If you could only pick one class...


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

dnoisette wrote:

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

Classes that need to be revisited before launch

Paladin. The class is too much of a cleric and too little of a holy weapon.

Grand Lodge

Kineticist.


Witch - My go to response for most things.


Most recent results are:

Classes that need to be revisited before launch

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

Full classes - 1st choice

Gunslinger - 2 votes
Inquisitor - 1 vote
Investigator - 2 votes
Kineticist - 5 votes
Mesmerist - 1 vote
Occultist - 3 votes
Oracle - 2 votes
Shaman - 1 vote
Summoner - 7 votes
Swashbuckler - 1 vote
Witch - 9 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 - 9 votes
2) Summoner - 7 votes
3) Kineticist - 5 votes


First choice, Summoner

Second choice, Kineticist

Class that needs the most work, Alchemist


Summoner. I just like the idea of a fully dedicated pet class. I also like the idea of them being a single target buff/ healing class with it but that could be just me.


Id love Shaman

and then a kinetic knight


First choice Swashbuckler. Don't think it'd even be that hard. Parry as your class reaction which costs a panache(spell point now for simplicity?). Various class feats that give you extra deeds and maybe additional panache.


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.

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...

Wizard, it's a shame they forgot to include it. IMHO, of course


dnoisette wrote:

Most recent results are:

Classes that need to be revisited before launch

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

Full classes - 1st choice

Gunslinger - 2 votes
Inquisitor - 1 vote
Investigator - 2 votes
Kineticist - 5 votes
Mesmerist - 1 vote
Occultist - 3 votes
Oracle - 2 votes
Shaman - 1 vote
Summoner - 7 votes
Swashbuckler - 1 vote
Witch - 9 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 - 9 votes
2) Summoner - 7 votes
3) Kineticist - 5 votes

sorry, in my previous post I let my disenchantment run too far.

Get me in the gunslinger, but cooler

And I think this is a great thread, thank you very much, and hope developers pay attention to this thread


By the way, could you do this same with Ancestries (Races)?

Please, please, please, please, please, you have been very successful with this thread.

Take my vote for construct (warforged or similar)


My primary choice would be Kineticist. For one, I love blasting and would love to be able to get a class that can actually focus on throwing around raw elemental energy without having to devote 1/2 or more of their resources to off-theme stuff (like blaster casters have to do to keep lower level spells at all relevant.)

Besides that though, I want to see Magus come back, but maybe as an archetype you can stick on any caster. As people have said, you can kinda sorta emulate spell combat with the new action economy (though 1 spell + 1 attack hardly a spell combat makes IMO) but what we're really lacking is spellstrikes (well, maybe with the fancy arrows you can Ranged Spellstrike.) And besides, there's still room for fancy action economy playing, like the classic suggestion of performing a Strike on a Somatic Component.


I think I'll just keep a separate Excel spreadsheet of all votes and just post an update for which choices are more popular from now on (because the list for each category is getting quite long).

Classes that need to be revisited before launch (top 3):

Alchemist - 3 votes
Paladin - 2 votes
Wizard - 2 votes

It is somewhat telling that I didn't really ask for this to begin with but it really became a thing of its own.

Obviously, some people feel that they have no home in this current edition because their favorite class needs some more love or has not been implemented properly.

Full classes that should be added "sooner rather than later" (top 3 ):

Witch & Summoner - 9 votes each
Kineticist - 6 votes

Do take note that this top 3 is based off first choices only.

For secondary choices, the most popular options right now are Inquisitor, Kineticist and Magus, each with 2 votes.

Combining all votes for first and secondary choices yields the following results:

Witch - 10 votes
Summoner - 9 votes
Kineticist - 8 votes


Witch. Loved both the flavor and mechanics in PF1, and hope that the Patrons can be expanded upon in 2E (possibly letting you choose a spell list based on patron similar to the sorcerer).


Charon Onozuka wrote:
Witch. Loved both the flavor and mechanics in PF1, and hope that the Patrons can be expanded upon in 2E (possibly letting you choose a spell list based on patron similar to the sorcerer).

Yes, I have always liked Witches as a bit druidic, so being able to choose the Primal list would be nifty, though the primal list is rather blasty.


