What NEW classes do you hope 2e brings?


Second Edition

51 to 100 of 370 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I still don't think these alternatives do a lot to make a Smart Fighter in particular a great class, as simply having some Tactician archetype means that a Wizard or what have you that already wants Int is always going to be better suited for it. That is a weakness with the multiclass system, some combinations are out of the gate just going to be better than others and that can feel restrictive in its own right.

I think that having multiple dedication feats for the same archetype can help with this somewhat, by offering different entry points into the same class or archetype. Martial characters might be able to snag something special to bring them more up to par with INT casters so long they meet a Tactician archetype's high INT requirement.

That and I just really like new classes. They're great inspiration and they have the ability to really do something out of the box mechanically rather than just ask the player to spend a few hours trying to think of the bet way to emulate a concept that may very well turn out to be rubbish. A proper Synthesist is just easier to get excited about and get your imagination racing than trying to figure out how you can maaaybe get a Wild Druid to sorta do the same thing but not really.

Liberty's Edge

11 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
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.

The original playtest Medium was much more like what you seem to be interested in (with 54 spirits based on the Harrow cards). And was basically pared down to the official version because of page count issues.

A whole lot of people, myself included, would love to see something like the Binder/Harrowed Medium for a new edition. Though page count remains a potential issue.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
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.

The original playtest Medium was much more like what you seem to be interested in (with 54 spirits based on the Harrow cards). And was basically pared down to the official version because of page count issues.

A whole lot of people, myself included, would love to see something like the Binder/Harrowed Medium for a new edition. Though page count remains a potential issue.

Just make them 52 feats. See? That fits in the pages. Maybe.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:
Just make them 52 feats. See? That fits in the pages. Maybe.

It's 54. ;)

But yes, this has real potential to work. It would've been more of an issue in PF1, but something like this in PF2 sounds very interesting to me.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Something that fits the niche of Synthesist Summoner would be nice. I'd consider that niche to be "customizing yourself", a class that spends its features and choices on a form. (It'd be kind of cool to have the class subsume ancestry, but I can see having a "walk about the town" form being useful both for players and to keep the class from sticking out in fiction too much.)

I'd really like shapeshifting in a class to move away from ties to nature. We have Druid- for a Shifter class, I'd like to see it distinct from Druid not only in its mechanics (swapping casting out, maybe using a different mental stat), but also in flavor. I'd want a trickster that isn't tied to respecting nature and given a bunch of features to live in the woods. I want to run cons by pretending to be an angel or a devil, then lay low as a rat in the city dump if they catch on. I want to be able to copy specific people and mimic auras. I want Transmuters and Druids to be jealous not just because I've got better durations, but because I can do things they can't.


If we get a Tactition class, I damn well should be able to make a non-mind controlling ZERO!/Lelouch. As for a new class, I want something like the Esoteric Magus or the Ascetic Kineticist, an individual who take the essences of nature/magic and imbues them into himself and then PUNCHES YOU IN THE FACE WITH IT! Something beyond the Monk's "Ki Strike" move, where you're damage comes from the essence punch, not your fist itself. Finally, I want something like the Warp Witch from Starfinder; a class who focuses on literally shaping reality to their advantage, lowering gravity to jump higher, making the otherwise smooth landscape rugged so it's difficult terrain, causing the light level in the area to fluctuate to blind them by either making it too bright or too dark.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
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.

The original playtest Medium was much more like what you seem to be interested in (with 54 spirits based on the Harrow cards). And was basically pared down to the official version because of page count issues.

A whole lot of people, myself included, would love to see something like the Binder/Harrowed Medium for a new edition. Though page count remains a potential issue.

Oh man, how did I forget about Binder?

One of the 3PPs did a conversion of Binder to Pathfinder (Called Occultist, unfortunately, which makes it harder to track down now) and I played one for Rise of the Runelords. Easily one of my favorite characters. I would love something like that for 2e. Specifically the bit about finding new entities to contract with organically over the course of the campaign.

Kinda also scratches the "blue mage" itch a bit, depending on how it is implemented. I remember my GM having a couple bosses in RotR become contractable spirits after being defeated, and that was fun.


