Which Class are you most concerned about? Which is the least you are concerned for?


Prerelease Discussion


I think all the class blogs are out. So which class are you the most concerned about and which the least?

I am most concerned about the poor Fighter. I still worry he can't do anything but chop and hack and slash.

I am least concerned about the rogue. I think the new skill system and the fact the Rogue is the skill master, can be a pretty awesome class.

Who knows if I am right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am pretty much in the same boat as you; the Rogue finally has a powerful niche all her own while I haven't seen anything indicating that the Fighter can solve problems in a way that the Wizard can't even without spending spell slots.


I think the fighter is going to have a pretty interesting combat style from "combos" as discussed in the gauntlet blog. That said, I suspect most of their out-of-combat special utility is going to come from players mastering their "focused" skills (or whatever they are called).

I think fighters can be masters/legends in athletics and intimidation and maybe some third thing. That may give them some pretty neat tricks! That said, wizards are going to get some kind of neat tricks from their mastery of arcana and then get spells as well.

*shrugs* I guess we shall see.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm most concerned about alchemist. The PF1 version was something that I enjoyed very much, and it's changing a lot for the second edition. There's a heavy bias on my part, so I'm trying to distance myself from it and look at it more rationally.

Least concerned about the rogue. Taking a cue from Starfinder's heavy emphasis on skills allowing operators to operate operationally, I think rogues will be fine.


Agreed on fighters. The problem with having a catch-all "this is a class for people who fight good" is that it's too broad to have really any flavor. Unless they wind up giving fighters extra general feats (redeemable for skill feats), as both a callback to 3.x/1e, and as an extra degree of individual specialization, I fear that they'll fall into the same trap.

For the ones I'm least worried about, rogues are up there, but I'd actually say Druids. Druids seem to be the right medium of using subclasses (orders), in that you're rewarded for sticking to a path, but allowed to choose feats from other orders if you want, and you're not tied to one playstyle by your anathema, since you can be nearly as good a wild-shape druid without choosing wild order. With the other subclass-classes we've seen, Barbarian seems too tied to their Totem, and Bard not tied enough to their muse, at least on how they've been presented in the Blogs.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am least concerned about wizards, because "the wizard class is weak" would be a refreshing change and I'm not likely to play one or see any anyway.

I'm kind of most concerned with the ranger because I'm not really sure what the ranger does these days, to be honest; the blog was sort of light on details.


1of1 wrote:

I'm most concerned about alchemist. The PF1 version was something that I enjoyed very much, and it's changing a lot for the second edition. There's a heavy bias on my part, so I'm trying to distance myself from it and look at it more rationally.

Least concerned about the rogue. Taking a cue from Starfinder's heavy emphasis on skills allowing operators to operate operationally, I think rogues will be fine.

I liked PF1 alchemist, but I love what we've seen of the PF2 one, to the point where I'm probably biased in the opposite direction.

While they're probably pretty experimental, from what we've seen at least they look like really good problem solvers. Easy access to AOE elemental damage and persistent elemental damage, along with targeting touch AC makes them really good at abusing weaknesses, something they might be able to spot with those brains of theirs (depending on how knowledge skills work here). Given the ability of an alchemist to turn spare resonance into needed alchemical weapons on the spot I get the impression they'll be able to trivialise any encounters where weakness (or a monster too dumb to use its actions to end persistent damage) comes into play. Their other stuff includes minor buffs and healing that, if used at full health, gives defensive buffs instead. If poison is actually good then an alchemist is going to be very very nasty, esp with a buddy.

Agree that Rogue probably has the least to worry about (allllllllllso, given new resistance and how sneak attack is precision damage, anyone else reckon that some things that would be immune to it are now merely resistant to precision damage? Based on the dogslicer entry I think some things will be weak to it, or there will be general feats that chain off of it).

I think I'm most worried about the monk, because of possible feat gating?


I'm most concerned for barbarians, the addition of roleplaying restrictions to a class that shouldn't have any worries me.

I'm least concerned about wizard, druid cleric and sorcerer, they've had their reign of power, and I'll be surprised if they become terribad all of a sudden.


Spell classes seeming to break the game again. Because of course they will.

And Fighter just being a starting point to get over the 1-5 hump before becoming Spell Caster X cause you can still go to end game spell levels.

Sarcasm aside;

Alchemist. There's not 1 thing I like about reading the new alchemist. And PF1 Alchemist was the class that actually made PF1 FUN for me. It was the class that made things click for me. Kinda stumbled through Paladin and Fighter, Witch a bit. Then I got to Alchemist and just loved all the different things I could build into, out of, around, and all the different character ideas I came up with.

PF2 Alchemist I just see it as a blur of everything and nothing at the same time. I feel my favorite class from PF1 is going to lose everything that made it fun for me to just be this even more modular class that actually has no soul to it. No theme just "Here, have a walking Alchemy Supply Shed".

And at the same time, Alchemist being more tied to the Alchemy stuff is good and great... but this relies on them remembering to keep adding stuff/formulas in future splat books. Could very easily just be forgotten or kicked to the side after the first couple years and all the ACTUAL Spell casters now and martials get to see their stuff buffed but no new items in a book means Alchemist gets kicked further down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:
I'm most concerned for barbarians, the addition of roleplaying restrictions to a class that shouldn't have any worries me.

At least they don't lose their central class abilities by acting lawful.


Moro wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
I'm most concerned for barbarians, the addition of roleplaying restrictions to a class that shouldn't have any worries me.
At least they don't lose their central class abilities by acting lawful.

Heh, challenge accepted

Law: Can't accept challenges of strength, they cause too much disruption to public order.

Random NPC: challenges barbarian to a contest of strength

Barbarian: refuses and falls


I am most worried about the alchemist because of seperation from the spell list. My PF1e alchemist was focused on buffing and utility instead of bombs and mutagens.
I am least worried about wizards druids and bards.


Most Concerned: Alchemist and Monk. Alchemist because they seem heavily nerfed and many of the thing you could do at level 1 you now need feats and can do them at level 7.

Least Concerned: Druid. That pre-review was amazing and I loved the different types you could create, yet the versatility to take parts from all of them. Spellcasters in general.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

A lot of my class worries are about the strength and effectiveness of alchemist. They certainly have versatility, but their staying power and power as a general whole as of our current understanding makes the class feel, lacking to say the least.

For least concerned? I'm probably going to have to go with Barbarian and Druid, with a nod to the rest of the casters.


Most concerned: Wizard and Bard. These are the two classes I want to play the most, and since I haven't seen the full setup, I am nervous that they won't quite come together into something I will enjoy. They have the most room to let me down.

Least concerned: Paladin. I'm not likely to play one regardless of how the mechanics turn out because I don't care for the flavor. Very little room for it to let me down.


For the new edition I'm concerned about the Alchemist. The changes from PF1 presented in the blog make me worry the class has been shouldered with the burden of carrying the new crafting and resonance systems into the new edition. Leaves me wondering which one is the chicken and which is the egg? Also, the spreading out of core abilities worries me. I'd rather Bombs and Mutagen function like specialisations much as we're seeing with Druid orders. Not prevented from mix and matching but start strong on one and benefits for specialising.

In terms of the playtest itself though, I'm concerned about the Paladin. Given the threads that popped up after it's blog I don't think it's going to have balanced feedback which may obscure otherwise meaningful feedback.

Not worried about the Rogue in the slightest. I agree that skill feats is where the Martials, especially Fighters, will get a bit more of an edge in high level play against spellcasters. I think fighters are also likely to get improved usage of the action economy, losing action cost to some key features (like initiating/changing a stance). Combined with how potency works, it does help close the gap.


