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


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 175 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

I definitely understand it's likely not a priority to get additional classes out while the groundwork for the new edition's infrastructure is still being laid out.

But if in future books we get classes from 1st edition converted over,which would you like to be first?

Personally I would love Bloodrager and Inquisitior.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Psychic. Keeping the ability to cast spells without a tongue nor a free hand. And a spontaneous caster.

After that, I want the prepared Occult full caster (probably Witch of PF2) and the spontaneous full casters of the other 3 traditions defined as quickly as possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My favorite classes are the occult adventures ones, but I do doubt they'll be the first added.

Silver Crusade

I think that most of the classes I want to see can already be accomplished by rules that will be released with the opening of PF1 (Ninja could easily be rogue w/monk multi, as an example, and I don't feel it would need more than that base).

I think it'd be interesting to see what could be done with summoner, witch, psychic, and occultist, though. I can wing a psychic or witch well enough with sorcerer, but occultists is niche enough beast that I think you'd have to hodgepodge too many things together to make work with the new rules.

tl:dr - occultist, psychic, summoner, and witch!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Gunslinger is the only class that multiple of my players want to play that is unavailable at launch, so I hope that we can get some form of that in the future.

Magus is another class that has been played at our table, but we can kind of simulate it with multiclassing in 2E. I would still love to see 2E's take on it.

I'm also really interested to see the Witch return as well as the Inquisitor, because I want to see 2E's take on Hexes and Judgments.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Shaman & Kineticist most definitely are my choices.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I could see the Summoner coming back as a prestige class in future books (given the outline with the cavaliers animal companion feats in the playtest.) Either which way, I hope it does comeback in some from, as it was the one main class in PF1 our group never got to try. (We all kinda of agreed, while we loved the concept and mechinces, it could also really easily get out of hand to say the least.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would like to see the gunslinger return (as long as they make it a distinct class with viable and varied options like all the rest, otherwise it's just a Ranger with a gun).

But I mostly just don't want what happened with the APG. Introduced six new classes and five of them were spell casters. (I won't talk about the Cavalier. Nope.) Seriously, I think we have enough spell casters. We don't need anymore. >:E

Except the Witch. I thought the Witch was neat. So, Gunslinger and Witch and that's it. No more casters.

Shadow Lodge

Bloodrager and Witch as their own classes

Magus and Vigilante could probably be done as multi class feats


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I am most excited about the Kineticist by far. I have gushed about it in another thread, but the quick summary is: I like the blending of spellcasting's complexity and the simplicity of weapons that wild talents and infusion provide, I like the theming, I like that they are very customizable, and I think they can work great with the new action economy.

My biggest concern is the burn mechanic, but if that is optional, removed or ignorable, then it should be fine.

The Kineticist is likely going to be my go-to class, and I can see it working with a lot of different multi-classes, in particular, rogue, ranger, monk, alchemist, and paladin. If you can use kinetic blade while raging, then barbarian would also be interesting.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The stuff that can't be handled well by the current system. Generally speaking that's the Occult classes.

I figure stuff like the Magus, Oracle and Witch are going to come first because they're really popular, but for me the stuff I'm most interested in seeing added to PF2 are the classes that can't be approximated very well in the existing framework.

Oracle will probably be way cooler than the divine sorcerer, but I can still use the latter to make a passable facsimile of an Oracle. I can kinda fudge a Magus by MCing Wizard or Sorcerer on a martial or MCing some martial on a Wizard, too. On the other hand there's really nothing that lets me approximate what a Kineticist, Medium, Spiritualist or Occultist can do.

One of my minor fears for PF2 is that we're going to see a lot of retreading old ground early on where basic, popular classes from PF1 get support and while I firmly believe the classes will be cool, they might not be very mechanically groundbreaking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wasn’t burn kind of optional with some of the archetypes (I think overwhelming soul?). But the problem was that for the maths to work the assumption was maxing out overflow? I assume that is what you are referring to about making it optional. I think with the way the maths and the proficiency system works that is kind of going to be built in. Unless you want / expect the Kineticist to have fighter level proficiencies in their blast - that shouldn’t happen

To those who are saying Bloodrager - speaking as someone who hasn’t played one - how is this not achieved by barbarian multiclass into sorcerer? With feats applied to let you cast during rage.
I guess it is because unless there are New first level class feats you won’t have a unique identify as a bloodrager until level 2 and will probably have to wait until you can take a “bloodrager type” feat at 4 to really feel like one. And unless that is a stacked feat allowing both casting whilst in rage and the bloodrage bloodline boost it is still some way off?
(I hadn’t stopped to think until now )

I am kind of the reverse in that I would like to see how many classes could be replaced by class “pathways”, multiclassing and special feats. This opens up space for some brand new classss and I am intrigued with what they might come up with as some of the 1E ones came out of nowhere it seems (such as Inquisitor)

I would like to see Witch, Oracle and Occultist as full classes.

But also more pure melee ones - this is the design space as it seems most of the current pure melee ones like slayer, brawler and swashbuckler should be achievable with the core rules through feats and multiclassing because the latter two not being possible/effective without a whole class reflects a failing of the 3.5 chassis. And the slayer is arguably an unchained ranger with favoured enemy fixed (albeit with the wildlife stuff taken away)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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


3 people marked this as a favorite.

To clarify my thoughts on Burn, I would want elemental overflow to either be removed, or be an optional feat that is not a simple number fix.

I like the idea of an action-economy kineticist, where your base kinetic blast is a single-action, and you can spend additional actions to enhance it. Burning could reduce action costs.

But I mostly want Kineticists to feel like all-day blasters, and be able to fight all day unless they need to exert themselves for a particularly challenging fight, or need to use a powerful utility talent.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
I guess it is because unless there are New first level class feats you won’t have a unique identify as a bloodrager until level 2 and will probably have to wait until you can take a “bloodrager type” feat at 4 to really feel like one

This is the one reason I'm really excited on the other hand to see hybrid classes in PF2. Multiclassing theoretically lets you build whatever, but in practice you're taking a dedication at 2 and your first extension feat at 4 and your next at 6 and then maybe your character is starting to look like what you want to play midway through the campaign and with only one 'free' feat in that period. It's a little bit of a drag.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kineticist, Witch, Oracle and Inquisitor


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's a tough question: it's going to depend HOW the conversion is. For instance, I'm with Leotamer, in that the kineticist he's talking about sounds awesome. However, if it returns as the must burn to work kineticist... I'm not so interested anymore. So IMO, I'm more hopeful that we'll get classes that work well over any kind of order.

Another thing will be if the PF1 class ends up as a PF2 class or a multiclass feat line or class feats for another class.


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 guess that only the Witch for me, stuff like the hybrid classes can just merge with their parent classes in my opinion or become archetypes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The question on gunslinger is why people only took level dips - to become good at DPS with a gun it would seem

The full class offered tricks you could do but since you are saying people mainly dipped (presumably 1 or 5) then they clearly weren't interested in that aspect

So what is it people want from a gunslinger?
Why would it *need* to be it's own class when anecdotal evidence above is people just want combat competence with guns which can be achieved in other ways - by feats and potentially making their properties different
It is definitely worth asking why "being good with x weapon" deserves it's own class. That seems limiting

For properties - guns certainly be "deadly". I imagine they will add a property for "loud". Their might be a "piercing" but I think deadly is supposed to be reflected by that.

(We already know they won't target touch as it does not exist. Nor will I expect they will ignore armour in any headline way because that starts adding maths complexities that they are trying to remove)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

1. Shifter ... completely redone. And reflavoured. Or better yet the synthesist as a class.
2. Oozemorph archetype

4. Occultist
4. Kineticist
5. Mesmerist

7. Nidal/Shadow-related-archetypes
9. Duelist/Lorewarden/intelligence based martial archetype

11. Investigator
11. Oracle
12. Witch
13. Magus
13. Arcane Archer as a path for Magus


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Brawler and Shaman would be the two that I would like to see. I really liked the concepts of the mixed classes they had put out before. That’s saying alot for someone who really dislikes multi classes.