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.

I can see where games that involve 4-6 PCs running through a Paizo AP don't want/need to address a Marshal with more than some Feats.

Alas, the game I have in mind doesn't conform to the Paizo adventure conceptual model. We occasionally field warbands and armies. Battles with warbands are resolved using the regular PF1 rules. They take a while to play out, but we like it. Anyways, the D&D 3.5 Marshal worked well in those sessions by enabling squads of low-level characters. In a regular game, nobody would ever take those Feats.

I guess my point is the class/ability need somewhat depends on the game and I could see where Paizo never supports what my local game actually needs because its unlike the typical game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mostly GM, so the main thing I always want are simple classes for roles that don't have them. This might not be as big a concern for P2 as it was for P1, but classes for blasters, healers, and so forth that a new player can understand without searching through the spells' chapter are a huge plus.

For personal use, I really like classes with pools that you interact with during battle. Less focus or even grit/panache as the vanguard from Starfinder or most classes from Iron Heroes back in the day.

Cheers!
Landon


I'd kind of like something along the lines of Everyman Gaming's Vessel. Its a cool concept that doesn't really fit neatly into any other class


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Do you have a link to that class? I haven't heard of it.


Siro wrote:
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.)

I built a class for PF that focused on cantrips. ;)

For PF2, give them access to all cantrips from every list and unique ones of their own. Then give them the ability to cast a cantrip with one less action per round [or an ability to spend 3 actions to cast multiple cantrips like a 'flurry of cantrips'] and then lower the penalty for multiple attacks in a round for cantrips. Then maybe an ability to move as a free action when casting a cantrip. Maybe an AoO with a cantrip.

For non-cantrip abilities, light armor, simple weapons plus a few martial, a good amount of kills [6-8] and maybe some bonus skill feats [like 1/4 or 1/5 level].

Though this type of class could step on the toes of a potential Kineticist class which i could see using a cantrip like format like the bard and 'Inspire courage'.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A class that function like a pokemon trainer or blue-mage that could catch/assimilate enemies to gain some of their abilities, likely only being able to store a limited selection. The core concept would be that the experience of playing the class would be different depending on the campaign and the monsters that appear, so it never gets old and there's near-infinite possible combinations.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly I hope they don't base whole classes on the use of gimmicks, like "this class uses only cantrips all the time!".

I hope they find their design space in strong narrative themes that need to be explored, within the framework of Golarion (3pps can develop classes that wouldn't fit, like the various FF jobs many seem to want).

I also hope they don't publish new classes when archetypes could do the job, because class inflation will mean that all classes will receive less support. I'm all for more support for the classes we already have.

I'm all for resurrecting some classes from 1e that just couldn't be done well with the ones we have in 2e (kineticist, summoner, psychic, shaman, witch...) while using archetypes to model those that are just variants (samurai, ninja, cavalier, vigilante, gunslinger...).


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't loath Vancian casting the way others do, but I would really like to see some non-vancian magical classes. Maybe something to do with Words of Power or a Kineticist remake. Another option would be a Mechanic or Blacksmith class that forges its own magically imbued weapons and armor; each class feat adding a new power to your gear. Ooh! A true Arcane Theurge class!

A true gish class that melds fighting and casting would be cool, maybe something like the Swordmage from 4e. I also really loved the old Hexblade from 3.5, and I think a melee light-fighter with some debuffs, a small magic pool, and a summoned animal companion would be cool.

Stances were such a cool and overtaxed part of PF1, I think a Master-of-Many-Styles class could be great as either a full class or Archtype.

Rangers had the Trapper archetype that let them place and throw traps around the battlefield, which could be pretty cool.

I feel like the Witch would be a big contender for coming back as a full class, but with Bards/Sorcerers being a full Occultist caster, there's not a terrible amount of design space left for the Witch. Maybe make it an archtype?

Inquisitor on the other hand has a ton of design space. Judgements, banes, inquisitor domains, and a nice, tight spell list? You can also pile on with the Intimidation focus.

