazy power spikes.

I wouldn't use NPC classes for random crafter NPCs. They just have arbitrary stats as normal. I would use NPC classes for hirelings, recurring characters that may frequently be required to be combat adjacent, and for extending the level 0 feel in certain campaigns.

Referencing tables for appropriate abilities isn't nearly as easy for me as using the PC building framework I'm familiar with to keep important NPCs up to date.

pixierose wrote:

Hmmm So far we have two classes you have INT as a exclusivel key ability score( alchemist and investigator) that are not casters. Do you think we may see a a class for CHA or WIS who eventually aren't casters. I can see a luck manipulator who doesn't cast spells whose key ability is CHA.

The theorizes Warlord class would likely use CHA use as their class ability score. Not sure what a WIS focused martial would look like

We have the scoundrel rogue that is keyed off of Charisma and debuffing. A ranger can make some use of wisdom outside of casting, but the trick is definitely figuring out how to apply wisdom offensively and not have that be outsmarting someone, imposing one's will over them, or casting a spell.

pixierose wrote:

Hmmm So far we have two classes you have INT as a exclusivel key ability score( alchemist and investigator) that are not casters. Do you think we may see a a class for CHA or WIS who eventually aren't casters. I can see a luck manipulator who doesn't cast spells whose key ability is CHA.

These are more difficult to do because they require damage compensation in some form in order to work.

Without Devise a Strategem, the Investigator for instance would struggle a lot (and did combat wise in the playtest).

SporkedUp has a point though. One thing we definitely don't know is how they want guns to work. If guns specifically did not add Dex to damage, and got that damage from somewhere else for all users, having Wisdom as a primary stat seems a lot more reasonable. Add in some kind of stance or status buff to your attack roll to make sure fighters aren't better at gunslinging than gunslingers, and I could see it happening.

However they work in the end, I expect they aren't more or less standard weapons, or they wouldn't insist on playtesting gun rules specifically. We know how weapons work. I think we mostly like how weapons work. New weapons, even new traits, that are pretty close to current usage doesn't seem like something that would require a playtest in and of itself.

Or, at least, the first iteration won't work that way. They can always pull back and make them loud crossbows if that is what the results of the playtest suggest.

Unicore wrote:

I mean, wouldn't a commoner just be low tier everything on the monster creator chart? It seems like there is pretty much a system in place for all of that. Give them skill feats as you wish to make them feel right, but having everyone in town have to level up to get a crafter who could qualify to craft master items, or even just that character, was a deliberate departure from PF1.

It'd be closer to a PC class with fewer proficiencies. One that you can level up with the click of a button in HeroLab, or even give the party control over leveling without worrying about crazy power spikes.

I wouldn't use NPC classes for random crafter NPCs. They just have arbitrary stats as normal. I would use NPC classes for hirelings, recurring characters that may frequently be required to be combat adjacent, and for extending the level 0 feel in certain campaigns.

Referencing tables for appropriate abilities isn't nearly as easy for me as using the PC building framework I'm familiar with to keep important NPCs up to date.

So cant that just be any appropriate class just at a couple level deficit to the party.

The whole point of level in PF2 is that is an accurate descriptor of an entities power. Dedicating page space to an option which undermines one of the core concepts of your game just seems silly.

I am kind of surprised Hero lab doesn't have monster builder feature that would be able to handle leveling up an NPC, because those charts would be very easy to work with the same way as a character class. Basically, I think the game already is so modular that a commoner class is just a default creature that is so easy to throw together, I can't imagine why or how you would try to make the class feats and features elements of PF2 wrap around them.

The real issue is that level is meaningful in PF2. If you have an ally of the PCs that is the same level as the PCs, they need to pull the weight of a level x character in combat. It is much better for the game to keep level as a significant power indicator, and have the kind of hireling character be levels behind, than have the game break around having classes that are functionally as bad as being 2 levels lower than other classes.

The whole point of level in PF2 is that is an accurate descriptor of an entities power. Dedicating page space to an option which undermines one of the core concepts of your game just seems silly.

That's a fair point. I still see the utility in such a system, but as I said I'd prefer it as a system, with fewer movable parts than a normal class and more passive abilities that are baked into the chassis.

The primary objective for me would be a character that is simpler and narrower than a normal PC, not necessarily less powerful. Sort of how a Martial is less complex at high levels than a caster, I'd like to have an option that is even less complex, that you can hand off to a player to run as a second character without too much trouble, or give to someone on their first game, taking place at level 17 instead of level 1, allowing them to contribute meaningfully while mostly watching instead of trying to figure out the rules on the fly.

Edit: Thinking more on this, I would want what abilities the class/system/whatever does have to be ones that focus on actions/activities that any character can take. This would double down on the concept of a training wheels class, as you can take your knowledge from playing this character and apply it to any class down the line.

...I'm talking myself into homebrewing this, aren't I? I'll add it to the list I suppose, once I finish my current round of class feats.