Most concerned: Fighter. The biggest thing holding the fighter back in pf1 was that they lacked meaningful ways to contribute outside of fighting, and I am not sure if the new skill system is going to help that. I sometimes even wonder if there's even a point to having a class that's only good at fighting, when there are martials like the paladin and ranger who can not only fight really well, but also bring other useful things on the table, like lay on hands, wilderness survival, ect. Then again, I'm the type that values versatility over strong specialization.

Least concerned: the 9th lvl casters. Maybe it's because I started with 5th edition, or the fact that I just got done with creating a spellcaster for a campaign that starts at lvl 10, but after I ended up with 4 slots for my highest lvl spell slots, and 6-8 slots for the rest, I feel that lowering the amount of spell slots is rather reasonable, especially with the scaling cantrips. 8 spells per slot level is way too much imo.


You know I get your concerns about figthers but I also find it funny that their are people that think the new skill system will make spells that used to do that less effective or something (I'm not sure their specific argument on it) basically people are worried that in trying to make the skill system do what magic used to do they will nerf spells to much. Now I disagree but I do find it interesting how polar opposite the sides are on this issue. Personally I felt improving the skill system was the way to go and I could probably eventually find posts where that was literally my suggestion to fixing the problems with the fighter. (accompanied with nerfing spells) The thing I actually expect too is that spells that used to copy skills and have out of combat use will be now rituals done with knowledge arcane equivalent skill so kind of a full circle thing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem with the skill system for martial classes other than the Rogue is that casters get it too, and at equal (or sometimes greater) access; the wizard's old problem solving tools have been nerfed, sure, but he also gets to play with all of the fighter's new toys while keeping the stuff he used to have.


Well that depends on the skill feats. number of skills, And what spells are going to look like. IF straight vantician spells are all combat stuff and all out of combat stuff is skills then I don't see a difference.

Also their is some skills the figther will be better at then the caster just because of attributes that the figther would have that the caster wouldn't. Caster can take athletics sure but he won't every have as good of a str bonus as a fighter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, we KNOW vancian casting isn't going to be all combat stuff, and frankly it would be bad if it was.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unless Fighty McMartial is better at and/or has more skills than Casty Wizard, even if skills let you swim up waterfalls, leap several floors vertically, climb across a flat ceiling without hands, and pick locks with a simple tap with your knuckles, it won't matter because Mr Wizard can do all that and more because magic. And I'm pretty sure Fighter gets fewer skill rank-ups than most.


Arachnofiend wrote:
I mean, we KNOW vancian casting isn't going to be all combat stuff, and frankly it would be bad if it was.

We do? I haven't noticed what blog was it?

Also why would it be bad?

Liberty's Edge

Arachnofiend wrote:
The problem with the skill system for martial classes other than the Rogue is that casters get it too, and at equal (or sometimes greater) access; the wizard's old problem solving tools have been nerfed, sure, but he also gets to play with all of the fighter's new toys while keeping the stuff he used to have.

In fairness, if a Wizard actually wants to keep his old toys, since many of them are rituals, he needs to invest a significant portion of his skill choices past 1st level (specifically, about 1/3) into keeping Arcana maxed.

That doesn't cost Skill Feats, but it does sharply circumscribe what Feats he's probably gonna get to some degree (ie: some Arcana ones).

I still feel it may not be enough, and may want Fighters to get a bit more in the way of Skills and Skill Feats, but it's worth noting.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I mean, we KNOW vancian casting isn't going to be all combat stuff, and frankly it would be bad if it was.

We do? I haven't noticed what blog was it?

Also why would it be bad?

There have been non-combat spells shown and mentioned (they mentioned Raise Dead and we've seen the full spell text of Discern Lies).

And their removal would be bad because rituals take significant time, and sometimes you want or need an effect that is not directly combat oriented on a combat time scale (Knock, Teleport, and Fly all leap to mind as examples).


We saw the level 1 character sheets and the alchemist was far weaker than the other characters. Their bombs were comparable to cantrips, not powers like the fire ray, and their healing was so much less than the clerics. The cleric completely out classed it in every way. That might be be because clerics are too powerful, but the alchemist seemed way weaker than any of the other classes too. All the other characters we saw seemed fine, maybe the rogue and cleric too powerful, but not too excessive.

As for rangers their combat options seemed lacking, so I hope they have a huge skill focus like rogues, if they have that they'll be fine.

Monks really need str and dex which makes wis monks not much of an option. Well see what they have but it doesn't look promising.


Fly I feel like is both. Knock yeah fair enough I could see needing that in a hurry and teleport also seems like a both to me.

I don't think we will ever get a fighter version of teleport nor should we short of a magic item doing it.

Some things you just got to leave to magic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
citricking wrote:

We saw the level 1 character sheets and the alchemist was far weaker than the other characters. Their bombs were comparable to cantrips, not powers like the fire ray, and their healing was so much less than the clerics. The cleric completely out classed it in every way. That might be be because clerics are too powerful, but the alchemist seemed way weaker than any of the other classes too. All the other characters we saw seemed fine, maybe the rogue and cleric too powerful, but not too excessive.

As for rangers their combat options seemed lacking, so I hope they have a huge skill focus like rogues, if they have that they'll be fine.

Monks really need str and dex which makes wis monks not much of an option. Well see what they have but it doesn't look promising.

It's possible Alchemists are weak but I wouldn't consider the iconic to be necessarily indicative of the power level; he wastes his ancestry feat on knowing how to use a melee weapon he isn't any good with, for example. It's entirely possible the Alchemist is fine and (name I can't remember) is just the new Harsk.

Liberty's Edge

citricking wrote:
We saw the level 1 character sheets and the alchemist was far weaker than the other characters. Their bombs were comparable to cantrips, not powers like the fire ray, and their healing was so much less than the clerics. The cleric completely out classed it in every way. That might be be because clerics are too powerful, but the alchemist seemed way weaker than any of the other classes too. All the other characters we saw seemed fine, maybe the rogue and cleric too powerful, but not too excessive.

I strongly disagree. Acid Flasks, in particular, are really nasty in a way that cantrips are not (ongoing damage is actually pretty vicious in quantity). They're not quite on par with, say, Magic Missile, but they're superior to a cantrip (and he has 6 of them a day to the Wizard's three spells). Plus there are his healing options, which are not bad, though not quite on par with the Paladin or Cleric. His AC is a little low, but that's a poor armor choice more than anything. His melee option is a little low damage, but +4 to hit for 1d6+1 (which he can usually arrange to have) isn't actually super bad at 1st level.

So...I think his armor's sub par, but he's fine aside from that. He's a bit of a dabbler being okay at several things rather than hyper specialized in one (at this level anyway, he's clearly gonna focus on the bomb stuff long term, but can only really specialize in that properly later), but he's not bad at all.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
citricking wrote:
We saw the level 1 character sheets and the alchemist was far weaker than the other characters. Their bombs were comparable to cantrips, not powers like the fire ray, and their healing was so much less than the clerics. The cleric completely out classed it in every way. That might be be because clerics are too powerful, but the alchemist seemed way weaker than any of the other classes too. All the other characters we saw seemed fine, maybe the rogue and cleric too powerful, but not too excessive.

I didn't really feel that way. I actually think the bombs were maybe better than the powers we have seen. Splash and Persistent are REALLY good this edition. Splash damage makes the bomb an anti-swarm weapon, and weakness being a flat amount mean even a single point of fire damage can do waaaay more. None critical misses also do splash damage.

Check out the GCP playtest for Fumbus in action. I want to say parts 5 and 6.

Spoiler:
They fight a wood construct with incredible shield abilities, but with Weakness Fire 5. It might have also had damage resistance on top of that. Fumbus/Mumlow still did 6 damage even on a miss, and on a direct hit he did 1d8+5 (maybe 1d8+6, I don't remember if splash damage is also dealt to the target) followed by 6 every round. Really, they could have hit the golem with a single alchemist fire and then just left the room while it burned to death.

