Save the Date for a New Pathfinder Class Playtest!

Monday, August 23, 2021

With the end of summer comes a new Pathfinder Playtest!

Immediately after Gen Con, we’ll be releasing a playtest with two new classes for you to build characters with, play at your tables, and share feedback on. The playtest will run from September 20th to October 26th.

A general looks over a scale model of the battlefield, determining the best place to deploy her troops.

We wanted to share the news a bit ahead of time so you can assemble your groups and plan some games. If you’re a member of our organized play community, you can earn credit for a Pathfinder Society character at the same time that you playtest one of the new classes, using the normal Pathfinder Society rules for class playtests

Are you interested in helping test and shape the newest Pathfinder classes, but you need help finding a group or game? The Paizo Events Discord server, where our Gen Con Online events will be taking place, will have a channel for you to look for other gamers to playtest with. You can also check out warhorn.net or our VTT partners (Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, or Astral) for games. If you need a pre-made adventure, try playing a Pathfinder Society scenario or one or more Pathfinder Bounties!

Tune in to our Gen Con 2021 streams for more information on the new classes (and the book they’ll be appearing in), and be the first to play them right after the convention! We hope to see you there!

James Case
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Pathfinder Second Edition
101 to 150 of 749 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would love to see Samurai and Ninja make it but they're probably fit better for archetypes. Besides them I would love to see Inquisitor and Kinectist make it as the new classes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Didn't they say they'd like to get around to brand new classes once the majority of the highly requested old classes are in?

I'm expecting something new, possibly centered around some element of the rules system or lore that wasn't present in PF1. Ancestry based class? Spell tradition hopper? Archetype master? Combat skill class who can roll Arcana to do a blast, or Occultism to daze someone?

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

My bets/guesses/desperate desires are Inquisitor and whatever a Solarian would be in PF2.

And for the love of all that is holy (pun fully intended), more Doctrines for Clerics!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I wouldn't get your hopes up for Kineticist because a statement by Jason Bulmahn recently in a SoM stream reddit thread suggested they haven't even begun to work on it. I think Shaman is pretty likely. It's been mentioned a lot in recent books similar to the inventor before its reveal. Would be nice to see an occult caster to go along with it. I think SoM has some hints that's a possibility as well.

I'd love to see inquisitor but I don't think it's coming. Regardless, I'm always happy to see any new classes.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

If I'm being perfectly honest with myself, I'm hoping for two brand new classes. When the Inventor playtest came out, I was happily blown away with its features. I like that feeling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Inqisitors and evangelists would both make good cleric doctrines, the inquisitor getting the warpriest's weapon/spell progression light armor, and boosts in perception and intimidation (with bonus skill feats), while the evangelist might get the cloistered cleric's weapon/spell progression and boosts to persuasion, deception and perform (with bonus skill feats).

That being said, in my group the only two 1e classes that people have run that are not 2e classes are the inquisitor and the skald, though a couple of us have been hankering to try a bloodrager. Only one person ever ran an inquisitor. They liked it, but then that was a kingmaker campaign where we punished law breakers by having them torn apart by castings of mad monkeys.

Right now it is not easy to create a ninja in 2e, if by ninja one means a stealthy Asian martial arts sneak attacker with ki powers. You can do it, but it takes a lot of fiddling. So, my guess for one of the two classes is ninja.


I would like to see a book of just additional feats, both skill and general; additional equipment; and maybe a few additional backgrounds.

Seems that once you get past level 4 there are not many higher level feats.

Perhaps rules allowing cross training (taking lower level feats from other classes).

Also, some more unique runes for armor and weapons.

And perhaps a feat for Advanced Armor Training, allowing you to do one of the following, reduce movement penalty by 5', increase AC by +1, or increase DEX cap by 1. As at least a level 6 feat, I do not think this would be overpowered.

Just some ramblings.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GGSigmar wrote:
After reading this thread I think inquisitor, shaman, shifter and occultist are all valid guesses and I would be happy seeing any of them.

And can be arranged to pair quite well. Shaman and shifter. And then inquisitor and occultist


3 people marked this as a favorite.

To everyone saying Ninja: is a Monk with a Rogue dedication (or vice versa) not basically all of the mechanics you want?


I don't get the desire for Ninja outside of a class Archetype for Rogues/Monks/Rangers to begin with. Unless they mean, like, Naruto-style ninjas who are basically spellcasters but didn't have a very good way to represent them with 1pp in 1e (the Path of War Mystic could emulate them well though). Same with Samurai.

Much better to use concepts that *need* classes to properly emulate them as opposed to being able to get away with existing classes + an archetype.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
To everyone saying Ninja: is a Monk with a Rogue dedication (or vice versa) not basically all of the mechanics you want?

You're missing things like smoke bombs, shadow clones, vanishing trick, ghost step and the like [including the abilities that build on those abilities]. You MIGHT get close if you mix Monk, Rogue, Shadowdancer and Alchemist but then you'd be 20th level before it'd come together.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Regarding whether the occult classes are "too deep" I have the opposite perspective- a lot of PF2 classes are already built like the Occult Adventures classes were. Like the whole "you choose a wild talent/phrenic amplification/focus power/etc." every even level was really codified in OA and a lot of the extra mechanical structure for those classes was just math fixers (which are less necessary due to how PF2 is built).

The one issue I see coming up is with the kineticist having utility talents competing with combat powers, which is less than ideal. Though I suppose there is absolutely design space for skill feats with class tags.


I still wouldn't be surprised if we see more old classes folded together like the spiritualist was with the summoner. With the way classes are designed, there is a lot more flexibility in base concepts. I don't know what combination it might appear in, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Occultist, Mesmerist, Medium, or Shaman (or whatever else) be combined with other classes/each other.


How do we feel like the odds are for Psychic in 2e someday?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Psychic overlaps a lot with the Sorcerer... but so did the Oracle and we have that one now.

The psychic's big thing in PF1 though was its dynamic point-based not-quite-metamagic abilities and I'm not really sure how you'd translate that into PF2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Sedoriku wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
keftiu wrote:
Dustin Knight wrote:
I'm crossing my fingers now for Solarion.
I know it’ll never happen and I want it very badly.

If they ever do that "Starfinder, but in PF2" high sci fi book some of us want, the Solarian and Vanguard seem the most likely to be converted wholesale, while the others could be class archetypes or class paths.

basking in the momentary glory of a Biohacker Alchemist research field.

This really feels like something in the realm of third-party publishers. But, oooh, would it be fun to try playing!

I think it depends on if the PF2 “technology guide” is “Lost Omens: Technology Guide” or a more space/lasers sci fi follow up to G&G steampunk vibe. If it’s a full rulebook, and I personally think it should be, I would think using the existing Starfinder classes as inspiration for archetypes and class archetypes the book might have.

Actually that might be true even as a Lost Omens book, but much less likely we’ll see a full Solarian going that route. And I think we should have one. There’s been plenty of interest in a sword summoner/black blade/mind blade, this class could be the seed of that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah the Psychic is easy. As its very similar to the Arcanist.

The Kineticist just gets too much and you have a multitude of ways to implement it.

The Occultist implements are literally too much. 8 implements (1 for each school of magic), 4 panoplies (1 for each of the 4 classic party). Each with 8 powers. Getting 1 power every time you get an implement, and a power every so often. The occultist being able to pick 7 implements/powers. Also each gives spells.

Mesmerist is weird.

Medium is weird with the whole "can have a totally different build each day".


Temperans wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
Curaigh wrote:
Temperans wrote:

I still believe its too soon for Medium, Kineticist, Occultist, and maybe even Mesmerist (this one on account of politics).

Honestly, all the occult classes are just too deep to be released without a lot of careful consideration.

Also I really don't want them butchering Kineticist. I am utherly terrified that they will make some random "I shoot elements" that looks more like a discount Vigilante Warlock than an actual Kineticist. So I do have that bias.

The new elementalist archetype, and the elemental monk stances in Secrets of Magic, feel very kineticist for me. That was the consensus at my local group as well. Maybe it is not utilitarian enough for most of the audience?

