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

[SoulknifeFan420]

You know what, I want the Soulknife, most likely as a series of feats, because I got my name somehow.

I'd also like to see Aegis come back, either as a class or feats. The customizable armor could have a niche.

[Lanathar]

Where are soulknife and aegis from ? Wasn’t soulknife a 3.5 class?

[SoulknifeFan420]

Lanathar wrote:

Where are soulknife and aegis from ? Wasn’t soulknife a 3.5 class?

Yup. Dreamscared Press released some psionic classes for pathfinder. Both were martials who's psionic power was just generating weapons/ armor respectively.

[SoulknifeFan420]

Forgot to mention, the pathfinder soulknife was an upgrade to the 3.5 one from what I've seen.

[Temperans]

The gravity thing probably has to do with the lore for the negative and positive energy planes. That is center of black hole == negative energy plane, center of star/white hole == positive energy plane.

The shadow stuff is weird thou unless you view shadows as undead, therefore negative energy.

*********
Technically, the Magus and Paladin each had a "soulknife" archetype. And Groomblad Fighter is the shadow version of it, minus spells.

[SoulknifeFan420]

Hell base soulknife had no powers ("spells"), it just had a sword and a dream. And a scaling enhancement bonus and a pseudo sneak attack. But mostly the sword. There was an archetype with powers though. Im honestly not sure how it stacks against the gloomblade, but i think the Soulknife has far less restrictions on the weapon and its enhancements.

I mean unless you were refering to the magus when you said spells. In which case, my bad.

[Aiden2018]

Temperans wrote:

The gravity thing probably has to do with the lore for the negative and positive energy planes. That is center of black hole == negative energy plane, center of star/white hole == positive energy plane.

The shadow stuff is weird thou unless you view shadows as undead, therefore negative energy.

You know, I would actually be satisfied with that explanation, if all Void benders could do is manipulate gravity and telekinetic fields. In fact, that's a pretty damn cool concept.

Sadly, this is not the case.

[TheGoofyGE3K]

Ooo, I wonder if the Witch will end up the Occult prepared caster I see people speculating about

[Lanathar]

TheGoofyGE3K wrote:

Ooo, I wonder if the Witch will end up the Occult prepared caster I see people speculating about

I would suggest almost certainly . That or variable lists depending on a patron

[jimthegray]

Aiden2018 wrote:

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.

nah i get what you mean, i was just teasing

[The King In Yellow]

I'd still like to see a return of the Paladin class. In the tradition of AD&D. As opposed to the... class that is called Paladin, but really has almost nothing to do with its historical game roots.

[PossibleCabbage]

Classes I want back ASAP-

Kineticist
Occultist
Oracle
Witch
Shaman

[Deadmanwalking]

The King In Yellow wrote:

I'd still like to see a return of the Paladin class. In the tradition of AD&D. As opposed to the... class that is called Paladin, but really has almost nothing to do with its historical game roots.

This statement legitimately confuses me. What specifically does the 2E or 3E Paladin have that a Paladin (Champion) doesn't?

[PossibleCabbage]

I would like the ability to play a paladin powered by "uncommon intrinsic goodness" rather than a quid pro quo with a deity back, for one.

[Vidmaster7]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I would like the ability to play a paladin powered by "uncommon intrinsic goodness" rather than a quid pro quo with a deity back, for one.

That is the second commonest paladin type in my games.

[Deadmanwalking]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I would like the ability to play a paladin powered by "uncommon intrinsic goodness" rather than a quid pro quo with a deity back, for one.

Well, me too. I'm not sure that requires much in the way of mechanics, though.

[Vidmaster 1st edition]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

The King In Yellow wrote:

I'd still like to see a return of the Paladin class. In the tradition of AD&D. As opposed to the... class that is called Paladin, but really has almost nothing to do with its historical game roots.

This statement legitimately confuses me. What specifically does the 2E or 3E Paladin have that a Paladin (Champion) doesn't?

Like if we are talking 1st D&D they were really more like a cavalier with extra stuff maybe that's what he means?

[swoosh]

I want the real old school paladin back. If you're not one of Charlemagne's peers you don't deserve the title.

SMH kids these days and their goofy fake "paladins."

[QuidEst]

(Given the topic is about PF1 classes, let's not derail over somebody's mention of classes from another system.)

Having already mentioned Kineticist and Summoner, I'd be interested in also getting Witch and Oracle back. It looks like divine has a monopoly on summoning celestials/fiends (setting aside calling rituals), so I'm eager to get the divine caster class I like best back.

[Leotamer]

The two I am excited about are kineticists and shifter.

Though I am curious about the psychic casters are going to be reintroduced. We already have an occult, spontaneous caster.

A psychic spell list composed of spiritual/material is possible, but I am not sure I am a fan.

Incorporating some psychic casters into bard also doesn't seem impossible, but doesn't seem ideal. Bards have a distinctive flavor that might clash with the occult classes.

[Deadmanwalking]

The Classes I'm most looking forward to the PF2 implementations of are Investigator and Inquisitor, both of which I liked a lot and think have good thematic reasons to exist.

I suspect we'll get Oracle, Witch, and maybe Summoner before those two, and am interested in those as well. I'm also very interested in the Occult Classes (specifically, Medium, Occultist, and Kineticist, though I suspect Psychic will show up eventually as well), though those are probably a ways off.

[Vallarthis]

I'm crossing my fingers the Occultist returns by the time I finish GMing our first campaign and get a chance to play. The mechanics are great, the theme is great.

If not the actual Occultist, though, then something with that same level of wide-open build diversity, for when none of the existing classes reach the spot in the possibility space you are trying to reach.

[Lanathar]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

The Classes I'm most looking forward to the PF2 implementations of are Investigator and Inquisitor, both of which I liked a lot and think have good thematic reasons to exist.

I suspect we'll get Oracle, Witch, and maybe Summoner before those two, and am interested in those as well. I'm also very interested in the Occult Classes (specifically, Medium, Occultist, and Kineticist, though I suspect Psychic will show up eventually as well), though those are probably a ways off.

I would like inquisitor to be it's own class for no other reason than I actually think it is one that would make a great multiclass with character from all sorts of background being "divine agents"

I would suggest them getting the (assumed) cavalier treatment, and indeed, there is fine line between whether something gets cavalier treatment for everyone to "multiclass" or it becomes a full class which therefore means everyone multiclassing is possible

Perhaps a key question is what pathways it could have?

So I see 3 routes:
1. Full class
2. Playtest cavalier style archetype
3. Cleric pathway (based on how warpriest has been folded in this is easily possible)

*

Investigator is another where a full class would be good both because it is unique enough and it would make a great option for lots of other classes to multiclass in certain campaigns

Once again I am not sure what the "pathway" style distinctions would be

They would no longer have extracts so perhaps the Sleuth and their "luck" could be the basis. So some kind of luck and inspiration (unsure how it would work)

Although luck comes close to the grit and panache debate/discussion

[Darth Game Master]

I'd say the Witch.

[VestOfHolding]

I notice a lot of really cool conversation in this thread about how some of the other classes could be already recreated given 2E's multiclassing mechanics, and I fully agree. Heck, even staying within the options for the Rogue, I see some strong hints of some similar choices a Vigilante would make, but this all gives me an idea:

What if some of the new "classes" are nothing more than some somewhat specific recommendations of MC/feat choice combinations? Maybe Paizo doesn't publish these themselves. Maybe once 2E's been out for a couple months, we start to see the community build a couple class guides, and in those we organically come up with some of our favorite MC paths that we give new nicknames to? That sounds like a lot of fun!

Though also, yes, obviously I can't wait for a couple more official classes. As fantastic as the new MC and feat choice mechanics look, it's hard to shake how hard the hybrid classes taught us the lesson that sometimes a new class built from the ground up just doesn't even compare to hacking it together before.