Speculation BEYOND The Advanced Player's Guide


Paizo Products

1 to 50 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

So it's been grandly announced that the Advanced Player's Guide will introduce the Investigator, Oracle, Swashbuckler and Witch classes. There's already been speculation about how the 2e versions of these classes will differ. This is not that thread. This is the thread to speculate about the 2e versions of the REST of the classes.

Arcanist: Not sure where to go with this.

Bloodrager: Maybe a barbarian-only archetype that gives Focus spells? Or an Instinct?

Cavalier: In the playtest, this was an Archetype that focused on mounted combat. I hope that returns in some future product.

Gunslinger: Likewise, allowing any character to learn how to use these weapons at the expense of their traditional abilities makes a certain sense to me.

Hunter: Do the new rules for Animal Companions make this obsolete?

Inquisitor: If I were doing it, I'd make it a third Clerical Doctrine rather than its own class, as Warpriest already is.

Kineticist: Needs its own class.

Magus: Will probably be its own class, eventually.

Medium: Merge this with the Spiritualist.

Mesmerist: Probably its own class.

Occultist: Never sure what to make of this. Maybe merge with the Magus?

Psychic: The major Occult caster, its bound to be its own class.

Shaman: Everyone's expecting this to be a Primal caster. Surprise us by making it Occult.

Shifter: I don't even want to talk about it.

Skald: Bard-only archetype that gives rage?

Slayer: Makes for a good Rogue's Racket, I think.

Spiritualist: See Medium.

Summoner: Complicated enough that it probably needs its own class, rather than any of the other possibilities.

Vigilante: The secret identity mechanism begs to be an Archetype that any class can use.

Warpriest: See Inquisitor.

Dataphiles

C. Richard Davies wrote:

Medium: Merge this with the Spiritualist.

Medium has almost nothing to do with the Spiritualist. This would be saying that you should merge Bard with Ranger since they're both in the Core Rulebook.

Medium should definitely be its own class. It would very much be a "pick your class archetype for the day" type setup for class features which fills a unique design space.

C. Richard Davies wrote:

Occultist: Never sure what to make of this. Maybe merge with the Magus?

Occultist is the UMD master. Focusing on those features would make it unique as it doesn't really have much to do with the Magus.

C. Richard Davies wrote:

Shifter: I don't even want to talk about it.

Actually, this is covered a lot better by the new Druid's Wild order than it was in first edition. Although, you could create a new class to completely drop the spell casting components.

C. Richard Davies wrote:

Spiritualist: See Medium.

Essentially the Summoner, but Occult. That said, this could end up being a type of Summoner in the new edition.


Chetna Wavari wrote:
Occultist is the UMD master. Focusing on those features would make it unique as it doesn't really have much to do with the Magus.

UMD doesn't exist anymore, and I'm not sure that resurrecting it is such a good idea. But ... <shrugs>

Chetna Wavari wrote:
Essentially the Summoner, but Occult. That said, this could end up being a type of Summoner in the new edition.

Making the Summoner like the Sorcerer, attuned to a tradition based on their Eidolon? With Phantoms as (one of) the Occult Eidolons? I like it!

Dataphiles

C. Richard Davies wrote:
Chetna Wavari wrote:
Occultist is the UMD master. Focusing on those features would make it unique as it doesn't really have much to do with the Magus.
UMD doesn't exist anymore, and I'm not sure that resurrecting it is such a good idea. But ... <shrugs>

True, but being able to do the interact action for magical devices in interesting ways. For example, they might be able to heighten spells from wands. Or enhance a weapon or armor to include a certain trait.

Just some random ideas where they interact with items.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Um... UMD totally does exist, though? It's a general feat, and works with the skill related to the item instead of a dedicated skill, but the mechanics are there to base Occultist around for sure.

As far as Magus, it sounds very much like it will be a base class released in whatever the next major supplement after the APG is; there's a quote from Eric Mona replying to someone who was disappointed about no Magus in the APG saying that they wouldn't have to wait as long as they might think.

Dataphiles

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Um... UMD totally does exist, though? It's a general feat, and works with the skill related to the item instead of a dedicated skill, but the mechanics are there to base Occultist around for sure.

Trick Magic Item, but yes it does everything UMD does.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Chetna Wavari wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Um... UMD totally does exist, though? It's a general feat, and works with the skill related to the item instead of a dedicated skill, but the mechanics are there to base Occultist around for sure.
Trick Magic Device, but yes it does everything UMD does.

Trick Magic Item. If you are going to be pedantic, at least be correct. :P

Dataphiles

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Chetna Wavari wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Um... UMD totally does exist, though? It's a general feat, and works with the skill related to the item instead of a dedicated skill, but the mechanics are there to base Occultist around for sure.
Trick Magic Device, but yes it does everything UMD does.
Trick Magic Item. If you are going to be pedantic, at least be correct. :P

Wasn't trying to be pedantic. I was just trying to link to it for reference. Fixed the text.


Chetna Wavari wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Um... UMD totally does exist, though? It's a general feat, and works with the skill related to the item instead of a dedicated skill, but the mechanics are there to base Occultist around for sure.
Trick Magic Item, but yes it does everything UMD does.

... welp, that's what I get for relying on the Index.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For Kineticist you gave one line “needs it own class”

Can I be devils advocate and ask “Why?”

On other threads the fans of the class talk about wanting an all day blaster. That now exists due to scaling cantrips. Focus and normal spells replicate the limited use higher powered blasts

I struggle to see how an all day blasting Kineticist can be balanced against a primal sorcerer. It seems like a real design challenge regardless of how vocal the fan base are .

Add in that non lethal works differently making burn a challenge and the new action economy - 2 actions for a SLA blast (anything else as mentioned invalidates the primal sorcerer) and then only one left to either : move, gather power, activate defense etc. It doesn’t seem to gel with the new action economy

I am sure it will exist but I do feel compelled to ask what it would really add and how it would fit. And my points on the challenge are probably part of the reason it isn’t in first release .

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

While it would be nice if bloodrager comes back, barbarian can cast spells while raging (not many of them) but it's possible. So most likely a bloodrager archetype is what I see in the future.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:

For Kineticist you gave one line “needs it own class”

Can I be devils advocate and ask “Why?”

If I can be avocatus Dei and answer: "Avatar".

To elaborate: Benders don't feel like Sorcerers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Lanathar wrote:

For Kineticist you gave one line “needs it own class”

Can I be devils advocate and ask “Why?”

On other threads the fans of the class talk about wanting an all day blaster. That now exists due to scaling cantrips. Focus and normal spells replicate the limited use higher powered blasts

I struggle to see how an all day blasting Kineticist can be balanced against a primal sorcerer. It seems like a real design challenge regardless of how vocal the fan base are .

Add in that non lethal works differently making burn a challenge and the new action economy - 2 actions for a SLA blast (anything else as mentioned invalidates the primal sorcerer) and then only one left to either : move, gather power, activate defense etc. It doesn’t seem to gel with the new action economy

I am sure it will exist but I do feel compelled to ask what it would really add and how it would fit. And my points on the challenge are probably part of the reason it isn’t in first release .

Sorcerer has a really big class feature you can rip out in order to give Kineticist room to be a better blaster, though...


Eltacolibre wrote:
While it would be nice if bloodrager comes back, barbarian can cast spells while raging (not many of them) but it's possible. So most likely a bloodrager archetype is what I see in the future.

Didn’t bloodrager only have a few spells anyway? Especially for the most commonly played phase of the game (1 - about 7)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I see the Occultist as the best focus caster with a twist. By default they can't cast focus spells, unless they invest their focus in an implement which has a multiplicative effect (e.g. putting one focus in your divination implement gives you multiple points to spend on the spells granted by the divination implement.)

We have a focus caster whose class advances them primarily in spellcasting, and a focus caster whose class advances them primarily in weapons/armor, so this creates room for a focus caster whose class advances them primarily in focus casting.

Dataphiles

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I see the Occultist as the best focus caster with a twist. By default they can't cast focus spells, unless they invest their focus in implement which has a multiplicative effect (e.g. putting one focus in your divination implement gives you multiple points to spend on the spells granted by the divination implement.)

We have a focus caster whose class advances them primarily in spellcasting, and a focus caster whose class advances them primarily in weapons/armor, so this creates room for a focus caster whose class advances them primarily in focus casting.

That actually sounds kind of awesome.


C. Richard Davies wrote:
Lanathar wrote:

For Kineticist you gave one line “needs it own class”

Can I be devils advocate and ask “Why?”

If I can be avocatus Dei and answer: "Avatar".

To elaborate: Benders don't feel like Sorcerers.

To me “Avatar” is not enough but that is because I haven’t seen it. Obviously to you and many others it is and that is not a problem. I think I raised this elsewhere and more genre examples where shared

If they are put in i hope there is more explanation on how they fit and again how what they do differs from primal focused casters who can manipulate elements

My points were also on how they could be made different without wrecking the balance and fit in the action economy as well. That is why “Avatar” and “it doesn’t feel right” are not overly persuasive (at least to me. But my opinion doesn’t really matter)

It definitely looks like a challenge . And as I said before they it is likely to happen both because there is a vocal fan base and one of the lead designers originally created it for 1E

It is odd because 1E Kineticist is closest to a 2E class:

- put a high number in your key stat and it is hard to fail : check
- choices every other level at least : check
- pathways at first level : check
- scaling abilities as you level : check
- in built boosts to attack and damage and stats : check

But despite all that it seems to have too much going on to currently work in the 2E action economy and not feel very limited


MaxAstro wrote:
Lanathar wrote:

For Kineticist you gave one line “needs it own class”

Can I be devils advocate and ask “Why?”

On other threads the fans of the class talk about wanting an all day blaster. That now exists due to scaling cantrips. Focus and normal spells replicate the limited use higher powered blasts

I struggle to see how an all day blasting Kineticist can be balanced against a primal sorcerer. It seems like a real design challenge regardless of how vocal the fan base are .

Add in that non lethal works differently making burn a challenge and the new action economy - 2 actions for a SLA blast (anything else as mentioned invalidates the primal sorcerer) and then only one left to either : move, gather power, activate defense etc. It doesn’t seem to gel with the new action economy

I am sure it will exist but I do feel compelled to ask what it would really add and how it would fit. And my points on the challenge are probably part of the reason it isn’t in first release .

Sorcerer has a really big class feature you can rip out in order to give Kineticist room to be a better blaster, though...

Spells i assume ? That would seemingly be giving infusion points at a similar number to spells and more powerful ones as focus powers.

Limited for balance and because there doesn’t seem to be an obvious way for burn to be limiter unless you get it by spending over your focus point allotment ? That would be different ...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:

For Kineticist you gave one line “needs it own class”

Can I be devils advocate and ask “Why?”

Because the thematic essence of a sorcerer is "you have special blood" and you cannot extricate this from the sorcerer while leaving it identifiable as a sorcerer.

One should not have to have special blood to have control over the elements, or to cast divine/primal/arcane spells spontaneously. Certainly people with special blood can do those things, but they are not the only ones who can do this. Nothing should be made into "a kind of sorcerer" unless the thematic essence of that thing also involves having special blood.

Also, Kineticists should have enormous HP pools, which is hard to do on a d6 chassis. IMO the PF2 Kineticist should be a d12 class.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A shapeshifting class that is all about shapeshifting for various special attacks, defenses, and move speed mid-fight could be neat. Give it the ability to learn a few forms to turn into with a focus power, the ability to change forms while the focus power duration runs with 1-action, some bread-and-butter action economy savers like a pseudo-flurry of blows or the ability to move, shapechange, and attack with 1 action, and you can run around the field changing into various forms to handle various problems. Stuff like mauling someone as a bear, then turning into an eagle and flying out of reach. Or darting in quickly as a velociraptor to bite then hunkering down as an ankylosaur to take hits. The 3-action economy and ability to recharge magic powers between fights have so much potential for a shifter.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
C. Richard Davies wrote:
So it's been grandly announced that the Advanced Player's Guide will introduce the Investigator, Oracle, Swashbuckler and Witch classes. There's already been speculation about how the 2e versions of these classes will differ. This is not that thread. This is the thread to speculate about the 2e versions of the REST of the classes.

I don't think every 1E class will come back as a class in 2E, nor should they if those concepts can be effectively built an easier way, but many will. Having said that though, in general, I think telling fans of the old 1E classes that they will have to multi-class to get what they had in the new edition is too dismissive and disrespectful of what they enjoyed and I really do not like that argument, even though I have seen others bring it up a lot in response to posts requesting an update to old classes. If players don't get an updated way to play their favorite classes fromn 1E and are simply told to multi-class, which does not address the particular mechanical gameplay and thematic feel of those old classes, those players will feel neglected or even spurned by the new edition and you risk fracturing the fan base further. I think all the old classes should, at the very least, get an archetype or a sub-class to honor what has come before (like how the Warpriest is now a part of the cleric and most of the feedback in the playtest indicated that most folks were cool with the Cavalier becoming an archetype).

C. Richard Davies wrote:
Arcanist: Not sure where to go with this.

Mechanically, I'm not sure there is anything cannibalize into a new class for 2E. I could be wrong about that, but it should be looked at for anything like that and probably bring whatever is there along with the name of the class and it's thematic feel forward into a new class that fills an arcane niche that needs filling for a class or archetype down the line. This is definitely one that can wait a while before it gets addressed. I have not seen or heard anyone clamoring for this one.

C. Richard Davies wrote:
Bloodrager: Maybe a barbarian-only archetype that gives Focus spells? Or an Instinct?

I can see the class only archetype working as an option for this and I think I would prefer it that way as opposed to having to multi-class.

C. Richard Davies wrote:
Cavalier: In the playtest, this was an Archetype that focused on mounted combat. I hope that returns in some future product.

I think this will wind up as an archetype in the end. To the best of my knowledge, all indications are pointing to that so far.

C. Richard Davies wrote:
Gunslinger: Likewise, allowing any character to learn how to use these weapons at the expense of their traditional abilities makes a certain sense to me.

I actually hope this might get rolled up into the Swashbuckler as a subclass somehow and the the old Half-Elven Gunslinger iconic will become the new Swashbuckler iconic. Furthermore, if they are looking to update the Grit and Panache system(s?) into 2E, why not get them addressed at the same time? Other classes can get these abilities with the multi-classing archetype.

C. Richard Davies wrote:
Hunter: Do the new rules for Animal Companions make this obsolete?

I actually want to split the goodies from this class up. Read on to see what I mean...

C. Richard Davies wrote:

Inquisitor: If I were doing it, I'd make it a third Clerical Doctrine rather than its own class, as Warpriest already is.

...

Magus: Will probably be its own class, eventually.

We already got confirmation on the eventual return of the Magus from Eric Mona. But, I have some thoughts on this and it involves some of the other classes...

I think that the Magus, Inquisitor, Hunter, and Occultist can be combined and built into something a lot like the new variable-tradition niche the Sorcerer found, only more martial. Perhaps it could be called the Runecaster or something else. My hope is for the overall class (call it Runecaster for now) to split their combat ability and spellcasting more evenly than multi-classing in 2E does (which may well likely involve limiting the number of spells per level or denying them access to the higher level spells like 1E did), and the older classes (like the magus, inquisitor, etc.) become subclass "paths" to differentiate traditions for spellcasting, focusing on spellstrike for the magus path with feats that double down on it and give it different applications. This means combining inquisitor into this as the divine-casting "path" of the class with its inquisitions and judgements. The Shifter and/or Hunter could get roped into this in part or in whole as the primal version (sans pet), but with those tranformations. The Occultist could be a part of this as the occult tradition of the class, but as it's own subclass it would specialize in awakening the magic of items just as it did in 1E. Overall, the "Runecaster" could also do new and interesting things with the new rules for both runes and for rituals, which is also something that the Occultist did to some degree in 1E.

C. Richard Davies wrote:
Kineticist: Needs its own class.

I agree.

C. Richard Davies wrote:
Medium: Merge this with the Spiritualist.

Ummm... No, I disagree. Those two classes are totally different things. The Medium needs to be its own thing and that definitely needs to be a class. It is simply too complex for anything less to do it justice.

C. Richard Davies wrote:
Mesmerist: Probably its own class.

Eh. This one I am less certain of. Personally, I think it could be anything, but I don't really feel it becoming a class is essential. It could just be an archetype in my eyes.

C. Richard Davies wrote:
Occultist: Never sure what to make of this. Maybe merge with the Magus?

I agree; to an extent. See above.

C. Richard Davies wrote:
Psychic: The major Occult caster, its bound to be its own class.

I agree.

