Future classes - which are still even necessary? And what new ones could there be?


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

So the changes to the character advancement, action economy , archetype and multiclass system seem to point towards many pre-existing classes being effectively unlocked from the start without needed a load more chassis

Several other gaps can probably be plugged by feats/archetypes

This potentially opens up design space for classes that didn’t even exist in Pathfinder . I believe Erik Mona said right around launch time that paizo did not want to simply re-release existing material

The current game design suggests the following should be achievable or close to achievable with the 12 classes and multiclass archetypes for all 12:

Magus (some kind of feats for spell strike?)
Slayer
Warpriest
Arcanist
Hunter
Bloodrager
Skald (perhaps?)

Eldritch Knight
Mystic Theurge
Arcane Trickster
Loremaster (Wizard/Bard?)
Arcane Archer

And the following should also be eventually achievable with the chassis of core classes (as they arguably always should have been in the case of the first two)

Brawler
Swashbuckler
Oracle (well spontaneous divine caster)
Shifter (one of the Druid focuses)

This opens a lot of spaces for new class chassis.

The Witch is a clear an obvious candidate for a new 2e chassis. Investigator also seems unique enough with inspiration and another class should have some form of alchemy?

I am unsure if Shaman and Inquisitor would need there own chassis - or whether they could be achieved in another way. Shaman probably will once witch get introduced.

So this boils down to (and this has inevitably been discussed in some form) - now that we know about classes and multiclasses in the new system what new classes are realistically even needed next?

The second 1E book introduced 6 new classes. What would people pick? What would people suggest as completely new classes? (So not necessarily six from the remainder of the 1E classes)

I personally can’t think of any “new design space” classes right now so would be interested in opinions

(Note: I know this is jumping the gun as playtest isn’t even out and the next set of classes are probably 2 years away - I am just excited by the potential flexibility of the new system - not to mention the theoretical space it frees up)


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

One thing that intrigued me all the way back when they previewed archetypes is that yes, we can get dedication versions of classes to multiclass, but dedication archetypes might also be redesigned to be full classes if they prove popular enough. They could, if pirates really took off, make a full up pirate class using the pirate archetype as a base for it.

So. Anything and everything. Most of the occult classes can be brought forward (the mesmerist can probably be a reskinned bard). Summoners. Loremasters. Hellknights (as a paladin alt-class). Ninjas. Gunslingers. Shadow Dancers. Harrower. A buff-focused cantrip-only caster. A debuff focused cantrip only caster. A healer that doesn't use consumables or spells of any kind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Certain classes hybrid classes could be replicated using just the multiclass archetype and maybe a few custom feats. Something that lets you cast spells through weapons, something that lets you perform while you rage (and/or give rage through your performance), something that lets you cast blasting spells more easily while raging.

But I think there is still a lot of design space even for classes that look like they could be done via multiclassing.

Magus in particular you could just do a wizard/figher but you could make it more interesting if it was its own class. I'm thinking similar to how a bard is a full caster which has fewer spell slots than all the others but gets bonus skills and special performance can trips, what if a magus could be a full caster who gets the same number of spells as a bard but gets better martial abilities and special spell strike cantrips, like [A] add elemental damage to your next weapon attack and at higher levels [A] your next weapon attack targets TAC instead of AC. something like that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pretty much all of them, yes, even the hybrids. Multiclassing doesn't even vaguely touch the capabilities of 6th level casters.

Well, except for the vigilante, for being genre-inappropriate nonsense.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I disagree that the Oracle is covered by divine Sorcerer bloodlines. The mystery and curse mechanics separate it enough from "someone who spontaneously casts divine spells" as much as the Bard separates itself from occult Sorcerers.

Though for me the top of the list for classes that cannot be replicated by the Core 12 and need to be inclusions all their own are the Kineticist and Occultist.


Voss wrote:

Pretty much all of them, yes, even the hybrids. Multiclassing doesn't even vaguely touch the capabilities of 6th level casters.

Well, except for the vigilante, for being genre-inappropriate nonsense.

Well at this stage 6 level casters don’t exist and it may be a significant challenge for them to ever exist due to the new dispel rules (going of Mark’s comments in Know Direction Bard episode )

Upon reflection Oracle probably will be separate

I just wonder if they have anything completely knew up their sleeve. I can’t think of any obvious genre niches apart from perhaps something like an artificer. But power from objects is kind of an occultist thing. And an artificer probably has a very small relevance to Golarion

But perhaps I am not being genre savvy enough...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Summoner - as the big pet-focused class - could have a lot of versatility. Are you a holy priest who is guarded by an angel? A shaman who calls forth a nature spirit? A madman followed by the ghost of a murderer? An arcane dabbler who wove his imaginary friend into reality? An alchemist who's built a mecha suit he pilots?

Kineticist - I think some of the mechanics of the class were wonky and fiddly, but the flavor was great.

Maybe some sort of commander/marshal/warlord class. It could just be a series of feats, or it could be a full class. Heck, maybe it'd be a riff on the summoner, where instead of one big monster you have a bunch of minions who fight for you.

Occultist - A spellcaster who collects trinkets and casts spells out of mementos is nifty. It could also work as the baseline for a dedicated harrower class, if they wanted that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
Voss wrote:

Pretty much all of them, yes, even the hybrids. Multiclassing doesn't even vaguely touch the capabilities of 6th level casters.

