|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm thinking we might get a second bestiary since they have so many 1e books they can convert over.
Hopefully a class archetype book or additional classes book will be coming soon.
Then lastly an advanced feat option book that just contains tons of new feat options for classes, ancesteries, skill and general feats would be cool
A 2E APG has got to happen. The 1E APG is my all time favorite go-to supplement. As far as future classes, I want a witch, warlock, oracle, shaman. And I always liked the inquisitor too.
I'm stoked to be getting so many books on release, tho. Core, bestiary, and a campaign guide? Please take my money!
I think there is strong indication that the Witch, Oracle, Occultist, and Kineticist are coming back. Just put those four in a book please.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I imagine a book starring several legacy classes will be very early (my guess for book two).
I wonder if PF2 will allow them to produce a huge “book of ancestries”? That might make for a logical book three.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want another "Ultimate Campaign" style book, offering subsystems for me to use. I love me some sub systems and I'm pretty sure Campaign did well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's been said that monster creation rules won't be in he bestiary, but will come soon after in something unannounced. Sounds like maybe a new GameMastery guide or something with extra tools for GMs. And yeah, I very much expect more ancestries and classes to follow fairly soon after, maybe in the same book maybe in different ones. But if that's two different books (APG 2nd edition and ARG 2nd) then they might not both be in the same year, because they normally don't publish a large number of hard-covers a year. But the APG sounds like a good option, more class feats, bringing over some PF1 classes like Witch and Oracle, new archetypes and a few extra player-focused options.
|
I imagine a book starring several legacy classes will be very early (my guess for book two).
I wonder if PF2 will allow them to produce a huge “book of ancestries”? That might make for a logical book three.
I'd actually suspect that these might be the same book. A generalized 'here are things we're updating to PF2' book seems pretty plausible. Not phrased that way in all likelihood, but a selection of the most popular Races as Ancestry choices plus the Classes they've chosen to convert seems fun and plausible.
They've mentioned an 'adjustable settings' kind of book ala Gamemastery Guide/Unchained would be much easier to do this edition, so something like that (probably including monster creation rules) seems very plausible as well.
I imagine a book starring several legacy classes will be very early (my guess for book two).
I wonder if PF2 will allow them to produce a huge “book of ancestries”? That might make for a logical book three.
I'd actually suspect that these might be the same book. A generalized 'here are things we're updating to PF2' book seems pretty plausible. Not phrased that way in all likelihood, but a selection of the most popular Races as Ancestry choices plus the Classes they've chosen to convert seems fun and plausible.
They've mentioned an 'adjustable settings' kind of book ala Gamemastery Guide/Unchained would be much easier to do this edition, so something like that (probably including monster creation rules) seems very plausible as well.
I heard that too, but my impression was they’d be more tightly themed “in world”. I figured spreading classes/ancestries over two books would ultimately let them catch up to PF1 quicker.
Personally, I’d put money on you being right about PF2 stuff rather than me though. :)
I think they will get an advanced race guide out very fast, considering Bestiary books are not holding player rules for that and they've said they want to get all the old options back to us ASAP.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The one thing that makes me think more ancestries and classes might not be super quick, (and possibly shouldn't be) is that they do take a lot of work to do. They actually seem more labor intensive to make now than in PF1, because all of the class and ancestry feats as well as needing to do the multiclass archetype version of the class. And they take even more work than that do it it right and make sure it's not under or over powered. In my mind, they didn't even manage it in the playtest for some classes (I'm looking at you, Alchemist). And I'd hope that any new or updated class options would be playtested so we don't get bad classes. So possibly these new and/or returning options would be a GenCon 2020 release instead of coming in the first few months.
|
|
That's plausible enough.
Though honestly, the number of non-Occult Classes that really need to be converted has always struck me as reasonably small (specifically, we need Oracle and Witch, with Summoner, Investigator, Shaman, and maybe Arcanist being a very good idea, while the rest are perhaps better served as Archetypes and the like, as Cavalier already seems to be handled).
Most of the Occult Classes probably need a conversion as well, but that seems like an 'its own book' thing just as it was last edition, at least to me.
Any Classes probably do necessitate a playtest of some sort (though Class-specific playtests are less intensive than the one for a whole new edition by quite a bit), but that doesn't necessarily mean they can't come out within less than a year of the corebook...though they also certainly could take that long, I freely admit.
I feel like Arcanist could just be a Class Archetype for Wizard, honestly.
That's plausible enough.
Though honestly, the number of non-Occult Classes that really need to be converted has always struck me as reasonably small (specifically, we need Oracle and Witch, with Summoner, Investigator, Shaman, and maybe Arcanist being a very good idea, while the rest are perhaps better served as Archetypes and the like, as Cavalier already seems to be handled).
Most of the Occult Classes probably need a conversion as well, but that seems like an 'its own book' thing just as it was last edition, at least to me.
Any Classes probably do necessitate a playtest of some sort (though Class-specific playtests are less intensive than the one for a whole new edition by quite a bit), but that doesn't necessarily mean they can't come out within less than a year of the corebook...though they also certainly could take that long, I freely admit.
I think Inquisitor would justify having it's own class as opposed to archetype. I'm torn on whether Magus should be a class or not. But I think there is enough there to justify one. But yeah, we probably don't need Gunslinger, Vigilante, Shifter or most of the hybrid classes as full classes. Same for the Alternate classes of Ninja and Samurai. With Antipaladin likely to be the CE Champion. Most of those can be served with specific class feats, or archetypes on other base classes. But I'm with you that the Occult classes are all mostly different enough to make sense as their own things. Well Spiritualist might be doable as a Summoner archetype and Psychic might work as a variant of another casting class with Psychic spells. The others are really weirdy.
And yeah, I figure the playtest for these would be more like previous class playtests, not the crazy intensive playtest for the new edition.
I feel like Arcanist could just be a Class Archetype for Wizard, honestly.
I would have prefered Wizards to be Arcanists. But that ship has probably sailed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Inquisitor would justify having it's own class as opposed to archetype.
Crap. I meant to add Inquisitor to that list of those that should be converted, I just screwed up.
But yeah, more or less agreed.
And Arcanist is only on the list for mechanical reasons. Thematically, it as a high impact Archetype of Wizard is plausible enough.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like Arcanist could just be a Class Archetype for Wizard, honestly.I would have prefered Wizards to be Arcanists. But that ship has probably sailed.
Yep, same here. I'm just hoping for some version of the Arcanist in the not terribly distant future because I am really not interested in playing a vancian style caster.
|
Though honestly, the number of non-Occult Classes that really need to be converted has always struck me as reasonably small (specifically, we need Oracle and Witch, with Summoner, Investigator, Shaman, and maybe Arcanist being a very good idea, while the rest are perhaps better served as Archetypes and the like, as Cavalier already seems to be handled).
Some kind of swashbuckler class? Could probably work as a fighter class archetype I guess but giving it its own base class would give the grit/panache style mechanic a home-base, and would be a great base class to hang other archetypes onto (e.g., add the generic gun archetype we're sure to get and you've got the gunslinger)
|
|
Some kind of swashbuckler class? Could probably work as a fighter class archetype I guess but giving it its own base class would give the grit/panache style mechanic a home-base, and would be a great base class to hang other archetypes onto (e.g., add the generic gun archetype we're sure to get and you've got the gunslinger)
Honestly, I'm not sure we need a Grit/Panache mechanic. We certainly could have one, but I'm not convinced it's either necessary or should be tied to the swashbuckler aesthetic.
It's the other one I'd consider converting for pure mechanics reasons along with Arcanist, though, I admit.
I think there are some classes (like the Arcanist, Swashbuckler, etc.) which exist in sort of a liminal state between "going to be classes" and "going to be archetypes". In order to figure out where they land we're going to have to see how a few archetypes which support similar things (e.g. some sort of "duelist" archetype which intersects with the swash) go over.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I expect there to be either a codex (villain or NPC) or a section of NPCs in each bestiary because having stats for low-level guards and the like saves valuable space for writers in adventure paths and modules.
|
|
Honestly, I'm not sure we need a Grit/Panache mechanic. We certainly could have one, but I'm not convinced it's either necessary or should be tied to the swashbuckler aesthetic.
It's the other one I'd consider converting for pure mechanics reasons along with Arcanist, though, I admit.
I think there are some classes (like the Arcanist, Swashbuckler, etc.) which exist in sort of a liminal state between "going to be classes" and "going to be archetypes". In order to figure out where they land we're going to have to see how a few archetypes which support similar things (e.g. some sort of "duelist" archetype which intersects with the swash) go over.
I enjoy the grit/panache mechanic, and hope we see it in some form in PF2. But yeah, agree with all of this.
It sounds like PF1 base classes and hybrid classes should wind up as new PF2 classes or archetypes depending on how mechanically distinct they are from the PF2 core classes.
Alchemist is an easy example, mechanically distinct from existing casters and filling a solidly different niche than existing classes. So it gets to be a class all itself.
A swashbuckler could be an archetype appropriate to be bolted onto existing core classes, but if it keeps a panache style mechanic it could be a worthy of keeping a new class. Gunslinger could easily be an archetype of the swashbuckler.
Witches and Oracles are distinct enough from Wizards and Clerics, but if the new Wizard is close enough to the Arcanist, then a new class might not be necessary. I agree that it might also do well as an archetype for the Wiz &/or Sorc.
Occult classes are all pretty unique due to their class abilities, if not their spell casting, so they should be able to stand on their own.
I'm looking forward to more analysis on this.
I'm thinking that the next couple of books will be some sort of Gamemastery/Ultimate Campaign GM tools book, shortly followed by an APG equivalent, updating a few of the most popular and essential classes/races/etc .
I don't remotely expect that we will get a book early on that will just jam in all the PF existing classes/races/what have you. We'll get new stuff, but I expect new races/classes/character options to be bundled together in new books on specific themes, and will mix in brand new stuff along with existing materials. I feel like the best model going forward is maybe 6 races and no more than 5 classes
We know that World Guides are going to be the new Campaign Setting books as well as subsume the Players Companions. These will probably be deep dives into each of the ten regions organized in the CRB as well as other regions, more distant from the Inner Sea detailed in Lost Omens.
Making a new "Ultimate" line of books makes sense, but they will need to call it something other than "Ultimate" to keep the new books as distinct as possible from the old books.
The new name should be uniform through the line, just like the Ultimate header or D&D 3.5s "Complete" line. It should also be quick and to the point, I think. Ultimate Combat is clearly saying "This is THE expansion for our martial players."
Pathfinder Tactics? It is a one word line description that you can easily hand a subtitle under, but it might draw criticism for sounding too wargamey.
Advanced? Has some tradition behind it. Advanced Combat, Advanced Magic, etc. It could throw people off thinking that it also means more complex though.
Maybe something more like "Principles of [ THING ]?" Principles of Combat. Principles of Magic. Might be stepping on the toes of "Core" since they are related words.
Absolute? Too vodka.
How about "Enhanced?"
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I expect there to be either a codex (villain or NPC) or a section of NPCs in each bestiary because having stats for low-level guards and the like saves valuable space for writers in adventure paths and modules.
I agree. The NPC and Villain codices were a GM's best friend, to me. And the GMG had a good chapter in the back of NPC stats too.
I'll spend money on those books every single time.