Lanathar wrote:

The question on gunslinger is why people only took level dips - to become good at DPS with a gun it would seem

The full class offered tricks you could do but since you are saying people mainly dipped (presumably 1 or 5) then they clearly weren't interested in that aspect

So what is it people want from a gunslinger?
Why would it *need* to be it's own class when anecdotal evidence above is people just want combat competence with guns which can be achieved in other ways - by feats and potentially making their properties different
It is definitely worth asking why "being good with x weapon" deserves it's own class. That seems limiting

For properties - guns certainly be "deadly". I imagine they will add a property for "loud". Their might be a "piercing" but I think deadly is supposed to be reflected by that.

(We already know they won't target touch as it does not exist. Nor will I expect they will ignore armour in any headline way because that starts adding maths complexities that they are trying to remove)

I can only speak for myself but I played the class full and would do again, the gun tricks and grit mechanics are really cool. Also I would play the bolt ace (full) if guns were not allowed and I wanted gunslinger flavor :P

But dipping is not for mentality anyway and I am glad that that's not a thing anymore...

As for guns itself, deadly is actually good, but I would personally go with fatal rather then that, well matter of taste I guess - but it would be a nice way to discern them from bow and arrow
They could have some 'magazine' mechanics - multiple shots before a reload, but also multiple reload actions
I thought about multiple shots reloaded per action for something like revolvers but people would probably ending up in reload -> shot -> shot -> repeat
Also they could get a counterpart to 'thrown' since hitting people with the stock or pistol handel is afaik at least somewhat popular (and enables gun-kata :P)
And of course guns are easily moddable in damage and maybe special effects using ammunition


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to chime in for the Kineticist as my first choice as 1) of all of the other classes we saw in 1st edition, it was one of the most unique and 2) is almost as diverse as a Wizard. My next choice would be Witch and/or Oracle as they have very unique aspects, but are otherwise Occult/Primal/Arcane (for Witch) or Sorcerer style (for Oracle) casters.

One thing I would like o see is to make each of the additional classes (hybrid classes from 1E, especially) more unique creatures; the Gunslinger feels like it would work more closely to the Cavalier from the playtest, simply an archetype that could be applied to any class, as I could see arguments made for it being available for the Alchemist (alchemical ammo, anyone?) a Bard (the singing gunslinger and trick shooter, Barbarian (gunzerker), Cleric/Champion (holy gun crusader), Fighter is a no-brainer, Ranger (Texas Ranger), Rogue (sniper) and Wizard (gunmage). I I can think or similar arguments for Summoner (though I love it so) being applied to pretty much any casting class, and so on.

Prestige class wise, I need me some Shadowdancer for my very favorite character, but I should be able to approximate with a Kineticist.


I love the concept of the shifter, but it is has a lot of overlap with core classes. Shifters/shifter archetypes are thematically/mechanically overlapping with druids, rangers, barbarians, sorcerers, and monks.

However, I can see a way to implement the shifter that would interest me. I would have them be the swiss-army knife of melee classes.

In the homebrew in my mind, they can manifest slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning natural weapons. They would have animal aspects, but also more esoteric options, like oozes. They can freely shift between minor forms, which are weaker but allows for more versatility. They can spend focus to enhance their shapeshifting temporarily, either adapting to their environment, improving their natural weapons, or getting an aspect-specific boon. (Majors forms would be a feat)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:
Lanathar wrote:

The question on gunslinger is why people only took level dips - to become good at DPS with a gun it would seem

The full class offered tricks you could do but since you are saying people mainly dipped (presumably 1 or 5) then they clearly weren't interested in that aspect

So what is it people want from a gunslinger?
Why would it *need* to be it's own class when anecdotal evidence above is people just want combat competence with guns which can be achieved in other ways - by feats and potentially making their properties different
It is definitely worth asking why "being good with x weapon" deserves it's own class. That seems limiting

For properties - guns certainly be "deadly". I imagine they will add a property for "loud". Their might be a "piercing" but I think deadly is supposed to be reflected by that.

(We already know they won't target touch as it does not exist. Nor will I expect they will ignore armour in any headline way because that starts adding maths complexities that they are trying to remove)

I can only speak for myself but I played the class full and would do again, the gun tricks and grit mechanics are really cool. Also I would play the bolt ace (full) if guns were not allowed and I wanted gunslinger flavor :P

But dipping is not for mentality anyway and I am glad that that's not a thing anymore...

As for guns itself, deadly is actually good, but I would personally go with fatal rather then that, well matter of taste I guess - but it would be a nice way to discern them from bow and arrow
They could have some 'magazine' mechanics - multiple shots before a reload, but also multiple reload actions
I thought about multiple shots reloaded per action for something like revolvers but people would probably ending up in reload -> shot -> shot -> repeat
Also they could get a counterpart to 'thrown' since hitting people with the stock or pistol handel is afaik at least somewhat popular (and enables gun-kata :P)
And of course guns are easily moddable in...

I forgot fatal was a thing - that makes more sense

I think paizo learnt their lesson on the dipping classes with regards to things like dipping just long enough to get Dex to damage. You can see this in the vigilante and warrior poet archetype where there is scaling damage boost that makes you take levels

Had 2E been more of a suped up unchained still largely using the 3.5 engine then that is what I would expect to have seen for most classes. Perhaps even the rogue . The move against dips was becoming apparent and i am all for it. One of the whole selling points for pathfinder was they initially made it so it was much more effective to stick with one class apart from in a few circumstances. Then swashbuckler , unchained rogue, gunslinger and brawler appeared as very strong dips on top of the handful that did exist in core (fighter and paladin )

All of the above is irrelevant now. I am not opposed to multiclassing but I don’t think the spirit was ever to dabble in some classes but never others and never a 50:50 split

Grand Lodge

Any idea if oracle and/or witch will straddle the different types of magic like the sorcerer does?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Since Oracle is lore wise gifted by the gods I think it is likely they will be an spontaneous divine caster

Witch Would make a good preparing Occult caster

Admittedly, both have some potential getting other spell list, but I wouldnt bet on them

But official information...no, not yet

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DougSeay wrote:
Any idea if oracle and/or witch will straddle the different types of magic like the sorcerer does?

We have no idea, but I think that Oracle was called "Divine Vessel" in PF1 so my guess is that they will stay that way if they make a return.

Witch the popular theory is that if they make the return will be the Occult prepared caster.

I personally hope that the list thing keeps being only for the sorcerer.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Kinda like to see Kineticist, Gunslinger and Skald. Yes, Skald can be rednecked with Bard and Barbarian dedications but I liked it as it was built though.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Kineticist. Give me that all-day blasting utility class! Looking forward to a dedicated telekinetic character in the new system.

Summoner. I really want a class that pours as much feature as possible into a customizable pet. PF1's unchained Summoner had such great flavor; I'd love to see more of that. Only now, the base Summoner won't be stuck with a sad 2+Int skills and can be more of their own person.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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 )


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Put me down as another who wants to see the Kineticist and Gunslinger first, though I am interested in seeing how PF2 handles the Witch and Summoner.

Ramanujan's idea of the Synthesist as a class sounds good to me as the Shifter done right.

I'm still trying to decide if the Arcanist has enough space in PF2 to warrant being its own thing, but it's telling that my group hasn't had a Wizard in play since Arcanist was published.


CharlieIAm wrote:

Put me down as another who wants to see the Kineticist and Gunslinger first, though I am interested in seeing how PF2 handles the Witch and Summoner.

Ramanujan's idea of the Synthesist as a class sounds good to me as the Shifter done right.

I'm still trying to decide if the Arcanist has enough space in PF2 to warrant being its own thing, but it's telling that my group hasn't had a Wizard in play since Arcanist was published.

I think wizards now have focus points and the ability to change a prepared spell (potentially with a focus point but not certain). This seems like it largely removes what the arcanist does .