Summoner for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If we're voting for classes that need a rework too, then I will emphatically vote for Paladin.

This iteration of the Paladin feels like a vanilla WoW support paladin, rather than a weapon wielded by the forces of good to combat evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dnoisette wrote:

Full classes that should be added "sooner rather than later" (top 3 ):

Witch & Summoner - 9 votes each
Kineticist - 6 votes

Do take note that this top 3 is based off first choices only.

For secondary choices, the most popular options right now are Inquisitor, Kineticist and Magus, each with 2 votes.

Combining all votes for first and secondary choices yields the following results:

Witch - 10 votes
Summoner - 9 votes
Kineticist - 8 votes

Witch isn't my first choice, but it's understandable why it's on top.

Hexes are far more interesting and useful than than any of the wizard abilities and don't run out like spells. Other spellcasting classes would benefit from the same or similar mechanics.

Also, the witch spell list combines cure spells with a lot of the most powerful wizard spells. If there isn't both a player who wants to play a cleric and a player who wants to play an arcane caster, witches can do double duty and fill both roles. Archetypes allow witches to channel and swap spells with cure spells, making the witch at good at healing as a cleric, although they lack some ability to end some conditions and do some restoration. The only reason that I can see to not put healing spells at all in the wizard list is to strictly enforce roles on player characters. That can give every player a job to play, but it's a significant problem when there aren't players who want to take specific roles. It's worth considering making wizard more like witches or making witch a core class.

Summoner also makes a lot of sense in that it lets players imaginations run wild or create companions that fit tight concepts. That's also maybe it's weakness. If a GM wants to set a certain tone or theme, summoner lets players easily go far outside that which is maybe a reason to keep it out of the core classes and make it available later.

Kineticist has a lot of issues, but what's really nice is that it gets away from daily spell slots that feel very unnatural for spellcasting when looking at most classic fantasy and folklore and also make players want to constantly put their characters to sleep for the night to get important spells back. With some significant tweaks, making spellcasting for some classes work more like the kineticist's abilities would make them feel more natural and address some other issues as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kineticist, definitely.

I suppose the chances of getting Paizo to call it Elementalist instead are indistinguishable from zero, but in an ideal world, that too.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm gonna say gunslinger also. This is less because of the class itself, and more because including the gunslinger necessitates including firearms in the core rules (a necessity for my group's home-brew setting to work properly in PF2).


Witch, then gunslinger and shifter.


Gunslinger

Give them a feat at first level the gives them the ability to change crossbows to reload 0 weapons and up a die size as an option.
Then have a crossbow path chain.

Guns are all reload 1, and target touch ac,
2 handed do 1d8 fatal 1d12, range 60
One handed 1d6, fatal 1d10, range 30

Do not take it the fighter direction of feat trees as weapon type based but take them style based.

Quick shooting multi-shot path, feats to shoot extra shots on fewer actions and level 12 up make Reload 1 firearms reload 0.

Sniper shooting stance, removes range penalties, aim as one action to roll perception succeed for consider them flat footed crit succeed to also get + 3 to hit.
Feats to increase the one big hit style, and later aimed shots get a damage. Onus of half primary stat.

Well rounded style that alchemies special ammo and to do special effect but no specific aim or damage bonuses


Alchemist needs a rework/relook.

That said for classes, and not going into Hybrid cause they're dead;

Gunslinger. Come on, do it. With the changes to Crafting and Alchemy you can probably make some interesting ammo. And I'd like something else to compete with bows for ranged builds that isn't spells.

Part of me would also love to see the complaining from people about Gunslinger getting in for any number of reasons so maybe I'm a bad person.


I'd prefer to see gunslinger be part of alchemist as an option to replace the current bomb focus.


MAGUS POWER FOREVER !


ErichAD wrote:
I'd prefer to see gunslinger be part of alchemist as an option to replace the current bomb focus.

I'd like that but I'd also like it to be an Archetype for Alchemist(Focus on guns/bullets instead).

But Gunslinger to get either 1 high damage sniper shot off or multi shot, drop, grab new gun, empty, repeat style works.

Sovereign Court

I would vote Kineticist.