Well, except for the vigilante, for being genre-inappropriate nonsense.

Well at this stage 6 level casters don’t exist and it may be a significant challenge for them to ever exist due to the new dispel rules (going of Mark’s comments in Know Direction Bard episode )

If the PF2 rules can't support classes that explicitly exist in the one setting they're designed to support, thats a bad, bad thing.

Especially if they can't exist because of the dispel magic rules. Which, without context, I can't even...


Voss wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
Voss wrote:

Pretty much all of them, yes, even the hybrids. Multiclassing doesn't even vaguely touch the capabilities of 6th level casters.

Well, except for the vigilante, for being genre-inappropriate nonsense.

Well at this stage 6 level casters don’t exist and it may be a significant challenge for them to ever exist due to the new dispel rules (going of Mark’s comments in Know Direction Bard episode )

If the PF2 rules can't support classes that explicitly exist in the one setting they're designed to support, thats a bad, bad thing.

Especially if they can't exist because of the dispel magic rules. Which, without context, I can't even...

I point you in the direction of the Bard and the Alchemist

Both were 6 level casters. They are not anymore

And it seems like the other historic 6 level classes will not be either.
That is what i meant . The classes could exist but not the 6 level mechanics


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everything is a feat. That is what I'm expecting.

I'm not happy about that.

Paizo Employee

3 people marked this as a favorite.

My personal priority list would be:
Witch
Oracle
Summoner
Occultist
Kineticist
Inquisitor (although this could potentially be an archetype that gives judgements and a few other abilities that you can tag onto e.g. clerics or rogues depending on whether you want more of the Van Helsing vibe or a religious dark enforcer type.)

I don't know that any of the other classes even really need to be brought forward since they seem like they'd either be better as archetypes or seem very redundant with what's already there. Magus, maybe, as a complete ground-up rework.

As for new design space... The Medium isn't new, but it could be really interesting to see it rebuilt from scratch with a focus on day to day flexibility. Similarly, the Shaman could be really cool if it was reimagined as a truly new class without needing to fit into the hybrid mold (or if you were going to look at hybrid classes, make Shaman a barbarian/druid hybrid who uses the totems in new and entirely unique ways.) Assuming that resonance sticks around (and depending on if/how the occultist is designed), there might be some really interesting ways to play with resonance on characters, like a martial character who can over-charge items with extra resonance to get boosted effects or squeeze additional uses out of trinkets, or a wild magic spellcaster who can "juice" their spells by spending resonance to make them stronger but also unstable (though that might work better as an archetype).

Hmmm.... That actually has me thinking you could have something like a Wild Magic feat where you can spend resonance on a spell that turns failures into critical failures and successes into critical successes, though that probably messes with the system's design of making SoL/SoS spells less binary.


I can personally see Oracle, Inquisitor, Cavalier (though probably in a much different form; my ideal would split it into two or three separate classes, as the class itself felt unfocused in PF1e, though maybe 1 or 2 classes with 1 or 2 archetypes, for the other parts, could also work), Witch, Investigator, Shaman (maybe? remains to be seen on other classes and how well they can cobble together a shaman), Kineticist, and maybe some other Occult class(es), though I couldn't say for sure which, as I've never paid much close attention to them, are likely to come back as classes in 2e. Whether they can be done in 2e as multiclass options or not, I think they're unique enough to warrant enclusion, even if a facsimile could be made without them. If I had my way, Swashbuckler would also fit in, but I suspect that'll be more of an archetype. Same with gunslinger, but I'm less invested in gunslingers.

As for new ones, I think a Spontaneous Druidic caster, likely done in the style of bards (i.e. less spells than a Sorcerer, but with neat class-flavor specific tricks). Others that I could see are ones that could be new classes or new takes on old classes, but they're largely ones I see based on mechanical symmetry: i.e. I can foresee mostly-martial spell point casters for each of the lists, which could include new takes on the Magus (Arcane) and Occultist or Medium (Occult), as well as Other ki-classes, Ninja being a possible one, but I can also see Kensai or Zen archer making the leap away from "Monk with weapons" to classes of their own, with unique ki abilities tied to them.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Cavaliers can fill an interesting niche in the game. It could be a martial combatant that can use actions to give specific actions to allies duting his turn. He could also give bonuses to allies by inspiring them (like the baner ability in pf1), or have features that give bonuses for working together, and do all this while still being able to pick a feat that feels like the challenge even if it doest not work the same. If you separate the cavalier from the mounted fighter gimmick it becomes a way more interesting character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like we need to focus less on mechanics and more on thematics. If a current option can fill a mechanical niche of an old thing, but not a thematic niche of the old thing, we can just give the old thing's theme new mechanics.

So off the top of my head-
Oracle- you were cursed/chosen by the gods and had no input on the matter.
Witch- your magic comes from a pact with something else who serves as your teacher.
Occultist - you are the stuff-o-mancer.
Kineticist - Nothing like this exists in core
Shaman - A cleric analogue from animist cultures- your magic comes from contacting appropriate spirits, not from a deity.
Shifter- "Green Faith Muscle" is probably a job best done by non-druids.
Spiritualist/Summoner- these can probably be the same class.

Silver Crusade

My "first priorities" would be:

Oracle, with mysteries dictating spell lists like bloodlines.
Summoner
Investigator
Vigilante
Gunslinger
Inquisitor, perhaps with 9th level divine spells, because we seem to be doing away with 6th level casting.
Keneticist

I think those seven are the ones that are most unique and achievable currently. I believe they said they had no intention of "downgrading" any classes to archetypes, despite the fact that that would probably suit the Vigilante quite well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
Voss wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
Voss wrote:

Pretty much all of them, yes, even the hybrids. Multiclassing doesn't even vaguely touch the capabilities of 6th level casters.

Well, except for the vigilante, for being genre-inappropriate nonsense.

Well at this stage 6 level casters don’t exist and it may be a significant challenge for them to ever exist due to the new dispel rules (going of Mark’s comments in Know Direction Bard episode )

If the PF2 rules can't support classes that explicitly exist in the one setting they're designed to support, thats a bad, bad thing.

Especially if they can't exist because of the dispel magic rules. Which, without context, I can't even...

I point you in the direction of the Bard and the Alchemist

Both were 6 level casters. They are not anymore

Uh. If that was supposed to be a persuasive argument, I'm afraid it wasn't. I hate what I've seen of both. Alchemist was stripped of its main abilities in favor of poking around with terrible consumables, and the bard gets full-power anachronistic magic on top of the dozen other things they also get, top tier skill monkey, high level cantrips with absurd effects, full fighting ability and thanks to feat based multi-classing, easy access to go max AC and martial weapons on top.

The 5e bard is something of an overpowered absurdities. A well built PF2 bard looks like it will just laugh at the former's sad attempt to feel special.

----

@MerlinCross- same. Feats can be a useful solution to some design issues, but as a universal solution to all problems, it's pretty terrible. There's going to be dumpster full of junk and a few obviously good bits. And when it comes to races, it's a square peg for curved, nth dimensional torus.

@Biztak - ah, I forgot the cavalier. Yeah, that can be skipped, it's a fighter with set feat choices.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think there's room for a non-magical non-sneaky skill monkey.

Also, some sort of engineer class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really like the thought experiment of picking which 6 classes I'd like to see first as an expansion :) So here's what I'd most look forward to:

1) Witch - Really expand on the patron mechanic and let them be kinda like a prepared version of the sorcerer, getting different spell lists based on their patron. Also make room for individual patrons to present boons and drawbacks like in Otherworldly Invocations (my favorite 3rd party Witch book). And of course some interesting Hex mechanics are a requirement. [Favorite class here, and I want my setting to have room for some really weird/thematic Patrons like a hivemind or a Witch tricked into a pact by a devil/efreeti/etc.]

2) Shaman - Reflavored as the spontaneous primal caster. Bring the focus more towards spirits / spirit animal rather than relying on hexes which came from being a hybrid class of the Witch. Perhaps nab some version of the Hunter's animal focus themed as channeling the power of animal spirits into the Shaman's body.

3) Oracle - Cures and Mysteries are too flavorful to pass up and it fills the spontaneous divine caster niche. Also too popular not to be included, enough said.

4) Inquisitor - While I love the inquisitor being a divine caster in PF1, Oracle is a better fit for spontaneous divine in PF2 and I don't feel the need to double up on caster niches... So maybe have the Inquisitor turned into a spell point caster similar to what the Paladin seems to be? Then focus more on their Inquisitions, Judgement, Bane, and Detection abilities.

5) Occultist(?) - To fill the niche of prepared occult caster. Didn't look too much into the class in PF1, but it seems to be the most popular psychic class from what I've seen in some posts and is fitting with needing to prepare implements. Not to mention it has "occult" as part of its name, how do you call the primary occult caster anything else?

6) Investigator(?) - Like Shaman, decouple it from its hybrid origins which aren't needed anymore and focus on the inspiration mechanic and other deduction / skill abilities. Perhaps give them a spell pool to replicate certain divination/detection spells? [Picking a 6th non-core class was surprisingly hard for me...]

-----

As for some of the classes I didn't pick and why...

Arcanist - While I love their casting style, they don't really have much besides that and exploits, and their exploits could easily just get rolled into Wizard feats rather than having an entire separate class. If not, then maybe they could fill the spontaneous arcane niche the Sorcerer left, but then I feel they would need more to differentiate them from Wizards.

Cavalier - Could really be turned into a pair of archetypes in my opinion. One archetype around mounted combat so any class could potentially make use of mounts (rather than having a specific mount class). The other archetype being around belonging to a specific order (which is too thematically awesome to limit to one class).

Kineticist - While I love much about the class, I'd want to wait to see how unlimited scaling cantrip blasting works out before considering kinetic blasts. That and the theming always felt a bit off when compared to the other classes. While I'm not against them getting included, I'm a bit cautious about it and think they may need some reworks to fit in well. Would happily wait for them to be part of a later wave of expanded classes rather than needing the class asap.

Magus - While I love them, the new multiclass system combined with some type of "Spellblade" archetype/feat could not only replace their niche, but expand it into other spell traditions outside of arcane.

Summoner - While they could be a good candidate for the spontaneous arcane niche now the Sorcerer picks a spell list based on bloodline, the implementation of PF1 Summoners has turned me off of the class as a whole. I just can't think of a good way to implement the idea of a class based on summoning that doesn't have the potential for horrendous abuse.

Other Hybrid: Can easily be replaced by a combination of multiclassing and rolling some of their unique abilities into their parent classes (Bloodraging rolled into Barbarian feats, Warpriest sacred weapon and blessings into Cleric feats and domains, etc.)

