As someone else stated, I think they HAVE to reprint all the core classes...otherwise they risk alienating fans of the excluded class.
I would say the real question is what classes need to introduced ASAP back into Pathfinder. Alchemist is obviously taken care of, and I would say Witch, Oracle, Gunslinger simply for how important they are to the setting.
All of the APG classes are pretty good choices to make come backs ASAP, as well as the Magus and Kineticist. They've mentioned some ideas for the Occultist; I wouldn't mind seeing them. Although perhaps care over speed with reintroducing psychic casting,
Gunslinger I'm almost hoping they make an archetype at first, and maybe backpedal into it being a full class if that seems wise. Vigilantes as well.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like witch too but i'd really like to see their spell list lose heal spells and have their healing be related to class abilities in order to keep more separation between arcane/divine.
The thing I love most about Bards and witches is their adept status blurring the line between arcane and divine. I could probably live with healing being hex only but id want to see arcane and divine spells on the list.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
{. . .}
So, what other classes absolutely should be promoted to Pathfinder 2E core?Better question, what to remove from core? I'd remove ranger, prestige classes, maybe sorceror (I want them to make sorceror significantly DIFFERENT from wizard, not just a spontenously casting wizard).
{. . .}
I wouldn't want to remove all prestige classes (sure, some of them are redundant or otherwise better made into archetypes or even base classes). I would want to remove Paladin/Antipaladin as base classes, and then reintroduce them as prestige classes, like Kirthfinder does (and like D&D 3.5 Unearthed Arcana had an option for), and then do the same for Inquisitor -- I have nothing against the base class mechanics, but having religions or philosophies trust some random 1st level person off the street to be their holy champion or behind-the-scenes, above-the-law Divine Troubleshooter just doesn't seem very safe -- characters getting into such positions should have to prove themselves for several levels first.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the 'non-core' classes (witch, inquisitor, alchemist, cavalier, swashbuckler, slayer, usw) are some of the best things that Paizo has ever come up with and I'd be very sorry for them to be dropped from PF2. (I personally don't have a lot of time for the gunslinger, but without its success we'd never have had the swashbuckler so there's that.)
For the martial classes, one option would be for their features to be add-ons (via class feats) to the fighter class, so you could take banner, study target, or deeds using that mechanism.
Might not be so easy to do something equivalent for the magic classes - inquisitors and oracles aren't just modifications of the cleric class, they're complete rebuilds.
Witch is, I think, third most popular non core, after Alchemist and oracle.
They do not necessarily need to bring back very many 'classes' into the game - they need to bring back the concepts the various classes allowed. If cavalier, warpriest, samurai, and paladin could all be done with once 'champion' class, varied simply by the oath/code, and the specific powers granted by that oath/code, then they don't need to be different classes.
Similarly, if there was the ability to devote a wizards studies to witchcraft instead of rote dedication to a particular school of arcane magic, then do we need a witch class?
What if instead of choosing a deity to worship, a cleric chose a 'mystery'?
They do not necessarily need to bring back very many 'classes' into the game - they need to bring back the concepts the various classes allowed. If cavalier, warpriest, samurai, and paladin could all be done with once 'champion' class, varied simply by the oath/code, and the specific powers granted by that oath/code, then they don't need to be different classes.
Similarly, if there was the ability to devote a wizards studies to witchcraft instead of rote dedication to a particular school of arcane magic, then do we need a witch class?
What if instead of choosing a deity to worship, a cleric chose a 'mystery'?
I understand and agree to a certain extent, but I think that might bring us a little too close to a "point buy" system without actually ditching classes altogether. I mean, in a point buy there are no classes, just abilities that you can purchase, with many of them have prerequisites so you have to build a "class". And that's a fun way of doing things, but I would prefer they either go full point buy (which won't happen) or stick with more solid classes and use archetypes to introduce modularity and classes to introduce new flavors.
They do not necessarily need to bring back very many 'classes' into the game - they need to bring back the concepts the various classes allowed. If cavalier, warpriest, samurai, and paladin could all be done with once 'champion' class, varied simply by the oath/code, and the specific powers granted by that oath/code, then they don't need to be different classes.
