If you could only pick one class...


General Discussion

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

Vali Nepjarson wrote:

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.

I will add my support for this. We already have a servicable spontaneous occult caster in Sorcerer. Occult wants a prepared caster to bring it in line with Wizard/Cleric/Druid. I do however also think that preparing spells should be looked at and something more akin to 5e's system would be a lot better than the full vancian system ported from 3.5.

Bard as an archetype would also allow for a facsimilie of Warlord, though I would still prefer that type of character to stay entirely martial and start from level 1.

I have my doubts over wether Paizo would do this though. One of the major things that kept being brought up around 4e's release is that Bards (and Sorcerers and Gnomes) weren't in PHB1 (and thus 'not core'). It wouldn't be palatable (from the fan's point of view) for the company who made a 3.5 clone so that people could continue playing it to not keep the core 3.5 classes in their new product.

My order of priorities would be:
1) Warlord
2) Fix prepared spellcasting
3) Bard as archetype instead of base class


Pramxnim wrote:
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.

I love some of the examples of Warlords I used to see on the WotC forums; The Hulk is apparently a Warlord, because he shouted Iron Man awake in The Avengers, and Sarah Connor is a Warlord, because she gets Kyle Reece "Back on your feet, soldier!".

In the end, I think even Samwise Gamgee wound up being a Warlord.


Madame Endor wrote:
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.

No, I don't want a Boot Hill (I don't actually know what this is)

I only want to play alongside other medieval players but using a gunslinger similar to Unforgiven's Clint Eastwood instead of another ranged martial.

No changes to the game nor enything else


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Pramxnim wrote:
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.

I love some of the examples of Warlords I used to see on the WotC forums; The Hulk is apparently a Warlord, because he shouted Iron Man awake in The Avengers, and Sarah Connor is a Warlord, because she gets Kyle Reece "Back on your feet, soldier!".

In the end, I think even Samwise Gamgee wound up being a Warlord.

Seems like an effect that would be better represented by a skill and set of boosting feats. Like an in-combat charisma skill based around buffing rather than debuffing, like intimidate.


WatersLethe wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Pramxnim wrote:
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.

I love some of the examples of Warlords I used to see on the WotC forums; The Hulk is apparently a Warlord, because he shouted Iron Man awake in The Avengers, and Sarah Connor is a Warlord, because she gets Kyle Reece "Back on your feet, soldier!".

In the end, I think even Samwise Gamgee wound up being a Warlord.

Seems like an effect that would be better represented by a skill and set of boosting feats. Like an in-combat charisma skill based around buffing rather than debuffing, like intimidate.

Yeah, and/or some archetype or something, you can opt into, it's the nonmagical healing that can cause problems for some.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Yeah, and/or some archetype or something, you can opt into, it's the nonmagical healing that can cause problems for some.

I hope people can adapt to that, because non-magical healing is a pretty rich design space. We're already accepting that HP damage doesn't necessarily mean bloody, gaping wounds, it shouldn't be that hard to say "If HP is luck/stamina/exhaustion/training as well as meat points, why can't we expand healing from strictly wound closing?"


-Bunny girl blows on your dice and give you a wink-
Your luck has been recharged healing you 3d8+chr HP!

Sure, why not?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:

-Bunny girl blows on your dice and give you a wink-

Your luck has been recharged healing you 3d8+chr HP!

Sure, why not?

Ha, there is a Lazylord/cheerleader build in 4th Ed.


Segovax wrote:

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.

[...]

While I agree which much of what Segovax said, I feel compelled to make a few strong objections.

1) Sorcerers picking between spellcasting traditions does not invalidate having other spontaneous spellcasters of that tradition. Sorcerers have a (very cool) theming of gaining magical power from their bloodline. While I'd argue that the current version of sorcerers could put more emphasis and mechanical focus on this aspect, having this aspect clashes with many of the ideas behind classes other spontaneous classes such as the Oracle.

I'd argue that there is design space for a prepared and spontaneous caster for each of the four traditions, as well as a "switch" prepared and spontaneous caster who can select from different traditions. With sorcerer occupying the switch spontaneous caster niche, that would leave the 5 following spellcasting niches which can be filled; Arcane spontaneous, Divine spontaneous, Occult prepared, Primal spontaneous, and Switch prepared.

2) Oracles were too popular a class to just drop in 2E. While you can argue that certain aspects of their class could have been better written (many curses not seeing play), the underlying flavor of the class is too good to not see some type of return in PF2. Plus, they can nicely fill the niche of divine spontaneous caster in a way sorcerers can't (drawing external power/drawbacks rather than being something internal).

3) Shaman, while I agree that they would need significant mechanical changes (such as dropping hexes / being a witch hybrid), would probably be my top pick for a primal spontaneous caster when it comes to theming. Spirit animals are cool and really fit into the theme of a primal caster while being distinct enough to not overlap with the Druid. If they focused on spirits / spirit animals and maybe took some version of the old Hunter's Animal Focus, I could see them turn into a very interesting class in PF2.

4) Witches are way more than a Wizard with Hexes. Patrons alone are (in my opinion) one of the coolest and most thematic class features from PF1 which I desperately hope to see expanded in PF2. They also serve as the reason I think the Witch class would be best represented as a "switch" prepared caster, as it would allow for witches who gained their power from fey / a connection to nature (primal), making a pact with a literal devil/demon (divine), or from some strange unknowable force (occult). Additionally, Hexes are also an incredibly unique feature that don't really fit the Wizard class well (who should be focused more on their arcane school).

Segovax wrote:
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.

And to end this post on a more positive note, I enthusiastically agree with this. We did not have 20+ Cleric and Inquisitor classes to represent every core deity's worshippers. We did not have 9 Wizard classes to represent each arcane school specialization (okay, we did have Summoner, but they should be rolled into Conjuration specialists). And we absolutely had no need for 45+ Sorcerer classes to represent each and every bloodline. Considering all of these would rightly be seen as ridiculous notions, why is the same reasoning acceptable for Paladins/Antipaladins/other alignment Paladins? Make the class flexible enough to cover multiple concepts (like every other class) and remove their alignment restrictions (like every other class that had them in PF1).

101 to 109 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.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion