Advanced Player's Guide playtest announced for October!


Paizo Products

151 to 200 of 295 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wonder is the new Investigator gets Alchemy (maybe as one path) again. And if so, how it differentiates from the Alchemist.
With the Alchemist being a combination of prepared and spontaneous alchemy-user, maybe the Investigator can infuse a reagent by spending focus, so it's the Focus alchemy-user. That gives less combat alchemy use but more for exploration.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Rysky wrote:
I foresee Occult, it fits them way too well thematically (they were a blend of Arcane and Divine in 1e) with Patrons letting them nab spells from other lists.
And it will help solidify the Occult tradition's narrative identity. I feel like divine and primal are in good spots for the kinds of stories that get associated with those traditions, but Arcane and Occult might need a bit of help.

*nods*

I wonder with the changes to Sorcerer if Arcanist, if reintroduced will become the Spontaneous Arcane Caster?

I can see Pyschic following Sorcerer and picking a list.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
masda_gib wrote:

I wonder is the new Investigator gets Alchemy (maybe as one path) again. And if so, how it differentiates from the Alchemist.

With the Alchemist being a combination of prepared and spontaneous alchemy-user, maybe the Investigator can infuse a reagent by spending focus, so it's the Focus alchemy-user. That gives less combat alchemy use but more for exploration.

I can definitely see Alchemy staying with Investigator.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bardess wrote:
Dr. Johnny Fever wrote:
I was hoping magus and inquisitor would be two of the first to return, but at least Oracle is getting brought back quick
Inquisitor could be a new clerical doctrine, and Magus can be done with multiclassing.

Investigator can also be done with multiclassing. There's certainly room for magus and inquisitor as standalone classes if investigator and swashbuckler are becoming their own thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think that Investigator will be similar to how they were in PF1, it might be something totally new.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Depends on what you mean by "can be done". A Rogue can make a great investigator (little i) with no multiclassing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think there is room for a gish class which has rogue weapon/armor proficiencies (trained in unarmed, simple and a select few weapons + trained in light armor, with options to invest into medium and possibly heavy), lesser casting proficiencies, fewer slots but full-spell list, and ability to cast while wielding weapons.

Spell-strike can be incorporated, and they should be able to something to blend magic and martial training, but there are other interesting concepts beyond that. Bladebound is the standout, with its fancy sentient sword pseudo-familiar.

New archetypes may alleviate the need for a magus class, but you shouldn't need to wait until level 4 or 6 to play the character you want. And right now, I believe it is around level 11 to play a gish with a gimmick.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Depends on what you mean by "can be done". A Rogue can make a great investigator (little i) with no multiclassing.

I think mechcalibur's point is more that just saying "oh you can multiclass to play that" doesn't seem like it's going to really be a disqualifier going forward after this announcement.


Kyrone wrote:
I don't think that Investigator will be similar to how they were in PF1, it might be something totally new.

Pretty sure they’ll be similar enough. Like how Alchemist is similar to 1e while running on whole new mechanics. I can see Investigator having alchemical focus on mutagens and alchemical utility based items. I’m curious what they plan to do with Studied Combat and Inspiration cause i’m Sure those will be tweaked.


David knott 242 wrote:
That description of the flaws of the PF1 swashbuckler suggests a lot of reasons for Paizo to revisit that class and make it better in PF2.

Well to get rid of the flaws, you need a backhoe, some explosives and... well, I'm not sure what's left other than a name: I wonder if there'd going to be enough left of the PF1 class to appeal to those that liked it.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
That's the problem they couldn't get the Kobolds to promise to be on best behavior. nor could they get them to focus for more then 10 seconds at a time.

Are you sure you aren't talking about goblins? :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
masda_gib wrote:

I wonder is the new Investigator gets Alchemy (maybe as one path) again. And if so, how it differentiates from the Alchemist.

With the Alchemist being a combination of prepared and spontaneous alchemy-user, maybe the Investigator can infuse a reagent by spending focus, so it's the Focus alchemy-user. That gives less combat alchemy use but more for exploration.
I can definitely see Alchemy staying with Investigator.

Maybe they'll even get an ability that allows them to carry all the gear around that an alchemist need without being encumbered! :P


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Depends on what you mean by "can be done". A Rogue can make a great investigator (little i) with no multiclassing.
I think mechcalibur's point is more that just saying "oh you can multiclass to play that" doesn't seem like it's going to really be a disqualifier going forward after this announcement.

Yes, exactly. Thanks for wording it better.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm admittedly really curious to see what they do with the PF2 swashbuckler. The PF1 version was... kind of a mess and basically just some damage boosts to make one handed weapons that aren't TWF less terrible and then a smattering of other class features on top. It had some really cool stuff like parry/riposte but in general it was a little bit messy.

I'm assuming they're going to play really hard into panache as a concept, but who really knows.

Also curious how they're going to make it distinct in combat without feeling like it either eclipses or is eclipsed by swashbuckling rogues, bards or fighters.


What I want a swashbuckler class:
The ability to step and attack as a single action, in either order, preferably multiple times a turn*.
A step speed of 60ft.


I wonder if this playtest will also have stress testing scenarios and surveys? I can’t remember how the original APG playtest was done


Squiggit wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Depends on what you mean by "can be done". A Rogue can make a great investigator (little i) with no multiclassing.
I think mechcalibur's point is more that just saying "oh you can multiclass to play that" doesn't seem like it's going to really be a disqualifier going forward after this announcement.

And yet we’ll still see it as a defense case until we finally get our hands on the class. Then it will turn into a gripe about it stepping on other classes toes cause ‘we can already make that with (X) or by multiclassing with (Y)’.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe Swashbuckler will be inspired by the Flyby attack from the bird animal companion.

Something like when you stride and an enemy is in your reach you can spend an action to attack but you continue your movement.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'd really swashbuckler feat support for melding ranged and melee within a single round.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

HOLY SWEET SARENRAE! I'm not even halfway into the Core and Paizo already announed APG and a Bestiary 2!!! WOW I don't know how to feel about that - except extreme joy.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
graystone wrote:
Rysky wrote:
masda_gib wrote:

I wonder is the new Investigator gets Alchemy (maybe as one path) again. And if so, how it differentiates from the Alchemist.

With the Alchemist being a combination of prepared and spontaneous alchemy-user, maybe the Investigator can infuse a reagent by spending focus, so it's the Focus alchemy-user. That gives less combat alchemy use but more for exploration.
I can definitely see Alchemy staying with Investigator.
Maybe they'll even get an ability that allows them to carry all the gear around that an alchemist need without being encumbered! :P

The Watson Class Feat.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was pretty sure Magus and Inquisitor would be among the first new classes. Guess it will take them some time to figure out how to do 6th casters in this edition.


I don’t think 6th level caster are any hard than warpriest was in 1e. Give them the spell list, cut it at 6th level. Whether they want to do that is a different thing but I don’t think it’s a diffuser problem to solve.


Rysky wrote:
Brawler I could see comming back as the manuever specialized class.

That depends on what you see as the core identity of the brawler.

Is it being able to adapt your training to the situation at hand via Martial Flexibility? Yeah, that's going to need a new class.

But is it playing a "Hercules" class, having the monk's unarmed abilities without all the mystical mumbo-jumbo that goes along with it? You can do that with a monk in PF2.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I see Brawler as the former, emphasis on Martial Flexibility and Manuevers and the like.

Beating things up with fisticuffs was an accessory.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Paladinosaur wrote:
I was pretty sure Magus and Inquisitor would be among the first new classes. Guess it will take them some time to figure out how to do 6th casters in this edition.

About 10 hours ago, on Reddit, in response to a poster's statement, "No Magus...SALT. Guess I will try using Swashbuckler as the base for my magus.", Eric Mona stated here, "Don’t despair. The magus is high on the list."

So, the magus will get made and sooner rather than later by the sounds of it. It just obviously won't be in this first round of new classes for the APG and its playtest.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'm really intrigued by the design space opened up by things like the runes we can put on equipment now and the cool rituals system in this new edition. I think it would be really neat to see completely new classes designed and developed to take advantage of those things and other areas in the new system.

Something that might be neat could look like a "Runecaster" or "Witch-Hunter" that could do new and interesting things with runes, rituals, and focus spells while not necessarily getting any spell slots and more martial abilities. Maybe it could even get something resembling some of the abilities the Skald had. Or maybe all that could be rolled into the new version of the Magus and/or the Inquisitor...

There is all kinds of interesting things that are opened up by this new edition.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Jason clarified the announcement from yesterday regarding the archetypes in the APG. There's going to be 60 PAGES of archetypes (which would probably be close to 60 archetypes anyway he chuckled).


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Paizo sees Core rulebook, Gamemastery Guide, Advanced Player's Guide and the Bestiaries as "the heart, the core of the Pathfinder system". Going forward, from a design point of view, they'll assume that most tables will use these books.
New books after these are out will be more seen as optional, modular pieces you can fit into the system if you so desire.

Reasons for including these 4 classes:
Witch and Oracle were already up for strong consideration in the core rulebook (already revealed long ago). Several of the other PF1 classes you can sort of, almost create with the basic rules already. Investigator needs a suite of abilities that's just really different to make it work the way it's intended to. So they wanted to get that out fast.
The Swashbuckler will be super focused on mobility and skill-use fighting(?). It'll be purely focused on "I'm just here to stab things" with no spell casting abilities what so ever [which could also mean no "supernatural" focus abilities either].

(all this is from the Pathfinder 2e Design Philosophy panel earlier Sunday)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashanderai wrote:
Paladinosaur wrote:
I was pretty sure Magus and Inquisitor would be among the first new classes. Guess it will take them some time to figure out how to do 6th casters in this edition.

About 10 hours ago, on Reddit, in response to a poster's statement, "No Magus...SALT. Guess I will try using Swashbuckler as the base for my magus.", Eric Mona stated here, "Don’t despair. The magus is high on the list."

So, the magus will get made and sooner rather than later by the sounds of it. It just obviously won't be in this first round of new classes for the APG and its playtest.

Which makes sense. If they included the Magus that would have been 3 casters, no matter the form Magus comes back in, and Witch and Oracle seemed like they were higher on the return request going by the forums. They also said Investigator was a developer push since the AP that comes out around that time would be a thematic fit. Very curious to see what plans they have for the classes though.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashanderai wrote:

About 10 hours ago, on Reddit, in response to a poster's statement, "No Magus...SALT. Guess I will try using Swashbuckler as the base for my magus.", Eric Mona stated here, "Don’t despair. The magus is high on the list."

So, the magus will get made and sooner rather than later by the sounds of it. It just obviously won't be in this first round of new classes for the APG and its playtest.

Seltyiel!!!

\(^o^)/

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Yes more toys to play with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:

Reasons for including these 4 classes:

Witch and Oracle were already up for strong consideration in the core rulebook (already revealed long ago). Several of the other PF1 classes you can sort of, almost create with the basic rules already. Investigator needs a suite of abilities that's just really different to make it work the way it's intended to. So they wanted to get that out fast.
The Swashbuckler will be super focused on mobility and skill-use fighting(?). It'll be purely focused on "I'm just here to stab things" with no spell casting abilities what so ever [which could also mean no "supernatural" focus abilities either].

(all this is from the Pathfinder 2e Design Philosophy panel earlier Sunday)

I figure there was also the goal to not just put 4 caster classes in the book, since it's not a magic focused book. Since the Oracle and Witch were pretty much assured, the question was "which two martial classes are at the top of the list"; turns out it was the Swashbuckler and Investigator.


I would much rather have an inquisitor over an investigator. Investigator seems something you can just do with feat choices and background.
Inquisitor had all that stuff. The judgements and everything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think the big question after the Advanced Player's Guide for PF2 comes out is going to be "So what is left from PF1 that we still can't do with PF2?" I suspect that by that point we will have archetypes and/or feat chains that are good enough for many classes, but the holes may not be obvious from the names being used.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They better not replace Quinn. He's the best.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

I would much rather have an inquisitor over an investigator. Investigator seems something you can just do with feat choices and background.

Inquisitor had all that stuff. The judgements and everything.

Personally I think the studied combat/studied strike mechanic is more mechanically interesting than Judgements.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Inquisitor is more of a challenge. Existing judgement buffs and name are far far too strong to be simply transferred over to the new system. So any judgement mechanic would need to be done from the ground up

Inquisitor seems quite a good candidate for a cleric doctrine under the new design space


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I just don't think they're going to do 3 caster classes in a book with only 4 classes this early in the product's lifespan, and the inquisitor is almost certainly not getting the "it's a focus caster now" since that's too close to the Champion.

Whereas we can take the "spells" away from the Investigator very easily without impinging the class's ability to fulfill its flavor.


Rysky wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

Why would the Shaman be a spontaneous caster? That class is mostly a prepared caster in PF1.

It just feels like how they would go, I started thinking that after the overhaul to Bard.

Edit: Also I always thought they were a spontaneous caster in 1e so bias in mindset right there lol

:-) ...FYI, Shaman's casting was Prep except it basicaly had Domain Slots which it could spontaneously from various Spirit lists (which it could swap between), including Metamagicking or otherwise casting lower level Spirit spell in higher level Spirit Spell slot. So it had an element of Spontaneity in regards to those (more than Cleric Domains), but was mostly Prep in terms of majority of it's spells.

But spontaeneous vs prep aside, I question why they would be associated with exact same tradition as Druid in first place. Their list was clearly pushed towards Witch or Cleric with spells that were way off standard Druid tropes of elemental blasts and 'overt' effects, it was much more invisible spiritual effects and the like. Elsewhere, responding to discussion on Essences, I proposed Shamans using unique Spirit+Matter tradition (along with Occultist and Medium, who have similar dynamic with Spirits/Implements) with "Matter" of course including many immaterial effects like Force and other Transmutations etc, but even barring that interpretation I think something like Occult would be better base, of course Spirits tending to expand oevre in various directions off-list.

I do definitely see Witch going Occult, which is a further reason why I see Shaman having distinct tradition as a good thing (it would basically be half-way between Druid and Witch/Cleric, which also describes it's 1E list).

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Whereas we can take the "spells" away from the Investigator very easily without impinging the class's ability to fulfill its flavor.

Even leaving them with Alchemy (which I'd expect them to do), it's still not technically a caster.

Quandary wrote:
Elsewhere, responding to discussion on Essences, I proposed Shamans using unique Spirit+Matter tradition (along with Occultist and Medium, who have similar dynamic with Spirits/Implements)

The evidence is pretty strong, including statements from people at Paizo, that they're probably not gonna add any more new lists after the core. At least not for a very long time.


masda_gib wrote:

I wonder is the new Investigator gets Alchemy (maybe as one path) again. And if so, how it differentiates from the Alchemist.

With the Alchemist being a combination of prepared and spontaneous alchemy-user, maybe the Investigator can infuse a reagent by spending focus, so it's the Focus alchemy-user. That gives less combat alchemy use but more for exploration.

I'm also interested with what they do there, I mean including Alchemist in Core seems like it was done in service of building other things off it, which would include this (or potentially even Guns, unsure if they are doing that in APG).

I actually look at it from opposite angle re: combat/exploration and Focus Points, Focus is easily refreshed every encounter or two, so it's MORE suited to combat. While a "slot" only class (or equivalent for Alchemy) is fixed per day, so is more suited for exploration and utility. Not saying it can't work either way, though...


11 people marked this as a favorite.

I think if the witch is the "prepared occult" we could easily do the Shaman as the "prepared- pick a list." Just make it which kinds of spells you cast depend on which spirits you have a relationship with.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think if the witch is the "prepared occult" we could easily do the Shaman as the "prepared- pick a list." Just make it which kinds of spells you cast depend on which spirits you have a relationship with.

This seems plausible enough to me.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think if the witch is the "prepared occult" we could easily do the Shaman as the "prepared- pick a list." Just make it which kinds of spells you cast depend on which spirits you have a relationship with.

That’s rather neat and tidy!


Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
Investigator seems something you can just do with feat choices and background.
Yet, Paizo's explanation directly contradicts that:
GentleGiant wrote:
Investigator needs a suite of abilities that's just really different to make it work the way it's intended to. So they wanted to get that out fast.

IMHO it seems clear Paizo conceive of Investigator abilities as carving out unique mechanical niche & limit, which they want to be unique and not trivially shared amongst any other "skills-y" class. Also, would be kind of a let-down to push Alchemist into Core (displacing other favorites) on premise it needs to be built into Core to build other things atop it, and then not build anything atop it in APG. As they said, they want to establish this Inquisitor niche early, which after all will better flesh out what Alchemy can do, besides the single Alchemist class.

I think Lanathar's concept of Inquisitor as Cleric Doctrine has legit potential, and more generally I think it works well as MC of various Doctine Clerics or Champions with Ranger or Rogue (or even Investigator).


I feel like Shaman would slot into spontaneous primal thematically, and they did make bards occult. "Prepared Any" is supported by pf1 mechanics. It isn't impossible, but I don't quite think they have the flexibility of sorcerers to justify that, but it could be my own bias. I am unfamiliar with the shaman in pf1.

Though considering two more spellcasters, we will only have three more tradition/preparation combinations, so they probably will double up. So Shaman could be prepared any, or prepared primal with the ability to poach spells.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Elsewhere, responding to discussion on Essences, I proposed Shamans using unique Spirit+Matter tradition (along with Occultist and Medium, who have similar dynamic with Spirits/Implements)
The evidence is pretty strong, including statements from people at Paizo, that they're probably not gonna add any more new lists after the core. At least not for a very long time.

I wouldn't argue that there is any sign Paizo intends to do a Shaman or Occultist or Medium any time soon... :-/

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think if the witch is the "prepared occult" we could easily do the Shaman as the "prepared- pick a list." Just make it which kinds of spells you cast depend on which spirits you have a relationship with.

Definitely Spirits are about "picking" from themes regardless of natural tradition, although having an inherent "base" tradition to build on has certain merit and doesn't conflict with Spirit "picking". But that approach of just forgoing any claim to base tradition could also work...

I also think of Alchemists actually, who can plausibly create any sort of effect via Alchemy not formally limited by tradition, crossing Material/Vital/Mental and even Spiritual, especially considering everything in 1E and not just current CRB. So Shaman could be magical version of that, in a way. I do still like the Shaman-Medium-Occultist connection, given similar relation to Spirits (Occultist being Fetishist Shaman, in essence) and congruent/shared mechanics there seems something solid to build on.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lanathar wrote:

Inquisitor is more of a challenge. Existing judgement buffs and name are far far too strong to be simply transferred over to the new system. So any judgement mechanic would need to be done from the ground up

Inquisitor seems quite a good candidate for a cleric doctrine under the new design space

Can you please elaborate on this? Because I keep seeing people say this, but I don't really see it.

To make an inquisitor out of a cleric, you need:
-a crap load of skill proficicienies
-Pretty much all of the combat proficiencies of the Warpriest doctrine
-Unique focus spells or cantrips (to simulate Judgment and Bane)
-Something to update Solo tactics.

What you don't need:
-Divine font. Which is arguably the most central class ability to clerics, given the number of class feats that make use of it (roughly half depend on how you count it, so, hey, better ratio than the playtest).

A class archetype, sure, I could see them making the cleric into an inquisitor that way. Might even work very well, since the feats that make use of either divine font directly or heal and harm spells generally are concentrated towards the lower levels, so a class archetype that is expected to use up your early class feats would be ideal. But doctrine, I don't know if it can cover enough ground and not be unbalanced when compared to war priests.

But I'm willing to listen. So I really would appreciate seeing what you'd think a doctrine for inquisitors would look like.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Is solo tactics really core to the concept? I wouldn't be sad if "teamwork feats" a la "two people have to have this feat for it to work" never came back.

It's enough to have a class be able to do something to a mob that their partymates would find useful.

I mean, the Ranger doesn't have favored enemy or spells anymore, so the Inquisitor doesn't require "solo tactics."


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, the Ranger doesn't have favored enemy or spells anymore, so the Inquisitor doesn't require "solo tactics."

It does have Hunt Prey, which fills some of the same flavor as favored enemy. That's what I would look for, not a direct translation of the ability to PF2, but something to update it into the new paradigm while retaining similar flavor.

What form that would ultimately take, I'm not certain.

151 to 200 of 295 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Paizo Products / Advanced Player's Guide playtest announced for October! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.