This was the view of my group as well. And one even said that apparently paizo said early on that Kineticist would not be in 2E (seemingly at all). But they might have misread or paizo might have rowed back on that if there was a statement as such

I wouldn’t mind shaman as it is clearly what one of my players wants to play and he is currently a Druid using orc war masks . I wonder what it would be paired with though? Not many other nature or primal slots apart from the aforementioned Kineticist that I am close to 100% confident is not going to be a 2022 class.

I have not seen that archetype or stances yet, only heard about them.

The stances sound similar to mountain stance, giving the monk some passive bonus. Maybe a special reaction or attack.

Haven't heard much about the druid archertype besides "its elemental".

There is an archetype for elementalist with a requirement of casting an elemental spell (I do not know the details). I do remember it being all four elements however (with the option to focus on one.)

There are also druidic orders for each of the elements with the CRB storm druid counting as the air. Similarly the monk's mountain stance gets counterparts for the other elements.


Curaigh wrote:

There is an archetype for elementalist with a requirement of casting an elemental spell (I do not know the details). I do remember it being all four elements however (with the option to focus on one.)

There are also druidic orders for each of the elements with the CRB storm druid counting as the air. Similarly the monk's mountain stance gets counterparts for the other elements.

Yes I know this. What I don't know is what they do.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
The Occultist implements are literally too much. 8 implements (1 for each school of magic), 4 panoplies (1 for each of the 4 classic party). Each with 8 powers. Getting 1 power every time you get an implement, and a power every so often. The occultist being able to pick 7 implements/powers. Also each gives spells.

Full agreement with this post, but this section stood out to me.

In my analysis, I decided that martial classes more or less wind up with 7 non-proficiency class abilities of various strengths. There’s exceptions; fighters get 1 less, gunslingers 2 less (in the playtest), and swashbucklers 10, but more or less 7.

So 7 implements/powers is… very interesting.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Temperans wrote:
The Occultist implements are literally too much. 8 implements (1 for each school of magic), 4 panoplies (1 for each of the 4 classic party). Each with 8 powers. Getting 1 power every time you get an implement, and a power every so often. The occultist being able to pick 7 implements/powers. Also each gives spells.

Full agreement with this post, but this section stood out to me.

In my analysis, I decided that martial classes more or less wind up with 7 non-proficiency class abilities of various strengths. There’s exceptions; fighters get 1 less, gunslingers 2 less (in the playtest), and swashbucklers 10, but more or less 7.

So 7 implements/powers is… very interesting.

Considering how every hybrid has been treated so far, and how Occultist is the epitome of hybrid classes. Don't get your hopes up.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

We shouldn't use old design models to assume that an old class "won't work" in PF2.

The Witch, the Swashbuckler, Oracle, and the Investigator all have extremely different mechanics to their PF1 counterpart. The Oracle especially changed their design in such a way as to justify it being it's own class whereas the PF1 Oracle really could have been a class archetype for the PF2 Sorcerer.

Any class that previously was "too similar in scope" to another class could easily be given a new lease on life and fleshed out in PF2.

As for me personally, I'd like to see Shaman and either Psychic or Occultist in the next book.

Name the book "Delve into the Occult" or something similar. Mostly because I feel like such a book could really grow the Witch's potential. And let's be honest, the Witch probably needs it more than any other class right now.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Agreed. They are taking a very "theme forward" approach on design and are not beholden to the exact mechanical dealings that came before.

That is actually why I mentioned the overlap of Shaman and Occultist.


Vali Nepjarson wrote:
...whereas the PF1 Oracle really could have been a class archetype for the PF2 Sorcerer.

*monocle* How dare you!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The major difference between the PF1 Kineticist and the PF2 kineticist is most likely that going to be that almost every PF1 kineticist was better off with at least 2 different elements, with resistance being much more rare in PF2 you're going to see more characters devoted to their one element. You probably can still grab two for composite blasts (since whacking someone with like a sandstorm, or a ball of lava, or some electrically charged water is neat), but you won't be cherry picking for attacking different defenses as much.

Paizo Employee Designer

28 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:


In my analysis, I decided that martial classes more or less wind up with 7 non-proficiency class abilities of various strengths. There’s exceptions; fighters get 1 less, gunslingers 2 less (in the playtest), and swashbucklers 10, but more or less 7.

It's in part because Legendary weapon proficiency, if you were to compare it to PF1, is functionally full BAB + Weapon Focus + Greater Weapon Focus + Improved Critical (all weapons / entire weapon group). It has the mechanical weight of what for another class would be an entire "subclass" or in the case of e.g. the monk, powerful fist + flurry of blows. It's just executing that functionality in a highly efficient way thanks to the tight math of the system.

Conversely, the swashbuckler's panache, style, precise strike, and finisher are all interlinked abilities that collectively have more weight than another class's "subclass", but not 3 Attack of Opportunity / Flurry of Blows-weight worth more (panache doesn't really do anything without style, style is about half a subclass worth of mechanics, precise strike is only 50% of a class feature without finishers and finishers require all the preceding options to achieve functionality.) So they're 4 things that need to be defined individually for people to easily grok them but they're not really 4 separate class features on the level of something like Attack of Opportunity or Flurry of Blows, or even Shield Block / Incredible Movement.

(And following that train of thought, you can see that a fighter's Shield Block is a bit more situational and not necessarily an "always on" effect that every fighter benefits from every combat. So in comparison to gunslinger, during the gunslinger playtest we looked at the initial deed and asked "Is this Attack of Opportunity or is this Shield Block?" The data led us to the conclusion that it was, essentially, Shield Block, so for the final version every way gets a Slinger's Reload that fills the role of being the class's Attack of Opportunity from a balance and structure perspective.)

Vali Nepjarson wrote:

We shouldn't use old design models to assume that an old class "won't work" in PF2.

Word. Though it does bring up some interesting questions for the design team when the real meat of a thing that people want to see brought forward is a mechanical niche rather than a thematic one. The goal is always "what is the best possible version of this thematic concept we can create in this system" not "how well can we convert another edition's version of this mechanical execution into this one?"


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A look under the hood is always appreciated! Can't wait to see the gunslinger reload Mechanic. That type of action economy influencer is probably going to give the class the much needed extra oomph to set it apart from Fighter in terms of actual play too.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Psychic has enough meat to go off, with some neat feats and taking some of the non-gross Mesmerist stuff in. The Phrenic Amplifications and subclasses were neat. And Rivani is the prettiest iconic.

On the subject of other prettiest iconic (sorry Erasmus, not you, talkin' about Shardra) I'd like to see Shaman and Medium kind of come back in a single cohesive class. They have fairly intermingled themes, after all, particularly in regards to real-life shamanistic practices.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Michael Sayre wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:


In my analysis, I decided that martial classes more or less wind up with 7 non-proficiency class abilities of various strengths. There’s exceptions; fighters get 1 less, gunslingers 2 less (in the playtest), and swashbucklers 10, but more or less 7.

It's in part because Legendary weapon proficiency, if you were to compare it to PF1, is functionally full BAB + Weapon Focus + Greater Weapon Focus + Improved Critical (all weapons / entire weapon group). It has the mechanical weight of what for another class would be an entire "subclass" or in the case of e.g. the monk, powerful fist + flurry of blows. It's just executing that functionality in a highly efficient way thanks to the tight math of the system.

Oh, I understood why fighters had fewer class features (less certain why I thought gunslingers seemed to have fewer than fighters, I assume I was failing to account for something), but it wasn't germane to the point I was making :P.

As it happens, I use a similar rubric for my own analysis, which is also interesting to me. Always cool to find out I was headed in the right direction.

Which, related, I went through and lined up the fighter and gunslinger abilities, and I'm not sure why I thought gunslingers were short 1. Perhaps I wasn't counting shootist edge correctly since it is on a different level than versatile legend? In any case, glad that is getting filled out with the reload action. I thought it needed something along those lines during the playtest, but from the sound of it you went much further than I was imagining.

Midnightoker wrote:
A look under the hood is always appreciated!

Indeed!


