New Class or New Archetype?


Second Edition

51 to 100 of 130 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The psychic sorcerer should be the rough equivalent of a wilder, not a trained psion.


All of them should be their own class.

Pazio wants pass some of them off as Archetypes, fine. PF1 had a lot of Archetypes that basically let you trade out some things for other class abilities. This is fine within reason.

But if Cavalier, Gunslinger, Brawler, Witch, Shaman, and all the rest; if they're just doomed to be nothing more than sidegrades, then that probably puts me over the top of "Not touching this game". This is what I would WANT.

But there's a couple that will have problems due to the new action system. Shifter and Warpriest come to mind, with Brawler shortly after.

Summoner also getting hit with possible issues due to the [Summon] keyword(Does Ediolan have the [Summon] tag? Does it take a Summoner's action to move? Can a Summoner actually summon something else + Ediolan?). In that same vein, Spiritualist and their Phantom also could see issues.

There's probably more you can dig into about which class might end up getting tripped by the changes. I'd love to see them all back but at the same time I don't think some can make the leap over. At least not in a way I'd like to see.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Instead of writing an exhaustive list with explanations I'm simply going to put my list of the Classes that I believe should be folded into another class, cut entirely (Mostly because you can get the essence via musticlassing), or Converted into Archetypes.

Extra Space for Profile Img

Antipaladin: Fold into Champion
Inquisitor: Fold into Cleric
Skald: Fold into Barbarian
Occultist: Fold into Bard
Psychic: Fold into Sorcerer
Warpriest: Fold into Cleric
Shifter: Fold into Druid

Bloodrager: Cut entirely
Brawler: Cut entirely
Hunter: Cut entirely
Medium: Cut entirely
Mesmerist: Cut entirely
Ninja: Cut entirely
Samurai: Cut entirely
Slayer: Cut entirely

Swashbuckler: Archetype
Spiritualist: Archetype
Magus: Archetype
Cavalier: Archetype
Gunglinger: Archetype
Shaman: Archetype
Summoner: Archetype

If it's not listed here, I believe it should remain it's own Class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:

All of them should be their own class.

Pazio wants pass some of them off as Archetypes, fine. PF1 had a lot of Archetypes that basically let you trade out some things for other class abilities. This is fine within reason.

But if Cavalier, Gunslinger, Brawler, Witch, Shaman, and all the rest; if they're just doomed to be nothing more than sidegrades, then that probably puts me over the top of "Not touching this game". This is what I would WANT.

But there's a couple that will have problems due to the new action system. Shifter and Warpriest come to mind, with Brawler shortly after.

Summoner also getting hit with possible issues due to the [Summon] keyword(Does Ediolan have the [Summon] tag? Does it take a Summoner's action to move? Can a Summoner actually summon something else + Ediolan?). In that same vein, Spiritualist and their Phantom also could see issues.

There's probably more you can dig into about which class might end up getting tripped by the changes. I'd love to see them all back but at the same time I don't think some can make the leap over. At least not in a way I'd like to see.

The summoner could just get a level 1 class ability that gives them a free action each turn that lets them control a summon.


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

Alternatively, people could just get used to "only" having four actions per turn, instead of the three that everyone else gets...

I certainly hope summoners don't get more then that, especially if they are still casters.

My house ruled version of Spiritualist is "You must spend a standard action if you want your phantom to do anything; it doesn't exist on rounds that you don't spend that action but you can have it come into existence anywhere within 30 feet of you when you do", and that has sped up play SO MUCH.

Disclaimer: I do think that PF2e summoners should at least be able to spend 2 actions to give their summon a full 3, instead of having to split 2 and 2 every round, and I think that summons should be able to take 1 movement action per round when not being controlled.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

in the paradigm that I discussed above, I was thinking that Summoners would move to being focus casters w/ maybe some cantrip access. That is also how I imagine kineticists will look eventually. They could also maybe do that thing where your minion gets one action every round even if you don't give it any commands.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Been thinking a fair bit about Arcanist, Magus, and Vigilante because I have those in groups I'm likely to convert to P2.

In theory, the arcanist is substantially different from a sorcerer. Honestly, it hasn't played out that way at our table. We could probably make that swap seamlessly, but a few extra sorcerer feats would definitely help ease that for other groups.

Magus needs some way to handle spellstrike. The exact math for that is going to be tricky, but beyond that a fighter/wizard handles the class well. And depending where you get spellstrike, it could open up some really cool builds for other casters.

Vigilante I'm not quite sure even needs to be an archetype. Most of the social identity stuff is basically skill feats. And the other stuff is just whatever class they chose for their vigilante identity, which would probably be better just farmed out to those classes.

Outside of my immediate needs, the one I'm probably looking forward to the most is kineticist. I really just want a class I can hand players that want to blast things but not delve into the spell system.

Cheers!
Landon


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

Alternatively, people could just get used to "only" having four actions per turn, instead of the three that everyone else gets...

I certainly hope summoners don't get more then that, especially if they are still casters.

My house ruled version of Spiritualist is "You must spend a standard action if you want your phantom to do anything; it doesn't exist on rounds that you don't spend that action but you can have it come into existence anywhere within 30 feet of you when you do", and that has sped up play SO MUCH.

Disclaimer: I do think that PF2e summoners should at least be able to spend 2 actions to give their summon a full 3, instead of having to split 2 and 2 every round, and I think that summons should be able to take 1 movement action per round when not being controlled.

Two and Two does equal Four and that is bigger than three. But I'm sure you can find instances where you'd prefer 3 actions on your character or 3 actions on your Summon rather than 2 on each. Requires more planning and thought put into your actions during battle given how it's spread out.

As for the house rule you used, okay I can see that speeding up play but that also seems... rough?

AoE comes in leaving behind Dots like burning terrain or acid? "I just don't use my Phantom this turn and let it skip the damage". This also basically gives semi Reach or Teleport to get in and out of combat at Spiritualists will.

There's also the issue of possibly trying to apply buffs/heals to the Phantom but it doesn't exist on the turn you use Standard to do so.

Speeds up game yes but that sounds rough in places.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

Alternatively, people could just get used to "only" having four actions per turn, instead of the three that everyone else gets...

I certainly hope summoners don't get more then that, especially if they are still casters.

My house ruled version of Spiritualist is "You must spend a standard action if you want your phantom to do anything; it doesn't exist on rounds that you don't spend that action but you can have it come into existence anywhere within 30 feet of you when you do", and that has sped up play SO MUCH.

Disclaimer: I do think that PF2e summoners should at least be able to spend 2 actions to give their summon a full 3, instead of having to split 2 and 2 every round, and I think that summons should be able to take 1 movement action per round when not being controlled.

This must be the work of an enemy stand!?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You know, I don’t think any of us considered the Vampire Hunterclass. My gut says “subclass” but in truth I haven’t dived deep enough into the class to know the ins and outs.


ChibiNyan wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
I would actually love a "moxie" archetype that adds something like Grit so that any martial character can take an archetype that has a use for their charisma. Being able to lean into the "dashing" character concept more would be nice.
Fighter would benefit from absorbing these! So it can be used to be the best at ANY weapon with ANY non-mystical combat style.

If there was anything that I wanted more, I'm not sure what.

This gives Fighter a lot of identity as well, as you can expand the concept to apply to a lot of disciplines:

Dashing Hero Discipline
Tactician Discipline
Grit Discipline
Gladiator Discipline
Dirty Fighter Discipline
Inspiration Discipline
Weapon Adept Discipline

Now this is one of the reasons I think it's weird for Fighters to be the only Class that doesn't get this "path" choice at level 1, because it really widens out the Class but narrows down the Character concept to something you can easily imagine in your head.

Take any of the above mechanics (Grit, Panache, Inspiration, Performance, Dirty-Fighting, etc.) and attach it to the Class, allow it to pick it's weapon, feats, and you've got "Dread Pirate Roberts" or "Master Chief" or any other various combinations with a little more than a single pool mechanic (ala Ki) that helps define the concept.

Overall, it doesn't even have to affect the character that much, but it's a nice spice to add to the pot of an otherwise bland chili IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:
Two and Two does equal Four and that is bigger than three. But I'm sure you can find instances where you'd prefer 3 actions on your character or 3 actions on your Summon rather than 2 on each. Requires more planning and thought put into your actions during battle given how it's spread out.

Did you read my disclaimer? I addressed exactly that.

MerlinCross wrote:

As for the house rule you used, okay I can see that speeding up play but that also seems... rough?

AoE comes in leaving behind Dots like burning terrain or acid? "I just don't use my Phantom this turn and let it skip the damage". This also basically gives semi Reach or Teleport to get in and out of combat at Spiritualists will.

There's also the issue of possibly trying to apply buffs/heals to the Phantom but it doesn't exist on the turn you use Standard to do so.

Speeds up game yes but that sounds rough in places.

The defensive/mobility advantages are intentional in exchange for the action economy nerf, and I also forgot to mention that the Spiritualist can target their phantom with spells even if it "doesn't exist" at the moment.

AnimatedPaper wrote:
You know, I don’t think any of us considered the Vampire Hunterclass. My gut says “subclass” but in truth I haven’t dived deep enough into the class to know the ins and outs.

The real question is, what will the PF2e Gentleman look like? :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:


AnimatedPaper wrote:
You know, I don’t think any of us considered the Vampire Hunterclass. My gut says “subclass” but in truth I haven’t dived deep enough into the class to know the ins and outs.
The real question is, what will the PF2e Gentleman look like? :P

I...had completely forgotten about that class. All joking aside, this would convert pretty well to a CN champion. It’s got focus powers, some interesting reactions, an anathema...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm curious, MerlinCross, do you honestly believe that every class from 1e all have design space to be unique classes in 2e? I mean, I haven't played 90% of them, considering how little pathfinder I've played, but I've definitely read all of the classes, and imo most of the alternate classes and hybrid classes can be binned in favor of archetypes that will allow the same thing.

Most of the occult classes, the Oracle, the Summoner, and the Inquisitor stick out to me as class worthy, and the alchemist, obviously, but otherwise a lot of them could be covered pretty fairly by expanded class customization.

Even the Magus, which I have special reverence for because I am in love with arcane gishes, could be pretty handily covered through a wizard fighter multi class with a spell strike feat(which doesn't currently exist, granted). Or even a class archetype for wizard or fighter that turns it into a magus. Idk.

Point being, I think there are only a handful of classes worth being brought over from 1e, and the rest should explore new ground and concepts.


MaxAstro wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Two and Two does equal Four and that is bigger than three. But I'm sure you can find instances where you'd prefer 3 actions on your character or 3 actions on your Summon rather than 2 on each. Requires more planning and thought put into your actions during battle given how it's spread out.
Did you read my disclaimer? I addressed exactly that.

Hmm. No must have missed that. Having a way to gain 3 actions for either party at the cost of an action from the other could help out some but that's one of those things I would probably need to play around with to see how it feels.

MaxAstro wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

As for the house rule you used, okay I can see that speeding up play but that also seems... rough?

AoE comes in leaving behind Dots like burning terrain or acid? "I just don't use my Phantom this turn and let it skip the damage". This also basically gives semi Reach or Teleport to get in and out of combat at Spiritualists will.

There's also the issue of possibly trying to apply buffs/heals to the Phantom but it doesn't exist on the turn you use Standard to do so.

Speeds up game yes but that sounds rough in places.

The defensive/mobility advantages are intentional in exchange for the action economy nerf, and I also forgot to mention that the Spiritualist can target their phantom with spells even if it "doesn't exist" at the moment.

I still question a few things but this isn't balance discussion so I'll drop it. But like above, interesting idea but something I'd have to see/use myself. I'm bad at theory crafting stuff, one of those that has to do not hear.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My preference is for every class which has its own thematic space to be a class and not an archetype or subclass.

It's fine to cut the Cavalier since "rides a horse" and "belongs to an order with a code" are things which can apply to any sort of person, indeed PF1 was full of class archetypes a la "this one rides a horse."

In terms of preference my "needs to be a class, I will not accept it as a subclass or archetype" list is: Oracle, Witch, Kineticist, Occultist, Shaman, Medium, Psychic, Shifter, and Bloodrager.

I think the Summoner and spiritualist (and maybe hunter) could be combined into a single "pet class" where your subclass determines what kind of pet you have.

It feels like the Gunslinger, Swashbuckler, and Investigator could likewise get combined into a particularly skilled, audacious, or insightful martial class.

I'm fine if the Magus, Inquisitor, Brawler, Arcanist, Skald, and Slayer are gone. Cavalier and Warpriest are already pretty much confirmed as gone.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
In terms of preference my "needs to be a class, I will not accept it as a subclass or archetype" list is: Oracle, Witch, Kineticist, Occultist, Shaman, Medium, Psychic, Shifter, and Bloodrager.

Cabbage I must know your reasoning on the latter two.

For me, Shifter is now just a Ranger that selects a path that involves natural weapons/wild shape. Now that Rangers are spell less, I just don't see it being a valuable addition (I didn't find it that valuable even in PF1)

Bloodrager I feel can be accomplished with Sorcerer multiclass into Barbarian (or vice-versa depending on how much fighting vs. casting you want to do). The only real thing I see holding it back is casting while raging, which like the Spellstrike for Magus, seems like it could be fixed with a Feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, the thing to me about the Bloodrager that occupies its own thematic space is- you are a person with special blood. Under certain circumstances, it warps your body and gives you abilities that you do not normally have. I don't think spellcasting is even important for the class, just that when you enter your bloodrage your arms get really long or you catch on fire or something. In theory we could do this with Barbarian totems. But I'd like to save the really weird "your body warps" stuff in its own class.

For the Shifter I think the issue is that the class fits, lorewise, into druidic society but it obviously can't be done as a subclass of druids (because, no spells!) So it's easier to do it as its own class. One thing about doing something as its own class instead of a subclass is that you can still cross-list feats (both fighters and barbarians got sudden charge). I could see the bloodrager and the shifter being a single class though, I would like that.

One thing I think merits mentioning with some of the classes is that we should not be in a hurry to wipe out some of these classes and waiting is probably better. Like metaphysically we now see magic as a combination of 2 of the 4 fundamental essences. Primal magic is Material Essence + Vital essence, Arcane is Mental+Material, Divine is Spiritual + Vital, and Occult is Spiritual + Mental. But there are six ways to pick 2 out of a set of 4, so we are left with the implication that Mental + Vital and Material + Spiritual would be valid traditions of magic. So if we wipe out the Psychic, Occultist, and Shaman classes by having them be made into archetypes of something else, we lose out some classes which would really have strong thematic ties to those other two potential magical traditions. It's better to decide whether or not you want to do the other spell lists before you decide to do anything with the psychic, say- it would be much more interesting as a dedicated Mental+Vital caster than as a kind of Sorcerer.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What about something in the middle, like class feats that are only accessible if you multiclassed? Like it would require sorcerer and Barb levels, but there was a feat called bloodrage?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, the thing to me about the Bloodrager that occupies its own thematic space is- you are a person with special blood. Under certain circumstances, it warps your body and gives you abilities that you do not normally have. I don't think spellcasting is even important for the class, just that when you enter your bloodrage your arms get really long or you catch on fire or something. In theory we could do this with Barbarian totems. But I'd like to save the really weird "your body warps" stuff in its own class.

I've enjoyed the couple bloodragers I've played, but yeah—spellcasting hardly felt important to those characters in-play.

One interesting alternative for PF2, rather than a full independent class, would be the bloodrager as a barbarian class archetype. (Since we know that the PF2 core rulebook defines class archetypes to leave room to build them in the future.)

Give a handful of thematic abilities, bloodlines instead of totems, and write a few abilities to synergize or that get a little bonus if you pick up the sorcerer multiclass archetype.

Not a perfect solution (it might suffer from have the classic PF1 problem of needing retroactive support as more barbarian and sorcerer options are implemented if the bloodrager were to get access to similarly themed options), but an interesting possibility


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Some more class/subclass/archetypes I would want to see:

-Hellknights as a Champion subclass
-Hexblades as a Ranger subclass (the Occult version of my Magus/Inquisitor/Spell Ranger (Geomancer?) idea upthread)
-I’d like to see the Envoy class brought over from SF.
-A class similar to the Dragonfire Adept class that could cast AOE spells all day long and devoted most of its class abilities towards that schtick. If nature themed, it could be traps, or they could be shadows, etc
-I definitely want to see a class or subclass that manipulates the traits of weapons like I was saying for the Magus. Doesn’t have to be that class, but I do want to see the concept applied somewhere. In fairness, the monk does it a little with unarmed attacks specifically, but I want to see an aarcher fire off an arrow with the shove or disarm property.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
In theory we could do this with Barbarian totems. But I'd like to save the really weird "your body warps" stuff in its own class.

You could also handle it with Bloodline Feats as well. I think it has a lot of the potential to work as is, but then that's me.

Quote:
For the Shifter I think the issue is that the class fits, lorewise, into druidic society but it obviously can't be done as a subclass of druids (because, no spells!)

Why not as a Ranger with Focus spells to constitute the Wild Shape aspects of it?

Quote:
Primal magic is Material Essence + Vital essence, Arcane is Mental+Material, Divine is Spiritual + Vital, and Occult is Spiritual + Mental. But there are six ways to pick 2 out of a set of 4, so we are left with the implication that Mental + Vital and Material + Spiritual would be valid traditions of magic. So if we wipe out the Psychic, Occultist, and Shaman classes by having them be made into archetypes of something else, we lose out some classes which would really have strong thematic ties to those other two potential magical traditions.

Here I agree. Witch, Shaman, and Psychic could very organically grab any of the above spaces.

Material + Spiritual seems Shaman is easy choice. Mental + Vital is very much a Witch (that's even how they were kind of written originally when the Class was introduced as a concept in 3.5 DMG).

As for Psychic, I think like all the Psionic classes, they should probably get a special treatment. Perhaps a brand new "essence" and then combining that new essence with each of the other four essences to create that version of a Psychic (Vital + Psychic, Material + Psychic, etc.).

Just my opinion of course.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally like the Psychic as Mental + Vital since it puts "mind over matter" as the defining theme of the class: you can push your (or other people's) bodies past their perceived limits because you have such complete control of your mind, and your mind controls your body. But also to really control your mind, you must also have control over your body's influences on your mind.

For me at least this feels like more of what a Psychic should do in this sort of game than the the PF1 spell list did. Like a lot of Psychics were summoners, since undercasting made Summon Monster spells very useful.

My preference for the Witch is to have it be the Prepared Sorcerer, where your patron determines what spell list you use. Since in PF1 we had rules (in blood of the coven) for having your patron be a fae, or an angel, or a hag, or an elemental, or something more abstract it would make sense to let witch magic be determined by "who or what has taught it to you."


I'm betting the Witch is going to be rebuilt as an Occult caster. My money is also on Psychic magic winding up being made from Mental and Vital essences.

This is a larger topic though, so I'll make a new thread for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I personally like the Psychic as Mental + Vital since it puts "mind over matter"

If the spell lists were comprised of those types of things I would agree, however, I feel both of those essences contain a lot of items that don't necessarily fit the mold (particularly Vital, Mental works well enough I suppose).

Quote:
My preference for the Witch is to have it be the Prepared Sorcerer, where your patron determines what spell list you use. Since in PF1 we had rules (in blood of the coven) for having your patron be a fae, or an angel, or a hag, or an elemental, or something more abstract it would make sense to let witch magic be determined by "who or what has taught it to you."

This I actually agree with. Rather elegant solution and widens the Witch into a more distinct role.

That said, I'm not sure the term "Witch" or "Hexes" fit as categorically/organically as they did before under the new definition, because while Familiars/Patrons played a role in Witches, it was certainly not the focal point of the class (where as Sorcerer certainly had Bloodlines at the front).

So in short, love that idea, but I'd be curious to hear if those that were huge fans of the Witch would also be fans of that idea.

Maybe I just need to re-frame my concept of "Hexes" into a different naming motif. Perhaps "Charms" or "Bewitching"? I digress.

Basically, the Sorcerer needed the revamp, because as is, it didn't have a definable narrative space and was a bit on the weaker side power wise.

The Witch, was already extremely popular. It's always dangerous to alter something popular.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So I thought I would take my crack at this
Antipaladin- Can become an archetype or just a straight up class option for the Champion Class.

Arcanist- The Arcanist does not have enough flavor-space for me to feel like it could be it's own class. Here I would suggest it at best to be a archetype for casters, perhaps as a new school of thought for casting. Alternatively its abilities can be reflected in class feats for wizards.

Bloodrager- I absolutely love the concept of the bloodrager, bloodline and magic infused rages hit a flavor sweet-spot for me. BUT if done right I can see this being fulfilled via Sorcerer and Barbarian multi-classing, or via totems and bloodlines. That being said one of my favorite things was seeing a martial bent on bloodline expression. Here is one that I would be happy to see come back as it's own class but I don't think it needs to be necessarily.

Brawler- The brawler was really fun mechanically but I think via the changes to fighter and monk, there is not much of a flavor aspect needed for Brawler any more since Monks do non-mystic martial artist really well, and I could see them expanding with more "rough house" styles. Brawlers baseline were also tied into the old way of doing feats, which would be harder to implement in this new version.

Cavalier- I like the idea of it as an archetype tbh. I think some aspects of it would be missed. But I loved the idea of playing a sorcerer-cavalier in the playtest and being a spell-knight or troubadour ala fire emblem. And I think it's archetype if improved upon could open up seem neat ideas, especially in a campaign that could let you really benefit from being mounted.

Gunslinger- I think this works as an archetype, and even though you can't get archetypes until level 2 if your dm knows you are playing a gunslinger they can always change the "rarity" of guns, if they are blocked off in proficiency and let you get a gun earlier.

Hunter- Another class that i both love mechanically and flavor-wise that I am unsure if it will be needed. This ultimately depends on the final animal companion rules for Rangers and Druids(and in general). Would be happy to see if it came back, but might not be needed.

Inquisitor- Never really played one, but I can see the potential in it, and while I could see somebody creating an Inquisitor with the current rules in flavor, I could see this one being brought back to create some really neat flavor/mechanic design space.

Investigator- AN investigator flavor-wise can be made with any class. But I do love the Investigator class and I think there is a design space for a non-caster Int based class. Wouldn't mind seeing it return, especially if it can be freed from the need of it to be a hybrid class and it become something of it's own(I personally also think bloodrager, and Hunter can be freed from being hybrids an evolved to be more unique)

Kineticist- I can see them coming back, they offer up a unique design space and flavor combination. Hopefully PF2 could simplify the class a little, I've seen it banned not for being overpowered but simply because the DM did/could not understand the class on multiple occasions.

Magus- I think spellswords are cool, from my understanding it is much easier to create one now without the need of a class for it, but I could see the Magus being made. In fact, it could perhaps become more interested if it became free of the chains of needing to be "eldritch knight but better and from day 1"

Medium- I think this could be interesting. And i think this is where the full deck medium is meant to be. Stick with me here, what if Mediums class feats are the various cards, that means as you level you access more spirits to use via the cards and with the new retraining rules you can restructure which spirits you use. Now some might say that means you'll limit the types of class feats that could be made in the future, but different cultures and variant decks exist and so new cards/spirits/class feats can always be made.

Mesmerist- I think there is design space for the mesmerist but I can also see it be folded into the bard.

Ninja- Class feats/options for the rogue/monk should fulfill the flavor niche for ninjas, but could also see them coming back in the future. Ninjas are sort of a lesser hybrid where they are clearly more based on the Rogue but also take from the monk. Perhaps a ninja that is it's own thing separate from the two could also be interesting.

Occultist- I think there is real potential with the Occultist. I could see the Occultist and Investigator combining into one class, perhaps with the occultist magical implements becoming a sort of parallel to the Ki of Monks in 2E, where in you can totally have a non-magical Investigator/occultist but if you want to here is magic. OR the Occultist can be it's own thing. Either or works.

Oracle- The Oracle is a fan-favorite and I think it deserves a spot here to. Focus it on its curse and its revelations and I think it will do just fine.

Psychic- I could see it coming back! Never played it but I could definitely see the flavor/design space for it.

Samurai- I could see it as an archetype focusing perhaps on the resolve mechanic's, and some other neat things. That or it doesn't need to return.

Shaman- Never got to play a shaman but I always wanted to. I think there is design space for it to be another primal caster with flavor different than the druid(and perhaps spontaneous). Although some clearing up in terminology between there spirits and the medium spirits maybe needed. Not as needed but I would like to see it.

Shifter- I would like to give the shifter a chance, and I think pf2 could fix it if giving the chance. I think there is design space for it as a class or if not a full-class an archetype.

Skald- I could see Skald as a 1st level choice for Bards, or maybe barbarians. I think there is enough flavor to make something out of it for a class but I don't think it is 100% needed

Slayer- Mechanically i like the slayer a lot, I don't think it is needed in 2E and I don't think it has a strong enough flavor to keep it around.

Spiritualist- I like the concept of a spiritualist but i think it could be folded into my summoner idea.

Summoner- A summoner who uses casting or focus powers, and whose class feats are all about the evolutions. I think there could be class feats that aren't focused on the eidolon so people can have other options, but I do think Summoner could really provide a hard focus on supernatural buddy that maybe does the heavy lifting. Or have Summoner path's.
The Contractor- Focuses more on summoning individual creatures to get the job done
The Eidolon- Focuses on upgrading and bonding with one entity
The Planar warrior- Focuses on infusing yourself with planar abilities. (ala synthesis summoner)
It could work like the druid where you can upgrade other paths if you want.
Although i do like the hard focus on eidolon with class feats all about expanding eidolons but i think my second idea would make more people happy.

Swashbuckler- Swashbuckler has always been more of an aesthetic than a class to me. I like the flavor and even the mechanics of the old class, but i think that could be fulfilled via class feats.

Vigilante- I think this could be made an archetype and a background. Lots of the archetypes for it in pf1 were "this class but vigilante" and with the way 2E works i think vigilante would better fit as an archetype/skill feats/backgrounds.

Warpriest- Champion and Cleric have consumed this I think, even multi-classing a divine sorcerer and fighter could give the feel.

Witch - tons of flavor and mechanic potential, was almost in the core rulebook. I think it needs to be.

Overall I think have similar opinions to everyone here BUT i think I made some new/unique suggestions.


I agree with Cabbage on some of this. The Key thing to think of is, ‘is the Class able to be made iconic enough to stand on it’s own’; to the point that Multiclassing would be the lesser option.

Magus could be jury-rigged with a Martial/Caster combo and the Magical Striker feat with what we currently have. It also has a chance to be made into something completely new and unique.

Using Bloodrager as an example; it could be tweaked into a Raging Caster. Give Rage damage to spells and the ability to cast a spell the turn you start your rage.

Though only time will tell.


I'm very surprised to see that many people do not appreciate the idea of a PF2 Inquisitor. For me, is one of the most interesting classes on PF1, and honestly, just made it a subclass for cleric seems a huge loss.

Liberty's Edge

Alaryth wrote:
I'm very surprised to see that many people do not appreciate the idea of a PF2 Inquisitor. For me, is one of the most interesting classes on PF1, and honestly, just made it a subclass for cleric seems a huge loss.

I like and endorse the idea of a PF2 Inquisitor, but I wouldn't be heartbroken if it turns out to be a Cleric Path. Inquisitor is a good, fun, Class, but if they make a Skill-based path for Cleric (and they should) the overlap would probably be pretty extensive. I'd definitely prefer a unique Class, but a skill-focused Cleric path seems likely to provide a similar enough niche that I'd still accept it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Alaryth wrote:
I'm very surprised to see that many people do not appreciate the idea of a PF2 Inquisitor. For me, is one of the most interesting classes on PF1, and honestly, just made it a subclass for cleric seems a huge loss.
I like and endorse the idea of a PF2 Inquisitor, but I wouldn't be heartbroken if it turns out to be a Cleric Path. Inquisitor is a good, fun, Class, but if they make a Skill-based path for Cleric (and they should) the overlap would probably be pretty extensive. I'd definitely prefer a unique Class, but a skill-focused Cleric path seems likely to provide a similar enough niche that I'd still accept it.

Mechanically, the Inquisitor actually feels more like a PF2 Bard with a god as their muse. The spell list, the skills, the buffs... Even factoring in bards not being wisdom dependent, the Inquisitor (and its archetypes) was chalk full of ways to be a good face. And Inquisitors wouldn't be nearly as constrained by Anathema, so muse can even fit better on the lore side. At least for certain deities. We have an Inquisitor of Desna who converted to a playtest Bard and I swear you wouldn't know the difference. It would probably be more noticeable with a more Lawful god, though.

So if anything I'd probably make the Inquisitor into a bard archetype, or perhaps even a class agnostic option because any class could become an agent of the church really. But I think it might be simpler to make it as its own class and an occult caster. Yeah, the Inquisitor had some divine spells before, but not enough to reeeeally justify keeping it on the divine list. And the stuff it has that sets it apart from the cleric and bard are mostly class features that would probably be better suited to a unique set of class feats. Giving them access to bard and cleric class feats wouldn't make as much sense. Inquisitors don't perform or use channel energy, which eliminates like half the class feats out the gate.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Part of the issue I have with the "Inquisitor" as a class is that if I just look at it as "a troubleshooter for a deity" it doesn't exactly make sense to me that this is a specific kind of person with specific abilities. Since there are lots of gods and lots of different situations that a god would want someone to troubleshoot. So while some deity might want to send someone into a situation where muscle is the best approach, another might want subtlety, or charm, or magical prowess in other situations.

So along the lines of "Gorum might want to send a devout Barbarian to solve a problem" and "Nethys would prefer to send a Wizard" or "Gozreh would prefer to send a Druid" it feels like Inquisitor probably should be a universal archetype.

Don't get me wrong, I really liked the class in PF1, but I don't know if I can separate my feelings here from just how powerful it was.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Salim Ghadafar would be a fine example of an inquisitor archetype off of a non-caster class...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The Paizo staff is full of clever developers and I'm sure that each of the iconics will return in some way shape or form in PF2. That said here are my thoughts.

Witch: In PF2 I'd like to see the patrons have a stronger flavor. Perhaps the patron choice also effects the spell lists.

Oracle: Mysteries, revelations, curses. A strong class in flavor and mechanics.

Inquisitor: This class mechanically was strong but was a mix bag when it came to what media inspired it. I always saw it played as a monster hunter with inquisitions chosen over domains. Perhaps in PF2 the inquisitor design shifts more towards occult caster, inquisitions, and various techniques to deal with threats.

Cavalier: "Cavalier" made into an archetype but the mechanics of the Cavalier and Samurai rolled into a new spell-less buffing knight class.

Summoner: I could see this going the paladin route. Renamed thaumaturge with the summoner and spiritualist folded into it. Choosing a class option to summon various outsiders, fey or phantasms.

Anti-Paladin: probably the CE Champion option.

Gunslinger: "Gunslinger" made into an archetype. The grit/panache/luck mechanics of the Gunslinger and swashbuckler could be saved for a class though.

Vigilante: The basic concept of a vigilate could be a feat dedication in PF2. There were some archetypes in PF1 that were interesting like the Warlock that could be salvaged in some way.

Shifter: No real experience with this one. Seemed to have some decent ideas but would definitely need a redesign in PF2. Maybe creates masks or fetishes that is a focus for their transformations?

Hybrid Classes: Frankly while some are pretty cool in PF1, most I'd sacrifice to make the parent classes better in PF2. I expect most will return with significant redesigns though.

Magus: while the play-test showed it could functionally be built with multi-classing and a feat I think it is sticking around. Both the trope of spell slinging sword fighter and the iconic are popular.

Ninja: Having seen it in action I'd rather see what made it work be folded into the monk and rogue.

Arcanist: not enough distinction between it and the wizard/sorcerer. If it returns it will have a redesign. Maybe more focus on harvesting magic from the environment, items, creatures.

Bloodrager: the spells seemed secondary, the transformation while enraged seemed cool. Not sure if it needs to be a class though?

Brawler: Seems folded into PF2 fighter and monk.

Hunter: Just seemed like a better ranger with a better animal companion.

Investigator: I could see it being a feat in PF2. A specialization for the rogue as well.

Shaman: A lot here for a hybrid class. With a bit of redesign this could return with a stronger focus.

Skald: probably a type of muse for the bard.

Slayer: Could be wrapped into the ranger.

Swashbuckler: Combine all the grit/panache/luck mechanics under this and redesign it.

War priest: Seems to have been folded into cleric. The blessings were neat and could return in some way.

Occult Classes: Great flavor in pf1, many need a redesign with usability in mind for PF2.

Kineticist: This class is unique and popular. Will return with a redesign in PF2.

Medium: Great flavor just needs a redesign and adjustments with the spirits.

Mesmerist: With the changes to the bard in PF2 this class might be rolled into the bard class as a type of muse.

Occultist: Basic idea was interesting but was a lot of paperwork in pf1. PF2 it would need a serious redesign.

Psychic: There are some interesting mechanics here. It could see a return in PF2. It would have to feel different than a occult spell list sorcerer though.

Spiritualist: Could be folded into the summoner class, call it a thaumaturge with a different modes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
enrik wrote:


Summoner: I could see this going the paladin route. Renamed thaumaturge with the summoner and spiritualist folded into it. Choosing a class option to summon various outsiders, fey or phantasms.

I hadn't considered Thaumaturge as the name for a class that combines all of the pet classes, but it's perfect.

It also occurs to me that the Thaumaturge's subclasses don't necessarily have to be divided by casting traditions of Arcane, Divine, etc.. If they wanted to explore magical essences further, they could split the subclasses up that way. Vitalists could call forth idealized animals and plants from the First World (edit: or some kind fragment of Negative Energy, Vital covers both life and death magic). Materialists could animate raw elementals or contructs. Spiritualists would summon either traditional outsiders or phantoms. Mentalists could bring Astral Contructs into the game, or create extremely convincing illusions.

If they did that, I think I'd want to see the class be a focus caster only, but I'd not insist on it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Question for the forum: what class does the zeitgeist expect will move into the "spontaneous arcane" slot abandoned by Bards and Sorcerers? I've seen solid suggestions for Prepared Occult and Spontaneous Primal, and Spontaneous Divine is obvious (even if the ultimate shape of it is not), but I can't recall vague consensus on Spontaneous Arcane. Is that where Arcanists will slide into? Psychic could stretch to cover it I suppose, but I'd be a bit disappointed with that, unless emotional focus worked the way I want spell schools to work (adds spells onto a pruned arcane spell list).

On a different note, I was chewing over the Magus this weekend, and while Spellstrike I agree can be easily moved into PF2 (the feat can be worded somewhere along the lines of "For a spell that requires a melee or ranged touch attack, you can substitute a Strike using a ranged or melee weapon against the target's normal AC, as appropriate to the spell's touch attack roll, as part of the somatic casting action for that spell in place of the touch attack."), moving Spell-combat might be a bit trickier. Given the changes to Strikes and Spells, I'm not sure you even NEED spell combat anymore; my proposed Spellstrike feat is already essentially Twin Takedown with one of the strikes being a spell, although without the action economy savings of Twin Takedown (but potentially with a bigger weapon). I suppose Spell combat could be a Free Action Feat which gives you an additional Strike on a 2+ Action spellcast, but that seems a bit OP, although loosey following what spell combat did in PF1 and what the updated Ranger seems capable of in the playtest.

(If my reading of Twin Takedown is incorrect, please let me know). Edit: I DID misread it, and my half baked Spellstrike seems more equivalent to double slice, although possibly better since you don't technically take the second strike MAP. Well, that's what editing is for...

Liberty's Edge

I'd expect a Spontaneous Arcane caster to either be an entirely new Class or possibly for Summoners to fall under that umbrella. Another distant possibility is for Psychic to fall there if Psychic Casting is a method of casting using the standard lists.

Personally, I'm betting on the new Class.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

Part of the issue I have with the "Inquisitor" as a class is that if I just look at it as "a troubleshooter for a deity" it doesn't exactly make sense to me that this is a specific kind of person with specific abilities. Since there are lots of gods and lots of different situations that a god would want someone to troubleshoot. So while some deity might want to send someone into a situation where muscle is the best approach, another might want subtlety, or charm, or magical prowess in other situations.

So along the lines of "Gorum might want to send a devout Barbarian to solve a problem" and "Nethys would prefer to send a Wizard" or "Gozreh would prefer to send a Druid" it feels like Inquisitor probably should be a universal archetype.

Don't get me wrong, I really liked the class in PF1, but I don't know if I can separate my feelings here from just how powerful it was.

Right on. I liked the chassis, and I liked the idea, but the way the idea was fitted onto that chassis didn't make much sense. What religion in their right mind is going to let some random person off the street skirt around rules of the church to be a troubleshooter before they are vetted for several levels? And then upon letting them into this role after having vetted them (or not, if they are really crazy), why would they limit themselves to one kind of troubleshooter?

In terms of flavor, in Pathfinder 1st Edition, Inquisitor should have been a prestige class. In Pathfinder 2nd Edition, it should be whatever the equivalent of a prestige class is (work was kicking me in the rear too hard for me to see what this actually was during the Playtest).

I would say the same thing for Paladinoids/Champions, by the way, but it looks like the cat already got out of the bag and stole the horse from the barn and sailed the ship under the bridge on this one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, this forum is chock full of people's opinions/ideas for what may or may not happen. I won't spill my whole table of "what I want in this way or that way" and I'll just list what >I< (and my table to a lesser extent) want that seems to not align with what has been brought up so far


  • Magus: I honestly think that the Eldrich Knight Prestige Archetype will cover this, don't get me wrong, I LOVE the Magus (look at my pic damnit!) and yes, a day 1 gish sounds like a LOVELY idea, but until they can flesh out all the backend of how spell attacks work and not having touch AC and all that jazz, the EK seems like a good spot (an we kinda know how Prestige Classes work [unless it got changed] with the Grey Maiden) since that Class's dedication will most likely contain the idea closest to "spellstrike" as we know it

  • Shifter: Realistically, the Wild Order Druid seems to fill this concept, yes "BUT NO SPELLS" was in some manner a key part of that design space, but I don't think holding the spelless-1/2-2/3 casting gimmick as a sacred cow seems like a good idea imo

  • Oracle: I never played (as or with) an Oracle before, but from what I've read, the Divine blooded Sorcerers seem to fit this bill rather exceptionally. Now I know the Curse is a very core aspect of the class, but if it's something that you could obtain with a optional class feat (ramp up the potency of your blood by taking on this very powerful downside) then that'd be that

  • Kineticist: Okay, nothing new hear, but my friend played one of these, and HOLY **** it was amazing, I want them to return in full ****ing force or so help me I will storm Paizo HQ and lock the design team in a room until they make a write up! Ridiculousness aside, I think a Focus Caster centered around Con (and this making the first class with Con as the key stat!) would do the job nicely, and having the dynamic action system gives a LOT of room for the oh so ideal and iconic "KAAAAA.... MEEEEEE... HAAAAA... MEEEE-oh crap baskets- HAAAAA"

As for the idea of a tactition type class, that sounds AMAZING, I want this, all of the squee. There are so many characters I would love to make with that class/archetype at the heart of it. As for whether it's a base class or a tack on, I know not, nor do I care, as long as it becomes implemented in some way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I'd expect a Spontaneous Arcane caster to either be an entirely new Class or possibly for Summoners to fall under that umbrella. Another distant possibility is for Psychic to fall there if Psychic Casting is a method of casting using the standard lists.

Personally, I'm betting on the new Class.

The Occultist had a mostly arcane-adjacent spell list in PF1, so I could see it as a darkhorse contender. But I'd expect the name to change, even if it remained a "cast through items" class with a wizard-like spell focus.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Question for the forum: what class does the zeitgeist expect will move into the "spontaneous arcane" slot abandoned by Bards and Sorcerers?

As DMW said Summoner is a contender, though I think it's a bit one dimensional as an idea.

I could see Arcanist moving into that space (or possibly some kind of "tattooed glyph" concept). Sorcerer did have some really interesting archetypes that they used that could probably be re-purposed under a new banner.

I think, although I'd like to see them become the Prepared version of Sorcerer, Witch is also a contender.

But my greatest hope is we get a new hot take or a wider interpretation of the original concept.

I'll be honest and say my perception of "what does a spontaneous arcane caster look like?" is rooted pretty firmly in Sorcerer at the moment. It's hard to even think of what I would call such a thing but Sorcerer. (DND sort of took the "Warlock" but damn if that isn't a good fit here).

My hope is that they are "Spontaneous" but really that encompasses unique systems of magic use: Blood Magic, Wild Magic, Pact Magic, Tattoo Magic, Glyph Magic, Voodoo, etc.

This allows them to group unique uses of the arcane arts that don't just read spells off a book into a unified area (think of it as the inverse of Sorcerer, instead of swapping lists, your swapping methods of casting/usage)

Quote:
On a different note, I was chewing over the Magus this weekend

As someone that literally played 11 different flavors of Magus over the lifetime of PF1, if I can supplement the mechanics while adjusting how much I want to lean in either direction (aka multiclass Fighter as Wizard or multiclass Wizard as Fighter) then I won't miss the class.

Now I would like an archetype that lets me swoop in and grab Class Feats relevant to being a Gish (Bladed Dash, Spellstrike, etc.) but a whole class is certainly unnecessary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stone Dog wrote:

Occult Classes

EVERY ONE GETS ITS OWN CLASS.

Sorry, that was my bias showing. I love these things and I want to see them all in full glory, updated and refined.

YES!!!!! I think they will all do nicely in the new system, but I'm super excited for the Kineticist, it's versatility make it one of the biggest stapples in my games. I can't wait to see what 2E will (hopefully) do with it!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just hope 2E puts out another Core book shortly after this big release that introduces more of the classes I love into the new system.


I really can't decide where the Inquisitor should go.

I suppose it is unique enough that it could just be a new class, but I don't like the concept of Class bloat when Paizo has created such a modular system for Class creation.

Basically, even though some might be upset by it, I like that the Cleric now covers War Priest. I like that Magus is probably going away.

Not because I didn't love those classes, because in PF1 6 level casters were honestly all I played (easily the most versatile and fun for me), but with the new system and being able to claim spells through Multiclassing organically, do we need it?

If Inquisitor (or any 6 caster) wasn't a Class, how would you make it?

If it had an Archetype for "inquisitor things" like Judgement, and you went Ranger/Fighter + Bard would that suffice? What would you be missing?

Personally, I think I'd love the idea of removing any 6 caster class from the game and instead leaving it up to the player on how to supplement that feel. If they only want Cantrips up to 3rd level spells, boom done. If they want to go to 6? not a problem. All the way to 9? Costs you a lot of Class feats but still doable.

Given the Core structure, that does seem to be somewhat the plan, but I am curious to what extent.


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

I think Judgement is a unique enough class feature to build a class around, and I think Inquisitors were popular enough that they will come back as a base class - much like Oracles will certainly come back even though you could argue that a Divine Sorcerer is much the same thing mechanically.

I also think "Judgement is my main class feature but I also do [some other class's thing]" is a good concept to allow, which is why I'd like to see it as a base class so you can multiclass it with other things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

I think Judgement is a unique enough class feature to build a class around, and I think Inquisitors were popular enough that they will come back as a base class - much like Oracles will certainly come back even though you could argue that a Divine Sorcerer is much the same thing mechanically.

I also think "Judgement is my main class feature but I also do [some other class's thing]" is a good concept to allow, which is why I'd like to see it as a base class so you can multiclass it with other things.

While I hear you on Judgement to some regard, I think Oracle being the obvious dedicated Spontaneous Caster is enough reason on it's own (not even consider Mysteries/Curses, which are extremely unique and cool).

On to the Judgement take:

Judgement is going to have to be changed significantly. For one, before it was primarily a bonus factory, and a lot of those +X options have gone the way of the dodo.

However, Judgement to me is about the same as say, Panache/Grit in that it is a sub system that's not super invasive that you could really attach to any class.

Bane wasn't really a revolutionary concept so much as it was a better version of Favored Enemy (IMO of course). It was again, just +X to damage.

Now don't get me wrong, the class is dripping with flavor and the total package combination (Divine Six caster, Good Skills, Judgement, Monster tactics, Teamwork feats) was unique, but the individual parts themselves I would argue weren't that unique

And if it's only the sum of the parts that's ultimately "unique" then perhaps it would be better to allow those parts to be "bought" via archetypes.

I did like Inquisitor a lot, but in a system where I could grab Judgement for instance as an Archetype, I could play any kind of inquisitor.

Arcane inquisitor that hunts those that trespass across planes sounds like a lot of fun.

As does a Primal inquisitor, that vanquishes those that hurt the earth or unnatural atrocities.

So on and so forth.

I think the initial Class, while unique, has a broader area it could reach into if it were applied as an Archetype instead.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That's true of basically any class, though, thanks to the multiclass system. If Inquisitor comes back as a base class then by definition it also comes back as an archetype that can be applied to any class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
That's true of basically any class, though, thanks to the multiclass system. If Inquisitor comes back as a base class then by definition it also comes back as an archetype that can be applied to any class.

That's a good point in wanting to branch out on other classes, but my question then becomes this:

If the Archetype for Inquisitor has Judgement as a benefit, what does the Inquisitor Class get that won't be covered by the Archetype alone?

It seems like 6 level casting is dead, but you can't really supplement all their casting with Powers alone (IMO).

So you have this situation where they go the way of the Bard, and make them 9 level casters (unlikely IMO), or they go with a full Melee class that uses Powers instead of Casting.

In the case of the latter, how would an Inquisitor differ from a Ranger in terms of play?

I mean sure we could add more meat to the Inquisitor to make it "more" of itself, but if we're speaking logistically about what mechanically sets it apart, outside of Judgement (which I consider to be a pretty small mechanic) I don't have a lot to point at.

It's the same situation the Magus is in now. The thing that set Magus apart was the Melee + Arcane 6 level casting combo and striking with a weapon to deliver a spell.

Now all of that is already possible, and you can be exactly whatever level of casting/melee you want to be (Spell Strike isn't there, but that's accomplish-able with an archetype as many have said here)

It doesn't fill a niche that's really "needed" IMO.

REACHING IDEA THAT'S POSSIBLE CONTROVERSIAL:

Now I could see the Inquisitor becoming the melee equivalent of Ranger/Paladin for Alchemist.

Which I'm sure many here were fond of the Investigator, but I think the Inquisitor could fill out the role with a little bit of both sprinkled in. How they'd go about doing that, I'm not really sure, but it at least puts them in a niche that isn't filled yet.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I don't think I'll get a better straight line than this.

So like I said at various points, I've been toying with an idea that with four class feats, you could adapt the ranger into a couple different concepts that are currently their own class in PF1 in lieu of a full class in PF2.

At some point I'll write up a mock version of these feats and cantrips, to let everyone tear the concept apart. But to very roughly summarize:

Geomancer: Primal Magic: You learn the Earth's Bite cantrip and one cantrip from either the primal spell list or one of the other Ranger cantrips. You're trained in spell rolls and spell DCs for casting primal spells and in attacks you make with primal spells. Your key spellcasting ability for these spells is Wisdom. You can use wands, scrolls, and staves, but only for spells of a spell level you can cast.
Arcane Knight: Arcane Magic (magus): You learn the Mystic Strike cantrip and one cantrip from either the arcane spell list or one of the other Ranger cantrips. You're trained in spell rolls and spell DCs for casting arcane spells and in attacks you make with arcane spells. Your key spellcasting ability for these spells is Intelligence. You can use wands, scrolls, and staves, but only for spells of a spell level you can cast.
Holy Hunter: Divine Magic (inquisitor in flavor): You learn the Judgment of the Weak cantrip and (you get the point from here)
Hex Warrior: Occult Magic: You learn the Hexing Haunt cantrip and...

*Earth's Bite: You create a caltrop on the ground in a designated square within range, notice DC and save equal to your spell DC. It deals 1d4 damage + 1d4 per level.
*Mystic Strike (components S,F: Weapon held): You conjure a momentary energy version of the focus weapon and make a range or melee touch strike with it against the target's touch AC. It deals the weapon's normal damage (including all magical enhancements on the weapon), except that it is either Fire, Frost, Electricty, Acid, Sonic, or Psychic damage. You choose what energy type at the time of casting.
*Judgment of the Weak: You deal 1 force damage (+1d4 per level) and learn if a target is weak to any damage type. On a critical success, the damage converts to the same type as the creature's weakness.
*Hexing Haunt: You create a haunt in a designated square that targets your nearest enemy. If they fail the save against the haunt, they lose all reactions, and cannot ready or delay their actions, until the end of your next turn. Heightening increases the area of affect and number of creatures targeted.

Spellstrike [feat]: When you would make a touch or ranged touch attack as part of the somatic component of a spell, you may instead choose to make a strike with a weapon of the appropriate type against the target's AC instead of TAC. If you succeed, your weapon also deals its damage as part of the strike (unless the target is immune to your weapon's damage).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:

Geomancer: Primal Magic: You learn the Earth's Bite cantrip and one cantrip from either the primal spell list or one of the other Ranger cantrips. You're trained in spell rolls and spell DCs for casting primal spells and in attacks you make with primal spells. Your key spellcasting ability for these spells is Wisdom. You can use wands, scrolls, and staves, but only for spells of a spell level you can cast.

Arcane Knight: Arcane Magic: You learn the Mystic Strike cantrip and one cantrip from either the arcane spell list or one of the other Ranger cantrips. You're trained in spell rolls and spell DCs for casting arcane spells and in attacks you make with arcane spells. Your key spellcasting ability for these spells is Intelligence. You can use wands, scrolls, and staves, but only for spells of a spell level you can cast.
Holy Hunter: Divine Magic: You learn the Judgment of the Weak cantrip and (you get the point from here)
Hex Warrior: Occult Magic: You learn the Hexing Haunt cantrip and...

So I love these, and this certainly gets the "Gish" feel right out of the gate (Now we can make PF1 Paladins/Rangers again too).

I think if the above Archetype Feats qualified you to take Class Archetypes for their corresponding Casting classes (Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Bard) so you could start getting actual spells too, then I'd love an implementation like this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Oh yeah. I forgot that part. My full idea would be that there would be a couple corresponding feats that let you study your chosen spellcasting further. Probably just three that you could select multiple times, requiring one of the 1st level feats to unlock higher level spells of the appropriate type.

And I actually didn't want them to qualify as multiclass feats, mostly because I want you to be able to ALSO pick up the multiclass feats if you so chose, to make a very caster ranger if that was the character you wanted to play.

51 to 100 of 130 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / New Class or New Archetype? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.