Since we know the starting classes will be the classic 11 + alchemist now can think of what other old classes we would like next.
1)Kineticist
2)Oracle
3)Psychic
4)Shifter
5)Witch
6)Swashbuckler
7)Spiritualist
8)Hunter
9)Mesmerist
10)Summoner
1.Inquisitor
2.Magus
3.Oracle
4.Swashbuckler
5.Gunslinger
6.Investigator
7.Witch
8.Summoner
9.Bloodrager
10.Slayer
see next in what?
1) Arcanist
2) Inquisitor
3) Keneticist
4) Oracle
5) Investigator
6) Summoner
7) Slayer
8) Psychic
9) Witch
10) Magus
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
wooooah
PF2????
OH MY GOD, i missed the news, well i'm glad i randomly logged in today, this news has made my day
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Inquisitor
Oracle
Bloodrager
Occultist
Summoner
..whatever
Although depending on how they go about their base classes and archetypes, maybe none will be necessary.
Like if rogue is full BAB that's a slayer, new action economy could subsume practically all that is unique in swashbuckler, and new gun rules maybe won't need a dedicated class (i think eric mona mention it will be a class but nevermind now). Even all of the those I mentioned could be archetypes (ok, you need a 3/4 bab 6th lvl divine casting class, as that is not present in the core).
1. Oracle
2. Inquisitor
3. Witch
4. Kineticist
5. Harrowed Medium
6. Occultist
7. Spiritualist
8. Mesmerist
9. Bloodrager
10. Arcanist
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Gunslinger
2. Inquisitor
3. Witch
4. Investigator.
5. New classes that no one here has thought of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Inquisitor
Oracle
Bloodrager
Occultist
Summoner
..whateverAlthough depending on how they go about their base classes and archetypes, maybe none will be necessary.
Like if rogue is full BAB that's a slayer, new action economy could subsume practically all that is unique in swashbuckler, and new gun rules maybe won't need a dedicated class (i think eric mona mention it will be a class but nevermind now). Even all of the those I mentioned could be archetypes (ok, you need a 3/4 bab 6th lvl divine casting class, as that is not present in the core).
Yeah, I agree that it’s classes which are hardest to do as archetypes/another class that are most pressing.
So the Kineticist isn’t remotely like any other class, and so is a natural candidate.
Likewise, the Occultist works very differently from any existing class, and so is another natural candidate.
Ditto for something like the Harrowed Medium.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm hoping that new classes get introduced according to type and subgenre/theme so it's easier to ban stuff to preserve flavor. A gaslight book of advancing technology would have Cavalier, Gunslinger, Psychic, Mesmerist, Brawler, Vigilante for example.
I think Cavalier wouldn't quite fit in with advancing tech, though. Investigator would be a better choice in that regard, I think. Anyway...
1: Kineticist
2: SHIFTER
3: Summoner (but please don't restrict eidolons to outsider types, with such limited options. The build-your-own monster bit from the original was awesome)
4: Investigator
5: Mesmerist
6: Warpriest
7: Gunslinger
8: Witch
9: Brawler
10: Arcanist
Witch
Inquisitor
Bloodrager
Oracle
Summoner
That's what I'd like to see first. I suspect that some of the non-core/prestige classes might be covered by the archetype system (like how the Rogue has the Eldritch Scoundrel archetype in PF1).
1. Arcanist
2. Magus
3. Gunslinger
4. Hunter
5. Bloodrager
6. Psychic
7. Summoner
8. Inquisitor
9. Warpriest
10. Cavalier (With samurai baked in!)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) Stuff I can't build with the new archetypes system.
2) Stuff that shows off the new system, or that works better because of it.
3) Stuff nobody's thought of yet.
1. Summoner (Unchained-style)
2. Mesmerist
3. Kineticist
4. Bloodrager
5. Witch
---
6. Oracle
7. Psychic
8. Shifter
9. Spiritualist
10. Occultist
After the divider, I don't care too much. At that point, I'm happy enough just getting new classes at that point.
Flavorful and Upgraded
1.) Samurai
2.) Ninja
Plus what Mathias W said.
