If Pathfinder 1 classes are eventually trickled back into second edition, which do you hope return first?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 175 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Aiden2018 wrote:
I just want people who can throw rocks and water with kung Fu, not another edgy Sorcerer.

The kineticist absolutely supports those concepts. It seems weird and kind of vindictive to say you don't want a class to be in the game because it might also support a completely different concept someone else would play.

Aiden2018 wrote:
I can see people picking the class solely for its benefits, with no regard to how the character fits in the setting or how they've come to master their otherwise esoteric skill set.

I don't really see why that's an issue either. What's wrong with someone picking a class because it's the class they want to play?


Well I had extreme cases in mind, from prior experiences and stories that I've heard. The most fresh example I can think of (I think) involved someone who tried to create a concept that absolutely didn't fit into the setting and was just an excuse for them to powergame. Not gonna say that it ruined the game for me (actually, the game was rather fun and so was the player in question). But it was still kind of off-putting (at least at first).

If I sound vindictive it's only because I generally don't trust players to not abuse traits that give them supernatural powers with no narrative/mechanical cost. Just recently I outright forbade a player (who's a co-worker of mine) from playing a Mystic in my new campaign because he couldn't think of a reasonable concept to accompany the character build and it's abilities after I'd asked for one, and because I couldn't think of a reason to justify that character's existence in that setting (Faerun) without doing an extensive amount of research form him (which I did eventually, and it still made no sense to me).

I feel bad about not letting players not play the characters that they want, but I don't want to create more work for myself making sure that their characters are balanced and that they fit in the world setting. If I'm not having fun then it's not worth the effort.


swoosh wrote:
Aiden2018 wrote:
I just want people who can throw rocks and water with kung Fu, not another edgy Sorcerer.

The kineticist absolutely supports those concepts. It seems weird and kind of vindictive to say you don't want a class to be in the game because it might also support a completely different concept someone else would play.

Aiden2018 wrote:
I can see people picking the class solely for its benefits, with no regard to how the character fits in the setting or how they've come to master their otherwise esoteric skill set.
I don't really see why that's an issue either. What's wrong with someone picking a class because it's the class they want to play?

On the latter point:

because some people find it tough to run a game set in golarion when someone has no view on bow said character fits in there .

Part of the depth of pathfinder is in it’s world and stories

So the idea of :

Player: i pick this because I get to roll this many damage dice”.
GM: how did you learn that power ?
Player: I don’t know / care

Is galling to some GMs. Others are completely fine with it.

The above is valid for all classes but seems most common amongst those that are more “subversive” to the genre than the traditional ones - like psionics, Kineticists and gunslingers

It is a case of different preferences . You don’t see a problem and there are certainly others like you
I (and others) do see an issue in “the books says I can do it” when trying to build an immersive game


In a lot of ways kineticists are like sorcerers. In the description of the class it says something along the lines of the characters powers awakening during periods of high stress. Makes me feel like their powers are something they're born with. But I have no problem with the origin of classes, if I had a player who wanted to get their powers from some freak accident that's fine with me.

Don't really mean to derail the thread, sorry.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
I would like to see the Shifter done right.

Shifter was one of those classes that I loved the idea but hated the execution. For me the Skinwalker race hit the mark far more then the class did for what I want from a shapeshifting class. SO I'd be all for a reworked Shifter but not excited for one too similar to the old one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gaulin wrote:

In a lot of ways kineticists are like sorcerers. In the description of the class it says something along the lines of the characters powers awakening during periods of high stress. Makes me feel like their powers are something they're born with. But I have no problem with the origin of classes, if I had a player who wanted to get their powers from some freak accident that's fine with me.

Don't really mean to derail the thread, sorry.

It is interesting because I always wanted to play a character who got electricity powers from being struck by lighting but was always wary about how long a sorcerer took to come online

But I don’t really want to deal with burn either!

I hadn’t thought of that as a Kineticist origin though - severe accident . That opens up lots of fun backstories


graystone wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
I would like to see the Shifter done right.
Shifter was one of those classes that I loved the idea but hated the execution. For me the Skinwalker race hit the mark far more then the class did for what I want from a shapeshifting class. SO I'd be all for a reworked Shifter but not excited for one too similar to the old one.

I loved the idea. Indeed if I had any creative writing talent my chosen hero of a (urban) fantasy novel would be a shifter who does things like thicken his skin like an elephant to repel light firearms, or change his eyes to those of a bird of prey , or shifts his limbs into either tentacles to grapple or venomous stingers etc.

Sadly I don’t have the ability to make that work or the full idea of how such a character would operate as a protagonist!

But I do want a chance to play something like that in an RPG


@Lanathar: See, that right there is an interesting concept! I'd love to see how that plays out regardless of setting, because in my head-space I've already grasped the context for it (the guy was fundamentally changed due to naturally occurring event, and now embodies that event as a force of nature themselves). I know it sounds arbitrary but I choose stories like that over "this guy has mastered Psionics just 'cause it's convenient for him to have them."

Edit: Talking about lightning psions, not shifters. Sorry.


Lanathar wrote:
graystone wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
I would like to see the Shifter done right.
Shifter was one of those classes that I loved the idea but hated the execution. For me the Skinwalker race hit the mark far more then the class did for what I want from a shapeshifting class. SO I'd be all for a reworked Shifter but not excited for one too similar to the old one.

I loved the idea. Indeed if I had any creative writing talent my chosen hero of a (urban) fantasy novel would be a shifter who does things like thicken his skin like an elephant to repel light firearms, or change his eyes to those of a bird of prey , or shifts his limbs into either tentacles to grapple or venomous stingers etc.

Sadly I don’t have the ability to make that work or the full idea of how such a character would operate as a protagonist!

But I do want a chance to play something like that in an RPG

Yep, we're on the same page I think. That's why Skinwalker seemed like a good base: you start with change shape and you take a shape and a single ability like a natural attack, climb speed darkvision, ect then you an take feats to be able to pick more abilities. Shifts last until you return to normal or shift again. So replace the race feats with class feats and class abilities and it looks good as a class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Animal Instinct Barbarian sounds like the Shifter...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aiden2018 wrote:

@Lanathar: See, that right there is an interesting concept! I'd love to see how that plays out regardless of setting, because in my head-space I've already grasped the context for it (the guy was fundamentally changed due to naturally occurring event, and now embodies that event as a force of nature themselves). I know it sounds arbitrary but I choose stories like that over "this guy has mastered Psionics just 'cause it's convenient for him to have them."

Edit: Talking about lightning psions, not shifters. Sorry.

And it actually ties well into the Con focus in my mind (which I really am not a fan of - I don’t think Con focus should be a thing)

But surviving a lightning strike, drowning, a cave in, volcanic eruption, wildfire etc all actually lend to higher than average con and drawing on those reserves and tapping into the prior damage as burn

Shame I have been, shall we say, “slightly” outspoken about kineticists in the past amongst my home group kind of limiting my chance to play that idea. I also do worry about the solo element ones that can be severely hampered by SR and shut down by resistances / immunities ...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I’d just like to point out that kineticists are not psychic casters (unless using the overwhelming soul archetype) and are absolutely not psionics. Several of the concerns raised above appear to be based on the misapprehension that they are psionics.


Dragonstriker wrote:
I’d just like to point out that kineticists are not psychic casters (unless using the overwhelming soul archetype) and are absolutely not psionics. Several of the concerns raised above appear to be based on the misapprehension that they are psionics.

I don't pretend to know everything about kineticists but they're kind of in a wierd place. I don't blame anyone for thinking they're psychic casters. They came from occult adventures where almost all the classes use psychic rules (as far as I know) and even the esoteric Knight prestige class caters to kineticists.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragonstriker wrote:
I’d just like to point out that kineticists are not psychic casters (unless using the overwhelming soul archetype) and are absolutely not psionics. Several of the concerns raised above appear to be based on the misapprehension that they are psionics.

I read about the class on the web SRD. If that source is accurate then it appears that you are correct. The Psychokineticist is an archetype of the Kineticists that is apparently distinct for being an actual psion with similar powers. I think that's the one you mentioned.

In any case, my mistake. I do have a deep-seated apprehension towards psions for various reasons, and that bias shouldn't extend to Keneticists as they are a fundamentally different concept. In fact, it's a rather cool concept (except for the weird Power of DARKNESS variety which still makes absolutely no sense to me unless the character chose to always don dark leather hooded longcoats with too many zippers).

To be fair though, if you take away the cool elemental aspect it's about as close to psionics as you can get. Unless you include telepathy, phase-shifting, and clairvoyance into the mix. I also didn't read up on the Psychic class so I may be way off base here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aiden2018 wrote:
Dragonstriker wrote:
I’d just like to point out that kineticists are not psychic casters (unless using the overwhelming soul archetype) and are absolutely not psionics. Several of the concerns raised above appear to be based on the misapprehension that they are psionics.

I read about the class on the web SRD. If that source is accurate then it appears that you are correct. The Psychokineticist is an archetype of the Kineticists that is apparently distinct for being an actual psion with similar powers. I think that's the one you mentioned.

In any case, my mistake. I do have a deep-seated apprehension towards psions for various reasons, and that bias shouldn't extend to Keneticists as they are a fundamentally different concept. In fact, it's a rather cool concept (except for the weird Power of DARKNESS variety which still makes absolutely no sense to me unless the character chose to always don dark leather hooded longcoats with too many zippers).

To be fair though, if you take away the cool elemental aspect it's about as close to psionics as you can get. Unless you include telepathy, phase-shifting, and clairvoyance into the mix. I also didn't read up on the Psychic class so I may be way off base here.

The psychic class is more or less equivalent to the psion of AD&D & 3e, however the class casts “psychic” spells in the same way as arcane and divine prepared casters; essentially the psychic is a prepared caster with “thought” and “emotion” components replacing verbal and somatic, drawing from their own spell list and with a different flavour.

I thought it was a neat solution to the “psionics work differently to magic in ways that make them unbalanced” issue that accompanied traditional d&d psionics.
I suspect that the same effect can be achieved in PF2 with an archetype for the wizard class and a different spell list.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
because some people find it tough to run a game set in golarion when someone has no view on bow said character fits in there

The trouble is the complaints always feel so arbitrary. There's nothing inherent to the kineticist that makes it any more or less awkward to fit in a setting than, say, a sorcerer and you won't see nearly as many GMs making the same demands of players playing that class. Hell, in universe the average person might have trouble telling a storm sorcerer and an aerokineticist apart in the first place.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see why Kineticist would be foreign to Galoran. They are conduits of extraplanar energies, who gain magic through a connection with the elemental planes. While they are distinctive from sorcerers, they work on the same underlying principle that you can have innate magic by being connected to something magical.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:


The trouble is the complaints always feel so arbitrary. There's nothing inherent to the kineticist that makes it any more or less awkward to fit in a setting than, say, a sorcerer and you won't see nearly as many GMs making the same demands of players playing that class. Hell, in universe the average person might have trouble telling a storm sorcerer and an aerokineticist apart in the first place.

I can't speak for Keneticists, but I'm pretty darn certain that Sorcerers are a staple of the fantasy genre based on the fact that every time I hear the word I immediately envision a thinly clad villain from Conan the Barbarian who can shoot lightning from their hands. I don't even read Conan and I can't break the association between Sorcerers and evil dragon people with strange powers who for some reason want to make dragon babies. It's not awkward at all to place one into a high fantasy setting. I think even Elder Scrolls had them.

You're right about your point about telling air benders and sorcerers apart. The problem is that you will always get that ONE PERSON in the party who trained in Arcana and has to quantify everything as being either "definitely magical" or "very possibly natural." Sense air bending doesn't fit into either of those categories, the DM now needs to come up with an explanation as to why this is possible, and it has to make sense in the framework of that setting.

Otherwise, you're left with "Well, it works because... something something physics?" Which doesn't go over well with characters who are arguably the smartest people in the realm.

Roll elementals into your setting's creation myth and say air benders are their offspring and you are good to go. Tell players that magic exists and explains all of the supernatural phenomenon in the world except for those many occasions when it doesn't and then your story gets holes poked in it.

(It's... It's me. I'm usually that guy who trains Arcana and questions everything. I'm terrible.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:

Sadly I don’t have the ability to make that work or the full idea of how such a character would operate as a protagonist!

But I do want a chance to play something like that in an RPG

You could either make one that starts as normal guy and develops that powers

Someone who has the powers but kind of didnt want them (at least at first)

or go the way the witcher series handles their protagonists: people know them, people don't like or respect them, but still call for help if its neccessary


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragonstriker wrote:
I’d just like to point out that kineticists are not psychic casters (unless using the overwhelming soul archetype) and are absolutely not psionics. Several of the concerns raised above appear to be based on the misapprehension that they are psionics.

They have "magical abilities similar to spells but drawn from the kineticist’s innate psychic talent and usable at will." That's a direct quote from the class. So they are psychic and use magic similar to spells... It's some fine hair splitting to quibble about them not being psychic casters.


My points have always been that it is not as clearly spelled out where power comes from as other classes AND (as explained above) they don’t have the same level of traditional connection as a sorcerer or the like. It is a one-two punch

I am not trying to be arbitrary - but some cases prompt more questions. But my Kineticist player said they read the OA and was still not sure he could explain the source of the powers.

And in said game I was more annoyed at the character who dipped in monk after level 1 without really volunteering why. And I would ask the same of someone who had been adventuring in a mega dungeon and multiclassed into wizard part way through. And this wouldn’t be about creating barriers it would just be about creating the pretence that your character is more than a list of numbers to you

(And I know it may be unfair as I wouldn’t say as much about suddenly manifesting as a sorcerer or picking up sneaking or fighting skills)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
My points have always been that it is not as clearly spelled out where power comes from as other classes

"innate psychic talent". It's under one of their main abilities. "living channels for elemental matter and energy, manipulating the world around them by drawing upon inner reserves from their own bodies."

Lanathar wrote:
they don’t have the same level of traditional connection

silver fire and spellfire users have been around since 2e and various similar class like warlock are around in 3e, so we've had them in the game for 15+ years. By comparison, sorcerers came out in 3e so IMO you're on very shaky ground on a tradition argument.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In lore, a wizard would be more likely to know about kineticism than a kineticist. The source of their power is vague, but it is precise enough to understand the underlying principles and what the average kineticist would know. They are people who have a connection with the elemental plane and manipulate elemental energy through talent and perseverance.

They are not Vancian casters. Their casting stat is Con. They burn themselves to use more powerful magic. Their magical abilities are called wild talents.

And if the character doesn't know to explain the magic, I don't see why the player should be expected to. Sometimes magic is just magic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Leotamer wrote:

In lore, a wizard would be more likely to know about kineticism than a kineticist. The source of their power is vague, but it is precise enough to understand the underlying principles and what the average kineticist would know. They are people who have a connection with the elemental plane and manipulate elemental energy through talent and perseverance.

They are not Vancian casters. Their casting stat is Con. They burn themselves to use more powerful magic. Their magical abilities are called wild talents.

And if the character doesn't know to explain the magic, I don't see why the player should be expected to. Sometimes magic is just magic.

The point is probably that in universe most kineticists have some kind of connection to the elements, Yoon, the iconic Kineticist is a good example for that


For the sake of my current campaign:
Gunslinger
Occultist
Kineticist
Spiritualist


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I want the Witch back. I loved the debuff speculation and the thematics.


I wonder how strongly this thread indluences our friends from paizo


LordVanya wrote:
Spiritualist

I'm betting this will end up a summoner that can use a different spell list, assuming we get a summoner type class again.

LordVanya wrote:
Gunslinger

Gunslinger too would surprise me if it returned as a full class: some gun class feats for a fighter and maybe a focus ability for grit seem more likely. An archetype for guns is a possibility too.

likrin wrote:
I want the Witch back. I loved the debuff speculation and the thematics.

Witch has my curious: I could see it come out as it's own class but I could see it as a wizard with a witchcraft thesis and/or archetype.

Seisho wrote:
I wonder how strongly this thread influences our friends from paizo

Well I know they read through the threads, especially Mark. However, who knows what all's already in the pipeline already: they could have everything planned out already from playtest and PFS numbers. In the grand scheme of things, we most likely aren't shifting the scales much with the thread.


I am not a particular fan of gunslingers in fiction, and it probably wouldn't my first pick. But I do think there is plenty of design space for the gunslinger class.

Gunslingers are thematically different from other core classes, and the assumptions of gun combat are different than when you use other weapons. Comparing a gunslinger and ranger is like comparing a fighter and barbarian. They both do the same things but in radically different ways.

Guns are mechanically and thematically diverse. Blunderbusses, pistols, and rifles should all play differently. Having a full class allows you more design space to flesh out different types of firearms.

Guns are rare, clunky specialist equipment. Anyone can learn to use firearms, but the same is true of alchemy or wizardry.

Not only that but having them as a class doesn't take away from a person who wants to use guns as another class, where having it be apart of another class or an archetype can. A fighter with guns would invest class feats into the gunslinger dedication, and this would be instead of investing in fighter gun feats, or a gun archetype.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Leotamer wrote:
But I do think there is plenty of design space for the gunslinger class.

I'm going to have to disagree. Other than grit abilities it's almost pure fighter: you have a class feat or archetype to add focus powers to a fighter and there you have a gunslinger.

Leotamer wrote:
Having a full class allows you more design space to flesh out different types of firearms.

I don't see how any of this relates to it being a class vs a fighter add-on. Short bows and longs bows are different from each other and don't require their own class.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:

Wow Kineticist is certainly popular

I would like to see the Shifter done right. And this would be a worthy addition to the no magic class pool.

I think there is design space for “animal” skill feats reflected by the ability to shift to say having eyes of an eagle. I think a similar space exists for elemental skills for kineticists reflecting some of the current wild talents (shouldn’t be a class feat to be a better swimmer as a hydro Kineticist )

I think shifter is a little easier to do correctly in pf2. For one, damage is much easier to scale properly (in line with other classes). Hybrid forms can be done easily as feats, and feel/ be described more like proper shape shifting, without worrying about X/day wild shape.

My only concern is the animal barbarrian, and the weird prevalence of things that bite rather than claws or fists. Biting just seems like a terrible plan against so many monsters. Things made of fire/acid/pure evil, diseases, exotic blood, undead. There's a whole laundry list of stuff you don't want in your mouth.


If you ignore grit abilities, you are ignoring 7 of their class levels. I don't think many classes would stand up to that scrutiny.

And we do not need a short bow and longbow class like we don't need a pistol, blunderbuss, and rifle class. However, we do have rangers which are associated with bows. And fighters can still use bows, but I am not against them using guns altogether.

Having a gunslinger class accommodates a pistol archetype, a blunderbuss archetype, and a rifle archetype.

Condensing class is fine, so long as the people who enjoy those classes lose nothing. With the gunslinger, you would lose grit, the ability to better distinction different types of guns, and the more specific gunslinger archetypes like Blatherskite and Gulch Gunner.


Witch
Oracle
Gunslinger (or at least gun rules)
The "evil" champions

These seem like from a setting standpoint the most necessary.

After that I would like to see occult classes, which generally were thematically pretty distinct.


In my mind, the "correct" shifter would be more than just the guy that turns into a half-animal and claws things. They can still have and develop that. But I would like the option to focus on other aspects of being a shape-shifter.

I love the druid thematically, but I don't think we need druid-lite in pf2.

I think this is mostly personal preference. I don't think there is a right answer, but if we don't get the shifter or it is radically changed, can we give swarm-form to the druid, Oozemorph to someone, and do something with the adaption theme.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would love something like the adaptive shifter, spending an action to grow spikes or wings or grow large or regen, etc, etc. Could just be a druid order though I suppose.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to see a return of the summoner, or at least the eidolon. Being able to create your own creature is a lot of fun. But I don't think it has to be attached to a casting chassis. You just need class abilities to empower you to support the eidolon. Spells were simply the easiest way to do that in PF1.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Have to agree that Gunslinger doesn't really need to be a class.

Grit is a cool mechanic, but I'd rather see it be focus for martials and easily accessible to everyone, not a class-locked mechanic.

And outside of Grit, the Gunslinger really only exists to solve Paizo's self-made problem of guns not working without supporting class features, which doesn't need to be true in PF2.

Aiden2018 wrote:
The problem is that you will always get that ONE PERSON in the party who trained in Arcana and has to quantify everything as being either "definitely magical" or "very possibly natural." Sense air bending doesn't fit into either of those categories

What? Kineticists are very explicitly magical. All of their abilities are supernatural.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

The classes I want to see first would be Kinetecist, Shifter, Medium(class feats could each be associated with a card or set from harrow deck). Occultist, Shaman, Witch, Oracle, and Bloodrager are close runner ups.


Squiggit wrote:

Have to agree that Gunslinger doesn't really need to be a class.

Grit is a cool mechanic, but I'd rather see it be focus for martials and easily accessible to everyone, not a class-locked mechanic.

And outside of Grit, the Gunslinger really only exists to solve Paizo's self-made problem of guns not working without supporting class features, which doesn't need to be true in PF2.

I agree with this. There are several classes from 1E that represent a failure of the 3.5 underlying mechanics. notably insufficient class abilities to swap with archetypes, but shouldn't have every needed whole classes

The notable examples are swashbuckler and brawler. There were versions as fighter archetypes that couldn't deliver due to the nature of the chassis.

Gunslinger arguably falls into this category.

Others that could fit into this group and thus probably don't need whole classes: Ninja, Cavalier, Warpriest


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pixierose wrote:
The classes I want to see first would be Kinetecist, Shifter, Medium(class feats could each be associated with a card or set from harrow deck). Occultist, Shaman, Witch, Oracle, and Bloodrager are close runner ups.

Apparently the original plan for Medium was for it to be linked to the harrow deck but there wasn't space

I am not sure how this changes as wouldn't that be 50+ feats for one class

I wouldn't mind as I want an excuse to use the harrow deck I bought for a crimson throne game that didn't last long


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My top five in no real order are:

1. Witch for the hexes/prepared Occult caster.

2. Swashbuckler/Gunslinger for the deed/grit/risk management set up. They fill the same basic niche, each could be a class path.

3. Shifter for a new chance at what should have been a fun class.

4. Mesmerist, my favorite of the Occult Adventures classes.

5. A class that can be made either from the bones of the Tactician Cavalier or the Investigator. Again, each could be a class path. Call it a Sage or Savant. Something that bends their mind to a non-magical pursuit.

And that is it, really. I'm not going to complain if others get in first, but those are the ones I really want to see.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Leotamer wrote:
If you ignore grit abilities, you are ignoring 7 of their class levels.

Who ignored grit? I specifically went over that. "you have a class feat or archetype to add focus powers to a fighter and there you have a gunslinger". Easy peasy, and no need to print a whole new class JUST to add some grit type focus powers.

Leotamer wrote:
Having a gunslinger class accommodates a pistol archetype, a blunderbuss archetype, and a rifle archetype.

What would be the point? What does this accomplish that a pistol, blunderbuss or rifle focused feat wouldn't do? The only thing the Musket Master, Pistolero and Scatter Gunner really do is swap a few grit abilities and a slightly tweaked firearm training.

Leotamer wrote:
With the gunslinger, you would lose grit, the ability to better distinction different types of guns, and the more specific gunslinger archetypes like Blatherskite and Gulch Gunner.

On grit, the new game has gone to GREAT lengths to put everything in the same bucket everything is a feat, or spell, ect. I don't see them adding lots of new mechanics like grit, Inspiration and panache when they already have focus sitting there that can function in a similar way.

On specific gunslinger archetypes, there is no reason they can't make specific gun focused fighter archetypes, though again most of the difference in those archetypes is the deeds and there isn't a reason to tie grit/deed to an archetype when a general class focus feat works.


I am going to try to ignore the semantics. I think you are downplaying grits importance, and missing the point of it.

Stone Dog specifically mentioned gunslinger for grit, and so I think he would be more qualified to discuss specifics, but at a cursory glance grit and focus don't function similarly.

Focus is a mechanic that limits the number of times you can use an ability per combat. You can't restore it mid-combat.

Grit/Panache are a risk/reward mechanic. It is intended to fluctuate. And there are penalties for having zero grit.

And if you grant the gunslinger the ability to restore focus on a critical hit, then you are probably going to break other focus abilities. Removing it causes you to strip it of its uniqueness for the sake of conformity, which I do not believe is intended.

Also, have you considered one of the exceptions of adding new mechanics would be new classes? I don't see how you are going to create a satisfying kineticist without new mechanics.

And going off of the playtest, if you were going to absorb it into another class, fighter feels off. AoE, general weapon mastery, heavy armor, and flexibly choosing feats doesn't seem to fit with the gunslinger. The baseline gunslinger is a light-armored ranged specialist.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Stone Dog wrote:

My top five in no real order are:

1. Witch for the hexes/prepared Occult caster.

2. Swashbuckler/Gunslinger for the deed/grit/risk management set up. They fill the same basic niche, each could be a class path.

3. Shifter for a new chance at what should have been a fun class.

4. Mesmerist, my favorite of the Occult Adventures classes.

5. A class that can be made either from the bones of the Tactician Cavalier or the Investigator. Again, each could be a class path. Call it a Sage or Savant. Something that bends their mind to a non-magical pursuit.

And that is it, really. I'm not going to complain if others get in first, but those are the ones I really want to see.

1. Definitely. Bard is a good starting point for inspiration a compositions will probably be the hex chassis. But it will be prepared like you say. I wonder if it will still be Int based. Because can anyone clarify why they were in the first place?

2. If we assume they do this I wonder what the name for the combined chassis class could be. As both the derivative classes are named for their key gear. More just musing than anything else as I am intrigued

3. Agreed - my biggest Paizo let down

4. Could potentially branch off of bard just with negative "compositions" rather than buffing ones. Mesmerist is kind of the anti-bard

5. I would really like an Intelligence based class that doesn't have to be magic based. Scholar could also be an option here (but I guess that is a new one)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
4. NPC classes. Don't give me that look. I want to play a commoner from level 1 to 20 even if it doesn't make sense.

...this actually gave me an idea. What if, instead of class feats, Commoners got bonus ancestry feats and an extra heritage or two?

Actually let me think out loud. Adept, Warrior, and Expert can be three subclasses. Adepts of course get spellcasting, Warriors weapon and armor training, Experts get skill training. Perhaps they only ever get up to trained in saves, but have a focus power they can spend as a reaction to temporarily get higher levels for one roll.

Verdant Wheel

AnimatedPaper wrote:
Actually let me think out loud. Adept, Warrior, and Expert can be three subclasses. Adepts of course get spellcasting, Warriors weapon and armor training, Experts get skill training.

No. Four classes.

Aristocrats get wealth training.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Kineticist is top of my list, but also interested in Oracle and Summoner.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Lanathar wrote:
pixierose wrote:
The classes I want to see first would be Kinetecist, Shifter, Medium(class feats could each be associated with a card or set from harrow deck). Occultist, Shaman, Witch, Oracle, and Bloodrager are close runner ups.

Apparently the original plan for Medium was for it to be linked to the harrow deck but there wasn't space

I am not sure how this changes as wouldn't that be 50+ feats for one class

I wouldn't mind as I want an excuse to use the harrow deck I bought for a crimson throne game that didn't last long

Mhm that is where my idea for it came from. my logic is that each feat would represent one or two of the cards, so as you level up you'll add my cards/spirits to your "deck" as you have access to it. Or imbue specific cards in your deck with more power. and this works with the retraining rules as well, as by picking another feat basically means refocusing into and other card in your deck.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leotamer wrote:

Stone Dog specifically mentioned gunslinger for grit, and so I think he would be more qualified to discuss specifics, but at a cursory glance grit and focus don't function similarly.

Focus is a mechanic that limits the number of times you can use an ability per combat. You can't restore it mid-combat.

You've got my principle reasons right there. Focus seems like a fine mechanic for getting all the per encounter style of abilities under one umbrella, but it isn't the same as panache/grit.

It really is the risk/reward style that makes the class appealing and something that is absent at the moment.

I don't know what a single class that a fencer/gunslinger could branch off from would be called though. "Maverick" sounds a little Westerny, but fits the stereotype of such a character being a risk taking solo, but comes with RP baggage.

A bunch of other class names could sound good, but have their own baggage as well as sometimes being stolen from Fantasy Craft. Duelist, Gallant, Skirmisher, Martial Artist...

Verdant Wheel

+1 Maverick

51 to 100 of 175 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / If Pathfinder 1 classes are eventually trickled back into second edition, which do you hope return first? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.