If you could only pick one class...

[dnoisette]

...to add to the core rulebook for release, which would it be?

Some folk, in another thread that popped up on these forums following Dragon Con, seemed to be in strong disagreement with Paizo staff's statement that Witches should be added "sooner rather than later".

This got me curious as to which class specifically everyone might be missing the most from the core rulebook.

Which class would you like to make the cut and end up in the core rulebook or be released fast when 2.0 becomes an official thing?

For me, it would be the Summoner.

Not because it used to be overpowered, but rather because I had a blast with this class, playing it and DMing for players who rolled Summoners.

Quick backstory here to really drive home the "I don't want them to be OP" statement: I never played the original Summoner.

My DM would ban the class because he deemed it unbalanced and I, as a player, was perfectly fine with it, though I would allow it in my own games and never found them to be especially hard to deal with (not harder than any other competent martial character at low levels and not harder than any other spellcaster at higher levels).

When the Unchained rules came out, my DM took a look at them, knowing full well I was dying to play as a Summoner, and said he would be OK giving it a go.
He never went back on this because he found the class to be more balanced and I finally got to test the Summoner.
It quickly became my favorite class to play.

Here's why: I love pet builds.
I had been playing as a Druid and Sylvan Sorcerer before so I had my own animal companion but the Summoner's eidolon was something else entirely.

First, it felt like an organic part of the class and my build, not something I had in addition to my other powers and base theme.

But the real selling point, for me, was the customization options for this fantasy creature.

I could have my eidolon be a fiery elemental in the shape of a dragon, a terrifying shadow that looked like a beast of ill-omen, even a glowing feline with a halo of bright light around them.
Mechanically, this would not give me any advantage over other characters in the party.

But the roleplay opportunities it opened were huge.
I would no longer be the wilderness survivor or animal whisperer, always.
I could roleplay a mage that bonded with a creature of fantasy and fiction, not an animal, one that was sentient and became a part of who they were.
I felt like a true Conjurer, something I wanted to achieve ever since reading the Bartimaeus trilogy growing up.

Right now, a Summoner's eidolon would likely have the minion trait and thus have only 2 actions per round instead of 3.
The Summoner would surely have to spend an action commanding their eidolon each turn, too.
In addition, assuming eidolons would follow the same rules as do animal companions regarding the no item bonus ever, I can hardly think of a way that Summoners would be overpowered.
(Not to mention I can totally see eidolon evolutions being gated behind specific class feats with the current hate for strong base class features.)

But I love this class, the concept, the fluff aspect and I would like it to return sooner rather than later so I can be that awesome Conjurer again!

What would be your choice of the first class to return in Pathfinder 2.0? :)

[Thebazilly]

I'd pick the Witch, actually. Maaaaybe Inquisitor.

But just looking at the other ACG classes, a lot of the ground is already covered. The Cavalier is in as an archetype, Alchemist is now core, and a Magus can be done pretty well with the new action economy and a caster/Fighter multiclass.

[Zwordsman]

Maybe occultist. Portrayed closer to an amalgum of Occultist and Enchanter sorta deal.

[Lyee]

I wanted to say Oracle, then realized that Revelations were basically class feats, except interesting, narratively powerful, and scaled with your level instead of taking 3 feats to keep up, so a PF2 Oracle would probably not be as fun.

Bloodrager was cool, but the cooler totem effects in PF2 seem to be working towards that already, good job Paizo.

I'm going to go with two answers to ignore the title.

1) Commoner. Because knowing a base standard feels kinda neat.

2) Investigator. So much cool flavour and archtypes. One of the most unique classes in that it had cool non-combat focus while not being all magic either.

[Vic Ferrari]

Zwordsman wrote:

Maybe occultist. Portrayed closer to an amalgum of Occultist and Enchanter sorta deal.

Yes, for me it's the Occultist, the most interesting PF class they have released, I even converted it to 5th Ed.

[Laik]

Expert. A base for building NPCs around the world.

[Nox Aeterna]

Yeah summoner too, but not the unchained one, have no use for that.

My favorite class for sure, followed by ofc the other two pet classes, hunter/spiritualist.

[Gorbacz]

Witch.

[Alchemaic]

Alchemist.

[GreyWolfLord]

I'll be the odd one out...

the Gunslinger!!!

Okay...

Maybe...the Inquisitor.

[Themetricsystem]

Easy, Witch ALL the way

Maybe if they clean up the Spells Organization enough they can squeeze it in the Core.... I wish...

[dnoisette]

Alchemaic wrote:

Alchemist.

Not sure if this is meant to say that you're unhappy with the current implementation of the Alchemist class?