Many of the non-core PF 1.0 classes are "this class with a twist" and can be done via Archetype, like the current multi-class Archetypes provide. This is because PF 2.0's classes are built off the same basic framework.

Summoner can be pulled as an Archetype that gives an Eidolon that is similar to an Animal Companion, and functions as one except it does X stuff Eidolons do and isn't an Animal. You could probably take a Feat to get and expand your Evolution Pool. This is mostly how Cavalier Mounts are done in Playtest ATM.

Gunslingers and Swashbucklers would be another Archetype as well, since Powers are very much like Grit/Panache.

Oracles and Witches could be done as Archetypes for spellcasters.

Skalds could be an Archetype that requires Bardic Performance.

Inquisitor and Warpriest can be Archetypes that require Divine Spellcasting and grant patron diety (with the Anathema), much like the Cleric Archetype does.

Bloodrager could be done as an Archetype that gives more HP (like the Fighter's Archetype has a Feat for) and a Rage-like ability that allows casting, but requires a Bloodline.

Magus and Arcane Archer can be done as an Archetype that provides for Spell Combat and gives melee and ranged Spellstrike as Feats, with Harrowed Spellstrike if you have both Feats. AA and Arcane Pool can be folded in as an ability that adds a number of elemental damage dice equal to your weapon's.

Investigators would be an Archetype that provides Inspiration.

Vigilantes would be an Archetype that provides and works on the dual identities. They were easy to make OP in PF 1.0 because of the Social and Vigilante Talents.

Brawlers, Hunters, and Slayers pretty much got absorbed into their parent classes since they weren't that different to begin with.

Psychics are just Aberrant Sorcerers now.

Mesmerist kinda blurs into the new Bard, with the Occult list and the ability to lie and socially engineer like a boss. The Tricks can be done as an Archetype.


Ah, yes, the Gunslinger, that is unlike any class in D&D/PF, it should be included, a serious iconic PF deal. I would like it unarmoured, ala the Monk. They should not target TAC.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Ah, yes, the Gunslinger, that is unlike any class in D&D/PF, it should be included, a serious iconic PF deal. I would like it unarmoured, ala the Monk. They should not target TAC.

The first firearm users are likely to be armored in the way that the soldiers of their nations are like conquistadors were. Since firearms are going to be advanced technology and expensive, firearm wielders are probably going to be better armored than the typical soldier. Simply being a firearms expert wouldn't at all make someone effective at martial arts dodges, moves, and acrobatics that make monks effective unarmored. If anything, it would teach them to find long range cover and inaccessible positions and avoid melee altogether, relying on the strengths of their weapon. Since their weapons are clunky and awkward and the loudest thing of the day, stealth is not going to be of primary concern. Their real power is distance and the force that their weapons hit with. Ranged attacks are going to be their biggest worry after they find a position. Armor is going to be their friend, especially while they reload. The conquistador, not Jessie James, is the best prototype for medieval or renaissance firearms wielder.


Razata wrote:

I would vote Kineticist.

Many of the non-core PF 1.0 classes are "this class with a twist" and can be done via Archetype, like the current multi-class Archetypes provide. This is because PF 2.0's classes are built off the same basic framework.

Summoner can be pulled as an Archetype that gives an Eidolon that is similar to an Animal Companion, and functions as one except it does X stuff Eidolons do and isn't an Animal. You could probably take a Feat to get and expand your Evolution Pool. This is mostly how Cavalier Mounts are done in Playtest ATM.

Gunslingers and Swashbucklers would be another Archetype as well, since Powers are very much like Grit/Panache.

Oracles and Witches could be done as Archetypes for spellcasters.

Skalds could be an Archetype that requires Bardic Performance.

Inquisitor and Warpriest can be Archetypes that require Divine Spellcasting and grant patron diety (with the Anathema), much like the Cleric Archetype does.

Bloodrager could be done as an Archetype that gives more HP (like the Fighter's Archetype has a Feat for) and a Rage-like ability that allows casting, but requires a Bloodline.

Magus and Arcane Archer can be done as an Archetype that provides for Spell Combat and gives melee and ranged Spellstrike as Feats, with Harrowed Spellstrike if you have both Feats. AA and Arcane Pool can be folded in as an ability that adds a number of elemental damage dice equal to your weapon's.