C. Richard Davies wrote:
Shaman: Everyone's expecting this to be a Primal caster. Surprise us by making it Occult.

No, thank you. I think they should be primarily primal, but I do think they need a little bit of occult... maybe as a focus spell option.

C. Richard Davies wrote:
Shifter: I don't even want to talk about it.

See above for my thoughts on this.

C. Richard Davies wrote:
Skald: Bard-only archetype that gives rage?

I think someone already found a way to emulate this in the rules pretty well by combining Bard and Barbarian, but I think an archetype for this would do just fine.

C. Richard Davies wrote:
Slayer: Makes for a good Rogue's Racket, I think.

I don't know about that. I would have to look more closely, but I think it is already cannibalized pretty well in the new system by the Ranger and the Rogue. But, an archetype for it would probably be pretty nice.

C. Richard Davies wrote:
Spiritualist: See Medium.

Yeah, no, I disagree quite a bit on this.

C. Richard Davies wrote:
Summoner: Complicated enough that it probably needs its own class, rather than any of the other possibilities.

Agreed. However, as to the pet classes like the Summoner, Spiritualist, and the Hunter, I hope to see them combined into a sorcerer-like pet class combination along with the Hunter and Spiritualist. By this, I mean that I am hoping that the Summoner gets a similar treatment to my hopes for the Magus, Inquisitor, and others above, but focuses on its pet/companion, which is linked to the spellcasting tradition of the Summoner (Eidolon for Arcane, Spirit for Occult, Animal/Beast/Elemental for Primal, Angel/Archon/Demon/Devil for Divine), and doubles down on Teamwork abilities with the pet/companion. That way the Summoner would just roll the Spiritualist and Hunter into its design, while adding a divine option into the mix, as well.

C. Richard Davies wrote:
Vigilante: The secret identity mechanism begs to be an Archetype that any class can use.

I can see that.

C. Richard Davies wrote:
Warpriest: See Inquisitor.

Warpriest is already a subclass of cleric and I think that is well enough.

I think that the old classes you did not mention like Brawler, Slayer, Ninja, and Samurai should be archetypes as they are already doable in the new system and are mostly just flavor and thematic elements now. Plus, making them archetypes really opens those concepts to more options and enjoyable overall concepts. I mean, think about how cool would it be to have a Ninja Alchemist or a Brawler Wizard.


I can't believe I missed Brawler. I agree that the way its unique ability (being able to switch out feats) has been taken up by the 2e Fighter obsoletes it a little.

Ninja and Samurai being their own classes is something I've never really liked.


One thing I wonder about the Cavalier- while I agree "being a mounted combat specialist" and "belonging to a knightly order" should be archetypes not classes, should they be one archetype for each or one archetype that covers both.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
One thing I wonder about the Cavalier- while I agree "being a mounted combat specialist" and "belonging to a knightly order" should be archetypes not classes, should they be one archetype for each or one archetype that covers both.

Making them separate sounds like the most reasonable thing to do, I mean even in PF1 the Cavalier has archetypes to lessen the importance of or outright drop the mount in order to allow players to pick up the latter goodies without the former.

My bigger concern though, with the Cavalier and with a lot of the other classes, is that ultimately any class that gets turned into an archetype might have a really slow time coming online.

Chetna Wavari wrote:
Essentially the Summoner, but Occult. That said, this could end up being a type of Summoner in the new edition.

I always saw the Spiritualist more like the Hunter, but with necromancy instead of nature as the theme.

That said some sort of flexible Summoner might be the best way to build on a bunch of these ideas.

Lanathar wrote:
It seems like a real design challenge regardless of how vocal the fan base are

Honestly I'm struggling to see where the struggle is. The class feels like it would work pretty easily in 2e conceptually. You keep saying it'd be difficult or impossible to balance but... why? The groundwork for a lot of its core mechanics already exists. Burn couldn't come back in its current form, but that's hardly a dealbreaker either.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
One thing I wonder about the Cavalier- while I agree "being a mounted combat specialist" and "belonging to a knightly order" should be archetypes not classes, should they be one archetype for each or one archetype that covers both.

Either/Or... Both ways could work in the new edition. If they are separate archetypes, that works for obvious reasons. But, if they are combined and you only care about one of those options, then just choose the feats that fit what you want. The writeup of the archetype would just need to cater to both "mounted combat" and "being a knight" with a feat selection for both at each level you get a feat for the archetype. You are not obligated to pick every feat and if there are enough to choose from you never have to dip into "mounted combat" if all you care about is "being a knight" who never went jousting or whatever.


Squiggit wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
One thing I wonder about the Cavalier- while I agree "being a mounted combat specialist" and "belonging to a knightly order" should be archetypes not classes, should they be one archetype for each or one archetype that covers both.

Making them separate sounds like the most reasonable thing to do, I mean even in PF1 the Cavalier has archetypes to lessen the importance of or outright drop the mount in order to allow players to pick up the latter goodies without the former.

My bigger concern though, with the Cavalier and with a lot of the other classes, is that ultimately any class that gets turned into an archetype might have a really slow time coming online.

Chetna Wavari wrote:
Essentially the Summoner, but Occult. That said, this could end up being a type of Summoner in the new edition.

I always saw the Spiritualist more like the Hunter, but with necromancy instead of nature as the theme.

That said some sort of flexible Summoner might be the best way to build on a bunch of these ideas.

Lanathar wrote:
It seems like a real design challenge regardless of how vocal the fan base are
Honestly I'm struggling to see where the struggle is. The class feels like it would work pretty easily in 2e conceptually. You keep saying it'd be difficult or impossible to balance but... why? The groundwork for a lot of its core mechanics already exists. Burn couldn't come back in its current form, but that's hardly a dealbreaker either.