Anyway, so far, results are:

Kineticist - 2 votes
Occultist - 2 votes
Summoner - 2 votes
Witch - 4 votes, our current winner
- - -
(Alchemist - 1 vote? - not too sure why this has showed up since it's in the game already but...)
Gunslinger - 1 vote
Investigator - 1 vote

The Inquisitor also interestingly had 2 votes but those were "secondary" choices.

Honourable mention to the Spell Sage archetype.

Commoner and expert templates were also mentioned once each, though they technically are not PC classes.

EDIT: post edited to account for votes up to that of Palinurus.

[Dilvias]

Kineticist

[Alchemaic]

dnoisette wrote:

Alchemaic wrote:

Alchemist.

Not sure if this is meant to say that you're unhappy with the current implementation of the Alchemist class?

That was the idea, yes.

[OmniMage]

Umm... Can I pick an archetype? I would pick the Spell Sage for the Wizard. I like the idea that I could cast almost any spell, even if I'm not the best at it.

[Wolfism]

Kineticist, I had a blast playing them.

They had a really unique set of mechanics and I think they could do really cool things using the gather power and the three action economy. I hope they don't stay in class limbo for too long.

[Palinurus]

dnoisette wrote:

Alchemaic wrote:

Alchemist.

Not sure if this is meant to say that you're unhappy with the current implementation of the Alchemist class?

Anyway, so far, results are:

Occultist - 2 votes
Summoner - 2 votes
Witch - 3 votes
- - -
(Alchemist - 1 vote? - not too sure why this has showed up since it's in the game already but...)
Gunslinger - 1 vote
Investigator - 1 vote
Kineticist - 1 vote

The Inquisitor also interestingly had 2 votes but those were "secondary" choices.

Commoner and expert templates were also mentioned once each, though they technically are not PC classes.

Definitely witch for me too.

[Almarane]

I'd totally pick the Summoner too :D

Maybe re-balance it a bit. I agree that some of the Summoner's spell came too early, but in my opinion it was principally because it was a 6-level caster while some higher level spells were critical for its job. So, if we make it a 9th-level spellcaster with enough hit points to play Buddy Fighter with their Eidolon or their summons, à la Druid, it would balance it a bit ? Mix in some real interactions with the Eidolon before really high level ?

In every game I play, I love being able to summon monsters who fight for me. The Summoner was the one who did it better (hence the name). My favorite character is a Marchal Summoner with a Buddy Fighter/buffer build. And the Eidolon is fun to play with too :)

And I agree with everything you said yourself, dnoisette ! Even though I prefer vanilla Summoner to Unchained Summoner, you perfectly summarized my view on this class :D

[Madame Endor]

Swashbuckler!!! The class that best fit the character concepts that I was most often trying to make fighters, rogues, and rangers into with leveling into the duelist prestige class until the Advanced Class Guide came around. Before Advanced Class Guide, rogues were mostly used to make characters that fit swashbuckler, slayer, or thief/burgler concepts. The PF2 rogue leans toward the slayer concept.

[Edge93]

My initial thought was that I wanted the Magus, but Fighter/Wizard with the MC for the other pulls that off nicely (as an aside I love how the multiclass system allows for stuff like Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight, and Mystic Theurge so smoothly).

But I've also been thinking lately and I'd like to see the Gunslinger brought over. With how close Touch AC is to regular the perk of hitting it is no longer broken. The inability to load as a free action works as a balance too, without making the lowered rate of Fire useless thanks to the harshness of multiple attack penalty. Misfires could be incorporated as a consequence for a critical failure on a Strike (an idea I like because it makes firing your gun multiple times in a round a little riskier due to MAP and the new crit rules, like it overheats from overuse or something), and the Fatal trait emulates the heavy crit power of guns in OG Pathfinder well (maybe Pistols could be a 1d6 with fatal d10s and muskets a 1d8 with fatal d12s?). Plus with how much more moving around the battlefield seems to happen in this system I think that the short range increments of guns could mean something more often now.

In fact, you could even cut those further (10 feet for a pistol and 20 for a musket) but have them target TAC within the first two increments instead of one. This way you have to be pretty darn close to get the full boon of shooting at TAC giving a risk-reward scenario, while you can be at a more moderate distance and still be targeting TAC but with the penalty for shooting past range increment, likely leaving you with a small net accuracy bonus over a bow still.

Lastly the problem of their damage would be solved. Originally Gunslinger damage blew archers away even without the boon of targeting touch because they added Dex to damage where an archer needed Dex and Str for good archery damage. But now with weapon boosts giving more damage dice the impact of a modifier is lessened. Which also opens the door to other classes using it (originally other classes couldn't use guns worth crap past early level a except for Trench Fighter because the lack of a stat mod to damage was killer). It could be an Uncommon exotic weapon (takes some doing to get but if the GM is cool with guns you can do it).

Of course that last bit just makes me think Gunslinger could work as an Archetype too. The Grey Maiden gives us precedence for an archetype granting access to a specific weapon, there could be a Gunslinger archetype to grant access to guns and then later feats could build on it and up proficiency like Grey Maiden does with their armor.

[dnoisette]

It would seem I can no longer edit my previous post (backtracked too far...), so current votes are:

Full classes

Alchemist - 1 vote (unhappy with current version)
Gunslinger - 2 votes
Investigator - 1 vote
Kineticist - 2 votes
Occultist - 2 votes
Summoner - 3 votes
Swashbuckler - 1 vote
Witch - 4 votes

Inquisitor also had 2 votes but these were secondary choices.

Archetypes

Spell Sage - 1 vote

Templates

Commoner - 1 vote
Expert - 1 vote

[Xenocrat]

dnoisette wrote:

...to add to the core rulebook for release, which would it be?

Some folk, in another thread that popped up on these forums following Dragon Con, seemed to be in strong disagreement with Paizo staff's statement that Witches should be added "sooner rather than later".

This got me curious as to which class specifically everyone might be missing the most from the core rulebook.

Which class would you like to make the cut and end up in the core rulebook or be released fast when 2.0 becomes an official thing?

For me, it would be the Summoner.

Yes, I also looked at the animal companion nerfs, minion rules, and horribly weak Summon X options and thought that a class based on a summoned minion would be great in PF2.

[dnoisette]

Xenocrat wrote:

Yes, I also looked at the animal companion nerfs, minion rules, and horribly weak Summon X options and thought that a class based on a summoned minion would be great in PF2.

I agree but I wasn't debating whether the class should be included based on how strong it would be.

I was mostly just stating that I would love the Summoner to return because of the class concept, not its situational usefulness - or lack thereof.

[Zorae]

Occultist definitely

[magnuskn]

Kineticist, with a revision which removes the whole "you gimp your hitpoints for the entire day by using your good abilities" thing. I love Avatar: The Last Airbender and Legend of Korra, and like the Codex Alera. If only I could play the Avatar, instead of only going for one (and a half) element(s). :p

The next ones on the list are Inquisitor, Oracle, Vigilante, Swashbuckler and Investigator. All classes with strong themes.

[Bluescale]

Summoner for me, preferably the original, not the restricted "unchained" version.

[WatersLethe]

Shaman, hands down.

[Ronnam]

Witch.

Nice and Pathfinder-y

[ikarinokami]

witch. because they already have a niche and purpose, and are the most flavorful of the remaining classes not yet added.

[The Once and Future Kai]

Mystic. I miss my players roleplaying their Curse. Also, I'm a sucker for spontaneous divine casters... Nice that Sorcerers got the option. I wouldn't complain if they just merged the two and gave Sorcerers a "Cursed" bloodline.

[Sandal Fury]

I'll cast my vote for witch. I'm not a huge fan of the bard becoming a full-9 occult caster. Witch would fit that much better, and has excellent flavor options.

[Alyran]

Witch. Tons of harsh debuff magic and access to hexes just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

[dnoisette]

As of now, we have:

Full classes

Alchemist - 1 vote (unhappy with current version)
Gunslinger - 2 votes
Investigator - 1 vote
Kineticist - 3 votes
Occultist - 3 votes
Oracle - 1 vote (I assume that is the Mystic referenced above, or else it's 3PP?)
Shaman - 1 vote
Summoner - 4 votes
Swashbuckler - 1 vote
Witch - 8 votes

Inquisitor also had 2 votes but these were secondary choices.

Archetypes

Spell Sage - 1 vote

Templates

Commoner - 1 vote
Expert - 1 vote

Our current top 3 are:

1) Witch - 8 votes
2) Summoner - 4 votes
3) Kineticist & Occultist - 3 votes each

[The Sideromancer]

I'm going to go with Mesmerist. Dedicated debuffers appear to desperately need the reliability the stare would provide, if basing your style in contingencies isn't cool enough (for the record, it's pretty awesome).

[Pramxnim]

I haven’t played Pathfinder, but I like the concept of a Summoner in PF. It would be nice to see that ported over to PF2

[ohokwy.]

Summoner for me, as well.

What I actually want is vigilante, but maybe not as a full class. It'd work well as a PF2 style archetype.

[necromental]

I would like inquisitor but it scares me how gutted that class would be. Oracle as a secondary choice, as it may actually work in PF2.

[Almarane]

Well, if we are doing secondary choices and archetypes now :

As a secondary choice, I would say Magus. Hacking through your ennemies with a blade while casting a Fireball on the other hand ? Yeah !

And as an archetype, Eldritch Archer (but with a better wording, even though the concept is awesome, in play it's a pain, since it seems the powers were just quickly translated from melee to ranged, but with a melee-specialist spell list, with some spell levels not allowing you to learn new ranged touch attack spells).

And as for templates : monster templates :) Like Young, Giant, etc etc.

[puksone]

A playable wizard.

[Darigaaz the Igniter]

Oracle or Witch

[Igor Horvat]

Ranger

[dnoisette]

Okay I feel I may have to start a new category here:

Classes that need to be revisited before launch

Alchemist - 1 vote
Ranger - 1 vote
Wizard - 1 vote

This should probably be a separate thread though, something along the line of "Which class needs the more help currently?".

I think it would be best to focus on classes that are not yet in the core rulebook for the time being.

Full classes - 1st choice

Gunslinger - 2 votes
Inquisitor - 1 vote
Investigator - 1 vote
Kineticist - 3 votes
Mesmerist - 1 vote
Occultist - 3 votes
Oracle - 2 votes
Shaman - 1 vote
Summoner - 6 votes
Swashbuckler - 1 vote
Witch - 8 votes

Full classes - 2nd choice

Inquisitor - 2 votes
Magus - 1 vote
Oracle - 1 vote
Witch - 1 vote

Archetypes

Eldritch Archer - 1 vote
Spell Sage - 1 vote

Templates

Commoner - 1 vote
Expert - 1 vote
Monsters templates (young, giant, etc.) - 1 vote

The original question was:
If you could only pick one class to add to the core rulebook for release, which would it be?

So far, top 3 answers are the following (1st choices only):

1) Witch - 8 votes
2) Summoner - 6 votes
3) Kineticist & Occultist - 3 votes

[The Once and Future Kai]

dnoisette wrote:

Oracle - 1 vote (I assume that is the Mystic referenced above, or else it's 3PP?)

Derp. That's what I get for posting after my bedtime. Thanks for the correction! I did indeed mean Oracle...Mystic was a far less interesting spontaneous divine caster from the 3.5 Dragonlance Campaign Setting rulebook.

But yes... Oracle is tied with Rogue for my favorite base class.

[ErichAD]

Summoner. I use them frequently as enemies since you can have the players fight their eidolon earlier in the game before facing the master giving the players a hint at their power without risking them on the board for an early death. I also really like the idea of a fragile caster being supported more completely by a minion.

I think it would be tolerable if quality summoning in PF2 was restricted to its own class. At least it would be in the game.

Second place is shaman. I think it's a better branching point than witch or oracle for emulating the classes that inherit power. Familiars need some revisiting for witch and shaman though, since they seem to be point built monsters with no real flavor to them. They may as well be blobs, but they can't even be that.

[CharlieIAm]

My vote would be for Kineticist, as the class that's most distinct from the core classes and it would be nice to see a PF2 rewrite now that Spell Points are a thing and we could perhaps not have to go with damaging yourself as a base mechanic.

[Vic Ferrari]

Almarane wrote:

As a secondary choice, I would say Magus. Hacking through your ennemies with a blade while casting a Fireball on the other hand ? Yeah !

Everyone can now do that, thanks to the Unchained RAE!

[Kerobelis]

I go with a rebuild on the Alchemist first. He is in a sad state compared to his PF1 version.

[Dante Doom]

Investigator

[dnoisette]

Most recent results are:

Classes that need to be revisited before launch

Alchemist - 2 votes
Ranger - 1 vote
Wizard - 1 vote

Full classes - 1st choice

Gunslinger - 2 votes
Inquisitor - 1 vote
Investigator - 2 votes
Kineticist - 4 votes
Mesmerist - 1 vote
Occultist - 3 votes
Oracle - 2 votes
Shaman - 1 vote
Summoner - 7 votes
Swashbuckler - 1 vote
Witch - 8 votes

Full classes - 2nd choice

Inquisitor - 2 votes
Magus - 1 vote
Oracle - 1 vote
Rogue - 1 vote
Shaman - 1 vote
Witch - 1 vote

Archetypes

Eldritch Archer - 1 vote
Spell Sage - 1 vote

Templates

Commoner - 1 vote
Expert - 1 vote
Monsters templates (young, giant, etc.) - 1 vote

The original question was:
If you could only pick one class to add to the core rulebook for release, which would it be?

So far, top 3 answers are the following (1st choices only):

1) Witch - 8 votes
2) Summoner - 7 votes
3) Kineticist - 4 votes

[Elleth]

Chipping in for my players on the "probably rebuild or alter" front: Paladin.