| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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...
This post resonates with me. The Inquisitor was awesome, but that was because of the sum of its parts, not any single class defining feature. It is also part of what made it work so well for archetypes-- it had so many features to trade out you could just do all sorts of fun stuff with it. So why not just lean into that and make all of those features an archetype anyone could pick from?
You'd need:
a Dedication feat (pick a deity, gain anathema, etc)
Bane feat
Judgement feat
Domain Feat
And some spellcasting feats, giving a one time choice of spontaneous access to either the divine or occult lists.
You could also make some skill feats accessible through the archetype, like they talked about changing the pirate feats into, but frankly most of the Inquisitor skill features feel pretty covered by normal skill feats.
You now can take any class and make them into an Inquisitor, which also works pretty well for characters who come to the church later in their career.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You'd need:
a Dedication feat (pick a deity, gain anathema, etc)
Bane feat
Judgement feat
Domain Feat
And some spellcasting feats, giving a one time choice of spontaneous access to either the divine or occult lists.You could also make some skill feats accessible through the archetype, like they talked about changing the pirate feats into, but frankly most of the Inquisitor skill features feel pretty covered by normal skill feats.
You now can take any class and make them into an Inquisitor, which also works pretty well for characters who come to the church later in their career.
I think that's absolutely true and to your last point that's exactly the type of thing that I feel makes the Inquisitor make sense as an Archetype.
I think a Class that starts you out as a religious Zealot that hunts down specific creatures is a bit heavy handed as a concept.
Someone spending their life as a thief and then having a Vampire wipe out their family/friends might warrant a change of profession!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You'd need:
a Dedication feat (pick a deity, gain anathema, etc)
Bane feat
Judgement feat
Domain Feat
And some spellcasting feats, giving a one time choice of spontaneous access to either the divine or occult lists.You could also make some skill feats accessible through the archetype, like they talked about changing the pirate feats into, but frankly most of the Inquisitor skill features feel pretty covered by normal skill feats.
You now can take any class and make them into an Inquisitor, which also works pretty well for characters who come to the church later in their career.
I think that's absolutely true and to your last point that's exactly the type of thing that I feel makes the Inquisitor make sense as an Archetype.
I think a Class that starts you out as a religious Zealot that hunts down specific creatures is a bit heavy handed as a concept.
Someone spending their life as a thief and then having a Vampire wipe out their family/friends might warrant a change of profession!
Now to be fair, you could certainly make that case for many classes-- one could decide to become a cleric or a champion for similar motivation. So it is mostly a matter of degree, not kind. And you are correct that an agent hunting down the enemies of a church feels like a more specific concept than "agent of a god" or "champion of a cause." And it also might make more sense to make this decision later in game. Deciding to hunt down the enemies of your church works better once you know who the enemies of the campaign are, so you can make sure the two align.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Go down the rabbit hole, you could argue that you only really need a single skill focused class, a caster class, and a combat class. EVERY other class could be argued as just archetypes of those three ideas.
I actually think there is enough thematic material and mechanics to produce a base Inquisitor class
I actually think there is enough thematic material and mechanics to produce a base Inquisitor class
Such as? Judgement is the only unique class feature.
If you could highlight why you think that is the case and how another class can't recreate that exact same feel (to me both Paladin and Ranger, depending on the flavor, have the class covered in terms of thematic material) I'd be happy to hear it. "I hunt things for the church" is what a Champion sort of already does, but in a more dedicated fashion.
Swashbuckler and Gunslinger are likely going to get the Archetype treatment, what sets Inquisitor apart from those two?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bane may not be a "unique" class feature, but it is unique AS a class feature.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Go down the rabbit hole, you could argue that you only really need a single skill focused class, a caster class, and a combat class. EVERY other class could be argued as just archetypes of those three ideas.
I actually think there is enough thematic material and mechanics to produce a base Inquisitor class
Now now, let’s not exaggerate. With the changes to BAB and saves, do we even need three classes? Spell casting, armor/weapon training, and extra skill training could all also be feats, so really one class might do the trick.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cavalier: Split into 3 archetypes; Mount archetype, Order archetype, and Tactician archetype. While the Playtest archetype was a step in the right direction in my opinion, I dislike how dedicating yourself to an order or being able to challenge people is still tied to being a mounted character rather than being part of separate archetypes.
Inquisitor: While I surprisingly loved the class in PF1, I don’t think there’s much space for it in PF2. Thematically, I think it’d probably do better as a class path for Clerics (or even Champions) rather than a separate class. Mechanically, Oracle will cover the spontaneous divine caster role, which I don’t think needs to be doubled up on. As for their other features, most could be incorporated into other classes, with only Judgement really being especially unique.
Magus: Archetype for sure. With four magical traditions, an archetype would allow the Magus to easily attach to any of them instead of being restricted to arcane. Gish is awesome, and being an archetype would allow the Magus concept to expand while also reducing the need for things like Hexblade or Eldritch Scion to mix with other classes.
Oracle: Class. Too thematic with their curses and fits nicely into the niche of spontaneous divine caster. Granted, Revelations seem likely to just become variations of class paths now, so Oracles might need a little more added to their chassis in my opinion.
Shifter: Never really played or had much interest in this class. Could potentially be an archetype based around polymorphing magic, but would probably be better as just being absorbed into Druid/Shaman.
Summoner: While I personally hated the class in PF1, I’d say it has good enough theming to be a full class on its own. Personally, I’d reimagine summoners as a class based on using rituals instead of casting spells, with some powers/spell points for limited magical effects. I don’t think there’s much room to make Summoners a caster class (unless they covered spontaneous arcane, where I’d probably prefer something else), especially considering a casting Summoner should really just be a conjuration specialist Wizard. But rituals seem like a good system they could focus on using, especially since it doesn’t have to tie them to a specific magical tradition by default and could open up class paths based on different types of Summoners (with Occult path making them resemble Spiritualists from PF1).
Vigilante: Archetype. Applying vigilante type abilities to existing classes through an archetype seems a much better solution than needing a dozen vigilante archetypes to mimic other classes like in PF1. Also allows for more variation in a vigilante-themed campaign.
Witch: Class. Very thematic with their patrons and hexes, and could fit as a switch prepared caster based on their patron. I don't think that occult prepared fully works for them, as patron choices like being a witch devoted to nature/fae (primal) or making a deal with a devil (divine) don't match up as well if the class is limited to occult. Like Sorcerers, their magic is closely linked to some variable "other" (bloodline, patron) which should determine what type of magic they have, and hopefully have other large impacts on how the class is played. (Personally, I liked the idea of Patrons having some type of goals and imposing some sort of price for their magic – from a third party book on witch patrons for PF1.)
Alternate Classes: Antipaladin & Ninja can just be absorbed into Champions & Rouges respectively while the Samurai gets absorbed into the various Cavalier archetypes.
Hybrid Classes: Arcanists, Bloodragers, Brawlers, Hunters, Skalds, Slayers, Swashbucklers, and Warpriests can all be absorbed back into their parent classes in my opinion. Possibly have them become class paths like how the Warpriest seems to be under the Cleric last I heard.
Investigator: I think there is just enough theming for Investigators to serve as their own class, as long as they are divorced from the Alchemist and reimagined a bit to become their own thing. They also seem like a decent option to possibly absorb some of the abilities from Inquisitors and Vigilantes (disguises, detection, tracking, etc.).
Shaman: Also could be reimagined into a new class, likely filling the spontaneous primal caster role. It’d need to drop the hexes/witch aspect, but that’d leave more room to focus on the class’s connection to spirits / spirit animals. I could also see the class absorbing features from Hunters (Animal Focus) or even Mediums/Spiritualists.
Occult Classes: Outside of the ever-popular Kineticist and the ones I’ve already mentioned, I don’t have too much experience/opinions about these classes. That said, I think they’re in a weird spot since psychic magic is gone and the closest equivalent in PF2 would be occult magic. So outside of a prepared occult caster, I’m not sure there’s too much room for many of them.
Kineticist: Going to be unpopular here and say I’m not sure if this class needs a return. While I loved them in PF1, I always found them a bit awkward thematically when compared to the rest of the setting and their main mechanical stick (always on elemental blasts) seems less impressive with scaling cantrips being a thing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Kineticist could work with the Bard model of "cantrips specific to this class that are broadly much stronger than the cantrips you get from having access to a spell list." Like composition powers, but with a kineticist specific tag.
Go down the rabbit hole, you could argue that you only really need a single skill focused class, a caster class, and a combat class. EVERY other class could be argued as just archetypes of those three ideas.
I actually think there is enough thematic material and mechanics to produce a base Inquisitor class
D&D 3.5 Unearthed Arcana had this. Too bad they never fleshed it out.
Go down the rabbit hole, you could argue that you only really need a single skill focused class, a caster class, and a combat class. EVERY other class could be argued as just archetypes of those three ideas.
I actually think there is enough thematic material and mechanics to produce a base Inquisitor class
D&D 3.5 Unearthed Arcana had this. Too bad they never fleshed it out.
Green Ronin did, in True20. It wasn't bad.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay so we know that to have a gish you mainly take a wizard and select a variable number of fighter archetypes now (right?), but I was thinking: something similar to the champion, but divorced from deities and alignments, using arcane magic to fuel their Focus powers, which complement their fighting style. No spells, just Focus.
I don't know, I think it would be interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay so we know that to have a gish you mainly take a wizard and select a variable number of fighter archetypes now (right?), but I was thinking: something similar to the champion, but divorced from deities and alignments, using arcane magic to fuel their Focus powers, which complement their fighting style. No spells, just Focus.
I don't know, I think it would be interesting.
You could also go Fighter and then simply multiclass Wizard/Cleric/etc.
But what you've asked for is effectively what AnimatedPaper's concept for the Ranger is.
Personally, I'd rather see that repurposed to a new class entirely and merge in concepts from the gish-like classes, Hunter, Magus, Inquisitor, Blood-rager, Eldritch Scion, if you're going that route.
Then again, the Ranger doesn't have a whole lot of definition as is right now anyways, and was in a pretty poor spot during the playtest.
If they map out the gish space like the following, which is how it seems it will be right now, it could look like this:
Ranger -> Nature Warrior
Paladin -> Religion Warrior
XXX -> Arcane Warrior
XXX -> Occult Warrior
Now the obvious fill ins, to me, are Magus for the Arcane and Inquisitor for the occult.
But if you went that route, you're dropping a lot of spells from both Inquisitor/Magus.
But I do think you could move a lot of old Bard archetypes (particularly Sandman comes to mind) to Inquisitor, and move Blood-rager (and Eldritch Scion) to the Magus umbrella.
The gish space is very undetermined right now, so I think it's a high likelihood that Paizo is waiting to see how Focus pans out in actual play before deciding whether a "Focus only" Gish is even feasible (or wanted).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would think the Occultist would be the natural fit for "Occult Gish". Since you really don't need spellcasting for the theme to work, you just need to be able to invest your mental focus into significant objects that resonate.
PF1 Occultists could be super-fightery with medium armor and martial weapons (and no need for hands to cast) as well as a bunch of resonant powers that help with this lifestyle, including a panoply that put you at full BAB.
Considering that the Occultist was the inspiration for the mechanics (and nomenclature) for both "Focus" and "Resonance" it should probably get the spotlight as a "Focus Spell Centered Gish."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would think the Occultist would be the natural fit for "Occult Gish". Since you really don't need spellcasting for the theme to work, you just need to be able to invest your mental focus into significant objects that resonate.
PF1 Occultists could be super-fightery with medium armor and martial weapons (and no need for hands to cast) as well as a bunch of resonant powers that help with this lifestyle, including a panoply that put you at full BAB.
Considering that the Occultist was the inspiration for the mechanics (and nomenclature) for both "Focus" and "Resonance" it should probably get the spotlight as a "Focus Spell Centered Gish."
And that may be, but I do not have a lot of experience using the Occult classes, so I would be unable to weigh in on whether they are a good fit.
That said, I think it's entirely plausible that a lot of Classes get consolidated to a single roof where it makes sense. If Occultist (undoubtedly going to have a name change) and Inquisitor merged into a single roof, I think there'd be space to make them both work (or some other combination).
But what you've asked for is effectively what AnimatedPaper's concept for the Ranger is.
In fairness, it wasn’t entirely my idea. Another poster was frustrated with the idea of picking up Druid multiclassing in order to get Ranger spellcasting, although they had no issue with the text of the feat itself. So I threw out the primal version as a random thought, then followed it to its logical conclusion.
As to Roswynn’s thought, what she described made me think of a monk with weapons (not saying that’s what she had in mind, just what I thought of). Which would certainly work for quite a few gish concepts. I think I mentioned the Arcane Archer at some point, but Zen Archer might be another point of inspiration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, so.
Arcanist- confused wizard. Neither, maybe an alternate to a school, but 'best of both worlds' is a bad idea, and rather pointless with the ridiculousness that is quick preparation anyway
Bloodrager- eh. Class, I think? It's too much spellcasting for archetype feats, even though it caps out at much lower level. Hard to connect it with the Playtest approach
Brawler- archetype, definitely. <Other class>, but with punching.
Cavalier- definitely archetype. Worse fighter doesn't need to be a thing.
Gunslinger- archetype or discarded. Either way, don't care.
Hunter- Class. Especially the petless feral hunter.
Inquisitor- Class. Has enough to stand on its own, though not sold on 9 level spellcasting. That has enough issues already (the base chassis for bard, cleric and druid is just so much better than wizard/sorcerer)
Investigator- archetype or discarded. Weird skill gimmicks that didn't really fit and especially don't fit into the tight RNG of PF2.
Kineticist- with scaling cantrips and toned down sneak attack, not sure where the Kineticist's place is. Straddles too much of a line of at will magic-equivalents plus better attacks.
Magus- want to say class, but not sure PF2 can support it with its action system.
Medium- uh. rework from the ground up, maybe. Be a worse version of a real class or try to fill other roles completely unsupported by your statline and fail. Only real purpose to it seemed to be working around Dex to damage limits with an untyped damage bonus.
Mesmerist- bard muse. Too complex and specific for a PF2 class.
Ninja/Samurai- eh. Too similar to the base classes, with an overtone of cultural appropriation. Pass
Occultist- class? Has same 'problem' PF1 alchemist had. A perfect jack of all trades, and its hard to translate that into PF2, keep the flavor and tone it down simultaneously.
Oracle- class. Needed class. Also needs to keep the 'not necessarily bound to gods (and their silly anathemas)'
Psychic. Sorcerer bloodline, nothing more.
Shaman- uh... fold relevant bits into witch and oracle. Getting both power sets and full spellcasting was a bit crazy.
Shifter- revamp, but the concept is worth revisiting... from the ground up. Clawgirl isn't acceptable.
Skald- bard muse. Done.
Slayer. Appropriate leftover bits into ranger or fighter. Or just have it replace the ranger.
Spiritualist/Summoner. Functionally the same in a lot of ways. Honestly... I want to hard pass on them both. They shove way too much action economy and shenanigans into a single character multi-headed hydra problem. Best solution I can see is the eidolon/spirit swaps places with your character. (You get to hang out in a pocket dimension while your pet rampages under your mental control)
Swashbuckler. cannibalize useful bits in fighter and rogue, toss the carcass
Vigilante - kill it with fire. Not genre appropriate, just play the actual class and role play. Mechanics to MAKE you 'roleplay' just make my teeth itch.
Warpriest- covered innately by other classes. No point.
Witch- class.
Bonus round:
Alchemist (playtest version), paladin, ranger: all archetypes, or redundant concepts the game have grown beyond. Fighter (or other class) but also nature skills and fighter plus religious skills is just a fighter with those skills.
Monk/Brawler can really be done this way too.
Alchemist was so badly reduced from ultra-jack-of-all-trades to 'shopper' that I don't see much point in keeping it. Unless it expanded a great deal from the late version in the playtest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LOTS
I actually agree with a lot of what you said with a few exceptions.
I feel like the Bloodrager is no longer necessary. Really just make a more magical Barbarian totem, or even just a Barbarian with Sorcerer Dedication. You don't need fancy mechanics because the baseline is easy to work with now, especially with the 3 round rage cycle and the elimination of arcane spell failure.
I like the idea of the occultist being the occult gish.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only real issue I have with any of the ideas that amount to "skip the hybrid classes, just use the archetype feats" is the lack of access at level 1. The thing the magus really gave us that we didn't have beforehand was spells and weapons right from level one, so you didn't have to wait through a level to actually start playing the character you want.
I really hope that archetypes don't have to wait til level 2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only real issue I have with any of the ideas that amount to "skip the hybrid classes, just use the archetype feats" is the lack of access at level 1. The thing the magus really gave us that we didn't have beforehand was spells and weapons right from level one, so you didn't have to wait through a level to actually start playing the character you want.
I really hope that archetypes don't have to wait til level 2.
Fair point, level 1 would be a struggle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would also happen to say that some Hybrid classes create concepts that can't really be replicated in a unique manner. Some sorcerer bloodlines and Bloodrager bloodlines are very different in their expression of a similar concept. The Verdant, Salamander, Shapechanger, and fey come to mind. That a barbarian multiclassing into a sorcerer won't get the distinction (then again unique totems based off of those things potentially could). That is the big one that comes to my mind.
LOTSI actually agree with a lot of what you said with a few exceptions.
I feel like the Bloodrager is no longer necessary. Really just make a more magical Barbarian totem, or even just a Barbarian with Sorcerer Dedication. You don't need fancy mechanics because the baseline is easy to work with now, especially with the 3 round rage cycle and the elimination of arcane spell failure.
Honestly, I don't think this works. Barbarian with sorcerer dedication gives up a -lot- of important feats to get fairly unimpressive and not at all level appropriate spellcasting.
On the other side, a sorcerer with barbarian dedication is a fragile joke, even though they can spare the feats. (But only because the playtest feats for sorcerer are a poor selection overall). But they lack the base HP and the temp HP cycling the barb can manage easily.
A 'magical totem' is problematic, since it would have to be balanced with the other totems... Which honestly sets the bar pretty low with free 1d10 weapon, +1 damage, higher damage with a hit penalty or a ghost touch weapon. Plus some pretty significant anathema.
Or a free feat.
How magical a totem can be while not absolutely outclassing the existing options is debatable, but is suggest the answer is 'not very'
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
LOTSI actually agree with a lot of what you said with a few exceptions.
I feel like the Bloodrager is no longer necessary. Really just make a more magical Barbarian totem, or even just a Barbarian with Sorcerer Dedication. You don't need fancy mechanics because the baseline is easy to work with now, especially with the 3 round rage cycle and the elimination of arcane spell failure.
Honestly, I don't think this works. Barbarian with sorcerer dedication gives up a -lot- of important feats to get fairly unimpressive and not at all level appropriate spellcasting.
...wasn't the bloodrager a 4-level caster?
...wasn't the bloodrager a 4-level caster?
Honestly, I don't think this works. Barbarian with sorcerer dedication gives up a -lot- of important feats to get fairly unimpressive and not at all level appropriate spellcasting.
IF they were to do bloodrager in P2 I would expect something that is a significant departure from the P1 version. Particularly since it seems like Paizo has decided from a design standpoint that it's 9th level casters OR focus powers and that's it.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Draconic Bloodrager is pretty readily built with only a few Feats in Sorcerer stuff. The Dargon Totem Barbarian Feats are overtly magical enough to represent a lot of what the Bloodrager did with Bloodline Powers, and you don't need all that many spells to duplicate a Bloodrager (they're 4 level casters, after all).
Other Bloodlines will need to wait for appropriate Totems, but that one works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note that a 'magical' Barbarian Totem, rather than granting you specific significant magic abilities right away, might instead grant access to certain sorcerer feats, not unlike a free pseudo-archetype feat, for instance.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
IF they were to do bloodrager in P2 I would expect something that is a significant departure from the P1 version. Particularly since it seems like Paizo has decided from a design standpoint that it's 9th level casters OR focus powers and that's it....wasn't the bloodrager a 4-level caster?
Honestly, I don't think this works. Barbarian with sorcerer dedication gives up a -lot- of important feats to get fairly unimpressive and not at all level appropriate spellcasting.
Given how quickly this is starting to become more of a concern, I'm wondering if this "all or nothing" mentality in regards to spells is costing some pretty good decisions.
Especially since Multiclass Feats seem to supplement 1-4/1-6 casters anyways.
What is the big "value" behind full caster or focus caster as the only options? Given how prevalent and awesome PF1 was with 6 casters being nearly as plentiful as any other Class distinction, I'm starting to think it doesn't make a lot of sense.
We end up in these scenarios where we're like "how do we do Inquisitor?? I guess just focus powers. What about Hunter? Focus powers? What about War Priest? Just make the 9 caster do it."
And so on and so forth.
I'm not saying it's a horrible idea, but when you start shoving round pegs into square holes because the game doesn't support something between Focus and Full, you need a more elegant solution than simply "make it work" IMO.
One of the best parts of those classes was having the full concept at level 1 and not at level 2/4 like the new system would force those concepts into.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
IF they were to do bloodrager in P2 I would expect something that is a significant departure from the P1 version. Particularly since it seems like Paizo has decided from a design standpoint that it's 9th level casters OR focus powers and that's it....wasn't the bloodrager a 4-level caster?
Honestly, I don't think this works. Barbarian with sorcerer dedication gives up a -lot- of important feats to get fairly unimpressive and not at all level appropriate spellcasting.Given how quickly this is starting to become more of a concern, I'm wondering if this "all or nothing" mentality in regards to spells is costing some pretty good decisions.
Especially since Multiclass Feats seem to supplement 1-4/1-6 casters anyways.
What is the big "value" behind full caster or focus caster as the only options? Given how prevalent and awesome PF1 was with 6 casters being nearly as plentiful as any other Class distinction, I'm starting to think it doesn't make a lot of sense.
We end up in these scenarios where we're like "how do we do Inquisitor?? I guess just focus powers. What about Hunter? Focus powers? What about War Priest? Just make the 9 caster do it."
And so on and so forth.
I'm not saying it's a horrible idea, but when you start shoving round pegs into square holes because the game doesn't support something between Focus and Full, you need a more elegant solution than simply "make it work" IMO.
One of the best parts of those classes was having the full concept at level 1 and not at level 2/4 like the new system would force those concepts into.
Design space is shrinking for sure if this is the only way. I still cling to the hope that they can come up with some form of mid-level caster anyways and it's just staying out of the CRB. There's all sorts of crazy things you can tack onto the current system, we just haven't come up with it as the spell-slot scaling thing makes the PF1 way suck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...wasn't the bloodrager a 4-level caster?LOTSI actually agree with a lot of what you said with a few exceptions.
I feel like the Bloodrager is no longer necessary. Really just make a more magical Barbarian totem, or even just a Barbarian with Sorcerer Dedication. You don't need fancy mechanics because the baseline is easy to work with now, especially with the 3 round rage cycle and the elimination of arcane spell failure.
Honestly, I don't think this works. Barbarian with sorcerer dedication gives up a -lot- of important feats to get fairly unimpressive and not at all level appropriate spellcasting.
It was, one of the reasons I never particularly liked the class. But, on the other hand it was fairly popular.
But, for PF2, I find the Spellcaster multiclassing to be pretty inadequate- more flavor text than anything else- until it starts to unfold at 12th level. At that point Breadth starts to give you more than just a single 1st level spell, and the rate of gain ramps up. But... Honestly that's at the point where a lot of campaigns start wrapping up and I don't really care anymore.
So even though bloodrager was just a 4 level Spellcaster, the playtest dedications don't seem sufficient for it, and it needs its own class.
I tend to agree with ChibiNyan and Midnightoker- the hybrid Spellcasters from pf1 (Inquistor, Hunter, and even bloodrager) need a stchick. Gutting them like the alchemist or ranger or promoting them like the bard both seem inappropriate to keep doing.
I tend to agree with ChibiNyan and Midnightoker- the hybrid Spellcasters from pf1 (Inquistor, Hunter, and even bloodrager) need a stchick. Gutting them like the alchemist or ranger or promoting them like the bard both seem inappropriate to keep doing.
They could deal with it by handling the Class Feat bottle neck at the same time and offering Archetypes/Multiclass options earlier or in parallel with regular Class Feats.
That would allow the same classes we saw before in PF1 via those instances.
They have a good way to deal with it right there in the Multiclass Feats that offer degrees of spells, there's just a lot of red tape for making those concepts work with a standard Ranger/Champion/Magus.
If they don't offer something like the above, a half-caster progression is about the only other option without gutting them, as you said.