Investigators would be an Archetype that provides Inspiration.

Vigilantes would be an Archetype that provides and works on the dual identities. They were easy to make OP in PF 1.0 because of the Social and Vigilante Talents.

Brawlers, Hunters, and Slayers pretty much got absorbed into their parent classes since they weren't that different to begin with.

Psychics are just Aberrant Sorcerers now.

Mesmerist kinda blurs into the new Bard, with the Occult list and the ability to lie and socially engineer like a boss. The Tricks can be done as an Archetype.

If that's the case Kineticist isn't put in as a class either but as a Dedication. Allowing Fighters to make Stone Weapons that are better than their own, Druids to connect better to nature, Rogues would love to pick Wind as the Elemental when selecting the Dedication.

Seriously it would probably read something like "Gain a Spell Point pool or Burn Pool. Select an Element, you get X abilities or buff based on it".

The problem is with this you can easily turn all the PF1 classes into Dedications. I mean why print a full class when you can print half of it, let someone bolt that onto another half class we have and save space.


The Investigator 'cause I love it. Adding d6s to skills is so fun and Inspiration is the best mechanic.

Unfortunately the Rogue doesn't seem to need the help any more :(.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Madame Endor wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Ah, yes, the Gunslinger, that is unlike any class in D&D/PF, it should be included, a serious iconic PF deal. I would like it unarmoured, ala the Monk. They should not target TAC.
The first firearm users are likely to be armored in the way that the soldiers of their nations are like conquistadors were. Since firearms are going to be advanced technology and expensive, firearm wielders are probably going to be better armored than the typical soldier. Simply being a firearms expert wouldn't at all make someone effective at martial arts dodges, moves, and acrobatics that make monks effective unarmored. If anything, it would teach them to find long range cover and inaccessible positions and avoid melee altogether, relying on the strengths of their weapon. Since their weapons are clunky and awkward and the loudest thing of the day, stealth is not going to be of primary concern. Their real power is distance and the force that their weapons hit with. Ranged attacks are going to be their biggest worry after they find a position. Armor is going to be their friend, especially while they reload. The conquistador, not Jessie James, is the best prototype for medieval or renaissance firearms wielder.

Well, I want to play Unforgiven,

so forget renaissance and Jessie James, just give me

badass Clint Eastwood


Madame Endor wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Ah, yes, the Gunslinger, that is unlike any class in D&D/PF, it should be included, a serious iconic PF deal. I would like it unarmoured, ala the Monk. They should not target TAC.
The first firearm users are likely to be armored in the way that the soldiers of their nations are like conquistadors were. Since firearms are going to be advanced technology and expensive, firearm wielders are probably going to be better armored than the typical soldier. Simply being a firearms expert wouldn't at all make someone effective at martial arts dodges, moves, and acrobatics that make monks effective unarmored. If anything, it would teach them to find long range cover and inaccessible positions and avoid melee altogether, relying on the strengths of their weapon. Since their weapons are clunky and awkward and the loudest thing of the day, stealth is not going to be of primary concern. Their real power is distance and the force that their weapons hit with. Ranged attacks are going to be their biggest worry after they find a position. Armor is going to be their friend, especially while they reload. The conquistador, not Jessie James, is the best prototype for medieval or renaissance firearms wielder.

Cool, but would be nothing like the original PF1 Gunslinger class, they are grit having (they even get True Grit, lifted directly from the Western with John Wayne), dodge-happy, Sundance Kids.


MerlinCross wrote:

If that's the case Kineticist isn't put in as a class either but as a Dedication. Allowing Fighters to make Stone Weapons that are better than their own, Druids to connect better to nature, Rogues would love to pick Wind as the Elemental when selecting the Dedication.

Seriously it would probably read something like "Gain a Spell Point pool or Burn Pool. Select an Element, you get X abilities or buff based on it".

The problem is with this you can easily turn all the PF1 classes into Dedications. I mean why print a full class when you can print half of it, let someone bolt that onto another half class we have and save space.

I can't agree. Kineticist is sort of the barebones version of PF2 backported to PF1. They'd have their elemental attack with a free level appropriate weapon potency rune applied and the option to activate a second level appropriate rune at the cost of resonance. They could make one attack with two action, or two attacks with two actions at the cost of resonance. At seventh level they could make three attacks with 3 actions ignoring MAP on the second attack at the cost of one resonance. All attacks would be combined into one attack. They'd gain a different element at 8th with some effect for combined elements. They would also have an armor rune they could activate for 1 resonance with a specific rune locked to a specific element. What's left, a low level spell every other level activated with resonance? Throw those in as feats and we're good to go.

I'd say d6HP reflex and will good. unarmored AC good. Let them buy off the negative of overspending resonance with hit points equal to twice their level.

That's the whole class. It is very different from any specific class as it is sort of the template for all of them.


Aadgarvven wrote:

Well, I want to play Unforgiven,

so forget renaissance and Jessie James, just give me

badass Clint Eastwood

A Pathfinder Boot Hill would be great. If we're going not make the core classes for the game from classic fantasy and folklore for Pathfinder, then lets just go full Ready Player One, and make core astronaut, fighter pilot, tank commander, and atomic scientist classes. Mixing unrelated settings can be fun, but there's a place for it expansions and distant corners of campaign worlds or in separate games altogether like Starfinder giving you space and science fiction. There's too little space in a core rulebook and too much to include to get classic fantasy and folklore right without wasting space on things that aren't related to the core genre of the game.


ErichAD wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

If that's the case Kineticist isn't put in as a class either but as a Dedication. Allowing Fighters to make Stone Weapons that are better than their own, Druids to connect better to nature, Rogues would love to pick Wind as the Elemental when selecting the Dedication.

Seriously it would probably read something like "Gain a Spell Point pool or Burn Pool. Select an Element, you get X abilities or buff based on it".

The problem is with this you can easily turn all the PF1 classes into Dedications. I mean why print a full class when you can print half of it, let someone bolt that onto another half class we have and save space.

I can't agree. Kineticist is sort of the barebones version of PF2 backported to PF1. They'd have their elemental attack with a free level appropriate weapon potency rune applied and the option to activate a second level appropriate rune at the cost of resonance. They could make one attack with two action, or two attacks with two actions at the cost of resonance. At seventh level they could make three attacks with 3 actions ignoring MAP on the second attack at the cost of one resonance. All attacks would be combined into one attack. They'd gain a different element at 8th with some effect for combined elements. They would also have an armor rune they could activate for 1 resonance with a specific rune locked to a specific element. What's left, a low level spell every other level activated with resonance? Throw those in as feats and we're good to go.

I'd say d6HP reflex and will good. unarmored AC good. Let them buy off the negative of overspending resonance with hit points equal to twice their level.

That's the whole class. It is very different from any specific class as it is sort of the template for all of them.

See everything you just said, I can STILL see as being a Dedication.

Kineticist Blade - Gain a weapon potency rune applied to your weapon with X extra damage based on the Element you picked with Kineticist Dedication.

Kineticist Armor - gain armor potency rune applied and bonuses based on the element you picked(Fire burns close foes, wind gives movement or AC/Dodge).

Improved Blast - Either improved damage, less actions or maybe less Burn. Or apply new rider effects based on the element. Like Stone/Earth has a chance to stagger.

Anything in PF1 can be broken down into their base ability parts and given back to us as a Dedication tree. Any per day ability is now Spell Points. So just slap Spell points to Kineticist Dedication and bam, everyone that wants to be one can be one. It's totally the same right?

That's why I'm ticked Cavalier as a class is dead. If Gunslinger or Magus is just Dedications, then to me EVERYTHING that's not core is going to be brought over as Dedication.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Much as I like the Summoner and Witch, I feel that a revamped Investigator would be much more interesting, especially if they dropped the spellcasting mechanic to focus on solving problems and analyzing the weaknesses of monsters. With a bit of effort, this could even work to effectively add in other classes, since an Inquisitor could be represented by an Investigator multiclassed into Cleric.


magnuskn wrote:
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

IIRC, burn dealing nonlethal was leftover from a more pronounced Carrie/Firestarter theme, which also explains why Avatar: the Class was in the occult book.

On that note, I second the kineticist. Every system needs a good blaster class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Ah, yes, the Gunslinger, that is unlike any class in D&D/PF, it should be included, a serious iconic PF deal. I would like it unarmoured, ala the Monk. They should not target TAC.

What we need is a good fire arrow user. I've done some research into historical firearms, and realized it's probably not that GMs are opposed to introducing gunpowder at all. It's that developers tend to equate "firearms" with way post-Medieval things like pistols and revolvers, which don't mesh as well with the pseudo-Medieval-European setting. I think there'd be fewer objections if you had things like fire arrows (tying rockets to arrows to make them fly farther) or hand cannons (personal-sized cannons that fire handfuls of rocks like primitive shotguns). Now those, those could inspire an interesting class.


Now that I come to think of it, I wonder whether Vigilante would work better as rules to multiclass than as a class of its own.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Similar to Razata, I think most of the choices have mechanically not been distinct enough to warrant translation to a new class in Pathfinder Second Edition. Thematically, perhaps, but mechanically most have been nearly identical. I am going to talk about how other classes can or likely will be accomplished by the 11 base classes before I talk about my choice.

Antipaladin is really just an evil Paladin, and I don't think any class should exist on the premise of "basically class but minor difference". Instead I would like to just see the Paladin remove it's alignment restriction and be written more as a champion empowered by her deity. Maybe even have a few more elements from the Sentinel and Evangalist prestige classes worked in to the Paladin.

Arcanist isn't distinct enough to warrant a class in my opinion. It can mostly be accomplished by multiclassing Wizard and Sorcerer in some combination. Currently Sorcerer multiclassed with Wizard, but we know we will be getting a Sorcerer multiclass option. I actually think if you are going pure caster that this is a strong option. The only thing mechanically distinct for the Arcanist was how they cast spells, using a combination of prepared and spontaneous. Rather than make a whole class for just this thing, I personally would like to just see our prepared casters changed to cast this way, but admittedly this is because I hate vancian spellcasting.

Bloodrager, a much as I love the class, can be accomplished with multiclassing a spellcasting class as a Barbarian. Basically Barbarian, but minor spellcasting.

Brawler seems to have been spread across Fighter and Monk, which I am fine with. The only thing distinct about the class was Martial Flexibility, which I think could exist in this system but less effectively than in Pathfinder First Edition. If they were to decide to implement this I think I would like to see it as an archetype that allows you to temporarily get some feats from a non-spellcasting class. It would allow people to build characters like Taskmaster from Marvel comics.

Cavalier is already an archetype, and I think a good example of how some classes are better suited as archetypes. Now my options when building a Cavalier are much more broad than First Edition as I can use several different classes as the base chassis of my build.

Gunslinger was a class everyone talked about but few people stuck with for more than a dip, or 5 levels to get Dex to damage, which speaks volumes for the poor class design in my opinion. If they decide to implement guns in Second Edition, I don't think a class should accompany them. Some feats working them in to each class, allowing spellcasters to use them like the Spellslinger Wizard or martial classes to use them as the Gunslinger did in the previous edition. Otherwise just make guns an exotic weapon that anyone could get proficiency in. Basically Fighter, but with guns.

Hunter never seemed distinct enough from the Ranger or Druid, so just speeding them back across those classes would be fine by me. Basically Druid, but spontaneous casting.

Inquisitor can be accomplished by multiclassing a Cleric or Paladin and I don't really think anything would be lost. Basically Cleric, but mean.

Investigator was in my opinion one of the few hybrid classes that seemed distinct enough in it's identity to warrant a class, but I don't want to see it in Second Edition, instead I would like to see Inspiration given to the Alchemist to remove their reliance on burning through resonance. I would also like to see something in line with Studied Strike to given to Alchemist. Basically I want Alchemist to be less reliant on bombs and mutagen, and more in line with a Batman type character that uses alchemical items and gadgets to greater effect than any other class.

Kineticist is interesting. I feel like they could probably be implemented without a whole class though. Maybe an archetype who's first feat gave you a cantrip that could further be modified, and further feats that let you do various things for spell points. That way you could build your Aang or Korra or Goku able to do more than just blast and blast but different.

Magus is entirely unnecessary with the class system as they are trying to establish it. It can easily be replaced with an archetype, or quite honestly a single feat. Basically Wizard, but with scimitar magic.

