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
301 to 350 of 749 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Plus it's fairly well established I think at this point that a class already existing means we know what it'll look like going forward.

Classes like the Alchemist, Ranger, Swashbuckler and Investigator all hit the same thematic notes but diverge wildly from their PF1 counterparts in many respects too.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

2e will feel incomplete to me until we can recreate Inquisitors, Occultists, and Psychics, at least for my taste. The public opinion I seem to be able to sniff out seems to have similar opinions on Shifter, Kineticist, and Bloodrager, and I expect bits of all of them to come back eventually.

Warlord is near the top of my new class list, as is a potential Envoy-equivalent, and then I just always want more Occult/psychic weirdness.


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

2e will feel incomplete to me until we can recreate Inquisitors, Occultists, and Psychics, at least for my taste. The public opinion I seem to be able to sniff out seems to have similar opinions on Shifter, Kineticist, and Bloodrager, and I expect bits of all of them to come back eventually.

Warlord is near the top of my new class list, as is a potential Envoy-equivalent, and then I just always want more Occult/psychic weirdness.

If you add Shaman to the list I would be pretty happy too.


Shaman is my pick to come back eventually as the primal spontaneous caster, that's a bit on the prepared side since you have to choose which spirits you contact even if your magic is intuitive.


There's stuff I want like a kineticist or physic but really just about everything seems pretty doable with the available classes and dedications. I'm ready for whatever paizo throws at us.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am hopeful for a "Tradewinds" book. Something with rules fr running organizations (based on kingdom running rules), traderoutes (by extensions ship and caravan combat), and expanded downtime activities with random events.

Humbly,
Yawar


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

Inquisitor is what I want to see the most, I guess, and is what I expect to see more than anything else from 1E for this playtest.

I would love to see a Shaman class done right this time.

The Occultist, Shifter, Kineticist, and Medium are all classes I would love to see adapted, as well.

Warlord would be very nice as a new class, I think, especially if it provides up to legendary in Armor.

I still really like the idea of getting an update to the Samurai class with up to legendary proficiency in armor and its resolve, organizational orders, honorable stand, banner, and challenge abilities, but generalized to fit in all cultures. I don't know necessarily what you could call it as many names like Knight or Crusader would be problematic in much the same way Inquisitor is for its class. But, I don't think you could go wrong with something like Defender, Lionheart, Bravo, Stalwart, or Gallant.

For a similar reasons to the Samurai, I would gladly welcome a Pathfinder 2E version of the Starfinder Vanguard. I would also really like to see a version of the Solarion, Precog, and Witchwarper, too... maybe even some sort of weird Oozemancer as a ancient-world analogue to the Nanocite.

A Saboteur class as something of a new take on the Ninja class would be pretty cool, but with more emphasis on setting traps and snares, disrupting terrain, disarming enemies/disabling attacks, destroying gear and equipment, and sapping, in addition to having good stealth and ambushing targets (sort of like stealthy combat engineers).

As I have said numerous times in the past, I would love a Runecaster martial class, too, probably more than anything else. I played a couple of classes with this flavor in the 3rd edition days and couldn't get enough. But, I have not seen its like since.

After getting the Eidolon class... I mean, the Summoner class, I would really like to see something like a Convoker/Bargainer/Diabolist class that focuses on summoning temporary minions/allies from other planes and gaining knowledge and power by cutting deals with those other planar creatures using rituals and circles of summoning/power. Depending on how its designed, I suppose the Occultist could delve into this; however, I would really like to see a class specialize in this more. Maybe a Convoker class could be combined with the Runecaster concept, if either of them is not considered enough for a class on their own... that could be pretty cool, actually, if done right...

An Akashic/Mnemonic class would be very cool, also. But, it could just as easily be an archetype, depending on how far you want to take it.

Depending on how it is approached, I can see Psychic as a class archetype for Sorcerer or as a class, provided it is different enough from any other caster.

Bloodrager is something I see as definitely more of a class archetype for either Barbarian, Magus, or both. I feel the same for other 1E classes like Skald, Hunter, Mesmerist, and Brawler being archetypes for other classes.

But, in the end, I think we will be getting Inquisitor and maybe a Warlord-style class this time around for the playtest; though, I welcome whatever comes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Shaman as a pseudo-prepared class would be interesting.

Wisdom based spontaneous primal caster that chooses its spirit each day.

Each spirit comes with a few extra (potentially non-primal) spells in the repertoire and other abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ashanderai wrote:
Depending on how it is approached, I can see Psychic as a class archetype for Sorcerer or as a class, provided it is different enough from any other caster.

I expect there to be a Psychic Caster class archetype. Prerequisite of either casting spells or just Occult spells. Then you cast spells using emotion and thought components as opposed to verbal and somatic. Perhaps some additional benefits and changes. That being said, I also expect at least one full caster that uses Psychic Casting by default.

Your idea about the Occultist equivalent summoning small minions and making pacts is interesting. It definitely feels more like an archetype than a class to me though. It's something that Wizards, Witches, and even more mundane classes like Investigators or Alchemists would believably use.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheGentlemanDM wrote:

Shaman as a pseudo-prepared class would be interesting.

Wisdom based spontaneous primal caster that chooses its spirit each day.

Each spirit comes with a few extra (potentially non-primal) spells in the repertoire and other abilities.

Spirits bringing their own traditions according to their type, following the eidolons.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

While I really like the design space of getting to pick your tradition--it's one of my favorite things about PF2E casters like the sorcerer--I am personally hoping they give that a rest for a while. By this point we have more pick-your-tradition classes than we have dedicated classes for any given tradition, and while I know that the devs have said they weren't deliberately setting out to even those numbers up, I'd still like to see ... those numbers be evened up.


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

I also hope that they reel in the Variable Traditions a bit; at least, in so far as allowing all of them as choices for one Class. There is still a design space for Classes that have Variable Traditions, but can only select from a two or three options.

I.E: Shaman, I think, could choose to commune with EITHER the spirits of nature (Primal) -or- the spirits of the dead/undead (Occult a/o Divine).

Likewise, Mediums, if SoM is any indication, may have ties to the Divine, serving as a direct vessel for their Deity. But, they could also, like the Shaman, remain Occult and channel spirits of different heroes and villains (as in 1e), or even spirits of undeath through the Divine Tradition. (Although, maybe being strictly Divine would work either way here. Heck, fusing the Shaman and Medium seems appropriate as well, imo.)

And something like Kineticist COULD potentially choose between Primal -or- Arcane, given both their ability to utilize the elements.
----

If we continue to see the use of Variable Traditions, I would like to see some more constraints on it. If it is appropriate, the concept SHOULD be utilized to some degree, because it is such a great customization and storytelling tool. However, maybe not always as a "one or all" kind of thing we've seen thus far.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Considering that Variable Traditions was supposed to be the big selling point of a Sorcerer class, and two other classes (Summoner and Witch) have already poached from that big selling point, I find that it diminishes all of the class' value as a whole, and I am not very appreciable of it.

I might be able to give a pass to the Witch, since they are a Prepared Variable Tradition Class (which is different enough), but otherwise it was the equivalent of giving Gunslingers legendary firearms when we have Fighters that could do this already, and legendary weapons was Fighters' main schtick that could not be overcome by any means for the sake of class balance.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The playtest Witch had only 3 traditions. That went down in flames real quick.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm just hoping for a dedicated occult caster separate from bard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
The playtest Witch had only 3 traditions. That went down in flames real quick.

Yes, but after evaluating the various sources of Witch magic, it ended up making sense. I don't really think it makes sense for the Shaman to be an Arcane Caster. So I doubt they would go that route.

Like I said, where it make sense, they should defiently give a Class all four Traditions. I myself was working on a homebrew idea that I had every intention of making only Arcane and Occult. But after reevaluating the theme and lore I had for the Class, I decided having access to all four made sense. So, that's likely the route I'm going with, if I ever get around to finishing it.

On the matter of stepping into the benefits of other classes, that is going to inadvertently happen over time with the more classes we get.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Considering that Variable Traditions was supposed to be the big selling point of a Sorcerer class, and two other classes (Summoner and Witch) have already poached from that big selling point, I find that it diminishes all of the class' value as a whole, and I am not very appreciable of it.

I don't really see how the Summoner and Witch existing really impacts the Sorcerer at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WWHsmackdown wrote:
I'm just hoping for a dedicated occult caster separate from bard.

Yes, please.


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

I agree with Squiggit here. Sure, being THE Variable Tradition Caster was indeed a selling point for the Sorcerer when the system started. But that isn't the core mechanic of the Class that was meant to make it unique. It's like saying the Bard should have been prepared instead of spontaneous, since Occult Sorcerers now fit that niche. The Traditions are really more a means to an end imo. They are the icing on an otherwise delicious cake.

Scarab Sages

Squiggit wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Considering that Variable Traditions was supposed to be the big selling point of a Sorcerer class, and two other classes (Summoner and Witch) have already poached from that big selling point, I find that it diminishes all of the class' value as a whole, and I am not very appreciable of it.
I don't really see how the Summoner and Witch existing really impacts the Sorcerer at all.

It's like buying a house without a garage because its the only one in town with a full master bath, but a few months after moving in they build 2 new houses with a master bath and a garage, and they're selling them for the same amount you paid. Feels bad man, kinda like you got ripped off in the deal.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

That implies Sorcerers had to give something up that they gave back to Witches and Summoners, which doesn't really track at all. Like I'm not even sure what the garage in your scenario is supposed to be and the implication that Witches and Summoners are overtuned is... kind of a weird one to me.

It's more like buying a house with a garage and then finding out your neighbor had a garage added to their house and getting mad about it.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Considering that Variable Traditions was supposed to be the big selling point of a Sorcerer class, and two other classes (Summoner and Witch) have already poached from that big selling point, I find that it diminishes all of the class' value as a whole, and I am not very appreciable of it.
I don't really see how the Summoner and Witch existing really impacts the Sorcerer at all.
It's like buying a house without a garage because its the only one in town with a full master bath, but a few months after moving in they build 2 new houses with a master bath and a garage, and they're selling them for the same amount you paid. Feels bad man, kinda like you got ripped off in the deal.

do we have everyone abandoning sorcerer for witch? i dont think so LOL


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Looking at classes as mechanical selling points seems a bit weird to me. I never thought of variable tradition as THE feature of the Sorcerer, just a benefit of THE feature of having a bloodline as well as embracing new design possibilities provided by PF2. Not allowing Summoners and Witches the ability to choose other traditions seems like them being limited by the Sorcerer rather than the other way around. Witches get patrons and familiars; Summoners get freaking Eidolons. They have their own special features. The core classes all have more broadly-scoped features. A Fighter is such a variable character, they don't even have to be similar. However, as we get more classes they'll become more and more focused. An Oracle is more specific than a Divine Sorcerer, a Witch is more specific than a Wizard. Magus, Summoner, Inventor, and Gunslinger are all extremely specific when compared to the core classes. It's partially why I don't expect a Warlord class. That's already pretty easily accomplished by various archetypes imo, because that is too general of a class idea. Then again, I never played DnD4e so have no true idea what an actual Warlord plays like.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

4e’s Warlord was all about being a non-magical controller of the battlefield, so a lot of granting re-rolls to missed attacks and failed saves, or letting allies make free attacks outside of their turns. It was a ton of fun!


After looking through AoN for a bit to see the new SOM stuff, what I want most in the world right now is a spontaneous casting gish in the primal or occult tradition, since the magus cannot be combined with Wellspring Magic and I really want to see Wellspring Magic on a character who is strong without spells.

