What NEW classes do you hope 2e brings?

[Staffan Johansson]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

But I'm wondering- Why is it seen as a better use of column inches to devote n pages to archetypes than it is to devote them to a new class?

Because judging by the pictures we've seen of the CRB, a full class takes something like 12 pages (at least that's what it looks like comparing the Alchemist and Barbarian page numbers). An archetype takes about one (for the feats, plus more for the lore).

There's also the issue that an archetype can work for multiple different classes. A Hellknight archetype can be a Champion, or a Fighter, or a Cleric, or something else. If you make Hellknight a class, all Hellknights work the same way, and you have to be a Hellknight starting at level 1.

Quote:

Furthermore, the PF2 rulebook doesn't do this because it has class sections, but there's no reason we can't just do cross-listing via tags to print class feats for more than one class with a single feat.

That sounds like a nightmare. If I'm making a monk, I want to look at the monk feats without being distracted by barbarian feats or alchemist feats or sorcerer feats. It's bad enough that the feats will eventually be spread across multiple books, but at least I hope each book will have them in concentrated form.

And if that means that there will be duplication leaving some feats on the cutting room floor? Good. Those were probably crap feats anyway.

[Ed Reppert]

Seems to me that if Paizo were to implement these class tags, it would save some space to put a reference to the feat in the description of the class, and put the descriptions of all the feats in one place, i.e., the "feats" chapter. Some might object to "now I have to flip pages to find out what it is", but that's about the only downside I can see. And that's alleviated in that the pdf version can include hyperlinks.

Also, I wonder if the difficulty someone mentioned in maintaining both archetypes and classes that are essentially the same thing doesn't indicate that a class-based system design is fundamentally flawed.

[Michael Sayre]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

But I'm wondering- Why is it seen as a better use of column inches to devote n pages to archetypes than it is to devote them to a new class? It seems easier to support a new class post release than a new archetype, since you can't print "new Gray Maiden feats" in an Arcadia book, but you can print however many new class feats.

Maybe not in an Arcadia book no, but that doesn't preclude more Gray Maiden feats. And by making it an archetype, we don't have to support it in the Arcadia book the way we might have to support e.g. the Fighter.

So if we do that Arcadia book, there's a much better chance of your Fighter/Gray Maiden getting something useful out of the book than your 20-level Gray Maiden class would. The more niche or thematically specific the class is, the harder it will be to ensure regular support for the class. But an archetype takes up less page space and grafts on to a core/base class, so whenever you make an archetype instead of a class you increase the odds of that particular character having support in future books. Similarly, there's a "maximum saturation point" where it's simply not feasible to keep adding traits onto an ability; if you're adding extra lines that need to be copyfit something may very well get squeezed out anyways, and if you're tagging six different classes in a "class feat", what you've written probably isn't actually a class feat, but maybe more of a general feat instead.

[Aristophanes]

I want to echo my desire for a PF2 version of the 3.5 Binder, something with more flavor than the Medium. I think it would be cool to have a set of "vestiges" based on Golarion Lore, each one with a "level appropriate" suite of abilities. It's a fun class, one of my 2 favorites from 3.5(the other being Warlock). I played one to 35th level in a campaign a few years ago.

[Bidmaron]

Why can't we have honest-to-God psionics made by Paizo instead of a 3rd party? Because a 3rd party won't be able to do the Golarion-specific stuff.

[PossibleCabbage]

Bidmaron wrote:

Why can't we have honest-to-God psionics made by Paizo instead of a 3rd party? Because a 3rd party won't be able to do the Golarion-specific stuff.

I feel like if they had wanted to do Psionics, they would have done so in Occult Adventures. Read into the fact that they did not, given the opportunity, what you will.

[Bidmaron]

I'm with you but this, after all, a new edition

[Staffan Johansson]

Ed Reppert wrote:

Seems to me that if Paizo were to implement these class tags, it would save some space to put a reference to the feat in the description of the class, and put the descriptions of all the feats in one place, i.e., the "feats" chapter. Some might object to "now I have to flip pages to find out what it is", but that's about the only downside I can see. And that's alleviated in that the pdf version can include hyperlinks.

Again, that sounds horrible. It would be the alphabetization of spells all over again, and that was bad enough already. I'd rather have a book that's easy to use and with a handful fewer feats than one like that.

[Temperans]

Both methods have pros and Cons. Feats going with the class makes them easier to focus/read through, but costs a lot of words (less lore and other rule elements). Feats being in a "feats" chapter uses fewer words (more lore and other elements), but can make it difficult to focus/read through. Personally, I prefer all feats being together and getting a feat index in the back, divided by class and organized by lv.

Having said that this is not the thread for this.

[MMCJawa]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Bidmaron wrote:

Why can't we have honest-to-God psionics made by Paizo instead of a 3rd party? Because a 3rd party won't be able to do the Golarion-specific stuff.

I feel like if they had wanted to do Psionics, they would have done so in Occult Adventures. Read into the fact that they did not, given the opportunity, what you will.

One of the main stated reasons for not going with a point based caster (besides not wanting to step on Dreamscarred shoes), was that they were worried that including a completely different casting mechanic would be too confusing, so they wanted to stick with a slot based system.

However, PF2E does have focus point casting. It's more limited, but it still establishes the idea. I could very much see expansion of this to produce classes that mechanically are similar to what Psionics did. You really just need to change the mechanic for focus points so that the characters got a larger number of them off the bat, and perhaps some mechanics to prevent extreme Nova abuse

[Ed Reppert]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Again, that sounds horrible. It would be the alphabetization of spells all over again, and that was bad enough already. I'd rather have a book that's easy to use and with a handful fewer feats than one like that.

Fair enough.

[Lanathar]

Not really helpful but there is a good chance that we will have a tough time guessing new classes as surprising as that may seem

For the APG (from my perspective) Inquisitor came out of nowhere as a concept / idea. And alchemist kind of as well (although alchemy has always been a thing)

I guess I mean in compared to spontaneous divine caster (although the execution was creative) and eventually “Gish - the class” and gunslinger they are more unusually

Same could be argued for what they did with some the Occult classes (Kineticist has nothing to do with occultist and the Occultist very much like wizards in Dresden files)

And I seem to recall trying to guess the direction starfinder would go with extra classes and being no way near what the extra 3 were - admittedly i am no science fiction / science fantasy expert

Isn’t there some kind of list somewhere that paizo put in one of their books about what would justify a new class? Like it needing a design niche, unique features etc? I remember it from a discussion on shifter and how it broke all of these internally set rules ...

[Squiggit]

MMCJawa wrote:

However, PF2E does have focus point casting. It's more limited, but it still establishes the idea. I could very much see expansion of this to produce classes that mechanically are similar to what Psionics did. You really just need to change the mechanic for focus points so that the characters got a larger number of them off the bat, and perhaps some mechanics to prevent extreme Nova abuse

This is a good point. Right now we've mostly seen focus as an addendum onto other classes, but having some sort of kineticist or psion inspired class that gets significantly more focus points than normal and runs their class on them could be a lot of fun.

[PossibleCabbage]

I definitely see the Occultist showing up in PF2 as "the king or queen of focus points" considering that they were the inspiration for the whole resonance/spell points mechanic which became focus. Like the niche for that class is "the casteriest focus point caster"- you get the most focus points, can do the most with them, can refocus more efficiently, etc.

[Aiden2018]

That sounds similar to how 5e did Warlocks.

[kaineblade83]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I definitely see the Occultist showing up in PF2 as "the king or queen of focus points" considering that they were the inspiration for the whole resonance/spell points mechanic which became focus. Like the niche for that class is "the casteriest focus point caster"- you get the most focus points, can do the most with them, can refocus more efficiently, etc.

I think they said something about the occultist kind of being an inspiration for focus points (or spell points, before, I believe) at one point during the playtest, but please someone correct me if I'm wrong because I ...wouldn't even know how to source that. If that's the case, occultist absolutely makes sense to behave exactly like that

[Meophist]

Focusing on Focus Points feels like it's something that could cause some balance issues. It would mean they would need to be careful what Focus Point options they give to other classes as multiclass archetype, since a powerful one can give more uses than expected to a class with a Focus Point… focus.

[Gabbers "Gab" McTalkington]

Meophist wrote:

Focusing on Focus Points feels like it's something that could cause some balance issues. It would mean they would need to be careful what Focus Point options they give to other classes as multiclass archetype, since a powerful one can give more uses than expected to a class with a Focus Point… focus.

As I recall from the playtest (which has been over a year since I played it), the different classes generally use different types of focus points. Giving someone Ki points won't overpower the Mental Focus points of the Occultist, so I think it would be easy to temper this concern.

[First World Bard]

Gabbers "Gab" McTalkington wrote:

As I recall from the playtest (which has been over a year since I played it), the different classes generally use different types of focus points. Giving someone Ki points won't overpower the Mental Focus points of the Occultist, so I think it would be easy to temper this concern.

"Focus Pools" are general and can intermix. There are a few other types of pools that are separate: Cleric's channel, Druid Wildshape, Alchemist reagents. But you have one "Focus" pool, that all your focus powers draw from. See the Multiclass archetype write-ups for feats that give focus powers: they all day something like "If you don't already have a focus pool, gain a pool of 1 point".

[LordVanya]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I definitely see the Occultist showing up in PF2 as "the king or queen of focus points" considering that they were the inspiration for the whole resonance/spell points mechanic which became focus. Like the niche for that class is "the casteriest focus point caster"- you get the most focus points, can do the most with them, can refocus more efficiently, etc.

I'm all for that take on an Occultist class!

That would make my Megaman build so much more delicious.
(Yes, there is a ton of flavor texting involved and most of it is house ruled into being treated like technology instead of psychic magic.)