What NEW classes do you hope 2e brings?

[PossibleCabbage]

nick1wasd wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

I feel like the Swashbuckler is pretty much the poster child for classes that shouldn't have had to be made. The core concept of the class is something you should absolutely be able to build out of a Fighter or Rogue or Bard (among others, probably), but in PF1 the support for what the swashbuckler represents was so poor that wasn't really feasible.

Swashbuckler was essentially Duelist, the full class. Which is kind of excessive, since the point of Duelist was that you could tack it on to any base class that wanted a 1-handed poky stick. So if it makes a return, it should be as a tack on archetype, and NOT! a base class.

I feel like "Prestige Class: the Class" is a thing that also describes some successful and popular PF1 classes though. Like the reason the Magus exists is "building an Eldritch Knight who work from 1st level is too hard."

But in PF2, since prestige classes are now "archetypes with a level 6+ dedication feat" we can just do something like a lower level archetype that feeds into the 6+ one like the teased Armiger one does into Hellknight.

[Roswynn]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like "Prestige Class: the Class" is a thing that also describes some successful and popular PF1 classes though. Like the reason the Magus exists is "building an Eldritch Knight who work from 1st level is too hard."

But in PF2, since prestige classes are now "archetypes with a level 6+ dedication feat" we can just do something like a lower level archetype that feeds into the 6+ one like the teased Armiger one does into Hellknight.

There are no prestige classes in PF2.

[WatersLethe]

Roswynn wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like "Prestige Class: the Class" is a thing that also describes some successful and popular PF1 classes though. Like the reason the Magus exists is "building an Eldritch Knight who work from 1st level is too hard."

But in PF2, since prestige classes are now "archetypes with a level 6+ dedication feat" we can just do something like a lower level archetype that feeds into the 6+ one like the teased Armiger one does into Hellknight.

There are no prestige classes in PF2.

You missed the cabbage's point. There *were* prestige archetypes, which were the new version of prestige classes, but then they said "why do we need to call them anything special? they're just archetypes with more requirements"

So PF1 prestige classes are now archetypes with requirements in PF2.

[Albatoonoe]

I'll reiterate what I posted upthread. While the Swasbuckler as "light armor, one handed duelist" is certainly not something we need, I think the mechanics present in the PF1 class kinda illustrate what people want. The deeds are the crux of what makes the Gunslinger and Swashbuckler interesting. Fluctuating points that allow you to do spectacular things and gain them back for doing cool things. In both mechanics and flavor, I think that is a worthwhile base class. It just needs to be opened beyond the narrow focus.

[Squiggit]

Agree that deeds are a decent mechanic and probably worth salvaging in some form.

Not sure if it would be best served as an archetype or a weird multiclass or what but one thing I was never really happy with my ability to create in PF1 is a heavy armor capable, magic but not heavily spellcasting warrior. Champion Mediums, Bloodragers and blade-focused kineticists all got close but had their own baggage or eccentricities.

Think like an Arcane flavored version of the Champion with a more balanced skillset instead of an emphasis on evil slaying and defense. Or Edrick/Loto from Dragon Quest/Warrior.

I'm hoping/expecting Fighter to be able to pull this off with some multiclassing but it's something that came to mind as something I like the idea of but was kinda hard to build in PF1. Armor + arcane magic in general was kind of hard to do so maybe I'm hoping to see less of that because mage-knights are neat.

[Pumpkinhead11]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

nick1wasd wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

I feel like the Swashbuckler is pretty much the poster child for classes that shouldn't have had to be made. The core concept of the class is something you should absolutely be able to build out of a Fighter or Rogue or Bard (among others, probably), but in PF1 the support for what the swashbuckler represents was so poor that wasn't really feasible.

Swashbuckler was essentially Duelist, the full class. Which is kind of excessive, since the point of Duelist was that you could tack it on to any base class that wanted a 1-handed poky stick. So if it makes a return, it should be as a tack on archetype, and NOT! a base class.

I feel like "Prestige Class: the Class" is a thing that also describes some successful and popular PF1 classes though. Like the reason the Magus exists is "building an Eldritch Knight who work from 1st level is too hard."

But in PF2, since prestige classes are now "archetypes with a level 6+ dedication feat" we can just do something like a lower level archetype that feeds into the 6+ one like the teased Armiger one does into Hellknight.

In another thread we discussed about Magus being a Base Class or Archetype. There is an argument to be made about a number of classes from PF1 being brought over as Archetypes. Personally i feel if something unique can be brought over and explored then that’s reason enough to make it a base class.

Gunslinger, as much as i love the class, seems to only have ‘Deeds’ going for it. With TAC gone guns no longer have that advantage going for them and could work with certain ranged feats.

[PossibleCabbage]

Roswynn wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like "Prestige Class: the Class" is a thing that also describes some successful and popular PF1 classes though. Like the reason the Magus exists is "building an Eldritch Knight who work from 1st level is too hard."

But in PF2, since prestige classes are now "archetypes with a level 6+ dedication feat" we can just do something like a lower level archetype that feeds into the 6+ one like the teased Armiger one does into Hellknight.

There are no prestige classes in PF2.

Former prestige classes (e.g. hellknight) will be archetypes with level 6+ requirements, if I was unclear.

[Temperans]

A "swashbuckler" class could very well tie the gunslinger mechanics and 1 handed specialization into 1 bundle. This edition does help that multiclassing is no different then grabbing an archetype.

[0o0o0 O 0o0o0]

I'd rather the Swashbuckler be a (good) archetype. I intend my first charcter to be a Bard, and I'd like to play with those swinging-from-the-chandelier tropes, roses for the ladies, a bit of Zorro. That concept can work with a Fighter or Rogue too (or MAgus?), so an archetype might be best. Panache might not work (maybe focus spells?) but dex to damage and a Parry/riposte reaction are quite doable.

[MaxAstro]

I definitely think parry-and-riposte is an interesting and iconic mechanic, and I want it to come back in some form, whether class or archetype.

I do think Gunslinger probably makes more sense as an archetype than a class, though.

[masda_gib]

Temperans wrote:

A "swashbuckler" class could very well tie the gunslinger mechanics and 1 handed specialization into 1 bundle. This edition does help that multiclassing is no different then grabbing an archetype.

I think a Swashbuckler/Gunslinger class should focus on deeds/grit. The fighting styles are the fighter's (and monk's) schtick and fighter already has a one-hand-weapon-only style.

That eay the Deeds-Class is more open and can multiclass into fighter for special combat styles.

[Roswynn]

0o0o0 O 0o0o0 wrote:

I'd rather the Swashbuckler be a (good) archetype. I intend my first charcter to be a Bard, and I'd like to play with those swinging-from-the-chandelier tropes, roses for the ladies, a bit of Zorro. That concept can work with a Fighter or Rogue too (or MAgus?), so an archetype might be best. Panache might not work (maybe focus spells?) but dex to damage and a Parry/riposte reaction are quite doable.

If you play a bard with the swashbuckler archetype it would be interesting if the performance that your bard uses to cast is something like oratory, for instance, or straight up acting.

[AnimatedPaper]

FWIW, I’m of the opinion that a mechanic like “deeds”, which will essentially be focus without spells, should be attached to a new class rather than an archetype. An archetype can tweak, modify, and push the boundaries of existing mechanics, but only a class would get the page count needed to really flesh a new one out fully.

There’s, what, ten deeds just with vanilla gunslingers? Plus all the ones that got added via archetypes (and the gun related archetypes for other classes). Plus all the swashbuckler ones. And probably the luck mechanic from daring sleuths. That’s an awful lot of ground to cover with just a handful of class feats, even if you’re only hitting the highlights.

I’m almost convinced gunslingers might warrant a full class after all, but at the very least the deed concept should probably be attached to a full class, which can be passed around via MC.

Two classes would probably be overkill though. Perhaps the swashbuckler and bolt ace can be combined into one class, and the gunslinger a class archetype?

[Temperans]

I think it would be easier to make gunslinger, bolt ace, and swashbuckler different paths. That way you dont have to spend 2 feats to reach gunslinger. Paths also fit the other classes, choosing 1 path to gain access to related feats.

