|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the big draws to Pathfinder for me were the huge number of classes. I understand that many of them won't be included immediately in the first release of Second Edition, but classes like Gunslinger and Witch are all but part of the lore of Golarion, so will have to turn up eventually. What about more obscure classes, like Skalds, Psychics, etc? Is it likely they'll transfer into the new edition at all? If so, what kind of thing would you like to see changed about any of the Base/Hybrid/Occult classes that haven't been added to 2e yet should they eventually get put in? Will there even be a demand to?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, I hope they just skip redundant classes
Gunslinger? Ok, we need this. Alchemist? We need this.
Skald?
Make it a Bard archetype
Swashbuckler?
make it a Fighter archetype
I kinda assumed that elements of the hybrid classes would be incorporated into the base classes. I maybe wrong.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want my occult classes/psychic magic and I don't want to have to wait years like the first time. I also want oracle, summoner, and witch.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As long as additional classes don't become stronger than the base classes, I'm good with it. But the Advanced Class Guide and Occult Adventures made a lot of the base classes virtually obsolete if you play to create simply on a power paradigm.
As long as things are balanced backwardly instead if just within themselves, I wouldn't be upset if ever single existing class were recreated at some point.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the move to many class features being 'class specific feats' may make hybrid classes sort of unnecessary, if they offer ways to pick up limited class feats from another class. Then you can sort of roll your own hybrid classes organically.
|
|
I think the move to many class features being 'class specific feats' may make hybrid classes sort of unnecessary, if they offer ways to pick up limited class feats from another class. Then you can sort of roll your own hybrid classes organically.
Archetypes and/or prestige classes kinda did this before hybrid classes were a thing. So I basically agree with you.
Things that the hybrid classes created that I'd like to see included in the new system (at least at some point)
Grit/Panache system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are a lot of classes I'd like to see, but the only I consider really high priority (and am surprised didn't make it into core) is the Oracle. Everything else... I can wait a few books in. I'm sure we'll see 2E versions of most, if not all of them.
The only class I hope doesn't make a comeback is the Gunslinger. This class has exactly one reason to exist: giving dex-to-damage with firearms. Literally everything else can be approximated with feats. This is an insufficient niche for an entire class, in my view. Firearms support should be via feats and archetypes; a specific class for it is unnecessary.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a lot of classes I'd like to see, but the only I consider really high priority (and am surprised didn't make it into core) is the Oracle. Everything else... I can wait a few books in. I'm sure we'll see 2E versions of most, if not all of them.
The only class I hope doesn't make a comeback is the Gunslinger. This class has exactly one reason to exist: giving dex-to-damage with firearms. Literally everything else can be approximated with feats. This is an insufficient niche for an entire class, in my view. Firearms support should be via feats and archetypes; a specific class for it is unnecessary.
Agreed. But if they do support firearms in PF2, it should be in the CRB, and if so, they should rework one of two mechanics:
1) Either Touch AC needs to be revised so that it scales similarly to AC as CR increases, instead of decreases because high CR creatures are often the larger creatures and thus really bad Touch ACs.
- or -
2) Firearms should have a different mechanic than just going after touch AC. I'm not sure what that would be without also changing how Armor works right now. But Touch AC was really a bad idea for this.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don´t think the Hybrid classes are necessary if, from the ground up, you let people play a bard who is skaldish (for example).
I would like to see a lot of the Occult classes show up really early, in particular the Occultist and the Kineticist which fill thematic niches not seen in the core classes. I would not be sad to see the Summoner replaces entirely with a second pass at the Spiritualist too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
2) Firearms should have a different mechanic than just going after touch AC. I'm not sure what that would be without also changing how Armor works right now. But Touch AC was really a bad idea for this.
I can definitely get behind this.
I have a lot of problems with the way guns work. Completely ignoring armor is near the top of the list, but I also dislike how the huge amount of investment necessary to make them work means you have to be completely dedicated to firearms. No "shoot once at the start of battle, then draw a melee weapon" (which is the combat style of the classic musketeer or swashbuckler), it's all cowboy-style rapid fire.
Anyways, I doubt firearms will appear in core (they've always been a peripheral of the Pathfinder system) but when they do show up in 2E I hope they're completely revisited from the ground up.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm more a fan of Base Classes and no Archteypes (or Kits, or PrCs) -- but I trust Paizo, and our upcoming Playtest, to get it right.
I would like to see more than 12 Classes in the first book -- and if they're adding Alchemist to get to 12, maybe they can add a few others.
If they did Core classes right then we shouldn't need base classes.
Especially if there is only 4 spell lists: Alchemical, Arcane, Divine (Theistic, and Divine (Natural) I Imagine.
Witches may simply be an archetype of wizards, cavaliers may be part of paladins, rogues might just consume slayers, oracles may be an archetype of sorcerers that just switch spell lists, investigators might just be a different alchemist, etc.
We'll have to wait and see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like to see a do over with the Shifter to make it a true martial master of shapeshifting. Being restricted to the core classes plus alchemist is the biggest hurdle for my group in terms of 2e. How fast they introduce all of the other classes will have a big impact on whether we make the move anytime soon.
There are a lot of classes I'd like to see, but the only I consider really high priority (and am surprised didn't make it into core) is the Oracle. Everything else... I can wait a few books in. I'm sure we'll see 2E versions of most, if not all of them.
The only class I hope doesn't make a comeback is the Gunslinger. This class has exactly one reason to exist: giving dex-to-damage with firearms. Literally everything else can be approximated with feats. This is an insufficient niche for an entire class, in my view. Firearms support should be via feats and archetypes; a specific class for it is unnecessary.
Agreed. But if they do support firearms in PF2, it should be in the CRB, and if so, they should rework one of two mechanics:
1) Either Touch AC needs to be revised so that it scales similarly to AC as CR increases, instead of decreases because high CR creatures are often the larger creatures and thus really bad Touch ACs.
- or -
2) Firearms should have a different mechanic than just going after touch AC. I'm not sure what that would be without also changing how Armor works right now. But Touch AC was really a bad idea for this.
I kind of suspect we wind up seeing AC's similar to how starfinder does them. Physical AC and energy AC.
I kind of suspect we wind up seeing AC's similar to how starfinder does them. Physical AC and energy AC.There are a lot of classes I'd like to see, but the only I consider really high priority (and am surprised didn't make it into core) is the Oracle. Everything else... I can wait a few books in. I'm sure we'll see 2E versions of most, if not all of them.
The only class I hope doesn't make a comeback is the Gunslinger. This class has exactly one reason to exist: giving dex-to-damage with firearms. Literally everything else can be approximated with feats. This is an insufficient niche for an entire class, in my view. Firearms support should be via feats and archetypes; a specific class for it is unnecessary.
Agreed. But if they do support firearms in PF2, it should be in the CRB, and if so, they should rework one of two mechanics:
1) Either Touch AC needs to be revised so that it scales similarly to AC as CR increases, instead of decreases because high CR creatures are often the larger creatures and thus really bad Touch ACs.
- or -
2) Firearms should have a different mechanic than just going after touch AC. I'm not sure what that would be without also changing how Armor works right now. But Touch AC was really a bad idea for this.
I think they should have enchanting armor give a deflection bonus (or something new and similar to go with rings of protection, but they might make it deflection because they said they don't want mandatory equipment) instead of increasing the armor bonus so it applies to touch AC.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vigilante should become an universal archetype that every class can take. After all, now we have vigilante archetypes emulating almost every class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depending on how they deal with vancian casting in this one I could see making the wizard more like the Arcanist and rolling the Kineticist into the sorcerer. That would much better differentiate the sorcerer than it is now and it would feel like it was a true direct channeler of magic while the wizard was the master of spells.
Rolling the witch and maybe even the psychic into wizard options and the Oracle into cleric options makes a lot of sense to me.
If they provide that much potential variety to each class it makes me excited to see what they might do with the alchemist.
Vigilante should become an universal archetype that every class can take. After all, now we have vigilante archetypes emulating almost every class.
I'm guessing it would make a pretty good background.
Some things covered by hybrid classes could be incorporated into the new feat trees they mentioned. Vigilante could certainly function like this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather the slayer just backstab the PF1e rogue class and take it's place as the new Dread Pirate Rogue. PF2e rogues should really be full BAB martials.
|
|
Depending on how they deal with vancian casting in this one I could see making the wizard more like the Arcanist and rolling the Kineticist into the sorcerer. That would much better differentiate the sorcerer than it is now and it would feel like it was a true direct channeler of magic while the wizard was the master of spells.
Rolling the witch and maybe even the psychic into wizard options and the Oracle into cleric options makes a lot of sense to me.
If they provide that much potential variety to each class it makes me excited to see what they might do with the alchemist.
Please get a job with Paizo. This is exactly what I wanna see happen.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the move to many class features being 'class specific feats' may make hybrid classes sort of unnecessary, if they offer ways to pick up limited class feats from another class. Then you can sort of roll your own hybrid classes organically.Archetypes and/or prestige classes kinda did this before hybrid classes were a thing. So I basically agree with you.
Things that the hybrid classes created that I'd like to see included in the new system (at least at some point)
Grit/Panache system.
I think I'd like to see a more general and combined cross-class resource. Something that can be used by various class abilities/feats, that would sort of combine Ki, Arcane Pool, Grit, Panache, etc. Make the overall mechanic more fluid between the classes, while still allowing each class to feel unique in the abilities it powers.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Occult classes I'd love to see come back sooner rather than later. They're all classes I like more and more the more understand how they work.
Kineticists flow well, handle blasting without Vancian magic (I love Vancian, but I like it for more sophisticated magic, and it suits less the channelling of raw magic). Occultists are my absolute favourite class and I love every single facet of them. Spiritualists have grown a lot on me too. They encourage a lot of strategies that are usually just passed on because there are better options.
I think some hybrids could fit as archetypes, but not all. Much as I adore Warpriests as holy warriors, the new action economy for PF2 would much better facilitate them as an avenue of options for clerics. Investigators are another matter (also, inspiration is gonna be busted in PF2 in its current form.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be nice to also completely remove the summoner!
It would be nice to also completely remove the summoner!
I mean, every class is someone's favorite class, right? But that class is probably a lot of people's least favorite class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope pretty much all the hybrid classes just get folded into the parent classes. I don't want 40 classes in PF2, I only want those classes that fill good solid distinct niches. Let archetypes and selectable class features carry the load for people who still want to play a "class" that is barely distinct from the core classes, like Witch or Swashbuckler which are easily turned into archetypes.
It would be nice to also completely remove the summoner!I mean, every class is someone's favorite class, right? But that class is probably a lot of people's least favorite class.
I can not even bring myself to play them. He does not fit into the world around him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can not even bring myself to play them. He does not fit into the world around him.It would be nice to also completely remove the summoner!I mean, every class is someone's favorite class, right? But that class is probably a lot of people's least favorite class.
The whole eidolon mechanic would honestly work better as something given to an Artificer class, building a construct companion to spec.
Whereas everything else about the summoner should just be class features a Conjuration specialist Wizard can pick from.
I can not even bring myself to play them. He does not fit into the world around him.
I just banned the class solely because I don't like the fluff. I can deal with the spiritualist since "Ghost Buddy" is reasonable but I don't even like the concept of an Eidolon. Bonding with an outsider to the point where they have access to your soul seems like thing that should be a terrible mistake.
In the Know Direction podcast they said they want to port ALL classes. So all 1e characters can eventually be updated fully.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Boo. im tired of hearing the witch should be a wizard archetype. A witch is an adept in arcane and divine magic. I see the bard this way as well.
I dont need the hybrid classes out the gate, but hope I can make them through multiclassing. Though listening to you lot sounds like y'all want to chuck the idea of classes altogether.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly there are not too many classes I DON'T want see return in some form or fashion. One person's hated class or class they don't consider to be distinct is another person's favorite class, or fills some long-desired concept or flavor.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's examine this on a per-class basis, going by book:
Alchemist: In the corebook.
Cavalier: Very possibly doable with Fighter if animal companions are now a universally available thing with some investment (something that's been implied).
Inquisitor: Okay, this we need, as its own separate thing. Or at least, could really use. A Divine Bard-equivalent with its own flavor is a very good thing to have in the game.
Oracle: Like Inquisitor, this is a neat idea and seems like a unique Class even in the new edition.
Summoner: Yeah, like Inquistor and Oracle, this seems like a needed class.
Witch: They've already said they're gonna do this one, and indeed that it almost made the cut for the corebook.
Magus: This may actually be doable with Wizard alone in the new edition, depending on build and other stuff.
Gunslinger: You can probably do this with Fighter and new gun rules. Still, new gun rules are a good idea.
Ninja: I'd sure hope the new Rogue covers this.
Samurai: See above under Cavalier.
Kineticist: Unique enough to be needed.
Medium: Also unique enough to be needed.
Mesmerist: Ditto.
Occultist: And again.
Psychic: And yet again.
Spiritualist: Maybe could be merged with Summoner, depending.
Vigilante: As others note, an Archetype for this (since they seem to be going for class-neutral archetypes) might work well. Or a background.
Arcanist: You could definitely do this, but I'm not sure it's a priority given the existence of Wizard and Sorcerer.
Bloodrager: Could be a Barbarian variant thing, but making it its own Class would also work.
Brawler: Hopefully covered by Monk or Fighter. Or both.
Hunter: Like Inquisitor, there seems a niche for a 6-level (or 7-level given the new 10 spell levels) nature-y caster, but if animal companions are more available in general a different focus might be needed.
Investigator: I'd love to see a new version of this, but Alchemist and Rogue may well have it covered this edition, we'll need to see.
Shaman: Unique and weird. Probably worth converting in some form.
Skald: Probably doable conceptually with Bard. I'd hope so anyway.
Slayer: Given that BAB is much less of a thing and Fighter gets more skill options, it seems very likely that some combination of Fighter, Rogue, and Ranger covers this.
Swashbuckler: Hopefully already covered by Fighter, and maybe Rogue.
Warpriest: Probably covered by Cleric and Inquisitor, to be honest.
Shifter: No idea. May or may not be covered by stuff like Ranger.
So, that leaves the following non-Psychic classes in real need of conversion, IMO:
Inquisitor
Oracle
Summoner
Witch
Hunter (or something like it...maybe combine with Shifter?)
Shaman
And then maybe Bloodrager and Arcanist. Maybe Magus or Investigator if you can't do them as well as I expect with corebook Classes.
That's one book's worth of Classes.
So, assuming a new APG equivalent with 6-8 Classes plus gun rules, and then a new Occult Adventures for the Psychic stuff, we might easily have all the old classes we really need in two books or so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be nice to also completely remove the summoner!I mean, every class is someone's favorite class, right? But that class is probably a lot of people's least favorite class.
The Summoner is an extremely cool class, but the problem was he got about 50% more class features than he should have. The eidolon as a super-companion, the amazing Summon Monster SLA, and the pseudo-9-level casting are all individually fine class features and I don't feel any of them were inherently overpowered (although all are very strong), but the combination of all three on a single character was just too much. I don't feel that the Unchained Summoner really addressed this problem, either; it's a bit weaker due to its diminished spell list and more restricted eidolon, but it fundamentally has the same problems as the original summoner design: too many class features, and too many daily resources. With that said, the Summoner is much more balanced at higher levels, but that doesn't change the fact that it was problematic at the levels most people played at.
Now, just because the Summoner was too much for a single class doesn't mean it wasn't really fricken cool. In fact, it was really cool precisely because it got so many interesting and potent class features. Exactly what the solution is remains to be seen. Splitting it into two sister classes (maybe one that focuses on the eidolon and one that focuses on the summon monster ability) would be an option, or maybe it will fit in better in the PF2E balance. It remains to be seen, but there's a lot of cool stuff there and I do hope it finds its way, one way or another, to 2nd edition at some point in the future.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Splitting theit summoner in two different classes, or having to choose between eidolon or summon monster seems like a good idea. A character shouldn't be a pokemon trainer AND a digidestined at the same time.
Personally I want to see most(if not all) of the 1e classes come back I would love to call them all base classes or even core classes. Tired of the different classifications and treatment of the subtypes of classes.