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
201 to 250 of 749 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Burn was a very thematic setup that has basis in numerous abilities and characters across various media, so it's natural to have a "power up" style that's based on that be popular and wanted.

The specific implementation in P1 however was not well liked.

Burn coming back would be fine as long as the implementation is improved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:

I also like curse.

Why do ya'll hate flavor?

I love flavor. I just HATE flavor like those that are the 'I punch myself in the face to power-up' kind. SO in this case, I dislike the flavor of 'take a penalty to power up'. We have plenty of other way to power up so I'm not sure why these classes require that type. For instance my hating the flavor of lemon in no way stops me from liking the flavor of raspberry .

Now on curses, I didn't mind PF1's oracles curse as it was a static penalty and not one that got worse as the day went on and the curse wasn't locked mechanically to your Mystery.

Rysky wrote:

Burn was a very thematic setup that has basis in numerous abilities and characters across various media, so it's natural to have a "power up" style that's based on that be popular and wanted.

The specific implementation in P1 however was not well liked.

Burn coming back would be fine as long as the implementation is improved.

I mean sure, but you can find that exact same thematic setup for wizards and clerics and even monks and fighters...

And again, if it's "popular and wanted" I agree that it should be an option: I just don't want it to be the ONLY option like oracles curses. I just want to be able to play one of the "very thematic setup" for the class that doesn't involve Burn. I'm all in for opt in options as long as the class functions fine without it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
WatersLethe wrote:
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.

I'm waiting to see what's in SoM, but I was hoping the elemental monks we saw in Ruby Phoenix were based on the elemental monk options in there. I feel like that might adequetely cover the martial side of things.

Hmm. I suppose they could opt for a doctrine-style set of proficiencies, where you choose what proficiencies you get at 1st to make you into a martial, support, or caster. Couldn't do all three with a cleric (short of a class archetype) but a slotless or even bound class might be able to pull it off.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Verzen wrote:

I also like curse.

Why do ya'll hate flavor?

I love flavor. I just HATE flavor like those that are the 'I punch myself in the face to power-up' kind. SO in this case, I dislike the flavor of 'take a penalty to power up'. We have plenty of other way to power up so I'm not sure why these classes require that type. For instance my hating the flavor of lemon in no way stops me from liking the flavor of raspberry .

Now on curses, I didn't mind PF1's oracles curse as it was a static penalty and not one that got worse as the day went on and the curse wasn't locked mechanically to your Mystery.

Rysky wrote:

Burn was a very thematic setup that has basis in numerous abilities and characters across various media, so it's natural to have a "power up" style that's based on that be popular and wanted.

The specific implementation in P1 however was not well liked.

Burn coming back would be fine as long as the implementation is improved.

I mean sure, but you can find that exact same thematic setup for wizards and clerics and even monks and fighters...

And again, if it's "popular and wanted" I agree that it should be an option: I just don't want it to be the ONLY option like oracles curses. I just want to be able to play one of the "very thematic setup" for the class that doesn't involve Burn. I'm all in for opt in options as long as the class functions fine without it.

Do you hate cathartic magic?

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Do you hate barbarian rage? Negative AC.

Silver Crusade

graystone wrote:
I mean sure, but you can find that exact same thematic setup for wizards and clerics and even monks and fighters...

No?


I for one don't see kineticist as a martial, unless we're talking about kinetic blade. It would have to be changed pretty heavily from 1e to not be considered a blaster - a huge chunk of the class is about modifying blasts into things like fireballs or chain lightning. I feel like a big part of the reason people want it to be more of a martial is so their attack can be slightly higher, which is so silly to me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gaulin wrote:
I for one don't see kineticist as a martial, unless we're talking about kinetic blade. It would have to be changed pretty heavily from 1e to not be considered a blaster - a huge chunk of the class is about modifying blasts into things like fireballs or chain lightning. I feel like a big part of the reason people want it to be more of a martial is so their attack can be slightly higher, which is so silly to me.

The 1E Kineticist was basically a martial if you break it down to the essentials. In the end, what's the difference between shoot energy beam and shoot arrow? Being (relatively) narrowly focused on single target damage is what defines a Pathfinder martial. It got all of its non-damage stuff from every-other-level talents like the good martial classes, too.


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

So I've been thinking about the different spellcasters we're missing by spell prep and tradition and how I'd personally try and implement them.

Occult prepared = Medium
Primal spontaneous = Shaman
Arcane spontaneous = I got nothing, best is maybe a Warlock, using secrets of unknown to manipulate Arcane spells further, lots of metamagic?

Bound (magus/ summoner)
Occult bound = Antiquarian
Divine bound = Inquisitor
Primal bound = lost here as well, only 1e close is Hunter but that would be full rework

Martial (Ranger/Champion)
Arcane martial = Runeknight? using focus spells to add temporary runes to weapons and armor
Occult martial = Warlord

Essence martial (monk)
-Life essence martial = Shifter
-Mental essence martial = Psychic, use int for melee entirely, telekinesis and all
-Material essence martial = Kineticist

I left out what's already generally been said in interest of space.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe one of 'em'll be Omdura, considering they pretty much came out while PF1 was gracefully dying of old age IIRC?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
Gaulin wrote:
I for one don't see kineticist as a martial, unless we're talking about kinetic blade. It would have to be changed pretty heavily from 1e to not be considered a blaster - a huge chunk of the class is about modifying blasts into things like fireballs or chain lightning. I feel like a big part of the reason people want it to be more of a martial is so their attack can be slightly higher, which is so silly to me.
The 1E Kineticist was basically a martial if you break it down to the essentials. In the end, what's the difference between shoot energy beam and shoot arrow? Being (relatively) narrowly focused on single target damage is what defines a Pathfinder martial. It got all of its non-damage stuff from every-other-level talents like the good martial classes, too.

It also got its abilities that modified its spell attacks on every other talents like a PF2 caster does.

I feel like the monk and fighter classes adequately cover unarmed striking, while no class currently does single target spell casting well (except arguably the Magus), so I do see that as a playstyle to be covered. Being extremely limited on your access to other spells, while still maintaining full proficiency for the spells you do cast, seems like an adequate trade off to me.

To be fair, I also want to see a martial that can efficiently target every defense like a caster does, for a variety of effects. I think the inventor might cover that, and bless them the alchemist *tries*.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Is there any chance we might get mini-spoiler like last time? Guessing classes by number of letters was fun!

Humbly,
Yawar

Sczarni

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

Is there any chance we might get mini-spoiler like last time? Guessing classes by number of letters was fun!

Humbly,
Yawar

Actually - The devs should put together a zodiac level incryption to the name of the two classes and as a community, we need to solve it.

Wouldn't that be cool?!

Shadow Lodge

...no?

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
...no?

=( I just like puzzles.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

You'd probably enjoy this then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Omega Metroid wrote:
Maybe one of 'em'll be Omdura, considering they pretty much came out while PF1 was gracefully dying of old age IIRC?

Honestly forgot about that class. Unlikely to transfer over in name, but I can see it as maybe a Cleric Archetype with a little reworking. Unless they go back to the drawing board and rework Doctrines a bit

On that matter, I really think adding a few free thematic Feats to the Doctrines would go a long way towards making them a little more meaningful. Nothing insane, maybe two or three extra Feats down the line that really lean into their basic idea and provides a more interesting benefit to them.

Example, the Cloistered Cleric (what I simply call the Priest) suggests they focus on the Spell and Domain accepts of their worship. So, why don't they just get Advanced Domain at 7th level, alongside the usual benefits. Warpriest could get some Feats that build upon their Favored Weapon. Something along those lines. They could even be like some other classes, who have Feats specific to the particular build, or special benefits for taking a more general Feat.

Not the most interesting thing to do with them, sure, but would at least open the design space up for more ideas. Maybe have a Doctrine that focuses on the energy channeling aspects of the class. Maybe another serves as a divine vessel for their deity. Not sure what that would entail. But, I just feel like picking your Doctrine is essentially you saying "hey, I want to focus on this aspect or this line of if Feats". Why not just give them a few free Feats to build on that?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Apparently Jason Bulmahn said either on a SoM Reddit thread or the Glass Cannon interview that the developers haven’t even started work (or maybe even started thinking about) the Kineticist

It is not coming in this playtest. And yet it is dominating this thread like it does with all of them

Elementalist (where elemental specific metamagic feats that seem thematically close to infusions - albeit they can’t be applied to at will cantrips which infusions surely will be able to) and elemental monk stances very much seem to be the stop gap. I’d expect the absolute earliest we would see them would be summer 2022. So in the playtest a full year from now - at the earliest

I don’t know whether this comment just isn’t well known or whether the Kineticist fans are choosing to completely ignore negative comments.

They are clearly really stuck on what slot they will fill in the game that isn’t filled by pre-existing classes and now class variants. And no “all day blasting” clearly isn’t one because it already exists. I think seeing how things like starlit span magus, spellslinger gunslinger and the new elementalist work out in play will be used to inform parts of the design theory around blasting and high damage ranged attacks. And all of these aren’t out yet.

Hence Summer 2022 at the earliest but I wouldn’t be surprised if it is later. But clearly the plan is to jump into every single one of these threads and keep calling for kineticist. I think paizo has the memo now everyone. But give it time. To properly give it love it could well need more space than the summoner what with elemental skill feats and the like. So rushing it out earlier than planned doesn’t seem optimal

But it doesn’t really have a place in this thread

(Now maybe JB is pulling an okie-doke on us but he does not have a track record of this)

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
I don’t know whether this comment just isn’t well known or whether the Kineticist fans are choosing to completely ignore negative comments.

Short of them saying they are NEVER going to do the class, people are going ask for it, and even if they do, they’ll still ask, it’s how you let them know that there’s a demand for it.

There’s also the simple fact of a) how old is that comment and b) Bulmahn could just be lying to throw people off.

If that comment was made months ago they could have been working on it till now, we just need it Playtest ready, not whole and complete.

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I guess there should be a "What do you expect from a PF2 Kineticist?" thread to channel all these expectations and creative energy in an appropriate place.


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

There’s also the simple fact of a) how old is that comment and b) Bulmahn could just be lying to throw people off.

If that comment was made months ago they could have been working on it till now, we just need it Playtest ready, not whole and complete.

A comment to that effect was made a couple weeks ago. However, it was said on a pay to access podcast that I personally have not seen, so I don’t know the context or even the exact phrasing.


YawarFiesta wrote:

Is there any chance we might get mini-spoiler like last time? Guessing classes by number of letters was fun!

Humbly,
Yawar

I think it was Michael Sayre that dropped that hint last time, but it was like 1 day before the actual announcement... not (presumably) 3 weeks before.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

four days

I’m between sets; searching the forum gives me something to do while the 45 second timer winds down.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, so Sayre's Subtle Set of Spoiling is scheduled for the Monday before GenCon?

Great, glad that's been 100% confirmed!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rysky wrote:
Quote:
I don’t know whether this comment just isn’t well known or whether the Kineticist fans are choosing to completely ignore negative comments.

Short of them saying they are NEVER going to do the class, people are going ask for it, and even if they do, they’ll still ask, it’s how you let them know that there’s a demand for it.

There’s also the simple fact of a) how old is that comment and b) Bulmahn could just be lying to throw people off.

If that comment was made months ago they could have been working on it till now, we just need it Playtest ready, not whole and complete.

The comment is from like 3 weeks ago (8/5/21). It was on Cannon Fodder the Glass Cannon podcast. I'm not a subscriber so I can't access the interview and all I have to go off of is the reddit summary. I don't want to misquote the actual interview but he confirmed the summary in the reddit thread.


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

No matter what the new class(es) is/are, I will be excited. This thread made me realise that I would love to see the Inquisitor the most, but I will be happy with any occult or martial character.


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

Yeah same. There’s some concepts (mechanical and thematic) that’d I’d be happier seeing than others, but I’m enough if a geek about design in general that I’d be happy seeing whatever they choose to develop next.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Yeah same. There’s some concepts (mechanical and thematic) that’d I’d be happier seeing than others, but I’m enough if a geek about design in general that I’d be happy seeing whatever they choose to develop next.

What would be your final guess here, if you had to pick? If for nothing else than to see if you're correct again and we can all rule that AnimatedPaper's wisdom is always absolute. Lol

I'm gonna say "Warlord/Etc" and Inquisitor for mine.

EDIT: I can see Occultist and Medium as well, since they've been mention in books very recently. But, my hard guess is the former.


I'm most excited to see what totally new things we'll see. I love a lot of the pf1 classes but I really want to see how this system can work with concepts designed from the ground up for it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I just hope there's at least one class that doesn't use spell slots to playtest. Non-spellcasters are more fun (IMO) to playtest than spellcasters.


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

I think we'll get the Inquisitor and, if not an all-new class like Warlord/Commander/Marshal, then either the Shaman or the Occultist. I would welcome the Medium and Shifter, too. But, I think they are less likely for this playtest.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Safe bets all around.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The inquisitor seems doable with the same wave-casting model as the Magus.

Basically every one of the 4 magical traditions has 4 potential modes: Prepared full caster, prepared spontaneous caster, wave caster gish, focus caster.

Arcane has: Wizard, {}, Magus, {}
Primal has: Druid, {},{}, Ranger(?)
Divine has: Cleric, Oracle, {}, Champion
Occult has: {}, Bard,{},{}
Pick-A-List has: Witch, Sorcerer, Summoner, {}
So in terms of symmetry and filling gaps the likely options are: Divine Gish to finish Divine, a Pick-a-List focus caster, and an Occult something.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

The inquisitor seems doable with the same wave-casting model as the Magus.

Basically every one of the 4 magical traditions has 4 potential modes: Prepared full caster, prepared spontaneous caster, wave caster gish, focus caster.

Arcane has: Wizard, {}, Magus, {}
Primal has: Druid, {},{}, Ranger(?)
Divine has: Cleric, Oracle, {}, Champion
Occult has: {}, Bard,{},{}
Pick-A-List has: Witch, Sorcerer, Summoner, {}
So in terms of symmetry and filling gaps the likely options are: Divine Gish to finish Divine, a Pick-a-List focus caster, and an Occult something.

As has been quoted a few times in this thread, Paizo designers have explicitly said they aren’t interested in “box-checking” like this. Don’t expect them to fill out a matrix like this any time soon.

Inquisitor as a Divine bounded caster does seem likely, though, and would make me very happy. I have four or five of them I would roll the day the playtest dropped!


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I dunno how many times it needs to be mentioned that Paizo doesn't care about filling tradition gaps. If the Inquisitor ends up returning it'll be because Paizo had a cool idea for how to translate Judgements into PF2, not because we GOTTA have a divine wave caster.

Grand Lodge

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

If someone really wants to fill the matrix out, then that's an excellent place for 3PP.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Completely new classes also brings the benefit of the playtest and resultant discussion not being weighed down by expectations from prior editions. In that sense I would want two completely new classes the most.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One argument I’ll make in the Inquisitor’s favor: the Warpriest Doctrine for Clerics is pretty lacking, and with the Champion’s focus on both mechanically being a defensive class and thematically being more about alignment than deity choice, we’re really lacking for offense-driven religious characters in 2e.

Inquisitor coming back both likely gets us a Divine bounded caster and gives players like me who /really/ want their schtick to be “I fight the enemies of my god” a viable path, which it currently feels like we’re in dire need of, IMO.


keftiu wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

The inquisitor seems doable with the same wave-casting model as the Magus.

Basically every one of the 4 magical traditions has 4 potential modes: Prepared full caster, prepared spontaneous caster, wave caster gish, focus caster.

Arcane has: Wizard, {}, Magus, {}
Primal has: Druid, {},{}, Ranger(?)
Divine has: Cleric, Oracle, {}, Champion
Occult has: {}, Bard,{},{}
Pick-A-List has: Witch, Sorcerer, Summoner, {}
So in terms of symmetry and filling gaps the likely options are: Divine Gish to finish Divine, a Pick-a-List focus caster, and an Occult something.

As has been quoted a few times in this thread, Paizo designers have explicitly said they aren’t interested in “box-checking” like this. Don’t expect them to fill out a matrix like this any time soon.

Inquisitor as a Divine bounded caster does seem likely, though, and would make me very happy. I have four or five of them I would roll the day the playtest dropped!

To be fair, considering how 1E was built, that's sort of exactly what ended up happening (WP, Magus, Hunter, Inquistor were the 6 caster spread).

So while it's awesome to see that Paizo isn't going to necessarily retread that path in favor of exploring actual themes worthy of representation, it is easy to see why its so easy for us the consumer to fall into that "expectation".

My guess is that approaching it theme side first probably results in stronger class identity from PF2's building block perspectives.

AKA if you fall into the "fill it out" trap for PF2 design, classes can end up having no distinction from one another and feeling "samey" (much like 4E to be honest).

I think TOZ has a great point though, 3PP can easily fill that gap and maybe should fill that gap in some respects (sometimes "samey" but with a twist is enough for 3PP but not for the main product).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
As has been quoted a few times in this thread, Paizo designers have explicitly said they aren’t interested in “box-checking” like this.

Sure, but I confess I might be somewhat annoyed if we fill out all four columns in the divine tradition before we get a second class in the occult tradition.


Midnightoker wrote:
keftiu wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

The inquisitor seems doable with the same wave-casting model as the Magus.

Basically every one of the 4 magical traditions has 4 potential modes: Prepared full caster, prepared spontaneous caster, wave caster gish, focus caster.

Arcane has: Wizard, {}, Magus, {}
Primal has: Druid, {},{}, Ranger(?)
Divine has: Cleric, Oracle, {}, Champion
Occult has: {}, Bard,{},{}
Pick-A-List has: Witch, Sorcerer, Summoner, {}
So in terms of symmetry and filling gaps the likely options are: Divine Gish to finish Divine, a Pick-a-List focus caster, and an Occult something.

As has been quoted a few times in this thread, Paizo designers have explicitly said they aren’t interested in “box-checking” like this. Don’t expect them to fill out a matrix like this any time soon.

Inquisitor as a Divine bounded caster does seem likely, though, and would make me very happy. I have four or five of them I would roll the day the playtest dropped!

To be fair, considering how 1E was built, that's sort of exactly what ended up happening (WP, Magus, Hunter, Inquistor were the 6 caster spread).

So while it's awesome to see that Paizo isn't going to necessarily retread that path in favor of exploring actual themes worthy of representation, it is easy to see why its so easy for us the consumer to fall into that "expectation".

My guess is that approaching it theme side first probably results in stronger class identity from PF2's building block perspectives.

AKA if you fall into the "fill it out" trap for PF2 design, classes can end up having no distinction from one another and feeling "samey" (much like 4E to be honest).

I think TOZ has a great point though, 3PP can easily fill that gap and maybe should fill that gap in some respects (sometimes "samey" but with a twist is enough for 3PP but not for the main product).

It is easy to fall into for consumers, but it really shouldn't be for a good number of concepts. The archetype system can very easily, imo, cover a ton of possible concepts.


Midnightoker wrote:

To be fair, considering how 1E was built, that's sort of exactly what ended up happening (WP, Magus, Hunter, Inquistor were the 6 caster spread).

So while it's awesome to see that Paizo isn't going to necessarily retread that path in favor of exploring actual themes worthy of representation, it is easy to see why its so easy for us the consumer to fall into that "expectation".

My guess is that approaching it theme side first probably results in stronger class identity from PF2's building block perspectives.

The Hunter is a good example of why this sort of mandatory slot filling isn't a great idea IMO; since it had to be "in between" the Druid and Ranger it had a very difficult time differentiating itself from either of them. If anything being required to have 6th level spells prevented it from pushing harder on the all-about-the-animal-companion theme it had which was the singular thing that differentiated it from the two classes it was supposed to be a hybrid of.


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

One argument I’ll make in the Inquisitor’s favor: the Warpriest Doctrine for Clerics is pretty lacking, and with the Champion’s focus on both mechanically being a defensive class and thematically being more about alignment than deity choice, we’re really lacking for offense-driven religious characters in 2e.

Inquisitor coming back both likely gets us a Divine bounded caster and gives players like me who /really/ want their schtick to be “I fight the enemies of my god” a viable path, which it currently feels like we’re in dire need of, IMO.

Also, as you pointed out, there were several in Mwagni. Nothing is certain, but that’s usually a decent indication they at least see a role to be filled out one way or another.

Final guess: Warlord/Envoy/Mashal class, possibly with Inquisitor as a class path. If not, Inquisitor as the second class.

Next most likely from my POV: harrow class. Be it another skill class, an occult bound caster, or a class path of a larger Antiquarian/occult class, I feel like that’s decently likely and opens up interesting stories.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
keftiu wrote:
As has been quoted a few times in this thread, Paizo designers have explicitly said they aren’t interested in “box-checking” like this.
Sure, but I confess I might be somewhat annoyed if we fill out all four columns in the divine tradition before we get a second class in the occult tradition.

I’m lucky that my two biggest wants are Inquisitor and one or two more Occult casters :p


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
keftiu wrote:

One argument I’ll make in the Inquisitor’s favor: the Warpriest Doctrine for Clerics is pretty lacking, and with the Champion’s focus on both mechanically being a defensive class and thematically being more about alignment than deity choice, we’re really lacking for offense-driven religious characters in 2e.

Inquisitor coming back both likely gets us a Divine bounded caster and gives players like me who /really/ want their schtick to be “I fight the enemies of my god” a viable path, which it currently feels like we’re in dire need of, IMO.

Also, as you pointed out, there were several in Mwagni. Nothing is certain, but that’s usually a decent indication they at least see a role to be filled out one way or another.

Final guess: Warlord/Envoy/Mashal class, possibly with Inquisitor as a class path. If not, Inquisitor as the second class.

Next most likely from my POV: harrow class. Be it another skill class, an occult bound caster, or a class path of a larger Antiquarian/occult class, I feel like that’s decently likely and opens up interesting stories.

I don’t think that was me, as there’s only one Inquisitor in the Mwangi book and I didn’t know about them until this comment.

But I love these guesses! Warlord having potential to be the Envoy also is something I hadn’t considered and absolutely adore, and I’m very keen on more Occult classes. I think Inquisitor, Occultist, and Psychic would completely covet all the 1e classes I truly miss, and Warlord/Envoy is the new pitch I’d be happiest about.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
keftiu wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

The inquisitor seems doable with the same wave-casting model as the Magus.

Basically every one of the 4 magical traditions has 4 potential modes: Prepared full caster, prepared spontaneous caster, wave caster gish, focus caster.

Arcane has: Wizard, {}, Magus, {}
Primal has: Druid, {},{}, Ranger(?)
Divine has: Cleric, Oracle, {}, Champion
Occult has: {}, Bard,{},{}
Pick-A-List has: Witch, Sorcerer, Summoner, {}
So in terms of symmetry and filling gaps the likely options are: Divine Gish to finish Divine, a Pick-a-List focus caster, and an Occult something.

As has been quoted a few times in this thread, Paizo designers have explicitly said they aren’t interested in “box-checking” like this. Don’t expect them to fill out a matrix like this any time soon.

Inquisitor as a Divine bounded caster does seem likely, though, and would make me very happy. I have four or five of them I would roll the day the playtest dropped!

Agreed. Many of the 1e classes could easily fall into any of these. But, it would be more coincidental that they do. Of the 4 casting styles, the only one I can see them making a concentrated effort to fill is the Bounded/Wave Casting, since it is a new mechanic. Even then, still would be a matter of "this style works here" rather than "this style needs this".

-----
The only classes I see quite possibly not being bought back as either a Class or Archetype may be the Slayer, Hunter, and Mesmerist. But only if they aren't reworked. They have potential as Subclass concepts though imo.

Harrow could fit with the Occultist really well I think.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Guntermench wrote:
It is easy to fall into for consumers, but it really shouldn't be for a good number of concepts. The archetype system can very easily, imo, cover a ton of possible concepts.

For me, the archetype system is why I tend to think if mechanical concepts first and narrative themes second. Because as you said, there’s plenty of tools to approach most thematic concepts now, especially if you reskin, but a lot of them aren’t mechanically there yet. Which isn’t to say it is impossible to build-a-build, but the pieces don’t fully snap together. The most obvious example of this is the Magus, which many (correctly) pointed out could be approximated with the right multiclassing, but did eventually get a full class to mechanically satisfy the narrative concept.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

The inquisitor seems doable with the same wave-casting model as the Magus.

Basically every one of the 4 magical traditions has 4 potential modes: Prepared full caster, prepared spontaneous caster, wave caster gish, focus caster.

Feeling old right now, but please explain

wave caster?
focus caster?
bounded caster?
prepared spontaneous caster?
Thanks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Curaigh wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

The inquisitor seems doable with the same wave-casting model as the Magus.

Basically every one of the 4 magical traditions has 4 potential modes: Prepared full caster, prepared spontaneous caster, wave caster gish, focus caster.

Feeling old right now, but please explain

wave caster?
focus caster?
bounded caster?
prepared spontaneous caster?
Thanks.

Wave/bounded casting is what the new magus and summoner have. 4 spells max, 2 at top level you can cast and 2 at lvl-1

Focus would be only having focus spells and cantrips.

I think this is spontaneous full caster

201 to 250 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