PF1 Classes that would make good PF2 archetypes.


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So, we saw them try out the Cavalier as an archetype in the playtest document. I think that is actually a really cool idea because a mounted class can have some difficulty in certain adventures and is a bit more narrowly focused than some concepts. That got me thinking about what other classes would make good archetypes.

Gunslinger: Nearly every class got a gun using archetype and this had to be the most narrowly focused class in all of Pathfinder. It is a no brainer as an archetype,

Magus: Now, a lot of people will hate this idea, but I think the magus could be a lot more interesting if it can be applied to more casting classes. Being able to apply a Magus archetype to a bard or a sorcerer would honestly be one of my favorite things.

Vigilante Well, do I really need to explain why with this one?

Any other thoughts on Archetype only classes?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The class I like the best from PF1 is Inquisitor for the Teamwork feats stuff.

Doubt they'd be able to work that kind of thing in easily.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Inquisitor should definitely be its own Class. However, an Archetype for Teamwork Feats seems pretty workable if they've a mind to do it. Heck, you don't even need an Archetype to have some...

Vigilante and Gunslinger are definitely the most obvious Classes that should definitionally be Archetypes in the new system. Along with Cavalier (which already is), of course. Samurai also seems like it would make a good Archetype, maybe along with Ninja if you want to keep the mystic stuff separate from Rogue.

Magus seems like it could easily have a place as its own Class, and if it doesn't should probably just be Fighter/Wizard (or Wizard/Fighter) multiclass stuff, rather than a unique Archetype.

Most of the ACG Classes should almost certainly just be handled via multiclassing this edition (a Barbarian/Sorcerer is probably the best option for Bloodrager, though there could stand to be a Feat allowing casting in Rage). The Shaman, Arcanist, and Investigator are exceptions and should probably be their own Classes, as should most of the Occult Classes (Medium, Mesmerist, Occultist, Kineticist, and Psychic...Spiritualist should probably be a Summoner option rather than its own thing), Oracle, Summoner, and Witch.

I could also see Summoner as an Archetype, I suppose, but it'd be more than a tad odd thematically.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

,,,Paladin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Barbarian/Sorcerer is probably the best option for Bloodrager, though there could stand to be a Feat allowing casting in Rage).

One of the msot meh aspects of the Playtest is that they didn't fully embrace class archetypes.

Specific class archetype features would have been really appealing - for example, a "Greater Bloodrage" for Casters with Rage, allowing them to apply zpells on themselves at reduced action cost while raging (which would apply to both Barb + caster archie or caster + Barb archie).

Similarly, something allowing other mixes to work better, like a Ninjutsu feat for Rogue + Monks, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Barbarian/Sorcerer is probably the best option for Bloodrager, though there could stand to be a Feat allowing casting in Rage).

One of the msot meh aspects of the Playtest is that they didn't fully embrace class archetypes.

Specific class archetype features would have been really appealing - for example, a "Greater Bloodrage" for Casters with Rage, allowing them to apply zpells on themselves at reduced action cost while raging (which would apply to both Barb + caster archie or caster + Barb archie).

Similarly, something allowing other mixes to work better, like a Ninjutsu feat for Rogue + Monks, etc.

Yeah, but they simply didn't bother to include them because they won't need testing. I have no doubt class specific archetypes will be a thing again.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

(a Barbarian/Sorcerer is probably the best option for Bloodrager, though there could stand to be a Feat allowing casting in Rage).[\QUOTE] FWIW, Moment of Clarity does exactly this, though at cost of an extra action each time you cast a spell. It's kind of a harsh trade but I kinda like the idea.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, they've said Class-specific Archetypes are very possible, but were known to be well liked and thus not in need of testing.

Edge93 wrote:
FWIW, Moment of Clarity does exactly this, though at cost of an extra action each time you cast a spell. It's kind of a harsh trade but I kinda like the idea.

The extra action makes that fairly prohibitive, IMO. You could definitely build an option that improved Moment of Clarity but only for spells, though.


My biggest issue with rage casting is that you can use somatic actions but not verbal. Mostly because it prevents FUS RO DAH and making a decent skald, but also allowing for fine motor manipulation but not concentration seems super weird.

Deadmanwalking wrote:


Edge93 wrote:
FWIW, Moment of Clarity does exactly this, though at cost of an extra action each time you cast a spell. It's kind of a harsh trade but I kinda like the idea.
The extra action makes that fairly prohibitive, IMO. You could definitely build an option that improved Moment of Clarity but only for spells, though.

If you allow spells, what is left to prevent? Honestly, intimidate needing a specific feat already strikes me as a little weak sauce. How many other concentrate actions are left at that point?

I'm not saying we couldn't use a better version of Moment of Clarity, mind, just that the main thing rage seems to prevent is spellcasting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like the problem with the "Barb/Sorc" multiclass as a replacement for the bloodrager is that it doesn't really mimic at all the "your body gets all weird when you rage" thing.


Shifter


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Albatoonoe wrote:

So, we saw them try out the Cavalier as an archetype in the playtest document. I think that is actually a really cool idea because a mounted class can have some difficulty in certain adventures and is a bit more narrowly focused than some concepts. That got me thinking about what other classes would make good archetypes.

Gunslinger: Nearly every class got a gun using archetype and this had to be the most narrowly focused class in all of Pathfinder. It is a no brainer as an archetype,

Magus: Now, a lot of people will hate this idea, but I think the magus could be a lot more interesting if it can be applied to more casting classes. Being able to apply a Magus archetype to a bard or a sorcerer would honestly be one of my favorite things.

Vigilante Well, do I really need to explain why with this one?

Any other thoughts on Archetype only classes?

I'm curious what they decide to do with Gunslingers, since the original version kind of was built on the concept of hemorrhaging at least small amounts of gold every day to do their thing. Meanwhile the wizard can simply pick up rare peculiar material components and cast spells using them all day for free. (or technically they needed the one time cost of a component pouch at first level)

I would sort of guess, based on Alchemists, that they will be given some quantity of infused reagents to alchemically make gunpowder that would be good for a day for free. Presumably also the ability to craft bullets and shot (either affordably, or free), as well as create permanent gunpowder as per crafting for longer term/reserve usage.

Actually, the Panache and/or Grit mechanics would probably work as a sort of Archetype similar to Multiclass Archetypes that might be able to added to any class. Not sure if it would plug into the Focus points that exist, or need a different pool, similar to spell slots, but with an ability to clear slots to re-use them. It would be somewhat similar to Ki in many ways, thinking about it.

Rather than limiting physical movements to being with a gun, or a rapier, it could be opened up a little more, or have different abilities that get bought with feats that can apply to different choices of weapons, as would seem applicable.

I hope they do better than they did with the Cavalier Archetype however. It seemed problematic.

I like the idea of there potentially being an Archetype that might grant teamwork granting capabilities for a group.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A lot of the hybrid classes just need a Multiclass Specifc Feat in addition to the MCA to make them pretty fully realized.

Something like

Spellstrike (Wizard or Fighter MCA feat)
Prerequisite: Expert with a martial weapon, spells
Benefit: when a spell gives you a melee touch attack you can make a weapon attack instead... blah blah blah spellstrike

Raging Song (Barbarian or bard MCA feat)
Prerequisiste: Inspire Courage and Rage
Benefit: You gain the ragining song composition which can be cast while raging

Bloodrage (Barbarian or Sorcorrer MCA feat)
Prerequisiste: Bloodline and Rage
Benefit: You can cast evocation, transmutation, or bloodline spells and powers while raging.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like the problem with the "Barb/Sorc" multiclass as a replacement for the bloodrager is that it doesn't really mimic at all the "your body gets all weird when you rage" thing.

We already basically have that from the totems. They are far closer to blood rage powers than the relatively tame totems of PF1. The only thing missing the spells. And now that I think about it, given they had the same casting progression as the Paladin, emulating the PF1 archetype might be better emulated in PF2 terms by just making some feats that allow the barbarian to get a focus spells it can cast while raging.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like the problem with the "Barb/Sorc" multiclass as a replacement for the bloodrager is that it doesn't really mimic at all the "your body gets all weird when you rage" thing.
We already basically have that from the totems. They are far closer to blood rage powers than the relatively tame totems of PF1. The only thing missing the spells. And now that I think about it, given they had the same casting progression as the Paladin, emulating the PF1 archetype might be better emulated in PF2 terms by just making some feats that allow the barbarian to get a focus spells it can cast while raging.

That's a good point. Especially since it was implied that most if not all classes would get some sort of subclass. Magus could be a Combat Specialization for the Wizard and Skald could be a Muse.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

If you allow spells, what is left to prevent? Honestly, intimidate needing a specific feat already strikes me as a little weak sauce. How many other concentrate actions are left at that point?

I'm not saying we couldn't use a better version of Moment of Clarity, mind, just that the main thing rage seems to prevent is spellcasting.

Eh, there's a handful of other stuff, but yeah spellcasting is most of it. Of course, what I'm suggesting would probably have Moment Of Clarity as a prerequisite, and might even let you still be effected by Rage while doing it...so it's investment heavy to remove a lot of the downsides of Rager...of course, those generally only apply to a spellcaster anyway.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like the problem with the "Barb/Sorc" multiclass as a replacement for the bloodrager is that it doesn't really mimic at all the "your body gets all weird when you rage" thing.

As mentioned, most Totems actually do this in PF2. You can easily get claws from Animal, Wings from Dragon, and increased Size Category from Giant.

None are quite a Bloodrager Bloodline except maybe Dragon, but the Bloodrager Bloodlines converting to Totems is a pretty solid conversion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

If you allow spells, what is left to prevent? Honestly, intimidate needing a specific feat already strikes me as a little weak sauce. How many other concentrate actions are left at that point?

I'm not saying we couldn't use a better version of Moment of Clarity, mind, just that the main thing rage seems to prevent is spellcasting.

Eh, there's a handful of other stuff, but yeah spellcasting is most of it. Of course, what I'm suggesting would probably have Moment Of Clarity as a prerequisite, and might even let you still be effected by Rage while doing it...so it's investment heavy to remove a lot of the downsides of Rager...of course, those generally only apply to a spellcaster anyway.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like the problem with the "Barb/Sorc" multiclass as a replacement for the bloodrager is that it doesn't really mimic at all the "your body gets all weird when you rage" thing.

As mentioned, most Totems actually do this in PF2. You can easily get claws from Animal, Wings from Dragon, and increased Size Category from Giant.

None are quite a Bloodrager Bloodline except maybe Dragon, but the Bloodrager Bloodlines converting to Totems is a pretty solid conversion.

Actually, I'd argue the totems seem roughly even with bloodlines for weird mutations. Remember, not all bloodlines actually warped your body either. Many just provided various buffs, whether they be numeric or getting the benefit of specific spells or passive flaming auras. None of which seems beyond the scope of the totems. And I can't think of a single bloodline power whose weirdness exceeds what we have for totems: growing to large or huge size, turning into animals, turning into dragons, increased reach, spiritual auras, elemental attacks... if anything totems seem a little more outrageous.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, I agree they're on par with the Bloodlines weirdness-wise. I just meant that you couldn't do the exact same things as an Abyssal or Undead Bloodline with the current Totems...but that making an Abyssal/Fiend Totem that gave you most of the stuff from Abyssal Bloodline would be pretty easy.


Oh, yeah, totally. I was taking it for granted that would happen since we had Demon totems before for example.


I agree about multiclass feats. With the way classes are built now, we can achieve a lot of what classes did in smaller ways.


Bardarok wrote:


Bloodrage (Barbarian or Sorcorrer MCA feat)
Prerequisiste: Bloodline and Rage
Benefit: You can cast evocation, transmutation, or bloodline spells and powers while raging.

Can't you already do that? I mean not if they have the concentration trait but normal evocation, transmutation and even bloodline spells can be cast already.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here is my list of classes to cut and why:

Anti-Paladin - Speaks for itself really, this is just another Champion "Path" and not even in need of an Archetype

Arcanist - Truth be told, Arcanist Spellcasting is pretty much just LITERALLY an upgrade in every way to traditional Wizard or Sorcerer Spellcasting. Making this an Archetype that can be accessed as level 2 makes lots of sense in many ways, primary among them being that taking the Archetype will IMMEDIATELY and IRREVOCABLY improve the QOL for the spellcaster for adaptability.

Bloodrager - For the reasons stated by many others here.

Brawler - There is no reason for an entire Class to be devoted to "I'm all about close-quarters combat with any weapon on hand or none at all" when their core Abilities can simply be dragged and dropped via Archetypes.

Gunslinger - For the reasons stated by many others here.

Hunter - This doesn't need to even be an Archetype, as it stands it would be suitable as a Ranger Path.

Inquisitor - This one here I see as being viable for any Divine Spellcaster to get access to the various self buffs in order to enact divine punishment. This one here I am on the fence about because the Inq has a TON of this/that options that would be really really hard to jam into just a few Archetype feats but I'm confident the essence of this could be done well as an Archetype.

Magus - Gate this one off with an Arcane Spellcaster only pre-req and add in the popular stuff like spellstrike and a list of Arcana Feats and you're golden.

Medium - This is literally just a Druid who focuses on Spirits instead of Nature IMO. Make the Archetype function for any Divine Spellcaster and have it swap out their Spell List for Occult & give them a cohort identical to an Animal Companion that takes the visual form or a humanoid.

Mesmerist - Bard, nuff said

Ninja - Simple enough to do, add in some Weapon profs to the base Archetype feat and grant them an untyped bonus to Stealth/Thievery = 1/2 Character level. Additional non dedication feats should allow the use of Rogue Feats with again 1/2 Character as you effective level or full level for actual Rogues.

Psychic - This is just a Sorcerer who trades away his Bloodline for Psychic powers, treat it as an alternate Bloodline.

Samurai - Hey look another Champion "path."

Shaman - To me this feels again not like an Archetype but a "path" for the Witch Class.

Shifter - Do not reprint Shifter in any form whatsoever, it is awful, poorly designed, and is no more interesting than a shapeshifting druid.

Skald - Straight-up path for Barbarians.

Spiritualist - Occult Spellcaster Archetype, you choose an ancestor/spirit and it shares your body.
Swashbuckler - For the reasons stated by many others here.

Warpriest - Divine Spellcaster only Archetype.


oholoko wrote:
Bardarok wrote:


Bloodrage (Barbarian or Sorcorrer MCA feat)
Prerequisiste: Bloodline and Rage
Benefit: You can cast evocation, transmutation, or bloodline spells and powers while raging.
Can't you already do that? I mean not if they have the concentration trait but normal evocation, transmutation and even bloodline spells can be cast already.

Verbal casting has the concentrate tag and most spells have verbal components so some sort of modifier ability would be needed to play a bloodrager.


Bardarok wrote:
oholoko wrote:
Bardarok wrote:


Bloodrage (Barbarian or Sorcorrer MCA feat)
Prerequisiste: Bloodline and Rage
Benefit: You can cast evocation, transmutation, or bloodline spells and powers while raging.
Can't you already do that? I mean not if they have the concentration trait but normal evocation, transmutation and even bloodline spells can be cast already.
Verbal casting has the concentrate tag and most spells have verbal components so some sort of modifier ability would be needed to play a bloodrager.

Ouch just checked yeah they do indeed, they do need a better version of moment of clarity i can see a feat tree working here. Or giving an extra action for moment of clarity built on the bloodrage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Themetricsystem, I disagree with the extensive nature of your ideas. I would rather a lot of them, like the Psychic for instance, flesh out the idea and find their more unique nature. I think a lot of this has been demonstrated in how they handled the Sorcerer and Druid. They pushed them further into their own niche and flavor.

Now I agree that a lot of previous classes aren't necessary any more. The Brawler, as much as I love the class has been completely subsumed by the Monk, minus flexibility.

The way classes are designed now let's them be more flexible and cover a lot of ground. Classes like the Inquisitor, Psychic, and Medium all have a lot of potential that can be brought out with redesigns.


Themetricsystem wrote:
Shaman - To me this feels again not like an Archetype but a "path" for the Witch Class.

Personally, my preference would be for the Witch to be the prepared version of the sorcerer- what kind of magic you cast depends on what you have entered a pact with. So the Shaman should probably be its own thing to cover say "divine casters from animist societies".


Bloodrager likely just uses spell points.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually see Witch as the prepared occult caster myself. Conceptually, Witch makes a lot more sense tied to the occult.

As far as classes, I think there are two ways to think of future directions.

Does a current/potential class have a unique conceptual niche or flavor that is broad enough to design around? Even if the mechanics might need heavy overhaul, it might be best to to design the class around that theme. To me this is the domain of classes like Shamans, Investigators, and Inquisitors.

Does a current/potential class have a unique mechanical niche or concept? If so, double downing on that might be a good idea. A lot of the occult classes fit in here, as do different casting methods. But also stuff like the swashbuckler, which has an interesting gimmick that you could focus on (and maybe merge with gunslinger).

I think mechanically, a lot of new design space has opened up, that just wasn't present before, some of which probably even isn't evident yet to us. I wouldn't at all be shocked if we didn't eventually get the same profusion of classes as we do in PF1, just representing completely new material.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'd really love to see an Engineer and Artificer Prestige/Archetype.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
I actually see Witch as the prepared occult caster myself. Conceptually, Witch makes a lot more sense tied to the occult.

I just don't see why a witch would be an occult caster if their patron was an angel, a devil, a powerful fae, or a nature spirit (all of which are options for patrons in PF1). Pathfinder's witch is defined more by "pact magic" than anything else.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I actually see Witch as the prepared occult caster myself. Conceptually, Witch makes a lot more sense tied to the occult.
I just don't see why a witch would be an occult caster if their patron was an angel, a devil, a powerful fae, or a nature spirit (all of which are options for patrons in PF1). Pathfinder's witch is defined more by "pact magic" than anything else.

Witches don't generally know what their patron is, precisely. I mean, evidence supports Feiya's being Desna...but it's by no means a sure thing or as clear cut as who a Cleric serves. It determining their magic type might be a bit too clear a sign, thematically. And they were all Arcane in PF1 regardless of Patron, so it's not inconsistent or anything to keep them on one list (not that making them different lists is inconsistent, mind you. It's also fine from a consistency perspective since it was done with Sorcerer).

Personally, I think Occult casting, plus bonus spells from Patron makes more or less perfect sense for a Witch. They've always been about the subtle stuff more than throwing fireballs around, and the Occult list is basically perfect for that (they need a common way to get Baleful Polymorph, but the rest of the list seems ideal).

We also need an Int-based prepared Occult caster, and Witch seems by far the best candidate (name aside Occultist should maybe not be Occult, and Psychic should remain Spontaneous).


PossibleCabbage wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I actually see Witch as the prepared occult caster myself. Conceptually, Witch makes a lot more sense tied to the occult.
I just don't see why a witch would be an occult caster if their patron was an angel, a devil, a powerful fae, or a nature spirit (all of which are options for patrons in PF1). Pathfinder's witch is defined more by "pact magic" than anything else.

I know James Jacobs has, IIRC, commented on the idea that using the term patron was a mistake or misleading, as it implied a specific entity granting spells, which wasn't the intention. I would not remotely be surprised if that element somewhat goes away, and that witches just derive their power from some other equivalent source.

I just think Occult is a better match thematically, since it ties more into a lot of horror fiction including Mythos work, and Occult is the "spooky" spell list. Witches to me make more sense for Occult to me then even bards.

Paizo Employee

Classes I think should be archetypes:

Cavalier- Horsey stuff on any class is better than locking it up in one class that has a bunch of thematic overlap with the Fighter.

Gunslinger- As others have noted, every class had to get a gunslinging archetype anyways, and gunslinger is super common as a dip anyways.

Samurai- Same as the cavalier, this is mainly a flavor package and a couple iconic abilities with significant overlap with other martial classes.

Swashbuckler- This is a fighting style and some Charisma abilities. Would be far more used and useful as an archetype that any character could take so you can have swashbuckling champions, fighters, rangers, rogues, etc.

Vigilante- As much as I legitimately adore this class, a lot of what I like about it has to do with design innovations that are more relevant to an aged system than a new one. A vigilante archetype package that any class could take would give the concept better legs in the new edition.

Classes I think no longer have a niche:

Arcanist- This was a class that existed for purely mechanical reasons. I don't see it having much place in the new edition.

Hunter- One of my favorite 1E classes, but I don't see a solid place for it in the new edition anymore. Druids and Rangers can both build into their pets if they want to, pet teamwork abilities are baked in, and there aren't any 2/3 casters anymore.

Skald- There doesn't appear to be much, if anything, that this class does in 1st edition that a bard can't already cover pretty well in the playtest.

Slayer- Another class with little flavor that seems to exist mostly as a mechanical middle-ground balancing skills and combat ability. With rogues no longer having as severe a penalty to their "BAB" and the new ranger seeming to take over a lot of this space anyways, I don't know that this would serve a function anymore.

Classes that could go either way:

Brawler: The new monk seems to eat a lot of this territory, but if this could be packaged as a "fighting style" archetype that any class could take, it could still be interesting.

Mesmerist: I feel like this is mostly a bard archetype, but maybe it has a place? Its mechanics were specific enough that it filled the bard niche without doing things like a bard in 1E, so I could potentially see it working in 2E.


Fighter multiclassing into monk feels like a preeeetty good brawler replacement to me. And the true martial flexibility doesn't seem as worthwhile with feat silos now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:
Arcanist- This was a class that existed for purely mechanical reasons. I don't see it having much place in the new edition.

That feels like it's making some unwarranted assumptions. Arcanist style casting isn't available in any class we've seen so far, so unless it's the sort of thing you can switch the Wizard over to via an archetype or something I'd hate to see it go.


I think Shifter is actually good ground for an archetype. They could hand over natural weapons that work more or less like monk fighting styles and maybe give you a spell pool with some utility transformations. I could see that slotting well into a fighter or ranger chasis or even help a druid who wanted to focus more on being a "combat shifter" or whatever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:

Classes I think no longer have a niche:

Skald- There doesn't appear to be much, if anything, that this class does in 1st edition that a bard can't already cover pretty well in the playtest.

I could see this one being included. The ability to give other party members access to rage, or a lesser form of it, through your inspirations would arguably be more useful in P2e. Especially if it gave access to any amount of temp HP.

Gloom wrote:

I'd really love to see an Engineer and Artificer Prestige/Archetype.

I agree. This would also be a fantastic system to make the Effigy Master Prestige. I know i'm gonna be thinking one up.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:
Medium - This is literally just a Druid who focuses on Spirits instead of Nature IMO. Make the Archetype function for any Divine Spellcaster and have it swap out their Spell List for Occult & give them a cohort identical to an Animal Companion that takes the visual form or a humanoid.

I think you confused mediums with spiritualists. Or possibly shaman. Mediums don't have spirit companions.

I'm not certain what shape Mediums will take in PF2. They were a pretty weird class in PF1, and heavily edited from their original vision (my assumption is that they were originally going to be Paizo's answer to the 3.5 binder class, like the kineticist was the answer to the 3.5 warlock). I can't imagine squeezing it even further into an archetype, but anything is possible I suppose.

I think if I were designing a PF2 medium, I'd possibly make a class that tinkers with the dedication archetype system, allowing you to choose a class to take an ever increasing number of multiclass feats for the day, with the ability to reset it to something else the next day. (Can't get into more detail here; I didn't follow the playtest closely enough to see how it changed from its initial iteration). Round it out with some flavorful class abilities of its own, so that people have something to pick up when they multiclass into medium from other classes.

As to the original topic, Magus and Vigilante seem obvious, although I have hopes that they'll make a Magus archetype AND find a new, flavorful direction to take a new Magus class. But the PF1 iteration certainly doesn't need a full class, and making it an archetype would also sort of cover the Warpriest and a few other classes and archetypes like the Arcane Archer. Gunslingers and Swashbucklers are of course primed to be archetypes as well.

Edit: a further out there suggestion might be to recreate Summoners as a caster only archetype. It would likely require some hefty restrictions on what you could do with your Eiodolon, but something like the summon monster grafts in Starfinder might work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I think Shifter is actually good ground for an archetype. They could hand over natural weapons that work more or less like monk fighting styles and maybe give you a spell pool with some utility transformations. I could see that slotting well into a fighter or ranger chasis or even help a druid who wanted to focus more on being a "combat shifter" or whatever.

I feel like the animal totem barbarian already makes a pretty versatile combat shifter though. It lacks any sort of utility shifting (is that a thing the Shifter had?) but that's pretty easily reconciled with some Caster multiclasssing. The pest forms are very low level spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like Spiritualists and Summoners should probably be merged into a single class, possibly throw the Hunter in there.

Like "you are a pet class, pick your flavor- Arcane (Summoner), Occult (Spiritualist), Primal (Hunter), Divine (something new)."

Having all the pet classes use the same rules for pets whether they are outsiders or ghosts or magic tigers would make things a lot easier.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

None of them, it ripped the guts out of the Cavalier to patch the horrible class feat straight jacket, don’t desecrate other classes the same way, remove the chains that class feats put on everyone instead...oh and make power attack good again, make it the same 1 action it always was,


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I may get hate for this, but: Fighter.

I feel that the presence of Fighter as a base class is objectively bad for the game, because it limits the combat role of every other class under the banner of "can't be better at combat than the Fighter!" Plus, it's a really boring class. "I hit things well, and that's basically it" is just plain not a great class concept. PF2e did some interesting things with Open and Press feats and gave Fighters more things to do, but I still feel that the core idea is weak.

Typically the argument to keep Fighter, other than legacy reasons, is that it's the "easy to learn" class for new players. I've had a lot of new players over the years, and I've never had one of them excited about being a Fighter. Nor have I ever had an experienced player choose to be a straight Fighter - dip two levels for the bonus feats, yes, but not straight Fighter.

I think "class that specializes in doing clever things with weapons" is good design space, but it needs to be more than just that. Something like the Super Genius Games class War Master, that combines "clever with weapons" and "tactical leadership" would be a lot more to get excited about.

Overall I just feel like Fighter is the "vanilla" class, the class that is boring because people feel like boring-but-effective is a niche that needs to be filled. I disagree. Save it for an NPCs class, and split the cool stuff Fighter has into a few different archetypes anyone can use.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
make power attack good again, make it the same 1 action it always was,

I feel like "power attack is bad, no one wants it" is a welcome change from "power attack is amazing, literally everybody with 13 strength who uses melee weapons takes it." Like "feats that everybody who they apply to automatically chooses" should not be feats.

Now ideally we would have "power attack is situationally useful, some people want it, other people don't"


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:

I may get hate for this, but: Fighter.

I feel that the presence of Fighter as a base class is objectively bad for the game, because it limits the combat role of every other class under the banner of "can't be better at combat than the Fighter!" Plus, it's a really boring class. "I hit things well, and that's basically it" is just plain not a great class concept. PF2e did some interesting things with Open and Press feats and gave Fighters more things to do, but I still feel that the core idea is weak.

Typically the argument to keep Fighter, other than legacy reasons, is that it's the "easy to learn" class for new players. I've had a lot of new players over the years, and I've never had one of them excited about being a Fighter. Nor have I ever had an experienced player choose to be a straight Fighter - dip two levels for the bonus feats, yes, but not straight Fighter.

I think "class that specializes in doing clever things with weapons" is good design space, but it needs to be more than just that. Something like the Super Genius Games class War Master, that combines "clever with weapons" and "tactical leadership" would be a lot more to get excited about.

Overall I just feel like Fighter is the "vanilla" class, the class that is boring because people feel like boring-but-effective is a niche that needs to be filled. I disagree. Save it for an NPCs class, and split the cool stuff Fighter has into a few different archetypes anyone can use.

. Strategist Cavalier is fairly close to that concept, ironically


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
make power attack good again, make it the same 1 action it always was,

I feel like "power attack is bad, no one wants it" is a welcome change from "power attack is amazing, literally everybody with 13 strength who uses melee weapons takes it." Like "feats that everybody who they apply to automatically chooses" should not be feats.

Now ideally we would have "power attack is situationally useful, some people want it, other people don't"

power attack was mandatory because most other feats sucked, they needed a buff, not PA. a nerf, which is also my view on caster/martial disparities for what that’s worth.


I feel like the Eldritch Knight that's a main stay archetype will cover the holes that people want a theoretical Magus archetype to fill. Plus Ninja might be covered with Arcane Trickster/Assassin since Ninjas are just those two mixed together. You have to think about what they said they intend to bring over that they didn't because they didn't want to overwhelm the tester-base.


MaxAstro wrote:

I may get hate for this, but: Fighter.

I feel that the presence of Fighter as a base class is objectively bad for the game, because it limits the combat role of every other class under the banner of "can't be better at combat than the Fighter!" Plus, it's a really boring class. "I hit things well, and that's basically it" is just plain not a great class concept. PF2e did some interesting things with Open and Press feats and gave Fighters more things to do, but I still feel that the core idea is weak.

Typically the argument to keep Fighter, other than legacy reasons, is that it's the "easy to learn" class for new players. I've had a lot of new players over the years, and I've never had one of them excited about being a Fighter. Nor have I ever had an experienced player choose to be a straight Fighter - dip two levels for the bonus feats, yes, but not straight Fighter.

I think "class that specializes in doing clever things with weapons" is good design space, but it needs to be more than just that. Something like the Super Genius Games class War Master, that combines "clever with weapons" and "tactical leadership" would be a lot more to get excited about.

Overall I just feel like Fighter is the "vanilla" class, the class that is boring because people feel like boring-but-effective is a niche that needs to be filled. I disagree. Save it for an NPCs class, and split the cool stuff Fighter has into a few different archetypes anyone can use.

Actually i find Fighter to be quite invaluable as a base class. It is much more generic than the other Classes, but i find that to be it’s most defining strength in builds. From what i’ve read so far i like the direction they are taking the fighter in P2e; it still needs some sanding around the edges.

For P1e, there are a surprising amount of fringe yet powerful builds that simply could not be possible without Fighter. I had one player that made a competent Whip focused build that couldn’t be possible or practicle without Fighter being as generic and flexible as it is. Another was one where i used Snakebite Brawler, for the weapon specialization and bonus feats; the added Sneak Attack was just for icing.

Personally I don’t want to have every class be excellent at fighting; and i do want One class to be above the rest at combat from a thematic perspective.

Paizo Employee

rooneg wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Arcanist- This was a class that existed for purely mechanical reasons. I don't see it having much place in the new edition.
That feels like it's making some unwarranted assumptions. Arcanist style casting isn't available in any class we've seen so far, so unless it's the sort of thing you can switch the Wizard over to via an archetype or something I'd hate to see it go.

A casting method isn't really a class, it's a single mechanic. The arcanist primarily existed as a training-wheels caster with fairly weak fluff that largely worked due to mechanical paradigms that no longer exist (like sorcerers and wizards having different casting progressions). Its function and ability to exist in a balanced state were due to existing imbalances in the system that created a niche for it to occupy; I don't know that that niche exists in the new system. If they wanted to do Arcanist-style casting, they probably would have needed that to be the new baseline rather than something that would be introduced later, since the wizard already does a lot of what the arcanist did from a spell-prep and rotation angle and the sorcerer has a much more distinct niche that doesn't penalize it with a slower progression and fewer spells.

To each their own of course, I just don't see the arcanist as having any place at all in the new edition since it wasn't really a class with a distinct identity to begin with, more of a mish-mash of mechanics from two other classes to make spellcasting more forgiving. I could see the potential for an arcanist archetype that any caster can take to give them more slot flexibility.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like Spiritualists and Summoners should probably be merged into a single class, possibly throw the Hunter in there.

Like "you are a pet class, pick your flavor- Arcane (Summoner), Occult (Spiritualist), Primal (Hunter), Divine (something new)."

Having all the pet classes use the same rules for pets whether they are outsiders or ghosts or magic tigers would make things a lot easier.

Very much agreed. "Animal" "Outsider" and "Phantom" all feel like they could just be base form keywords that influence your pet based on other class choices. If they were to do the "pick one of these three paths" structure that a lot of the other classes do you could cover all three major pet classes easily under a single chassis, and even get some more flexibility to create "ghost tiger" and "azata" companions by mix-and-matching pet options across the three (or however many) paths.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
nick1wasd wrote:
I feel like the Eldritch Knight that's a main stay archetype will cover the holes that people want a theoretical Magus archetype to fill. Plus Ninja might be covered with Arcane Trickster/Assassin since Ninjas are just those two mixed together. You have to think about what they said they intend to bring over that they didn't because they didn't want to overwhelm the tester-base.

. Archetype? Nit without spell strike and spell combat, and a curtailed spell list.

1 to 50 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / PF1 Classes that would make good PF2 archetypes. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.