PF1 Classes that would make good PF2 archetypes.


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee

Rob Godfrey wrote:
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.

Spell Combat isn't a necessary class feature anymore, it's an inherent ability that every spellcaster naturally has. Similarly, curtailed spell lists seem like a thing of the past; I'd imagine that if there is a magus class in 2E it will be a 9-level arcane spellcaster with a set of heavily combat-oriented feats.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
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 couldn't agree more. To me Arcanist from the day I saw it in print made me think "Well this is just a Wizard who wants to be lazy and swap out spells on the fly or a Sorcerer who wants the flexibility to know every spell." Sure they got their own pool of points that they could spend on things but those by-and-large were essentially just free castings of spells they already know, class abilities lifted from Wiz/Sorc/Magus, or get the equivalent of a Focus Spell/Power as they exist in PF2.

Don't get me wrong, the mechanics behind it are rock solid for sure, but generally speaking they're even less different from the other Arcane Casters than a "Normal" version of either of these Classes and their "Word-Casting" cousins.

If the Arcanist needs to make a comeback I'd much rather see it as a kind of Wizard Specialist or Arcane Sorcerer option which eschews Bloodlines altogether.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
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.
Spell Combat isn't a necessary class feature anymore, it's an inherent ability that every spellcaster naturally has. Similarly, curtailed spell lists seem like a thing of the past; I'd imagine that if there is a magus class in 2E it will be a 9-level arcane spellcaster with a set of heavily combat-oriented feats.

. Then it wouldn’t be a magus, and they shouldn’t put it in. The point was not to be a full caster.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Spell Combat isn't a necessary class feature anymore, it's an inherent ability that every spellcaster naturally has. Similarly, curtailed spell lists seem like a thing of the past; I'd imagine that if there is a magus class in 2E it will be a 9-level arcane spellcaster with a set of heavily combat-oriented feats.

I mean the whole reason that the Magus exists is that building an Eldritch Knight doesn't work that well from level 1 onwards and requires some system mastery. So we add the Magus as a gish that works right out of the box that anybody can build.

It seems like if we have other gishes that work right out of the box, there's no need for a magus. And there's a bunch of ways to build a wizard (or sorcerer) who uses weapons and wears armor in the playtest. Or even a fighter that casts spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:
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

...

hhhmm...I might be a minority here, but conceptually these feel like classes with very different themes, and I would personally see new versions that rework their mechanics to make them stand out more than to have a very generic class with water downed themes.

I mean just in the upcoming core book, you have Ranger, Barbarian, Fighter, and Paladin. At some level I am sure you could just rework all of those into a generic fighting class that folks could just pick and choose there features from. Paizo decided to keep them distinct and give them different stuff, so I don't really see any difference here with many of the existing classes that we haven't gotten updates on yet.

Paizo Employee

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
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.
Spell Combat isn't a necessary class feature anymore, it's an inherent ability that every spellcaster naturally has. Similarly, curtailed spell lists seem like a thing of the past; I'd imagine that if there is a magus class in 2E it will be a 9-level arcane spellcaster with a set of heavily combat-oriented feats.
. Then it wouldn’t be a magus, and they shouldn’t put it in. The point was not to be a full caster.

Is it really though? I'm genuinely curious because you're the first person I've ever heard express that opinion. My understanding has always been more that partial casting was more about mechanical balance than theme; i.e. magus doesn't have a 6-level spell-list because there's something inherently attractive about having fewer spells, it has a 6-level spell list because the balancing mechanisms of the PF1 system mean a character with that much combat ability would be imbalanced with a full 9-level spell list. Now that all the classes are rebalanced so that e.g. clerics and wizards have more class features and fewer spells per day, there's not really a reason to have "partial casters" from a mechanical perspective anymore. With the bard being a 9-level caster I'd expect that the main variances we'd see in casters would be:

1) Casters who only get focus powers/spells, like monks and paladins.

2) Casters who only get a 9-level spell progression but not focus powers/spells (I'm not sure if there actually are any of these right now, but the framework is there for them to exist).

3) Casters who get both focus powers/spells and a standard 9-level progression.

Note that that still actually equates to three different levels of caster, just like in PF1, it just uses different toggles to differentiate between them. Focus-only casters with their point-based abilities like paladins and monks fill the half-caster slot, characters who only get the spells but not focus abilities could theoretically fit the "2/3 caster" dynamic, and having both focus spells and a normal spell progression would make you a "full caster".


Multiclass Archetypes introduce a progression for 8th level casting as well. They could port that over to a class if they really wanted to though I don't think that is necessary. A fighter who invests a bunch of class feats into wizard multiclass feats is already pretty close to a Magus if partial casting is what you are looking for. Spellstrike is the big thing they would be missing.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
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.
Spell Combat isn't a necessary class feature anymore, it's an inherent ability that every spellcaster naturally has. Similarly, curtailed spell lists seem like a thing of the past; I'd imagine that if there is a magus class in 2E it will be a 9-level arcane spellcaster with a set of heavily combat-oriented feats.
. Then it wouldn’t be a magus, and they shouldn’t put it in. The point was not to be a full caster.