Fire Ray has better base damage but no persistent, no AoE, and no effect on a miss, by comparison. Also, the bombs have better action economy with Quick Bomber and can also be handed off to whoever has the highest dex in the party-- Kyra is stuck using her own bad dex to hit on Fire Ray.

I haven't been super impressed with the elixirs yet, but I'm waiting to see more of what they can do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:

Spell classes seeming to break the game again. Because of course they will.

If casting a spell ate into the resonance budget that would balance the bugbears out of the caster/martial disparity.


No no lets not do that. resonance for cast spells sounds painful and would automatically make chr caster the best casters. Also I don't believe their will be caster/martial disparity until I see it. I demand proof! which I will find in about what another week now?


I think the other thing regarding skill feats is what classes get which signature skills. We have seen ways to get new ones but I'm guessing the Wizards ootiins are going to be quite limiting in terms of tricks it can, and will want to, perform outside of spell casting.


Cleric still reeks of healbot (and unnecessary gish)... made even more bizarre by the fact that healing is something that is more class accessible than in PF1 (where lets be honest it is still easy to come by)...

Rogue definitely looks like it has come alive!


I'm worried mostly for races feeling impactful, but since they aren't a class, Ranger and Rogue filling all the ground I expect them to seems unlikely.

As for not worried about? Full casters. They still get game-altering spells, and now they can multiclass without losing spell progression. Neat.

Silver Crusade

Most worried about: Fighter, Ranger, Alchemist

Alchemist: it seems pretty complicated and it'll have to be done *just right* to play well and to integrate into the new item/crafting/resonance system.

Fighter: all the reasons folks have stated.

Ranger: I kinda just don't get it from the preview and am concerned it may have some of the same issues as the Fighter.

***

Least worried about: Wizard, Bard

Wizard: They'll be fine, obviously.

Bard: I'm *very* into the Bard as previewed. I'm slightly concerned about how complex the mechanics might feel in play, but I really like the general direction they've previewed and think it's probably going to work very well with a little playtesting.


I'm going to say 'Fighter' for both. It has a clear and relatively simple niche that should be very difficult to screw up, but at the same time, if the game engine is faulty, I believe that's also where it would be most visible...


Honestly none of the classes leave me super concerned, other than the vague feeling that the Ranger seems to be a bit more bland, and concern overall that classes might feel a bit more generic with the feat system in place.

Much more concerned on ancestries and elements of resonance.


I'm worried most about Ranger. There doesn't seem to be anything special aside from Hunt and Snare. Snare is something I personally will ignore, while Hunt seems alright but by no means anything crazy.

I'm hoping ranger will get weapon style again to choose ranged, two hand, or dual wield, maybe even sword and board. Dual wield is my preferred ranger and what we know about Animal Companions I could enjoy double slicing something then having my AC do the same. We'll see how it plays out though.

I'm least concerned with Druid. I have no interest in a Storm Druid, but every other Order sounds amazing. Most excited for Wild Druid, I think this could be a great take on a Shifter for PF2.

On feats in general, I'm excited to see where they go. They combine 3 actions into two with Sudden Charge at Level 1. Continuing that line of progression, combined with skill feats, I'm excited to see what crazy things you can do. In my mind atm, I see a bear sprinting up a tree to do a leaping charge at a flying wizard, possibly even getting a bear hug off. If this comes true, PF2 will be a success.


Lots of interesting thoughts. No surprise to me about the fighter being one of the primary concerns. I was surprised to see a lot of people list the alchemist but I guess a part of that may be due to the significant changes it is undergoing (delayed mutagen, new alchemy system replacing thier previous potion/casting system).

I'm also surprised about the Ranger being a popular choice, but I can see what people are thinking now. I kind of think the fighter doesn't get a lot of skills as that is the Rangers stick (mix between rogue/druid/fighter). And the snares did seem weak.

I thought Monk may be a more popular choice, but it wasn't mentioned a lot. It has historically been a weak class. It isn't a class I have a lot of experience with.

Also, no surprises with the full casters. I am concerned more from a too high power level, but I think there are indications that spells are weaker. The Bard and Druid due seem strong though.


Most concerned:

Ranger: It becomes harder to run a ranger with an animal companion since you need to be making iteratives to benefit from Hunt target, but you're taking an action drain to direct your companion. Companion with few spells is an important niche that no longer appears to be filled by this class.

Barbarian: The anathema doesn't sit too well with me, and the on/off nature of rage means it's best in short combats when combats seem to be getting longer due to increased HP.

Monk: I'll be honest, I pretty much entirely played this class for crazy ki shenanigans while stacking three archetypes at once. I am doubting the return of something like telling everybody else how to shoot fire.

Occult classes: RIP. May your ludicrous complexity live on in the Akasic Record.

least concerned:

Wizard: Looks decently solid and I haven't seen too much stuff for it locked out in the transition.


Lets see...
Alchemists: fine if for NO other reason than int based resonance. Using that as a base, I think multiclass into wizard is looking good. So if the alchemist class abilities don't seem exciting, just pick wizard ones instead! Spells AND you get extra resonance to 'wand' it up. ;)

Wizard: no serious negatives here.

Fighters: seem a bit lacking.

Barbarian/druid/monk: ok but not really exciting me. We'll see that the actual PDF has to offer.

Classes with anathema: not sure how it's all going to shake out. Most of them haven't been exciting and seem to have some issues with them.

Sorcerer: with all the talk about lowering cognitive dissonance, the classes choice of spell lists and bloodline seem like it'll eat up a lot of thought/time.

Ranger: Seems ok so far.

Rogue/bard: both seem ok and seem even better to multiclass into the other. A rogue going into bard seem pretty good.

Paladin... Let me just put this in the circular file cabinet over here...


At this point there really isn't a class for which I don't have any concerns. We've just not seen enough of the picture to be sure. Anyways...

I'm (selfishly) concerned for the Ranger, as I enjoy playing characters were Ranger often fits into the conception. Its main abilities seem inadequate. Its tone is different, which would break continuity in on-going games that might try to hop systems. I worry Rangers with spells will be caught up in multi-classing rather than something unique to the class.

I'm concerned about any class with Anathema complications, but admittedly Anathema is a really easy social mechanic to ignore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Most worried about: Sorcerer

I take the idea behind the Sorcerer is that of a magic using class with a natural talents for certain kinds of magical effects, whose natural talents grow and develop over time. The new Sorcerer abandons this in favor of a partially prepared caster, who changes what spells they can spontaneously heighten every day. That really doesn't jibe with the concept of a Sorcerer.

(In a similar vein, I was really hoping Sorcerer's would be set up so that they naturally gained expertise in lots of related spells (fire, time, etc), instead of retaining the hodge-podge of unrelated magical powers approach that D&D3.5 employed. But, by and large, the hodge-podge of unrelated powers approach remains in place.)

Least worried about: Bard

They appear to have an interesting mix of abilities, great flavor, and a lot of built in flexibility to allow for a lot of different Bard-ish ideas.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Worried about:

Definitely the Ranger. The more I think about how Hunt target works, the less impressed I am. Especially if double slice is going to be the way Dual wielding gets ahead in damage. Since it seems that runs completely opposite with the benefits that Hunt gives you. I want Dual Wielding with the ranger to feel amazing especially since they changed the Iconic ranger to be a dual wielder so you would think they want that to be the case.

Least worried about:

Most of the classes I'm not too worried about, but I had to choose one it would probably be Sorcerer. It seems like they got a ton of buffs compared to 1e.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm concerned for Ranger and Paladin, and maybe also martial classes in general.