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

In the end what I'm hoping for the Shaman(Probably spontaneous Primal Caster) and some form of prepared Occult caster(Occultist or Psychic) with a spellbook or some other non-familiar based spell learning.

But even new classes would be nice to see.


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

These aren't necessarily in any particular order of combination, other than possible relatable themes. But some here are some ideas I had:

Warlord/Inquisitor/New Martial Class:
Personally, I would like to see less magically inclined classes this time around. If only to round out the options we have a bit. Granted, Gunslinger and Inventor are defiently (mostly) martial in nature, but sort of strike me as fitting into the space a Rogue might. A Warlord (or Marshal, Commander, General, or whatever you would like to call it) seems like an interesting niche to fill. A martial capable of manning the frontlines and supporting the party through non-magical means. I would honestly really like to see the return of teamwork feats with it as well. I liked the concept behind them, even though the execution wasn't all that great. As long as they have a means of granting them to those around them, I think it would be a fun concept to explore again. Along with it, I can see either the Inquisitor or another new class as well. Not sure what the new class could be or what it could do, but I can see the Inquisitor as a Bounded Divine Caster (ignoring the fact that I just said less magic, lol). Not sure what exactly it's gimmick would be per say, but it seems like a class that could fit into a martial focused book. Along with this, maybe give us the rules for mass combat as well.

Kineticist/Shifter/Shaman:

Kineticist is a highly requested class many would like to see return and would likely fall into the Primal Tradition. Alongside that, the inclusion of Zova in art, while maybe not actually indicative of anything, seemingly suggests the Shifters return; another Class with Primal roots that a lot of people would like to see as well. That said, the devs have stated the Kineticist, while being considered, may be a long ways off from being published. So, as an alternative, I can see the Shaman being reintroduced alongside the Shifter. In 1e, Shamans were Divine Casters; however, I can see them either shifting to be Primal Casters (maybe of a spontaneous nature) with a focus on the Life Essence -or- being an example of a choose your own Tradition class that has access to either Divine or Primal.

Occultist/Medium/Psychic:
Someone mentioned the Occultist being mentioned a bunch in SoM. I only found one instance of the term being used (under the True Name section), but it could still be an indication that the class exists in 2e. Coupled with that, the term Medium is also used in SoM, particularly in the Divine Tradition treatise. I can see the Occultist as a Bounded Occult Caster, mostly because the Psychic was the Full Occult (Psychic) Caster in 1e, and I expect it's eventual return (if not here). The Medium I think could be another example of a choose your Tradition, with their selection being either Divine or Occult, due to them sharing the Spirit Essense. I can see them maybe being sort of what the Spiritualist used to be to, in so far as having a strong connection to a particular spiritual being and channeling their powers. In this case, either that of a Deity/Divinity or a Spirit (dead or otherwise). If the Psychic returns, I think the idea behind the Mesmerist could possibly be folded into it as a discipline (if that stays a part of the class, likely as their build/path options).

Samurai/Ninja:
Lastly, the Samurai and Ninja are two additions I'd like to see back. The Ninja is easiest to imagine for me; jutsu wielding stealth warriors with a plethora of focus spell options, possibly based around ki. Samurai could be similar to monks, in that they have access to many different stances that allow them to perform special combat techniques. I'm not sure we will ever see them again in 2e, as I think they may try to avoid making full classes that evoke a particular setting/culture; even if you could argue that the concept of Samurai and Ninja exist in many cultures in their own way. Still, they aren't really setting agnostic. If we ever get a Tian-Xia focused book, they could work there. But, I don't really see classes being introduced in that way (i.e. Lost Omens line books). That said, both terms have been mentioned in a few books. So, perhaps there is hope?

Of course, we could see two completely original classes (not counting the aforementioned Warlord). I have an idea for a Warlock class that will definitely never be an official thing. But a boy can dream.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:
Though it does bring up some interesting questions for the design team when the real meat of a thing that people want to see brought forward is a mechanical niche rather than a thematic one.