Other Occult: Not much opinion, as the only two classes I ever played were a spiritualist and kineticists, so I can't really say much here.

Vigilante - Prime example of something that could work well as an archetype rather than needing a dozen of its own archetypes to partially mimic other classes. Though I do want a (better) version of magical girl to come back sometime...

---

And for completely new ideas, a class focused around rituals might be cool with rituals now becoming more of a thing in PF2. It'll depend greatly on exactly what the new ritual rules are of course, but I think there could be a niche for a class based around using/modifying/enhancing them (or at least an archetype).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Meophist wrote:

I think there's room for a non-magical non-sneaky skill monkey.

Also, some sort of engineer class.

I don't think there's anything inherent in the PF2 Rogue that requires you to be sneaky? Presumably you can use the chassis to build a haughty noble swashbuckler that catches people off-guard by sassing them (IE, a feint build).

We do know trapfinding is no longer inherent to the Rogue and is instead a Thievery skill feat so that's the primary sneaky thing PF1 Rogues always had that is no longer required.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bardarok wrote:

Certain classes hybrid classes could be replicated using just the multiclass archetype and maybe a few custom feats. Something that lets you cast spells through weapons, something that lets you perform while you rage (and/or give rage through your performance), something that lets you cast blasting spells more easily while raging.

But I think there is still a lot of design space even for classes that look like they could be done via multiclassing.

Magus in particular you could just do a wizard/figher but you could make it more interesting if it was its own class. I'm thinking similar to how a bard is a full caster which has fewer spell slots than all the others but gets bonus skills and special performance can trips, what if a magus could be a full caster who gets the same number of spells as a bard but gets better martial abilities and special spell strike cantrips, like [A] add elemental damage to your next weapon attack and at higher levels [A] your next weapon attack targets TAC instead of AC. something like that.

Multiclass-only feats would be really cool. Like a very niche Spellstrike that had the requirements of Wizard dedication + proficiency in martial weapons. Not a copy-paste of an ability the classes already get, but something that would require multiclassing to achieve and be unique to those combinations.

They actually had these in AD&D2E in the form of Multiclass kits. To get Bladesinging you needed to pick it up as an Elf Fighter/Mage.


MerlinCross wrote:

Everything is a feat. That is what I'm expecting.

I'm not happy about that.

To be fair, there were a lot of things in PF1 that were basically "There's a feat for that." It was a symptom of what developers for PF1 decided to do in an attempt to codify things that the rules didn't cover through hardcovers. On top of that, a Feat in PF was basically something that says "You can do X." When it's murky to determine if a character can or cannot do X, feats fill that void, even to the detriment of players more often than not. There should be something more codified that doesn't absolutely require investment on the player's behalf to do, but because there isn't, and Feats are the closest thing to that, well...look what happens.

The only difference between that and PF2 is that PF2 is more streamlined in this process, and is better accommodated for it, which is a good thing. Granted, there are still some things that shouldn't require feats to do (such as tie your own shoe laces, or eat food), but let's be realistic here: People are going to want most everything codified so they know what to expect when coming into a table, either with familiar friends or complete strangers.

It's the same reason why item slots existed in PF1, it's the same reason why we operate under the "Rules don't say you can do X until the rules say you can" paradigm; people wanted stuff to be codified for them. PF2 will hopefully do a better job in codifying the basic stuff so we don't have to waste feats (even if we get more, it's split between numerous subcategories) on every little thing that the rules (apparently) don't absolutely allow us to do.

Welcome to Human Uncertainty.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Bardarok wrote:

Certain classes hybrid classes could be replicated using just the multiclass archetype and maybe a few custom feats. Something that lets you cast spells through weapons, something that lets you perform while you rage (and/or give rage through your performance), something that lets you cast blasting spells more easily while raging.

But I think there is still a lot of design space even for classes that look like they could be done via multiclassing.

Magus in particular you could just do a wizard/figher but you could make it more interesting if it was its own class. I'm thinking similar to how a bard is a full caster which has fewer spell slots than all the others but gets bonus skills and special performance can trips, what if a magus could be a full caster who gets the same number of spells as a bard but gets better martial abilities and special spell strike cantrips, like [A] add elemental damage to your next weapon attack and at higher levels [A] your next weapon attack targets TAC instead of AC. something like that.

Multiclass-only feats would be really cool. Like a very niche Spellstrike that had the requirements of Wizard dedication + proficiency in martial weapons. Not a copy-paste of an ability the classes already get, but something that would require multiclassing to achieve and be unique to those combinations.

They actually had these in AD&D2E in the form of Multiclass kits. To get Bladesinging you needed to pick it up as an Elf Fighter/Mage.

One aspect that I like about this idea is that it could be introduced later after the community has a good idea of what multiclass combinations struggle to keep up, let alone ones that integrate the abilities of the classes together in flavorful ways that couldn't otherwise be done.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Meophist wrote:

I think there's room for a non-magical non-sneaky skill monkey.

Also, some sort of engineer class.

I don't think there's anything inherent in the PF2 Rogue that requires you to be sneaky? Presumably you can use the chassis to build a haughty noble swashbuckler that catches people off-guard by sassing them (IE, a feint build).

We do know trapfinding is no longer inherent to the Rogue and is instead a Thievery skill feat so that's the primary sneaky thing PF1 Rogues always had that is no longer required.