Slayer and Swashbuckler seem like prime targets for archtypes. Cavs, Oracle, Arcanist, Bloodrager, Brawler, Hunter, Investigator, Shaman, Skald, and Warpriest all feel like they can be baked into existing classes to multiclasses (ie bloodrager being a simple barb/sorc multiclass).

Also cool would be to bring back the old multiclass PRCs like Nature Warded and Eldritch Knight that requires your character to already be multiclassed in certain classes. So, imagine a Rage Prophet archtype that requires the PC to be a Barbarian with X number of Sorcerer multiclass feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
john salb wrote:
Imagine a Rage Prophet archtype that requires the PC to be a Barbarian with X number of Sorcerer multiclass feats.

That specific example sounds a little too strict considering you already have to dedicate 3 feats to multiclassing before you can choose another one.

Having a couple of class specific ones, or requiring a class as a prerequisite could be nice so long as they were sprinkled in as the exception to the rule; but this might fall into Class Archetype territory.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
john salb wrote:
Imagine a Rage Prophet archtype that requires the PC to be a Barbarian with X number of Sorcerer multiclass feats.

That specific example sounds a little too strict considering you already have to dedicate 3 feats to multiclassing before you can choose another one.

Having a couple of class specific ones, or requiring a class as a prerequisite could be nice so long as they were sprinkled in as the exception to the rule; but this might fall into Class Archetype territory.

Shouldn't be too hard to work around.

Rage Prophet
Prerequisites: Bloodline or Rage

Spells you cast gain the Rage tag.
Trigger: When you use the Rage action, you may activate a Bloodline power or make a Verbal Spell Action this round as a free action.
This feat counts as a Sorcerer or Barbarian Archetype feat.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
I also hope they don't publish new classes when archetypes could do the job, because class inflation will mean that all classes will receive less support. I'm all for more support for the classes we already have.

I see it from the other side: I don't want every new 'class' to be an archetype and the only unique support is in the archetype feat sections of the books. What good is more support for the class you taped the archetype on if the vast majority of it doesn't apply to archetype? You trade off \support for individual classes in uneven support for those 'classes' that are made archetypes.

"strong narrative themes that need to be explored" vary from person to person: Is a witch one that needs explored as a class or an archetype? *Shrug* 12 people will give 12 reasons why it should or shouldn't. Does the summoner need enough unique abilities that it needs a class or does it only have a few and can manage with an archetype? I think that will drive class vs archetype more than "strong narrative themes". No matter how they do it, you're going to see people that wished it was done the other way. ;P


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

I have a class concept I would love to see I kinda refer to as a Planer Blacksmith. They recieve powers directly from the planes themselves to create items and powers. Use the essence of hell to create armor and weapons or use very forceful law based powers. Pull from the boneyard to heal allies and harm foes, banish undead and ghosts. Draw from heaven to create a sword of holy power at the same time that you pull from maelstrom to make a shield to protect you from lawful creatures.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vorsk, Follower or Erastil wrote:
I have a class concept I would love to see I kinda refer to as a Planer Blacksmith. They recieve powers directly from the planes themselves to create items and powers. Use the essence of hell to create armor and weapons or use very forceful law based powers. Pull from the boneyard to heal allies and harm foes, banish undead and ghosts. Draw from heaven to create a sword of holy power at the same time that you pull from maelstrom to make a shield to protect you from lawful creatures.

This, IMO, sounds more like a planar enchanter: adding runes/arcane symbols/circles/ect for differing affects. It might work better as temp buffs on items vs crafting permanent items: IE instead of building a holy sword from scratch, you take generic sword # 621 and make it a holy sword for 10 min/level [or some other random duration]. That said, I could see an option to permanent items in class feats for those that want that route. I think it'd have broader appeal to not force item creation so this would, IMO, satisfy both groups.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Vorsk, Follower or Erastil wrote:
I have a class concept I would love to see I kinda refer to as a Planer Blacksmith. They recieve powers directly from the planes themselves to create items and powers. Use the essence of hell to create armor and weapons or use very forceful law based powers. Pull from the boneyard to heal allies and harm foes, banish undead and ghosts. Draw from heaven to create a sword of holy power at the same time that you pull from maelstrom to make a shield to protect you from lawful creatures.
This, IMO, sounds more like a planar enchanter: adding runes/arcane symbols/circles/ect for differing affects. It might work better as temp buffs on items vs crafting permanent items: IE instead of building a holy sword from scratch, you take generic sword # 621 and make it a holy sword for 10 min/level [or some other random duration]. That said, I could see an option to permanent items in class feats for those that want that route. I think it'd have broader appeal to not force item creation so this would, IMO, satisfy both groups.

A Rune Enchanter could be an interesting Alchemist Archetype. Change their feat and formula book into magic arms and armor, and instead of alchemical items they can create enchantments that last 24 hours or less.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
A Rune Enchanter could be an interesting Alchemist Archetype. Change their feat and formula book into magic arms and armor, and instead of alchemical items they can create enchantments that last 24 hours or less.

At that point, you're changing enough of the class that you might as well write a new class rather than stretching the existing class past the breaking point. Specifically, you'd have to toss out the majority of the class feats and create new ones, plus many of the base abilities.

A whole new class that is a more mystical version of the alchemist, making trinkets and temporary enchantments instead of enchancements, does sound interesting though. I can see the Occultist morphing into something along those lines, for example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
A Rune Enchanter could be an interesting Alchemist Archetype. Change their feat and formula book into magic arms and armor, and instead of alchemical items they can create enchantments that last 24 hours or less.

At that point, you're changing enough of the class that you might as well write a new class rather than stretching the existing class past the breaking point. Specifically, you'd have to toss out the majority of the class feats and create new ones, plus many of the base abilities.

A whole new class that is a more mystical version of the alchemist, making trinkets and temporary enchantments instead of enchancements, does sound interesting though. I can see the Occultist morphing into something along those lines, for example.

I was thinking that as well; it was a coin toss when i was typing it and called i the wrong side i guess. :p

I was basing the idea off of the Planar Blacksmith idea above, and a PrC in 3.5 called Runesmith; though that class works a bit differently. I would picture it as a very support oriented class design, but wasn’t quite sure if i could picture it as a stand alone 1-20. It might still be possible as an Alchemist Archtype when their feats get a bit more meat on their bones, but currently yeah; switching out Alchemical Item Creation would cripple it too much.

Edit: Oh! Yeah! Switching quick alchemy for something like quick trinket creation would be really fun. Having temp buffs could also be a good focus, but i can’t think of much for that aside from specific or one-time use enchantments off hand. The Runesmith could store spells via runes into objects. . . Will have to think on this more.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
I also hope they don't publish new classes when archetypes could do the job, because class inflation will mean that all classes will receive less support. I'm all for more support for the classes we already have.

I see it from the other side: I don't want every new 'class' to be an archetype and the only unique support is in the archetype feat sections of the books. What good is more support for the class you taped the archetype on if the vast majority of it doesn't apply to archetype? You trade off \support for individual classes in uneven support for those 'classes' that are made archetypes.

"strong narrative themes that need to be explored" vary from person to person: Is a witch one that needs explored as a class or an archetype? *Shrug* 12 people will give 12 reasons why it should or shouldn't. Does the summoner need enough unique abilities that it needs a class or does it only have a few and can manage with an archetype? I think that will drive class vs archetype more than "strong narrative themes". No matter how they do it, you're going to see people that wished it was done the other way. ;P

I'm sorry, I don't understand your first paragraph. It appears to me what you're saying is that you don't want archetypes to be the only support the classes receive, but honestly I'm really unsure and would appreciate if you could explain to me what you're pointing out. Sorry.

As for the narratives, yes, in Golarion witches are definitely a narrative that should be explored, since a whole kingdom is ruled by them, and they're an integral part of various cultures. Yes, the summoner is a narrative that should be explored, because Sarkoris was a realm full of summoners and their "little gods", and those traditions still live on.

As for "archetype or class", I said my piece, namely:

Roswynn wrote:
I'm all for resurrecting some classes from 1e that just couldn't be done well with the ones we have in 2e (kineticist, summoner, psychic, shaman, witch...) while using archetypes to model those that are just variants (samurai, ninja, cavalier, vigilante, gunslinger...).

So yes, I agree that the classes that need a full treatment should get one, while those working mostly like what we already have shouldn't. And I'm well aware that not everyone will agree with me, but that's out of my hands, graystone. Nothing in the world will always be seen as good and right unanimously by every single person, that's nothing new really - I'd say it's one of the basic truths one learns as a kid. I'm just expressing my point of view regarding this subject. It would be interesting if this caused a strong reaction one way or another - then we'd know if it were a good idea or a very bad one. As it is, it's just my opinion - as it was always meant to be.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
john salb wrote:
Imagine a Rage Prophet archtype that requires the PC to be a Barbarian with X number of Sorcerer multiclass feats.

That specific example sounds a little too strict considering you already have to dedicate 3 feats to multiclassing before you can choose another one.

Having a couple of class specific ones, or requiring a class as a prerequisite could be nice so long as they were sprinkled in as the exception to the rule; but this might fall into Class Archetype territory.

There is already an Ancestry feat that lets you multiclass for a second time early. I could see having feats that do the same for specific multiclass combinations of all ancestries.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

It might still be possible as an Alchemist Archtype when their feats get a bit more meat on their bones, but currently yeah; switching out Alchemical Item Creation would cripple it too much.

Edit: Oh! Yeah! Switching quick alchemy for something like quick trinket creation would be really fun. Having temp buffs could also be a good focus, but i can’t think of much for that aside from specific or one-time use enchantments off hand. The Runesmith could store spells via runes into objects. . . Will have to think on this more.

I’m also thinking in terms of how resonance originally worked. I agree with the devs that it was ultimately not for all characters, but I could see something explored on a one or two character class basis.

And yes, hopefully more feats will make the classes we have not quite as narrow as they are now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I found the PF2 playtest to be too conservative/narrow in the design space of some classes that I would be quite willing to accept new classes to break the "mold" that's been setup rather than try to shoehorn them as variants or archetypes that won't be able to offer the full experience.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I mean, going down that route, we may as well pare back to 4 classes- Rogue, Fighter, Cleric and Wizard. Let's stick to discussing new class concepts, not class vs archetypes!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
I'm sorry, I don't understand your first paragraph. It appears to me what you're saying is that you don't want archetypes to be the only support the classes receive, but honestly I'm really unsure and would appreciate if you could explain to me what you're pointing out. Sorry.

I'm a bit confused by your confusion... Ok, let me try to restate it.

If a class is made an archetype, then the only support you are sure will apply to it is unique archetype feats made for it. As such, future support for the base/starting class you use may not be of any use to it. Hence 'more support' for 'main classes' means uneven support out of the gate: I'd rather not see a glut of 'one trick ponies' that get a handful of feats and then get pushed to the side for the real classes.

Roswynn wrote:
As for the narratives

I think what I take issue with is "a narrative that should be explored". For instance, someone might feel an Arcadian gunslinger is as worthy of exploration as an Irrisen witch: what does that have to do with it being done as a class or an archetype though? Does a witch become less of a part of the world if it's a wizard archetype or does a gunslinger become more a part of the world if it's a class instead of an archetype? Or do you mean by "narrative" the number of options or unique abilities it gets?

Derry L. Zimeye: Part of a talk about a new class in this system involves what type it is [archetype or actual class]. It's like a talk about races... er ancestries and saying 'don't talk about ancestry feats' when the 1/2 elf and 1/2 orc are staring at you. This is especially true if we start getting archetypes that replace the set abilities of classes: this'll shift more concepts to archetypes and mean that concept would have to manage with mostly the base classes feats instead of having it's own unique feats. It's something to keep in mind.


ChibiNyan wrote:
I found the PF2 playtest to be too conservative/narrow in the design space of some classes that I would be quite willing to accept new classes to break the "mold" that's been setup rather than try to shoehorn them as variants or archetypes that won't be able to offer the full experience.

I agree with the shoehorning. I feel the classes were very focused and less experimental cause they wanted to get the base right for the new system before going too wild; they expressed this in particular with Paladin (LG), that they wanted to get it right before making alignment variants. In the end they turned it into Champion, so it seems they felt comfortable enough with the class at that point.

I find Alchemist to be intended as a very Crafter focused class; so it made sense to me to imagine it using that base, with the class features that it already has built in rather than copying those features onto a seperate class.

As for a new base class, i would like to see a return and updated Wu Jen. Some kind of mix between Monk Stances mixed with Elemental Evocation Spellcasting using the Primal Spell List preferably.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Siro wrote:
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.)

I love the idea of a 'cantrip specialist' who lacks the magical potential to cast even 1st level spells, but has learned all sorts of neat tricks with cantrips, perhaps increasing them as levels in 'Cantrip Master' or 'Hedge Mage' accrue, and becoming kind of a half-baked Warlock or Kineticist. (keep upping the damage on those acid splashes or rays of frost!)

At every level, they could add a number of bonuses to the cantrip as it's being cast, such as increasing the damage die, for a damaging ray of frost or acid splash, and by stacking multiple such increases, or range / area increases (acid splashing an entire enemy group with a fireball sized 'splash' or creating a 'ray of frost' that's more like a 30' cone of cold).

They'd still cast the base cantrips at will, but only get a certain number of 'at will' enhancements / round, and then a certain number of bonus enhancements / day (so that they won't be throwing acid-splash-fireballs all day long, but can throw weakly damaging large area acid splashes *or* decently damaging single-target acid splashes all day long).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:


I also hope they don't publish new classes when archetypes could do the job, because class inflation will mean that all classes will receive less support.

That's kind of the reason I hope they don't go too overboard by making everything archetypes, because archetypes don't get long term support and classes do.

Things like the Cavalier or Vigilante or Swashbuckler absolutely didn't need to be classes. I was even annoyed to see them be classes when I first encountered them.

But there are cool things Paizo built off their various chassis that simply wouldn't exist if they hadn't been made their own classes.

Roswynn wrote:


As for the narratives, yes, in Golarion witches are definitely a narrative that should be explored, since a whole kingdom is ruled by them, and they're an integral part of various cultures. Yes, the summoner is a narrative that should be explored, because Sarkoris was a realm full of summoners and their "little gods", and those traditions still live on.

While true, it's worth remembering that the setting is something that is actively being developed along with the game. If Paizo wants something to be narratively worth exploring or not, they can make it so pretty much at their own discretion.

You say witches need to be explored, but they could just as easily be a spin on wizards or clerics or druids instead of something wholly unique and Paizo has the means to make that work both mechanically and narratively if they wanted to.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
I think what I take issue with is "a narrative that should be explored". For instance, someone might feel an Arcadian gunslinger is as worthy of exploration as an Irrisen witch: what does that have to do with it being done as a class or an archetype though? Does a witch become less of a part of the world if it's a wizard archetype or does a gunslinger become more a part of the world if it's a class instead of an archetype?

That's an excellent point about archetypes being just as much a part of the world as a full class. Indeed, prestige archetypes are even more fully rooted in the setting than PF1 classes could be, since PF1 prestige classes were designed explicitly with the setting sotyr in mind.

For my taste, I am less concerned with letting the setting determine what classes are and are not put in the game, and more concerned with a new class getting interesting, ideally new or at least differently focused, mechanics to explore at the table. Many of the playtest classes had a mechanic that they could do either exclusively or better than every other class. I don't necessarily favor NN's approach, where each class had a thing that ONLY they could do and adventures would be designed so that a class could show off doing their thing, but each class having a different set of tools to apply to problems does make things more interesting when it comes time to roll up a character (with multiclass archetypes letting everyone get in on the action, if not quite to the extent that a main class would get).

I figure with the right background and ancestry, we can put the necessary character backstory and motivations onto any class, but finding ways that two similar characters don't feel the same is less able to be fudged.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorry, Derry, I'm trying to think of a new class I'd like to see in the new edition but everything I'm able to think about is either reinterpretations of old classes or stuff I'd put into an archetype.

Briefly - yes, Paizo can make witches an archetype of wizard if they implement archetypes from 1st level. Maybe even if they don't. We'll see. Kineticist though seems too different, same for psychic. Ideally I'd want summoner and spiritualist to be the same class - essentially you have a magical companion, where they come from is left to various origins, for instance, or left unspecified and decided with the GM. But I'd call it a summoner and that's it.

Archetypes could actually receive long term support. The fact it's not been done in 1e doesn't necessarily mean it's impossible in 2e. Some archetypes will gain more traction than others and they will probably get a lot of attention, imvho. The archeologist for instance, or the gunslinger, or indeed the summoner... I don't think making hellknights and gray maidens archetypes will preclude getting more crunch about them down the line.

I hope we can stop talking about this here, and again, sorry to be derailing the thread - I should have been more careful. I'll try to avoid further derailment. Please go ahead with the new class concepts!


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

I am hoping that the Witch class is the Prepared All Magic class. With the Patron detriming which of the 4 magic's you use.
As well as making familiars worth having and the Hexes


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would like some sort of "primal magic channeler" or "chaos mage" where you wield powerful magics, but have little control over what forms they take. Like if we aren't going to go full on "roll on a table every time you cast a spell" I would like to at least emit a reality warping aura that changes periodically. I want a character whose use of primal magic warps their own body in fun and exciting ways.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Roswynn wrote:

Sorry, Derry, I'm trying to think of a new class I'd like to see in the new edition but everything I'm able to think about is either reinterpretations of old classes or stuff I'd put into an archetype.

I think to some extent, what with the full rules not yet available,we are all at this point. There are going to be class concepts which look like they work as archetypes, but don't, and vice versa. There are probably whole areas of the design space that we don't quite appreciate it or notice yet. Until folks start playing with the full rules and trying things out, it's sort of hard to get a sense of what classes are needed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Roswynn wrote:

Sorry, Derry, I'm trying to think of a new class I'd like to see in the new edition but everything I'm able to think about is either reinterpretations of old classes or stuff I'd put into an archetype.

I think to some extent, what with the full rules not yet available,we are all at this point. There are going to be class concepts which look like they work as archetypes, but don't, and vice versa. There are probably whole areas of the design space that we don't quite appreciate it or notice yet. Until folks start playing with the full rules and trying things out, it's sort of hard to get a sense of what classes are needed.

And yet some have quite clear ideas about what they want: FF dragoons and blue mages, cantrip-based casters, ritualists, magewrights, etc. I think my hesitation derives from, as you say, not knowing the full rules, and their readiness comes from not caring too much (and having played through the PT enough as to feel confident) and being so enthusiastic the hesitation just disappears. Which isn't bad, frankly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Prince Setehrael wrote:

I am hoping that the Witch class is the Prepared All Magic class. With the Patron detriming which of the 4 magic's you use.

As well as making familiars worth having and the Hexes

I'd be happy with the Witch being simply the prepared occult caster with the patron augmenting known spells, but that is a good idea right there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
Archetypes could actually receive long term support.

I hope that there IS ongoing support but even then I'd expect it to be less than a one made as a class. This will be further complicated if the archetype alters base abilities as you'll even cut off some support from the class you archetype into: for instance, if you replace sneak attack on a rogue then all support for it becomes useless to that archetype. I hope that they'll bake in and codify how replacement abilities interact with abilities that use that old ability when possible, so as few feats become unusable a possible.


Quandary wrote:
I think Marshal/Cavalier could well exist within one class, with mount stuff being specific option.

Or not even Mount stuff (which can work well as independent Archetype) but the Banner and Challenge/Order type stuff. I think there can be basis of distinct class, with flexibility of focus between specific Edict/Styles and more generalized Marshal buff/debuff stuff. Possibly even some Feats to go for limited Bardic magic, like seems to be the plan for Rangers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:


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!

Please no. The latter is my _actual professional job_, and I've worked with a lot of the former. I'm not sure what you think we actually do, but it is none of the things you've listed. It's honestly a touch offensive.

It's like the drunken 'I am a Librarian' speech from 'The Mummy:' pure cringe and unhealthy stereotypes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whether it's an actual class or a path/archetype of an existing class I'd like to see something that has the witch + druid combo flavor that I've been craving. I'd really hoped that the PF1 Shaman would fit that bill when it was first announced but alas.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Voss wrote:
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:


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!

Please no. The latter is my _actual professional job_, and I've worked with a lot of the former. I'm not sure what you think we actually do, but it is none of the things you've listed. It's honestly a touch offensive.

It's like the drunken 'I am a Librarian' speech from 'The Mummy:' pure cringe and unhealthy stereotypes.

I don't know where that Archivist is coming from, but for the archaeologist, it's clearly Indiana Jones. Now, we're all agreed that Indy isn't representative of actual archaeology, but the adventure-archaeologist is very much a trope in the world of fantasy. See also, Lara Croft, Nathan Drake and the entirety of this TV Tropes page


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I think one of the issues with the archaeologist and archivist is that orienting a class around "what you are interested in" is not parallel to all the other classes which have a big emphasis on "what means you use to pursue your interests."

Since "explores ruins to find out what's there" or "wants to know everything about everything" make sense as archetypes (isn't this what pathfinders do?) whereas classes are things like "master of arms and armor" or "harnesses the magic in your blood" or "fueled by rage" or "empowered by your god".

Plus, if a bunch of classes can already be kind of good at a thing, having a new class whose sine qua non is "good at that particular thing" is kinda unnecessary. If I want to play Indiana Jones I don't need an Indiana Jones class, if there are the means to make Indiana Jones in an existing class.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

^ Good point, but I actually think Occultist fulfills "fantasy" manifestation of those niches. Seeking out legendary artifacts, locales, and documents isn't special, but channelling their occult potency and fusing it with his own makes it comes together as class. Existing 1E Archetypes like Curator, Geomancer, Historian, Tome Eater, Secret Broker further show more specific niches Occultist can exploit for fantasy occult adventuring.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing to consider about what makes a good new class is redesigns. While some classes, like the Witch or Oracle, hew pretty close to others, there is potential for the class to become even more standout in second edition. Sorcerers, for instance, are no longer just the spontaneous wizard.

Going forward, I see the Investigator, Inquisitor, Witch, and Oracle to be some of the most potentially interesting classes in the horizon.


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

It doesn't need to be called Archaeologist (I suspect they'll keep the name, though), but I really hope the "screw the party, I'll do it myself" bard does make a comeback. :P


graystone wrote:
planar enchanter: adding runes/arcane symbols/circles/ect for differing affects. It might work better as temp buffs on items vs crafting permanent items: IE instead of building a holy sword from scratch, you take generic sword # 621 and make it a holy sword for 10 min/level [or some other random duration].

I think this is a good idea, and would expand it so that they can "draw" spells on anything:

- drawing a vertical circle in the air that accelerates into a force weapon

- drawing a line on the ground that turns into a force wall

- drawing a symbol on a tree to talk to it

- drawing a horizontal circle on the ground to jump in

- drawing something in the air that materializes and allows climbing

There would be martial options (self-buffing weapons), ranged attacks, battlefield control (blocking off flanking enemies), and utility options.

It would depend heavily on somatic components but not verbal, which would provide some interesting scenarios.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ballistician
This is mainly inspired by Fire Emblem but I would love it if there was a class, archetype, or even prestige that allows one to operate a mobile ballista modeled after a bow or crossbow that you can customize to make it focus on speed, strength, endurance, or even make it balance between all 3! Of course they may have to dedicate an entire section to Ballistician exclusive weapons if this were to ever be the case.

I am not sure if modern firearms will make a return in Second Edition, or even if Paizo will consider the AP they came from in the first place, Rasputin Must Die!, and possibly other related APs canon, but it would be pretty rad if tanks at least made a return as one-man operated medieval devices.

Some refs for what a potential Ballistician could look like:
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/fireemblem/images/d/d5/Ballistician.png /revision/latest?cb=20150917112333
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/fireemblem/images/9/9c/FE14_Ballisticia n_%28Generic%29.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20160507091323

Sentinel
Simply a class or archetype that specializes in making the most out of shields and tanking. They ignore most, if not all, penalties that comes with employing shields and in fact can even attach certain ones onto their armor for further tanking!

Edit: Also 100th reply, yay!

51 to 100 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.