I am pretty sure I gave examples and explanations that you snipped out. Not the most reasonable thing even if you disagree

So take my players blood Kineticist with water shield. Under the new action economy system he could not gather power, blast and have his shield up . Perhaps the solution is not making gather power necessary.

In that case are you just taking burn or damage when you alter a blast with no offset? Or are you upgrading for free? Or are you not altering them at all? Option 1 is brutal, option 2 is not balanced and option 3 is the same as primal sorcerer

I never said it would be impossible to balance . That is incredibly disingenuous . I said it would be a challenge - it is there in the quote you snipped away all the extra detail from

My balance questions , as I have already said come from comparing to a primal sorcerer which is a blasting class. I would imagine the desire for a Kineticist would be to use the the same chassis as before so when compared to that :

More HP
A much more useful key stat
Better armour proficiency

As a starting point . And they presumably the demand will be to be able to alter and power up the blasts all day.

When you consider the primal sorcerer has focus powers that are all blasts their trade off will be access to a small number of other spells to improve versatility . At the cost of much lower HP and AC. That is the angle I am coming from. I am probably massively undervaluing spells but there is a whole other thread about loads being nerfed so I can’t tell until I play

Obviously packed full of assumptions but it is more than just saying that I am definitely wrong with no real detail or justifying a class returning just because it was in before and the way you can currently pull it off with existing classes doesn’t feel right

Note I have always said that I expect them to make it in . But given they were probably in the top 4 on the thread discussing next classes and have not made it into the next 4 there must be something there slowing its advancement. And it is most likely trying to work out how to make them fit

*

And the reason I “keep” saying things is that no one engages with a thought process that I believe to be competent reasonable . I have laid it out quite clearly and one response was “Because : Avatar”.

Clearly daring to question this is just aberrant thinking. Perhaps I am really really stupid and just don’t see something incredibly obvious. If that is the case I welcome being enlightened...

I am trying to debate this but it is clearly something that many people think isn’t even a debatable issue so I can accept if no one engages from this point on. I have said my piece but as I also said before my opinion doesn’t matter in the grand scheme


C. Richard Davies wrote:
Lanathar wrote:

For Kineticist you gave one line “needs it own class”

Can I be devils advocate and ask “Why?”

If I can be avocatus Dei and answer: "Avatar".

To elaborate: Benders don't feel like Sorcerers.

Honestly, Avatar is such a ubiquitous and easy answer it becomes a little mind numbing and skews the class concept somewhat.

Other Examples of the Kineticist Trope:

Static Shock (Electricity), and a number of the Bang Babies as well

Terra (Teen Titans; Earth)

Captain Planet (No Seriously; all elements plus heart)

Galerians (PS1 Game)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Also, conduits (from Infamous) are basically kineticists most of the time.


I mean the big thing is that "other than blasting" the primal sorcerer really has nothing in common with the kineticist.

I mean we have:
Cha-based vs. Con-Based
Can cast the entire Primal list vs. Can only do things with specific elements
Unique mechanics: Magic resonates in your blood vs. Channeling too much power hurts you
Squishy as anybody vs. tanky as anybody- huge HP pool and layered defenses
Spell slot based vs. literally indefatigable abilities.
Perhaps the subtlest caster out of the box vs. When you channel enough power, you are literally glowing and on fire

Like the Bard has more in common with the Occult sorcerer than the Kineticist has with the Primal Sorcerer. It's fine if the Primal Sorcerer is a better blaster than the Kineticist, since that was the way it was in PF1 too- the kineticist was not as potent a blaster in PF1 as an optimized Sorcerer or Blood Arcanist.


Arcanist: Not sure where to go with this.I mean, doing direct rehash is straight forward enough, dynamic between Prep and Spontaneous is just as valid. But I question whether class actually has distinct enough identity, isn't it just a Wizard with some unique abilities? Or from other angle, what is flavor value of MC'ing Arcanist with Wizard or Sorceror for that matter? I feel like it would work better as Arcane-specific Archetype that progressively adds Arcanist-style casting slots (that is, alter existing slots to work with special Arcanist casting rules), as well as Feats for unique Exploits. Ideally, it could be written to work for both Wizards and Sorcerors, approaching Arcanist dynamic "from both directions", so to speak.

Bloodrager: Maybe a barbarian-only archetype that gives Focus spells? Or an Instinct? I mean, plenty of the Instincts already feel like Bloodragers to me, with overtly flashy magic. Approaching this as more magical Instincts seems correct route to me, and that can include offering even more magical options possibly to include generic spell slots, although I'd rather just leave that to Sorceror MC, if anything enabling synergy between Instincts and appropriate Sorceror MC Bloodlines.

Cavalier: In the playtest, this was an Archetype that focused on mounted combat. I hope that returns in some future product.Mounted Combat as combat style can be done with Archetype, but there was actually alot more to Cavalier, right? Social/CHA-based, non-magical buffer and teamwork enabler, non-magical code/anathema in Orders and Challenge mechanics, with implied social niche/allegiance. If we start by taking out Mount, I think what is left is good basis for merging with (3.x) "Marshal", which was other non-magical combat buffer with more focus on action economy. But action economy is really a critical part of the game balance, so letting other classes and mechanics get fleshed out first is probably good idea, so this class would neither "break" their balance, nor restrict what they can do.

Gunslinger: There's plenty of speculation on this being dropped, and it's Iconic being used for Swashbuckler (announced for APG), with those classes being de facto merged with weapon-specific stuff in Archetypes not main class.

Hunter: Do the new rules for Animal Companions make this obsolete?I kind of think so. I don't see it being own class, but possibly besides Druid/Ranger, a pure Focus Primal class could have sub-class/options granting Companion or even "pack" of Companions.

Inquisitor: If I were doing it, I'd make it a third Clerical Doctrine rather than its own class, as Warpriest already is.I agree, between more Clerical Doctrines and/or MC'ing Cleric or Champion with Fighter/Ranger/Rogue/Investigator, there is no need for distinct class.

Kineticist: Needs its own class.This was never favorite of mine, but I agree it is fully eligible to be distinct class. One angle I see on it is, despite not normally casting spells as such, it's abilities pretty much tightly match Primal essences of Material and Vital, covering Elemental and Healing for most part. There was even Osirioni Archetype that was overtly Terrain-specific, clearly Primal/Druid-adjacent IMHO.

Taking that on board, I could even see Kineticist having overlap with a Primal Champion who takes Elemental sub-class, although they would still be distinct enough to merit own classes. That does raise idea of "Kineticist" who delves into Vital/Wild, which could cover Shifter (Wildshape/internal) and Hunter (Companion/external) Primal niches. Probably not an obvious class merge to most people, but I feel like it could be productive approach. EDIT: The idea of using Burn to power Wildshape or Companions seems cool and having those concepts CON-centric also works IMHO. (Primal Champion even if overlapping in some mechanics, would use CHA or WIS for magical stat obviously)

Magus: Will probably be its own class, eventually. Maybe, really I don't see a strong flavor basis for this, after all Magus was really just patch-job for Fighter-Wizard-Eldritch Knight. The basic schtick of combining magic and melee in same turn already works pretty well just with MC'ing, so I think prioritizing more setting-specific flavorful Archetypes is the way to go... Magaambyan Magic Warrior is one, but plenty of such traditions exist of course, but the crux is they care less about some generic "Magus" niche than embodying their specific flavor of gish. I know Paizo thinks Magus has big following, but I don't see it as necessary, and developing flavorful unique gish Archetypes seems more beneficial to game IMHO.

Medium: Merge this with the Spiritualist. I saw somebody already responded to this, and I agree with them, those have nothing to do with each other. Mediums communing with Spirits is really closely tied to Shamans (and as I explain, Occultists), simply being Focus-only (or Slot-optional) example of shared paradigm.

Mesmerist: Probably its own class. I agree, although I don't expect this to be a top priority exactly since existing options plausibly do Enchantment well. With Summons now assuming access to every mosnter by Level, I can see extending that to allow arbitrary NPC Minions could work for this.

I actually proposed a unique Tradition/Essence combo for this, Mind and Vital (Life): "specializing in sentient living beings but no reason to dabble in nonsentient Matter or mattes of Spirit which reach beyond direct sentience into Soul essence" ...Which would distinguish them from Occult classes (which now includes Bard and probably also Witch), which seems good design choice IMHO.

Technically, Paizo considers these "opposed Essences", but I think from POV of Mesmerist schtick they work well together, Mesmerist is a surface level caster, they don't care about souls they just deal with surface consciousness. While the conventional affiliations and oppositions of Essences makes sense, Mesmerist is so focused they bypass that.

Occultist: Never sure what to make of this. Maybe merge with the Magus? I actually see them as equivalent to Shamans, with Occultist simply specializing in spirits-fixed-in-objects, i.e a "Fetishist" Shaman in a sense.

Psychic: The major Occult caster, its bound to be its own class. Sure, maybe not most interesting, but certainly reasonable and viable as own class. More Occult casters this time around competing with same spell list (although I think some of these can be hived off into distinct lists/Traditions), but Psychic should be able to do Occult to the hilt without diversions.

Shaman: Everyone's expecting this to be a Primal caster. Surprise us by making it Occult.Yeah, I'm definitely anti-Primal with you here, and Occult was probably my first impulse, because if you know Shamans you know their casting and vibe was very different from Druids, pushed towards Cleric and Witch territory. And what is commonality between those? Assuming Witch is Occult, that would be Spirit Essence. Conversely, Shaman isn't really that good of a healer.

So this is where I proposed another new distinct Tradition/list, Spirit and Matter, essentially between Primal and Occult (or Divine). Like for Mesmerist, technically those are considered "opposed essences" by Paizo, which is logical as general perspective. But I see it more as Shaman channeling Spirit energy to transmute into pure magical energy, while not as concerned with "surface consciousness" like Mesmerist (Mental) nor deeply engaged with altering currents of Vital Essence. Alot of "Material" essence actually includes plenty of 100% IMMATERIAL effects like force or transmutation. And I don't think there needs be strict 100% concrete correlation between essences and spell lists: Not every possible "Material Essence" spell need be on this list (e.g. Fireball), and it could even dabble in Vital for that matter. Of course, point of Shaman is modular/swappable Spirits which tend to reach beyond strict Essence definitions anyways.

Shifter: I don't even want to talk about it. ??? Directly, Wild Order Druid or Animal Instinct Barbarian already covers this niche, so it doesn't seem like priority... But I think conceptualizing it within Primal framework, viewing it as Wild/Vital aspect of Kineticist could eventually be another vehicle for this concept.

Skald: Bard-only archetype that gives rage?Close, but Barbarian MC already grants Rage. Focusing on what's unique, an Archetype that works for Barb Barbarians OR Barbarian Bards seems appropriate angle here. And there can be multiple variants, associated with specific setting tropes, like Magaambyan Magic Warrior example.

Slayer: Makes for a good Rogue's Racket, I think.Not even, just Rogue/Ranger MC is really solid IMHO.