I mean, it's called "Sneak attack".

I think it makes sense to have a skill monkey class who doesn't depend on magic or situational damage bonuses to be effective in combat.


Meophist wrote:

I mean, it's called "Sneak attack".

I think it makes sense to have a skill monkey class who doesn't depend on magic or situational damage bonuses to be effective in combat.

Well, it's sort of a point of fact that it's easier to hit someone and hurt them bad when they are not defending themselves. After all, this is basically the point of flanking.

But I wonder how much a Fighter with Rogue dedication feats can do as the "skill monkey who is neither magical nor sneaky." Presumably the dedication feats which give skills are distinct from the ones that give sneak attack.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Meophist wrote:

I mean, it's called "Sneak attack".

I think it makes sense to have a skill monkey class who doesn't depend on magic or situational damage bonuses to be effective in combat.

Well, it's sort of a point of fact that it's easier to hit someone and hurt them bad when they are not defending themselves. After all, this is basically the point of flanking.

But I wonder how much a Fighter with Rogue dedication feats can do as the "skill monkey who is neither magical nor sneaky." Presumably the dedication feats which give skills are distinct from the ones that give sneak attack.

I'm a little worried the dedication feat would give sneak attack, but other than that it seems like a cool idea. SmartGuy McHammerShield would be fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kazk wrote:
One aspect that I like about this idea is that it could be introduced later after the community has a good idea of what multiclass combinations struggle to keep up, let alone ones that integrate the abilities of the classes together in flavorful ways that couldn't otherwise be done.

That's a fantastic idea. We could even use the existing framework of dedication feats to pull it off without adding new tags into the system.

Alright, so the thought experiment of "what is our top 6 for APG"
1. Witches
2. Oracles. Both have been justified thouroughly in this thread already, so I won't rehash.
3. Occultist- I can see a couple ways they can go with this one, so it's entirely possible this one class in PF1 will inspire multiple classes in PF2. But for the first round, I'd like a trinket based hedgemage that really pushes the resonance system. Even if the system ultimately is not implemented, it would make sense for this class to bring it back for itself (alchemist class too).
4. Some kind of summoner/pet class. Not as flexible a companion as a summoner's eidolon, but one that can have a subclass for each spell-list, and a fifth without spell slots at all, only ritual casting.
In a book or five, I'd want an "Ultimate Companion" splatbook that really focused on modular companions and gave all kinds of customizable undead to raise, golems to build, and genies to bargain with (not to mention archetypes for everyone to get their own ball of anger), but for the APG let's start small.
5. Kineticists. Give me an all-day caster without slots to track (in fairness, I'll get close with a Fighter/Wizard multiclass), and a burn mechanic that doesn't make me want to throw the whole class away. Like, say, you can accept a point of burn in order to force a creature to critically fail their save (if they already failed). THAT is power worth the cost.
6. Something completely martial to round out the list. I could use a daring sleuth investigator (especially if they had options to heal), or a gunslinger. Bring back the grit/panache/luck mechanic, so we can work out how it will interact and combine with the spell point pool.
7 (bonus). Hellknights. Give me my damn(ed) Hellknights as a paladin alt-class. The dedication for this class would allow for signifiers and other multiclass examples in PF1, but I also want it as a base class.

I agree with those that would like Cavaliers, Vigilantes, and Magi/Warpriests as archetypes or new feats, and have said as much in other threads. I'd add Skalds, Bloodragers, vanilla Investigators, Shifters (subclass of monk). I also want psychic casting as an option in the APG, but for the majority of the occult classes to come back in a book devoted to that spell-list, with the psychic class itself as an archetype at first but a full base class later.


1 - Magus

2 - Archeologist (this was IMO the best designed achetype of whrole PF1, in the sense that with changes here and there, it literally created a entire new class, with a solid chassis, and in some cases with better design than some base classes of the game. With the current way bard works in PF2, i can only see this class working well being upgraded to a full class, similar to the rogue, but with diferent concepts of the rogue)

And thats it.

I dont see any other class NEEDING to be ported, since IMO they were always a kind of niche of some other class (cavalier, witch, slayer), for example, the slayer being what i always expected from a spell-less ranger to the point of presenting to my players as a variant of the ranger without spells when they are still learning the game.

Also, i HATE the new archetype system and to me it would work WONDER if they were just for prestige classes, wich they make a lot of sense, since anyone can take, cant be taken at level one, as is easy to create requeriments to give flavor. So hellknights and other prestiges actually works better and make more sense in the new system than in the old. (And give you a opportunity of having "master" of a prestige class at level 11, 12... not 18 or 19 when you rarely see play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
RafaelBraga wrote:

2 - Archeologist (this was IMO the best designed achetype of whrole PF1, in the sense that with changes here and there, it literally created a entire new class, with a solid chassis, and in some cases with better design than some base classes of the game. With the current way bard works in PF2, i can only see this class working well being upgraded to a full class, similar to the rogue, but with diferent concepts of the rogue)

I agree with spinning this out to its own new class. It might be far less work than trying to make it fit within the Bard class, and we wouldn't need to be tied to the occult spell list if that ultimately isn't the best for the class.


Personally I feel that only the summoner would have to be its own class, since I don't think evolution mechanics and the eidolon could be implemented as feats too well, unless some druid feats manage to surprise me.

Now on whether or not gunslinger and swashbuckler need to be their own classes depends on whether or not their special attack moves, their deeds, are or can be implemented in martial classes by default. I always like the idea of special techniques, as they allow the potential of giving non-magical martials like fighter more flexible answers in combat, but to be honest, I doubt that both the gunslinger and the swashbuckler are needed for 2e. They could be combined into one class, and separated by different class feat trees.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would like to see the Investigator (or 'Inquisitive') as a fully fledged foil to the Rogue. I didn't particularly like the gutted alchemy features, and we don't need an Alchemist 'Hybrid-Class' anymore since a Rogue or Investigator could just Multiclass Alchemist and vice versa now. Instead it should play up the detective fiction tropes and borrow mechanics from the Vigilante to supplement the loss of alchemy. For example, quickly disguising yourself, or fooling alignment-reading magic, gathering information quickly, etc.

I would like to see the Cavalier/Dragoon return as a mounted knight and leader of men. An alternative to the paladin for the irreligious, and an alternative to being or multiclassing Ranger for those who just wanted a mount that won't die in a stiff breeze.

I think there is design space for at least five more spellcaster classes: One occult prepared, one arcane, divine, and primal spontaneous respectively, and one 'generic' prepared caster which crops up in every tradition like Sorcerers do. Which would even out the single- and multiclassing options considerably.
Spitballing names: Magician (generic prepared), Oracle (divine spontaneous), Shaman (primal spontaneous), Kineticist?* (arcane spontaneous), Warlock** (occult prepared).
*Yes I know... a sacred cow; but except for the 3.5 warlock mechanics they didn't 'feel' much different from an elemental sorcerer.
**By 'warlock' I actually mean to say a Witch-like spellcaster who has brokered a pact with a mysterious patron for occult knowledge; I just don't like the term witch being used in this context.

I'd love to fill the list out with one more class (for a total of 20, instead of 19)... but the rest of my ideas feel better as Archetypes; such as Gunslinger (and all the other specific-weapon-masters), Eldritch Archer/Knight/Trickster (the various providers of synergizing features for hybrid casters), and 'Pokemon Trainers' (Beastmasters, Homunculists, Necromancers, Master Summoners, Master Tacticians, etc).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like the Witch needs to be the "Prepared caster of any tradition" since "who is your patron" can vary from "an angel" (who would teach you divine magic) to "the Green Mother herself" (who would teach you primal magic) and so forth.

Oh, and I thought of another class that probably merits inclusion based on thematics- the Bloodrager. Essentially "you have special blood, but rather than give you considerable casting might, it warps your body and makes you angry. Sure, once there's a sorcerer multiclass dedication you can do a Barbarian/Sorcerer, but doing that wouldn't give you the automatic size changing, long armed, flesh warping Bloodrager that we know and love.

Silver Crusade

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like the Witch needs to be the "Prepared caster of any tradition" since "who is your patron" can vary from "an angel" (who would teach you divine magic" to "the Green Mother herself" (who would teach you primal magic) and so forth.

I definitely second this. I recall James Jacobs mentioning that he wished they'd built a real sense of a bargain into the witch, and I think that this would be a good idea. I'm not sure how you'd keep this distinct from the cleric, except that witch patrons should be mysterious and eccentric, and it shouldn't be clear what the reasoning is behind their demands and anathemas.


I highly doubt any additional classes will be printed as full classes. Archetypes will probably implement the variety that we had under PE1. Which I think is a good thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Filthy Lucre wrote:
I highly doubt any additional classes will be printed as full classes. Archetypes will probably implement the variety that we had under PE1. Which I think is a good thing.

I think it's basically certain they are going to print more classes. Mark Seifter has talked about how the Witch almost made it as the "new" class for the playtest, and about neat things they have planned for the Occultist and Oracle.

Also, devs have talked in a way that indicates psychic casting is still a thing, so we're going to get some of those.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Filthy Lucre wrote:
I highly doubt any additional classes will be printed as full classes. Archetypes will probably implement the variety that we had under PE1. Which I think is a good thing.

I think it's basically certain they are going to print more classes. Mark Seifter has talked about how the Witch almost made it as the "new" class for the playtest, and about neat things they have planned for the Occultist and Oracle.

Also, devs have talked in a way that indicates psychic casting is still a thing, so we're going to get some of those.

Personally, id prefer only three classes with lots of archetypes.

Paizo Employee Designer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Filthy Lucre wrote:
I highly doubt any additional classes will be printed as full classes. Archetypes will probably implement the variety that we had under PE1. Which I think is a good thing.

I think it's basically certain they are going to print more classes. Mark Seifter has talked about how the Witch almost made it as the "new" class for the playtest, and about neat things they have planned for the Occultist and Oracle.

Also, devs have talked in a way that indicates psychic casting is still a thing, so we're going to get some of those.

I didn't say that the witch almost made it. The oracle is the one that was close-ish behind the alchemist. The witch wasn't even close.


Mark Seifter wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Filthy Lucre wrote:
I highly doubt any additional classes will be printed as full classes. Archetypes will probably implement the variety that we had under PE1. Which I think is a good thing.

I think it's basically certain they are going to print more classes. Mark Seifter has talked about how the Witch almost made it as the "new" class for the playtest, and about neat things they have planned for the Occultist and Oracle.

Also, devs have talked in a way that indicates psychic casting is still a thing, so we're going to get some of those.

I didn't say that the witch almost made it. The oracle is the one that was close-ish behind the alchemist. The witch wasn't even close.