Liberty's Edge

PossibleCabbage wrote:
After looking through AoN for a bit to see the new SOM stuff, what I want most in the world right now is a spontaneous casting gish in the primal or occult tradition, since the magus cannot be combined with Wellspring Magic and I really want to see Wellspring Magic on a character who is strong without spells.

Wellspring Magic can be combined with a Summoner though. Could be mighty interesting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Wellspring Magic can be combined with a Summoner though. Could be mighty interesting.

You're spending a goodly portion of your class budget on your eidolon though, and I really want to see Wellspring Magic on someone, like the Magus, who can be strong by themselves even without spell slots.

My best option right now is the battle oracle, I think, but I'd like access to other spell lists.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Wellspring Magic can be combined with a Summoner though. Could be mighty interesting.

You're spending a goodly portion of your class budget on your eidolon though, and I really want to see Wellspring Magic on someone, like the Magus, who can be strong by themselves even without spell slots.

My best option right now is the battle oracle, I think, but I'd like access to other spell lists.

Divine access FTW.

Or try to convince your GM to agree that your Eldritch Trickster Rogue or your Ancient Elf can get Wellspring Magic as long as the MC Dedication has a spell repertoire.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
keftiu wrote:
4e’s Warlord was all about being a non-magical controller of the battlefield, so a lot of granting re-rolls to missed attacks and failed saves, or letting allies make free attacks outside of their turns. It was a ton of fun!

I recall the story of one of the original 4E playtesters calling the free attack ability “Feather Me Yon Oaf”, as she could command her party to fill a distant enemy with arrows.

I also think the “aid another” action could be taken a look at. Maybe have abilities that allow you to make it a 1 action activity, but only for specific preset aid another actions?


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

I think pick-a-list classes are fine, I think the game can probably tolerate one more, specifically with a Wisdom main stat since we already have an Intelligence based Witch and a Charisma based Sorcerer, and Wisdom sounds ideal for a Shaman, although I'm hoping for a more unique variant this time around-- granted this is such a specific concept, it'd be shocking if it actually happened.

I want to see a Shaman Class that is a naturally flexible preparation caster (they would have to be for this idea) but the spells in your collection at any given moment is dictated by a possession/trance mechanic where you commune with and channel different spirits. The killer app for the class, is that you'd collect these trances through class feats and such and drop into them like stances, and they give you access to a small suite of spells.

Because you have to rotate between trances, and spend class feats to get more of them (I think it would make sense to add a couple of extra feats through the base class that lets you get a skeleton progression of them going)to have access to more than a small subset of spells, these individual spirits wouldn't have to be bound to a single list-- a spirit of fire could have both fireball and flamestrike on theirs for instance (which actually just became a thing on the elemental spell list, but thats a bit different), but there's an action management minigame, even a focus point centric one for dancing between different possession states (kinda like how focus points let you streamline your spellstrike recharge.)

This solution would let Shaman channel as many different spirits as they buy with class feats, sticking to a couple favorites or trying to maximize their total spell list by collecting a bunch for different flavors of what it means to be a shaman. You could similarly use it to have maqny different flavors of Shaman based off the kinds of spirits they channel, everything from ghosts and phantoms, to various spirits of nature, strange eldritch entities, gods minor and otherwise-- it has the potential to nail the basic flavor of lots of real world shamanic flavors, since the commonality between them tends to be spirit channeling and possession-- ranging from the Miko of ancient Japan, modern and pre-modern Hoodoo traditions, Animism throughout the world, and so forth.

Its also a kind of magic we really just don't have mechanically or thematically. So I hope Paizo gives the idea a look, I'd love to see them take this idea up if they hadn't already thought about it.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Spell Stances sound absolutely delightful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hoping for a dedicated shapeshifting class still I guess. One that isn't nature themed, ideally.


Also looking for when Numerian technology comes, and official collab.
Note: DnD has Rick & Homorty collab.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Laclale♪ wrote:

Also looking for when Numerian technology comes, and official collab.

Note: DnD has Rick & Homorty collab.

I’m not sure what this has to do with the class playtest?