1) Oracle
2) Occcultist
3) Kineticist
4) Bloodrager
5) Inquisitor
6) Spiritualist
7) Witch
8) Magus
9) Shifter
10) Medium
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Witch.
Everything else.
magus
What about something entirely new?
Not entirely new but I wouldn't mind Technomancers becoming a base class, and Solarians from Starfinder making their way over.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reserving judgement for after the playtest rules. For example I love the swashbuckler and Magus, but if the former is easy to express as a fighter/rogue and the later as a Wizard/fighter from the jump then I’m less concerned.
I’d prefer to see concepts that are difficult to mechanically express with core classes.
So the Kineticist might very well be at the top of my list as an at-will magical character.
Inquisitor w/ Traceless Operative Archetype
Vigilante w/ Magical Child Archetype
Summoner - not the USummoner hack job.
Oracle
Bloodrager
Harrowed Medium
Kineticist
Oracle
Shifter
Summoner
1. Inquisitor
2. An INT-based divine caster of some kind, religious scholars are a thing and there should be a way to play one effectively without having to bookslap people dorkishly. I mean, I like Living Grimoire as an archetype, it works as a niche thing, I just think it's a little too gimmicky and inflexible for the only way to play an entire character type.
3. Mesmerist
4. A chaotic (ideally) or alignment-versatile (acceptably) paladin pseudo-equivalent so paladins can keep their role
5. Something planar-themed ideally still partial casting that's less of a mess both mechanically and lore-wise than summoners
6. Vigilante if its role isn't shifted to archetypes
7. Hunter/something else between Druid and Ranger in terms of martial/casting
8. Slayer if more combat specialization options aren't baked into rogue
9. Occultist, I haven't played one yet but they look awesome and the rest of my group loves them
10. A partial caster with a bloodline that isn't Eldritch Scion Magus
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are we differentiating between the chained and unchained summoner here? If you're designing the PF2 summoner your starting point will be "a person who summons stuff" and you will go from there, taking into account the mistakes made with both versions.
Bloodrager
Harrowed Medium
Kineticist
Oracle
Shifter
Summoner
I agree on Harrowed Medium, but it seems highly antithetical to the design goals of 2e… otherwise it'd be pretty high on my list. Maybe they'll do some more complex classes once we're a ways in?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd wait and see how do core classes fit into various niches before asking for new stuff.
Yeah pretty much...without knowing what the design space is going to look like under the new rules, we don't know WHAT will be needed and what won't be.
As long as they release a mixture of new content alongside the updates on older content (or at least content that hasn't made it to a hardcover yet), and don't simply rehash the existing books, I will be pretty happy.
Inquisitor
Witch
Slayer
Magus
APG style Summoner
Cavalier with more unmounted archetypes
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Summoner (original one)
2) Spiritualist
3) Hunter
... these are the classes I care for mostly.
On a side note archetypes with ACs/Familiars/... and so on would be welcome too.
I'd wait and see how do core classes fit into various niches before asking for new stuff.Yeah pretty much...without knowing what the design space is going to look like under the new rules, we don't know WHAT will be needed and what won't be.
As long as they release a mixture of new content alongside the updates on older content (or at least content that hasn't made it to a hardcover yet), and don't simply rehash the existing books, I will be pretty happy.
Personally, I see this as more of a 'which particular niches would you most like to see covered?' just using classes instead of spelling out, 'I want to see an at-will magic blaster/master of elements like the kineticist' or 'I want to see a mind-based debuffer that is a master of manipulation and deceit, just like the mesmerist.' I think that most people would be happy to just get something that fills the niche the classes they are putting down sometime soon. That's what I did, anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My personal 'list of classes I care about':
Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Alchemist, Magus, Oracle, Ninja, Arcanist, Brawler.
I'd like to see a spontaneous Magus, and a no-spell Ranger. And for the love of Solus Prime, A VERSION OF THE 4E WARLORD.
That's all the first-party classes I'm interested in.
My main thing is going to be races (or 'ancestries'). Hopefully there'll be something other than the Tolkien Four-plus-three in the main book, if not ASAFP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of the existing classes would work fine as archetypes of core classes, assuming the core classes are built right.
For instance: the Witch. I would build the Wizard such that specialists got ability picks every other level, and could choose from a pool of abilities for those picks (much like Rogue Talents) so that not every Diviner or Enchanter was the same. With the Wizard built in this way, the Witch is just an archetype. They are a Wizard whose familiar and spellbook are the same thing, and instead of picking specialist abilities they pick Witch Hexes.
My personal 'list of classes I care about':
Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Alchemist, Magus, Oracle, Ninja, Arcanist, Brawler.I'd like to see a spontaneous Magus, and a no-spell Ranger. And for the love of Solus Prime, A VERSION OF THE 4E WARLORD.
That's all the first-party classes I'm interested in.
My main thing is going to be races (or 'ancestries'). Hopefully there'll be something other than the Tolkien Four-plus-three in the main book, if not ASAFP.
I would definitely love to see a Warlord, whether as its own class or as a full fledged archetype of the Fighter or Bard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure the plan is to reproduce every Pathfinder 1st edition class as a class in Pathfinder 2, just to make conversions easier, if nothing else. Probably a lot of the classes won't be mechanically extremely similar to their PF1 classes, but they will nonetheless be thematically identical. After all, a Magus is defined more by "It's a Gish" than by Spell Combat. New Summoner is going to have an Eidolon, and Magic, but will likely resemble neither previous version especially closely.
1. Slayer
2. Occultist
3. Oracle
4. Witch
5. Cavalier
6. Inquisitor
7. Kineticist
8. Swashbuckler
9. Magus
10. Shaman
I agree on Harrowed Medium, but it seems highly antithetical to the design goals of 2e… otherwise it'd be pretty high on my list. Maybe they'll do some more complex classes once we're a ways in?Bloodrager
Harrowed Medium
Kineticist
Oracle
Shifter
Summoner
So long as they don't redo the Medium as we got it. At least to me it was not good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I suppose it goes without saying ...
I want multiclassing to actually work, especially since there's no fighter/mage or rogue/mage combo class in the starter book.
And I suppose it goes without saying ...
I want multiclassing to actually work, especially since there's no fighter/mage or rogue/mage combo class in the starter book.
At the very least, something like: When your Wizard starts taking levels in Fighter, you continue to advance your spellcasting (caster level, spell access, etc) by half your levels in the other class. With similar extrapolation to improving the abilities of other classes, like improving a subset of Fighter abilities with half your levels in other classes.
To prevent "cheese" characters with 10 classes, it would probably be necessary to limit this such that the "half your level" bonus can't actually exceed your levels in the actual class. So if you have 5 levels of wizard, your wizard abilities stop improving after 10 levels in another class until such time as you level Wizard itself again.
Even if you can do a reasonable facsimilie with archeypes, I'd still like to see the hunter and inquisitor (and the requisite teamwork feats :)). Also the investigator, the warpriest and the kineticist. Beyond that I'd rather see something new before any other classes redux.
1. Vigilante
2. Gunslinger
3. Shifter
4. Oracle
5. Swashbuckler
6. ???
I guess I only have a top 5, and they were the 5 classes I had the most fun with (or in the Shifter's case, I would just like to see refined in 2e early).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if you can do a reasonable facsimilie with archeypes, I'd still like to see the hunter and inquisitor (and the requisite teamwork feats :)). Also the investigator, the warpriest and the kineticist. Beyond that I'd rather see something new before any other classes redux.
Man, I like the concept of teamwork abilities but the actual execution of them in PF1E was so incredibly awful... especially since many of them were just bad and weak, or only useful in limited situations. I don't want them to be actual feats, I want them to be something that exists outside the feat system. I want there to be a system where a group that adventures together (or trains as soldiers together, or whatever) can start learning synergistic abilities that apply /to the group/. I mean, I guess you could phrase this kind of like feats, but they would be feats taken by a phantom "character" representing the party as a whole.
my top 6 wants, in no particular order
Kineticist, Occultist, Shaman, Shifter, Vigilante, & Slayer