I do think there is a hunger for some kinds of mechanical niches that could be filled with a wide variety of thematic options. "I blast with magic every turn" is one, for example - it's not the only reason why people play 5E warlocks, but it's definitely a common one. Thematically, a 5E warlock looks a whole lot like a PF2 witch, but mechanically, "I blast with magic every turn" is still a missing concept in PF2. I'm less convinced that there's a strong desire for something as banal as "prepared occult caster" or "spontaneous primal caster," but in general, there are mechanics-first ideas that I think we are going to continue to see demand for until/unless they finally show up in PF2.


Shisumo wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:
Though it does bring up some interesting questions for the design team when the real meat of a thing that people want to see brought forward is a mechanical niche rather than a thematic one.
I do think there is a hunger for some kinds of mechanical niches that could be filled with a wide variety of thematic options. "I blast with magic every turn" is one, for example - it's not the only reason why people play 5E warlocks, but it's definitely a common one. Thematically, a 5E warlock looks a whole lot like a PF2 witch, but mechanically, "I blast with magic every turn" is still a missing concept in PF2. I'm less convinced that there's a strong desire for something as banal as "prepared occult caster" or "spontaneous primal caster," but in general, there are mechanics-first ideas that I think we are going to continue to see demand for until/unless they finally show up in PF2.

I'd like that kind of mechanical niche to be filled by an archtype rather than a class. Similar to the two weapon warrior, mauler, sentinel, etc...

If the niche is too large for an archtype, that's a good place for a new class though.


Ly'ualdre wrote:
Warlord/Inquisitor/New Martial Class

I'd love this pairing personally


As much as i want an Inqusitor and my other table dm wants the Kinectist, im happy with two new classes. Warlord as everyone keeps suggesting would technically fall into that since Paizo didnt do it last time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've just gone through the old 3.5 classes (retro I know) and come across the Archivist.

A prepared divine caster that uses a prayer book and focuses on the mysteries/libraries/dark knowledge (though it could flex to occult as well).
If there is an unknown class to be paired with the Inquisitor, this would be a thematically sound. The only issue I could see would be making it stand out mechanically


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I feel like the more important question is what is the book? That will probably have more to do with what the classes are then what we think they should convert next. I am all for an Occult book that then ties into a Vudra AP though. :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Franklin wrote:

I feel like the more important question is what is the book? That will probably have more to do with what the classes are then what we think they should convert next. I am all for an Occult book that then ties into a Vudra AP though. :D

We did finally get a Vudra map, after all…


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Shisumo wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:
Though it does bring up some interesting questions for the design team when the real meat of a thing that people want to see brought forward is a mechanical niche rather than a thematic one.
I do think there is a hunger for some kinds of mechanical niches that could be filled with a wide variety of thematic options. "I blast with magic every turn" is one, for example - it's not the only reason why people play 5E warlocks, but it's definitely a common one. Thematically, a 5E warlock looks a whole lot like a PF2 witch, but mechanically, "I blast with magic every turn" is still a missing concept in PF2. I'm less convinced that there's a strong desire for something as banal as "prepared occult caster" or "spontaneous primal caster," but in general, there are mechanics-first ideas that I think we are going to continue to see demand for until/unless they finally show up in PF2.

I typically don't homebrew often. But I am working on a Warlock idea that I'm attempting to fit in as a blaster, while changing the concept behind it entirely. Lore and mechanics aren't anything like the Witch. But I'm not ready to share it just yet. Still invoking ideas.

But, I do think an Class Archetype for any Caster Class would be nice, in liue of a full Class. Make any Caster a Blaster, if you would. Lol


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Franklin wrote:

I feel like the more important question is what is the book? That will probably have more to do with what the classes are then what we think they should convert next. I am all for an Occult book that then ties into a Vudra AP though. :D

Agreed.

I think the announcement of 'play test coming' is why the emphasis has been on classes here. :)

Michael Sayre wrote:
Though it does bring up some interesting questions for the design team when the real meat of a thing that people want to see brought forward is a mechanical niche rather than a thematic one.

This is something I have found curious about this thread. For the folks who want to see a Marshall/psychic/occultists/samurai/whatever what is the theme of these that is missing?