*Just fyi, I see paths as the direct successor of pf1 archetypes, in a way.

[MMCJawa]

It would make sense to fold the gunslinger into swashbuckler, given the latter in media also often were associated with guns anyway. I mean there is a reason for Musket to be in the name of Musketeer after all...

[Quandary]

Wait, I thought "musket" was just a hair style?

Seriously, I agree they could be folded into one "Swashslinger" class with Deed/Grit type mechanics, basically the core being Luck-based Social/Skill-sy Martial. But baseline mechanics for Guns (or for that matter, 1-hand Duelist style) can be located in general Archetype, because there is no reason to re-invent wheel. That doesn't mean the class must have NO feats related to Guns/1-hand combat, they just will be more focused on specifically invoking Grit/etc, and not bother themselves with baseline mechanics (although it can overtly acknowledge & interact with the general Gun/Duelist Archetype's abilities).

For that matter, Cavalier or "Marshal" Inspiration and Order type abilities could also be swept within this class' aegis... With generic Mount abilities also outside class in general Archetype, with maybe just a handful of Class feats specifically synergizing with a Mount. Really, it just needs name that can adequately cover all of those tropes... "Challenger" kinds of alludes to CHA-based daring?

In a way, similar to how they are "nesting" the Armiger Archetype with higher level more specific Hellknight Archetypes. They specifically acknowledge the other, and probably will offer some of the strongest synergies together so fair assumption is most will combine them, but neither strictly needs the other to function.

[AnimatedPaper]

I'm mostly in agreement about gunslingers being an archetype. In fact, up until recently I was 100% in agreement. But two things occurred to me:

1) a MC archetype technically could serve as exactly that kind of archetype.
2) treating guns more like cantrips than weapons might be an interesting way to balance them.

Of course, there's no reason they can't do the archetype first, and work backwards to make a full class later if that seems like a good idea. That was one of the things that so strongly attracted me to dedication style archetypes and multiclassing.

[Squiggit]

I'm against the idea of gunslingers being an archetype. Walling off viability for entire categories of weapons behind feats and such is one of the bad parts of PF1, not something we should be encouraging them to bring back. If PF2 has guns, they shouldn't be any harder to specialize in than most other weapons. Maybe some feat support should be required since they're designed to be rare, but archetypes have their own rules and I think it'd be overly restrictive to lock guns (or any weapon) like that.

[Temperans]

(Side point, the locking of guns behind feats/classes may have been more about itteratives + touch attacks. Since both are technically gone, maybe they wont be as locked down as before. But I agree making guns an archetype only thing would be bad, specially since it stops other concepts.)

[Deadmanwalking]

Squiggit wrote:

I'm against the idea of gunslingers being an archetype. Walling off viability for entire categories of weapons behind feats and such is one of the bad parts of PF1, not something we should be encouraging them to bring back. If PF2 has guns, they shouldn't be any harder to specialize in than most other weapons. Maybe some feat support should be required since they're designed to be rare, but archetypes have their own rules and I think it'd be overly restrictive to lock guns (or any weapon) like that.

It's likely they'll simply be Advanced Weapons, which would mean anyone with good Proficiencies could dabble in them, but getting their Proficiency up to the level martial weapons get requires something special. An archetype seems a good option.

[PossibleCabbage]

I believe two things:

1) there should be a "this one uses guns" archetype to replace things like the holy gun, picaroon, steel hound, etc.

2) there should be a grit/luck/panache class one of whose subclasses is the gunslinger.

A significant part of the fantasy of the gunslinger is "does impossible things with guns" more than "is competent with a gun." So we can have the archetype for anyone who wants to be competent and the class for people who want to shoot the wings off a horsefly at 50 paces.

[Squiggit]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

An archetype seems a good option.

Maybe if there weren't rules against archetype stacking when 2e drops, otherwise it feels punitive and kind of arbitrary to tell someone who wants to play a pirate with a gun that they have to pick which of the two they want to be good at and which they want to put off until much later in the campaign. Or to give a thumbs up to a fighter/wizard with a bow but tell a fighter/wizard with a musket to come back in a handful of levels and piss off in the meantime.

We're just shutting down character concepts and I honestly can't even tell what the upshot of this would be.

A prestige archetype to unlock some crazy gunplay tricks? That sounds fine, but simple functionality and competency should never be locked behind something as significant as an archetype.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

there should be a "this one uses guns" archetype to replace things like the holy gun, picaroon, steel hound, etc.

The Holy Gun does nothing except take away a bunch of class features in order to give you the privilege of using guns. There's literally nothing worth preserving there.

In fact, it's pretty much the perfect example of the kind of archetype that PF2 should absolutely not have.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

A significant part of the fantasy of the gunslinger is "does impossible things with guns" more than "is competent with a gun." So we can have the archetype for anyone who wants to be competent and the class for people who want to shoot the wings off a horsefly at 50 paces.

Doing impossible things with a weapon should be a feature of skill with that weapon, i.e. proficiency and level and maybe some feat options. I mean, being exceptional with weapons is kind of one of the fighter's main draws. It seems weird to turn around and say "oh but not that one."

I could maybe see some specialist feats or a prestige archetype that lets you do some crazy things with a gun, but there's certainly no way you should require an archetype to be just competent any more than you should require an archetype to be competent with a greatsword or a longbow.

Could you even imagine if every weapon in PF2 had its own archetype and they all sucked without taking them? That sounds like it would be absolutely terrible.

Actually that sounds like PF1 feat chains... somehow we've come full circle and now we're asking for Paizo to bring those back.

[WatersLethe]

The gunslinger in PF1 should have been a fighter archetype, and the same is true for PF2. A level 1 class archetype for Fighter that gives unrivaled mastery of gun stuff.

As for grit, that's honestly the kind of stuff fighters should have had as a class feature since forever. Who has got more grit and guts than a fighter?

[Set]

I would like for any hypothetical gunslinger class/archetype/whatever to be easily moddable between gunslinger/archer/crossbowman/slingmeister/thrown weapons prodigy.

Instead of basing it entirely around a weapon that some GMs don't even allow, the firearm, at least the chassis of it will be useful for someone who wants to make an arrow-slinger or sling-shotter or bolt-flinger or dagger-chucker or axe-hurler or whatever.

[Staffan Johansson]

I think what the discussion here shows is that there's demand for a class that's mechanically a resource-based warrior - something like the PF1 gunslinger or swashbuckler, the 5e Battlemaster fighter, or (on the more spectacular end) the classes from 3.5's Tome of Battle. The fighter's abilities are all either always on, or enabled by circumstances - the only resource the fighter has to manage is their hit points. That leaves a lot of room in the system for a class with a slightly lower baseline martial competence, but with some sort of resource that lets them push the envelope a bit.

I wouldn't want such a class to replace the fighter, because there's definitely something to be said for a class that doesn't have to deal with resource management. But there's room for both.

[Crayon]

Few if any.

The class bloat of PF1 was one of its worst features and the new class design should make it possible to represent a much broader subset of character types with each individual class.

[WatersLethe]

"Bloat" never sat right with me as a real problem. Power creep, yes. Inordinately high optimization ceiling, maybe.

Simply having more choices? I don't buy it, especially with how much is getting individually packaged in each class in PF2.

The only way rules bloat would be a problem is if every class was constantly getting new feats added to their lists, to the point where a new player couldn't make a decision at each feat level.

As far as I'm concerned, they can print 100 classes with slight variations of a take on Bard. Worst case, the GM makes a list of approved classes.

[First World Bard]

WatersLethe wrote:

"Bloat" never sat right with me as a real problem. Power creep, yes. Inordinately high optimization ceiling, maybe.

Simply having more choices? I don't buy it, especially with how much is getting individually packaged in each class in PF2.

The only way rules bloat would be a problem is if every class was constantly getting new feats added to their lists, to the point where a new player couldn't make a decision at each feat level.

As far as I'm concerned, they can print 100 classes with slight variations of a take on Bard. Worst case, the GM makes a list of approved classes.

My issue with rules bloat was being a GM for PFS, where I'd have players coming in with classes/feats/magic items I was completely unfamiliar with, and asking me questions about I thought those unfamiliar game elements interacted with one another. In a home game, sure, it's manageable.

[PossibleCabbage]

Which was a bigger "bloat" problem- there were 30ih classes or there were 10,000 feats?

I never had a problem with too many classes, since "class" is a top level choice- I know right away whether I do or do not want to play a Bloodrager or a Spiritualist. PF1 could have had 4 times as many classes and "picking a class" would still be a lot easier than "picking spells."

[Derry L. Zimeye]

<puts up the topic sign again!> Remember, this thread is for the discussion of brand new class ideas, not which old classes from 1e should return! There are many other threads for that kind of thing :}

To contribute more to the ideas, maybe it'd be interesting to see a class that fills the role of a non-magical healer; a plague doctor or surgeon type deal, maybe? I'm thinking less of an alchemist, and more of a battlefield surgeon, one who can work with bleed effects, surpress diseases and illnesses, and get to work against enemies with vicious medical equipment. Would be a great fit from anywhere from Caliphas to Westcrown, and has enough potential differences from clerics or alchemists to make it stand out!

[Set]

Derry L. Zimeye wrote:

To contribute more to the ideas, maybe it'd be interesting to see a class that fills the role of a non-magical healer; a plague doctor or surgeon type deal, maybe? I'm thinking less of an alchemist, and more of a battlefield surgeon, one who can work with bleed effects, surpress diseases and illnesses, and get to work against enemies with vicious medical equipment. Would be a great fit from anywhere from Caliphas to Westcrown, and has enough potential differences from clerics or alchemists to make it stand out!

I'd love a non-magical healer/chirurgeon/apothecary/herbalist who was able to use the Heal skill in advanced ways, much as the Rogue uses Disable Device in ways that most cannot, through Trapfinding. Someone who could carry a party without the need for cure spells and lesser restoration, and be competitive, if not exactly the same, and with other class abilities as necessary to round them out.

Almost any skill could have a class based around advanced use of it, from a Diplomancer to an Animal Handler (animal companion, but no druid spells) to a traveling Blacksmith who can temp buff his and his allies weapons and armor in fancy ways. The Bard, Ranger and Rogue kinda/sorta already delve into this concept, in different ways, by offering options for Perform, Survival and Disable Device that not everyone can do, and d20 has attempted stuff like the Acrobat and Blacksmith and Apothecary or the Archivist (which was kind of / sort of based around advanced use of the Knowledge skills, even if it was also a spellcaster) or the Alchemist (which, to be granted, could probably stand to have more direct ties to the Craft - Alchemy skill...) before.

Obviously, some, like the non-magical Healer, would be more game-relevant than others, like an entire class built around Escape Artist and the (sensationalized) life of Harry Houdini... :)

[Derry L. Zimeye]

Honestly, literally any of those class ideas you mentioned would be baller, Set!

[Malk_Content]

Derry L. Zimeye wrote:

<puts up the topic sign again!> Remember, this thread is for the discussion of brand new class ideas, not which old classes from 1e should return! There are many other threads for that kind of thing :}

To contribute more to the ideas, maybe it'd be interesting to see a class that fills the role of a non-magical healer; a plague doctor or surgeon type deal, maybe? I'm thinking less of an alchemist, and more of a battlefield surgeon, one who can work with bleed effects, surpress diseases and illnesses, and get to work against enemies with vicious medical equipment. Would be a great fit from anywhere from Caliphas to Westcrown, and has enough potential differences from clerics or alchemists to make it stand out!

That to me sounds more like an archetype. The new Skill Feats system handles 9/10th of what you described already.

[Bluenose]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

I think what the discussion here shows is that there's demand for a class that's mechanically a resource-based warrior - something like the PF1 gunslinger or swashbuckler, the 5e Battlemaster fighter, or (on the more spectacular end) the classes from 3.5's Tome of Battle. The fighter's abilities are all either always on, or enabled by circumstances - the only resource the fighter has to manage is their hit points. That leaves a lot of room in the system for a class with a slightly lower baseline martial competence, but with some sort of resource that lets them push the envelope a bit.

I wouldn't want such a class to replace the fighter, because there's definitely something to be said for a class that doesn't have to deal with resource management. But there's room for both.

Because once the thug that relies on brute force and luck is in the game any warrior class that has more abilities than that has to be worse at fighting or class balance would be upset - and we all know how incredibly important class balance is in PF.

Or you could just shift the current Fighter over to an NPC Warrior class and make a new version with a default range of stances, techniques and opportunistic actions that could include swashbuckler panache and gunslinger grit, berserker rage, gladiator exploits and a range of other special manoeuvres to make it easier to have a fighter that has the breadth to cover d'Artagnan, Wyatt Earp, William Marshal, Beowulf, Miyamoto Musashi, Arjuna, or Gilgamesh in one class.

[Roswynn]

Malk_Content wrote:

Derry L. Zimeye wrote:

<puts up the topic sign again!> Remember, this thread is for the discussion of brand new class ideas, not which old classes from 1e should return! There are many other threads for that kind of thing :}

To contribute more to the ideas, maybe it'd be interesting to see a class that fills the role of a non-magical healer; a plague doctor or surgeon type deal, maybe? I'm thinking less of an alchemist, and more of a battlefield surgeon, one who can work with bleed effects, surpress diseases and illnesses, and get to work against enemies with vicious medical equipment. Would be a great fit from anywhere from Caliphas to Westcrown, and has enough potential differences from clerics or alchemists to make it stand out!

That to me sounds more like an archetype. The new Skill Feats system handles 9/10th of what you described already.

I tend to agree. Sounds a lot like a chirurgeon alchemist with perhaps an archetype or at least an interesting skill feats selection.

It's not identical, but I see a bit too much overlap personally.

[Mechagamera]

I would like a more transfigural class, like the 4e warden (but not limited to "nature"). I think of it as the martial sorcerer, but instead of a weird connection to magic giving you spell casting, it temporarily turns you into a being of stone, a half-dragon, a half-angel, a humanoid bear, etc. Transformations + being inherently good at hitting things with weapons (like fighters, paladins, barbarians, etc.) is what I am going for.

[Deadmanwalking]

Squiggit wrote:

Maybe if there weren't rules against archetype stacking when 2e drops, otherwise it feels punitive and kind of arbitrary to tell someone who wants to play a pirate with a gun that they have to pick which of the two they want to be good at and which they want to put off until much later in the campaign. Or to give a thumbs up to a fighter/wizard with a bow but tell a fighter/wizard with a musket to come back in a handful of levels and piss off in the meantime.

This paragraph basically ignores what I was actually saying. I was saying guns are likely an Advanced Weapon, which are usable by anyone who's proficient in them (certainly including Fighters), but usually lag a bit in Proficiency (ie: Fighters are only Trained rather than Expert in them to start with).

I was suggesting an Archetype to increase Proficiency in Advanced Weapons was a solid idea.

Squiggit wrote:

We're just shutting down character concepts and I honestly can't even tell what the upshot of this would be.

The upshot of making guns Advanced Weapons is that it's appropriate and it allows them to be better than other weapons without being unbalanced. The upshot of having an Archetype to make you better with Advanced Weapons is that something sure should, and it should be less restrictive than needing a unique Class.

Squiggit wrote:

A prestige archetype to unlock some crazy gunplay tricks? That sounds fine, but simple functionality and competency should never be locked behind something as significant as an archetype.

My suggestion would allow literally any Fighter to use a gun, just not as well as if you take the Archetype.

[masda_gib]

Mechagamera wrote:

I would like a more transfigural class, like the 4e warden (but not limited to "nature"). I think of it as the martial sorcerer, but instead of a weird connection to magic giving you spell casting, it temporarily turns you into a being of stone, a half-dragon, a half-angel, a humanoid bear, etc. Transformations + being inherently good at hitting things with weapons (like fighters, paladins, barbarians, etc.) is what I am going for.

Isn't this basically the PF2 barbarian? Some of the barbs totems have the Primal, Arcane or Occult trait, meaning they are Powered By Magic (TM) and they do transform you into a dragon etc.

If there is an elemental totem/instinct in the future, it probably will also transform you into a stone being.

[Pumpkinhead11]

masda_gib wrote:

Mechagamera wrote:

I would like a more transfigural class, like the 4e warden (but not limited to "nature"). I think of it as the martial sorcerer, but instead of a weird connection to magic giving you spell casting, it temporarily turns you into a being of stone, a half-dragon, a half-angel, a humanoid bear, etc. Transformations + being inherently good at hitting things with weapons (like fighters, paladins, barbarians, etc.) is what I am going for.

Isn't this basically the PF2 barbarian? Some of the barbs totems have the Primal, Arcane or Occult trait, meaning they are Powered By Magic (TM) and they do transform you into a dragon etc.

If there is an elemental totem/instinct in the future, it probably will also transform you into a stone being.

This sounds more like what the 1e Shifter was suppose to be. I’m not familiar with the 4e class off hand, and a 2e Barbarian can technically fit this bill, but i’m Not sure if that’s what they’re looking for.

As for the Non-Magical Healer idea, Alchemist seems to fit the bill really closely; and an Alchemist makes potions with herbalist ingredients so i’m Not really sure what good making an Herbalist class would do differently than an Alchemist to be honest.

A big problem that i would see with a non-magical healer being competitive with a magical healer would be resource management; otherwise the non-magical one has a real chance of being the default choice. After a little thought though i was thinking maybe a Non-Magical Healer could be based on temp buffs. Have their heals be Temp HP that scales since i think Temp HP still doesn’t stack in 2e. Allow them to suppress conditions and illnesses for a short time and raise the difficulty scale on each additional attempt afterwords. Not sure how they’d work combatwise though.

[Temperans]

That type of non-magical healer might make a really good poison user, since there is little difference between medicinal and poisonous herbs (besides precautions).

On a more magical side, a scroll/writing/rune based class could be good. Something were the spell only works while the runes are active/intact.

[PossibleCabbage]

Wouldn't "nonmagical healer" be a good class path for alchemists?

[Staffan Johansson]

Bluenose wrote:

Staffan Johansson wrote:

I think what the discussion here shows is that there's demand for a class that's mechanically a resource-based warrior - something like the PF1 gunslinger or swashbuckler, the 5e Battlemaster fighter, or (on the more spectacular end) the classes from 3.5's Tome of Battle. The fighter's abilities are all either always on, or enabled by circumstances - the only resource the fighter has to manage is their hit points. That leaves a lot of room in the system for a class with a slightly lower baseline martial competence, but with some sort of resource that lets them push the envelope a bit.

I wouldn't want such a class to replace the fighter, because there's definitely something to be said for a class that doesn't have to deal with resource management. But there's room for both.

Because once the thug that relies on brute force and luck is in the game any warrior class that has more abilities than that has to be worse at fighting or class balance would be upset - and we all know how incredibly important class balance is in PF.

That's why I said it should have a slightly lower baseline martial competence. Think paladin/champion or barbarian as a baseline, but replace the holy/rage stuff with deeds/tricks/exploits.

And I wouldn't say that the fighter "relies on brute force and luck". In the playtest, the guy playing the fighter in the second adventure was probably the one most happy with his character, because he had quite a few options (it's been a while, but I think he used a polearm and focused on shoving people around). There's nothing wrong with the fighter, but it would be neat to have a class that (a) didn't use magic and still (b) could do a limited amount of really awesome stuff instead of an unlimited amount of really competent stuff.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

Doktor Weasel wrote:

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.

If they're distinct enough to be archetypes, to my mind they are distinct enough to be separate classes.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

nick1wasd wrote:

A class I have been thinking about recently that would be fun to port over is the 3/3.5 Jester, a master of improvised weapons, the man who always wins the bar fight (that isn't the monk). Someone who can play out the "Faceless Knight" Lancelot stories where he bludgeoned a man in full plate with a chair leg. I want a guy who can walk into Copper Tree, pick up LITERALLY ANYTHING, and then go and fend off a horde of goblins with it, maybe even a hobgoblin or 5.

That's kind of what I've always wanted a Brawler to be.

[Squiggit]

Regarding that improvised weapons idea, while a class or archetype that specializes in them would be cool, one thing I was really hoping for was that PF2 would make characters more independent of their weapons in general. Doesn't look like that's going to be the case, unfortunately, so hopefully we do get some archetypes or class options to open that up.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

My suggestion would allow literally any Fighter to use a gun, just not as well as if you take the Archetype.

I guess it depends on what the threshold for 'not as well' is. Some people upthread were arguing that the archetype should be required for "competency", which seems really problematic. An archetype that lets you do crazy things above and beyond merely shooting a gun and doing good damage, which should be open to basically anyone, sounds good though.

[Pumpkinhead11]

Squiggit wrote:

Regarding that improvised weapons idea, while a class or archetype that specializes in them would be cool, one thing I was really hoping for was that PF2 would make characters more independent of their weapons in general. Doesn't look like that's going to be the case, unfortunately, so hopefully we do get some archetypes or class options to open that up.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

My suggestion would allow literally any Fighter to use a gun, just not as well as if you take the Archetype.

I guess it depends on what the threshold for 'not as well' is. Some people upthread were arguing that the archetype should be required for "competency", which seems really problematic. An archetype that lets you do crazy things above and beyond merely shooting a gun and doing good damage, which should be open to basically anyone, sounds good though.

If we assume Firearms ends up being Exotic/Advanced and the Fighter’s Proficiency is the same as the Playtest, then Fighter would end up being Master Proficiency with Firearms while being Legendary with Simple and Martial. Allow for the Archetype to give any class Legendary Prof in for a feat and that should be good. Even without Legendary that still ends up being (Level X + Master (6) + Dex Mod + Item Bonus).

[Clonky Bob]

It's not a new idea, but it wasn't in pathfinder 1. But I'd kind of like to see an archetype or class that's akin to the D&D archivist or a not-necessarily-evil version of the ur priest.

+1ing magical girls.

A class that turns into stuff but isn't bound tightly to druid fluff would be nice.

+1ing the ritualist. It could be like exalted magic, where it's not so much what you do in combat as what you did before combat.

+1ing being able to make characters less dependent on weapons, but I don't know if that's balancable. I might also not care.

A class that satisfies the "play as a monster" itch, like a summoner but they get evolutions themselves instead of sticking them on an eidolon. I don't think 1e even ever did anything like that, the closest thing was the summoner, and that only ever gave you a monster as a companion.

[Ramanujan]

Clonky Bob wrote:

A class that satisfies the "play as a monster" itch, like a summoner but they get evolutions themselves instead of sticking them on an eidolon. I don't think 1e even ever did anything like that, the closest thing was the summoner, and that only ever gave you a monster as a companion.

...You mean like the PF1 Summoner archetype Synthesist?

I'm not sure if your comment was intentionally ignoring the Synthesist's existence due to the controversy about it, or if you genuinely hadn't seen it before? (If not, a lot of people have strong opinions on the Synthesist. It is one of the banned Summoner Archetypes in Pathfinder Society play, and it wasn't included with the updated Unchained Summoner)

[Clonky Bob]

Ramanujan wrote:

Clonky Bob wrote:

A class that satisfies the "play as a monster" itch, like a summoner but they get evolutions themselves instead of sticking them on an eidolon. I don't think 1e even ever did anything like that, the closest thing was the summoner, and that only ever gave you a monster as a companion.

...You mean like the PF1 Summoner archetype Synthesist?

I'm not sure if your comment was intentionally ignoring the Synthesist's existence due to the controversy about it, or if you genuinely hadn't seen it before? (If not, a lot of people have strong opinions on the Synthesist. It is one of the banned Summoner Archetypes in Pathfinder Society play, and it wasn't included with the updated Unchained Summoner)

I didn't bring up the synthesist because I didn't want to compare it directly to that. Yes I'd want something similar, but more getting the evolutions themselves rather than wearing the eidolon like a suit of armor.

Wasn't that the main complaint with the synthesist? That it could basically ignore strength Dexterity and constitution because it used the eidolon's anyway, and lasted longer than any other character because of the temp hp?

[Reckless]

The Aegus psionic class from Dreamscarred press is basically the closest I can think of in 1e for what you're looking for. It essentially created a psychic skin you were able to modify with better and better augmentations.

I'm fairly certain you could choose the augmentations each time you manifested it.