  • Ranger: The ranger's features remind me a little of the Mechanic in Starfinder. It has a 'combat buff' that is usually not worth activating (enemies die too fast for the buff to be worth the action you spent on it). Its class feats seem tricky to use effectively (snares) OR err towards underpowered/marginal (monster hunter). It strikes me as concerning that every feature they showed off in the blog for the class seems very weak.
  • Paladin: In some sense, I feel like we have the least concrete information on the Paladin. Furthermore, too much of it seems focused on being defensive and it has multiple mechanics that will compete for your reaction each round. I'm getting some PF1E swashbuckler vibes from it.
  • Martials in general: The gap between martial classes and their casting brethren should be pinching up in PF2E, but we haven't seen too much concrete evidence so far that that's the case. The skill feats that directly compete with spells are isolated to extremely high levels. At the same time, many pure martials still have limited base skill proficiencies and a narrow scope of skills that they're going to be good at. (Very disappointed with Fighter in this regard). I still don't get the sense that the out of combat flexibility gap will be bridged.


  • 1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Most worried about: Ranger. It's a badly implemented Slayer with an identity crisis, clunky and unnecessary mechanics and a clumsy schtick (snares) we didn't ask for. Not a ranger.

    Least worried about: Bard. It seems to get All The Things. 9-level casting, performances, 2nd-best skills, decent combat. Maybe it's too good, so I should be worried. In which case Rogue (looks OK at last).


    Cellion wrote:

    I'm concerned for Ranger and Paladin, and maybe also martial classes in general.

  • Ranger: The ranger's features remind me a little of the Mechanic in Starfinder. It has a 'combat buff' that is usually not worth activating (enemies die too fast for the buff to be worth the action you spent on it). Its class feats seem tricky to use effectively (snares) OR err towards underpowered/marginal (monster hunter). It strikes me as concerning that every feature they showed off in the blog for the class seems very weak.
  • Paladin: In some sense, I feel like we have the least concrete information on the Paladin. Furthermore, too much of it seems focused on being defensive and it has multiple mechanics that will compete for your reaction each round. I'm getting some PF1E swashbuckler vibes from it.
  • Martials in general: The gap between martial classes and their casting brethren should be pinching up in PF2E, but we haven't seen too much concrete evidence so far that that's the case. The skill feats that directly compete with spells are isolated to extremely high levels. At the same time, many pure martials still have limited base skill proficiencies and a narrow scope of skills that they're going to be good at. (Very disappointed with Fighter in this regard). I still don't get the sense that the out of combat flexibility gap will be bridged.
  • This, yeah. I'm ...excited for the rogue, which is a first in some senses. They're starting to feel like a well-rounded class.

    At the moment, I'm concerned for martials, and any class that relied on swift actions. The Unchained action economy had unfortunate effects on these classes when used in PF1. I'm anxious for the adaption in PF2.


    While probably not a popular concern, I'm most worried about specialty wizards. Not wizards in general, as I'm sure the class will be plenty powerful, but the niche of wizards devoted to an arcane school.

    With sorcerers getting spell slots per day equal to a specialty wizard and universalists making up the difference by getting to recast a spell of each level, the fact that specialists have a bonus spell slot each level for their specialty school is even less defining than before (& even before, wizards of different specialty schools could easily prep the exact same spell list every day).

    So the only really defining part of a specialist shown in the preview is the arcane school. Which seems like it'll amount to 1-2 minor abilities on the side. If that's true, then I worry that specialty wizards won't have enough to differentiate from each other, and that universalists may end up being superior as long as you have spells you want to cast multiple times in a day (which seems like a really low bar).

    ---

    Least Worried about: Bards
    Bards are one of the few classes which any party would be happy to make room for due to the buffs they give. And now low level bards don't have to worry about running out of rounds for their performance. Plus with full casting, Bards seem to be getting all the toys to play with. So yeah, Bards will be fine.

    Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Which Class are you most concerned about? Which is the least you are concerned for? All Messageboards
    Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion