Why no more 6 level casters?


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Some of the best designed and most liked classes from my experience is 6 level casters. Magus, Inquisitor, alchemist, and bard.

So why remove something that people like and it seems that you are good at designing.


I imagine it has something to do with the headache of balancing spells around multiple levels, allowing spells at lower levels, and wanting a general reduction of complexity across spell lists.

With spells being more constrained by spell level, having only 6 levels greatly reduced the efficacy of spell casting. Additionally, the long term development of so many spell lists is assuredly tedious, if not more difficult.

I think this is all informed by a general push to make spellcasters less complex than they were in the past.


6 level casters could have the same spell list as the 10 level casters but they just end earlier.

So a magus, for example, could use a wizard spell list but it ends earlier.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

Agreed, the 6th-level casters are the best designed classes in Pathfinder, and I feel PF2 is lesser for getting rid of them.


While you would loss some of those classes charm if they did not have any spell specific to them, I think that simply having access to level 1-6 spell from an existing list would be OK. Having spell accessed at different spell levels was often problematic so is a good idea to get rid of. This stance if continued will reduce their future design flexibility.

I have no problem with Rangers and Paladin's being spell less.


Yeah, for some reason 5th Ed got rid of them too (they have 1/4 and 1/2 caster, but not 3/4), and now the Bard is a full caster, which feels off to me.


Haldrick wrote:
I have no problem with Rangers and Paladin's being spell less.

Rangers have none at all, in the Playtest, but I believe they said there will be an Archetype to cover that.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Rangers have none at all, in the Playtest, but I believe they said there will be an Archetype to cover that.

I'm pretty sure that was referring to the druid multiclass archetype that was inevitable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Rangers have none at all, in the Playtest, but I believe they said there will be an Archetype to cover that.
I'm pretty sure that was referring to the druid multiclass archetype that was inevitable.

They also hinted Rangers might eventually gain access to powers.


Milo v3 wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Rangers have none at all, in the Playtest, but I believe they said there will be an Archetype to cover that.
I'm pretty sure that was referring to the druid multiclass archetype that was inevitable.

I don't think so, maybe a druid that doesn't cast as an option (wildshape-boy), but I recall that they will open up spellcasting to Rangers.

Unfortunately, my classic PF1 Monk/Ranger is impossible in PF2, so far (no core casting for the Ranger, stonewalls the concept).


Cantriped wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Rangers have none at all, in the Playtest, but I believe they said there will be an Archetype to cover that.
I'm pretty sure that was referring to the druid multiclass archetype that was inevitable.
They also hinted Rangers might eventually gain access to powers.

Yes, that is what I am talking about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zautos' wrote:

6 level casters could have the same spell list as the 10 level casters but they just end earlier.

So a magus, for example, could use a wizard spell list but it ends earlier.

The problem with this is that the scaling for spells (with the sole exception of spell DC) is 100% in the spell's level, basically the exact opposite of how spell scaling worked in PF1e. Which means losing out on those 3-4 spell levels will seriously hurt in the end game. Especially for the Magus, who was built around damaging spells, which are the absolute worst to be behind on spell level on with the new scaling mechanism.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

In my spell review thread someone mentioned that they think classes like the Magus will just use the common arcane list when they come out, because it would be just much more easy to manage spell lists if they are universal.

I think that is overall a bad idea, because unique spell lists are part of what makes new classes unique and interesting. Hence, I also liked the six level spell lists, because you could do interesting things with it. The only problem was DC scaling, but since that has been taking care of with the level bonus system, I don't see why we really needed all caster classes to be nine (or ten, optionally) level casters.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the idea is that those 6-level classes will be replaced by the new feat-based multiclassing. Want a Hunter? Be a druid (because you need that full-power animal companion) and take fighter dedication for the archery. Want a warpriest? Be a fighter and take cleric dedication. Skald? Magus? Lather, rinse, repeat for other previously-6-level-hybrid-classes. Maybe eventually add in some archetypes and/or feats in splatbooks to further refine the concept(s).

That solution is unappealing *to me*. I liked a lot of the hybrid classes and thought they were one of the best things that PF1E did - between those and archetypes, they made running a character as a pure class a really appealing and rewarding option. After the D&D3.5 late-system plethora of prestige classes for everyone, it was refreshing.

I really liked having that hybridization *at level 1*. I don't consider "but you can be almost the same thing at level 15 if you build this way in 2E" to be a particularly appealing argument. I don't play for the destination (to finally create a warpriest!), I play for the journey (as a warpriest!).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zautos' wrote:

Some of the best designed and most liked classes from my experience is 6 level casters. Magus, Inquisitor, alchemist, and bard.

So why remove something that people like and it seems that you are good at designing.

There are several fair reasons for this.

1. It's a design of a different game. If Paizo truly wanted to make sure that the brand is truly theirs, they'd have to get rid of 2/3 spellcaster, because it is a holdover of an older edition. Of course, this argument can also be extended to other things that are still left from 3.X, but that is something that Paizo feels is a sacred cow that can be left behind in favor of balancing the game.

2. Getting rid of this means that players have to make a choice to specialize in spellcasting based on their class, or they have to specialize in other things (skills, martial capabilities, etc). The problem I had with 2/3 spellcasters was that several of them could do just about anything (because they had features to support being either a full martial or a full spellcaster, or more often than not, both,) and left others who didn't have spellcasting in the dust. The Inquisitor is a prime example of a class that, IMO, is better than classes like Fighter or Ranger simply because they can outright be better than those classes with little to no effort in class choice, which is absolutely not fair whatsoever to those classes.

3. This avenue hasn't technically been removed, but simply put behind a multiclass feat gate. Taking 3 proper feats, you get access to 6th level spellcasting, and taking a 4th gives you 2 slots per spell level you have access to. If you want Wizard spells as a martial type, you can still get them through multiclass feats. They just aren't as plentiful (or powerful at the time) and eat into your martial capability, as it should. A Fighter being able to cast Fly spells should have to sacrifice something to get it, just like how a Wizard being able to use Greatswords effectively or Full Plate should have to sacrifice their superior spellcasting to get it.

4. Some of those classes (Magus and Alchemist in particular) used very vague rules that weren't really understood well by players. If we decided to reprint those classes, they would have to use completely different (and simpler) rules to make them fit well into the game's current design goal(s). And as the Alchemist has shown, those rules still need work before they turn into something satisfactory.

5. Just because Paizo can design something well doesn't mean they should be put into the game. If some of their employees could actually design, say, cars, or computers, do you think we should include them in the game too? I hope not. While not as similar as the classes mentioned, I don't think it would make sense to just include something because it's had success in the past on an older system. In fact, if you ran those classes as-is in PF1 rules using the Revised Action Economy rules, you would absolutely hate their design and would find it either very clunky and/or confusing in relation to what other classes could do currently, or almost borderline broken (Magus in particular, being able to cast 2 or 3 action spells while making a melee attack at once is crazystrong).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's interesting, in PF1 the 6-level casters were the best balanced and often the most fun classes in the game. In PF2 they're replaced by full casters and non-casters (bard, alchemist) and it's not clear that the design space includes that form at all.

It may be that something like a 6-level caster will come in a book after the core rulebook, but the push towards specialisation suggests to me that it's more likely that they'll stick with full spellcasting, or a bunch of non-spell magical abilities in the replacement classes, where they don't make them class feat paths.


magnuskn wrote:

In my spell review thread someone mentioned that they think classes like the Magus will just use the common arcane list when they come out, because it would be just much more easy to manage spell lists if they are universal.

I think that is overall a bad idea, because unique spell lists are part of what makes new classes unique and interesting. Hence, I also liked the six level spell lists, because you could do interesting things with it. The only problem was DC scaling, but since that has been taking care of with the level bonus system, I don't see why we really needed all caster classes to be nine (or ten, optionally) level casters.

Would this really work? My understanding is that, even if you invest spells in higher slots, lower level spells are intended to not be as good as higher level spells. So I would imagine the damage output and such would start falling off compared to a full caster.

That might be fine in some classes, but maybe not in others.

The system seems to have other ways to potentially deal with casters that weren't full casters, like giving them less spell slots and more cantrip like abilities (like the bard), or maybe pushing spell point style casting. I dunno...I see the potential for a great degree of flexibility in how they design casters in the new system without creating brand new spell lists, although IF they do so remain to be seen.


TBH, if they don't alter casting to work for 6 levels and come out with these classes, I will not likely everr play PF2.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
TBH, if they don't alter casting to work for 6 levels and come out with these classes, I will not likely everr play PF2.

I feel thecsame. PF1 had many issues yet level 6 casters were not one if them imo. A decent level of spells, power and selection imo.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I seriously question whether the people wanting these classes don't really just want the power that came with those classes.

Magus had the most nova capabilities of any martial out there because of its spellcasting, plus access to the strongest spell list in the game. Inquisitor could be a one-man party with how much ground they cover between their spells, skill points, and overall strength and breadth of class features. Bard and Alchemist have some of the most versatile building in the game, being able to fill martial roles, as well as strong support and spellcasting roles. Heck, even Paladins could serve as strong healers due to how powerful they could make their Lay On Hands ability. Heaven forbid we involve classes like Shaman, Hunter, and all the other 2/3 spellcasters who could do just about anything under the sun.

Whereas Barbarians, Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, Monks, etc. could really only be built to be one thing, and that is "beatstick." Sure, Barbarians could use their beatstick potential on spells, and Rangers/Rogues make for solid skill monkeys, but Fighters? Between their garbage skill points (even Barbarians had more for crying out loud!), linear scaling, and lack of overall tactfulness that required supplements nearly a decade later just to be comparable to all of these other beatsticks, they were garbage. Even if the Fighter was put up with the same amount of power as the other Martial types, those martials could never match the capabilities and power that the 2/3 spellcasters had.

So with that all spread out on the table, this raises a serious question: Should we just eliminate all of the non-2/3-spellcasting classes and play nothing but those simply because they are "the best designed classes," in an older system that has very little in common with how the current system operates, just so that we can get the "best foot forward"? Without major revisions that would probably break the game (or just as worse, create class bloat and revisit the Core Rogue/Monk/Fighter issues of PF1 like we've already had in the past), I seriously doubt this would be a good course of action, especially if they screw the pooch on it and people end up hating it so much to not even give it a chance at redemption.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It may not be appropriate, but I've come to consider classes that don't get bonus spells to be 2/3 casters: Bard, druid, and cleric. Full casters are those that innately get 4 spells per level rather than 3.

people wrote:
Level 6 casters or riot

I do miss bladed dash....however are there hybrid classes that can't be accomplished in theme through multiclassing as pointed out above? Even the more limited number / level of spells can be handled by how many caster feats you take. Magus as a concept has a bit of a problem in not many spells are 1 action, so move-cast-strike is hard outside of, say, truestrike. Also doesn't come online until level 4 which feels a bit late for me, but, eh. I suppose bards also went up from level 6 casting to 9, but they still have strong emphasis on their performance party buff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ranishe wrote:
Even the more limited number / level of spells can be handled by how many caster feats you take.

I am happy about that; I house-ruled out extra spells per day for high ability scores, long ago, very happy they have cut down on the number. I mean, I think 36 spells is more that enough for 1 day.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I don’t think the multi-class option presented in pf2 is really on par with 6-level casters. I don’t think using 4 class feats to cast 2 cantrips and 2/2/2/2/1/1 and spells per day is anywhere close to 3/4 casting. At best it is 2/5 casting and severely limited in resources by comparison. And trading 4 class feats and having to wait until level 4 to get spells is a steep price to pay.

It seems that those classes in PF1 had lots of flexibility too, which IMO points to good design. Something all classes should strive for.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zamfield wrote:

I don’t think the multi-class option presented in pf2 is really on par with 6-level casters. I don’t think using 4 class feats to cast 2 cantrips and 2/2/2/2/1/1 and spells per day is anywhere close to 3/4 casting. At best it is 2/5 casting and severely limited in resources by comparison. And trading 4 class feats and having to wait until level 4 to get spells is a steep price to pay.

It seems that those classes in PF1 had lots of flexibility too, which IMO points to good design. Something all classes should strive for.

Except when you consider that spells in PF1 were more valuable than anything else in the game, and that those classes likewise had the same or better base abilities, they were just outright better classes and invalidated other class choices that didn't have (as much) spellcasting. One option could be "make those other classes better," but how do we make them better, or even comparable, without giving them spellcasting, which in PF1 was the strongest asset in the entire game? In PF1, that is impossible, and in PF2, unless they come up with another whole mechanic that many players will dislike due to it adding a needless level of complexity (think Stamina rules in PF1), as well as being generally terrible, I'm not seeing it without them outright just making them better through existing rules or adding things that go against their apparent niche.

While spells in PF2 aren't as valuable now (and for good reason), it's not like they don't have use anymore, or don't scale to have those spell slots actually worthwhile. A 2nd level spell giving you 10 extra movement speed for 8 hours is still pretty damn impressive for a lower level slot (actually makes for great Wand use too!), and the same can be said for other similar spells (such as the Jump spell). If you have a character in PF2 who is highly trained in martial combat and also has access to those options without any sort of sacrifice, they are just outright better and there becomes no reason to play them outside of saying you played them. That's actually happening right now in relation to Non-Arcane Sorcerers compared to Clerics, Bards, or Druids. There is zero reason to play those kinds of Sorcerers when those other classes are outright better than them in every fashion other than to say you played that class, because they have better tools available to them without any compromise in resources or features. The big difference here is that Sorcerers can be buffed without sacrificing their apparent niche, the question is whether Paizo wants to do it, or more accurately, how they want to do it. You don't really have that option with martial classes, though, which is why they were largely crap in PF1.


Requielle wrote:

I think the idea is that those 6-level classes will be replaced by the new feat-based multiclassing. Want a Hunter? Be a druid (because you need that full-power animal companion) and take fighter dedication for the archery. Want a warpriest? Be a fighter and take cleric dedication. Skald? Magus? Lather, rinse, repeat for other previously-6-level-hybrid-classes. Maybe eventually add in some archetypes and/or feats in splatbooks to further refine the concept(s).

That solution is unappealing *to me*. I liked a lot of the hybrid classes and thought they were one of the best things that PF1E did - between those and archetypes, they made running a character as a pure class a really appealing and rewarding option. After the D&D3.5 late-system plethora of prestige classes for everyone, it was refreshing.

I really liked having that hybridization *at level 1*. I don't consider "but you can be almost the same thing at level 15 if you build this way in 2E" to be a particularly appealing argument. I don't play for the destination (to finally create a warpriest!), I play for the journey (as a warpriest!).

I think they will make 6th level casters as something else entirely. Something like a power based caster who uses spells, something outside of Vancian.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like "you are not as good at casting spells" is just going to be represented differently in this edition. Because of how some things work with heightening, you can't have "spell level" be the prowess limiter, else a PF2 magus be unable to detect or dispel 7th level spells. Instead you could limit things by proficiency, spells known, slightly later access, or even slots (bards get fewer slots than wizards since bards have other stuff going on.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like "you are not as good at casting spells" is just going to be represented differently in this edition.

That comes across as a loaded and cheap way to put it; not having access to 9th-level spells does not make you "not as good at spellcasting". Again, seems like a praising of homogeneity deal. Not every spellcaster deservers the exact same deal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like "you are not as good at casting spells" is just going to be represented differently in this edition.
That comes across as a loaded and cheap way to put it; not having access to 9th-level spells does not make you "not as good at spellcasting". Again, seems like a praising of homogeneity deal. Not every spellcaster deservers the exact same deal.

A magus was never as good at spellcasting as a wizard, an inquisitor was never as good at spellcasting as a cleric, a hunter was never as good at spellcasting as a druid, an occultist was never as good at spellcasting as a psychic etc. It's not just access to higher spell levels, you actually had delayed progression, and fewer slots.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ranishe wrote:

It may not be appropriate, but I've come to consider classes that don't get bonus spells to be 2/3 casters: Bard, druid, and cleric. Full casters are those that innately get 4 spells per level rather than 3.

people wrote:
Level 6 casters or riot
I do miss bladed dash....however are there hybrid classes that can't be accomplished in theme through multiclassing as pointed out above? Even the more limited number / level of spells can be handled by how many caster feats you take. Magus as a concept has a bit of a problem in not many spells are 1 action, so move-cast-strike is hard outside of, say, truestrike. Also doesn't come online until level 4 which feels a bit late for me, but, eh. I suppose bards also went up from level 6 casting to 9, but they still have strong emphasis on their performance party buff.

For starters, I don't see spell combat, spell srtike, judgement, or a useful version of bane.

Or bladed dash.

Besides, if you feel an inquisitor is better than a fighter at fighting, you buff the fighter, not erase the inqisitor. Those classes are really well designed-the others should be put through the same design pass.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like "you are not as good at casting spells" is just going to be represented differently in this edition.
That comes across as a loaded and cheap way to put it; not having access to 9th-level spells does not make you "not as good at spellcasting". Again, seems like a praising of homogeneity deal. Not every spellcaster deservers the exact same deal.
A magus was never as good at spellcasting as a wizard, an inquisitor was never as good at spellcasting as a cleric, a hunter was never as good at spellcasting as a druid, an occultist was never as good at spellcasting as a psychic etc.

Great, name all the non-full-casters you can, does not mean they are subpar at spellcasting.


sherlock1701 wrote:
Ranishe wrote:

It may not be appropriate, but I've come to consider classes that don't get bonus spells to be 2/3 casters: Bard, druid, and cleric. Full casters are those that innately get 4 spells per level rather than 3.

people wrote:
Level 6 casters or riot
I do miss bladed dash....however are there hybrid classes that can't be accomplished in theme through multiclassing as pointed out above? Even the more limited number / level of spells can be handled by how many caster feats you take. Magus as a concept has a bit of a problem in not many spells are 1 action, so move-cast-strike is hard outside of, say, truestrike. Also doesn't come online until level 4 which feels a bit late for me, but, eh. I suppose bards also went up from level 6 casting to 9, but they still have strong emphasis on their performance party buff.

For starters, I don't see spell combat, spell srtike, judgement, or a useful version of bane.

Or bladed dash.

Bladed dash came into a campaign setting several years after pathfinder they can't cram all spells that existed before into a single core book, and about the 6 level casters from what they said they showed interest in them coming but they said no more 6 level slots only so they will have 9th level slots and a different spellist. Or they will have powers instead. Or a completely new mechanic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
oholoko wrote:
Requielle wrote:

I think the idea is that those 6-level classes will be replaced by the new feat-based multiclassing. Want a Hunter? Be a druid (because you need that full-power animal companion) and take fighter dedication for the archery. Want a warpriest? Be a fighter and take cleric dedication. Skald? Magus? Lather, rinse, repeat for other previously-6-level-hybrid-classes. Maybe eventually add in some archetypes and/or feats in splatbooks to further refine the concept(s).

That solution is unappealing *to me*. I liked a lot of the hybrid classes and thought they were one of the best things that PF1E did - between those and archetypes, they made running a character as a pure class a really appealing and rewarding option. After the D&D3.5 late-system plethora of prestige classes for everyone, it was refreshing.

I really liked having that hybridization *at level 1*. I don't consider "but you can be almost the same thing at level 15 if you build this way in 2E" to be a particularly appealing argument. I don't play for the destination (to finally create a warpriest!), I play for the journey (as a warpriest!).

I think they will make 6th level casters as something else entirely. Something like a power based caster who uses spells, something outside of Vancian.

PF1E limited-level casters were not all vancian, and PF2E's full-progression casters are also not all vancian.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
sherlock1701 wrote:
Ranishe wrote:

It may not be appropriate, but I've come to consider classes that don't get bonus spells to be 2/3 casters: Bard, druid, and cleric. Full casters are those that innately get 4 spells per level rather than 3.

people wrote:
Level 6 casters or riot
I do miss bladed dash....however are there hybrid classes that can't be accomplished in theme through multiclassing as pointed out above? Even the more limited number / level of spells can be handled by how many caster feats you take. Magus as a concept has a bit of a problem in not many spells are 1 action, so move-cast-strike is hard outside of, say, truestrike. Also doesn't come online until level 4 which feels a bit late for me, but, eh. I suppose bards also went up from level 6 casting to 9, but they still have strong emphasis on their performance party buff.

For starters, I don't see spell combat, spell srtike, judgement, or a useful version of bane.

Or bladed dash.

Besides, if you feel an inquisitor is better than a fighter at fighting, you buff the fighter, not erase the inqisitor. Those classes are really well designed-the others should be put through the same design pass.

Might be because you're looking at the Core Rulebook, not a splatbook two years down the line.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A 13th level PF2 Wizard has 20 spell slots, and his highest level slots contain such spells as teleport.

A 13th level PF1 Magus typically will have between 22-25 spell slots, and his highest level spell slots contain such spells as... teleport.

I think it's the other way around. The tables may contain 9 spell levels, but they are much closer to PF1 6-level casters in most respects.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Great, name all the non-full-casters, you can, does not mean they are subpar at spellcasting.

Did I say that they were inadquate in any way? No. All I said was that the 6 level casters were generally worse at spellcasting than people who specialized in it.

Like even when you give early access to some spells on certain lists, you're still worse off in PF1 because spell DCs keyed off spell level not character level, so as good a caster as the Silksworn Occultist was (the castiest of 6-level casters) you're still much more limited in "what you can do with Magic" than the Wizard is, ergo "worse at casting."


Requielle wrote:
oholoko wrote:
Requielle wrote:

I think the idea is that those 6-level classes will be replaced by the new feat-based multiclassing. Want a Hunter? Be a druid (because you need that full-power animal companion) and take fighter dedication for the archery. Want a warpriest? Be a fighter and take cleric dedication. Skald? Magus? Lather, rinse, repeat for other previously-6-level-hybrid-classes. Maybe eventually add in some archetypes and/or feats in splatbooks to further refine the concept(s).

That solution is unappealing *to me*. I liked a lot of the hybrid classes and thought they were one of the best things that PF1E did - between those and archetypes, they made running a character as a pure class a really appealing and rewarding option. After the D&D3.5 late-system plethora of prestige classes for everyone, it was refreshing.

I really liked having that hybridization *at level 1*. I don't consider "but you can be almost the same thing at level 15 if you build this way in 2E" to be a particularly appealing argument. I don't play for the destination (to finally create a warpriest!), I play for the journey (as a warpriest!).

I think they will make 6th level casters as something else entirely. Something like a power based caster who uses spells, something outside of Vancian.
PF1E limited-level casters were not all vancian, and PF2E's full-progression casters are also not all vancian.

Fair enough, i am talking like sorcerer casting is Vancian when it is most definitely not. But what i was trying to say in a dumb manner is that, 6th level casters will change if they come. They won't be casters that go up to 6th level... At least by the way they said it during some interviews. Since it is still too early to even talk about it they could change their mind xD


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Great, name all the non-full-casters, you can, does not mean they are subpar at spellcasting.

Did I say that they were inadquate in any way? No. All I said was that the 6 level casters were generally worse at spellcasting than people who specialized in it.

Like even when you give early access to some spells on certain lists,

Like even, when do spell-lists make you become subpar at spell-casting; weird.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@ oholoko - I noticed they moved 4-level casters away from being casters at all in 2E. And I noticed that 2 of our previous 6-level casters are now full-progression in the playtest. Which is why I was assuming that they were moving away from hybrid casters as their own class in the new edition. I can, obviously, be completely wrong about this assumption.


@Requielle I hope that they do give them a nice identity... But well it can't be seen until they come maybe a year later? But i hope some of them become archetypes instead of classes, a few seem like the perfect chassis for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I also enjoyed the hybrid classes in Pathfinder First Edition a great deal but I vastly prefer the new Archetype system replacing them entirely. It allows the player to create any hybrid they desire rather than limiting their options to what's been published. This will only improve as more content is added to the system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
Ranishe wrote:

It may not be appropriate, but I've come to consider classes that don't get bonus spells to be 2/3 casters: Bard, druid, and cleric. Full casters are those that innately get 4 spells per level rather than 3.

people wrote:
Level 6 casters or riot
I do miss bladed dash....however are there hybrid classes that can't be accomplished in theme through multiclassing as pointed out above? Even the more limited number / level of spells can be handled by how many caster feats you take. Magus as a concept has a bit of a problem in not many spells are 1 action, so move-cast-strike is hard outside of, say, truestrike. Also doesn't come online until level 4 which feels a bit late for me, but, eh. I suppose bards also went up from level 6 casting to 9, but they still have strong emphasis on their performance party buff.

For starters, I don't see spell combat, spell srtike, judgement, or a useful version of bane.

Or bladed dash.

Besides, if you feel an inquisitor is better than a fighter at fighting, you buff the fighter, not erase the inqisitor. Those classes are really well designed-the others should be put through the same design pass.

Might be because you're looking at the Core Rulebook, not a splatbook two years down the line.

Bard was a 6 level caster with uniquely bardic spells and an inspire courage that didn't require an action to upkeep.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
Ranishe wrote:

It may not be appropriate, but I've come to consider classes that don't get bonus spells to be 2/3 casters: Bard, druid, and cleric. Full casters are those that innately get 4 spells per level rather than 3.

people wrote:
Level 6 casters or riot
I do miss bladed dash....however are there hybrid classes that can't be accomplished in theme through multiclassing as pointed out above? Even the more limited number / level of spells can be handled by how many caster feats you take. Magus as a concept has a bit of a problem in not many spells are 1 action, so move-cast-strike is hard outside of, say, truestrike. Also doesn't come online until level 4 which feels a bit late for me, but, eh. I suppose bards also went up from level 6 casting to 9, but they still have strong emphasis on their performance party buff.

For starters, I don't see spell combat, spell srtike, judgement, or a useful version of bane.

Or bladed dash.

Besides, if you feel an inquisitor is better than a fighter at fighting, you buff the fighter, not erase the inqisitor. Those classes are really well designed-the others should be put through the same design pass.

Might be because you're looking at the Core Rulebook, not a splatbook two years down the line.
Bard was a 6 level caster with uniquely bardic spells and an inspire courage that didn't require an action to upkeep.

And now he is a 9th level caster with uniquely occult spells and unique cantrips that fit the context of a spellcaster much better in my opinion. Especially when he can cast a cantrip, cast an spell and sometimes even attack on the same turn...


sherlock1701 wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
Ranishe wrote:

It may not be appropriate, but I've come to consider classes that don't get bonus spells to be 2/3 casters: Bard, druid, and cleric. Full casters are those that innately get 4 spells per level rather than 3.

people wrote:
Level 6 casters or riot
I do miss bladed dash....however are there hybrid classes that can't be accomplished in theme through multiclassing as pointed out above? Even the more limited number / level of spells can be handled by how many caster feats you take. Magus as a concept has a bit of a problem in not many spells are 1 action, so move-cast-strike is hard outside of, say, truestrike. Also doesn't come online until level 4 which feels a bit late for me, but, eh. I suppose bards also went up from level 6 casting to 9, but they still have strong emphasis on their performance party buff.

For starters, I don't see spell combat, spell srtike, judgement, or a useful version of bane.

Or bladed dash.

Besides, if you feel an inquisitor is better than a fighter at fighting, you buff the fighter, not erase the inqisitor. Those classes are really well designed-the others should be put through the same design pass.

Might be because you're looking at the Core Rulebook, not a splatbook two years down the line.
Bard was a 6 level caster with uniquely bardic spells and an inspire courage that didn't require an action to upkeep.

There weren't that many unique bard spells. The only one really off the top of my head is Shadowbard, and that's specifically because it works with a Bard class feature. Otherwise spells like Bladed Dash were also for Magus and a couple others, so that wasn't technically a "unique bard spell." Well, maybe Masterpieces might count, but they were written in a way that was confusing, and Paizo kind-of dug themselves into a hole as to how that would get resolved (and it never will get resolved since PF2 is in development).

Also, that note about Inspire Courage isn't technically correct. Maintaining a Bardic Performance was a Free Action (something that usually didn't go against your action economy any, hence your claim of it "not requiring an action," yet it's still wrong to say that), but if something prevented you from taking actions (such as being hit by a Daze spell, being Stunned, Petrified, Paralyzed, Asleep, Nauseated, etc.), you couldn't maintain the Bardic Performance as a Free Action. Call it corner-case, but the book did feel like it had to specifically note that in the ability description. That's also not including if characters couldn't perceive your type of performance (auditory requires hearing, visual requires sight, and so on), but that's a whole other issue that, not surprisingly, exists still in PF2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
oholoko wrote:
And now he is a 9th level caster with uniquely occult spells

I am really curious about that - in the sense of wondering if this means they won't be bringing back the psychic (full-progression spontaneous occult caster in PF1E) in a later supplement. Then again, I suppose the occult sorcerer is also (currently! in 2E!) a spontaneous full-progression occult caster, so they don't have a hard and fast rule about doubling up those mechanics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Requielle wrote:
oholoko wrote:
And now he is a 9th level caster with uniquely occult spells
I am really curious about that - in the sense of wondering if this means they won't be bringing back the psychic (full-progression spontaneous occult caster in PF1E) in a later supplement. Then again, I suppose the occult sorcerer is also (currently! in 2E!) a spontaneous full-progression occult caster, so they don't have a hard and fast rule about doubling up those mechanics.