Spiritualist: See Medium. Yeah, no real relation IMHO. I can see relating to Summoner as Alt-Class or even Sub-Class, probably with mechanical similarities to Animal Companion classes.

Summoner: Complicated enough that it probably needs its own class, rather than any of the other possibilities.I mean I don't see what is complicated about the theme, but if wanting to recreate the 1E class (which Paizo seems inclined to do, if not right away) yeah that is true.

Vigilante: The secret identity mechanism begs to be an Archetype that any class can use.Yup, although this reminds me why do people assume every non-Class specific Class Feat must be an "Archetype" with implication of Dedication? Why can't there just be single Feat with no Dedication obligation, that is Universal Class Feat? If you feel the need, call it Zero-Dedication Archetype Feat. But yeah, not Class material.

Warpriest: See Inquisitor.I mean, that's an easy one: it already is a Sub-Class (Doctrine) ;-)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
The basic schtick of combining magic and melee in same turn already works pretty well just with MC'ing

An MC fighter/wizard or Fighter/sorcerer doesn't get first level spells until level 4 (and only has one of them). Bespell Weapon (which is kind of spellcombat/strikeish) doesn't come online for them until 8.

Part of the reason the Magus existed as a patch job was because of how slow EK came online and how little synergy their was between its features. Multiclassing in PF2 has those same problems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I figure the Summoner (Arcane), Spiritualist (Occult), and Hunter (Primal) can be subclasses of one big "pet" class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The importance of the Kineticist is that it is a middle-ground between martial classes and spellcasting classes. It allows people to play a magical character, with some of the flexibility of spell-casters, without getting bogged down with spell-lists.

Martials have one or two weapons, and they typically do one, maybe two, things.

Spellcasters have a whole list of spells which do wildly different things and consumes a daily resource. They also have cantrips, but they are often quite limited.

Kineticists have kinetic blasts and a manageable amount of infusions, which are straightforward but flexible.

If the Kineticist or Kineticist Stand-in ever have a spell-list, it would immediately remove most of the appeal for me.

The reason why I believe Kinetic Blast can be one action is they are competing against weapons, not cantrips. The bulk of the spellcasters power budget is their spell-list, where with martials, it is their weapon use. Kinetic Blast is where Kineticist put most of their power budget.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I figure the Summoner (Arcane), Spiritualist (Occult), and Hunter (Primal) can be subclasses of one big "pet" class.

Don't forget Angel Summoner (divine) and BMX bandit (nonmagical).


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I figure the Summoner (Arcane), Spiritualist (Occult), and Hunter (Primal) can be subclasses of one big "pet" class.

Too generic for me personally, I think bringing Hunter together with Shifter and Kineticist into one Primal Class has conceptual coherence and brings added value, allowing for pure specialists or those who would combine different Sub-Paths... Burn-Powered Wildshape just feels like solid basis to distinguish from Animal Instinct, and those could be combined with Elemental powers or more Plant based powers. (e.g. imagine a Jungle Kineticist like the Osirioni Desert Kineticist) A Primal Champion could overlap alot with much of that, depending on focus/sub-path, but with Druidic Anathema and broader magic/Champion abilities VS Oracle-style "power with no leash".

I do think Summoner and Spiritualist (and Divine Summoner) are plausibly done as single class, I just feel like Hunter (and Shifter) would be better intrepreted separately from those.


At first, I disliked the Kineticist/Shifter/Hunter class idea, but I am starting to come around to it. I still don't want them combined with Champion, but they might be able to come together as a class.

Wild Talents thematically fit Hunters and Shifters (Infusions less so, but I think it still fits). And wild talents could be mechanically unified as "things which cost 1-actions for martials, but more magic."

(Kineticist) Kinetic Blast- Firing a bow
(Shifter) Manifest Natural Weapon- Drawing a weapon
(Hunter) Command Animal- Literally a thing martials can do, but more magic.

I think I still prefer Kineticist to be its own thing, but I am seeing a way where I think I could see it work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Two things regarding the mega-minion class:

1, the PF1 summoner would probably wind up a divine caster if it was translated directly into PF2, due to the change in what spell lists summon what creatures. Well, the elemental summoners could still be Arcane (or Primal), but the outsiders are firmly Divine now. So we’d actually be set with appropriate minions for all 4 lists right out of the gate.

2. I’m less than 100% convinced the mega-minion class needs spells at all, actually. They might be better off getting something akin to the Divine Font feature, except usable to cast Summon spells appropriate to your minion, and maybe some focus spells. But we can see how it goes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Summoner as a noncaster is something I think would work pretty well.

Part of the PF1 Summoner's design is that the eidolon is an absolute power house and if the PF2 summoner had spellcasting the eidolon would have to be pretty forgettable to keep it balanced.

A magicless summoner whose class features focus on improving their summoned companion and making them the meat of their power could work though.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Splitting this into its own post so people can yell at me properly.

Lanathar wrote:


And the reason I “keep” saying things is that no one engages with a thought process that I believe to be competent reasonable . I have laid it out quite clearly and one response was “Because : Avatar”.

Clearly daring to question this is just aberrant thinking. Perhaps I am really really stupid and just don’t see something incredibly obvious. If that is the case I welcome being enlightened...

I am trying to debate this but it is clearly something that many people think isn’t even a debatable issue so I can accept if no one engages from this point on. I have said my piece but as I also said before my opinion doesn’t matter in the grand scheme

So for the kineticist, I need one thing to happen. Whether or not that occurs makes or breaks the class for me:

There can be no spell slots. At all. Not 1. Not even something like the Divine Font. Just cut the entire mechanic straight out. (Edit: Focus spells are okay. But no slots.)

I can and will accept any other change in flavor or style, but if that one thing does not occur, it is not a kineticist to me. More specifically, it is not occupying the playstyle niche that I want, that of being a caster without spell slots.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I concur a Kineticist should have zero (0) spell slots; if it has vancian casting in any shape, way or form it is not a Kineticist. We could give it focus spells with a mid-combat "spend HP to refocus" loop, but the Kineticist's ability to stack infusions should advance faster than focus pools do, IMO.


Leotamer wrote:
At first, I disliked the Kineticist/Shifter/Hunter class idea, but I am starting to come around to it. I still don't want them combined with Champion, but they might be able to come together as a class.

Just to be clear, I definitely think Primal Champion should always be entirely separate class from those. It certainly deserves it's own mechanics, including of course Anathema, but I merely mentioned that connection because it seems reasonable a Primal Champion could have options which intersected a Kineticist/Shifter/Hunter "Primarch" class, whether focusing on Plants, Animal Companion, Shifting, or Elemental stuff. Intersection is alot less than being one class, though, and even if both focused on e.g. Shifting the Kineticist using Burn would have different dynamic than Primal Champion even sharing some mechanics.

But for the "Primarch" Kineticist/Shifter/Hunter, mixing and matching makes sense to me. Why not mix Shifting AND Companion(s)? Why not mix Elemental and Shifting? Or Plant & Elemental etc? Plant and Animal are subsets of "Vital Nature" similar to Elements being subsets of "Material Nature" so I think they can work together in cohesive framework, that would merely be available to use, and wouldn't impede pure Elemental Kineticist theme (although IMHO a theme like Osirioni Desert Kineticist would make sense to also grab some Druidic/Ranger Terrain abilities which this chassis should facilitate).


Animated Paper has great point how split of Summon lists make pan-list unified Summoner even more compelling. I sort of agree Focus is more critical than spell slots, although I could maybe see optional Feats that granted some, still not really competing vs real casters?


I was actually thinking about Summoner having their gimmick be their customizable pet. Their spell list looks rather lacking with some interesting potential here and there. Most people that talk about Summoner though talk about their pet. They can’t really be ‘Summon Monster Spam’ with the new rules; and as fun as that would be at times i’m sure it got old fast.

Kineticist could function similar to Ring of Ram. Have their blast scale with action sink. Make the utility aspects cost additional actions as well, or have a pool of them that you pick on a daily basis. I’ve heard melee was an option in 1e so the large HD and Con could give them the ability to stand with Barbarians as Meat Shields.

That’s my two coins on those classes. Never played them but the latter really has my interest.


I think it would be reasonable to have Kineticist/Shifter/Hunter be Primarch subclasses, with a druid-like feat to poach wild talents from the others, allowing them to progress down those feat trees.

Right now, my idea is that infusions cost zero to two actions, and you could take the burn condition to improve them. (For either Kineticist or Primarch)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:

For Kineticist you gave one line “needs it own class”

Can I be devils advocate and ask “Why?”

Because Erik Mona has made statements about bringing the Kineticist back because of how much he likes Occult Adventures.

Inquisitor: I like the idea of making the Inquisitor a cleric doctrine. That would also open up more paths to the cleric than the binary cloistered priest or war priest choice.

Magus: Sure, you can MC Fighter/Wizard or Wizard/Fighter, but it will take a bit before you can actually get your concept to function properly. Not only that, but a Magus will likely have trained to coordinate efficiently their spells and strikes in conjunction with the new action economy.

I am also hoping that we will get new classes and not just re-hashes of PF1 classes. With the expansion of Runes and Runic magic, perhaps Paizo could try their hand at a rune-caster/priest/thane.


I hope they develop actual psychic rules, and not just have them be occult casters.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
ikarinokami wrote:
I hope they develop actual psychic rules, and not just have them be occult casters.

They definitely won't create rules for point based psionic casting -- they are leaving that to Dreamscarred Press. I could see them making use of all four spell lists but altering the casting method for the verbal and somatic components as they did in Occult Adventures.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
David knott 242 wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
I hope they develop actual psychic rules, and not just have them be occult casters.

They definitely won't create rules for point based psionic casting -- they are leaving that to Dreamscarred Press. I could see them making use of all four spell lists but altering the casting method for the verbal and somatic components as they did in Occult Adventures.

Do you know if DSP plans to update psionics for 2e? That would be awesome.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
David knott 242 wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
I hope they develop actual psychic rules, and not just have them be occult casters.

They definitely won't create rules for point based psionic casting -- they are leaving that to Dreamscarred Press. I could see them making use of all four spell lists but altering the casting method for the verbal and somatic components as they did in Occult Adventures.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. The reason psionics wasn't pursued is because the casting system was too different from Vancian for there tastes. With Focus casting, that is probably not the case anymore.

Although I AM SKEPTICAL that the occult classes won't just come back using the Occult spell list.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
I hope they develop actual psychic rules, and not just have them be occult casters.

They definitely won't create rules for point based psionic casting -- they are leaving that to Dreamscarred Press. I could see them making use of all four spell lists but altering the casting method for the verbal and somatic components as they did in Occult Adventures.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. The reason psionics wasn't pursued is because the casting system was too different from Vancian for there tastes. With Focus casting, that is probably not the case anymore.

Although I AM SKEPTICAL that the occult classes won't just come back using the Occult spell list.

Even with Focus I don't foresee the point system of Psionics making an appearance. And defintely not the name since that's a DnD/Dreamscarred Press thing.

1 to 50 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Paizo Products / Speculation BEYOND The Advanced Player's Guide All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.