Squiggit wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Considering that Variable Traditions was supposed to be the big selling point of a Sorcerer class, and two other classes (Summoner and Witch) have already poached from that big selling point, I find that it diminishes all of the class' value as a whole, and I am not very appreciable of it.
I don't really see how the Summoner and Witch existing really impacts the Sorcerer at all.

It's the currency paradigm. Things are valuable due to both their practical uses in the real world as well as their rarity of existence. The Sorcerer being the only class that could have a "flexible" spell tradition was a big driving point made in both the playtest and when the Core Rulebook was dropped for a Sorcerer being its own unique class separate from being some Spontaneous Arcane equivalent from the Wizard back in PF1.

The Witch and Summoner now having this identical "flexible" spell tradition reduces the impact of that unique facet significantly, which I personally don't care for.

Yes, there are slight differences (Witch being Prepared, Summoner being Wave-casting with a permanent "pet"), but the primary point ("flexible" spell tradition) is shared across all of them, and it makes the Sorcerer's only driving point being Bloodlines, compared to a Witch's Patron (not the Hexes, which is what players really wanted), and a Summoner's Eidolon type (no "summon font" option), all of which are what determines their "flexible" spell tradition.

In short, they are 3 carbon copies of an identical formula (specific mechanic that dictates their spellcasting type, calling it "flexible," and), demonstrating to be relatively lazy considering that there are only minor differences between the classes otherwise. The entirety of the Eidolon could have been a Class Archetype of Sorcerer, same with Witch with their Patrons.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Considering that Variable Traditions was supposed to be the big selling point of a Sorcerer class, and two other classes (Summoner and Witch) have already poached from that big selling point, I find that it diminishes all of the class' value as a whole, and I am not very appreciable of it.
I don't really see how the Summoner and Witch existing really impacts the Sorcerer at all.

It's the currency paradigm. Things are valuable due to both their practical uses in the real world as well as their rarity of existence. The Sorcerer being the only class that could have a "flexible" spell tradition was a big driving point made in both the playtest and when the Core Rulebook was dropped for a Sorcerer being its own unique class separate from being some Spontaneous Arcane equivalent from the Wizard back in PF1.

The Witch and Summoner now having this identical "flexible" spell tradition reduces the impact of that unique facet significantly, which I personally don't care for.

Yes, there are slight differences (Witch being Prepared, Summoner being Wave-casting with a permanent "pet"), but the primary point ("flexible" spell tradition) is shared across all of them, and it makes the Sorcerer's only driving point being Bloodlines, compared to a Witch's Patron (not the Hexes, which is what players really wanted), and a Summoner's Eidolon type (no "summon font" option), all of which are what determines their "flexible" spell tradition.

In short, they are 3 carbon copies of an identical formula (specific mechanic that dictates their spellcasting type, calling it "flexible," and), demonstrating to be relatively lazy considering that there are only minor differences between the classes otherwise. The entirety of the Eidolon could have been a Class Archetype of Sorcerer, same with Witch with their Patrons.

I find it hilarious and puzzling that you think the differences are minor to be honest


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


It's the currency paradigm. Things are valuable due to both their practical uses in the real world as well as their rarity of existence.

That just seems like a kind of spiteful way to view class value. The sorcerer hasn't changed any. It still has the same perks it always had. Hypothetically deleting divine and primal (or whatever) witches from the game wouldn't make the Sorcerer any better or more special, it'd just take away someone else's character.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Considering that Variable Traditions was supposed to be the big selling point of a Sorcerer class, and two other classes (Summoner and Witch) have already poached from that big selling point, I find that it diminishes all of the class' value as a whole, and I am not very appreciable of it.
I don't really see how the Summoner and Witch existing really impacts the Sorcerer at all.

It's the currency paradigm. Things are valuable due to both their practical uses in the real world as well as their rarity of existence. The Sorcerer being the only class that could have a "flexible" spell tradition was a big driving point made in both the playtest and when the Core Rulebook was dropped for a Sorcerer being its own unique class separate from being some Spontaneous Arcane equivalent from the Wizard back in PF1.

