One thing that needs to be changed in a class, in your opinion


Classes

1 to 50 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to know what is the one aspect of a class that bothers you a lot or even makes you not want to play that class at all. Please try to keep it at just the one thing that you dislike the most, so the feedback is easier to read.

I will start with mine: The fact that all the Alchemist's elixirs and mutagens don't stack with magic items, and a lot of them are made useless by just having level-appropriate potency runes.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Snares


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Paladins must be devoted to a deity instead of being empowered by goodness itself. Sure, "deific paladins" were always a thing, but I dislike unnecessarily cutting off creative space for Saintly Atheists, Paladins who are uncertain or questioning, Paladins who are followers of multiple gods, Paladins who are animists, Paladins who are pantheists, Paladins who see the gods as (albeit powerful) equals, Paladins who revere something more fundamental or abstract, etc.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Alchemists need 12 STR to carry everything they need to just to prepare Extracts in the morning and are needlessly complicated.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The Divine spell list.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Paladins being shoehorned into heavy armor.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Paladins being shoehorned into a babysitter role.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
Paladins being shoehorned into a babysitter role.

Paladins losing their main combat trick if they're solo, so you can't bravely hold an enemy back while everyone flees.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Snares (and snare kits)
The divine spell list
Bloodlines
Alchemical items (quick, without looking in the book, name 1 level 14 alchemical item that the alchemist can have the formula for at level 14).
The ranger's feats being so reliant on Hunt Target ("it isn't good or useful" was fixed by forcing it onto other feats)


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Forcing specific combat styles onto specific classes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Spells per day in general, but Sorcerers in particular. In PF1 you could get some extra mileage out of lower-level spells because they scaled with caster level. In PF2 a caster is far more dependent on their higher-level slots for serious combat.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Serious anything, really. Flight? Single target, lasts a minute.
"It gets you over the wall instead of having to invest in climb!" Yeah, but the paladin is still stuck and now I'm out of spells.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The intersection between the divine spell list and the very limited spells per level per day. If you are going to to your job with regard to removing conditions like disease, poison and paralysis, you aren't going to prepare much of anything else, your spells will be useless most of the time, and you are just a lackluster fighter with some healing abilities. If you are not going to prepare these spells, we are right back to "your items are more important than you are" as you will need to stockpile items to cover the fact that you can't do your job.

And, in fact, you probably still can't do your job, because if you meet something that is dangerously poisonous or disease-causing you will not have enough spells to treat the party even once: you get a max of 3 spells to treat 4 characters, assuming you picked the right condition-treater and took nothing else. Or you can use higher-level slots and pray you don't need any of the higher-level condition-treaters.

I didn't enjoy the spell preparation guessing game for Clerics in PF1. But it has just gotten worse in PF2, to the point where I wouldn't play a Cleric without houserules. I think the divine spell list in both PF1 and PF2 works MUCH better for something other than Vancean magic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alright, there are a couple of classes that I think really need a lot of work, ranger comes to mind, but that would require more than one change. I do agree that the divine list needs some work and that would help both sorcerers and clerics. If I had to pick just one thing it’d be for clerics to get 1+ charisma channels instead of just charisma. I agree that 4+ was too much but a cleric should be able to use it at least once a day without investing in charisma. Maybe 2+ if you count those poor dwarves, that or just make it have a minimum of one per day though that doesn’t look as clean math wise.


Druids need to be able to shift into forms using their wild pool, currently because of how the spell is worded they get all the base bonuses but do not actually get a form so no damage boosts. That's got to change.


Ungey wrote:
Druids need to be able to shift into forms using their wild pool, currently because of how the spell is worded they get all the base bonuses but do not actually get a form so no damage boosts. That's got to change.

Ya RAW makes the form spells unusable for sorcerers and wild order druids but that may be the most blatant set of typos in the playtest. I’m certain that for RAI purposes they work for spontaneous casters too and there will be an errata sooner or later, sooner hopefully.

The alternative is that Paizo wants wild order druids and sorcerers to turn into formless blobs of flesh, which seems unlikely.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The druid stuff is pretty glaring and the fact they reprinted the spell they didn't fix it was pretty disheartening. RAI I'm certain it works but right now the rules they gave us dont work so it's pretty lacklustre.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorcerers need to be totally changed, they currently have no niche to fill, other than being the least effective spontaneous caster around.
They should remake it to be more like the Warlock class from 3.5 or 5e or the Kineticist, a few, specialized magical powers, that they can use a lot/have unlimited uses of.
They were already contemplating removing the Sorcerer, and it currently looks like it has no niche to fill, so this might be the answer.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One aspect, albeit one that touches on multiple classes, that I'd love to see changed is the default mandatory existence of anathema. Just take them all, Cleric-, Barbarian-, Druid-, and Paladin-based, and make them not be a thing as a given unless and until all parties agreed to it (as opposed to "they're there by default, but good luck arguing, negotiating, bargaining, etc. them away"). We already know that, save one specific exception, not a one of these classes were designed to have to pay attention to any of their anathema for the sake of balance. Ergo, they only exist to enforce a certain behavior of role-playing, something that I'm adamantly opposed to (and to be honest, I really don't see how such a policy fits in with the beginning of the book).

Just let the whole "I want to play a character with the Paladin/Druid/Barbarian/Cleric class AND have the character behave according to the fluff associated with that class (as opposed to fluff from some other inspiration)" be an OPT-IN choice, rather than a Sword of Damocles that they constantly have to stress over instead.

Alternatively, just include a Fury Totem choice for all the other classes, as they did with the Barbarian.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mad Beetle wrote:

Sorcerers need to be totally changed, they currently have no niche to fill, other than being the least effective spontaneous caster around.

They should remake it to be more like the Warlock class from 3.5 or 5e or the Kineticist, a few, specialized magical powers, that they can use a lot/have unlimited uses of.
They were already contemplating removing the Sorcerer, and it currently looks like it has no niche to fill, so this might be the answer.

While I think it's too late and this comment will fall on deaf ears, I 100% agree with this. I loooove the way warlock/kineticist play and would be over the moon if that's how sorcerer plays. I think it lends itself very well to the sorcerers innate talent of magic as well, so it would be a perfect fit. Kineticist being in original pathfinder and not the playtest is my main reason for not taking the leap and switching completely.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tectorman wrote:
Alternatively, just include a Fury Totem choice for all the other classes, as they did with the Barbarian.

I want a Fury totem equivalent for the the Paladin (not one that means you don't have to follow a code, just that you don't follow a deity's code) but I do see the Cleric and Druid as being devoted to a deity or an aspect of nature, so "following that deity's rules" or "respecting that aspect of nature" are part and parcel to the class.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Alternatively, just include a Fury Totem choice for all the other classes, as they did with the Barbarian.
I want a Fury totem equivalent for the the Paladin (not one that means you don't have to follow a code, just that you don't follow a deity's code) but I do see the Cleric and Druid as being devoted to a deity or an aspect of nature, so "following that deity's rules" or "respecting that aspect of nature" are part and parcel to the class.

I can agree that they're part and parcel to the concept, for whatever mechanism is used to express that concept. When/IF that mechanism is a given class, then the anathema is appropriate for that class (which naturally includes using the Fighter class to represent "devotee of Gorum", but not the Druid class not being used to express Druid-the-concept).

Grand Lodge Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Bards: More skill and knowledge stuff. Right now they feel so focused on compositions that they lose out if they try to make something akin to the Archivist or Archaeologist of 1e.

Rogue: DUAL SLICE. Why the hell is rogue lacking a feat that enhances multi weapon fighting? Make it only for finesse rogues if you don't want brutes or swashbucklers using it. Make it a later level than fighter/monk/ranger gets it. Make it so it does fewer dice of sneak attack of you think that's too powerful (even though it's really not). Just PLEASE let rogues get it without having to multiclass. Dual-dagger-wielding thieves or ninjas are very iconic to fantasy adventure games, and it's a shame they can't embrace that in 2e.

Paladin: let them be something other than strength based heavy armor characters. I'd also love to see more alignments accessible.

Ranger: make crossbows better!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pinstripedbarbarian wrote:

Bards: More skill and knowledge stuff. Right now they feel so focused on compositions that they lose out if they try to make something akin to the Archivist or Archaeologist of 1e.

Rogue: DUAL SLICE. Why the hell is rogue lacking a feat that enhances multi weapon fighting? Make it only for finesse rogues if you don't want brutes or swashbucklers using it. Make it a later level than fighter/monk/ranger gets it. Make it so it does fewer dice of sneak attack of you think that's too powerful (even though it's really not). Just PLEASE let rogues get it without having to multiclass. Dual-dagger-wielding thieves or ninjas are very iconic to fantasy adventure games, and it's a shame they can't embrace that in 2e.

Paladin: let them be something other than strength based heavy armor characters. I'd also love to see more alignments accessible.

Ranger: make crossbows better!

Just here to say that feat support for dual Wielding rogues has already been confirmed for the final version by Paizo.

Also, when I get a significant amount of responses I'm going to count them up to see which classes had the most and least issues declared, but I can already see a pretty big pattern involving Paladins and shoehorns.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fighter - more than one AoO/r; one is insufficient to discourage most opponents and PC parties. Melee area control is a good job for a party member (Fighter, and option for Monk/Ranger/Paladin) and for some monsters (solos, in particular).

Suggestion? 1 AoO per level per round (okay, make that a feat if needed), eventually getting more than one AoO on a provocation - e.g. with 1 AoO per level, spending 5 AoOs (from that round) for another attack on a single provocation (2 attacks at 6th, 3 at 11th...)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

1st off, fighters can get more than one AoO per round at higher levels with a feat. I could see it being a slightly lower level feat than it is now but meh, and 2nd 1AoO per level per round and using multiples per proc? That’s ridiculous! As is you rarely need more than a couple per round and if you could use multiples on a proc with just 2 that’d be pretty broken, with the number you’re suggesting: “it provokes an AoO? Well I’m 12 level so i’llget 4 combat rounds of hits on him.” I’m sorry but no. The only thing I think fighters need is to get the same bonuses for wearing all armor not just heavy. At least for the paladin that makes some thematic sense (despite the above complaints), but fighters have and always should have the most flexibility in armor and weapon styles.

Edit: okay I misunderstood your proposal on multiple procs of AoOs but I still think it would be OP and a mess math wise which 2e is trying to cut down on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been arguing for the sorcerer as kineticist since the earliest preview posts about magic. I've never gotten a response to it. I don't think it has any traction with the designers, which is sad. I think it's one of the most interesting design spaces and I'd love to see how it plays with the 3 action economy.

It would also open up the idea of everyone else using arcanist casting which would solve a lot of the situational spell list problems people have been complaining about because of the limited slots per day.

It's going to be the first thing I homebrew when the actual game is released I think, and I almost never homebrew. I just feel very strongly about this one, it would bring together so many things and really help separate Pathfinder from other RPGs in a good way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the Sorcerer were the Kineticist, what would the Kineticist do?


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

I think people mean more that it plays like a kineticist. Like how kineticist itself plays like dnd warlock


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
If the Sorcerer were the Kineticist, what would the Kineticist do?

Why would the Kineticist need to be its own class in P2E? Cavalier is already an archetype, and I feel that Vigilante, if it gets remade, would be best served as an archetype, as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tectorman wrote:
Why would the Kineticist need to be its own class in P2E? Cavalier is already an archetype, and I feel that Vigilante, if it gets remade, would be best served as an archetype, as well.

Because the thematics of the class "you push yourself to the point where you are literally hurting yourself to channel power" are neat and are incompatible with the thematics of the sorcerer being "you have special blood."


-Versatile Performance. {At the very least allow Performance to act as a sub for skill feats and requirements for the skills associated with VP)

-Spell casting classes having less feats due to them being used for spell prof. {Originally I just did not like that a class has to give up class feats in order to just keep up in the thing they are suppose to be known for. However, if they update that system like they did with the wizard for all the spell casting class, where there is an additional benefit on top of it, I can get behind it. Though I would still want these classes to have full class feats, with class feats that would increase Prof, as not all ideas/builds for these classes may concentrate on spells, and would prefer taking another class feat then increasing there spell DC. For example a battle Bard or Cleric may care more on increasing there combat abilities, and may not care to much about DC as a majority of there spells are going to be on support or buffing, {such as healing or Heroism or Divination spells before the battle} ones that don't care about saves.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

For clerics, I really don't like having specific gods having their own individual spell lists. Like, aside from turning what should be an RP decision into an optimization one where Golarian gods can be ranked from best to worst (esp concerning the weapon), it makes it really tough for a GM to create their own pantheon for their own setting. Am I really going to have to pick out and balance a bunch of spell lists and weapons for every single god I make? What if my setting only has one god, or two, or none? What if all the gods are evil and good clerics are instead devoted to some force-like nonsapient entity of good, do they just not get weapons or extra spells? What if my setting has 30 or more gods, am I just SOL?

I much prefer 5e's method of putting everything a cleric gets into their domain, and then when the GM goes to make the pantheon they just assign appropriate domains to the gods and maybe get a little fuzzy so that all good-aligned gods have access to the Healing domain or whatever. The weapon of a god should be nothing more than cosmetic. A cleric's god should be chosen much like every character chooses their background, so long it makes tangential sense that cleric should be able to pick whatever they want without having any noticeable impact on optimization. If someone wants to be a cleric of Cayden Cailean because that sounds like a fun time, I don't want them to struggle to justify using a rapier or pass it over because they think the spell list sucks.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Core class features shouldn't not stack; I don't care how much simpler you want the math to be, it's just stupid. A bard using inspire courage should be able to give everyone a bonus all the time, and not be encouraged to retire if they happen to be in a party full of barbarians.

Combat styles need to either be completely separated from classes or the class-specificity should instead be tuned towards giving different bonuses to that combat style, rather than access in the first place.
And on a related note, multiclassing really shouldn't be as nigh-universal as it seems to be in the Playtest. Single-classed characters should be able to shine just as well as characters that take fighter or paladin dedications.

...and frankly, multiclassing and archetypes need to not have the mutually exclusive set-up they do now. Or at very least, archetypes other than the multiclass ones need to actually be worth taking. I'm looking at you Pirate.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Siro wrote:
-Spell casting classes having less feats due to them being used for spell prof.
The Archive wrote:
Core class features shouldn't not stack; I don't care how much simpler you want the math to be, it's just stupid.

I forgot about both of these things.

Both of these things need to change.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pinstripedbarbarian said wrote:
Ranger: make crossbows better!

What did you have in mind? Personally I think crossbows are in a decent spot for the ranger now thanks to Crossbow Ace and the updated Hunt Target regarding range and allowing precision damage instead of improved MAP.

Maybe let Crossbow Ace do full wisdom mod to damage instead?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nettah wrote:
Pinstripedbarbarian said wrote:
Ranger: make crossbows better!
What did you have in mind? Personally I think crossbows are in a decent spot for the ranger now thanks to Crossbow Ace and the updated Hunt Target regarding range and allowing precision damage instead of improved MAP.

Hunt Target is still bad, though. The only way in which it isn't is because it makes otherwise good abilities turn on. Compare Twin Takedown to Double Slice: they're exactly the same except that TT doesn't work except against your hunted target.


Draco18s wrote:
Nettah wrote:
Pinstripedbarbarian said wrote:
Ranger: make crossbows better!
What did you have in mind? Personally I think crossbows are in a decent spot for the ranger now thanks to Crossbow Ace and the updated Hunt Target regarding range and allowing precision damage instead of improved MAP.
Hunt Target is still bad, though. The only way in which it isn't is because it makes otherwise good abilities turn on. Compare Twin Takedown to Double Slice: they're exactly the same except that TT doesn't work except against your hunted target.

I really don't get the "Hunt Target is bad" idea. That MAP reduction is excellent, especially with an Agile weapon. And the 17th level upgrade is even better, our Ranger for Part 7 is loving the effectiveness of his Volley Archer build. Even with using an animal companion too he really feels like he looses a lot of arrows at great accuracy.

Also how are Twin Takedown and Double Slice the same? One is a single action to attack at full and -5, the other is two actions to attack twice at full, putting you at -10 for any subsequent attacks.

Factoring in Agile and Hunt Target I think I like +0/-3/-6 for two actions a little better than +0/+0 honestly. And even if not I love being able to attack twice with one action and use the other two actions elsewhere.

I just don't get how Hunt Target is considered bad honestly.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Archive wrote:

Core class features shouldn't not stack; I don't care how much simpler you want the math to be, it's just stupid. A bard using inspire courage should be able to give everyone a bonus all the time, and not be encouraged to retire if they happen to be in a party full of barbarians.

Do the other benefits of inspire courage (the plus to attack and saves against fear) not work with a raging barbarian?

As for the class change, I would like a better sneak attack for rogues: they should really be good at singular strikes against one opponent: “You’re a precision instrument, better used against a tough boss or distant spellcaster thanagainst rank-and-file soldiers” (p. 119). As is, I think a two-handed fighter or barbarian is better at assassinating than a Rogue. Also, rogues are not guaranteed sneak attacks, especially in range focused groups, so they should at least have some type of compensation for the added difficulty of using a main class feature.

For martial/non-casting classes in general, I think they should get the choice of getting legendary to weapons or armor or some combination, such as a ranger getting to choose to increase his armor or weapon proficiency to expert at 5, increase the thing increased at 5 to master or the one not chosen to expert at 10, increase again at 15, and maybe another at 20. This way a martial can get to the same proficiency as a caster for their combat abilities if they choose.


My number two thing, is fix snares mechanically and start calling them traps as is what they are.

My number one is to stop forcing classes into very specific combat styles with next to zero alternatives all in the name of making a Fighter more special by making everyone else boring.

And that flows into this...

Edge93 wrote:

I really don't get the "Hunt Target is bad" idea. That MAP reduction is excellent, especially with an Agile weapon. And the 17th level upgrade is even better, our Ranger for Part 7 is loving the effectiveness of his Volley Archer build. Even with using an animal companion too he really feels like he looses a lot of arrows at great accuracy.

Also how are Twin Takedown and Double Slice the same? One is a single action to attack at full and -5, the other is two actions to attack twice at full, putting you at -10 for any subsequent attacks.

Factoring in Agile and Hunt Target I think I like +0/-3/-6 for two actions a little better than +0/+0 honestly. And even if not I love being able to attack twice with one action and use the other two actions elsewhere.

I just don't get how Hunt Target is considered bad honestly.

What if I want to play as a Ranger that isn't forced to also be a laser-focused hunter? One of the things you're ignoring is that Hunt Target is mandatory to the combat style. That doesn't sit well with many of us.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorcerers - a few more spell slots/day? Or Spontaneously Heighten a couple more spells/day? Or strengthen bloodline powers? Other than that, I feel pretty positive about classes.

Grand Lodge Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
dmerceless wrote:
Just here to say that feat support for dual Wielding rogues has already been confirmed for the final version by Paizo.

I must have missed that somehow. Good to know!

Something else I thought of:

Sorcerer needs an elemental bloodline.

The basic chassis is simple. Primal spell list, choose an elemental similar to choosing a dragon, give them an ability to change energy types of spells like before. I toyed with a homebrewed list of spells for such a thing, but I ran into the issue of finding either appropriate spells for each element at each level or finding spells that would comfortably for all elements regardless.

With the talk in this thread about Kineticist, I wonder if that would fit an elemental sorcerer cleanly. I thought about it maybe being an order for druids based around cantrips. Give them metamagic feats that work like shape or form talents for cantrips, make the order power itself give cantrips better damage, stuff like that. On a Sorcerer you could do something similar, but it might be clunkier to put into a bloodline power than a metamagic feat.

I certainly think Kineticist should get a place in 2e, but I don't think it needs to be its own class. Don't get me wrong, I adore Kineticist. It's one of my favorite classes in 1e. It's just that the DIY, Lego brick, Ikea nature of 2e lends itself to folding old concepts into existing classes, like how Oracle can be emulated with a Divine sorcerer or Bloodrager can be a barbarian with sorcerer dedication.


LordVanya wrote:

My number two thing, is fix snares mechanically and start calling them traps as is what they are.

My number one is to stop forcing classes into very specific combat styles with next to zero alternatives all in the name of making a Fighter more special by making everyone else boring.

And that flows into this...

Edge93 wrote:

I really don't get the "Hunt Target is bad" idea. That MAP reduction is excellent, especially with an Agile weapon. And the 17th level upgrade is even better, our Ranger for Part 7 is loving the effectiveness of his Volley Archer build. Even with using an animal companion too he really feels like he looses a lot of arrows at great accuracy.

Also how are Twin Takedown and Double Slice the same? One is a single action to attack at full and -5, the other is two actions to attack twice at full, putting you at -10 for any subsequent attacks.

Factoring in Agile and Hunt Target I think I like +0/-3/-6 for two actions a little better than +0/+0 honestly. And even if not I love being able to attack twice with one action and use the other two actions elsewhere.

I just don't get how Hunt Target is considered bad honestly.

What if I want to play as a Ranger that isn't forced to also be a laser-focused hunter? One of the things you're ignoring is that Hunt Target is mandatory to the combat style. That doesn't sit well with many of us.

That's less "Hunt Target is bad" and more "The flavor Paizo chose for Ranger isn't the flavor x number of people want for Ranger". Which is a valid complaint I suppose, but independent of Hunt Target being good or bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Monks need a baseline defensive reaction, imho. Otherwise, you are shoehorned into speccing into have a reaction to improve your action economy.


Ironically this worked out well for the Monk in my Heroes of Undarin group, he was always free to use the Holy rune to heal when needed.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Change spontaneous casting to be under-casting much like psychic casting, get rid of spontaneous heightening

Draco18s wrote:

Serious anything, really. Flight? Single target, lasts a minute.

"It gets you over the wall instead of having to invest in climb!" Yeah, but the paladin is still stuck and now I'm out of spells.

Carry some knotted rope up with you and throw it down for the rest of the party to climb up. Fly was one creature touch in 1e, so I don't understand what the issue is.


Sorcerers and wizards have too much of their power tired to spell slots, which increase in power with level way more than any other classes. They should be changed to be more like clerics, with a non key ability score giving a pool of uses of something that's power stays constant with level. That way they would be stronger at low levels where they are currently too weak (and maybe weaker at high levels where they are too strong, but at least not stronger).


Druids need to be wildshaped for a significantly longer portion of the day. It should not be a combat only ability.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Skerek wrote:
Fly was one creature touch in 1e, so I don't understand what the issue is.

It lasted minutes per level?

As a 3rd level spell that meant you had the ability to fly for a (minimum!) of 5 minutes.

1 to 50 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / One thing that needs to be changed in a class, in your opinion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.