What NEW classes do you hope 2e brings?


Second Edition

1 to 50 of 370 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

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

We've had thread after thread discussing whether or not Gunslinger should be an Archetype, which Hybrid classes deserve to stay or how to convert the concept of a Summoner to 2e- this thread isn't about that. I want to see what you guys think would make great brand new classes, niches of fantasy not yet touched by Pathfinder! Maybe this thread will serve to help Paizo brainstorm ideas and see what its users want in the future, so let's keep it simple: a niche, whether gameplay or flavourwise, which can't be used by any current classes in Pathfinder and can have widespread use in a variety of settings.

Here's a few of my concepts so far!
Marshall
The Marshall was a Mythic Class, but it always felt so unique and different. A melee combatant with inspirational abilities. As it stands, there's no class that *fits* the concept of a disciplined soldier. Sure, I could use Fighter, but they seem too rough and tumble. And Champions are great, but what if I'm not in a crusade? What if I'm just fighting for my king? The Cavalier was close to this concept, but I didn't want to be tied down to a horse. So bring back the Marshall to buff allies with a rousing speech and rush into battle!

Archaeologist
The most popular Archetype in PF history that was so different to the base class that it was essentially a new class. An adventurer skilled in lore, tomb robbing and luck- and with the volume of tombs around Golarion, this diehard adventurer would be an excellent fit to many parties, especially ones which delve deep into dungeons!

Archivist
They say knowledge is power- so prove it! Unlike the Wizard, I'm thinking a true master of knowledge- someone who can identify foes, traps and treasures and use their powers against them. This one isn't as fleshed out as the others, but that's okay- the concept is all that's needed to start us off, and an explorer with a big book of knowledge that he can use to solve fights without magic or weapons is certainly a fun concept!

What about you? Any ideas on your fronts?


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Im definetly hoping for some sort of charisma based fighter that isnt the champion, more like a warlord or military leader that buffs his allies through the power of TEAMWORK!


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Davido1000 wrote:
Im definetly hoping for some sort of charisma based fighter that isnt the champion, more like a warlord or military leader that buffs his allies through the power of TEAMWORK!

+1 for Magical Girls. #SorryNotSorry


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd also love a Marshal/Commander - A martial party coordinator and buffer. PF1 cavalier with its dishing out teamwork feats was cool. Something like that.

As another new class would be a Blue Mage type. A class that gets special abilities from enemies. I think with the Traits of creatures and the way PF2 does animal companions (by category, not specific type) such a class would be possible. Possible as in balanced, not abusable and kept in limits.
The class would absorb powers from enemies via hit or from killed ones and keeps it for a time. Such as a predefined "construct" power from a golem or an "evil" power from a devil.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A fixed version of the Synthesist, built as the core of the class. Essentially something that can shape-shift as their exclusive focus, and probably with no spells.

Something akin to Matt Mercer's Lingering Soul for 5E (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/226513/The-Lingering-Soul--Class-PostDeat h-Option).


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It'd be pretty awesome if they explored a Shapeshifting class that could basically wild shape like a druid and gets some monk-like abilities to beef up their combat.

It could be called the Shifter and set a benchmark for spell-less shapeshifting classes!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd be kind of interested to see something in the spirit of a Blue Mage. I know you couldn't really have a full Blue Mage because a class that can just permanently learn abilities by being hit with them doesn't fit in a game like this, but maybe a class with the ability to temporarily adapt and use abilities he is hit with, maybe with a skill check against the attackers DC, so stronger enemy attacks are harder to get but you still have a chance to briefly get a big ability like that.

And their class feats could include monster abilities or similar versions, letting them permanently learn some enemy attacks like a proper Blue Mage.


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

Both a war leader-type Charisma based fighter and a Shifter sound like awesome ideas.

I'm also a little bit enamored of the idea of a magical girl-type character, I must admit. XD Somewhere between Synthesist and Vigilante? That could be a fun design space. :)


I'll echo the support for a warlord/marshal style character. Though in general I'd like to see more martial characters that care about their mental stats. Smart Fighter was another archetype that was kind of hard to execute in PF1 without adding in magic.

Also think a dedicated synthesist as a sort of re-imagining of the Shifter would be neat.

Beyond that I'd kind of like to see Paizo take another crack at the baseline Summoner. Companion-focused classes that aren't druids or along the same lines as the druid (i.e. PF1's ranger, hunter and various animal companion archetypes) is an underutilized niche and the Summoner's flexibility and conceptual opennness was really nice, even if the PF1 summoner had a lot of mechanical trouble and I think building it into the magical nonspellcaster design space PF2 seems to be exploring a bit might be a way to pull it off more effectively.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm surprised there's so much support for a Shifter return- most other places seem to agree that it rolls into Wild Druid. That being said, I'm totally on board with it, especially if it fits with Synthesist!

Blue Mage copycats would be very fun- I do wonder how they would work, though? Maybe they can copy the abilities of a foe, or maybe they can eventually even mimic the foes appearance, etc etc. I've never played Final Fantasy, but it's certainly a pretty big archetype!

Also, glad to see people agree that a warlord/marshal type class is needed. Paizo, take note!


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I want to see an artificer, but more along the lines of using gadgets and technological inventions to fight as opposed to just being an item crafter. I want to be a gadgeteer.


Derry L. Zimeye wrote:

I'm surprised there's so much support for a Shifter return- most other places seem to agree that it rolls into Wild Druid. That being said, I'm totally on board with it, especially if it fits with Synthesist!

Blue Mage copycats would be very fun- I do wonder how they would work, though? Maybe they can copy the abilities of a foe, or maybe they can eventually even mimic the foes appearance, etc etc. I've never played Final Fantasy, but it's certainly a pretty big archetype!

Also, glad to see people agree that a warlord/marshal type class is needed. Paizo, take note!

The problem with "blue mage" type things is the same as "druids can only change form into something they've encountered". Some people will runs it super restrictively and others much more loosely, intersecting at the road called PFS.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

PFS could break things down by rarity, right? A list of common creatures by starting region, and then would the history of what adventures the character has been in unlock creatures from those adventures?

I don't know how much PFS tracks....


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
BluLion wrote:
I want to see an artificer, but more along the lines of using gadgets and technological inventions to fight as opposed to just being an item crafter. I want to be a gadgeteer.

Oh! Like the PF2e Alchemist, but for tech items. I'm 100% in favor of that, that would be awesome.

It's also kind of obvious enough, now that I think of it, that I wouldn't be surprised if we got exactly that at some point. Maybe just as an Alchemist archetype.


I'd love to see something akin to the third-party Severist from PF1. Something themed around being able to see magical bonds between casters and whatever magic they've used and interact with them.


The Marshal was a nice class from the D&D 3.5e Miniatures Handbook (IIRC). When we converted characters from D&D 3.5e to PF1 there was no good conversion for a Marshal character that I had. We settled for Cavalier, but it just wasn't the same. A Fighter/Bard was kind of similar, but also not that same. I haven't seen the Mythic version you talk about... probably because the Mythic rules flopped horribly in both games that tried them.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:


Also, glad to see people agree that a warlord/marshal type class is needed. Paizo, take note!

I randomly yell this at various moments whenever I think someone who can make that decision might be listening. I want a core martial tactician very, very much.

Chance Wyvernspur wrote:
The Marshal was a nice class from the D&D 3.5e Miniatures Handbook (IIRC). When we converted characters from D&D 3.5e to PF1 there was no good conversion for a Marshal character that I had. We settled for Cavalier, but it just wasn't the same. A Fighter/Bard was kind of similar, but also not that same. I haven't seen the Mythic version you talk about... probably because the Mythic rules flopped horribly in both games that tried them.

You might check out the 3pp Battle Lord class from Amora Games if this is something you're still interested in. The Commander from Spheres of Might is also a martial leader type; my wife plays one in our Return of the Runelords game here at the office.


Michael, while you're here, any word on Dreamscarred classes ending up in PF2, either officially or 3PP?

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saedar wrote:
Michael, while you're here, any word on Dreamscarred classes ending up in PF2, either officially or 3PP?

Absolutely no idea. You'll probably want to try reaching out to Jeremy or Andreas through either their Patreon page or dreamscarred.com to see if they have any plans they're ready to announce yet. I suspect that like most 3pps they're holding off on saying anything specific until Paizo announces what the PF2 licensing is going to look like.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Michael Sayre wrote:
You might check out the 3pp Battle Lord class from Amora Games if this is something you're still interested in. The Commander from Spheres of Might is also a martial leader type; my wife plays one in our Return of the Runelords game here at the office.

I believe Super Genius Games also has the War Master class, which is very much the martial tactician/bard style class and pretty well written.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

DRAGOON!

Acrobatics, STRENGTH based class who can use verticality and charges with Polearms to great effect while wearing Heavy Armor with Class Abilities that cancel out Armor Check Penalties to Skills. They are anti-cavalry and flying creature specialists WITHOUT needing Magic Spells or Items to boost their martial prowess. They would be right up there with Rangers as the "Iconic Monster Hunters" of the world.

People have been homebrewing this Class for 25+ years now and I've YET to see a really well-done version yet. PLEASE!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:

DRAGOON!

Acrobatics, STRENGTH based class who can use verticality and charges with Polearms to great effect while wearing Heavy Armor with Class Abilities that cancel out Armor Check Penalties to Skills. They are anti-cavalry and flying creature specialists WITHOUT needing Magic Spells or Items to boost their martial prowess. They would be right up there with Rangers as the "Iconic Monster Hunters" of the world.

People have been homebrewing this Class for 25+ years now and I've YET to see a really well-done version yet. PLEASE!

So, one thing I really love about this concept is that it's a martial class with "mystical" ability (like the monk) to perform astounding feats of acrobatics, even at early-ish levels, while also wearing armor. It's distinct. I would probably model it after the monk mechanically.

I probably wouldn't call it Dragoon because that never made any sense, and should be used by a mounted character.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I don't want a Marshall class. I want awesome skill feats for the social skills that let you do things you'd want a Marshall to do, Fighter class feats that leverage the idea of being a superior tactician and/or a archetype like the pirate that lets anyone lean into that trope.

I mean yeah a Marshall class would allow me to build a tactician wizard, but as a martial class I'm sure its dedication would have some of it benefits "wasted" on proficiency. As a Tactician archetype it can be focused purely on extra abilities and my hypothetical wizard can use it to shout out sound tactical advice from the backline while another hypothetical fighter/champion/barbarian could do so from the front.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

How about a Tourist class?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:

I don't want a Marshall class. I want awesome skill feats for the social skills that let you do things you'd want a Marshall to do, Fighter class feats that leverage the idea of being a superior tactician and/or a archetype like the pirate that lets anyone lean into that trope.

I mean yeah a Marshall class would allow me to build a tactician wizard, but as a martial class I'm sure its dedication would have some of it benefits "wasted" on proficiency. As a Tactician archetype it can be focused purely on extra abilities and my hypothetical wizard can use it to shout out sound tactical advice from the backline while another hypothetical fighter/champion/barbarian could do so from the front.

Honestly, I agree. A fighter who doesn't dump intelligence or charisma should realistically be able to do this stuff if they put their character resources into it.

A "Marshall" class could easily be an archetype any class could take that turns you into a "tactician" type character, if not everything can be covered by skill uses.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

11 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

Honestly, I agree. A fighter who doesn't dump intelligence or charisma should realistically be able to do this stuff if they put their character resources into it.

A "Marshall" class could easily be an archetype any class could take that turns you into a "tactician" type character, if not everything can be covered by skill uses.

It's all about scope, really. If you don't want anything more than the PF1 cavalier offers tactically, a tactician archetype fits the bill neatly. If you want something with enough depth to fill out a niche comfortably, then a full base class with a multiclass archetype gives you everything that just the archetype alone would grant plus a full chassis for those who want to be dedicated leaders to build on.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
arkham wrote:
How about a Tourist class?

That's a monster.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Saedar wrote:
Davido1000 wrote:
Im definetly hoping for some sort of charisma based fighter that isnt the champion, more like a warlord or military leader that buffs his allies through the power of TEAMWORK!
+1 for Magical Girls. #SorryNotSorry

A Magical Girl/Sentai/Kamen Rider-style class could actually be pretty neat, I think. I would like to see that.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Michael Sayre wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

Honestly, I agree. A fighter who doesn't dump intelligence or charisma should realistically be able to do this stuff if they put their character resources into it.

A "Marshall" class could easily be an archetype any class could take that turns you into a "tactician" type character, if not everything can be covered by skill uses.

It's all about scope, really. If you don't want anything more than the PF1 cavalier offers tactically, a tactician archetype fits the bill neatly. If you want something with enough depth to fill out a niche comfortably, then a full base class with a multiclass archetype gives you everything that just the archetype alone would grant plus a full chassis for those who want to be dedicated leaders to build on.

I'm probably biased against it because of the 4E incarnation of the Marshall, the Warlord, was so narrow in scope, that it felt super restrictive. Most of the exploits boiled down to you trading some of your action economy to put people in more advantageous positions, or give them more actions, which are things I'd love to see a Bard or Fighter be able to do.

I'm always leary of filling a niche too neatly because then niche protection kicks in, and anyone that wants to build a more interesting tactician character gets blamed for stepping on the purpose-built classes' toes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

+1 for a Magical Girl class.

Also, how about a Ritualist class? Now that magical rituals are part of the core rules, I think there is a good opportunity to have a class (or even just an archetype) based on using longer rituals as opposed to standard magic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon Onozuka wrote:

+1 for a Magical Girl class.

Also, how about a Ritualist class? Now that magical rituals are part of the core rules, I think there is a good opportunity to have a class (or even just an archetype) based on using longer rituals as opposed to standard magic.

Problem here is that it probably needs to have some capacity for combat as its primary shtick. The game is largely combat driven, so what would a non-caster Ritualist bring to the turn-based combat space?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Meophist wrote:
Saedar wrote:
Davido1000 wrote:
Im definetly hoping for some sort of charisma based fighter that isnt the champion, more like a warlord or military leader that buffs his allies through the power of TEAMWORK!
+1 for Magical Girls. #SorryNotSorry
A Magical Girl/Sentai/Kamen Rider-style class could actually be pretty neat, I think. I would like to see that.

I like the idea, even if those feel like different classes despite the "vaguely anime" theme.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

Honestly, I agree. A fighter who doesn't dump intelligence or charisma should realistically be able to do this stuff if they put their character resources into it.

A "Marshall" class could easily be an archetype any class could take that turns you into a "tactician" type character, if not everything can be covered by skill uses.

It's all about scope, really. If you don't want anything more than the PF1 cavalier offers tactically, a tactician archetype fits the bill neatly. If you want something with enough depth to fill out a niche comfortably, then a full base class with a multiclass archetype gives you everything that just the archetype alone would grant plus a full chassis for those who want to be dedicated leaders to build on.

Making it a full class also doesn't preclude it from being an archetype, since multiclass archetypes exist. So your wizard tactician, fighter tactician, etc can all still exist.

Making it a class also allows them to create more class feats for it down the line without cluttering the game up like teamwork feats did, which were basically class feats that anyone could take but were useless to almost everyone. (I suppose technically you can add new feats to an archetype, but for whatever reason it strikes me as unlikely.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Something I'd like to see, based on the similar classes from starfinder, the Solarion and the Vanguard, is a class with some kind of building resource.

I really hope that classes with more complex mechanics aren't going to be completely absent from second edition.

Maybe something like a martial/caster hybrid class that "galvanizes arcane power" as they charge in and swing their blade before unleashing it with fancy burst attacks or self buffs.

Another thing I'd like to see, maybe based on a reworked kineticist, is a class with a straight-up stance system. Some abilities having modified effects based on current stance or are only available in a given stance, with maybe feats that allow them to transition from one stance to another more fluidly than a monk.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Saedar wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:

+1 for a Magical Girl class.

Also, how about a Ritualist class? Now that magical rituals are part of the core rules, I think there is a good opportunity to have a class (or even just an archetype) based on using longer rituals as opposed to standard magic.

Problem here is that it probably needs to have some capacity for combat as its primary shtick. The game is largely combat driven, so what would a non-caster Ritualist bring to the turn-based combat space?

A Ritualist Class with permanent buffs (or Focus Spells available), or ones changeable at the start of every day, from class-exclusive Rituals seems very possible and might scratch the itch some people have for the 3.5 Warlock (well, the part Kineticist doesn't scratch, anyway).

I, too, am entirely onboard with a mundane Marshall class with mechanics to actually support party buffing. Bards are great, but making a non-magical version of Inspire Courage seems pretty casually easy given the mechanics on PF2 Inspire Courage, and a good foundation to build a class on.

I'm also onboard with a shapeshifter class ala the Synthesist/Shifter discussed above. Being able to play a werecreature as a Class is a niche that's always been rarer in D&D/Pathfinder than it needed to be.

Finally, my own suggestion would be a mutant/cyborg/part-demon/otherwise inherent inhuman power Class (I'd probably call it 'Mutant' but I could see going another way on that). Something to represent any permanent mystical (or technological, in Numeria) enhancement of the physical form (inhuman strength, having claws or a built-in weapon now, gaining chameleon-like skin, etc.). You could theoretically do this with Bloodrager in PF1, but it wasn't a perfect fit since a lot of those abilities only applied while Raging. There were also Archetypes that did some part of this...but almost none that just had features like 'oh, I have wings and a scorpion tail now...all the time', which is what I'm suggesting.


Making a mundane tactics bonus mechanic would probably utilize a circumstance bonus like Monster Hunter does, which would be nice because it would stack with Inspire Courage.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
So, one thing I really love about this concept is that it's a martial class with "mystical" ability (like the monk) to perform astounding feats of acrobatics, even at early-ish levels, while also wearing armor. It's distinct. I would probably model it after the monk mechanically.

In general I feel like mystical characters that aren't explicitly spellcasters is design space that could be explored more. PF1 has... the monk, shifter and kineticist and that's pretty much it. I think there's a lot more one could do with that concept.

Malk_Content wrote:
I don't want a Marshall class. I want awesome skill feats for the social skills that let you do things you'd want a Marshall to do, Fighter class feats that leverage the idea of being a superior tactician and/or a archetype like the pirate that lets anyone lean into that trope.

I get where you're coming from and I sort of agree, but invariably bolting an idea onto an existing class means you're not likely to get much long term support or fleshed out, fully realized designs.

Like on a surface level I think there's a compelling argument to be made that the PF1 Cavalier, Samurai, Gunslinger, Swashbuckler, Vigilante and maybe even Monk could and should have all been things you could build with the Fighter instead of their own classes. They're narrow concepts and all kind of build off of 'guy who fights well' anyways.

But at the same time, if that were the case I think most of them would be pretty underdesigned and forgettable. They wouldn't have the same level of support a real class gets. I mean I guess you could make the case about some of them even as they are now, but still.

WatersLethe wrote:
I'm probably biased against it because of the 4E incarnation of the Marshall, the Warlord, was so narrow in scope, that it felt super restrictive.

Really? I always thought the 4e Warlord was one of the best executions of that concept, even a lot of people I know who hate 4e still think it's neat. It even manages to have a few really distinct archetypes you can build into despite its ostensibly narrow scope, from the very bardlike chalord who throws out combat bonuses and temp HP to the more backline intlord that literally orders allies around, to much more aggressive middling builds that act almost like full damage dealers in their own right with a smattering of support.

Though I do agree in general that classes that are too specialized can feel really iffy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Marshal/Cavalier could well exist within one class, with mount stuff being specific option.
Similarly Archaeologist/Archivist seem similar enough, including in difference vs Bard, to be own thing, with differences being options.
(IMHO these would work well with Prepared/Spellbook casting, cementing distinction vs Bard and rationale for unique class)
(or alternatively, I could see just using Focus powers, even if involving Scrolls/Spellbooks like Mnemonic Vest)

I think "Ritualist" as DMW describes could very well fit within new take on Shaman, again being specific options/focus.
It's also somewhat related to Medium, which didn't seem to be most successful implementation in 1E, but looks promising for 2E,
and tying it more to "Ritual" mechanics could be way to grant further "umph" to the class to be attractive.

On Gunslinger, I do really really want it to be Alchemy related, although being a PrC* really seems best route IMHO,
it would still be synergistic with Alchemists, and offer some Alchemical options to non-Alchemists.
I also want to see more options for "gadgeteer" Alchemists including repeating crossbows, prosthetic armor limbs etc.
* Really, Firearm proficiency makes sense as pre-req, balanced to OK-ish when taken alone and "worth it" as PrC build.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MusicAddict wrote:
Another thing I'd like to see, maybe based on a reworked kineticist, is a class with a straight-up stance system. Some abilities having modified effects based on current stance or are only available in a given stance, with maybe feats that allow them to transition from one stance to another more fluidly than a monk.

I feel I'd prefer to see stances made more accessible/fluid to monks/fighters rather than shifting them off to another class. In the playtest, I know that my biggest issue with stance feats was that players saw it being more optimal to put all their feats/resources into making one stance as effective as possible and then never changing stances or taking other stances unless they were prerequisites.


Less of a class then a concept, but perhaps a class which {for magic} solely has and focuses on cantrips. {ie having more of then then any other class, along with there own class cantrips {we saw that with the bard if I recall, with 'Inspire courage'} and class feats/features which impowers them.} Perhaps this could be a way of doing the '2/3 caster' in PF2 (ie you never get any higher spells then cantrips, but you get more of them, and while there power will always be behind that of the higher level spells, they do grow more powerful over time, and the lack of higher spells allows the class to have more stuff outside of magic.)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I want to see a class that takes the Deed mechanics from the Gunslinger and Swashbuckler and is less narrowly focused. Leaning more into risk-taking and the small pool of points.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good call on the Warlock by DMW. I always loved that class. Ditto to all of the Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic (in theory, if not execution) and Incarnum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I kinda like the ritualist idea, but IMO what I think of is someone taking a LONG time to cast a spell, that has major consequences for those it is cast on. I'm thinking between 3-9 actions, need not be consecutive, but can't try and cast something in between, so like attacking once or moving would be fine.

Though I may just build this for my setting...


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Time to go against the flow.

I don't want many new classes. In fact, I probably don't want any new classes, at least not classes that P1 didn't make.
What I want is more concepts.

I was discussing last week with a friend of mine about this campaign he's playing in, and he bemoaned the issue of being faced with the choice of either going for a very complex multiclass PrC build for the character concept he wanted, or... take a single, very specific class, fulfill his mechanical concept several levels earlier, but be directed towards a different flavour.
It eventually led to the complaint that P1 did cover a lot of concepts with its ever-expanding content, but all in very specific ways (albeit several hundreds very specific ways). This one specific mechanic goes specifically here and with this, this other specific mechanic does exactly this, and this is what you do with it. It's amazing because it lets you do whatever you want, but paradoxically unflexible because if what you want isn't exactly covered, you get pushed in other directions.

Rather than having more niche classes dedicated to an unexplored concept, I would rather have classes and archetypes that can apply to a wide array of concepts. While I love the idea of a military commander on the table, the Marshal class would probably be unwelcome, and I would rather have a Tactician archetype my Fighter, Wizard or Rogue can take to fit the flavour of their background and character.

Basically while I definitely expect more base classes in the future, I would rather have them wide than narrow, and entrust flavour and variations to archetypes or feats.
Peace


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm hoping there won't be a lot of class bloat. Especially classes with incredibly narrow focuses. Some of these being suggested seem way too narrow to me to justify a base class. I want classes to be broad concepts that fit a lot of different, smaller concepts inside of them. Archetypes do a good job for more niche roles. As does the feat-based nature of classes now.

I'm also more interested in getting some of the PF1 classes over to PF2 before we start going off and making new weird classes. I mean, there are 40 of them, that's a lot of classes. And not all of those need to be full classes either.

EDIT: Ninjaed by Edwir. He said a lot of what I was getting at, but probably a bit clearer. Especially the bit about all the very specific options being paradoxically restrictive.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

I verily agree with both persons above me. o_o
I like fiddling with concepts more than "builds", and with the "Multiclass Dedication" and "Archetypes Dedications" feats, PF2 seems to be a great place for me. Just with the playtest I have lots of concepts I wanna try that I now can that I couldn't, or hardly do because of my low system mastery.


I wanna see the return of Prestige Classes. Easily my favorite part of 3e. Combat focused, Magic focused, Crafting focused, Disguise focused, Class focused. They allowed for some of the most interesting concepts and since they weren’t full classes they could be as weird or off the wall as would be allowed. Some of my absolute favorite classes were Prestige ones.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree that there should be a cap on total number of Classes. Specifically, I think a lot of Classes in PF1 are fine as Archetypes or subclasses. We know Warpriest is now a Cleric path, and Cavalier (in the 'I have a horse' sense) as an Archetype was fine.

I do think there's definitely room for a lot of the Classes in PF1 to be converted over, though (my list would be Inquisitor, Oracle, Summoner, Witch, Investigator, Shaman, Kineticist, Occultist, Psychic, and maybe Medium and/or Mesmerist).

And I also think that there's thus room for new Classes. Maybe not a huge number, but certainly four or five legitimately new and different options (I could easily see a total of 30 Classes being fine...that's be 7 or 8 ). For one thing, there's definitely room for Prepared and Spontaneous casters for all four spell lists, plus a 'modular' prepared class like Sorcerers are for spontaneous. Some of that might be covered by the above (I could easily see Witches as Prepared Occult Casters, Shamans as Spontaneous Primal ones, and Oracles naturally as Spontaneous Divine), but that probably still leaves some areas uncovered, and that's leaving aside things like a non-magical buffing Class (something well represented in fiction and even found among monster stats but underrepresented mechanically).

I agree with Ediwir that PF1 can have issues with forcing particular concepts down specific mechanical paths, but also think that, due to how Multiclassing works in PF2, all Classes come with a free Archetype for every other Class, which makes that much less of an issue. And new players in particular have a much easier time making a particular character type if it doesn't require going into the Archetype rules.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Disappointed I haven't seen BINDER in this thread. I know we eventually got the "Medium", a boringversion of the Binder without any of the cool flavor or power, so yeah, Binder gets my vote.

In case you didn't know, this is a 3.5E class (with a PF update by 3pp) that is similar to the Medium. They discover ancient rituals that allow them to contact mysterious cosmic entities (Which were known as Vestiges, forgotten deities and heroes) and draw them into their body, each granting a bunch of abilities but also giving you restrictions based on their perosnality and offering more power in exchange for more control.

Very flexible class which could use it's bonus feats and bonus "augmentations" to specialize and some roles and become more than just a jack of all trades. They also got some miscellaneous occult abilities, like talking to spirits, protection from mind control and resistance to energy drain effects based on their "two souls in one body" idea.

EDIT: I'll admit later Medium archetypes added specific flavorful spirits to bind, but it was always lame you only ever had like 4-5 choices rather than 20+.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think 30+ classes is way too much. If a concept can be achieved by building on and supporting an already existing class, I think it should be.

For most things this means new feats or class path/archetype. Some I genuinely feel are exploring space not afforded under a current class scope, namely those that want to do things that are currently connected to a casting class that want to do so without casting. So Shifter gets my vote, but even then I could see it as building off barbarian totem or a monk (okay I might just love Jade Empire.)

1 to 50 of 370 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / What NEW classes do you hope 2e brings? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.