Everything looks great, so far, Mark.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Filthy Lucre wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Filthy Lucre wrote:
I highly doubt any additional classes will be printed as full classes. Archetypes will probably implement the variety that we had under PE1. Which I think is a good thing.

I think it's basically certain they are going to print more classes. Mark Seifter has talked about how the Witch almost made it as the "new" class for the playtest, and about neat things they have planned for the Occultist and Oracle.

Also, devs have talked in a way that indicates psychic casting is still a thing, so we're going to get some of those.

I didn't say that the witch almost made it. The oracle is the one that was close-ish behind the alchemist. The witch wasn't even close.
Everything looks great, so far, Mark.

Thanks, 5 more days!


Mark Seifter wrote:
I didn't say that the witch almost made it. The oracle is the one that was close-ish behind the alchemist. The witch wasn't even close.

I thought someone from Paizo said the witch was under consideration for the playtest, or did I mis-remember something? I"ll look through my favorites, I don't want to be disseminating misinformation.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like the Witch needs to be the "Prepared caster of any tradition" since "who is your patron" can vary from "an angel" (who would teach you divine magic) to "the Green Mother herself" (who would teach you primal magic) and so forth.

I could get behind this usage of the 'Witch', so long as it has more to pull from than just the offensively sterotypical hexes that characterized them before.

Silver Crusade

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I didn't say that the witch almost made it. The oracle is the one that was close-ish behind the alchemist. The witch wasn't even close.
I thought someone from Paizo said the witch was under consideration for the playtest, or did I mis-remember something? I"ll look through my favorites, I don't want to be disseminating misinformation.

I think Erik Mona *might* have said something in this ballpark in the first interview he gave after the play test was announced. Maybe on Know Direction? Talking about adding the alchemist, might have said the Oracle and the Witch were contenders for a bit but ultimately went Alchemist to get alchemy fully integrated into the core. But I don't know that it was ever a statement as strong as "almost made it."


Yeah, I always liked the Witch as a sort of Druid/Wizard cross. I think with the new system some previous edition classes will no longer be necessary, but we know that the Occultist (master of resonance) is coming, one of my all time favourite PF1 classes.

Grand Lodge

If we're talking new design space, I'd love to see a "monster slayer" kind of class. A technical martial full of specialised tricks for their prey, and the ability to improvise ways around monstrous defenses on the fly... With a high enough Lore check, of course (which they would get bonuses to). Think like Joseph Delaney's Spooks.

Mechanically, I'd imagine that they'd be decent at alchemy and trapping, but far more focused than the Alchemist or Ranger. They'd be able to undermine resistances and better exploit vulnerabilities; they'd always have just enough silver, salt and cold iron on hand, and would be able to apply such things to their arsenal of "tools" at a moment's notice. They'd also have to be able to share their knowledge, directing their party to better combat specific threats, which could be enhanced with feats and the like.

These would be the specialists you'd hire to oust a coven of bags, slay a dragon, or capture a rampaging ogre. They're not Rangers; they don't care much for the wild, and take a much more technical approach to their hunt, utilising every tool at their disposal and fighting always by the skin of their teeth, eternally outmatched in body but unparalleled in mind.

Also I think it would be fun to have a Martial that would prioritise Intelligence over Strength or Dexterity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I could see Witch being a prepared caster version of the Sorceror, and I could also see it being a prepared caster for occult magic.

I mean ultimately, I think most classes, with retooling, probably deserve to someday be brought back. After all, one person's class that is completely pointless to that individual, is another person's favorite.

I'd say the following are classes that might not be all that necessary.

Arcanist: This always felt like mechanically it filled a gap in the classes, but doesn't really have much of a thematic role to fill, being a bit too close to wizards. So I would be fine if this didn't come back, or if it did come back, was heavily reflavored

Brawler: If a straight fighter can be built for unarmed combat and be completely effective, and without pretending a good number of class features, this doesn't maybe need to exist anymore. A mundane, not mystical unarmed combatant is an important niche

Skald: This always seemed like a class that was a bit narrowly constructed, and feels like it would be better for either an archetype or just a set of feats

Classes I think could be problematic to bring back? Summoner. In PF1 that class always was bit of controversy. Summoner 1.0 was broken and caused issues. Summoner 2.0 was mechanically sound, but far more limited, and suddenly shucked a lot of concepts out of the window. I think thematically it has a place, but it might be better to figure out the class mechanics using the spiritualist or some sort of "build a construct" artificer class first.

Also, I really would like to see the cavalier class come back. Thematically, heavy armor and mounted combat seem like something that should exist for a class, and I think this could be retooled around as sort of a battlefield commander "rally the troops" type class.


Cantriped wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like the Witch needs to be the "Prepared caster of any tradition" since "who is your patron" can vary from "an angel" (who would teach you divine magic) to "the Green Mother herself" (who would teach you primal magic) and so forth.
I could get behind this usage of the 'Witch', so long as it has more to pull from than just the offensively sterotypical hexes that characterized them before.

This is why I'm personally a fan of the D&D 4e/5e naming of Warlock over Witch.

The Witch/Warlock (in D&D 4e/5e terms) concept of "you made a deal with some supernatural being or force which now bestows its power onto you" is very distinct and common in fiction (everybody is at least tangentially familiar with the likes of Faust or some other Faust-like figure of myth/folklore) and mechanically they could very easily be the "prepared sorcerer", with patron choice dictating the spell list and other thematically-appropriate boons (and drawbacks, if that's the route they want to pursue), that if there is one class which I myself would love to see, it's that.

