New Class or New Archetype?


Second Edition

1 to 50 of 130 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Over in the "Predictions on future books" thread there is a conversation about archetypes. I think it is a good conversation, but it is risking hijacking the thread away from the talk about future books.

There is also the "Pathfinder 1 Style Archetypes" thread, which is pretty specific and I don't particularly want to hijack that one away from its topic either.

So I'm going to start up a new thread! I'm going to start this party off by crossposting some of the ideas from other threads I think are relevant.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Though honestly, the number of non-Occult Classes that really need to be converted has always struck me as reasonably small (specifically, we need Oracle and Witch, with Summoner, Investigator, Shaman, and maybe Arcanist being a very good idea, while the rest are perhaps better served as Archetypes and the like, as Cavalier already seems to be handled).

rooneg wrote:
I feel like Arcanist could just be a Class Archetype for Wizard, honestly.
Doktor Weasel wrote:

I think Inquisitor would justify having it's own class as opposed to archetype. I'm torn on whether Magus should be a class or not. But I think there is enough there to justify one. But yeah, we probably don't need Gunslinger, Vigilante, Shifter or most of the hybrid classes as full classes. Same for the Alternate classes of Ninja and Samurai. With Antipaladin likely to be the CE Champion. Most of those can be served with specific class feats, or archetypes on other base classes. But I'm with you that the Occult classes are all mostly different enough to make sense as their own things. Well Spiritualist might be doable as a Summoner archetype and Psychic might work as a variant of another casting class with Psychic spells. The others are really weirdy.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Crap. I meant to add Inquisitor to that list of those that should be converted, I just screwed up.

But yeah, more or less agreed.

And Arcanist is only on the list for mechanical reasons. Thematically, it as a high impact Archetype of Wizard is plausible enough.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Honestly, I'm not sure we need a Grit/Panache mechanic. We certainly could have one, but I'm not convinced it's either necessary or should be tied to the swashbuckler aesthetic.

It's the other one I'd consider converting for pure mechanics reasons along with Arcanist, though, I admit.

Guess I'm a Deadmanwalking fan on this topic.... moving on!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Base Classes

These are classes that ostensibly stand on their own. The Alchemist is a perfect example. Mechanically it is distinct enough that it not only remains a class to itself, but is upgraded to Core. Well done, Alchemist!

The Cavalier has a good boost to it with mounted combat and the bonuses granted by Orders, but are Orders worth a whole class even with mounted combat? Orders could be slotted into archetypes or feats trees. Did Prestige Classes make the cut to 2nd? Orders could fit snugly in a place like that as well.

The Gunslinger shares a lot in common with the hybrid class Swashbuckler. They are both specialist fighters that have a similar mechanic that is distinct from other classes. The two of them could be one class with a specific archetype to distinguish shooty from stabby.

The Inquisitor? An excellent divine caster with a social focus for sure. Does it need to be a different class than the Cleric? Probably, actually. Once you take away all the Cleric stuff to make an Inquisitor, you aren't left with much Cleric other than spell casting.

The Magus is a tricky one. It could just be an archetype that has both martial and caster versions, but there is potential to keep it by itself to allow for more kinds of fighter/mage characters.

Oracles should be their own for sure. Wizards have Sorcerers, Clerics have Oracles. They are distinct and flavorful enough that it would be a loss to just have them be a kind of Cleric.

Shifters I don't have much experience with. Honestly, they sound like they can be spell-less druids, or maybe Druidy Monks.

Summoners could go either way as well, I think. Again, not much experience with them (and not a fan of summoning in the first place).

Vigilantes? Neat concept, but... well, if they are going to be redone they probably need to be their own class. I'm thinking a ground up rebuild though. Not sure about them.

Witches though! The Witch is a great class with distinct mechanics. This should certainly be its own class. I think it would be severely diminished by being made an archetype.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hybrid Classes

These mashups seem like they are in the most danger of being Archetype...ized. Archetyped? As combinations of two classes anyway, does Paizo already have a framework of Archetypes that can slot into either class?

Arcanists are great and I agree with those that say ideally Wizards will be like them anyway. I do like Vancian casting as a concept (boo, hiss, I know), but Arcanist style casting is the best version. Still, if Wizards aren't like this, I don't know if Arcanist wouldn't be a better archetype to alter Wiz/Sor than to be their own class.

Bloodragers are another one I don't know much about, but they seem like multiclassing/archetype options would be the best fit.

I'm torn on the Brawler. I had one in my last game that was a lot of fun, but does it need to be more than a kind of Fighter? A no-chi Monk is a great option, but a whole class of it might be a bit much.

Hunters? They really seem like they could just be a sort of Companion focused Ranger.

Investigators are great though. Yeah, they have a lot in common with Rogues, but really I think there is enough to the class concept that can justify standing on their own. They might be well suited to being an archetype of a spell-less Inquisitor, though.

Shamans seem like a good class. They might be overshadowed with Druidic Orders, but something more unique might be in store for them.

Skalds just feel like Bards that give different bonuses. No strong feelings one way or another here.

Slayers? Most likely an archetype. I don't think there is much you are going to get out of them now that you don't have to bump the BAB of a Rogue and so many abilities are modular. Could be wrong though!

Swashbucklers have been addressed. They could just be archetypes easily, but if there is something to make them stand apart in the rules like Panache, they should be their own class.

Warpriests.... again, no real experience. They seem like they could be a fighter/cleric archetype. Not sure that Fervor can't just replace Channeling or whatever.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the Tactician side of the Cavalier deserves a class. Maybe a "Knight" class that has the Order and Tactics features. There is enough there to justify a class.

And one thing to keep in mind is the concept vs. the execution. Sorcerers were not as distinct in PF1 but werw refined into their own distinct entity (as opposed to a mirror of the Wizard). I think we need to look at the core concept of a class and see if it needs a place.

Looking at Hybrid classes, A lot probably don't need to be revisited, but the Investigator deserves love. Mechanically and conceptually, it has a lot to offer.

The Swashbuckler, with its panache mechanic, also deserves to come back. A class with the fluctuating pool of "cool points" is definitely something. The Gunslinger is too narrowly focused, though, and should probably be an archetype, since every class eventually got guns as an archetype.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Alternate Classes

Antipaladins are going to wind up the CE Champion.

Ninjas are just Rogues with Ki and mystical talents.

If Cavaliers aren't a class then Samurai don't need to be. They are just a title for Cavaliers that follow a Bushido like Order.

Nothing special here, I don't think.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Investigator gets a lot of defenders, but to me he's just like an Alchemist with a lot of skill and skill feats. His unique combat thing is nothing special.

I think Cavalier has more ground to stand on than it.

I also don't have high hopes on Arcanist. That class is pretty interesting mechanically, but it has no role-playing identity: It's a wizard with gimmicks. The exploits can be wizard class feats (Which an archetype already did in PF1) which leaves you with the neo-vancian thing, which I guess could be a class-archetype. (Remember we have spell points already!)

Vigilante is another class that nobody can really replicate exactly, but I feel it had a lot of issues in being super impractical for most campaigns. Most of the "builds" for it were pretty close to other classes, too.
I don't think we'll seeing it very soon outside of a generic archetype that gives the identity gimmick to anyone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

NPC Classes

I kid, I kid...

Alright everybody, have fun!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Investigator as the unique inspiration mechanic which I rather like. If studied combat and other features got rebuilt, I think we could have a really interesting class. Sans alchemy, too


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
I think the Tactician side of the Cavalier deserves a class. Maybe a "Knight" class that has the Order and Tactics features. There is enough there to justify a class.

Knight, Warlord, Commander.... there is definitely a niche in there that can be exploited to put together a Tactician style character.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Investigator gets a lot of defenders, but to me he's just like an Alchemist with a lot of skill and skill feats. His unique combat thing is nothing special.

Int-based non-spell bonuses to physical combat is a completely unique mechanic. Also, the general skill thing plus Alchemy really is very much its own thing as compared to either Rogue and Alchemist. Plus there's excellent thematics.

And I generally think it goes like this:

Cavalier: Should be, and is, an Archetype.
Gunslinger: Should definitely be an Archetype, as is demonstrated by all the 'I use guns' archetypes in PF1.
Inquisitor: Should be its own Class, though whether a spontaneous caster or a spell point user, I'm unsure.
Magus: I have no real opinion, could be a Class, could be a set of Feats for a Fighter/Wizard.
Oracle: Definitely a Class, we need a spontaneous
Shifter: No real opinion. This one could be done a lot of different ways.
Summoner: This should really be its own Class, probably a spontaneous Arcane caster much like the Bard is a spontaneous Occult caster.
Vigilante: This should definitely be an Archetype, that works perfectly with the modular nature of the Class.
Witch: I feel like Witch is ideally suited to being the prepared Occult caster.

Arcanist: Might be useful mechanically, though an Archetype might or might not be sufficient.
Investigator: Very useful. Another Class with access to alchemy seems like a must for me, and Investigator is also quite neat thematically.
Shaman: Very interesting thematically. Maybe a place for a Spontaneous Primal caster? Mechanically it converts less well, but the basic idea of spirits comes through pretty decently.
Swashbuckler: Like Arcanist, might be mechanically useful but may not be necessary as more than an Archetype.

All other Hybrid Classes seem unnecessary even as Archetpes IMO, being better handled in PF2 via multiclassing rather than anything else.

Of the Occult Classes, I think Spiritualist could be merged with Summoner, but the rest could and should be their own Classes.

And I agree that there's a place for a tactician/warlord/general Class, and think such a Class could be really cool...though that's more a new Clas than an adaptation of an existing one, IMO.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing that would make the Summoner tricky, is the spell list. Just the standard arcane list doesn't really fit them. Throwing fireballs and disintegration? I don't see it really. Also all 'pets' have been seriously nerfed into the ground with the Minion trait and being seriously stripped down. Summoning just isn't really all that good, so a class dedicated to it is just the master of a bad tactic. And an Eidolin treated as bare-bones as a playtest animal companion or familiar would just be a sad imitation of the real thing. To me the class was all about the Build Your Own Creature thing. The Uncahined version was bad partly because it stuck them into making counterfeit versions of existing monsters instead of the full custom weirdness. The way pets seem to be going looks to go even further than that. Maybe that's an improvement from the playtest though (I sure hope so). It's a class that deserves it's own class, but I'm not sure it really fits the general direction of PF2.

I'm pretty sure Witch is going to be it's own class, with a focus on the Patron and hexes. I also think they're a strong candidate for a variable list caster. They might be more like a prepared counterpart of the Sorcerer than the Wizard is. Patron and Bloodline fill a similar role, with extra spells and powers related to them. So I suspect some Witch Patrons will give different lists.

Sovereign Court

Didn't they say they wanted all the current classes as whole classes in 2e, rather than merging or removing any? In which case we may see some interesting changes to some classes.


Doktor Weasel wrote:
Also all 'pets' have been seriously nerfed into the ground with the Minion trait and being seriously stripped down. Summoning just isn't really all that good, so a class dedicated to it is just the master of a bad tactic.

This seems narrow-minded. The PF2 devs are aware enough of how actions work that a pet-focused class would not have the Minion trait, or have enough class features to overcome most/all drawbacks of the Minion trait. I'm not sure what you expected a Summoner to have for class features if you thought they'd summon something on par with an animal companion without features to bolster that tactic. We have no idea how Paizo will approach this, but I trust they would do more than you imply.

I see no reason it couldn't fit the direction of PF2 (but I hope we never get a poor implementation of a swarm summoner that ends up going through 20 actions a turn).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

Oracle: Definitely a class. The mysteries, curses, and lack of a requirement to worship a particular deity made it a very popular class, especially for people who wanted to play a healer without prepared casting.

Witch: Definitely a class. Just too popular to consign to an archetype. I'm guessing prepared occult caster with class feat hexes as class feats and a familiar for their main starting feature. Variable-list prepared casting would be difficult to balance, because arcane is limited to learning spells, while divine and nature get to prepare from the whole list.

Summoner: A class. Eidolons don't fit into an archetype, and I think that letting people have a companion that is both intelligent and combat-ready is important. I don't know how they'll handle the class's weird casting situation; I could even see them going to a pool of summoning and focus powers for the rest, freeing up feature space for the eidolon.

Magus: I didn't care for the PF1 implementation, but a gish is absolutely a strong enough concept to get a class you can hand to players. Crit ranges are gone, so the class should be free to cast more than one spell now.

Cavalier: It's already shown up as an archetype, more or less. I suspect the design space that the cavalier will be used to make a new class that's more focused on nonmagical support.

Inquisitor: A big part of this class was the spell list branching out of divine's normal wheelhouse. I'll need to see more of how Paizo implements other classes to have any idea how they'd approach Inquisitor.

Gunslinger: Probably a class? It can't exist purely as an archetype, because then there's no way to use a gun at first level. The multiclass archetypes provides a gun archetype, and makes for a consolidated ban option.

Shifter: This was the last class added. I'm not expecting them to show up in any form.

Vigilante: Archetype. This class was used as a basis for how the game itself works, with the skill/class feat split. The other features can now be broken out into an archetype for anybody who wants to maintain multiple identities.

---

Arcanist: Dunno. It doesn't work as an archetype, and will they have a class that's just "cast like 5e"?

Bloodrager: Class archetype or options or something for Barbarian.

Brawler: Had its shtick passed out to Monk and Fighter.

Hunter: Class? At some point, they're going to have a class that focuses on an animal companion and making it really good. But, they might be counting animal-order Druid.

Investigator: Class archetype or path. Alchemist is almost there, and if they had a path choice that handed them skill bonuses instead of alchemy, they'd pretty much be there.

Shaman: I dunno. I didn't pay it much attention in PF1 because it was very bland in play, so it'd probably need a rework to make it stick out a bit more.

Skald: Bard muse path.

Slayer: Rolled into Ranger now that you can go spell-free.

Swashbuckler: Class. I don't think they're going to throw away such a distinctive martial class.

Warpriest: With Champion now covering every alignment, and without a space for 6/9 casters, Warpriest's niche has been eaten by Champion and Cleric.

---

Kineticist: Class. All-day blaster is too important of a concept to drop.

Medium: ???. This one is weird because of the huge shift from playtest. It was the one class I never saw somebody play or consider playing.

Mesmerist: Bard class archetype and set of class feat options. Bard's already an occult caster, and Mesmerist could add some debuff options instead.

Occultist: Class. It's a good class to really tinker with PF2's mechanics- I expect it to interact with magic items more, and be heavy on focus spells.

Psychic: Class. An occult caster that really leans into the role. This is also why I expect Mesmerist to get rolled in with Bard.

Spiritualist: Class, probably. Pet class with a spooky pet. How it works will probably depend on how Summoner is implemented.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ellias Aubec wrote:
Didn't they say they wanted all the current classes as whole classes in 2e, rather than merging or removing any? In which case we may see some interesting changes to some classes.

Not strictly. As is evidenced by Cavalier showing up as an Archetype. What they said was that they were aware that having popular classes show up as anything less than a full Class might be off putting. So...popularity will likely play some role in what Classes show up in full Class form, at least to the extent that the popular ones are less likely to be reduced to Archetypes and the like.


Lyee wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Also all 'pets' have been seriously nerfed into the ground with the Minion trait and being seriously stripped down. Summoning just isn't really all that good, so a class dedicated to it is just the master of a bad tactic.
This seems narrow-minded. The PF2 devs are aware enough of how actions work that a pet-focused class would not have the Minion trait, or have enough class features to overcome most/all drawbacks of the Minion trait. I'm not sure what you expected a Summoner to have for class features if you thought they'd summon something on par with an animal companion without features to bolster that tactic.

Either an eidolon will be no more powerful than an animal order druid's animal companion, or a summoner won't be a spellcaster.


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

I originally posted this in the book thread, but when I saw this thread I deleted it there to post over here.

Doktor Weasel wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

That's plausible enough.

Though honestly, the number of non-Occult Classes that really need to be converted has always struck me as reasonably small (specifically, we need Oracle and Witch, with Summoner, Investigator, Shaman, and maybe Arcanist being a very good idea, while the rest are perhaps better served as Archetypes and the like, as Cavalier already seems to be handled).

Most of the Occult Classes probably need a conversion as well, but that seems like an 'its own book' thing just as it was last edition, at least to me.

Any Classes probably do necessitate a playtest of some sort (though Class-specific playtests are less intensive than the one for a whole new edition by quite a bit), but that doesn't necessarily mean they can't come out within less than a year of the corebook...though they also certainly could take that long, I freely admit.

I think Inquisitor would justify having it's own class as opposed to archetype. I'm torn on whether Magus should be a class or not. But I think there is enough there to justify one.

I have a vague idea that an Inquisitor-lite could be a Ranger that gets Divine spell casting and some Judgment cantrips*, as a stop-gap before they write up a full class. Some with Magus and Arcane casting.

I think both eventually should be their own classes for legacy reasons if nothing else. Inquisitors have a strong enough class fantasy to be placed in game right now, but Magi need a little more. I've full confidence they can find a new flavor and mechanical niche; I can think of a couple myself**, so they should have no issue.

As to the Arcanist and Swashbuckler/Gunslinger needing to be either a class or archetype, I think I come down on novel mechanics being introduced via a class, and save archetypes for pushing the existing parameters of skill and class mechanics.

I mostly agree that the occult classes can wait to be reintroduced all at once in their own book, but I would make an exception for the Kineticist. That is sufficiently different than the other ones to crop up somewhere else if it makes sense, like the APG.

Spoilers rehashing old points:

*:
My idea is that Rangers can get spellcasting using new class feats that more or less duplicate the existing multiclass dedications for Druid, Cleric, and Wizard. The benefit is that you'd get Rangers with some kind of spellcasting from level 1, and they can select the multiclass dedications at n2 if they want even more spellcasting. You can also introduce a pool of Ranger cantrips that the new feats would choose from instead of the default spell lists in order to bring in Judgment and Arcane pool abilities.
Upside: new class fantasy option for the ranger as a semi-mystical warrior and reintroducing Ranger spellcasting in a way that is guaranteed to be balanced, plus vague stand-ins for Inquisitor and Magus while we wait for the full class. Downside: SUPER boring way to go about it.

**:
My dream version of a PF2 magus would be using the flavor of fantasy Mage-Smiths, with a mechanical niche of monkeying with weapon and armor properties. If I want my Morningstar to have the shove or sweep special properties, I can spend a few focus points and suddenly my simple weapon is not so simple anymore.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Either an eidolon will be no more powerful than an animal order druid's animal companion, or a summoner won't be a spellcaster.

This is not necessarily true. Being a worse caster is also possible (and Bard-level spontaneous casting is worse than Druid prepared casting). The non-caster version (presumably with some spell point effects to heal and buff the eidolon, plus maybe some other Conjuration stuff) is also quite possible.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Lyee wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Also all 'pets' have been seriously nerfed into the ground with the Minion trait and being seriously stripped down. Summoning just isn't really all that good, so a class dedicated to it is just the master of a bad tactic.
This seems narrow-minded. The PF2 devs are aware enough of how actions work that a pet-focused class would not have the Minion trait, or have enough class features to overcome most/all drawbacks of the Minion trait. I'm not sure what you expected a Summoner to have for class features if you thought they'd summon something on par with an animal companion without features to bolster that tactic.
Either an eidolon will be no more powerful than an animal order druid's animal companion, or a summoner won't be a spellcaster.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a spell-less Summoner, actually, with nothing but an Eidolon and Focus Powers. That seems like a great place to put the class - and I'm sure it will be a base class, it's very iconic to Pathfinder and lots of people love it (or hate it, admittedly, but still).

On that count, I also expect Inquisitors to have Focus Powers instead of spellcasting.

I am 99% sure that Gunslinger will be an archetype. Basically every class in 1e got a "gun archetype" so why not short-circuit that and just have a single gun archetype that any class can take?

Which reminds me, I bet we will see generic archetypes that none-the-less have benefits for specific classes. For example, the gunslinger archetype might have a feat with the prereq of "arcane spellcasting" that lets you do the "fire spells through your gun" thing.


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

To round out my thoughts:

Class: Witch, Oracle, Arcanist, Swashbuckler, Kineticist, Medium*, Psychic
Archetype: Vigilante, Cavalier, Occulist (in its current incarnation anyways), Gunslinger, Warpriest
Subclass or class feat: Bloodrager (Barbarian), Brawler (Monk), Hunter (Ranger), Investigator (Rogue or Alchemist), Slayer (Ranger), Mesmerist (Bard), Spiritualist (Psychic)
Class eventually, but subclass to start (so that other classes can get the attention they need to start): Magus (Ranger), Inquisitor (Ranger), Skald (Bard), Shifter (Monk :P)**

I really want the summoners and shaman to be the flagship classes of a fifth spelllist (combining Material and Spiritual Essences), but otherwise they can be an archetype or subclass of the witch, respectively. Also acceptable: Shaman retooled to be spontaneous primalists.

*The specific mechanic I want to see with the medium is flexible Multiclass feats. Every medium gets a set number of multiclass feats as part of their class chassis, and they pick which class they apply those feats towards every morning. This allows even MORE variations than the current medium, while saving a lot of rulebook space, and they're probably balanced. Their other class feats will be a series of spirit focused stuff to keep the current class fantasy alive.
**While weird from an RP perspective, this placement makes the most sense to me mechanically, given the other stuff going on with the monk. Plus, Ki Claws as a focus spell. You know you want that.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
On that count, I also expect Inquisitors to have Focus Powers instead of spellcasting.

I'm mostly with you, but I'm not at all sure on this one. I can easily see Inquisitor with Bard casting and something like Judgment as a cantrip. They were always sort of a Divine Bard and that may continue.

Summoner is much more likely to be a Focus Spell + Eidolon than Inquisitor is to be Focus Power based, IMO.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
Which reminds me, I bet we will see generic archetypes that none-the-less have benefits for specific classes. For example, the gunslinger archetype might have a feat with the prereq of "arcane spellcasting" that lets you do the "fire spells through your gun" thing.

I agree. It would be really weird if they didn't do that eventually.


I forgot all about essences! They were a favorite part for me and they just went right out of my head.

Is that still confirmed? Is it in universe or out?

Liberty's Edge

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

Frankly, the only piece of the magus puzzle that wasn't in the Playtest was spellstrike. Make that a wizard/sorcerer feat (or, potentially, a fighter feat, I suppose) and you can just do it out of the existing multiclass mechanics.

Liberty's Edge

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

I forgot all about essences! They were a favorite part for me and they just went right out of my head.

Is that still confirmed? Is it in universe or out?

Nobody ever said they weren't in, and the response was generally quite positive. So I'd be shocked if they weren't still in and canonical. And they're both in and out of character.

I do think it's fairly unlikely we'll get spell lists beyond the basic four (though the other two Essence combinations are possible), simply because of how the skills are structured, but that still leaves plenty of room for all sorts of stuff.


Inquisitors are a little funny because it wasn't just their class chassis that made them similar to bards, but their spell list too. Thematically, an inquisitor in the playtest would best be represented by a ranger/cleric multicast, but mechanically a straight bard actually comes much closer. Yes, charisma used to be the dump stat on inquisitors, but they got so many social skill options that they often wound up the most charismatic member of the party despite 7 CHA.


Deadmanwalking wrote:


Nobody ever said they weren't in, and the response was generally quite positive. So I'd be shocked if they weren't still in and canonical. And they're both in and out of character.

That is great news to me, thank you!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

On the Gunslinger. I think it can be an archetype. While in PF1 you have to have an archetype to start with a gun, I don't think that assumption holds for PF2. I can see them being of uncommon rarity such that by raw a player must ask a GM but if you can buy one at character gen I think PF2s over all paradigm is that people can just pick something up and be decent.

The Gunslinger archetype would then be for those who want to invest heavier into the use of their gun, but they wouldn't be absolutely terrible without it unlike in PF1.


I like the Skald thematically, and I think it needs to exist in some form. Currently you can't effectively do it while multiclassing because concentrate actions don't mix well with Rage. That might not require a full class to fix though. I am curious because the PF1 Skald was a class that didn't mix well with parent class; a bard was better than a skald if you had a barbarian in the party, which made no sense thematically. So I hope whatever they do, that gets fixed.


To be fair, Bard was only better because Barbarians had effectively unlimited rage and didn't care about getting free rounds.

If you gave Skalds a performance that allowed Barbarians to maintain their rage indefinitely as long as the performance was maintained, Skalds and PF2e Barbarians would be BFFs.


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

I changed my mind. I think Swashbucklers, Gunslingers, and Investigators can be broken down into their constituent parts and turned into class feats. If Grit/panache/inspiration, and the tricks that drove off them, were all updated to be a part of the focus system, those three classes would be largely redundant. There's still room for all of them to be archetypes, but tying them to focus would drop the classes into my "pushing existing class and skill mechanics" threshold that is wholly my own taste and in no way reflects what Paizo will eventually do.


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

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


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

The only reason I don't want it to be a set of fighter feats is that then it loses a lot of its allure for non fighters. The Fighter dedication doesn't do much for you if you are already a martial character.

I would like to play the "alluring wildman" whose charisma also has some mechanical bonus over shooting myself in the foot mechanically so my stat line matches my narrative concept.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Investigator:
Never got to really play one, I liked the idea of the inspiration mechanic in it, however, that would seem to be really powerful in practice of adding a significant die to a check in second edition. I would almost think instead of adding a die to the check, it would need to be a different mechanic. Perhaps an easy one might be allowing you to roll twice and take the better. That would actually be pretty powerful.

Oracle:
Honestly, Oracle could be a Class Archetype of Divine Sorcerer. You take the Oracle Sorcerer Class Archetype and pick a curse and mystery. These choices likely define your spell list (likely divine) and provide you with some extra flavor to you sorcerer. Not saying I don't want it to be its own class, but it might not really need to.

Witch:
I agree with those who say it should by default be the Occult prepared caster. Such a class might also be able to be tied to Vital spell list and be flavored more as a Shaman potentially. (i'm not that familiar with the old Shaman class)

Summoner:
Hard to imagine how to make this one work well with current handling of summoning spells and minions and such. It might become a monster class, where they don't have to worry about balance. Otherwise, if they end up removing the minion trait from the summoned creature, they probably have to heavily reduce or eliminate their other spell-casting. Potentially, past instances of summoners who cast actual other spells, might be explained away as Summoner's who multi-classed into another spellcasting class to get actual spellcasting slots.

Magus:
Never got a complete feel for this class. What if some feats were available that provided Magus style abilities to People who are spellcasters with fighter multiclass archetype, or Fighter class with a spellcasting multi-class archetype, for instance. Might be better as a class, just not familiar enough with it.

Cavalier: Since I found the Tactics and Order aspects of it more important to me than actually the Mount, I really hope they come up with a Knight or Commander type class that focuses on the tactics for a group and potentially membership in an organization or allegiances for instance.

Inquisitor:
Seems like a popular enough class, I expect to see it very similar to a bard, but presumably with divine spells. It could bring back Litany's which would potentially become the special inquisitor cantrips, not unlike the Bard's Compositions. Presumably, they would as described in first edition seem to allow themselves some exceptions from typical faith Anathema restrictions, although they should think they are working for the better good of the faith.

Gunslinger:
Honestly, I hope this is a archetype or path of a Swashbucker-like combat class. Panache/Grit/Grog being a Focus based martial capability giving powers/abilities instead of true spells. Some abilities perhaps not consuming the focus, but requiring you still have some. May have the ability to regain focus points, but might limit use of regained focus to only Grit/Panache focus abilities if a balance issue is perceived in allowing regaining focus.

Vigilante: Archetype seems the most likely. It may often be granted as a 'FREE' starting archetype for Vigilante style games, where you are fighting an evil establishment.

Shaman: Potentially a Vital Path/Class Archetype/option of the Witch.

Skald: Someone mentioned it might be a form of muse for a Bard, or it might be able to be a form path of Inquisitor if it fit better.

Swashbuckler: I'm hoping this is a class, with Paths that represent access to a Panache/Grit/Grog mechanics tied into Focus. Could this potentially be instead tied to some form of Archetype dedication, unlocking this sort of mechanic. Potentially, but a class seemed more likely. Part of my reason is I think Gunslinger should be a Archetype that might be frequently used from this master class. [oh, and absolutely, appropriate archetypes, such as it need to be accessible from 1st level/character creation] If the Gunslinger Archetype can be applied to the Swashbuckling Archetype set, that might work, but I'm not sure if or how they would be planning for class type archetypes to be able to interact with/effect other archetype sets.

Spiritualist:
Not highly experienced with this class, although I recall thinking it might be able to be implemented as an Occult variant of a Druid. It might also might work as an occult variant of a summoner. [not sure if that would be a new class, or a class Archetype that would change the base in certain ways]

Warpriest: Maybe a class? Ok, given that Paladin used to be the to-go class for LG holy warriors for me, I'm feeling hope something can be done with something like warpriest. The new paladin in the playtest seemed more of the Ultimate Knight in Shining Armor now. Now with less important they god they follow, than the alignment they follow, and more about wearing really heavy armor and defending people. Only one paladin I ever played, would ever choose to wear heavy armor like plate, so unless there are Champion Class archetypes that correct that presumption, I'm disappointed with the loss of effective choices to build that type of character, so would hope something like Warpriest might exist to give me the option back. Granted, I'm one who 'does' like the Anathema aspects tied to faith that get applied to clerics and paladins. That was one plus towards tying behaviors of the paladin back towards their faith, and putting it into the rules. For the most those expectations would have been baseline expectations anyway had I been GMing someone wanting to play a paladin anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just thought I'd mention that based on the livestream from Thursday, Warpriest is now a Cleric subclass.

As someone who liked Warpriests much better than Clerics, this makes me both happy and sad.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I kind of feel like the existence of champions sort of eats into the Warpriest's role enough, which was already pretty niche, that I am kind of fine in it being reduced to a class path.


MMCJawa wrote:
I kind of feel like the existence of champions sort of eats into the Warpriest's role enough, which was already pretty niche, that I am kind of fine in it being reduced to a class path.

That or one of the career paths for the cleric being war cleric. Likely it will not cover all the ground, but...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
I kind of feel like the existence of champions sort of eats into the Warpriest's role enough, which was already pretty niche, that I am kind of fine in it being reduced to a class path.

I think you've got this backwards, the champion is lackluster enough that PF2 warpriests are going to replace them.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope they make most things archetypes and as few new classes as possible. One of the major problems with pf1 was having too many rules to do the same thing. For example: if you wanted to play a warrior-mage character then you could make it it by multiclassing fighter/wizard, or using the eldritch knight prestige class, or the magus class, or... And one of these choices is mechanically superior to the others. This led to many "trap" options that players who weren't rules gurus could fall in to.

Having less base classes and more archetypes for them could help reduce that multiple rules for the same thing problem.


I am firmly in the "some of the P1 classes should not come over" camp. Cavalier seems to already be there. I think summoner will go the way of the dodo. Many of the hybrid classes are out, as they can be better done as just a class path or whatever they're called.

Also expect some of the P2 versions will have almost nothing in common with P1 outside the name and vague description. Especially occult classes, which would be unlikely to fit in with the new P2 mechanics. Think about how different domains are vs. P1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I kind of feel like the existence of champions sort of eats into the Warpriest's role enough, which was already pretty niche, that I am kind of fine in it being reduced to a class path.
I think you've got this backwards, the champion is lackluster enough that PF2 warpriests are going to replace them.

Speak for yourself, some people had plenty of fun with Champions in the playtest.

I stand firm in believing that as long as Champion gets access to a more mobile/proactive way to use Retributive Strike, they are a highly effective class.


Now that I see Warpriest become part of Cleric... I just hope this game doesn't narrow the design space. They already got rid of 2/3 casting, now we're losing one of the most unique classes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
gnoams wrote:

I hope they make most things archetypes and as few new classes as possible. One of the major problems with pf1 was having too many rules to do the same thing. For example: if you wanted to play a warrior-mage character then you could make it it by multiclassing fighter/wizard, or using the eldritch knight prestige class, or the magus class, or... And one of these choices is mechanically superior to the others. This led to many "trap" options that players who weren't rules gurus could fall in to.

Having less base classes and more archetypes for them could help reduce that multiple rules for the same thing problem.

I have to admit I kind of hope for the opposite. Having the option to make a magus-like character via fighter multi-classed into wizard, or Wizard multi-classed into fighter to give different shades of that type of character are in my opinion better. I don't want someone deciding, it should have to be done this way and shepherd everyone into only one way to do something.

That is one reason why I have some slight concerns about tighter 'class identity' and walling off of things. Because I thoroughly enjoyed, for instance playing my rogue who was actually a prison guard. Familiar with security devices and how to incapacitate people quickly and (actually in his case) specializing in non-lethal damage. He was a rogue instead of a fighter, even though he was part of the 'law' of the area. This worked perfectly fine, and I was able to adequately explain any rogue abilities he had according to his background and personality.

I hope they don't build the class design walls up so high that the fluff starts becoming mandated and you have trouble making these interesting characters that don't necessarily fit the immediate assumptions you often associate with a particular class name.

edit:
PS: although classes with 2/3 casting may no longer exist strictly speaking, I'm not certain that how multi-classing works you can't effectually recreate a similar casting ability by dedicating some half your feats towards adding a casting class via continuing down a path of multi-classing dedication investments.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I love playing fighter/mages type characters, and for my taste, the playtest was very satisfying. My personal vision tends to be more heavily armored than I think most peoples, which is why 1e's Magus doesn't really work/come online til late levels (or very unsatisying archetypes) for me.

In particular I tried a Fey Sorcerer multi-classed to Fighter w/ Magical Striker. Elf, IIRC, pushed speed to pretty high extremes/knocked back down by heavy armor). Mobility wasn't a problem, had a mundane attack/act as flank buddy, plus had some battlefield control spells rather than direct damage. But could still combo with magical striker when it lined up. (Any arcane rather than Fey would have been more blasty if I wanted it, but this was partially just to see if playing off-type would work) Divine sorceror + fighter should have been basically a Warpriest as well, so will be interesting to see how the cleric subpath compares.

I felt like a character who could contribute in a variety of settings, without being a show-stealer. It wasn't the Magus, it wasn't the Eldritch Knight. It was something different and I understand why it wouldn't be what some people want. It did feel more like a JOAT, than a glass-cannon nova.

The only downside, to me, was the character concept doesn't really come together until 2nd level. (Not to mention any RP considerations)

Starting caster and then dedicating into fighter means you spend one level squishier than you want to be, and staying out of combat.

Starting fighter and then dedicating to a caster, means you'll sink all your feats for eternity into casting.

Still I guess compared to many 1e builds, needing only 2 levels to be close to functional in a chosen build is faster than usual. (Yes Magical Striker doesn't come online until 4th).... And of course the 1e magus doesn't realy come online until level 2 even if pure single class -- spellstrike is basically the defining class feature)


ChibiNyan wrote:
Now that I see Warpriest become part of Cleric... I just hope this game doesn't narrow the design space. They already got rid of 2/3 casting, now we're losing one of the most unique classes.

The two are inextricably linked, though. You either get spells (and all of them) or unique class features, and class feats can only do so much to fill in the gap on spellcasters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Warpriest was always going to be a tough sell for PF2 because the new action economy eats into their main shtick.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
j b 200 wrote:

I am firmly in the "some of the P1 classes should not come over" camp. Cavalier seems to already be there. I think summoner will go the way of the dodo. Many of the hybrid classes are out, as they can be better done as just a class path or whatever they're called.

Also expect some of the P2 versions will have almost nothing in common with P1 outside the name and vague description. Especially occult classes, which would be unlikely to fit in with the new P2 mechanics. Think about how different domains are vs. P1.

I'd love to see summoner combine with spiritualist, and maybe have a different version for each spell list. A Primal spirit, an eidolon, a ghost, and an archon (or something) would be pretty cool and be a unique direction for the class(es) to go


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.

Do indeed agree with you on this. I am getting rather nervy about the potential for the psychic being telescoped into the sorcerer class, which, to me, would be disheartening in the extreme.

1 to 50 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.