Medium is, kind of a nightmare. I honestly really enjoyed the Medium in PFS for it's ability to fill multiple roles, and for their versatility in crafting ability for home games. Could it be it's own class in Second Edition? Probably, because it absolutely couldn't be an archetype. But I think it needs a lot of polish to keep players from needing multiple character sheets. I think it is mechanically different enough to warrant it's own class, I just don't know it is worth the effort. The easiest way to pull this off would be to make a Druid or Bard and give them something like Martial Flexibility and Spell Kenning, but that wouldn't mechanically capture the Medium of First Edition. I feel like I could go on and on about the Medium so I am gonna stop before I get ahead of myself.

Mesmerist always seemed so much like a Bard but for debuffs, and there were several archetypes in First Edition that further blurred this line (I'm looking at you Negotiator). Some class feats for the Bard could entirely replace this class as far as I am concerned.

Ninja should have never existed. Basically Rogue, but with ki.

Oracle had proto-class feats in First Edition and were otherwise only distinct because they were spontaneous 9th level divine casters and for those curses. Since class feats are a thing everyone gets now, all spellcasters are 9th level casters, and the Sorcerer is able to get the divine list through bloodlines there is simply no reason for this class to exist in it's current mechanical concept. Only a small number of curses ever saw play in my experience, which just comes off as poor design. One thing I think is great about Angelic or Abyssal Sorcerers replacing Oracles, besides trimming the bloat of First Edition, is that the name is opened up for something more in line with the historical and mythological namesake. Maybe an archetype that gains some foresight and aoothsaying abilities. I think that would be awesome.

Psychic can be replaced by a Sorcerer with an occult spell list. Basically Sorcerer, but psychic magic.

Samurai shouldn't exist, it and Ninja are both a result of fetishization and mystification of east Asian culture. Basically Cavaliers, but with katanas.

Shaman never stood out to me as a class, and everything it has could be replicated with class feats, so it doesn't really need to make it's way to Second Edition in it's current form. I also have never really cared for new classes who's names are synonyms of existing classes. Basically Witch, but with chanting instead of laughing.

Shifter was just, not a well designed classes. It was championed as being for Druid what Paladin was for Cleric, but we already had that and it was called a Ranger. If they were to implement a class like this in Second Edition I would like it to be not tied to the Druid in any way. Make it capable of shapeshifting in to more than just animals. The ability to change in to other humanoids, objects, etc. would give the class a niche that was not already able to be done with other classes. A Shifter being able to change her arm in to a sword to fight with would allow people to build their Edward Elric types, which is something this game needs. It doesn't need another class that used Wild Shape.

Skald was a Bard by another name. Basically Bard, but angry.

Slayer seems to have been mostly absorbed by Ranger, which I am cool with. I think his Hunt Target class feature needs to be brought closer to the Studied Target class feature of the Slayer to help the Ranger stay competitive with the other martial classes of Second Edition.

Spiritualist was a class I preferred to the Summoner, but in design it really just seemed to polish what the Summoner had. Basically Summoner, but ghosts.

Summoner was an unnecessary class in First Edition, it took a single aspect of magic and made it an entire class. A conjuration Wizard should fill this niche, not an entire class. I also took issue with the standard action Summon Monster SLA being such a force multiplier. People who just built pounce eidolons probably missed out on this, but this made the Summoner able to out-Wizard the Wizard if they familiarized themselves with the summon monster lists and the SLAs of the monsters contained within. All that being said, I could see the Summoner having a place in Second Edition filling the niche of the class entirely about having a companion. Either fighting simultaneously with his creature, giving it the minion trait, or the option to have their creature appear temporarily in his place in a style like Final Fantasy. I think the ability to customize their companion would be very important, but Paizo would have to take care in the design process to avoid every eidolon becoming a pounce machine.

Swashbuckler was a poorly designed class for the same reason a Gunslinger was, a class should never be designed around using a single weapon because it stifles creativity. I also seldom saw Swashbuckler levels taken beyond a dip, or the 5 levels to get Dex to damage. Basically Gunslinger, but with a rapier.

Vigilante is perfect archetype material for Second Edition. You will be able to emulate almost every First Edition archetype by selecting the base class you want and gaining the disguise of a Vigilante from the archetype feat.

Witch always seemed like a Wizard with a more narrow focus, which I don't like. Their unique class feature could be accomplished in this edition by just using class feats. Basically Wizard, but hexes.

The observant may have noticed I skipped one class, and it is the class I see as being most suitable for a full class entry in Second Edition. And that class is the Occultist. They are all about investing magical energy in to objects, which sounds a lot like a system that is a major part of Second Edition. A class that could play off of the new resonance system would be fantastic, and possibly help make the system a little more palatable to the people against it as a whole (I personally think it could be cool and helpful, but it needs some changes from it's current state). I think some elements from Investigator could help enrich the class even further as well.

Tl;Dr: Occultist, make it have unique interactions with resonance and splash some Investigator in there and it will be a great class for Second Edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally I think vigilante and gun-user would both be better as VMCs than base classes. Pirate, too.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Segovax wrote:
Some strait-up heresy against the Witch Class.

Really? Hex & Patrons alone are enough for a new Class, let alone the fact that it opens up the ability for an Int Based Caster to use Occult Spells in addition to the Bard.


Segovax wrote:

The observant may have noticed I skipped one class, and it is the class I see as being most suitable for a full class entry in Second Edition. And that class is the Occultist. They are all about investing magical energy in to objects, which sounds a lot like a system that is a major part of Second Edition. A class that could play off of the new resonance system would be fantastic, and possibly help make the system a little more palatable to the people against it as a whole (I personally think it could be cool and helpful, but it needs some changes from it's current state). I think some elements from Investigator could help enrich the class even further as well.

Tl;Dr: Occultist, make it have unique interactions with resonance and splash some Investigator in there and it will be a great class for Second Edition.

They're just the alchemist class for wonderous items.


Segovax wrote:
Samurai shouldn't exist, it and Ninja are both a result of fetishization and mystification of east Asian culture. Basically Cavaliers, but with katanas.

I agree, Samurai is a social status, and as for the warrior side, no need for a new class, so many types (horsemen/archers, duelists, battlefield commanders, they also used a variety of weapons in actual battle, not always the katana, ono, naginatas were popular). Fighter is fine.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Summoner
So much fun, so many roleplaying options. Currently playing a Merfolk Summoner...


I'd add Warlord from D&D 4e. Awesome martial buffer/healer!


CommanderCoyler wrote:
I'd add Warlord from D&D 4e. Awesome martial buffer/healer!

Warlords have probably one of my favourite Power names ever: Rub Some Dirt on It. It’s a utility power that lets your ally spend a healing surge. You’re motivating them to get back into the fight like a drill sergeant, it’s so funny.


*sigh* Hurts my soul that the Magus isn't seeing more love. They're my favorite...I can see the argument for them being an archetype, but IMO, it would be far more interesting to expand on them and develop new things separate from the Wizard and Fighter.

My favorite version of the Magus in PF1 was the Black blade, and I feel like you could do a lot by delving deeper into that concept.

I agree that my second choice would be the Witch, but I don't think the Witch should be another occult spellcaster. I think it should be the PRIMARY occult spellcaster. I may get some flack for this but the Bard is a weird class conceptually.

Essentially, the Bard is a showman who sings to use their magic or otherwise buff the party and has some acrobatics. To me, that's the sort of thing that should be an archetype, not a class. In fact, I think you could get MORE out of it as an archetype than a class. Want a full spellcaster who sings magic into the world? Wizard-Bard or Sorcerer-Bard. Want a dashig rogue who seduces the ladies and relies on acrobatics and guile and preformance but maybe doesn't actually have "magic"? Rogue-Bard.

Heck, you could go Druid-Bard and essentially play Tom Bombadil. Tell me that wouldn't be awesome?

Whereas I feel Magus (or Witch for that matter) is a class that benefits from a more direct focus, Bard is a class that everyone has so many different ideas about that it works better by being an archetype.


Good news, the magus is actually already in and strong.

Not literally, but some of the more effective builds I've seen have been casters with a fighter dedication using Magical Striker or similar effects.

51 to 100 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / If you could only pick one class... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.