The Witch and Summoner now having this identical "flexible" spell tradition reduces the impact of that unique facet significantly, which I personally don't care for.

Yes, there are slight differences (Witch being Prepared, Summoner being Wave-casting with a permanent "pet"), but the primary point ("flexible" spell tradition) is shared across all of them, and it makes the Sorcerer's only driving point being Bloodlines, compared to a Witch's Patron (not the Hexes, which is what players really wanted), and a Summoner's Eidolon type (no "summon font" option), all of which are what determines their "flexible" spell tradition.

In short, they are 3 carbon copies of an identical formula (specific mechanic that dictates their spellcasting type, calling it "flexible," and), demonstrating to be relatively lazy considering that there are only minor differences between the classes otherwise. The entirety of the Eidolon could have been a Class Archetype of Sorcerer, same with Witch with their Patrons.

I pretty much disagree with everything stated here.


I mean, for one thing Witches can't be Wellspring casters and I like spontaneous a lot more than prepared. When I played a Witch I wish I were playing a Sorcerer, since it's a class I like better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


It's the currency paradigm. Things are valuable due to both their practical uses in the real world as well as their rarity of existence.
That just seems like a kind of spiteful way to view class value. The sorcerer hasn't changed any. It still has the same perks it always had. Hypothetically deleting divine and primal (or whatever) witches from the game wouldn't make the Sorcerer any better or more special, it'd just take away someone else's character.

I could make the same argument by stating X new class having Legendary in Weapons/Armor doesn't take away from the Fighter or Champion having it, but I can assure you that many people do not and would not like those things implemented, and they have stated as such. It's not spiteful, it's niche protection. Flexible spellcasting tradition was a niche for Sorcerers, and it's been poached by 2 classes.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorcerers aren’t the “flexible tradition” class, they’re the “bloodline” class, IMO.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I could make the same argument by stating X new class having Legendary in Weapons/Armor doesn't take away from the Fighter or Champion having it

Well if you want to make that argument, go ahead.

Quote:
It's not spiteful, it's niche protection.

Niche protection isn't inherently a good thing though. It's only valuable if it serves some compelling purpose for the rest of the game. Just making one person feel more special at the expense of someone else doesn't accomplish that.


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

I mean, nevermind the actual core of each of those Classes. Than sure, they are carbon copies, because they all have the same Tradition access. By that logic, Clerics and Oracles are the same. Wizards and Magi are the same. And Druids and Bards will be the same as any other Primal or Occult Caster in the future.

The Spell lists aren't what make each of them unique. It's meant to fit into their theme and story more than anything.

Sorcerers have Bloodlines, Bloodline Spells, the extra spells from their Bloodline, their Blood Magic effect; as well their signature spells and the fact that they can readily cast more spells than both the Witch and Summoner. That is the real core of the Sorcerer. Not the fact that they can choose between any of the four Traditions.

Even then, their are similarities, sure. Such as how Summoners have signature spells as well, and more of them I might add since every Spell they have is considered signature. Does this invalidate the Sorcerers signature spells? No, because they don't utilize them in the same way. They make up for simply having more spells than the Summoner could dream of. They are still, at their core, fundamentally different in function.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly I hope the niche protection in this edition goes away nearly entirely. I can't for the life of me figure out from a narrative sense why you have to be religious to be really skilled at the use of armor, or why no divine champions are of legendary skill with a sword.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


I could make the same argument by stating X new class having Legendary in Weapons/Armor doesn't take away from the Fighter or Champion having it, but I can assure you that many people do not and would not like those things implemented, and they have stated as such. It's not spiteful, it's niche protection. Flexible spellcasting tradition was a niche for Sorcerers, and it's been poached by 2 classes.

No. That's... What? I just can't comprehend this mindset. Is the Investigator poaching the niche of the Rogue by having more skill feats and bonuses than default classes? Was the Witch in PF1 poaching the niche of the Wizard by being an INT based prepared arcane caster? Flexible casting tradition is part of the design tools available when creating a class in PF2. The Sorcerer, Witch, and Summoner are nothing alike in anyway except for the fact they having spells and a flexible tradition. Flexible casting was pitched as the unique thing of the Sorcerer because it was new! It was an idea that was different from PF1 and they needed to sell us on the changes. I personally would be happy for new classes with Legendary proficiency in weapons/armor if it makes sense for the class and they do something new. A non-magic martial character with Legendary proficiency in armor seems interesting to me. It's not a Champion, it's something different. Likewise, while I don't see how another martial class could have Legendary weapon proficiency without being Fighter 2 (was Gunslinger ever confirmed to be keeping Legendary in guns?), I would still be down for it if the mechanics make sense. Artificially limiting the options for a class because it's part of another classes "identity" is silly, especially when it's a mechanical feature. Witches and Summoners making total sense to be flexible thematically and in universe.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

In regards to the Legendary Armor & Weapons; a lot of people have been voicing their desire to see the Warlord get Legendary Armor. Personally, I'd actually be completely okay with them receiving both, but maybe have incredibly poor Saving Throws that they balance out by utilizing a series of temporary self-buffs or buffing their comrades in order to protect their weaker defenses. Granted, I know that won't happen, but I my head, the Warlord is the more battlefield experienced of the two compared to say a Fighter or Champion. They are a veteran of war and, to me, probably know their way around a sword and suit of plate armor better than most.

That's just an idea though. Regardless of how they do it, the Warlord isn't taking anything away from either Class that actually gives them their identity.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I mean, I think you do have to be careful with that kind of thing, especially since class feature budgets are tight.

But the reason the Playtest Gunslinger had a problem wasn't that it made the fighter LESS SPECIAL, but because it lacked features that made it stand out mechanically.

That's not really true in this example though. The Sorcerer and Summoner and Witch all pull in pretty different directions... Like, honestly the Witch has more in common with the Wizard and the Sorcerer has more in common with the Oracle than either do with each other.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So, wait. Does that mean the monk is making the champion less special then, or is the champion impinging on the monk's turf? They both get legendary in their defenses. Sure monks don't have armor, but you can fix that with Sentinel, and nothing's stopping champions fighting in their pajamas.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Perpdepog wrote:
So, wait. Does that mean the monk is making the champion less special then, or is the champion impinging on the monk's turf? They both get legendary in their defenses. Sure monks don't have armor, but you can fix that with Sentinel, and nothing's stopping champions fighting in their pajamas.

For some reason, this comment really evoked Bananas in Pajamas; and I now have unbridled desire to make a Banana Fruit Leshy Champion of Green Men, who is partnered with a Vanara Monk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I could make the same argument by stating X new class having Legendary in Weapons/Armor doesn't take away from the Fighter or Champion having it

Well if you want to make that argument, go ahead.

Quote:
It's not spiteful, it's niche protection.
Niche protection isn't inherently a good thing though. It's only valuable if it serves some compelling purpose for the rest of the game. Just making one person feel more special at the expense of someone else doesn't accomplish that.

I have. And it has been met with vehement disagreement, stating that Legendary Weapons/Armor is a defining feature of those classes, and that giving them to other classes hurts their identity in a negative way. In that same vein, a Sorcerer having the capacity to select their tradition is something that the other classes previously could not have done, similar to how no other classes could acquire Legendary Weapons/Armor, and still can't to this day. It was a niche benefit specific to those classes.

It's a thing that Paizo has put forth with the restrictions of proficiencies, spellcasting, features, etc. for multiclassing or archetyping. In that sense, Paizo found it valuable, especially because power gamers found it valuable. It's why weapon/armor multiclassing can't exceed Expert and while spellcasting multiclassing can't exceed Master.

301 to 350 of 749 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Save the Date for a New Pathfinder Class Playtest! All Messageboards