I'm personally not a massive fan of the Oracle thematically, at least not enough that it would require a class wholly of its own, but I guess I'm not going to be able to stop the wave of pro-Oracle supporters - but I really do feel as though as "Divinely Cursed" archetype (or set of archetypes, even) would suit the role better, but I know that Paizo is not keen on "demoting" old PF1 classes to mere archetypes in PF2, so I'm probably in the minority here.

There's also the fact that the name of "Oracle" just doesn't sit well with me - when I hear 'oracle' I think more of someone who can see into the future, a prophet if you will, rather than someone was unwillingly cursed but also granted divine power in the process.
(I'm similarly bothered by the summoner's eidolon being called, well, an eidolon - I know it can take many forms but the name I just find very jarring. And IMO it does matter.)

Ultimately though, I do think that with the way PF2's looking, with the much-increased modularity of the system, there's not going to be nearly as much of a need for extra classes as there was in the first edition, but there definitely still are some holes (both mechanical and thematic) in the now 12-strong core class selection that would be nice to see filled following the CRB release. Again, in my eyes Witch is the biggest one, but pretty much everyone has a different idea on the matter it seems.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, there are two "missing" spell lists in the core book, of the four essences IIRC Arcane is Material/Mental, Divine is Spiritual/Vital, Primal is Material/Vital, and Occult is Mental/Spiritual.

We could easily make a list and corresponding class or classes for a Material/Spiritual or a Mental/Vital magical tradition.


Mark Seifter wrote:
I didn't say that the witch almost made it. The oracle is the one that was close-ish behind the alchemist. The witch wasn't even close.

Keep crushing my dreams why don't you? :'(

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like the Witch needs to be the "Prepared caster of any tradition" since "who is your patron" can vary from "an angel" (who would teach you divine magic" to "the Green Mother herself" (who would teach you primal magic) and so forth.
I definitely second this. I recall James Jacobs mentioning that he wished they'd built a real sense of a bargain into the witch, and I think that this would be a good idea. I'm not sure how you'd keep this distinct from the cleric, except that witch patrons should be mysterious and eccentric, and it shouldn't be clear what the reasoning is behind their demands and anathemas.

Fingers crossed. Having some kind of anathema and/or "pact price" would be very interesting to see.

Cantriped wrote:
I would like to see the Investigator (or 'Inquisitive') as a fully fledged foil to the Rogue. I didn't particularly like the gutted alchemy features, and we don't need an Alchemist 'Hybrid-Class' anymore since a Rogue or Investigator could just Multiclass Alchemist and vice versa now. Instead it should play up the detective fiction tropes and borrow mechanics from the Vigilante to supplement the loss of alchemy. For example, quickly disguising yourself, or fooling alignment-reading magic, gathering information quickly, etc.

I... really like this idea actually. That sounds like a fun class to play and I know one of the players in my games would jump all over it.

Cantriped wrote:
**By 'warlock' I actually mean to say a Witch-like spellcaster who has brokered a pact with a mysterious patron for occult knowledge; I just don't like the term witch being used in this context.

Why not? I honestly prefer the term Witch here, and find the term Warlock to clash thematically with the incarnation of the class - Warlock being derived from "oathbreaker" when the class obtains their power from a connection/oath with a Patron.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I could see the Psychic being a Mental/Vital caster, and the Shaman fitting the Material/Spiritual spot


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nitro~Nina wrote:

If we're talking new design space, I'd love to see a "monster slayer" kind of class. A technical martial full of specialised tricks for their prey, and the ability to improvise ways around monstrous defenses on the fly... With a high enough Lore check, of course (which they would get bonuses to). Think like Joseph Delaney's Spooks.

Mechanically, I'd imagine that they'd be decent at alchemy and trapping, but far more focused than the Alchemist or Ranger. They'd be able to undermine resistances and better exploit vulnerabilities; they'd always have just enough silver, salt and cold iron on hand, and would be able to apply such things to their arsenal of "tools" at a moment's notice. They'd also have to be able to share their knowledge, directing their party to better combat specific threats, which could be enhanced with feats and the like.

These would be the specialists you'd hire to oust a coven of bags, slay a dragon, or capture a rampaging ogre. They're not Rangers; they don't care much for the wild, and take a much more technical approach to their hunt, utilising every tool at their disposal and fighting always by the skin of their teeth, eternally outmatched in body but unparalleled in mind.

Also I think it would be fun to have a Martial that would prioritise Intelligence over Strength or Dexterity.

... Batman?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon Onozuka wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
**By 'warlock' I actually mean to say a Witch-like spellcaster who has brokered a pact with a mysterious patron for occult knowledge; I just don't like the term witch being used in this context.
Why not? I honestly prefer the term Witch here, and find the term Warlock to clash thematically with the...

Because I am a second generation pagan, and grew up in a community of people who refered to themselves as witchs (amongst other things). So I find having my cultural identity reduced by to a set of sterotypes originally designed by invaders to demonize my people... somewhat distasteful and offensive. The warding and healing hexs were a poor half-measure compared to poisoning apples and eating children as class features.

1 to 50 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Future classes - which are still even necessary? And what new ones could there be? All Messageboards