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
151 to 200 of 749 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

GGSigmar wrote:

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

Pleased to see Team Inquisitor with such a strong showing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
GGSigmar wrote:

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

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.

Here is a link to the poll if you guys want to vote

Links added.

(^_')=b

Carry on,

--C.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Thanks!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Impressive that Warlord and Kineticist are only 1 vote apart right now xD

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I put a vote in Other for the Drifter class.


GGSigmar wrote:
Thanks!

No problem. :)

The results of the poll are interesting!

Carry on,

--C.


The Raven Black wrote:
I put a vote in Other for the Drifter class.

To be honest, with some reworking I could see drifter and inquisitor marrying better than I thought. The themes are not that dissimilar.

Liberty's Edge

Midnightoker wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I put a vote in Other for the Drifter class.
To be honest, with some reworking I could see drifter and inquisitor marrying better than I thought. The themes are not that dissimilar.

How so ?

I do not see them that similar at first sight.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

And here I am, having no idea what a Drifter is :(


Drifter just sounds like a Gunslinger subclass.

Or just how they'd flavor Gunslinger so it isn't just "Fighter but guns"


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So what do people want it as a separate class?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GGSigmar wrote:
So what do people want it as a separate class?

Prior to the release of the Gunslinger, there was a project I and a few others worked on called the Drifter.

The Raven Black wrote:

How so ?

I do not see them that similar at first sight.

Mechanically, I think "Grit" and "Judgement" could easily be altered to suit an Inquisitor.

They also both carry a lot of the same "I have a code, but I'm rough around the edges" vibes, as well as legacy abilities on Inquisitor fitting really well with Drifter's "lone wolf" (Solo tactics for instance)

So theme-wise, I don't think they are that separated.

Then the paths would change only slightly, probably with the actual "religion" option being one of the paths, and the other paths being more agnostically inclined to a particular code.

There would have to be a rework of several portions of it to really work as the new "Inquisitor", but the mechanical bones and themes IMO aren't too far removed (and seeing as Drifter probably won't happen due to Gunslinger being a thing that's how I could see a Class of its design working in PF2).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
GGSigmar wrote:
So what do people want it as a separate class?

Prior to the release of the Gunslinger, there was a project I and a few others worked on called the Drifter.

The Raven Black wrote:

How so ?

I do not see them that similar at first sight.

Mechanically, I think "Grit" and "Judgement" could easily be altered to suit an Inquisitor.

They also both carry a lot of the same "I have a code, but I'm rough around the edges" vibes, as well as legacy abilities on Inquisitor fitting really well with Drifter's "lone wolf" (Solo tactics for instance)

So theme-wise, I don't think they are that separated.

Then the paths would change only slightly, probably with the actual "religion" option being one of the paths, and the other paths being more agnostically inclined to a particular code.

There would have to be a rework of several portions of it to really work as the new "Inquisitor", but the mechanical bones and themes IMO aren't too far removed (and seeing as Drifter probably won't happen due to Gunslinger being a thing that's how I could see a Class of its design working in PF2).

Based solely on my experience play testing your excellent Drifter and making a 1e Inquisitor multiple times but never playing, I don't think the two ideas work together, except for maybe the grit cycle. Getting hit to gain Judgement is an interesting idea. Judgement is actually closer to Hunt Pray (pun intended), Strategic Strike, or Divine Smite.


It would probably have to change triggers, and maybe even lose the reaction portion entirely.

But Judgement as Grit with abilities that are enabled as a result of having "Judgement" active, that might have some mustard.

Just a musing I had. I certainly think Drifter as it currently works for what it does conceptually, but if Paizo were to adopt the binary system approach to Inquisitor, I could see Judgement working as that in some form.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I hope the design team sees the results of the poll and that we will get a warlord in the forseeable future ^^


Among those I'd really like the medium.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Blood Rager and an Occult Class that used Blood Magic
Which Paizo mentioned at Paizo Con and indicated that it was not in Secrets of Magic. This would leave me to believe that Blood Magic would be in the next class book. Blood Magic
could fit an occult theme.


What I think is coming and what I hope is coming are different, sadly. Inquisitor makes the most sense, both in terms of popularity and patterns. What I hope is for kineticist, even though I have worries about the system and how kineticist will interact with 2e. Really hope it's more spell like with scaling, and not unarmed attack that needs runes.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

My guess for this one is either Shaman + Occultist in a book related to mysticism. Or Shaman + Shifter in a book related to nature.

I'm pretty sure Shaman is going to make it very soon though as I've seen them mentioned in a number of material. That said, I do actually hope that one class is a fresh new one rather than a PF1e remake. We'll have to wait and see.


10 martials after gunslinger and inventor. 3 in-between classes (alchemist, magus, and summoner). 7 full casters. I'm guessing two classes with some level of casting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I’m hoping for Kineticist and Slayer or a spear focused class. Though a Spear/Polearm based archetype for the Swashbuckler would be perfect.

Since we are getting a Pathfinder Artificer the last class I want it Kineticist, especially if they give it a martial artist build option.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Secrets of Magic opened up a lesser spellcasting progression that could be used by a class like the Inquisitor. But such a class also needs to answer the question "What else is new about it?" in order to justify playtesting it in the first place. And we also need some sort of common theme to justify adding two classes to the same book.

I must admit that I am stumped at this point, especially if one of the classes is completely new.


David knott 242 wrote:


Secrets of Magic opened up a lesser spellcasting progression that could be used by a class like the Inquisitor. But such a class also needs to answer the question "What else is new about it?" in order to justify playtesting it in the first place. And we also need some sort of common theme to justify adding two classes to the same book.

I must admit that I am stumped at this point, especially if one of the classes is completely new.

I'm all for a book smashing divine and occult.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'd be surprised to see another dedicated magic book so soon after SoM, but maybe.

... I don't have a specific thematic idea but one thing I'd really like to see Paizo try again is a character that is neither martial nor spellcaster.

I know the class itself is a bit controversial, but I think it's neat that the alchemist doesn't exist in either design space which gives it a lot of room to have unique mechanics and I'd love to see Paizo take that approach again with... something else.

Some kind of non-spellslot magical class that leans heavily into focus spells and rituals could be really cool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

I’m all for non-slot classes!

My homebrew medium did that (a bit brokenly, but I haven’t had time to refine it). Rituals, focus spells, cantrips, on a support chassis. I think the same basic ideas could be done on a ritualistic, archivist, or even Harrower class.

Actually I kind of like the idea of a harrower. I think there’s enough cantrips now that you can assign one to each card and “prepare” them that way, and otherwise have fortune/misfortune based focus spells.

If I ever have time to homebrew again, I might try something…

The last time I tried something like it, it turned out more or less like grit, and that’s not exactly a bad thing.


I'd love to see a class based around cantrips and focus spells honestly. Give it ways to regenerate focus during combat and give it focus spells like flaming fusillade that augment their focus cantrips.

I was initially leaning towards kineticist for this with burn being a mechanic to take damage and to cast focus spells when you're at 0 and gather power being an activity to regain focus during combat. Doesn't match 100% but could be fun.


I don’t expect Kineticists to have non-Focus spells, for what it’s worth?


9 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
I don’t expect Kineticists to have non-Focus spells, for what it’s worth?

A kineticist with spell slots is not a kineticist, IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
keftiu wrote:
I don’t expect Kineticists to have non-Focus spells, for what it’s worth?
A kineticist with spell slots is not a kineticist, IMO.

Well I know people that thought a witch wasn't a witch without a list of at will hexes to pick from but look at what we got. As long as the Kineticist doesn't have burn [or works fine not using it], I'll count it as a win. ;)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I briefly toyed with the idea of the Psychic as being a non-magic caster utilizing Focus Spells for its effects, as I see psionics and magic as being potentially different sides to the same coin. But, alas, with the Occult treatise from SoM having such an emphasis on thought, emotion, and experiences as the driving forces of the Tradition; I realize that isn't happening. Lol

My desires for Ninja is basically this though. A Focus Spell... er.... focused class, utilizing its Justu as its main gimmick to produce affects that aren't truly magic, but meant to be more supernatural in nature. Their process to do this would be to balance and manage their Focus Points, casting their Justu and then having special abilities that let them quickly and efficiently refocus through the combat. This way, they aren't being granted access to extra Focus Points, but essentially always have them, by performing flashy attacks or skill checks during combat; really invoking that fantasy of fast paced Ninja fights.


Part of me is wondering/worrying that Psychic might get demoted to a Sorcerer bloodline.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
Part of me is wondering/worrying that Psychic might get demoted to a Sorcerer bloodline.

If fits the mold pretty well: Bloodlines can cover Psychic Disciplines, focus spells/feats can cover Phrenic Amplifications/Psi-Tech and focus pool for Phrenic Pool. I personally hope it IS a bloodline[s] unless they come up with a unique gimmick for the class as doing so means there is more space for abilities/feats as you aren't reprinting what is essentially identical class info for proficiencies, hp, spell progression and such.


I could see a good metamagic focused class from the psychic. Redesigning a class is a real possibility for them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
keftiu wrote:
I don’t expect Kineticists to have non-Focus spells, for what it’s worth?
A kineticist with spell slots is not a kineticist, IMO.
Well I know people that thought a witch wasn't a witch without a list of at will hexes to pick from but look at what we got. As long as the Kineticist doesn't have burn [or works fine not using it], I'll count it as a win. ;)

I would not. As I’ve said, the biggest draw for me is the slotless casting. It might be a kineticist, but I’d rather have burn than spell slots, and o dislike that mechanic almost as much as you.

Bound casting *might* be acceptable on a kineticist specifically, or some kind of font effect, but I still want to see a slotless caster *somewhere*.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
keftiu wrote:
I don’t expect Kineticists to have non-Focus spells, for what it’s worth?
A kineticist with spell slots is not a kineticist, IMO.
Well I know people that thought a witch wasn't a witch without a list of at will hexes to pick from but look at what we got. As long as the Kineticist doesn't have burn [or works fine not using it], I'll count it as a win. ;)

I liked burn...

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I do NOT want a kineticist with spell slots. Kineticist is the paizo answer to Warlock and Warlock didn't have spell slots either.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
keftiu wrote:
I don’t expect Kineticists to have non-Focus spells, for what it’s worth?
A kineticist with spell slots is not a kineticist, IMO.
Well I know people that thought a witch wasn't a witch without a list of at will hexes to pick from but look at what we got. As long as the Kineticist doesn't have burn [or works fine not using it], I'll count it as a win. ;)

I would not. As I’ve said, the biggest draw for me is the slotless casting. It might be a kineticist, but I’d rather have burn than spell slots, and o dislike that mechanic almost as much as you.

Bound casting *might* be acceptable on a kineticist specifically, or some kind of font effect, but I still want to see a slotless caster *somewhere*.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather it didn't have slots either, but if I had to pick burn or slots, I'd vote for slots without hesitation. I can work with slots but I'll just pass over a class with burn, or do what I do with oracles and just don't use the feature [curse] at all and use it as a base to spend class feats to archetype off of.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
Part of me is wondering/worrying that Psychic might get demoted to a Sorcerer bloodline.

I could see psychic as a class archetype for the sorcerer that replaces bloodline.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
Verzen wrote:
I do NOT want a kineticist with spell slots. Kineticist is the paizo answer to Warlock and Warlock didn't have spell slots either.

I don't think comparisons to 1E answers is a wise idea.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
I liked burn...

Burn is pretty much the thing I loathed the most on PF1: the way it was inexorably linked to Overflow, you didn't really have the option to NOT use it and you also didn't have ANY incentive to spend any over your Overflow so pretty much everyone just Burned up to the Overflow limit right off the bat and then didn't interact with it anymore... I found it pretty lame, limiting and quite unfun. There where some classes I didn't like but I just found 0% enjoyment with kineticist as you couldn't avoid using Burn and the archetypes to avoid it where really bad like Overwhelming Soul where you end up a -6, -4 and -2 to physical ability scores compared to Burn on top of less damage... The whole Burn mechanic has ben a huge turnoff since day 1.

Now, I'm not against a 100% totally optional Burn mechanic for those that want it as long as it's opt in and the class functions 100% without it.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

For the Kineticist, I do NOT want Spell Slots. But, I DO want Burn and Overflow. Furthermore, it needs to be done with a martial class chassis (i.e. expert proficiency with their elemental/kinetic attacks at 5th level and up to at least master proficiency later). I would be fine if Burn were a feat, though. I just want it to be available to me. Overflow must be a class feature for me, though.

For the Psychic, a Sorcerer Bloodline does not work for me thematically. I like the idea that a Psychic could eventually learn to access their mental abilities after years of training and attaining a small degree of 'enlightenment'. I would be fine if a bloodline existed for them to explain psychic mutants, but I do not want that to be the only story reason a character could become psychic. An archetype replacing Bloodline with something to explain how the psychic learned their powers would be okay by me, though.

Another class idea that occurs to me that would be pretty sweet to see in Pathfinder at some point would be the Akashic or Mnemonic character class, which I would be okay with melding into Psychic, if done right.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Burn seemed like some tacked on penalty for "daring" to use CON as a main stat anyway (aside from the reality that CON had no synergizing skill or any other proactive "thing" for it), so I'd be delighted to see it eliminated in PF2.


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

Wouldn't it just make sense to write the new version of a possible burn mechanuc to not have the flawed meta of the old one?

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Obviously not, everything new must be matched to the old or we revolt against the designers.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
keftiu wrote:
I don’t expect Kineticists to have non-Focus spells, for what it’s worth?
A kineticist with spell slots is not a kineticist, IMO.
Well I know people that thought a witch wasn't a witch without a list of at will hexes to pick from but look at what we got. As long as the Kineticist doesn't have burn [or works fine not using it], I'll count it as a win. ;)

I would not. As I’ve said, the biggest draw for me is the slotless casting. It might be a kineticist, but I’d rather have burn than spell slots, and o dislike that mechanic almost as much as you.

Bound casting *might* be acceptable on a kineticist specifically, or some kind of font effect, but I still want to see a slotless caster *somewhere*.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather it didn't have slots either, but if I had to pick burn or slots, I'd vote for slots without hesitation. I can work with slots but I'll just pass over a class with burn, or do what I do with oracles and just don't use the feature [curse] at all and use it as a base to spend class feats to archetype off of.

I also like curse.

Why do ya'll hate flavor?

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm beginning to think Graystone thinks Mayo is spicy =P

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

Never heard of spicy mayo?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Burn, I think, is an important part of the Kineticist, since the limiter for the Kineticist is thematically "you can only push your body so hard before it just gives out on you."

But it doesn't need to work the same way as it did in PF1 (where it effectively lowered your HP). I could see it working something like you making Fortitude checks against some number dictated by your Burn total, and getting some sort of penalty if/when you fail (most notably you would be prevented from invoking Burn again for a bit).

Since PF2 is not crawling with "math fixers" there's no need to make elemental overflow depend on Burn and be used to boost the numbers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I could see burn being a binary state like PF2's Panache. Certain activities allow you to cheat action economy or math or otherwise push beyond the norm and in return you get Burned which inflicts some penalty and needs a 10 minute rest or some special ability to remove.


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

I've said before there are many options to make Burn better than in PF1, too many to really get into. However, I strongly agree that it should be opt-in.

Kineticist to me is both for martial-arty, Avatar style bending as well as Firestarter, channeling too much raw power style energy manipulation. Burn only really fits the second.

151 to 200 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