Similarly, if there was the ability to devote a wizards studies to witchcraft instead of rote dedication to a particular school of arcane magic, then do we need a witch class?
What if instead of choosing a deity to worship, a cleric chose a 'mystery'?
No thanks. I want the core to be as strong as they can make it. After that, I want it opened up with unique systems and classes. I know bloat bells are going off, but I want an expanded system and everything that comes with it.
No thanks. I want the core to be as strong as they can make it. After that, I want it opened up with unique systems and classes. I know bloat bells are going off, but I want an expanded system and everything that comes with it.They do not necessarily need to bring back very many 'classes' into the game - they need to bring back the concepts the various classes allowed. If cavalier, warpriest, samurai, and paladin could all be done with once 'champion' class, varied simply by the oath/code, and the specific powers granted by that oath/code, then they don't need to be different classes.
Similarly, if there was the ability to devote a wizards studies to witchcraft instead of rote dedication to a particular school of arcane magic, then do we need a witch class?
What if instead of choosing a deity to worship, a cleric chose a 'mystery'?
Having the choice of wizard school (to include various forms of witchcraft, for instance) more open actually builds MORE versatility in to the base class, As that key choice becomes the building point for a wide variety of options in further products. What really is the difference between a witch and a wizard, mechanically, in pf1? All it would take is to roll those things that are different into aspects of the class option instead of a different class.
essentially, it's not a 'point buy' system, it's a class-subclass system. Ultimately, you could have the 'wizard' class have a large variety of subclasses, extending into witchcraft, psionics, occult, etc - because the 'core' part of the class is essentially the advancement table and the spell slots. If the other bits are built from the choice of subclass, and the class feats, than it still gets everything we've got now, but provides some 'easier' additions down the road - instead of later books having to develop entire new classes, they build new additions to the already relatively mature and simple base class. This is a bit more than archetypes, and less than full new classes.
Having the choice of wizard school (to include various forms of witchcraft, for instance) more open actually builds MORE versatility in to the base class, As that key choice becomes the building point for a wide variety of options in further products. What really is the difference between a witch and a wizard, mechanically, in pf1? All it would take is to roll those things that are different into aspects of the class option instead of a different class.No thanks. I want the core to be as strong as they can make it. After that, I want it opened up with unique systems and classes. I know bloat bells are going off, but I want an expanded system and everything that comes with it.They do not necessarily need to bring back very many 'classes' into the game - they need to bring back the concepts the various classes allowed. If cavalier, warpriest, samurai, and paladin could all be done with once 'champion' class, varied simply by the oath/code, and the specific powers granted by that oath/code, then they don't need to be different classes.
Similarly, if there was the ability to devote a wizards studies to witchcraft instead of rote dedication to a particular school of arcane magic, then do we need a witch class?
What if instead of choosing a deity to worship, a cleric chose a 'mystery'?
The difference is the witch is an adept arcane and divine caster. Please dont box them into wizard. Sub-classes or archetypes, what have you, help add depth to their base class. However, sub-classing/archetype cant always create the differentiation of a separate class with its own features as a base class.
This is also the reason I dislike hybrid multi-classing. It can help twist the flavor of a class, but doesn't give the feel of a unique identity.
Having the choice of wizard school (to include various forms of witchcraft, for instance) more open actually builds MORE versatility in to the base class, As that key choice becomes the building point for a wide variety of options in further products. What really is the difference between a witch and a wizard, mechanically, in pf1? All it would take is to roll those things that are different into aspects of the class option instead of a different class.The difference is the witch is an adept arcane and divine caster. Please dont box them into wizard. Sub-classes or archetypes, what have you, help add depth to their base class. However, sub-classing/archetype cant always create the differentiation of a separate class with its own features as a base class.
This is also the reason I dislike hybrid multi-classing. It can help twist the flavor of a class, but doesn't give the feel of a unique identity.
PF1 witches are 100% arcane casters. And the mechanics and flavor should be very easy to divorce, especially with half the flavor coming from the subclass. I mean, nearly 100% of the class-based flavor in clerics comes from the 'subclass' decision, so why would that not be true of other true subclass options?
100% arcane with cure light on their spell list among others? I dont know how else to say it other than I dont want a wizard flavored witch.
We are not talking D&D witch we are talking PF witch. In PF1 the witch is more like a prepared casting bard than a wizard. Id like to maintain that uniqueness.
Time Thief from super genius games/rogue genius games/whatever the hell they're calling themselves nowadays: hands down the coolest class ever written, and even 'tho it's 3rd party, Paizo should include it in the core book because of it's sheer awesomeness.
But seriously, of all the actual Paizo classes I'd like to see Oracle, Witch, and Vigilante added in that order. And if the Bard had to be sacrificed to make room for one of them, I'd be ok with that.
We are not talking D&D witch we are talking PF witch.I know, and I think it feels like a wizard variant, easily taken care of without a separate class.
Id maybe agree on a bard variant, and even then I want a full class.
{. . .} What if instead of choosing a deity to worship, a cleric chose a 'mystery'?I understand and agree to a certain extent, but I think that might bring us a little too close to a "point buy" system without actually ditching classes altogether. I mean, in a point buy there are no classes, just abilities that you can purchase, with many of them have prerequisites so you have to build a "class". And that's a fun way of doing things, but I would prefer they either go full point buy (which won't happen) or stick with more solid classes and use archetypes to introduce modularity and classes to introduce new flavors.
Now you've reminded me that I want Pathfinder 3rd Edition to be an unholy hybrid of Pathfinder 1st Edition with Mutants & Masterminds . . . .
I'd want some of Witch, Shifter, and Hunter for more nature/wilds support. Not Kineticist or Occultist, though, because I don't think there's a chance they'd fit as an addition.
Vigilante feels like something they could do with feats or a class agnostic archetype though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remove the Wizard and replace it with the Silksworn Occultist.
I'm only half-joking.
We are not talking D&D witch we are talking PF witch. In PF1 the witch is more like a prepared casting bard than a wizard. Id like to maintain that uniqueness.
Classes define mechanics - Players define flavor. What mechanics are different between a witch and a wizard? How do those minor differences warrant a separate class, when the system can work better with them combined?
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Classes define mechanics - Players define flavor. What mechanics are different between a witch and a wizard? How do those minor differences warrant a separate class, when the system can work better with them combined?
Uh...are you serious? The two Classes are both Int based prepared casters (so they have the same number of skill points, BAB, and HD). Both can have a Familiar.
I have just listed the entirety of their mechanical similarities. The Spell Lists are different, Witches store and gain spells differently, and the Witch's Class Features are entirely different.
Saying the two are the same is basically just ignoring most of what makes both Classes actually tick. It's like saying a Barbarian and a Swashbuckler are the same because both are martial Classes with Full BAB and 4 + Int Skill Points.
.
.
.
Now, on the main topic, the people at Paizo have said that they understand that people may feel slighted if their favorite Class is reduced to an Archetype, so that's almost certainly not happening to the really popular Classes (and Oracles and Witches, in that order, are right behind Alchemists for most popular non-corebook Class).
Less popular Classes that are well suited to the Archetype treatment are most Hybrid Classes (maybe with the exception of Investigator and Shaman which do some odd and unique stuff) and those that either have lots of Archetypes duplicating them (like Gunslinger), or lots of Archetypes making them duplicate other Classes (like Vigilante).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
^And remember that Witches are closer to the weight range occupied by ducks than that occupied by Wizards. . . .
|
Still looks and plays like a wizard variant, hexes and storage/gaining of spells are really not enough to hang a new class on, from what I see. I was gonna convert the PF1 Witch to 5th Ed, but it screams to be a subclass.Classes define mechanics - Players define flavor. What mechanics are different between a witch and a wizard? How do those minor differences warrant a separate class, when the system can work better with them combined?Uh...are you serious? The two Classes are both Int based prepared casters (so they have the same number of skill points, BAB, and HD). Both can have a Familiar.
I have just listed the entirety of their mechanical similarities. The Spell Lists are different, Witches store and gain spells differently, and the Witch's Class Features are entirely different.
By your logic we should just have a "Spellcaster" class that covers every full caster and they can choose any of the class features of those classes.
^Funny you should mention that: D&D 3.x Unearthed Arcana had a simplified class system in which the only 3 classes were Warrior, Expert, and Adept, and then you added options to build sort-of equivalents to the standard classes. Never seems to have caught on, though.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still looks and plays like a wizard variant, hexes and storage/gaining of spells are really not enough to hang a new class on, from what I see. I was gonna convert the PF1 Witch to 5th Ed, but it screams to be a subclass.
Have you ever actually played a Witch or seen one played over a significant time frame? I have done so a few times (the Witch in my RoW is about to hit 9th level having started at 1st, and I've seen them played into the teens). I ask this as a serious question, because, despite looking similar at first glance, they play so differently from just about any other primary caster that it's difficult to even compare them.
The style of play and how they actually function are more profoundly different than Druid and Cleric (to pick an example of two Classes that are distinctly different in both Pathfinder and 5E despite the same superficial similarities as Wizard and Witch). And indeed, in many ways, more similar to a caster Druid than to a Wizard (though they aren't really similar to either). If I was to suggest they be made an Archetype, it wouldn't be of Wizard, but one of the several other Classes they play closer to (not that any are very close).
The spell list is an interesting a specific thing, and both very thematic, while being flexible in some ways (healing and Baleful Polymorph on the same list) but sharply limited in others (a Witch's crowd control options are sharply limited, for example). And that's just the spell list, which is not the most major aspect, that's the Hexes themselves.
The Witch's Hex emphasis profoundly alters their interaction with the rest of the game world more than almost any other non-spell Class Feature that exists, and does so in a way that makes trying to insert them as a Wizard Archetype almost certainly either profoundly overpowered, deeply unsatisfying, or both. Because Hexes are at-will abilities that are often as powerful as your best spells, just often with very narrow application, and that creates such a different dynamic with their spells, when to use them, and how they work, that it bears almost no real resemblance to playing a Wizard.
If that dynamic is maintained (which it should be, it's the heart of the Class mechanically) then adding it to a Wizard is gonna make them overpowered almost no matter what they give up. You need a less offensive spell list to have the dynamic work, and frankly once you've changed the list and replaced the Class Features it's a new Class and you might as well label it as such.
|
|
Yes, and I do not agree with your assertions/list/reasonings, no big deal, we just disagree, I am fine with a witch class, or not. Easily taken care of with an archetype, subclass, and what-not.
Fair enough, I suppose.
As for what they're gonna do with it, like I said in my first post, this is sort of academic in terms of Witch. They've noted that Witch almost made the cut as a new core class and that they're aware people get annoyed when their favorite Classes get changed into archetypes. Oracle and Witch, as the two most popular PF1 Classes not showing up in the Core, are pretty much certainly gonna show up as full Classes eventually.
Everything past that is more debatable, though the Occult Classes are weird enough that they seem likely to be their own thing when they show up.
Actually, the Occultist is a another that I feel reasonably sure will be its own class again. They have mentioned that it inspired the whole Resonance thing, and if they make the Occultist it would be the master of Resonance.
^Funny you should mention that: D&D 3.x Unearthed Arcana had a simplified class system in which the only 3 classes were Warrior, Expert, and Adept, and then you added options to build sort-of equivalents to the standard classes. Never seems to have caught on, though.
Yeah, that could go somewhere, but even then, could crunch down to 2 classes (non-magic & magic).
I am not advocating this, just musing.
OR just one, and you pick as much magic /skill/weapon training as you want. Skyrim does this.
It is not what I would like for PF, but it can be done
Pretty sure Occultist could just be bard sub-class in new system.
I think a lot of the "witch can't be a wizard" comments are not thinking of things in the context of what we already know about pf2e, and how it differs from pf1e. For starters, hexes, if they are going to still be at will in pf2e, fit perfectly with the new scaling cantrip system. Clerical domains in pf2e have already shown to add spells to the character's spell list, as opposed to pf1e's domain slots. As such, there's no reason that the various witchcraft schools (and specialist schools, for that matter) could not do the same. It could be designed that the most signature illusion spells, for instance, are only available to wizards who have specialized in the illusion school. Conversely, a witch of the healing specialty could have heal, restoration, etc on theirs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We get it with this system you can boil the game down to fighting man and magic user.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty sure Occultist could just be bard sub-class in new system.
They've already strongly implied that's not how they'd do that. Occultist is apparently a Class they're interested in converting over in its own right.
I think a lot of the "witch can't be a wizard" comments are not thinking of things in the context of what we already know about pf2e, and how it differs from pf1e.
No, I've thought about it.
For starters, hexes, if they are going to still be at will in pf2e, fit perfectly with the new scaling cantrip system.
Not really very well. I mean, they might well count as cantrips for mechanical ease, but they sort of definitionally need to be way more powerful than other people's cantrips are shaping up to be or people who like the Witch will feel cheated.
Clerical domains in pf2e have already shown to add spells to the character's spell list, as opposed to pf1e's domain slots. As such, there's no reason that the various witchcraft schools (and specialist schools, for that matter) could not do the same.
I'd be shocked if Patron didn't do exactly this, but replacing 1/2 to 2/3 of the Spell List is a bit beyond such a thing.
It could be designed that the most signature illusion spells, for instance, are only available to wizards who have specialized in the illusion school. Conversely, a witch of the healing specialty could have heal, restoration, etc on theirs.
This is theoretically doable, but from what they've already said about spell lists clearly not how they're doing them for Wizard, so it's a bit of a non-starter in that regard.
I think the classes listed are about right for the core rulebook.
However I am hopefull that a number of PF1 classes can be built using the many options that exist in 2nd edition. For example, none of the classes in the Advanced Class Guide classes should be necessary as they should be available through multiclassing existing classes and the character options available (The advanced class guides were designed to be a mix of two existing classes afterall). In a similar vein I would suggest the Gunslinger, Magus, Ninja and Samurai should all be buildable through the core classes rather than needing a seperate class.
After that I think there is probably a need for some of the classes in the Advanced Players Guide to be introduced reasonably soon not just because they are popular but also because they add significant mechanical options beyond the core classes. I'm thinking Witch (Hexes), Cavalier (Teamwork), Oracle (Spontaneous Divine) for example so as to enable adventures to be easily adapted to 2nd edition and bring in classes that offer something new.
Other than that I think the approach to Occult classes should follow the approach used in PF1, namely a seperate book which adds the occult options onto the system in order to ensure all the differences are given sufficient coverage.
|
|
I have been disappointed with class agnostic archetypes in Starfinder so far. Most are just bad. With one or two being good for one class.
They seem much harder to balance.
Starfinder lacks the inherent balancing mechanic of all Classes actually working the same (ie: Class Feats in PF2). It also doesn't do what they say they're gonna do with PF2 Class-Agnostic Archetypes and make them modular (ie: they're a new list of Feats, but you don't need to take them at a specific level or anything, and can take only as many as you want).
Starfinder lacks the inherent balancing mechanic of all Classes actually working the same (ie: Class Feats in PF2). It also doesn't do what they say they're gonna do with PF2 Class-Agnostic Archetypes and make them modular (ie: they're a new list of Feats, but you don't need to take them at a specific level or anything, and can take only as many as you want).I have been disappointed with class agnostic archetypes in Starfinder so far. Most are just bad. With one or two being good for one class.
They seem much harder to balance.
This actually makes me pretty hopeful - also, wasn't there something about a pirate archetype somewhere? :D
It makes sense to give pirate-y feats over an archetype to everyone who wants them (also this should make pirate themes campaigns easier)And of course archetypes can be build upon (lets say they re-integrate firearms - a prophiciency feat for 1h-firearms for pirates seems fitting - f***, now I want to play a gunslinging pirate bard)
|
|
The Pirate example seems to have been just that, a hypothetical example. Which doesn't mean there won't be one, of course (there almost certainly will be eventually) but don't be surprised if it's not in the playtest.
And guns and pirates aren't very strongly correlated in Golarion, so I wouldn't expect a pirate archetype to get gun stuff. That said, I'd be shocked if we don't get a class-agnostic gun archetype eventually, and taking both that and the Pirate archetype seems plausible.
Well several at least the Pirate archetype for rogue says that the firearm training rogue trick would work well with the archetype
and if a player argued that their corsair (fighter archetype) should get 1h-firearms additionally i would at least let them bargain with me ;)
I admit it was not as much as I thought I remembered but it should work well together :P