For example, someone up thread responded to a similar question about ninjas. Personally, I think psychic 'burn' is missing, but I also think it could be added as an arcane thesis or an archetype dedication (wand mechanics as a player option) not a whole class.

@Shisumo cantrips allow for blasting every round. What would you need them to do that they don't already?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Curaigh wrote:


@Shisumo cantrips allow for blasting every round. What would you need them to do that they don't already?

More damage per cast and blast shapes seem like obvious missing. The blast shapes in particular feel like they’d need a class; far too finicky and detailed for an archetype or class path.

But, for me, I simply want a full caster, with full caster proficiencies, that doesn’t use slots. Not even necessarily a blaster; my favorite class in 3.5 was the dragon shaman support class. A PF2 version of the nanocyte (which I dubbed “Mistweaver” to make it more suitably fantasy based) seems like it would fit well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

My two most wanted - Inquisitor and Psychic - lack ready equivalents in 2e so far. The fantasy of being a religious Divine character who isn’t a big tank-y Champion or a full caster Cleric is one that doesn’t readily exist, while any character whose magic is spooky/Occult and powered by their will is basically shunted into one or two Sorcerer bloodlines at present.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'm in complete agreement with AnimatedPaper and Keftiu on the idea behind a blaster (Kineticist or Warlock type class), psychic burn, and the Inquisitor class, but I will add to that.

I want a class that can get up to legendary heavy armor proficiency that is not tied to religion and it would be great if it had some other focus, too (for example, grant it abilities and flavor like what everyone is asking for in a Marshal/Warlord/Commander/Starfinder's Envoy class or something a little like the Vanguard from Starfinder - minus the tech, obviously).

I would also like a Runecaster class; that is to say a decent skill-using class that has martial proficiency and is all about using their skill with runes to enchant their equipment and sets up traps with runes, but does not use spells because their magic is usually too slow to set up in combat. So they end up being all about preparation with only making adjustments and small tweaks to their runes on the fly in mid-combat. I suppose the Occultist class might be able to do this depending on how they design it for 2E.

I REALLY want a Shaman class, too; not the spontaneous, primal, witch-like class we got in 1E. But, an animism-inspired class.

I think the Medium is a very good class to bring over, as well.

A Shifter as a martial, non-spellcasting class capable of being tailored to mixing shapeshifting abilities to suit their needs in the moment and even using abilities from what would normally be considered different sources/beasts at the same time would be pretty cool, too (like gaining tiger claws while flying with wings, growing a tortoise shell while spider-climbing and breathing fire, or growing defensive quills while attacking with a toxic frog tongue). It would be nice if these abilities did not only come from animals (primal), but could gain abilities from slimes, dragons, maybe even ghosts (the other traditions).

Other things that would be pretty cool and most welcome for me would be something like a Pathfinder 2E take on the Starfinder Solarion, Vanguard, and Precog; or the concepts behind them, at least.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I still really want an Artificer style class. I'm fairly certain the Inventor is meant to fill that "item creation" niche; but I feel like an Artificer would be fun and be a good place for this Rune class idea. I could see a Class Archetype for the Inventor down the line that gives then a more magical inclination.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Something else that has occurred to me that would be pretty cool is if we get a Samurai-like class, but not calling it Samurai. It could also bring over some of the left over Tactician/teamwork stuff that the Cavalier archetype left behind when it was brought over from 1E, as well as the Cause/Order stuff that it shares with/is similar to the Samurai. I would welcome the ability to issue challenges for duels with the benefits and penalties to go with it, as well as the cause and order-based abilities and flavor they had, a 2E version of the Resolve and Honorable Stand abilities, and the heavy armor use - this could be the class I would hope for to have legendary heavy armor proficiency, too. Maybe the class could be called the Aegis, Warder, Partisan, Crusader, or Knight...

Something a little similar could be done with the Ninja, though I think most of it is easily done with Monk and Rogue. It could also take on some sort of saboteur abilities and make it an anti-crafter sort of class with the ability to be good at disabling and disarming foes, disrupting spells, and setting up traps with good stealth abilities. It, too, would need a new name, I think... I would probably just call it Saboteur.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For myself something like a warlock or kineticist [without BURN]. An actually good shifter would be nice [not a pseudo-martial using wildshape but someone that uses shape shifting to make attacks, utility and such]. Mesmerist or Ninja would be interesting to for a new spin on the skill monkey, giving some different abilities along with a good number of skills.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashanderai wrote:

Something else that has occurred to me that would be pretty cool is if we get a Samurai-like class, but not calling it Samurai. It could also bring over some of the left over Tactician/teamwork stuff that the Cavalier archetype left behind when it was brought over from 1E, as well as the Cause/Order stuff that it shares with/is similar to the Samurai. I would welcome the ability to issue challenges for duels with the benefits and penalties to go with it, as well as the cause and order-based abilities and flavor they had, a 2E version of the Resolve and Honorable Stand abilities, and the heavy armor use - this could be the class I would hope for to have legendary heavy armor proficiency, too. Maybe the class could be called the Aegis, Warder, Partisan, Crusader, or Knight...

This is a really good idea and a niche that feels worth exploring.

Legendary armour on Champions enables them to stand in the front lines and protect their teammates around them.

Legendary armour on Commanders would enable them to stand in the front lines and provide buffs and offensive bonuses to allies.

Aegis is a cool name, but a bit defensively oriented, while I feel like this class wants to enhance allies' offense as to differentiate them from Champions. Warden has the same issue. Partisan is a little political, and Crusader and Knight both have a lot of baggage, much of it negative and little of it neutral.

Thus, Commander. It's setting and lore neutral, is an active rather than passive term, and has enough room that you could specialize subclasses within it.


I think this might be easily achieved with a true neutral champion or, even better, with a champion who lost his faith.

If we look closely at the champion class we can see that a change of alignment, breaking a code or anathema or simply loosing faith in his deity forbid the champion from getting:

- Lay on hand ( and its focus pool given by lay on hand )
- Divine ally ( and relative feats )

This means that a champion would anyway maintain his champion features with or without deity:

- Legendary Armor Class
- Juggernaut ( lvl 9 ) and resolve ( lvl 11 )
- Champion Reaction
- Exalted

While the true neutral may result into a champion tied to a neutral deity, a general defender could be easily created by adding a code or tennet in order to replace anything meanto to be for a specific cause.

This would give extreme customization, but at a cost ( no lay on hand, or the evil version, and focus spell, as well as no divine ally ).

The template High AC + Reaction seems to work perfectly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HumbleGamer wrote:

I think this might be easily achieved with a true neutral champion or, even better, with a champion who lost his faith.

If we look closely at the champion class we can see that a change of alignment, breaking a code or anathema or simply loosing faith in his deity forbid the champion from getting:

- Lay on hand ( and its focus pool given by lay on hand )
- Divine ally ( and relative feats )

This means that a champion would anyway maintain his champion features with or without deity:

- Legendary Armor Class
- Juggernaut ( lvl 9 ) and resolve ( lvl 11 )
- Champion Reaction
- Exalted

While the true neutral may result into a champion tied to a neutral deity, a general defender could be easily created by adding a code or tennet in order to replace anything meanto to be for a specific cause.

This would give extreme customization, but at a cost ( no lay on hand, or the evil version, and focus spell, as well as no divine ally ).

The template High AC + Reaction seems to work perfectly.

I doubt this will be the playtest we're getting, but it honestly sounds like a phenomenal Class Archetype for the Champion - something that keeps the defensive playstyle, but strips out the religious elements for more martial utility. I want this very badly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I've created a poll and posted it on reddit regarding what classes are the most desired for the playtest. Here are the results so far:
https://www.poll-maker.com/results3837501x805e4f1b-119?s=res#tab-2

No surprise with the Inquisitor, but I am happy to see that so many people want to see a Warlord class. Interesting that it is basically tied with Kineticist.

https://www.poll-maker.com/poll3837501x805e4f1b-119 here is a link to the poll if you guys want to vote

101 to 150 of 749 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Save the Date for a New Pathfinder Class Playtest! All Messageboards