What NEW classes do you hope 2e brings?

[MaxAstro]

I've always wanted a good "armor-bonded" or "does ridiculous magical things with armor" class. Aegis was right up my alley there and it would be nice to see an official class that is similar.

I'd also like to strongly +1 the "resource-based martial character" idea, that would be fantastic. Tome of Battle is an amazing supplement.

[Mechagamera]

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.

No one played a barbarian in my playtest group. I will have to take a look at them. Thank you.

[Staffan Johansson]

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.

PF1 also had the Shifter as a late addition, which has full BAB and druidic wild shape, plus the ability to buff themselves by taking on animal aspects. It doesn't have any "unnatural" abilities though.

Going back to 3.5e, you had the Totemist class from Magic of Incarnum, which could mimic some abilities of magical beasts. It was a cool idea but always seemed a little fiddly, moving incarnum points around to empower different abilities, plus some of their more powerful abilities competed with magic items for body slots.

[PFSocietyInitiate]

I'd like a martial class built around charisma which strengthens yourself and your allies. I imagine you would need a spell pool or something similar to balance it since it would be pretty broken to apply a bonus as strong as rage to everyone in your party while it'd be boring to have bonuses significantly weaker than rage.

Ability paths could include one focused on enhancing yourself, enhancing 1-2 people or enhancing a large group.

You could give yourself/others re-rolls, temporary HP, extra movement, extra actions, bonus to AC or attack.

Ideally this class would be as good at supporting others as the bard but in a martial twist.

I think Marshal would be a good name for it for obvious reasons.

[Temperans]

Hmm that kind of sounds like the skald/bard, although yes they have spells. My point being it could very well work as an archetype, similar to hellknights.

[Clonky Bob]

Reckless wrote:

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.

I was thinking more along the lines of rite publishing's in the company of monsters line, or the homebrew ozodrin. Both are a lot of fun if you want to be a monster, though in completely different ways. But you're right, the aegis is probably the closest published class to the ozodrin.

[Pumpkinhead11]

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

I'd like a martial class built around charisma which strengthens yourself and your allies. I imagine you would need a spell pool or something similar to balance it since it would be pretty broken to apply a bonus as strong as rage to everyone in your party while it'd be boring to have bonuses significantly weaker than rage.

Ability paths could include one focused on enhancing yourself, enhancing 1-2 people or enhancing a large group.

You could give yourself/others re-rolls, temporary HP, extra movement, extra actions, bonus to AC or attack.

Ideally this class would be as good at supporting others as the bard but in a martial twist.

I think Marshal would be a good name for it for obvious reasons.

In the Playtest they gave Rogue a Charisma based Racket and even allowed Cha or Dex as a key stat. I’m not sure about an entirely Cha based Martial, but giving classes access to Cha based path is always recommended.

[Crayon]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

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."

More like 40ish, but that's nipicking.

Even at it's most charitable, however, that seems more like an argument for reigning in the number of Feats - or better yet, omitting them from the game altogether - than for adding even more redundant classes to a game that arguably has too many already.

[Crayon]

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

I'd like a martial class built around charisma which strengthens yourself and your allies. I imagine you would need a spell pool or something similar to balance it since it would be pretty broken to apply a bonus as strong as rage to everyone in your party while it'd be boring to have bonuses significantly weaker than rage.

Ability paths could include one focused on enhancing yourself, enhancing 1-2 people or enhancing a large group.

You could give yourself/others re-rolls, temporary HP, extra movement, extra actions, bonus to AC or attack.

Ideally this class would be as good at supporting others as the bard but in a martial twist.

I think Marshal would be a good name for it for obvious reasons.

Sounds like a concept that would work fine with at least 4 existing classes (Bard, Cleric, Paladin, and Sorcerer)

[swoosh]

Crayon wrote:

that seems more like an argument for reigning in the number of Feats - or better yet, omitting them from the game altogether

PF with no feats sounds terrible.

Crayon wrote:

Sounds like a concept that would work fine with at least 4 existing classes (Bard, Cleric, Paladin, and Sorcerer)

You say that, but the first thing the person you're replying to asks for is a 'martial' character and three of your four suggested options are full casters and the last has a very narrow fluff paradigm to it.

Kind of stumbling out the gate there before we even get to trying to build out their concept.

[Clonky Bob]

swoosh wrote:

Crayon wrote:

that seems more like an argument for reigning in the number of Feats - or better yet, omitting them from the game altogether

PF with no feats sounds terrible.

Crayon wrote:

Sounds like a concept that would work fine with at least 4 existing classes (Bard, Cleric, Paladin, and Sorcerer)

You say that, but the first thing the person you're replying to asks for is a 'martial' character and three of your four suggested options are full casters and the last has a very narrow fluff paradigm to it.

Kind of stumbling out the gate there before we even get to trying to build out their concept.

Agreed. The only full martial character in that list is the paladin and maybe it would be nice to have a cha based martial that's not tied to deity worship.

[Garretmander]

Depending on the final versions, a fighter with muticlass archetype: bard, ignoring spellcasting multiclass feats might make that happen.

[Deadmanwalking]

Garretmander wrote:

Depending on the final versions, a fighter with muticlass archetype: bard, ignoring spellcasting multiclass feats might make that happen.

Not very conveniently. You still wind up with cantrips, and your inspiration is still inherently magical.

I mean, it's a thing you can do, but a Class actively built around that concept would still do it significantly better for the people who want said concept.

[PFSocietyInitiate]

Clonky Bob wrote:

swoosh wrote:

Crayon wrote:

that seems more like an argument for reigning in the number of Feats - or better yet, omitting them from the game altogether

PF with no feats sounds terrible.

Crayon wrote:

Sounds like a concept that would work fine with at least 4 existing classes (Bard, Cleric, Paladin, and Sorcerer)

You say that, but the first thing the person you're replying to asks for is a 'martial' character and three of your four suggested options are full casters and the last has a very narrow fluff paradigm to it.

Kind of stumbling out the gate there before we even get to trying to build out their concept.

Agreed. The only full martial character in that list is the paladin and maybe it would be nice to have a cha based martial that's not tied to deity worship.

And I honestly don't see a Paladin doing everything I had originally listed while also fulfilling the role of Paladin. They would either be all about supporting others, with no abilities for themselves or the abilities that do support others would have too much in them and would always be chosen.

The Marshal class wouldn't even step on the Paladin's toes cause they would heal temp HP, flavored as rallying allies instead of the using if positive energy like the Paladin does

[PFSocietyInitiate]

I'd like to see Champion be specific for good alignments. While neutral and evil would have their own classes and sub classes.

Maybe Guardian for the Neutral class.
Gray Paladin being LN. Renegade for CN. If you are including N then Arbiter though it might be hard to come up with mechanics for a N class.

Conquerer for the evil class maybe? Not 100% on that name. Tyrant for LE. Defiler for NE. Antipaladin for CE. Not 100% on Defiler either.

[kaineblade83]

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

I'd like to see Champion be specific for good alignments. While neutral and evil would have their own classes and sub classes.

Maybe Guardian for the Neutral class.
Gray Paladin being LN. Renegade for CN. If you are including N then Arbiter though it might be hard to come up with mechanics for a N class.

Conquerer for the evil class maybe? Not 100% on that name. Tyrant for LE. Defiler for NE. Antipaladin for CE. Not 100% on Defiler either.

My home group's been talking about the other alignments for champion, which we're all pretty well assuming will be other alignments but I can see why some people may not like that.

What we've come up with so far is;
LN = Arbiter
N = Monitor
CN = We were going back and forth between Zealot (mostly because of the Proteans, and I am not a huge fan of that one) and ...as you said, Renegade.

LE = Tyrant, we agree there!
NE = Reaver, but I do like Defiler, having heard it now...
CE = I think we're all on board with that one probably being Antipaladin

As to what new classes I hope to see, I'd really be interested in seeing an artificer, though I'd be happy to see it as an archetype, maybe even an alchemist-specific archetype?

Everything else I think could be pretty well represented by a previously existing class, truth be told, so nothing really -new- that I can think of at the moment.

[Roswynn]

kaineblade83 wrote:

As to what new classes I hope to see, I'd really be interested in seeing an artificer, though I'd be happy to see it as an archetype, maybe even an alchemist-specific archetype?

+1 for the artificer alchemist (I'd really like a tinkerer archetype as in 1e, specializing in clockwork).

+1 also for the marshal, and if the devs think it overlaps with the fighter too much, then maybe it might be a class archetype for them...

Oh, and +1 for the "monster class", even though I'm not sure what the fluff would say about this kind of character - but it's a concept that would be interesting to explore.

[Deadmanwalking]

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

I'd like to see Champion be specific for good alignments. While neutral and evil would have their own classes and sub classes.

Maybe Guardian for the Neutral class.
Gray Paladin being LN. Renegade for CN. If you are including N then Arbiter though it might be hard to come up with mechanics for a N class.