They aren't necessarily "doubled up." Or rather, they are, but one is clearly better. Bards with their composition abilities make for some of the best "spells" in the Occult list ever. Sorcerers can't match or acquire them, making them extremely weak as a result. It's better than Divine Spellcasting, for sure, but it's certainly no Arcane Sorcerer.


Requielle wrote:
oholoko wrote:
And now he is a 9th level caster with uniquely occult spells
I am really curious about that - in the sense of wondering if this means they won't be bringing back the psychic (full-progression spontaneous occult caster in PF1E) in a later supplement. Then again, I suppose the occult sorcerer is also (currently! in 2E!) a spontaneous full-progression occult caster, so they don't have a hard and fast rule about doubling up those mechanics.

I don't think the Bard precludes the existence of the Psychic coming back because "Psychic Magic exists and is common in some parts of the world" is a part of the setting (it's perhaps more common than Arcane or Divine magic in Vudra). It's easier to add new setting details in a new edition than to delete old ones.

Of course, the Psychic might be an analogue of the sorcerer, in that you are a spontaneous caster using thought and emotion components in lieu of somatic and verbal components and what spell list you use might be a function of your Psychic Discipline the same way a Sorcerer bases this on their Bloodline.

One old class that has been teased as coming back later which will need to use the Occult list, however, is the Occultist.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
One old class that has been teased as coming back later which will need to use the Occult list, however, is the Occultist.

Yes, if I recall it was to be the pimp of Resonance.

The Occultist is one of my favourite PF classes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I also suspect PFS had something to do with the popularity of 6th level hybrid casters. Not only did you get to bring something to the table that could fill two or more party roles, but everyone finished playing at 12th level anyway so 7th-9th level first edition spells need not apply.

I don't really like the playtest archetypes at all. They are too rigid, and can never come close to a 50/50 blend, and even the 70/30 blend is pretty mediocre since you can't even get 100% single classed with the core classes. The best you can get within your own class is about 40-50% since there are about two or three paths through you primary class and you never get enough feats to be good at more than one of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:

A 13th level PF2 Wizard has 20 spell slots, and his highest level slots contain such spells as teleport.

A 13th level PF1 Magus typically will have between 22-25 spell slots, and his highest level spell slots contain such spells as... teleport.

I think it's the other way around. The tables may contain 9 spell levels, but they are much closer to PF1 6-level casters in most respects.

Minus the cool half caster abilities that fleshed out the class and made it playable of course.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
I also enjoyed the hybrid classes in Pathfinder First Edition a great deal but I vastly prefer the new Archetype system replacing them entirely. It allows the player to create any hybrid they desire rather than limiting their options to what's been published. This will only improve as more content is added to the system.

Monk/Fighter isn't the same as Brawler though. Nor is Wizard/Fighter Magus. And with the new archetype system, they have no reason at all to print the hybrids. Heck, they have no reason to print any class. Just Archetype it. It's totally the same right?

I want spell casting in Alchemist. I don't want Alchemist/Sorcerer. If I wanted Sorcerer stuff, I would have picked Sorcerer. I'd like Ranger to see spells again. I don't want to be Ranger/Druid or Ranger/Cleric of Nature God. That's just not that same thing.

You say it opens options. It does. But it also locks options. Want to be a full Class? NOPE. Take your Archetype Dedication cause we couldn't be bothered to make your class.

That and the ease of it makes me wonder how the Abyss this is going to go through all the checks and balances, espically when more splat books come out.

Take a Wizard with Dedication X. And then give them Dedication Y later. And now check to see if that doesn't break the game to the point you need to step in and check it.

Wonder how many Crane Styles we're going to see and Erratas.

1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Why no more 6 level casters? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.