I acknowledge the method of casting is still different with the combo of wizard and sorcerer but that might not be enough of a unique function . Especially as there seems to be fewer spell slots to play with in terms of making things different


1 person marked this as a favorite.

After seeing all the hype about Kineticists I looked it up and skimmed the material. I'm the sort who really, really hates the prospect of psionics in high fantasy, but I gotta say that after reading all that I am fairly intrigued!

It's probably because I'm a huge fan of the Avatar series (animated show about children doing Kung-Fu by flinging water and rocks at each other).

I can see this working a fantasy campaign; so long as players don't abuse it. I recall hearing horror stories about folks min-maxing psionics characters that made absolutely no narrative sense but were still legal in organized play.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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

2. Slayer. I don't even care that this might just be a ranger/rogue multiclass. Properly explored it will be an elegant martial addition like it was in PF1, and another way to get sneak attack with different flavor.

3. Oracle. I don't even like it, but other people do a LOT.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

1. Witch. Need my hexes.

2. Inquisitor. Seems really tough to built as a rogue/cleric or a cleric/rogue, so I think he deserves a standalone

3. Withholding the position for Magus depending on if they can be built with multiclass, but a Spellsword is core fantasy to me.


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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm happy there's so much kineticist support. I would be so happy if it was one of the first added classes!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

I think the void, which is here linked to the void between the stars where some nasty entities are, are not exactly core for the kineticist

If they bring him up it will proabably the 5 core elements, the others maybe in a supplement
Also I would guess void kineticists are rather rare (and not always gm approved)
Phytokineticist is way better - but also rather a supplement then core kineticist, don't worry about it, if you like avatar this is a class for you


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.

In pf1, you choose which elements you can manipulate, and I would hope that stays true for pf2.


Yeah Void and Wood weren't part of the core kineticist, they were added later. They might make it into core in 2e but I doubt it. Though I personally wouldn't be upset or anything if they were added, never hurts to have more options. More power to those who wants to be that sort of a character.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I just thought about Kineticist Multiclassing, that could open up a lot of new awesome options

Kineticist just went up in my most wanted list for new classes :P


Well that's a relief. Even still, I'd probably hesitate to include a Keneticist as an option unless they were strongly tied to the setting, as they were in Avatar: The Sorta But Not Really Last Airbender. 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.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

These four in this order personally.

Witch

Kineticist

Oracle

Psychic


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:

I just thought about Kineticist Multiclassing, that could open up a lot of new awesome options

Kineticist just went up in my most wanted list for new classes :P

Which ones pique your interest?

Telekineticist with a fighter/champion/monk is the closest to Jedi we will probably see (either way around)


I quite enjoyed Blood Kineticists (via an archetype) ... though there was the rather sad problem that Dhampir stat boosts didn't fit well at all.

(The Dhampir variants were better, though still not amazing ... there should really have been a +2 bonus to con for the purposes of class abilities only, like some races got to thematically appropriate bloodlines with Charisma).


Aiden2018 wrote:
Well that's a relief. Even still, I'd probably hesitate to include a Keneticist as an option unless they were strongly tied to the setting, as they were in Avatar: The Sorta But Not Really Last Airbender. 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.

This is the impression I get from 1E from both personal experience and reading the way people talk about them - including the clamour for all day blasting. It sometimes seems like it does not matter what the vehicle for all day blasting is (warlock , Kineticist, whatever) .

Part of the problem is the Kineticist lore seems relatively sparse in 1E. Perhaps an argument for bringing them in earlier so they can be embedded more closely into the setting

So hopefully that will change . It seems a popular class and one of the main developers of 2E wrote it so I imagine it returns sooner than it first appeared in the lifecycle


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For me the top one would probably be the oracle. A lot of classes I can imagine vaguely recreating through multiclassing, but the oracle, with its curse and revelations, was so much fun and I don't think a divine sorcerer is enough to represent it.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Unlike most of the sheep on this thread, MY choices are unique:
Witch.
Oracle.
Kineticist. :-P

1 to 50 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.