Conquerer for the evil class maybe? Not 100% on that name. Tyrant for LE. Defiler for NE. Antipaladin for CE. Not 100% on Defiler either.

The name of the Class is still Champion, but all these are very plausible as subclasses, which we know will work very differently mechanically (we know pretty much for sure that Lay on Hands is exclusive to Good alignments, for example).

[Temperans]

Hmm if they go for every alignment has a class, then I feel that true neutral shouldn't be involved. So you end up with 4 classes: good (Champion), evil (?), lawful (Arbiter?), and chaotic (?).

True neutral could be a "prestige" archetype following envoy of balance

[Vidmaster7]

To me TN would be more of a pure armor specialist. No holy or unholy abilities just normal tanky stuff.

[Some Kind of Chymist]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

I'd like to see Champion be specific for good alignments. While neutral and evil would have their own classes and sub classes.

Maybe Guardian for the Neutral class.
Gray Paladin being LN. Renegade for CN. If you are including N then Arbiter though it might be hard to come up with mechanics for a N class.

Conquerer for the evil class maybe? Not 100% on that name. Tyrant for LE. Defiler for NE. Antipaladin for CE. Not 100% on Defiler either.

The name of the Class is still Champion, but all these are very plausible as subclasses, which we know will work very differently mechanically (we know pretty much for sure that Lay on Hands is exclusive to Good alignments, for example).

They've already 99% confirmed this haven't they? that the 3 good alignments would be in the CRB and the neutral and evil alignment choices for the Champion would come in later books.

As for fully new classes hopefully another class that is like a 'pet' class but based around their weapon (instead of the pet). Like Varric from Dragon Age w/ his crossbow Bianca or that magic sword archetype for magus. That sort of character concept; where the character is built around their weapon that's super customisable.

But Pathfinder has already covered 99 percent of the typical broad strokes character types that make sense to be a 'class' and not a subclass.

[nick1wasd]

I'll restate again since it was really far up this thread, but a "Marshall"/Cha Martial class should have a feel of something like LeLouch/Balalaika/Robin(FE)/Anyone who lives here. Someone who's very presence makes people just... DO BETTER! Heck, the Envoy from Starfinder does a FANTASTIC job at this, if they just copy/pasta-ed that class over to PF2, it'd fit the bill to a T (Envoys are a little bit lacking in the killing things department, but that could be easily remedied with a tweaked number here or there), I have an Envoy in my SF party, they're really good at this. Also another specific item based class sounds really fun, I very much enjoyed my zanpakto wielding Magus :P

[PFSocietyInitiate]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

I'd like to see Champion be specific for good alignments. While neutral and evil would have their own classes and sub classes.

Maybe Guardian for the Neutral class.
Gray Paladin being LN. Renegade for CN. If you are including N then Arbiter though it might be hard to come up with mechanics for a N class.

Conquerer for the evil class maybe? Not 100% on that name. Tyrant for LE. Defiler for NE. Antipaladin for CE. Not 100% on Defiler either.

The name of the Class is still Champion, but all these are very plausible as subclasses, which we know will work very differently mechanically (we know pretty much for sure that Lay on Hands is exclusive to Good alignments, for example).

The only reason I don't want it to just be subclasses of champion would be the confusion in making a class. Right now it's easy, your alignment affects your special reaction and your code. Any alignment of champion can take any class feat. Easy. But once you start adding in neutral and evil then it's gonna get confusing. Either champions of all alignments can choose any class feat, so you'll have CE champions getting smite evil and LG paladins choosing obviously evil abilities. Or champions can only choose specific abilities linked to their Good-Evil alignment. In which case you gotta flip through 50 feats you can't use whenever you play a champion.

I think the easy fix is neutral gets it's own class and evil gets it's own class

[Temperans]

You know a lot of those feats could just have variable effects, kind of like the Zealot Vigilante Archetype:

Zealot Smite:

Zealot Smite (Su): Once per day, a zealot with this talent can use this power to smite a foe. Zealots that are good in their vigilante identity (or worship a good deity) can smite evil creatures, those that are evil in their vigilante identity (or worship an evil deity) can smite good creatures, those that are chaotic in their vigilante identity (or worship a chaotic deity) can smite lawful creatures, and those that are lawful in their vigilante identity (or worship a lawful deity) can smite chaotic creatures. A zealot that is neutral when in his vigilante identity and that worships a neutral deity can pick to smite any one of the four alignments; other zealots must select from the alignments available based on their own alignment or their deity’s. Once that choice is made, it can’t be changed.