Is it really though? I'm genuinely curious because you're the first person I've ever heard express that opinion. My understanding has always been more that partial casting was more about mechanical balance than theme; i.e. magus doesn't have a 6-level spell-list because there's something inherently attractive about having fewer spells, it has a 6-level spell list because the balancing mechanisms of the PF1 system mean a character with that much combat ability would be imbalanced with a full 9-level spell list. Now that all the classes are rebalanced so that e.g. clerics and wizards have more class features and fewer spells per day, there's not really a reason to have "partial casters" from a mechanical perspective anymore. With the bard being a 9-level caster I'd expect that the main variances we'd see in casters would be:

1) Casters who only get focus powers/spells, like monks and paladins.

2) Casters who only get a 9-level spell progression but not focus powers/spells (I'm not sure if there actually are any of these...

. I don’t like focus powers either, not as a replacement for 1-4 casting. And yes I like the limited casting o& the Magus, War Priest, Hunter, bloodrager etc, gives weight within the rules to the story decision to walk a different path, rules following lore in a satisfying way, which the bard no longer does.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:


Is it really though? I'm genuinely curious because you're the first person I've ever heard express that opinion. My understanding has always been more that partial casting was more about mechanical balance than theme; i.e. magus doesn't have a 6-level spell-list because there's something inherently attractive about having fewer spells, it has a 6-level spell list because the balancing mechanisms of the PF1 system mean a character with that much combat ability would be imbalanced with a full 9-level spell list. Now that all the classes are rebalanced so that e.g. clerics and wizards have more class features and fewer spells per day, there's not really a reason to have "partial casters" from a mechanical perspective anymore. With the bard being a 9-level caster I'd expect that the main variances we'd see in casters would be:

1) Casters who only get focus powers/spells, like monks and paladins.

2) Casters who only get a 9-level spell progression but not focus powers/spells (I'm not sure if there actually are any of these...

Bards do have a somewhat different progression than other 9 level casters (getting one less spell per level, correct?), so that is another way to differentiate casters. I could see some of the other 6th level casters following suite.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:


Is it really though? I'm genuinely curious because you're the first person I've ever heard express that opinion. My understanding has always been more that partial casting was more about mechanical balance than theme; i.e. magus doesn't have a 6-level spell-list because there's something inherently attractive about having fewer spells, it has a 6-level spell list because the balancing mechanisms of the PF1 system mean a character with that much combat ability would be imbalanced with a full 9-level spell list. Now that all the classes are rebalanced so that e.g. clerics and wizards have more class features and fewer spells per day, there's not really a reason to have "partial casters" from a mechanical perspective anymore. With the bard being a 9-level caster I'd expect that the main variances we'd see in casters would be:

1) Casters who only get focus powers/spells, like monks and paladins.

2) Casters who only get a 9-level spell progression but not focus powers/spells (I'm not sure if there actually are any of these...

Bards do have a somewhat different progression than other 9 level casters (getting one less spell per level, correct?), so that is another way to differentiate casters. I could see some of the other 6th level casters following suite.

. So make them as dull and uninteresting as 2e bards are? Full casting destroyed that class,


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
So make them as dull and uninteresting as 2e bards are? Full casting destroyed that class,

To me bards are one of the best and coolest classes lol. To you it might have destroyed the class but to most people it seemed to work too well xD


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
oholoko wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
So make them as dull and uninteresting as 2e bards are? Full casting destroyed that class,
To me bards are one of the best and coolest classes lol. To you it might have destroyed the class but to most people it seemed to work too well xD

which is fine, 8 ain’t going to call badwrongfun, but I don’t enjoy them and didn’t enjoy the gish multiclass characters I played (sorc/fighter and Cleric/fighter, the Paladin/Cavalier was ok) they did not feel like hybrids, nothing made them stand out from either class, and the role enforcement and get in lane feeling was really strong, the cleric felt nothing like a pf1e War Priest, that juggling buffs and fervour, that lookin* for 3very type of bonus was mechanically gone, and the feeling of bein* 5he empowered wrath of a deity was absent, it wasn’t fun. The Sorc was during sombrefel, and he couldn’t fight well, or cas5a worth well spell that wasn’t heal...ao healing burst was his main activity...which was meh. Sorry fo4 typos posting from ipad


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
oholoko wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
So make them as dull and uninteresting as 2e bards are? Full casting destroyed that class,
To me bards are one of the best and coolest classes lol. To you it might have destroyed the class but to most people it seemed to work too well xD
which is fine, 8 ain’t going to call badwrongfun, but I don’t enjoy them and didn’t enjoy the gish multiclass characters I played (sorc/fighter and Cleric/fighter, the Paladin/Cavalier was ok) they did not feel like hybrids, nothing made them stand out from either class, and the role enforcement and get in lane feeling was really strong, the cleric felt nothing like a pf1e War Priest, that juggling buffs and fervour, that lookin* for 3very type of bonus was mechanically gone, and the feeling of bein* 5he empowered wrath of a deity was absent, it wasn’t fun. The Sorc was during sombrefel, and he couldn’t fight well, or cas5a worth well spell that wasn’t heal...ao healing burst was his main activity...which was meh. Sorry fo4 typos posting from ipad

Can agree. You are on the lines of... Well you dislike where pf2 things are going, and i can see that. I feel like paizo promised pf1 with new mechanics and delivered... Well PfNext with a new core set and a different focus. Just like people stayed with 3.5 when 4e came. Or 3.5 when PF came xD I doubt you will migrate to PF2 but still at least i can see the reasons why you are staying.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
oholoko wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
oholoko wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
So make them as dull and uninteresting as 2e bards are? Full casting destroyed that class,
To me bards are one of the best and coolest classes lol. To you it might have destroyed the class but to most people it seemed to work too well xD
which is fine, 8 ain’t going to call badwrongfun, but I don’t enjoy them and didn’t enjoy the gish multiclass characters I played (sorc/fighter and Cleric/fighter, the Paladin/Cavalier was ok) they did not feel like hybrids, nothing made them stand out from either class, and the role enforcement and get in lane feeling was really strong, the cleric felt nothing like a pf1e War Priest, that juggling buffs and fervour, that lookin* for 3very type of bonus was mechanically gone, and the feeling of bein* 5he empowered wrath of a deity was absent, it wasn’t fun. The Sorc was during sombrefel, and he couldn’t fight well, or cas5a worth well spell that wasn’t heal...ao healing burst was his main activity...which was meh. Sorry fo4 typos posting from ipad
Can agree. You are on the lines of... Well you dislike where pf2 things are going, and i can see that. I feel like paizo promised pf1 with new mechanics and delivered... Well PfNext with a new core set and a different focus. Just like people stayed with 3.5 when 4e came. Or 3.5 when PF came xD I doubt you will migrate to PF2 but still at least i can see the reasons why you are staying.

honestly likely to jump to something like Zweihander or Warhammer Fantasy RP, and use Exalted for batso insanity, because staying with last editions doesn't work very well, for all the talk of legacy campaigns in various things (from Oldhammer on down or OWoD) I haven't found a reliable group either near me or in the same TZ.. Ever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One consistent refrain I have heard from folks that I simply do not understand is this notion that "being able to do too much of a thing hurts a class or a character thematically."

Sure, if someone can do something too well, that might be a mechanical issue but I don't see how "people are too good at swimming" or "bards cast too many spells" are thematic issues. Like I don't care (thematically, obviously this is a game balance problem) if fighters have full spellcasting from all 4 lists simultaneously, I care if they are good enough at *fighting*.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Bards do have a somewhat different progression than other 9 level casters (getting one less spell per level, correct?), so that is another way to differentiate casters. I could see some of the other 6th level casters following suite.

Actually, not exactly. They get the same number of spells per day as Druids and Clerics (both of whom are Prepared, of course). It's one less than Sorcerers and effectively one less than Wizards.

It seems more based on how many other goodies the Class has aside from spells than it does on whether they were a 6-level caster in PF1, which really seems a good way to do it, IMO.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Bards do have a somewhat different progression than other 9 level casters (getting one less spell per level, correct?), so that is another way to differentiate casters. I could see some of the other 6th level casters following suite.

Actually, not exactly. They get the same number of spells per day as Druids and Clerics (both of whom are Prepared, of course). It's one less than Sorcerers and effectively one less than Wizards.

It seems more based on how many other goodies the Class has aside from spells than it does on whether they were a 6-level caster in PF1, which really seems a good way to do it, IMO.

I think he meant that bards get one less spell learned than sorcs. And kinda? Sorcs get one bloodline spell.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
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.

. They would suffr the same problem as all totems; the completely concept destroying anathema system. Barbarians witha code of conduct makes zero sense.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

One consistent refrain I have heard from folks that I simply do not understand is this notion that "being able to do too much of a thing hurts a class or a character thematically."

Sure, if someone can do something too well, that might be a mechanical issue but I don't see how "people are too good at swimming" or "bards cast too many spells" are thematic issues. Like I don't care (thematically, obviously this is a game balance problem) if fighters have full spellcasting from all 4 lists simultaneously, I care if they are good enough at *fighting*.

. Wizards and Clerics spend years studying to get their spells, druids spend time in ritual and communion with nature, sorcerers neglect book learning and physical training to delve into the mysteries of their own bloodline, the hybrids don’t, they neglect that part of their education to train in the skills and disciplines of another field of study, and that lack of focus should bar the, from the deepest mysteries and most complicated spell formula of the sphere, in the same way they should not hit full mastery of the other half of their career path, they are not specialists, and to make them as good as a specialist damages their ‘jack of 2 trades master of neither’ theme, amd cheapens the theme of dedication and focus the full casters have, Bards sacrifice this focus for a broader education, and being professional entertainers...except now they don’t, apparently full casting can be picked up as a hobby.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rob Godfrey wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

One consistent refrain I have heard from folks that I simply do not understand is this notion that "being able to do too much of a thing hurts a class or a character thematically."

Sure, if someone can do something too well, that might be a mechanical issue but I don't see how "people are too good at swimming" or "bards cast too many spells" are thematic issues. Like I don't care (thematically, obviously this is a game balance problem) if fighters have full spellcasting from all 4 lists simultaneously, I care if they are good enough at *fighting*.

. Wizards and Clerics spend years studying to get their spells, druids spend time in ritual and communion with nature, sorcerers neglect book learning and physical training to delve into the mysteries of their own bloodline,

Ah crap I missed all the rules which mandate those things. Nothing in the game actually reinforces that, and actually runs against it (it takes the same amount of xp to level all the classes, experience you can gain in a matter of days in the right circumstances.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

One consistent refrain I have heard from folks that I simply do not understand is this notion that "being able to do too much of a thing hurts a class or a character thematically."

Sure, if someone can do something too well, that might be a mechanical issue but I don't see how "people are too good at swimming" or "bards cast too many spells" are thematic issues. Like I don't care (thematically, obviously this is a game balance problem) if fighters have full spellcasting from all 4 lists simultaneously, I care if they are good enough at *fighting*.

. Wizards and Clerics spend years studying to get their spells, druids spend time in ritual and communion with nature, sorcerers neglect book learning and physical training to delve into the mysteries of their own bloodline,
Ah crap I missed all the rules which mandate those things. Nothing in the game actually reinforces that, and actually runs against it (it takes the same amount of xp to level all the classes, experience you can gain in a matter of days in the right circumstances.

. The srudy was previous (hence the different starting ages etc) yet it costing the same xp is another argument for hybrids not being full casters, and against this multiclassing system, indeed also against hybrids being as good at the other class they are crossed with, they, by lore choice and mechanical intent exchange depth of skill for breadth of skill, making them full casters destroys that in story choice, removes mechanical support for the core theme they have, it’s the same if Champion was juts a fighter with religion, mechanics reflecting story matters, it is in fact the only purpose of mechanics, and making hybrids full casters removes that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

One consistent refrain I have heard from folks that I simply do not understand is this notion that "being able to do too much of a thing hurts a class or a character thematically."

Sure, if someone can do something too well, that might be a mechanical issue but I don't see how "people are too good at swimming" or "bards cast too many spells" are thematic issues. Like I don't care (thematically, obviously this is a game balance problem) if fighters have full spellcasting from all 4 lists simultaneously, I care if they are good enough at *fighting*.

. Wizards and Clerics spend years studying to get their spells, druids spend time in ritual and communion with nature, sorcerers neglect book learning and physical training to delve into the mysteries of their own bloodline,
Ah crap I missed all the rules which mandate those things. Nothing in the game actually reinforces that, and actually runs against it (it takes the same amount of xp to level all the classes, experience you can gain in a matter of days in the right circumstances.
. The srudy was previous (hence the different starting ages etc) yet it costing the same xp is another argument for hybrids not being full casters, and against this multiclassing system, indeed also against hybrids being as good at the other class they are crossed with, they, by lore choice and mechanical intent exchange depth of skill for breadth of skill, making them full casters destroys that in story choice, removes mechanical support for the core theme they have, it’s the same if Champion was juts a fighter with religion, mechanics reflecting story matters, it is in fact the only purpose of mechanics, and making hybrids full casters removes that.

There are no starting ages in PF 1 or 2. At least not anywhere I can find. The fact is that in PF1 you could spend 4 days in a dungeon and become a wizard. No long years of study. The rules do not at all reflect your view of the narrative. Sorcerors can have top physical stats if they want. A cleric can be 18 and a druids only have to commune when they prepare spells. There are no mechanical basis for these assumptions and hasn't been for a while (did 3.5 even have them?)

Using the multiclass system to make someone a full caster a) doesn't happen (4 feats gets you one level 8 spell at 20th, which is far less than a full caster's three level 9 and an option for a level 10, and b) costs a significant amount of your "main" classes power. So that arguement is pretty shakey.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

One consistent refrain I have heard from folks that I simply do not understand is this notion that "being able to do too much of a thing hurts a class or a character thematically."

Sure, if someone can do something too well, that might be a mechanical issue but I don't see how "people are too good at swimming" or "bards cast too many spells" are thematic issues. Like I don't care (thematically, obviously this is a game balance problem) if fighters have full spellcasting from all 4 lists simultaneously, I care if they are good enough at *fighting*.

. Wizards and Clerics spend years studying to get their spells, druids spend time in ritual and communion with nature, sorcerers neglect book learning and physical training to delve into the mysteries of their own bloodline,
Ah crap I missed all the rules which mandate those things. Nothing in the game actually reinforces that, and actually runs against it (it takes the same amount of xp to level all the classes, experience you can gain in a matter of days in the right circumstances.
. The srudy was previous (hence the different starting ages etc) yet it costing the same xp is another argument for hybrids not being full casters, and against this multiclassing system, indeed also against hybrids being as good at the other class they are crossed with, they, by lore choice and mechanical intent exchange depth of skill for breadth of skill, making them full casters destroys that in story choice, removes mechanical support for the core theme they have, it’s the same if Champion was juts a fighter with religion, mechanics reflecting story matters, it is in fact the only purpose of mechanics, and making hybrids full casters removes that.
There are no starting ages in PF 1 or 2. At least not anywhere I can find. The fact is that in PF1 you could spend 4 days in a dungeon and become a wizard. No long years of study. The rules do not...

. Age, height and weights here: http://legacy.aonprd.com/advancedRaceGuide/ageHeightWeight.html In gainin* that lvl of wizard, you lost progression in the main class, in the playtest you don’t, that is the issue, you sacrifice an awful class feat, and gain hugely by doing so (so much so our playtest group had no one who wasn’t multiclassed) anyway that is not hybrid classes and never will be, not a conceptually consistent class, just a horrible patch to hide th3 brutal niche enforcement. Played a Sorc multiclass into fighter, felt nothing like a magus, was just a dull, uninteresting pile of abilities straight jacketed by design into blandness,


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rob Godfrey wrote:

Age, height and weights here: http://legacy.aonprd.com/advancedRaceGuide/ageHeightWeight.html

In gainin* that lvl of wizard, you lost progression in the main class, in the playtest you don’t, that is the issue, you sacrifice an awful class feat, and gain hugely by doing so (so much so our playtest group had no one who wasn’t multiclassed) anyway that is not hybrid classes and never will be, not a conceptually consistent class, just a horrible patch to hide the brutal niche enforcement. Played a Sorc multiclass into fighter, felt nothing like a magus, was just a dull, uninteresting pile of abilities straight jacketed by design into blandness,

Ah so optional rules (not in a core rulebook.) So nothing mandated in the main body of rules. I don't see that as an applicable arguement as it is incredibly easy to not have that book (I don't and have been playing PF for its lifetime) and thus not have those rules apply.

That level in Wizard still didn't take the years of book reading you state it did. It took a few days of fighting kobolds. This actually makes the Advanced Race Guides age rules even more ridiculous. You can spend 1-4 years becoming a Fighter (as a Human) then go on a trip through the forest for a week to become a Wizard. Much more economical time wise than spending the 2-12 years it takes to become a wizard!

Our Sorc multiclass felt quite Magus like. With Magical Striker it felt very much like he was empowering his weapons with magic. Although funnily enough he was a divine variant, something that PF1 far more restrictive design didn't allow out the box. Hybrid classes were needed in PF1 because outside of specific combinations multiclassing largely sucked outside of dips, thus splitting Fighter and Wizard just made you s~*! at both and a new class was needed to fill that niche. Not so in PF2.

I do think you are right that multiclassing might actually give too much, but I'll take "most people dabble in an area outside of the class because its effective" over "I accidentally made my character s+%! because I thought multiclassing sounded cool."


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:

Age, height and weights here: http://legacy.aonprd.com/advancedRaceGuide/ageHeightWeight.html

In gainin* that lvl of wizard, you lost progression in the main class, in the playtest you don’t, that is the issue, you sacrifice an awful class feat, and gain hugely by doing so (so much so our playtest group had no one who wasn’t multiclassed) anyway that is not hybrid classes and never will be, not a conceptually consistent class, just a horrible patch to hide the brutal niche enforcement. Played a Sorc multiclass into fighter, felt nothing like a magus, was just a dull, uninteresting pile of abilities straight jacketed by design into blandness,

Ah so optional rules (not in a core rulebook.) So nothing mandated in the main body of rules. I don't see that as an applicable arguement as it is incredibly easy to not have that book (I don't and have been playing PF for its lifetime) and thus not have those rules apply.

That level in Wizard still didn't take the years of book reading you state it did. It took a few days of fighting kobolds. This actually makes the Advanced Race Guides age rules even more ridiculous. You can spend 1-4 years becoming a Fighter (as a Human) then go on a trip through the forest for a week to become a Wizard. Much more economical time wise than spending the 2-12 years it takes to become a wizard!

Our Sorc multiclass felt quite Magus like. With Magical Striker it felt very much like he was empowering his weapons with magic. Although funnily enough he was a divine variant, something that PF1 far more restrictive design didn't allow out the box. Hybrid classes were needed in PF1 because outside of specific combinations multiclassing largely sucked outside of dips, thus splitting Fighter and Wizard just made you s##@ at both and a new class was needed to fill that niche. Not so in PF2.

I do think you are right that multiclassing might actually give too much, but I'll take "most people dabble in an area outside of the class because its effective" over...

mine did not (and the Infernal Sorc rerolled, because they really wanted the Oracle) but we are arguing impression and opinions now, mine is that proper hybrids are superior to this system and the freedom to accidentally make a terrible character are worth it for payoff of at least some consistency and opportunity cost, yours is the opposite, fair enough.


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

I don't mind the freedom to accidentally make a terrible character; what I mind is that PF1e makes it easy to make a terrible character. That's the thing I'm excited about changing in 2e.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
I don't mind the freedom to accidentally make a terrible character; what I mind is that PF1e makes it easy to make a terrible character. That's the thing I'm excited about changing in 2e.

. The price of lost concepts andthe ironclad niche enforcement is to high for me. Also versatility and utility is gone, skill feats do not come close to replacing that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

As I said in the other thread, I think once it gets a few splatbooks PF2e will have more concepts than 1e - rather quickly even. Plus Paizo is definitely looking at increasing versatility, so they definitely heard that feedback; see for example archetypes being able to grant Skill or General feats so that they don't always compete for your class feats.

Assuming that the multiarchetyping rules remain the same, that will also fix a lot of the "it take six levels to get another archetype" complaints - or at least help. For example, if you took an archetype at level 2 you could take a skill feat for that archetype at the same level, grab a general feat for it at level 3, and qualify for another archetype at level 4.

On top of that Paizo has also confirmed that level 1 archetypes that replace base class features will be coming back.

With all that put together, it's hard to see PF2e not eclipsing 1e in number of viable concepts eventually.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
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.

Aforementioned archetype WOULD HAVE Spell Strike and Spell Combat. And why do you need a curtailed spell list? Just say "Arcane spell list (only up to nth level) if it's a stand alone class? Because that's what Magus WAS essentially since the Wizard spells you missed out on didn't even work very well with what you would try to do, so there was little point in trying to even learn them.

You sound like a hard man to please Godfrey, I don't know what mechanics these hybrid classes could have that wouldn't step on how multi-classing works now. Because if they have to choose between a new fancy system and an old system that only a few people enjoy(don't get me wrong, the hybrid classes are some of my favorite, but DAMN were they clunky) there's no choice here, they're picking the new system they made.


Malk_Content wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:

Age, height and weights here: http://legacy.aonprd.com/advancedRaceGuide/ageHeightWeight.html

In gainin* that lvl of wizard, you lost progression in the main class, in the playtest you don’t, that is the issue, you sacrifice an awful class feat, and gain hugely by doing so (so much so our playtest group had no one who wasn’t multiclassed) anyway that is not hybrid classes and never will be, not a conceptually consistent class, just a horrible patch to hide the brutal niche enforcement. Played a Sorc multiclass into fighter, felt nothing like a magus, was just a dull, uninteresting pile of abilities straight jacketed by design into blandness,
Ah so optional rules (not in a core rulebook.) So nothing mandated in the main body of rules.

They're also in the Core Rule Book in the additional rules chapter, right after alignment.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
nick1wasd wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
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.

Aforementioned archetype WOULD HAVE Spell Strike and Spell Combat. And why do you need a curtailed spell list? Just say "Arcane spell list (only up to nth level) if it's a stand alone class? Because that's what Magus WAS essentially since the Wizard spells you missed out on didn't even work very well with what you would try to do, so there was little point in trying to even learn them.

You sound like a hard man to please Godfrey, I don't know what mechanics these hybrid classes could have that wouldn't step on how multi-classing works now. Because if they have to choose between a new fancy system and an old system that only a few people enjoy(don't get me wrong, the hybrid classes are some of my favorite, but DAMN were they clunky) there's no choice here, they're picking the new system they made.

. Given that I hate the new system, that is me out of luck. Hell apart from Champions 8 have difficulties thinking of anything I like about the playtest.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:

As I said in the other thread, I think once it gets a few splatbooks PF2e will have more concepts than 1e - rather quickly even. Plus Paizo is definitely looking at increasing versatility, so they definitely heard that feedback; see for example archetypes being able to grant Skill or General feats so that they don't always compete for your class feats.

Assuming that the multiarchetyping rules remain the same, that will also fix a lot of the "it take six levels to get another archetype" complaints - or at least help. For example, if you took an archetype at level 2 you could take a skill feat for that archetype at the same level, grab a general feat for it at level 3, and qualify for another archetype at level 4.

On top of that Paizo has also confirmed that level 1 archetypes that replace base class features will be coming back.

With all that put together, it's hard to see PF2e not eclipsing 1e in number of viable concepts eventually.

and it will require interaction with the loatsome multiclass system, I am out at that point, I viscerally loath that system.


I mean, PF1's been going for 10+ years, and I never multiclassed a character until this year. It seems like you should be able to be fine without using mechanics you're not fond of.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

That's fair, Rob; one can't really help those kind of gut reactions.

Much like PF1e, multiclassing and archetypes are certainly going to be the core of customizing unique character builds, so if you hate how they work at a base level, yeah I can't see you being happy with PF2e.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, PF1's been going for 10+ years, and I never multiclassed a character until this year. It seems like you should be able to be fine without using mechanics you're not fond of.

I don't generally., unless it makes RP sense (I have a Cavalier who is levelling as Paladin, because his focus shifted from his Order to his Faith, for example) and didn't have to because archetypes and hybrids had my back for concepts. That is altered to mush all those ideas into multiclassing, and tied multiclassing to combat feats (if things like the shield feats, power attack and imbue weapon were General feats this reaction would be less severe, but they are bound to class now... Yea.)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:

Age, height and weights here: http://legacy.aonprd.com/advancedRaceGuide/ageHeightWeight.html

In gainin* that lvl of wizard, you lost progression in the main class, in the playtest you don’t, that is the issue, you sacrifice an awful class feat, and gain hugely by doing so (so much so our playtest group had no one who wasn’t multiclassed) anyway that is not hybrid classes and never will be, not a conceptually consistent class, just a horrible patch to hide the brutal niche enforcement. Played a Sorc multiclass into fighter, felt nothing like a magus, was just a dull, uninteresting pile of abilities straight jacketed by design into blandness,
Ah so optional rules (not in a core rulebook.) So nothing mandated in the main body of rules.
They're also in the Core Rule Book in the additional rules chapter, right after alignment.

Oh man you thought that sort of thing would be right there in character creation or mentioned in the class section. Oh well glad I ignored them all this time as they made 0 sense when compared to the realities of play.


A lot of the issues we faced in the playtest was chargen. Often the choice was A or B. There was a C too, but it clearly sucked. MC/archetype/prestige all fighting for the same resource was a major bummer. If archetypes, MC, and prestige are opened up more, PF2 might have a chance with us. Who knows what the CRB will have in store?

Cavalier is definitely a good archetype. I love the class, but it is very hardlined to a mount. That doesn't play well in all types of campaigns. Being able to make a mounted specialist of any class seems like an ideal use of the cavalier. However, I do like some of the banner abilities and would be sad if cav archetype was purely mounted combat mechanics.

Im trying to think of why gunslinger would be even a good archetype? It just allows a guy to be good with guns. That seems like it should just be a feat package and not even an archetype. What am I missing?


I mean, to a certain extent archetypes are simply "feat packages which are mutually exclusive to other feat packages." So making a "good with guns" archetype simply serves the purpose to make it difficult to make a "mounted gunner" by combining the cavalier and the gun archetype.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, to a certain extent archetypes are simply "feat packages which are mutually exclusive to other feat packages." So making a "good with guns" archetype simply serves the purpose to make it difficult to make a "mounted gunner" by combining the cavalier and the gun archetype.

aince mounted gunner was a real thing, and interesting concept ( the Reiter and Harquebusier cavalry of the 16th and 17th centuries) and the original users of the carbine rifle concept, making that idea harder gets a meh from me ;p I like my ‘guy in a breast plate and buff coat charging about and shooting things’ archetype, as much as I like horse archers, or mounted knights, and in universe it wouldn’t take long for someone to spot that same potential.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Planpanther wrote:


Im trying to think of why gunslinger would be even a good archetype? It just allows a guy to be good with guns. That seems like it should just be a feat package and not even an archetype. What am I missing?

I suspect that guns, which are relatively rare in Golarion, are going to have specific costs and limitations that might make them less easily accessible as say...a crossbow or sword. So I could see a dedicated class being perhaps required to pull off a gunslinger character from level one.

Of course all of this depends on gun rules, and who knows what they are going to be like. If they take guns in a completely different direction from PF1 than maybe a simple archetype will work after all.


I feel like there will be a class which can get guns (though possibly as part of a path like a barbarian totem or a druid order) just like classes can get mounts (your animal companion can be a horse). In order to do the "mounted gunner" thing you would then combine a gun class with a mount archetype or a mount class with a gun archetype. If you wanted to do this with, like, a wizard then it would have to come on late.

A bunch of classes had a "this, but mounted" or a "this, but guns" archetype in PF1 (in addition to other variations when new mechanics were added) so it seems to make the most sense to not have to do those one by one and just let people add "this, but [foo]" onto whatever class they choose.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

There is also the fact that they've removed a lot of the "you suck unless you have special rules" from PF2. So when guns do come along I suspect you'll be able to make a perfectly okay mounted gun fighter without archetyping (probably a General Feat to train in a category of guns) its just you then have the choice to develop that even further with the archetype if you like.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
There is also the fact that they've removed a lot of the "you suck unless you have special rules" from PF2. So when guns do come along I suspect you'll be able to make a perfectly okay mounted gun fighter without archetyping (probably a General Feat to train in a category of guns) its just you then have the choice to develop that even further with the archetype if you like.

it would be two archetypes still, one not to get an animal companion mount, one for the gun. Unless Cavalier gets to be a full class again.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
There is also the fact that they've removed a lot of the "you suck unless you have special rules" from PF2. So when guns do come along I suspect you'll be able to make a perfectly okay mounted gun fighter without archetyping (probably a General Feat to train in a category of guns) its just you then have the choice to develop that even further with the archetype if you like.
it would be two archetypes still, one not to get an animal companion mount, one for the gun. Unless Cavalier gets to be a full class again.

You can have a non companion mount without being a Cavalier. You can buy a war horse for 300sp and take the Ride Feat. Or the Bonded Animal feat (which is incredibly open and could allow you to keep replacing your animal with more powerful mounts.) If guns follow a similar vein you can probably do it with 0 archetypes if you really want.

It really is quite nicely open. I had a non experienced player who just said "I'd like to try playing with a mount" and I ended up finding something like 6 or 7 different ways to achieve it.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
There is also the fact that they've removed a lot of the "you suck unless you have special rules" from PF2. So when guns do come along I suspect you'll be able to make a perfectly okay mounted gun fighter without archetyping (probably a General Feat to train in a category of guns) its just you then have the choice to develop that even further with the archetype if you like.
it would be two archetypes still, one not to get an animal companion mount, one for the gun. Unless Cavalier gets to be a full class again.

You can have a non companion mount without being a Cavalier. You can buy a war horse for 300sp and take the Ride Feat. Or the Bonded Animal feat (which is incredibly open and could allow you to keep replacing your animal with more powerful mounts.) If guns follow a similar vein you can probably do it with 0 archetypes if you really want.

It really is quite nicely open. I had a non experienced player who just said "I'd like to try playing with a mount" and I ended up finding something like 6 or 7 different ways to achieve it.

you fatigued inside 10 minutes riding with those two feats, and keep upgrading isn't all that practical.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
There is also the fact that they've removed a lot of the "you suck unless you have special rules" from PF2. So when guns do come along I suspect you'll be able to make a perfectly okay mounted gun fighter without archetyping (probably a General Feat to train in a category of guns) its just you then have the choice to develop that even further with the archetype if you like.
it would be two archetypes still, one not to get an animal companion mount, one for the gun. Unless Cavalier gets to be a full class again.

You can have a non companion mount without being a Cavalier. You can buy a war horse for 300sp and take the Ride Feat. Or the Bonded Animal feat (which is incredibly open and could allow you to keep replacing your animal with more powerful mounts.) If guns follow a similar vein you can probably do it with 0 archetypes if you really want.

It really is quite nicely open. I had a non experienced player who just said "I'd like to try playing with a mount" and I ended up finding something like 6 or 7 different ways to achieve it.

you fatigued inside 10 minutes riding with those two feats, and keep upgrading isn't all that practical.

No they don't. You spend an Action per "turn" to keep your mount moving with Ride and Bonded Animal. This falls into the "10 actions in a minute" limit for not causing fatigue. If you want to go faster then yes sure, but you'd suffer the same fatigue on foot and not go as far. And by RAW the GM can decide that pushing your mount to sprint for 9 minutes and 54s doesn't cause Fatigue and that the reasonable amount of time to reset that can be as low as they like (I think 5 minutes complete rest or 10 minutes trot would be fine in my games.)

How practical it is to keep upgrading depends on the campaign. One without much down time, yeah it would be hard. One with lots not so much. But the same can be said of literally any character concept option. Hell "mounted character" could completely fail as an option in a naval campaign for example while even things as broad as "spellcaster" would come into issues with a game set in the Manawastes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
There is also the fact that they've removed a lot of the "you suck unless you have special rules" from PF2.

I don't think that's true it all. In fact I think its worse in the playtest, as you're obliged to be a specific class (or multiclass archetype) in order to take the feats for your specific weapon set. At the moment that means a lot of rogues and rangers burning feats to get fighter feats, and I expect exactly the same from a theoretical gunslinger. Whether it's a subclass of fighter feats or its own archetype, it makes no difference.

Sure you can vaguely make basic shots at the exact same attack bonus as everyone else, but there's more to being a gunslinger than just 'attack for damage,' and that's where these rules get you.

The morass of PF2 feats largely don't make you better, they remove general restrictions and allow you to feel like you might be competent at a very narrow range of things once you have several feats. (Or in the case of things like pickpocket, allow you to do basic tasks at all)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Strongly disagree. In PF1 for example unless you invested 2 feats (and then +1 for each additional manouvre) you are punished for attempting anything past hitting someone in combat. That isn't the case for PF2. If you don't put feats into TWF in PF1 you are punished for doing so. I admit pickpocket is a strange outlier. It does actually take some degree of specialized practice to achieve so I can understand why realistically they thought it was worth a feat, but thematically in a fantasy world it is such a core trope to rogue style characters it should just be part of being Trained in Theivery.)

Yes in PF2 you have to invest feats to be better than baseline. That much is a given. But I content that if you just want to be decent at firing a gun while on a horse you can likely do so (i.e at no penalty) with just 2 General Feats (one for Gun training, one for Ride) and not impede the classs part of your character at all. If you actually want to be fancy with those things, such that they give you an advantage on par with a class feat, then yes it will cost you those class feats. I think that is a fair paradigm.

E.G if you want to me a Wizard on a Horse (to better stay away from the enemy) and use a gun for your weapon I reckon it would be two feats to make that achievable. If you wanted to be a Wizard who focused on mounted gunplay then you'll likely want to Archetype anyway (and can still take either the Gun training or ride while you get one archetype and then retrain that feat once it become redundant with the next archetype.)


Captain Morgan wrote:
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.

Shifters got limited wild shape at level 4 in 1e of which many had pretty solid utility. And while I agree that pest shape is a reasonably attainable utility transformation, it likely won't suit a lot of people thematically.

Meanwhile, having all the game's shifting being tied to the rage mechanic might not suit a lot of people mechanically or thematically since rage has plenty of mechanical and thematic baggage.


Ranger
Alchemist
Druid
Monk
Bard

51 to 100 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.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion