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


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 175 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wouldn't the gunslinger be best as an archetype this time around? It arguably would of been better as a archetype the first go around. Just give it a variety of feat opions for spellshooters or all the other gun types that were previous individual archetypes and that should pretty well handle it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If it was a full class, it would also immediately become an archetype through the magic of multiclassing, so why not both?


Both is good!

As long as we have specialized feats some for caster gun slingers and some for martial gunslinger heck and maybe some for skill-monkey gunslingers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Wouldn't the gunslinger be best as an archetype this time around? It arguably would of been better as a archetype the first go around. Just give it a variety of feat opions for spellshooters or all the other gun types that were previous individual archetypes and that should pretty well handle it.

It depends on if the class is just "can use a gun pretty well" or if the class has any mechanical uniqueness to it that justifies special abilities every other level.

Verdant Wheel

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Choice of equiment and theme at first.

Grit and Panache feats from there.


I'd like a shifter where each path they can choose at level 1 is based on an archetype from 1st edition.

You'd have a shifter based on animals, based on plants, based on elementals and based on oozes

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
The Unfortunate Pumpkin wrote:

Number one for me is Gunslinger, I really want the Gunslinger to be a class people actually want to play this time around and not just take some level dips in it.

Next I want some more Occult stuff, new or old would be nice tbh.

I'm surprised you saw Gunslinger as a dip class, I almost always saw someone go 5 levels in if they invested into the class at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I think themed character paths can work with the shifter, I am almost hoping it would be a more open-ended class. Maybe druid-like, where they can choose any feat, but some are improved based on your level 1 choice.

Once you are high enough level, having aspects of a fire-cat, fiendish plant, dragon ooze, and the like could be fun. It would also help define them. Some other classes can shape-shift into one thing. A sufficently-trained shape-shifter can transform into anything, including absolute mockery of the natural order and all that is good.

For those who get the reference, I would want Simic, the class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If I was going to do paths for a shape shifter class, I’d want to offer paths for both martial and covert play styles. A third path could be utility perhaps.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ramanujan wrote:

If I was going to do paths for a shape shifter class, I’d want to offer paths for both martial and covert play styles. A third path could be utility perhaps.

Eh. I definitely don't like that approach to character design. That leads to characters that are simply bad when their specific mini-game isn't happening. Every path should offer a smattering of ability types.

Otherwise it leads to situations where when the music changes from combat to stealth to talking, specialized characters shouldn't play any more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leotamer wrote:
From what I understand, fire, water, earth, and air kineticists all tap into their respective elemental planes. Aether, wood, and void are combinations of elemental and other planar energies. Void energy draws from the negative energy plane, which is the source of undeath. I will be honest I don't know where gravity comes in.

Yep! Void Kineticists get their power from Elemental Energy meeting with Negative Plane Energy (and for some reason get Dark Tapestry motifs). Wood takes from The Elemental Energy meeting the First World's Primal Fey Life energy, & Aether is from the Ethereal Plane getting charged with Elemental Energy.

Seisho wrote:
On that notion I would guess Shaman would make a good primal caster - and since the preparing primal caster is already locked in maybe they become spontaneous - purely speculation here

I like that especially since one of the base classes for the Shaman was the Oracle who is a spontaneous caster, it honestly makes good sense

WatersLethe wrote:
Witch. I need my hexes, yo. Once we have Witch I can cobble together a Shaman.

The Shaman was more than just hexes though. Its familiar had special powers, it had a dedicated spirit that worked like the Oracle's mysteries, and then it also had Wandering Spirits so you could mix it up. The spirits and familiars are what truly gave the Shaman their flavor, not the hexes, at least in my opinion.

PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

I'd like a shifter where each path they can choose at level 1 is based on an archetype from 1st edition.

You'd have a shifter based on animals, based on plants, based on elementals and based on oozes

Animals, Plants, Oozes, Elementals, Outsiders, Dragons, Fey, Vermin/Swarms...

Leotamer wrote:

While I think themed character paths can work with the shifter, I am almost hoping it would be a more open-ended class. Maybe druid-like, where they can choose any feat, but some are improved based on your level 1 choice.

Once you are high enough level, having aspects of a fire-cat, fiendish plant, dragon ooze, and the like could be fun. It would also help define them. Some other classes can shape-shift into one thing. A sufficiently trained shape-shifter can transform into anything, including absolute mockery of the natural order and all that is good.

You know what throw my hat into the ring for people who want the Shifter back, though honestly, I like what the PF1 base class is, especially after the fixes and what they added to it in Wilderness Origins. I just Truly like that they can do things with their forms that Druids can't. Sure they have fewer forms to choose from, but they get more out of them. They're more Dedicated shifters, more dedicated to their forms, meanwhile, Druids are more versatile but get less out of their forms.

Though saying that, for PF2 and its fewer but more flavorful feats, I can definitely see different in-depth Lines of powers based on the different "Archetypes" rather than the kind of choices you made in PF1's base class.

Also, I got the reference XD


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Leotamer wrote:

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.

Nothing prevents gaining a temp focus point limited to grit abilities.

Leotamer wrote:
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.

Yes, I have and I look forward to a focus based kineticist. Give it some cantrip based elemental blasts and some focus powers and it'd look pretty good to me. Much like what I said for grit, you could use burn to regain focus but for a day long debuff.

Leotamer wrote:
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.

*shrug* PF1 gunslingers were proficient with all simple and martial weapons and focused in a class of weapons, so it seem weapon mastery and picking guns fits perfectly. they picked bonus combat feats [they could pick sword or whip feat], so I don't see how picking the exact same kind of feats would be off. The PF1 gunslinger had the guntank archetype so having proficiency up to heavy just means you have the option to take the type of armor best fitting your character, so you can play a guntank if you wish with no modification needed.

So IMO, the only think that might be off is the AoO... With that being it, it's a super minor issue IMO. This is especially true as you need to make a melee strike with the AoO, so unless you pistol whip them [which seems super in character for a gunslinger] or kick them, it isn't going to come in play.

EDIT: a note on Heavy Armor Expertise for the PF2 fighter, we've been told that lesser armors go up too in the final game: this came up when people complained that their paladin HAD to wear heavy armor and I think it was mark that said they could wear the lesser armors just as well.


While I understand where you are coming from, I vehemently disagree with your design philosophy. You are copying the surface level while failing to capture its soul. And this applies to the new mechanics as well.

Firstly, why are you trying to consolidate this the uniform mechanic when A. it works differently and B. it is sometimes tracked separately. Your proposed solution doesn't solve the problem (which is my next point), creates this problem, and adds an extra layer of confusion.

Secondly, it still misses the point of grit. It is a risk/reward mechanic. You change the incentives if you convert it. In 1e, running out grit effects you until you crit, kill, or you rest for the night. In your homebrew, it affects you until you recover it like above or rest for ten minutes.

Thirdly, while it may be possible to convert kineticist to focus, it is not as easy as you claim. Burning to regain focus runs into problem one, but can be resolved by burning in place of using focus. As I said, there may be merit to focus-based kineticist. I am highlighting how you didn't think this through.

Four, making all pools focus goes against 2e precedent. We know 100% that reagents, the alchemist pool, is separate from focus.

I am slightly annoyed by this because you are dictating how these classes work while seemingly being apathetic towards the underlying design principles and the classes themselves.

I am looking forward to kineticist and would like something more than pretty good. I image gunslinger players are the same way. I don't expect perfection, but I would appreciate thought and effort.

Verdant Wheel

Leotamer wrote:
While I understand where you are coming from, I vehemently disagree with your design philosophy. You are copying the surface level while failing to capture its soul. And this applies to the new mechanics as well.

I partially agree with you.

I think Kineticist could use Focus to power it's abilities, but also think Swashbuckler / Gunslinger would better be it's own separate "pool" mechanic.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Seisho wrote:

Kineticist for me and Mesmerist for my girlfriend

Also I really curious what is going to happen to the Samurai, I want actually good Iajutsu attacks this time around :P

And the bloodrager, I really like concept

Curious about the Gunshlinger and how they are going to handly guns in general

Swashbuckler could probably be done with a set of feats for the fighter or rogue

And finally I would like to see an shifter that is actually good

i could see the gunslinger added as an archtype , it would also allow the varies subtypes of gunslinger with minimal hassle


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Leotamer wrote:
While I understand where you are coming from, I vehemently disagree with your design philosophy. You are copying the surface level while failing to capture its soul. And this applies to the new mechanics as well.

Maybe I see it's 'soul' differently than you?

Leotamer wrote:
Firstly, why are you trying to consolidate this the uniform mechanic when A. it works differently and B. it is sometimes tracked separately. Your proposed solution doesn't solve the problem (which is my next point), creates this problem, and adds an extra layer of confusion.

I don't see how. If you crit, you get grit [temp focus you can use on grit abilities]. You can make whatever 'bad' thing happens if you have no focus as part of the base grit ability. It's no more confusing that learning how focus abilities work + learning how an entirely new grit mechanic IMO.

Leotamer wrote:
Secondly, it still misses the point of grit. It is a risk/reward mechanic. You change the incentives if you convert it. In 1e, running out grit effects you until you crit, kill, or you rest for the night. In your homebrew, it affects you until you recover it like above or rest for ten minutes.

It changes it slightly but lots of things have changed to various degrees in PF2 [see alchemist]. IMO it keep the essence of the ability while not forcing an entirely new ability into the game.

Leotamer wrote:
Thirdly, while it may be possible to convert kineticist to focus, it is not as easy as you claim. Burning to regain focus runs into problem one, but can be resolved by burning in place of using focus. As I said, there may be merit to focus-based kineticist. I am highlighting how you didn't think this through.

I thought it through JUST FINE thank you. You can disagree but please don't tell me what I have or haven't done. I burn pentalty that sticks around until the next day is JUST what the last burn did and seems in keeping with it's flavor or 'soul' as you put it. Please tell me what issue comes up with regaining focus vs burn to not spend a point: it seems a meaningless destination as you end up at the same point.

Leotamer wrote:
Four, making all pools focus goes against 2e precedent. We know 100% that reagents, the alchemist pool, is separate from focus.

And monks have focus... SO I'm not seeing how what I'm saying goes against anything.

Leotamer wrote:
I am slightly annoyed by this because you are dictating how these classes work while seemingly being apathetic towards the underlying design principles and the classes themselves.

When did I dictate? I said how I thought they'd do it and said why I thought so. You and I seem to have a different 'feel' for the grit mechanic and have different ideas about how to convert it. How does that make one of us apathetic? Do i have to slavishly agree with you to be passionate about the mechanic?

Leotamer wrote:
I am looking forward to kineticist and would like something more than pretty good. I image gunslinger players are the same way. I don't expect perfection, but I would appreciate thought and effort.

I want to ask you a question? What makes you special that you know the one true vision of these classes and any other vision for the classes must therefor be flawed and the person that thought so apathetic and thoughtless?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I've always thought the gunslinger should have been a fighter archetype. Frankly, it's a bit insulting that someone besides the fighter got a mechanic called Grit. No one has more grit, guts, and determination than the fighter!


WatersLethe wrote:
I've always thought the gunslinger should have been a fighter archetype. Frankly, it's a bit insulting that someone besides the fighter got a mechanic called Grit. No one has more grit, guts, and determination than the fighter!

Yep. IMO it seems a perfect time to give the fighter some cool tricks: they should be able to have grit/panache. That and when "you are an undisputed master of weaponry and combat techniques" I can't understand why guns don't fall under "undisputed master of weaponry".

EDIT: A fighter archetype might work pretty good: you could have it drop the rarity of guns and make them martial at start and then go into the gun specialty feats after.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait wasn't the Fighter's thing now that they got a feat for every combat style? Going by the logic you guys are using there shouldn't be any martial classes besides the Fighter cause only he can "master weapons". Ranged Ranger? Nope Only fighters can have bow feats. Big weapon Barbarian? Nope only Fighters can have big weapon feats. Monk? Nope only Fighters can have unarmed strike feats...

See where I'm going? You can't have the Fighter be the sole weapon feat getter and still expect other martial classes to function.

Imagine if the Wizard was the only one allowed to have spells because he is the "Master of Magic".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Ranged Ranger?

Ranger has abilities that aren't weapon focused. Animal companion or tracking for instance. They can do that because they focus on things other than weapons/combat.

Temperans wrote:
Big weapon Barbarian?

Barbarians have feats/abilities that aren't weapon focused. They can rage and have totems, see in the dark, heal themselves, ect because they focus on things other than weapons/combat.

Monks have abilities that aren't unarmed/weapons focused. Monks can do stances and ki abilities, move faster, teleport, run across water, ect because they don't only focus on weapons/combat.

Gunslingers ONLY difference is grit: other than that, it focuses only on a weapon, the gun. If you disagree then what to you makes a gunslinger different from a fighter? What is there past 'good with a gun'? IMO, grit is it. If you think grit alone is enough to build an whole new class around that's fine but I don't: IMO there is just WAY too much overlap between the fighter and the gunslinger for that.

EDIT: IMO, grit is like ki. You had abilities that only worked if you had ki just like grit, going away at 0. even though it was a central part of the monk, it changed into focus. I don't find grit more important/special/integral than ki to their classes.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Temperans wrote:

Wait wasn't the Fighter's thing now that they got a feat for every combat style? Going by the logic you guys are using there shouldn't be any martial classes besides the Fighter cause only he can "master weapons". Ranged Ranger? Nope Only fighters can have bow feats. Big weapon Barbarian? Nope only Fighters can have big weapon feats. Monk? Nope only Fighters can have unarmed strike feats...

See where I'm going? You can't have the Fighter be the sole weapon feat getter and still expect other martial classes to function.

Imagine if the Wizard was the only one allowed to have spells because he is the "Master of Magic".

Well, I think the idea is that the fighter is the master of using weapons to their fullest, and that classes like barbarians and rangers make up the difference with other abilities like raging and swinging the weapon much harder and dealing more damage, but opening themselves up to attacks in exchange. Or with abilities like hunt target that build on the idea that a ranger is a master hunter and tracker for taking down their quarry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
See where I'm going? You can't have the Fighter be the sole weapon feat getter and still expect other martial classes to function.

Did anyone say that Fighters should be the only class that gets good with weapons? I don't think anyone did.

But the fighter being great at using weapons is core to their identity, so any class that usurps that role for a specific weapon is chipping away at what Fighters represent. In PF1 it was a necessary evil because of system mechanics, but we shouldn't need "exists to make this weapon work" classes in PF2. It doesn't mean bow rangers can't be awesome, but it does mean that if bows only work for rangers because of some core flaws they have there's a problem.

And Grit, while a cool mechanic, doesn't really have anything I think that should intrinsically be owned by the Gunslinger. It'd be much better to branch out and offer up similar options to other classes, because it's a cool idea. Opening up options is good.

I disagree with graystone that it necessarily needs to be focus, but it could be a sort of martial equivalent to focus with its own set of rules.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
I disagree with graystone that it necessarily needs to be focus, but it could be a sort of martial equivalent to focus with its own set of rules.

A small quibble. I don't necessarily think it NEEDS to be focus: I'm sure it could be done any number of ways. What I think is focus is the easiest/simplest way to do it. I think it would be more confusing if you had a character with focus and grit that worked in a similar way to focus vs something that adds on to/expands focus. Personal opinion of course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay you dont want Fighters to be the the only class to be good with weapons, but you also dont want a class that's specifically good with guns and/or 1-handed weapons (that's what swashbuckler was), because it goes against the Fighter.

So compromise, a class whose whole point is being super lucky and/or brave, which happens to have 1-handed weapon and gun feats as their "combat options". The class feats themselves are deeds and cool tricks people with this class are somehow able to pull off when others can't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
So compromise, a class whose whole point is being super lucky and/or brave

And, again, I don't think being lucky or brave is the kind of thing that really should be cordoned off to a specific class. Better to open up that mechanic, imo.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Also, being brave is a Fighter thing...

Starting to think some people are just anti-fighter.


Really being brave is a fighter only thing now? I guess Paladins can't be immune to fear anymore. Or grant said immunity to others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Really being brave is a fighter only thing now? I guess Paladins can't be immune to fear anymore. Or grant said immunity to others.

They literally have an ability called bravery... Every fighter. Every paladin isn't imm to fear as far as I see. What ability in PF2 allows imm to fear?


WatersLethe wrote:

Also, being brave is a Fighter thing...

Starting to think some people are just anti-fighter.

You know fighters can't have nice things. ;)


I did say anymore, as in they were immune and now they are not.

Anyways, no matter what PF1e concept/class is brought up people will say it messes with X class(es) and so it can't be ported.

Witch messes with Bard. Shifter messes with druids. Hunters messes with both Druids and Rangers. Warpriest messes with Champions and Clerics. Brawlers mess with Fighters and Monks. Investigators mess with Alchemists. Arcanist is anti Wizard and Sorcerer. Vampire Hunter goes against Ranger. Vigilantes goes against every class. Ninjas are anti Rogue. Antipaladin (Anti-Champion?) would be anti Champions. Kineticists would damage sorcerers. Physic casters would go against Regulad casters. Bloodrager and Magus both gone.

Inquisitors might have a chance. Oh wait nope they go against Champions and Clerics. And Oracle would go against Sorcerer and Cleric.

* Good bye.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Fighters literally have a class feature called Bravery. Making a class that's got "grit" and "bravery" that's super good with a certain kind of weapon but *isn't* a Fighter just seems like you're trying to find a reason not to play a Fighter.

Archetypes of Fighter could be everything you're looking for.

Some ideas I'd be more inclined to buy into include things like:

a swashbuckler type class with a long list of social and charisma based feats, but isn't locked into rapiers

an alchemical fighter who crafts various kinds of ammunition or coatings to deal with different threats, but isn't locked into guns

archetypes of all classes that gives a Western feel (especially Paladin)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Witch messes with Bard.

Not that I can see. IMO it's work out well as a wizard variant though: witchcraft thesis and some hex feats fits the bill for me. But this is because I'm all for not reinventing the wheel when classes are so close to each other.

Temperans wrote:
Shifter messes with druids.

As I wasn't a fan of the old class I'd be happy to see it remade out of new cloth. IMO there is a lot of untapped potential in a shapechanger that alters parts of their body or hybrid forms vs taking a whole new form. Done right, it wouldn't step on a druids toes.

Temperans wrote:
Hunters messes with both Druids and Rangers.

Most hybrid classes are pretty much multiclass characters: with the new multiclass rules keeping levels the same while using it I don't see much need for the hunter when it sole unique thing are Animal Focus. It's not stepping on toes but that IMO it's now unneeded.

Temperans wrote:
Warpriest messes with Champions and Clerics.

With BAB the same across the board, warpriest is pretty much the cleric now, and this is from someone that loved the PF1 warpriest. With the PF2 cleric round, I'd rather see it get a sacred weapon ability, fervor could easily be a feat to use channeling to in a similar way to how fervor does it. Blessings... meh. I was never thrilled by them so the ability to use real domain abilities is a boon IMO.

Temperans wrote:
Brawlers mess with Fighters and Monks.

This basically boils down to Martial Flexibility with everything else being covered by monk: I'd rather see fighter and monk get Martial Flexibility than make a new class: again, this is a class I liked in PF1, but it's not stepping on toes but not unique enough to stand on it's own IMO.

Temperans wrote:
Investigators mess with Alchemists.

Investigator is the standout hybrid IMO. It has some unique abilities and the abilities that overlap are from multiple classes: alchemy from alchemist, trap finding/sense from the rogue, inspiration/talents/studied combat[strike] as unique. The fact that it can't easily fit in any one or two categories make it a good candidate for a remake in PF2

Temperans wrote:
Arcanist is anti Wizard and Sorcerer.

Hmmm... IMO borderline. I can see it as a wizard variant/multiclass [trade thesis for arcanist type casting, Arcanist Exploits as feats, use focus or replace arcane school/focus]. there are enough unique things to make a new class too. Coinflip IMO.

Temperans wrote:
Vampire Hunter goes against Ranger.

While technically official, it's not on the official online source, so I doubt we'll see it any time soon.

Temperans wrote:
Vigilantes goes against every class.

Quite honestly, I never really thought it should have been a PF1 class: it was more like a feat [Dual Identity] that got expanded into a class and had a lot of abilities that only work in a specific type of game. :P That said, over time I grew to enjoy some of the archetypes and later abilities it got. But back to the Vigilantes in PF2: I think in the end, they end up folding into rogue in some way either feat or racket or multiclass: Dual Identity at start, skill feats for Social Talents, rogue talents for Vigilante Talents.

Temperans wrote:
Ninjas are anti Rogue.

Ninja's are similar to Investigators, borrowing from multiple classes along with some unique things. It's mainly rogue but the ki abilities isn't something you you can pull off another class: In the end though, it most likely will be a rogue variant IMO.

Temperans wrote:
Antipaladin (Anti-Champion?) would be anti Champions.

They will BE champions IMO. It covers multiple alignments.

Temperans wrote:
Kineticists would damage sorcerers.

went over this already.

Temperans wrote:
Physic casters would go against Regulad casters.

A lot of these seemed like archetypes in PF1 like Spiritualist - summoner and Psychic - sorcerer. Medium... I din't know what to do what that. Mesmerist could be it's own class as it's got piles of unique stuff. Occultist... could be a class or wizard archetype.

Temperans wrote:
Bloodrager and Magus both gone.

Barbarian/sorcerer IMO. Add a feat for Blood Casting.

Temperans wrote:
Inquisitors might have a chance.

It's got a lot of different/unique things. Could be a class or a cleric archetype IMO.

Temperans wrote:
And Oracle would go against Sorcerer and Cleric.

This is another one that can go both ways: you could trade domain, Anathema and channel for curse and mystery. we'll see.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
a swashbuckler type class with a long list of social and charisma based feats, but isn't locked into rapiers

What would you see being different from a rogue? You get a skill feat every level for plenty of social/charisma feats. Are you thinking class social/charisma feats? If so, how would they differ from normal skill feats?

WatersLethe wrote:
an alchemical fighter who crafts various kinds of ammunition or coatings to deal with different threats, but isn't locked into guns

I'd love to see a mechanical version of the alchemist myself! ;) On your suggestion, if they add weapon blanches into the game that'd just be multiclass alchemist?

WatersLethe wrote:
archetypes of all classes that gives a Western feel (especially Paladin)

I'm all for more options. Do you mean western as in the american west, like cowboys?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is interesting when you think that grit is the only distinguishing factor. And I like the point that it doesn’t make sense that grit is tied to gunslingers . But maybe that is just the name . But it does easily seem like a thing fighters could get - hence when “stamina” was brought in as an optional rule

Full disclosure - I am one of the people who don’t see why gunslinger should be a class. I do wonder how much of it is cultural. The US was partially founded on the “myth” of the heroic gunslinger and the modern US seems (from the outside) to have at least half the population so attached to guns as a right that the idea of not having them is almost literally an anathema (to use PF2 terminology). It could even be as simple as many people see it as the closest way of playing “themselves” or an analogue as in the modern world you are more likely to be trained in a gun than a sword, bow or plate armour

But this is treading a very fine line into the controversial (and I may have accidentally stepped over it?).

The argument in favour of it as it’s own class would be it becoming an archetype that every class could take so you could get the gun variants of them all in games with more common guns. But perhaps this is just Fighter and Fighter feats but it seems like the playtest Cavalier method is better. Incidentally this could be an interesting avenue for investigators and Inquisitors so you can have examples of those from different traditions (I am looking at my favourite wizard investigator with this in mind...)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nobody in their right mind doesn't love the concept of Swashbuckler, but I can't justify it as a class in PF2. As an Archetype (get good with rapiers, have a focus pool for Panache substitute), my goodness, yes please. There is too much crossover.

Fighter: We'll already get the Aldori Swordsman, and it's a fighter with a sword, no problems, more specialisation would be better.

Rogue: Again, we have a person who is handy at fencing. Merisiel herself is fond of a rapier, it's a thing.

Champion: A CG Liberator of Cayden Cailean wants a tankard in one hand and an epee in the other. This absolutely calls for a Swashbuckler archetype.

Alchemist: I'd like the Investigator to come back, but one can pull of a Sherlock Holmes type with this.

Bard: A flashing blade with quick wit and an eye for the ladies is a known trope with good reason, needs the archetype.

I could go on, but it's clear that many classes want to be able to swashbuckle, so many classes should be allowed to, thus make it an early-entry (and very good, please Paizo) Archetype. My one concern is combining it with other Archetypes, Pirate being an obvious example. How do you combine the two? A Fighter or Rogue with both the Swashbuckler and Pirate Archetypes makes a lot of thematic sense, but wouldn't have much of the build together until teenage levels. This is fine for a powerful enemy like a level 14 Pirate Queen, but tricky as a level 1 PC in a PF2 version of Skulls and Shackles. Minor problems though.

As for the others, I'm in broad agreement:

Witch: Hexes as focus spells/cantrips. Prepared Occult, with other spells from patron lists.

Oracle: Everyone loves them, the Curse/Revelation this was great, Divine Sorcer just doesn't cut it for me.

Kineticist: Can probably be done with Cantrip/Focus spells and Con stat in exchange for armour and weapon Expert/Master improvements.

Mesmerist: Superb and creepy class, can almost certainly be done as a level 1 Bard Archetype though.

Antipaladin/Tyrant: Not my cup of tea, but the rules are aready here for these baddies. The only discussion is the name of the NE version. MFer?

Shifter: Conceptually neccessary, but i wonder if it can be done with an Archetype? There are solid reasons why a Monk or Ranger or Fighter would want to be one. Barbarian can already do it a bit. Even Rogues should - a sneaky rogue who can turn into a bird or a cat is a solid PC.

Battle Herald/Tactitian: I know one was a PrC and 4e did a Marshall and the other was a Cavalier Archetype, but this please. We can probably do something with Bard/Champion multiclass, but It'd be nice to have a tough non-caster who hands out bonuses and coordinates the battlefield. I'd like to see clever generals with high Int or Cha who make those stats work. Bear in mind that in PF2 a PC gets a boost to four stats every few levels, by the end of a career it will be commonplace to have Int 18 Fighters and Wis 18 Rangers. May as well use it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pirate could well be a skill feat focused archetype as there are only so many class feats

Which raises the question of what other themes could fit this idea (of swapping skill feats)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was more heated than I had right to be, I am sorry. But I still oppose this concept of forcing nearly everything into core classes or mechanics. I think simplifying content has its place, but I don't think it should be at the cost to the content.

The alchemist demonstrates that Paizo is willing to have a mechanic, more or less, specific to a class. Other classes may use reagents in the future, but it is rooted in the alchemist.

If the goal is to consolidate all powers into one pool, creating a new pool fails that by definition. What are the meaningful distinction between having a Focus pool and grit pool, and a Focus pool and occasionally marking temporary grit? The same principle applies to special rules. And I do believe it would be more confusing. It would be easy to skim over that one specific rule and misinterpret as a result.

And while we may be able to incorporate some classes into others, and sometimes this will work out lovely. Reintroducing classes to pf2 allows you to expand them. I would like to see the shifter as a class in pf2 to better realize the concept.

I think the fighter is not ideal to be the template for new archetypes. From what I understand, they don't get paths. Meaning every gunslinger trait you want would cost a feat, and it would make it more difficult to branch out. If this changed from the playtest, it is less of a concern.

You could also make it an archetype, but if it is a class, you would have the gunslinger multiclass archetype as well. I am the least opposed to this alternative. It has problems, but I think they are workable. (You couldn't start with a gun but could have the ability to create one for yourself akin the 1e ability using X gold worth of scrap, and one level without a firearm is not ideal, but not the end of the world)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
0o0o0 O 0o0o0 wrote:

Nobody in their right mind doesn't love the concept of Swashbuckler, but I can't justify it as a class in PF2. As an Archetype (get good with rapiers, have a focus pool for Panache substitute), my goodness, yes please. There is too much crossover.

Fighter: We'll already get the Aldori Swordsman, and it's a fighter with a sword, no problems, more specialisation would be better.

Rogue: Again, we have a person who is handy at fencing. Merisiel herself is fond of a rapier, it's a thing.

Champion: A CG Liberator of Cayden Cailean wants a tankard in one hand and an epee in the other. This absolutely calls for a Swashbuckler

... Making Swashbuckler a class accomplishes all of that, plus adds the flexibility for people who want to focus more on whatever they end up giving swashbucklers (I.e. as well as champion multi classes into swashbuckler, you have swashbuckled multi classes into champion).

It does everything you wanted and also gives more options.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
Ramanujan wrote:

If I was going to do paths for a shape shifter class, I’d want to offer paths for both martial and covert play styles. A third path could be utility perhaps.

Eh. I definitely don't like that approach to character design. That leads to characters that are simply bad when their specific mini-game isn't happening. Every path should offer a smattering of ability types.

Otherwise it leads to situations where when the music changes from combat to stealth to talking, specialized characters shouldn't play any more.

That’s a fair observation.

It is less a problem in PF2, than it was in PF1. But still probably the case.

Perhaps what I should say is that I would want support for all three ways of playing the class. I don’t recall the PF1 Shifter having any disguise/subterfuge abilities, when that is one of the major things people think of when someone says ‘Shapeshifter’ (I may be mistaken about the PF1 Shifter).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
a swashbuckler type class with a long list of social and charisma based feats, but isn't locked into rapiers

What would you see being different from a rogue? You get a skill feat every level for plenty of social/charisma feats. Are you thinking class social/charisma feats? If so, how would they differ from normal skill feats?

I was thinking more along the lines of a spell-less martial bard. Now that you mention it though, I'm not too sure what sort of things the charisma Rogue can do.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Advanced guide classes

Ultimate X classes.

Occult classes

Here are 3 links to 3 articles that a paizo contributor has made

I don't agree with all his positions but they are worth reading for concepts of classes.


Leotamer wrote:
The alchemist demonstrates that Paizo is willing to have a mechanic, more or less, specific to a class. Other classes may use reagents in the future, but it is rooted in the alchemist.

I don't disagree but the monk also proves the opposite, that they aren't afraid to unify mechanics: so it's a matter of taste and easy of conversion IMO. For myself, grit is far, far closer to ki in what it does than alchemy and we saw what happened to ki.

Leotamer wrote:
I would like to see the shifter as a class in pf2 to better realize the concept.

I agree.

Leotamer wrote:
I think the fighter is not ideal to be the template for new archetypes. From what I understand, they don't get paths. Meaning every gunslinger trait you want would cost a feat, and it would make it more difficult to branch out. If this changed from the playtest, it is less of a concern.

I disagree: if it's a weapon based archetype, fighter just screams as the base class. As to branches, no it doesn't have any. I don't see that as much of an issue as far as gunslingers go as the only real difference in a lot of the old archetypes was your grit/deeds got shuffled around or replaced: this seems the exact thing feats are used for in the game now. With things like animal companions as feats now, it's hard to say, IMO, that what the gunslinger does shouldn't also be a feat.

But to be fair, what "branch out" do you want/expect? What is it branching would do that you want? What is it that can't be covered by feats?

Leotamer wrote:
You could also make it an archetype, but if it is a class, you would have the gunslinger multiclass archetype as well.

I'm not overly thrilled with 'getting better with a weapon' generic archetype ideas [others like one to get bow feats]. Similarly, I'm not overly excited with a stand alone gunslinger class: that's a lot of levels of feats to fill with JUST gun and grit abilities to make up/convert. Fighter already has ranged attack feats like slippery shooter, Debilitating Shot, Incredible Aim, Assisting Shot, ect so it seems like they'd be printing the same or very similar feats into any gunslinger class made which to me makes it seem like it's just the grit/deeds that vary: it's what makes adding grit to the class that already has ranged feats seem so appealing. to me.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aiden2018 wrote:

I changed my mind about Kineticists. I just saw the entries for the "Void" element. Apparently your ability to telekinetically manipulate void translates to warping shadows, animating corpses, manipulating gravity, and resisting curses? Like, four completely thematically distinct power sets in one?

I'm thoroughly confused and scared about what this Keneticist concept actually entails. I just want people who can throw rocks and water with kung Fu, not another edgy Sorcerer.

Nothing against Sorcerers, mind you.

there concept is avatar benders :P


I misspoke a bit and was unclear. By branching out, I meant being able to have your gunslinger traits and being able to do something else. If you want a big-game hunter, that would require you to grab your gun-feats and ranger dedication as a minimum just to fit your concept. You would probably need more than to flesh it out. And then you would have very few feats to make yourself different from any other person with the same idea.

Being honest, I am not a big fan of the gunslinger either. I am probably not going to play as a gunslinger often. But I image someone is a big fan that would love to play it as much as they can, and just as I want the classes I like to be good, I would like them to have something great as well.

Lanathar mentioned, but I will bring it up again, gunslingers are thematically distinctive from the rest of the setting. The cowboy archetype is the one that jumps to my mind, but obviously, they are others. And this is before you consider how gunslingers are rooted in the setting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I made a thread for the prevailing derail.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
jimthegray wrote:


there concept is avatar benders :P

I was most mostly referring to the arbitrary assortment of "elements" that were NOT based on the four (or five) classical elements. I would have been satisfied if it we're just the four (or five), as at least I had a context for it (he is the Avatar, master of all four or five elements, up until that ten-year-old invented a new technique).

But no, apparently a Kineticist can also also channel a vaguely defined force/magic/realm/essence, on top of the regular elemental stuff. I'm actually just complaining about the Void element. I kinda stopped there and just assumed that Aether and the few others were just as conceptually finicky. I could be wrong.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Aether is pretty much just straight telekinesis, lots of throwing objects and a few force-energy type powers. Void kineticists draw energy from the negative energy plane in the same way pyrokineticists tap into the plane of fire. There's nothing really conceptually finnicky about it.

I'm honestly kind of confused by such a hostile reaction to them existing.


My hostile reaction is more due to my lack of understanding than my being unable to seamlessly insert them into my own narratives. It's just personal bias. I honestly feel the same way about psionics, magictech, magic-using rangers, and monks (until recently). I'm sure that if I put forth enough effort I can think of a way to make Keneticists make sense in any fantasy setting, but most of the time I just don't want to. I don't think the concept is flawed, though.

Except for the Void element thing. I read that expecting one thing and I got a completely different thing. I'd attribute that experience to cognitive dissonance, but I still don't like it.


Aiden, the Kineticist isn't just doing "regular elemental stuff" though, they're channeling the power of the Elemental Planes, just as the Telekineticist(Aether Kineticist) is channeling the Ethereal Plane, or the Phytokinesticist(Wood Kineticist) is channeling the First World(which is basically the Nature/Fey Plane).

I will admit that the Chaokineticist(Void Kineticist) is definitely a weird headspace, having been connected to the Negative Energy Plane for the corpse stuff, but also apparently the Plane of Shadows for Shadow stuff and getting Gravity powers as if it were connected to Blackholes... It's Really weird and all over the place and I think could have really used a revamp just like the Phytokineticist got in Ultimate Wilderness.

The others though stick pretty much on theme with air/fire/earth/water/force/nature powers.

101 to 150 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.