[nick1wasd]

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

I'd like to see Champion be specific for good alignments. While neutral and evil would have their own classes and sub classes.

Maybe Guardian for the Neutral class.
Gray Paladin being LN. Renegade for CN. If you are including N then Arbiter though it might be hard to come up with mechanics for a N class.

Conquerer for the evil class maybe? Not 100% on that name. Tyrant for LE. Defiler for NE. Antipaladin for CE. Not 100% on Defiler either.

The name of the Class is still Champion, but all these are very plausible as subclasses, which we know will work very differently mechanically (we know pretty much for sure that Lay on Hands is exclusive to Good alignments, for example).

The only reason I don't want it to just be subclasses of champion would be the confusion in making a class. Right now it's easy, your alignment affects your special reaction and your code. Any alignment of champion can take any class feat. Easy. But once you start adding in neutral and evil then it's gonna get confusing. Either champions of all alignments can choose any class feat, so you'll have CE champions getting smite evil and LG paladins choosing obviously evil abilities. Or champions can only choose specific abilities linked to their Good-Evil alignment. In which case you gotta flip through 50 feats you can't use whenever you play a champion.

I think the easy fix is neutral gets it's own class and evil gets it's own class

It's not that confusing, you just pick the OBVIOUSLY good/evil feats (the good themed oaths, Litany of X, Angelic Form), and lock them behind an alignment wall. The rest either rely on Lay on Hands, or can have minor flavor tweaks to become evil (Divine Health and Divine Grace, just flavor it as "My god wishes me to cause more terror, therefore I will not fall!", and the Righteous Blade family can just deal evil damage instead of good).

[PFSocietyInitiate]

nick1wasd wrote:

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

I'd like to see Champion be specific for good alignments. While neutral and evil would have their own classes and sub classes.

Maybe Guardian for the Neutral class.
Gray Paladin being LN. Renegade for CN. If you are including N then Arbiter though it might be hard to come up with mechanics for a N class.

Conquerer for the evil class maybe? Not 100% on that name. Tyrant for LE. Defiler for NE. Antipaladin for CE. Not 100% on Defiler either.

The name of the Class is still Champion, but all these are very plausible as subclasses, which we know will work very differently mechanically (we know pretty much for sure that Lay on Hands is exclusive to Good alignments, for example).

The only reason I don't want it to just be subclasses of champion would be the confusion in making a class. Right now it's easy, your alignment affects your special reaction and your code. Any alignment of champion can take any class feat. Easy. But once you start adding in neutral and evil then it's gonna get confusing. Either champions of all alignments can choose any class feat, so you'll have CE champions getting smite evil and LG paladins choosing obviously evil abilities. Or champions can only choose specific abilities linked to their Good-Evil alignment. In which case you gotta flip through 50 feats you can't use whenever you play a champion.

I think the easy fix is neutral gets it's own class and evil gets it's own class

It's not that confusing, you just pick the OBVIOUSLY good/evil feats (the good themed oaths, Litany of X, Angelic Form), and lock them behind an alignment wall. The rest either rely on Lay on Hands, or can have minor flavor tweaks to become evil (Divine Health and Divine Grace, just flavor it as "My god wishes me to cause more terror, therefore I will not fall!", and the Righteous Blade family can just deal evil damage instead of good).

It's easy to say "just pick the obvious good feats" but many people will choose what's optimal or what's cool. Your solution doesn't give any reason why it's a good idea to not split up the 3 alignments, it's just a messy solution you want for seemingly no reason. I promise I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just don't see why you wouldn't split it up into 3 classes

[nick1wasd]

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

nick1wasd wrote:

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

The only reason I don't want it to just be subclasses of champion would be the confusion in making a class. Right now it's easy, your alignment affects your special reaction and your code. Any alignment of champion can take any class feat. Easy. But once you start adding in neutral and evil then it's gonna get confusing. Either champions of all alignments can choose any class feat, so you'll have CE champions getting smite evil and LG paladins choosing obviously evil abilities. Or champions can only choose specific abilities linked to their Good-Evil alignment. In which case you gotta flip through 50 feats you can't use whenever you play a champion.

I think the easy fix is neutral gets it's own class and evil gets it's own class

It's not that confusing, you just pick the OBVIOUSLY good/evil feats (the good themed oaths, Litany of X, Angelic Form), and lock them behind an alignment wall. The rest either rely on Lay on Hands, or can have minor flavor tweaks to become evil (Divine Health and Divine Grace, just flavor it as "My god wishes me to cause more terror, therefore I will not fall!", and the Righteous Blade family can just deal evil damage instead of good).

It's easy to say "just pick the obvious good feats" but many people will choose what's optimal or what's cool. Your solution doesn't give any reason why it's a good idea to not split up the 3 alignments, it's just a messy solution you want for seemingly no reason. I promise I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just don't see why you wouldn't split it up into 3 classes

If you keep it as one giant chassis, it's less overall book keeping for Paizo and the GM. It unifies the way the class works (oh, class A B and C all have these proficiencies, and have mostly the same feats, and this thing is the same... and this... and this... VS. HEY! It's this the same super class, and all these special paths have exclusive feats because they're good/evil!). Plus what would you name the others? "Champion" was intended to be an umbrella for a bunch of different styles of things to fall under. And what's "Optimal or cool" for a Liberator would probably be ironic/counter intuitive for an Anti-paladin, and vice versa. I pretty sure bloodlines will have an exclusive feats, I (pretty much) know Thesis's will, I know for a fact Muses do, so why can't Callings? (I think they're called Callings, semantics) I just think on a whole, more headaches would be caused with 3 cousin classes than 1 fat superclass with some mutually exclusive feats to keep the boundaries established, but that's from personal experience with "hey, this class is 98% the same as this other one, but this ONE THING is >SUPER< DIFFERENT, SO IT NEEDS TO BE ALONE (when it's not that different to begin with)" and I (again, personally) find that to be extremely grating.

[PFSocietyInitiate]

nick1wasd wrote:

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

nick1wasd wrote:

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

The only reason I don't want it to just be subclasses of champion would be the confusion in making a class. Right now it's easy, your alignment affects your special reaction and your code. Any alignment of champion can take any class feat. Easy. But once you start adding in neutral and evil then it's gonna get confusing. Either champions of all alignments can choose any class feat, so you'll have CE champions getting smite evil and LG paladins choosing obviously evil abilities. Or champions can only choose specific abilities linked to their Good-Evil alignment. In which case you gotta flip through 50 feats you can't use whenever you play a champion.

I think the easy fix is neutral gets it's own class and evil gets it's own class

It's not that confusing, you just pick the OBVIOUSLY good/evil feats (the good themed oaths, Litany of X, Angelic Form), and lock them behind an alignment wall. The rest either rely on Lay on Hands, or can have minor flavor tweaks to become evil (Divine Health and Divine Grace, just flavor it as "My god wishes me to cause more terror, therefore I will not fall!", and the Righteous Blade family can just deal evil damage instead of good).

It's easy to say "just pick the obvious good feats" but many people will choose what's optimal or what's cool. Your solution doesn't give any reason why it's a good idea to not split up the 3 alignments, it's just a messy solution you want for seemingly no reason. I promise I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just don't see why you wouldn't split it up into 3 classes

If you keep it as one giant chassis, it's less overall book keeping for Paizo and the GM. It unifies the way the class works (oh, class A B and C all have these proficiencies, and have mostly the same feats, and this thing is the same... and this... and this... VS. HEY! It's this the same super class, and all these special paths have exclusive feats because they're good/evil!). Plus what...

It's no extra bookkeeping than any other added class. Once you have the framework for the classes, you release feats just as easily as if it was all under champion.

Creating different classes for each let's you change up the proficiencies to make each more unique then if they were all mixed together.

The current champion doesn't have requirements based on alignment, meaning you would have to reprint the CRB to make sure all initial Champion abilities are tied to Good or release an addendum. Both of those would require extra bookkeeping. Or you can let any alignment take any feat in which case you may end up with CE antipaladin having the blade of Justice class feat which seems really odd.

Names are easy though

Guardian for the Neutral class.
Gray Paladin being LN. Arbiter for being N. Renegade for CN.

Conquerer for the evil class.
Tyrant for LE. Defiler for NE. Antipaladin for CE.

[Elfteiroh]

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

nick1wasd wrote:

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

nick1wasd wrote:

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

The only reason I don't want it to just be subclasses of champion would be the confusion in making a class. Right now it's easy, your alignment affects your special reaction and your code. Any alignment of champion can take any class feat. Easy. But once you start adding in neutral and evil then it's gonna get confusing. Either champions of all alignments can choose any class feat, so you'll have CE champions getting smite evil and LG paladins choosing obviously evil abilities. Or champions can only choose specific abilities linked to their Good-Evil alignment. In which case you gotta flip through 50 feats you can't use whenever you play a champion.

I think the easy fix is neutral gets it's own class and evil gets it's own class

It's not that confusing, you just pick the OBVIOUSLY good/evil feats (the good themed oaths, Litany of X, Angelic Form), and lock them behind an alignment wall. The rest either rely on Lay on Hands, or can have minor flavor tweaks to become evil (Divine Health and Divine Grace, just flavor it as "My god wishes me to cause more terror, therefore I will not fall!", and the Righteous Blade family can just deal evil damage instead of good).

It's easy to say "just pick the obvious good feats" but many people will choose what's optimal or what's cool. Your solution doesn't give any reason why it's a good idea to not split up the 3 alignments, it's just a messy solution you want for seemingly no reason. I promise I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just don't see why you wouldn't split it up into 3 classes

If you keep it as one giant chassis, it's less overall book keeping for Paizo and the GM. It unifies the way the class works (oh, class A B and C all have these proficiencies, and have mostly the same feats, and this thing is the same... and this... and this... VS. HEY! It's this the same super class, and all these special paths have exclusive feats because

...

"you just pick the OBVIOUSLY good/evil feats (the good themed oaths, Litany of X, Angelic Form), and lock them behind an alignment wall."

I think the "You" at the start refer to the designers... Like, if there's "good-only" feats, they will have an alignment requirement or a specific cause, like the Blade of Justice that is Paladin cause only. Also relevent, the multiclass feat for the devotion spell (lay on hand for goods) is future proofed by saying "the devotion appropriate for your cause" with a list of the good ones that get Lay on hand.

[swoosh]

Speaking of the Champion, while it's not a new class and I know the Champion borrows some ideas from it, it'd be pretty neat to see the Paladin show up in PF2 in some form, whether as an archetype or a new class or whatever.

[PFSocietyInitiate]

Elfteiroh wrote:

"you just pick the OBVIOUSLY good/evil feats (the good themed oaths, Litany of X, Angelic Form), and lock them behind an alignment wall."

I think the "You" at the start refer to the designers... Like, if there's "good-only" feats, they will have an alignment requirement or a specific cause, like the Blade of Justice that is Paladin cause only. Also relevent, the multiclass feat for the devotion spell (lay on hand for goods) is future proofed by saying "the devotion appropriate for your cause" with a list of the good ones that get Lay on hand.

Lay on hands is future proofed but is every current paladin class feature future proofed as well? If it is then it isn't a big deal but if it isn't then I think we need to split it up for simplicity

[Deadmanwalking]

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

Lay on hands is future proofed but is every current paladin class feature future proofed as well? If it is then it isn't a big deal but if it isn't then I think we need to split it up for simplicity

They have explicitly said, in as many words, that Antipaladin would be a Champion subclass. They have been really good at future-proofing everything else we've seen.

So yes, I'd expect all features intended to be variable are future-proofed.

[Elfteiroh]

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

Elfteiroh wrote:

"you just pick the OBVIOUSLY good/evil feats (the good themed oaths, Litany of X, Angelic Form), and lock them behind an alignment wall."

I think the "You" at the start refer to the designers... Like, if there's "good-only" feats, they will have an alignment requirement or a specific cause, like the Blade of Justice that is Paladin cause only. Also relevent, the multiclass feat for the devotion spell (lay on hand for goods) is future proofed by saying "the devotion appropriate for your cause" with a list of the good ones that get Lay on hand.

Lay on hands is future proofed but is every current paladin class feature future proofed as well? If it is then it isn't a big deal but if it isn't then I think we need to split it up for simplicity

From what we know, most feats that affect/is affected by alignments is limited by cause. So it seems like it's setup so that if they want to release a new Cause, they just have to print the cause and related feats. The rest is managed by the chassis, the Champion class.

[Bluenose]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

To me TN would be more of a pure armor specialist. No holy or unholy abilities just normal tanky stuff.

The obvious choice is a Champion of Nature, someone like the Green Knight from some Arthurian tales or the warrior-characters with minor shapeshifting ability but no spells. The Ranger should be much more about mobility and ambushes than a stand-up fight, this character wouldn't be about rage so isn't a Barbarian, and they're not a spellcaster like Druids, but they do have a connection to the powers of nature and express it in stand-up combat with a variety of special abilities.

[Squiggit]

Bluenose wrote:

The obvious choice is a Champion of Nature

Personally I'd be kind of disappointed to see this. Druids don't have a monopoly on Neutrality, even if it sort of feels like it sometimes and

Quote:

The Ranger should be much more about mobility and ambushes than a stand-up fight

While this might be generally true I feel like this is a concept you could easily extend off the ranger as an archetype or other class options, rather than something the Champion should take for themselves.

[Malk_Content]

swoosh wrote:

Speaking of the Champion, while it's not a new class and I know the Champion borrows some ideas from it, it'd be pretty neat to see the Paladin show up in PF2 in some form, whether as an archetype or a new class or whatever.

Its literally just the LG Champion path

[swoosh]

Malk_Content wrote:

Its literally just the LG Champion path

The LG Champion enables one specific build that a PF Paladin might take, but not much else. The class is too narrow in scope otherwise, it's really built more like an archetype than a class.

[PossibleCabbage]

Is there a need for neutral champions? Like even if you are a divinely empowered representative of a neutral deity, all of the neutral deities allow for good or evil clerics.

[PFSocietyInitiate]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Is there a need for neutral champions? Like even if you are a divinely empowered representative of a neutral deity, all of the neutral deities allow for good or evil clerics.

I see it as fighting against the opposite alignment. LN gets bonuses against all chaotic creatures, CN gets bonuses against all Lawful creatures. If true N is represented, maybe they can choose to keep balance between law and chaos and get bonuses against them or good and evil and get bonuses against them? There bonuses would have to be weaker though since it covers a wider group then everyone else (or they have a stricter paladin code?)

[Quandary]

Squiggit wrote:

Bluenose wrote:

The obvious choice is a Champion of Nature

Personally I'd be kind of disappointed to see this. Druids don't have a monopoly on Neutrality

And yet Druids exist, despite Pharasma, etc.

I honestly find it very strangely ironic that somebody posting in favor of other Champions of Neutrality, so casually falls into straw man discourse creating false dichotomies where nobody had claimed exclusiveness, nobody claimed Champion of Nature's existence precluded others. Why would it?

Yet as befits it's True Neutral alignment, the Druidic Champion is content not to interfere in other Neutral Champions' existential crisis. All passes under Nature's eyes.

[AnimatedPaper]

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

I'd like to see Champion be specific for good alignments. While neutral and evil would have their own classes and sub classes.

Maybe Guardian for the Neutral class.
Gray Paladin being LN. Renegade for CN. If you are including N then Arbiter though it might be hard to come up with mechanics for a N class.

Conquerer for the evil class maybe? Not 100% on that name. Tyrant for LE. Defiler for NE. Antipaladin for CE. Not 100% on Defiler either.

The name of the Class is still Champion, but all these are very plausible as subclasses, which we know will work very differently mechanically (we know pretty much for sure that Lay on Hands is exclusive to Good alignments, for example).

The only reason I don't want it to just be subclasses of champion would be the confusion in making a class. Right now it's easy, your alignment affects your special reaction and your code. Any alignment of champion can take any class feat. Easy. But once you start adding in neutral and evil then it's gonna get confusing. Either champions of all alignments can choose any class feat, so you'll have CE champions getting smite evil and LG paladins choosing obviously evil abilities. Or champions can only choose specific abilities linked to their Good-Evil alignment. In which case you gotta flip through 50 feats you can't use whenever you play a champion.

I think the easy fix is neutral gets it's own class and evil gets it's own class

Others have already tackled the cause specifications for feats, but also I don’t really see the problem with this. I can certainly see champions of evil deities that would want to be experts in smiting evil and healing minions (a LE champion of Asmodeus would CHEERFULLY aid a LG Paladin in the smashing of Rovagug’s anti-paladins). And while we all roll our eyes at lawful stupid paladin characters, a “good” character that cares more about doling out punishment rather than aiding the meek seems like a valid champion cause at some point.

[Derry L. Zimeye]

Let's not make this a champion thread, either, folks! Keep new ideas flowin'!

[Squiggit]

Quandary wrote:

nobody claimed Champion of Nature's existence precluded others. Why would it?

... Because someone specifically suggested the TN variation of the class should be flavored after a Druid? By definition if the TN class option is specifically druidic that means it's not anything not druidic.

On the other hand, having it not specifically be druidic doesn't necessarily preclude adding druidic elements later, or anything else.

[Temperans]

PF1 already has that via the alignment feats.

True neutrals get +2 dmg vs all alignments (stacks), but no fancy ability, and you lose the benefit if your alignment change.

Any other alignment gets some relevant ability, +2 dmg vs the opposite alignments (stack), and the bonus damage stays even if your alignment changes.

***********
Also Arbiter (along with all Inevitable) are lawful neutral and directly oppose Proteans.

If you want true neutral then the basis should be either Aeons, Psychopomps, etc.

Also for reference the neutral class before was Envoy of Balance. With Protor, Green Faith Acolyte, and Karmic Monk, etc. Being close behind.

[Quandary]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Is there a need for neutral champions? Like even if you are a divinely empowered representative of a neutral deity, all of the neutral deities allow for good or evil clerics.

Yeah, I think "tough luck for you buddy having exact same alignment as your Deity / Natural religion" might be a good reason for neutral champions, the point of whose exacting code is going above and beyond normal requirements. But framing this in term of "character options" IMHO misses the broader importance of these classes, it isn't about a character choosing a class, but an ethos having a Champion. And I don't know why TN-aligned religious ethos shouldn't have a Champion. And I think Soul Cycle (ala Pharasma) is just as good thematic interest as "nature", possibly better in some ways.

Btw, what is difference between "Ranger Magic" and a Champion of Nature? Well, I actually think there is significant distinction, but clarifying what that is would help both classes/paths. I think one major difference is a Champion of Nature's magic should support fighting "un-natural foes" whether technological, planar, monstrous abominations... Being as Focus powers are the focus, not spell lists, tight adherence to Druidic spell list isn't actually necessary (and of course, Champion of Nature can be seen as just as aligned with Clerics of Nature). A Ranger in touch with Nature Magic doesn't so much need/want that focus, although they may just as easily tap into broader Fey/Nature magic too, with Fey Tricksterism aligning with a Trapping/Hunting vibe IMHO.

Actually, I personally would love multiple Ranger Magic paths, with an Arcane one perhaps suitable to Rangers of eastern Mwangi Expanse / Southern Garund who seek out rare arcane reagents and artifacts, comfortable working for or with (or against) the high wizardry of Nex or Magaambya. This would also position them as experts in un-natural monstrous abominations, but they wouldn't need to lose mundane Nature affinity completely (e.g. Nature skill and Tracking wouldn't change much).

[Midnightoker]

I think a "full caster" centered on Ki would be an interesting class, almost as the full caster equivalent of the Monk.

It's not that far off from the Kineticist in spirit, but I think the concept of a high casting Ki Class could encompass a lot more than just the Kineticist (probably Kineticist is a Class Path where you select an element).

Might be better suited in a book full of other eastern inspired type options, but it would also allow those that want to sprinkle in a little bit of Ki to any class a lot more palatable, particularly in the case of things like a Ninja or Samurai, via the Multiclass that would accompany the full class.

I think that Ki has an inherent flavor that differentiates it from magic, but then some might consider that to overlap a lot with Psychics/Psionics/etc.

[Stone Dog]

There is a Champions thread over here for the tangent to go to.

[AnimatedPaper]

So, one of my favorite aspects of pathfinder are haunts. I love haunts in PF1; they're neat and varied and yet fairly simple to run. I would be interested in a class that explores them to the extent that rangers are being pushed towards using traps.

This isn't something I'd want to hang an entire class around, but I'm hoping that some class or subclass picks up that ball and runs with it. It could even be Rangers, I'm not picky.

If mediums are brought forward into PF2, they'd be a natural fit as well. My guess on how they implement mediums winds up correct, it would also combine my favorite subset of PF1 rules with my favorite subset of PF2 rules (multiclass archetypes), so I'd be very happy.

Along similar lines, I hope someone brushes off the harrow inspired medium from the Occult Adventures playtest and makes a PF2 class out of it. Perhaps not as the medium, but maybe the harrower can be a full class this time around?

[Derry L. Zimeye]

Perhaps mix the Haunts and Full Caster Monk?? A mystic class!

[Arcaian]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

So, one of my favorite aspects of pathfinder are haunts. I love haunts in PF1; they're neat and varied and yet fairly simple to run. I would be interested in a class that explores them to the extent that rangers are being pushed towards using traps.

This isn't something I'd want to hang an entire class around, but I'm hoping that some class or subclass picks up that ball and runs with it. It could even be Rangers, I'm not picky.

If mediums are brought forward into PF2, they'd be a natural fit as well. My guess on how they implement mediums winds up correct, it would also combine my favorite subset of PF1 rules with my favorite subset of PF2 rules (multiclass archetypes), so I'd be very happy.

Along similar lines, I hope someone brushes off the harrow inspired medium from the Occult Adventures playtest and makes a PF2 class out of it. Perhaps not as the medium, but maybe the harrower can be a full class this time around?

A little bit of a tangent, but how do you think they'll implement medium? I'm currently writing up an update of the occult classes for my home games, and I have my implementation planned out, but always looking for new takes! :)