How long until we get interesting classes?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

As someone who has been playing TTRPGs for 40 years, I find the core race/class combos incredibly tired...even with the addition of the Goblin and Alchemist, and renaming the Paladin into Champion...the options for playable combinations are staggeringly underwhelming.

Upon seeing the planned release schedule for the next year, I find myself completely unexcited about even trying to delve into 2e...waiting a full year for finished versions of the investigator, oracle, swashbuckler, and witch in the 2e APG, then who knows how long until the next batch of classes...feels like it is going to be forever before any classes I actually find interesting get added to the game.

Is it going to be 10 years into 2e before we get a 2e version of the Shifter like it was for 1e? (hopefully the 2e version turns out better than it's 1e counterpart) How many years before we get 2e versions of any of the occult classes like Kineticist?

Downgrading from the immense list of options available in 1e to the meager offerings of the 2e core book feels like going back to kindergarten after completing your PHD.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

It's probably a good thing they didn't start out with all the advanced classes and races off the bat. I can imagine that'd be hell to balance and then some. While I share your sentiment, I also like to think of it as a way to challenge myself by visiting the starting roots.

Then again, it's not just additional content as before, they had to reinvent themselves a little and that requires a firm foundation, not a ton of stuff.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't get me wrong...I fully understand not putting every single PF1 class and race into the core book...that would be an insane mess.

What gives me major pause is having to wait a full year for new classes...and none of those even really appeal to me...which means there probably won't be a class I actually find interesting for at least 2 years...maybe 3, or even more depending on what gets released in that 2nd year.

That is one of the things I absolutely hate about D&D5e...the positively glacial pace at which they release options for players to expand on what they can build. 5e has been out for 5 years, and they have not printed a single new class...they did the Artificer in their Unearthed Arcana blog...and there are some 3rd party options...but 5e is stagnant as hell, and super restrictive from the player end of things. Which is why so many people love PF1, you can build almost anything in PF1 using only official Paizo materials...and if you delve into 3rd party options, things expand exponentially.


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

I think archetypes are going to add a lot of spice in the mean time. That I can turn any class into a being of living rock by the end of the month is more exciting to me than adding something like the Magnus.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I believe the free class playtest for Witch, Oracle, Swashbuckler and Investigator drops in October with official release in July. So you could play non-core classes as early as October (not including 3rd party and homebrew).


16 people marked this as a favorite.

Might be worth trying a different system if you are burnt out on the more standard fantasy tropes. Because at its core PF is a pretty standard fantasy game.

(I mean this honestly, not as an insult. I hop around between systems all the time)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've played probably 100+ TTRPGs, PF1e has been my mainstay for the last few years. I have rarely seen anything even come close to the level of customization it offers.

I'm going to give PF2 it's fair due...I'm set to play a PFS2e game this saturday. I will continue to play PFS1e as long as the local group continues to support it.

I am just concerned with the posted schedule of releases (or lack thereof) when it comes to new classes. Golarian has a huge assortment of established classes which will apparently get zero representation in the first several years of 2e. When will we see things like the Magus, Gunslinger, Kineticist, Shifter, Slayer, Warpriest, Inquisitor, Vigilante, etc, etc.

1e had 41 classes (most of which had a huge variety of archetypes), plus 4 unchained variants, plus I don't even know how many prestige classes...even with the new multi-classing and archetype rules, it is going to take years for PF2 to come close to the customization options available in 1e. My question is, just how many years before it stops feeling like a kids bicycle with the training wheels still on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Slyme wrote:


I am just concerned with the posted schedule of releases (or lack thereof) when it comes to new classes. Golarian has a huge assortment of established classes which will apparently get zero representation in the first several years of 2e. When will we see things like the Magus, Gunslinger, Kineticist, Shifter, Slayer, Warpriest, Inquisitor, Vigilante, etc, etc.

1e had 41 classes (most of which had a huge variety of archetypes), plus 4 unchained variants, plus I don't even know how many prestige classes...even with the new multi-classing and archetype rules, it is going to take years for PF2 to come close to the customization options available in 1e. My question is, just how many years before it stops feeling like a kids bicycle with the training wheels still on.

A bunch of these aren't likely to exist in PF2e as they are able to be handled with archetypes, focus spells and more feats. Warpriest I think is pretty much never coming thanks to the cleric having a warpriest offering in core.

This said, it takes time to playtest things, I don't want to see another shifter issue.

Talking shifter, I actually think it would be really good as an ancestry or even heritage with an archetype that has the ancestry/heritage as a requisite to gain access.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

Pffft!

We just got *12* interesting classes.

Sure, most of them share names with the old PF1 classes, but the resemblance stops there. They are loaded with new and unique features and abilities.

I understand about being bored with the same old, same old. But IMHO the PF2 offerings are anything but "same old". I mean, I started playing RPGs in October '74 (I got D&D for my birthday! Little did my parent suspect what a monster they'd created!) so I have nearly as much right to be blasé about it as the OP does. But PF2 seems simply all new and shiny.

So don't knock it til you've tried it for a while.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The APG for PF1 was released exactly a year after the initial launch, so the release schedule for PF2 is currently on par.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Slyme wrote:

1e had 41 classes (most of which had a huge variety of archetypes), plus 4 unchained variants, plus I don't even know how many prestige classes...even with the new multi-classing and archetype rules, it is going to take years for PF2 to come close to the customization options available in 1e. My question is, just how many years before it stops feeling like a kids bicycle with the training wheels still on.

Dude!

You say it's going to take years to get to 1E levels of customization?

It took years to get there in the first place!

Chill out. Play some more 1e. Expecting 10 years of play at the first release date is asinine.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

My thought is:
Launch is gonna be just getting the basics out. They're doing as much as they can with limited space. I could enjoy a core-only PF2 game, unlike core-only PF1.

One year out is rounding things out. The GMG and APG are going to be considered part of the baseline experience, and you need Bestiary 2 for summoning to work properly. We get at least ten new ancestries/universal heritages, sixty pages of archetypes, and content for, well, advanced players.

Two years out, that's where I figure we really get rolling. Everything that they want for a base game is out at that point, and they can start adding more optional stuff.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Slyme wrote:

As someone who has been playing TTRPGs for 40 years, I find the core race/class combos incredibly tired...even with the addition of the Goblin and Alchemist, and renaming the Paladin into Champion...the options for playable combinations are staggeringly underwhelming.

Upon seeing the planned release schedule for the next year, I find myself completely unexcited about even trying to delve into 2e...waiting a full year for finished versions of the investigator, oracle, swashbuckler, and witch in the 2e APG, then who knows how long until the next batch of classes...feels like it is going to be forever before any classes I actually find interesting get added to the game.

Is it going to be 10 years into 2e before we get a 2e version of the Shifter like it was for 1e? (hopefully the 2e version turns out better than it's 1e counterpart) How many years before we get 2e versions of any of the occult classes like Kineticist?

Downgrading from the immense list of options available in 1e to the meager offerings of the 2e core book feels like going back to kindergarten after completing your PHD.

Can you make less broad statements that focus more on what you feel is missing in terms of class design?

What do you think is lacking?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I can't really speak to your point because the point is super broad and I largely disagree. Do you have a specific element that you feel you're missing?


It would be a mistake for Paizo to just trot out the 2E versions of all of their previous classes. I wouldn't be surprised if the announced APG included some new classes built from the new rules. We're losing classes like magus and perhaps the arcanist, so let's see what new variations appear.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PFRPGrognard wrote:
It would be a mistake for Paizo to just trot out the 2E versions of all of their previous classes. I wouldn't be surprised if the announced APG included some new classes built from the new rules. We're losing classes like magus and perhaps the arcanist, so let's see what new variations appear.

Erik Mona has stated that Magus is high on the list for future classes.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
The APG for PF1 was released exactly a year after the initial launch, so the release schedule for PF2 is currently on par.

The PF1 APG introduced 4 new Classes and the fantastic new concept of Archetypes. The PF2 APG seems mostly built to update well-known PF1 classes. No real comparison there.

Dataphiles

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
The APG for PF1 was released exactly a year after the initial launch, so the release schedule for PF2 is currently on par.
The PF1 APG introduced 4 new Classes and the fantastic new concept of Archetypes. The PF2 APG seems mostly built to update well-known PF1 classes. No real comparison there.

Not to get bogged down in details, but the original APG released six classes:

  • Alchemist
  • Cavalier
  • Inquisitor
  • Oracle
  • Summoner
  • Witch

    However, PF2E classes take a lot more space than they did in 1E.


  • By "interesting" do you mean "new" as in "not a version of a previous class"? Since I'm interested in that.


    That really just depends on how you view things. I find the twists on the base classes fairly interesting in 2E. I'm excited to figure out Alchemist builds. A spin on Breath of Fire style dragon sorcerer (might wait tiltl dragon disciple comes out). Stuff like that.
    Pure caster and pure melee are boring to me. But that was true in 1E as well. i like versatility in my class, rather than being amazing at something.

    But I guess most of my RP foundations were built out of Exalted and World of Darkness.

    APG is coming out pretty soon. and that'll have a lot of pages (like 60?) of new archetypes and or classes. If not more (I'm not sure if those 60 are both, or just archetypes).

    Soo.. I dunno. I find the methodology to be fairly interesting in how they do things. even if the class itself is a standard start class.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
    Chetna Wavari wrote:
    The Raven Black wrote:
    Arachnofiend wrote:
    The APG for PF1 was released exactly a year after the initial launch, so the release schedule for PF2 is currently on par.
    The PF1 APG introduced 4 new Classes and the fantastic new concept of Archetypes. The PF2 APG seems mostly built to update well-known PF1 classes. No real comparison there.

    Not to get bogged down in details, but the original APG released six classes:

  • Alchemist
  • Cavalier
  • Inquisitor
  • Oracle
  • Summoner
  • Witch

    However, PF2E classes take a lot more space than they did in 1E.

  • You are quite right. My bad.


    The Raven Black wrote:
    Arachnofiend wrote:
    The APG for PF1 was released exactly a year after the initial launch, so the release schedule for PF2 is currently on par.
    The PF1 APG introduced 4 new Classes and the fantastic new concept of Archetypes. The PF2 APG seems mostly built to update well-known PF1 classes. No real comparison there.

    I am absolutely certain that if Paizo had just abandoned the idea of the Oracle and other iconic PF1 classes in favor of reinventing the wheel you would have complained about that, too.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
    Arachnofiend wrote:
    The Raven Black wrote:
    Arachnofiend wrote:
    The APG for PF1 was released exactly a year after the initial launch, so the release schedule for PF2 is currently on par.
    The PF1 APG introduced 4 new Classes and the fantastic new concept of Archetypes. The PF2 APG seems mostly built to update well-known PF1 classes. No real comparison there.
    I am absolutely certain that if Paizo had just abandoned the idea of the Oracle and other iconic PF1 classes in favor of reinventing the wheel you would have complained about that, too.

    Well not I but certainly others. I do not mind getting the old classes back. Just pointing out that we are not talking about the same level of innovation in the PF2 APG.

    Mainly IMO because we got our share of innovation in the PF2 CRB.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    Heck, fighters are interesting now.

    Paladins are now de-straightjacketed.

    Clerics involve waaaaaaaaay more meaningful decision making than a level 1 choice of deity, domains, and so forth.

    To name three classes that always felt kind of dull in the 3E-PF1 era (actually, if we stick to clerics and ignore specialty priests, all three have been pretty tepid since I was a wee lad awkwardly cramming AD&D 1st edition material into my AD&D 2nd edition games...).


    10 people marked this as a favorite.

    Y’know, you could phrase this thread as “how long until the content /I/ want?” instead of “the current options are boring” and not broken anything.

    We’re having four new classes playable in October and gonna have bare minimum 15 archetypes by the end of this year. Complain that you don’t like what we’re getting, sure, but there’s 0 comparison to 5e’s glacial release cycle.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    keftiu wrote:

    Y’know, you could phrase this thread as “how long until the content /I/ want?” instead of “the current options are boring” and not broken anything.

    We’re having four new classes playable in October and gonna have bare minimum 15 archetypes by the end of this year. Complain that you don’t like what we’re getting, sure, but there’s 0 comparison to 5e’s glacial release cycle.

    Just curious, where is the listing for these classes? I'm looking for the 2e APG but I can't seem to find it anywhere.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Slyme wrote:

    As someone who has been playing TTRPGs for 40 years, I find the core race/class combos incredibly tired...even with the addition of the Goblin and Alchemist, and renaming the Paladin into Champion...the options for playable combinations are staggeringly underwhelming.

    Upon seeing the planned release schedule for the next year, I find myself completely unexcited about even trying to delve into 2e...waiting a full year for finished versions of the investigator, oracle, swashbuckler, and witch in the 2e APG, then who knows how long until the next batch of classes...feels like it is going to be forever before any classes I actually find interesting get added to the game.

    Is it going to be 10 years into 2e before we get a 2e version of the Shifter like it was for 1e? (hopefully the 2e version turns out better than it's 1e counterpart) How many years before we get 2e versions of any of the occult classes like Kineticist?

    Downgrading from the immense list of options available in 1e to the meager offerings of the 2e core book feels like going back to kindergarten after completing your PHD.

    To answer the OP's question, you can probably look to the release of new classes during PF1's run to get a sense of how often new classes will be released for PF2.

    But what we have, now, is a SYSTEM that allows for more design space to create classes that are more varied and allow more choices within them.

    The CRB is great in that it reiterates the core classes while incorporating the design lessons they have learned from the 10 years of PF1's development. Concepts from the PF1 Advanced Player's Guide are now core: APG traits are now backgrounds, APG archetypes are now something more flexible in the form of class FEATS, APG alternate racial traits are now ancestry heritages, plus there are now ancestry feats. The APG alchemist is now in the new CRB. The new multiclass archetype system is now a way to approximate the 10 hybrid classes from the Advanced Class Guide. In terms of race and class player options, we already are at a point BEYOND the Advanced Player's Guide during PF1's development.

    We've just gone through several years in which a substantial part of the community left or complained about options bloat. Now is not the time to complain about "lack of options" in PF2. They need time to develop and playtest those options. In the meantime, there's nothing wrong with sticking with PF1 until the class concept(s) you want find an iteration in PF2. In the meantime we have an embarrassment of RICHES compared to what was available to us in the PF1 CRB: way more options and a way more flexible system.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Odraude wrote:
    keftiu wrote:

    Y’know, you could phrase this thread as “how long until the content /I/ want?” instead of “the current options are boring” and not broken anything.

    We’re having four new classes playable in October and gonna have bare minimum 15 archetypes by the end of this year. Complain that you don’t like what we’re getting, sure, but there’s 0 comparison to 5e’s glacial release cycle.

    Just curious, where is the listing for these classes? I'm looking for the 2e APG but I can't seem to find it anywhere.

    Investigator, Oracle, Witch, and Swashbuckler. There's also going to be 60 pages of archetypes so plenty of toys for the existing classes to change up their style.


    Arachnofiend wrote:
    Odraude wrote:
    keftiu wrote:

    Y’know, you could phrase this thread as “how long until the content /I/ want?” instead of “the current options are boring” and not broken anything.

    We’re having four new classes playable in October and gonna have bare minimum 15 archetypes by the end of this year. Complain that you don’t like what we’re getting, sure, but there’s 0 comparison to 5e’s glacial release cycle.

    Just curious, where is the listing for these classes? I'm looking for the 2e APG but I can't seem to find it anywhere.

    Investigator, Oracle, Witch, and Swashbuckler. There's also going to be 60 pages of archetypes so plenty of toys for the existing classes to change up their style.

    Right, but I don't see the APG 2e under the products section. The only upcoming book I see is the GMG for 2e


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Odraude wrote:
    Arachnofiend wrote:
    Odraude wrote:
    keftiu wrote:

    Y’know, you could phrase this thread as “how long until the content /I/ want?” instead of “the current options are boring” and not broken anything.

    We’re having four new classes playable in October and gonna have bare minimum 15 archetypes by the end of this year. Complain that you don’t like what we’re getting, sure, but there’s 0 comparison to 5e’s glacial release cycle.

    Just curious, where is the listing for these classes? I'm looking for the 2e APG but I can't seem to find it anywhere.

    Investigator, Oracle, Witch, and Swashbuckler. There's also going to be 60 pages of archetypes so plenty of toys for the existing classes to change up their style.
    Right, but I don't see the APG 2e under the products section. The only upcoming book I see is the GMG for 2e

    They just announced it at GenCon for release next year at GenCon. I doubt it'll be up until... next year at some point, after the Class Playtest in October.

    Silver Crusade

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    Oddddddddraude!

    *glomps*


    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    Rysky wrote:

    Oddddddddraude!

    *glomps*

    I live!


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Odraude wrote:
    keftiu wrote:

    Y’know, you could phrase this thread as “how long until the content /I/ want?” instead of “the current options are boring” and not broken anything.

    We’re having four new classes playable in October and gonna have bare minimum 15 archetypes by the end of this year. Complain that you don’t like what we’re getting, sure, but there’s 0 comparison to 5e’s glacial release cycle.

    Just curious, where is the listing for these classes? I'm looking for the 2e APG but I can't seem to find it anywhere.

    It was in one of the Gen Con panel livestreams. They’re still on Twitch as VODs, I believe.

    Silver Crusade

    Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Odraude wrote:
    Rysky wrote:

    Oddddddddraude!

    *glomps*

    I live!

    Yay!

    But yes, as GameDesignerGM said, it was juts announced at Gencon, we getting the Playtest in October ^w^


    (Btw race feats are not new, the idea of getting a seperate track is new.)

    (Also I still have doubts about getting new classes given how people in the forum reacted for multiple pages of the Gunslinger, Swashbuckler, and Magus threads. Maybe I'm wrong, but that experienced soured me.)


    Excellent. I'll have to take a look. Glad to see most of my favorites up there though. I'd love to see the Summoner one day.

    Grand Lodge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    For those looking for the release schedule I saw. Click Here

    I really hope the flexibility of the new multi-class and archetype systems makes up for the lack of base classes, I want to like PF2, I really do. I just don't want to have to wait 5 years before I actually like it, while I watch a game I already like (PF1) wither and die.

    The Oracle seems like an odd choice for the APG, especially now that the Sorcerer has options for divine casting...Oracle always seemed like the Sorcerer version of the Cleric...and I'm not sure how they plan on differentiating the two now.

    Investigator was the Alchemist/Rogue hybrid class...and isn't the new multi-classing rules supposed to cover making hybrids like that?

    Swashbuckler is another hybrid class...but they are introducing it before they introduce one of the classes it is a hybrid of? Seems like a questionable choice.

    Witch in 1e was written to be thematically almost exactly like the Warlock from 5e (magic via otherworldly pact)...but played nothing like the Warlock...and slumber hex was so game breaking, that almost every witch I have ever seen took it. Hopefully they avoid that mistake this time around.

    What I would really like to see are things that add totally new mechanics, things that don't follow the decades old character tropes, etc. Some of them I could see potentially being archetypes or handled via multi-classing...things like the Brawler could be done as a monk or fighter archetype, or multi-classing.

    The kineticist was one of my favorite 1e classes...the mechanics took a little getting used to, but once you figured out the class, they were loads of fun to play, while not being game breakingly powerful.

    The Shifter was a concept that was long overdue, but they dropped the ball so hard with it that it is next to useless without drastic re-writes or incredible levels of munchkinism to work around its flaws. I can still make a better Shifter than the actual Shifter class in 1e by just playing a Druid. One of the most unique and interesting archetypes Paizo has published in years (IMHO) was the Oozemorph...which as published was 100% unplayable...and even after 2 rounds of FAQs and errata is still probably the worst archetype in all of 1e mechanically. I would love to see them introduce these to 2e, with a proper play test, and actually do them justice...hopefully not in 10 years, and definitely not right before they cease support for 2e.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Slyme wrote:
    The Oracle seems like an odd choice for the APG, especially now that the Sorcerer has options for divine casting...Oracle always seemed like the Sorcerer version of the Cleric...and I'm not sure how they plan on differentiating the two now.

    I figure we differentiate the oracle from the divine sorcerer much like how we differentiate the bard from the occult sorcerer.

    Specifically
    -very different thematics
    -d8 HD
    -better armor/weapon proficiencies. Bards get light armor and select martial weapons, the oracle should get medium armor plus simple weapons.
    -fewer spells
    -a different unique mechanic, oracles should be a pick 2 class (like the wizard) where you select a curse and a mystery.

    We should run the same program, IMO, for a spontaneous primal and spontaneous arcane class too.


    Slyme wrote:
    and even after 2 rounds of FAQs and errata is still probably the worst archetype in all of 1e mechanically

    Personally I'd still give that title to the Brute vigilante. A d8 frontliner who takes a -4 to AC (or -3 to AC and can't wear armor) and has a scaling DC against attacking their own team every combat in exchange for a worse version of enlarge person is pretty impressively terrible... Oh and trades out their good will save... and can't choose when to activate their power... and generally can't act in the fist round of combat as a result... and can't take those cool avenger/stalker specialization talents... and gets unremovable fatigue when combat ends (assuming the party doesn't just kill them). Hell, its capstone ability is literally just rend. Every time I look at it it just gets worse.

    Kinda off topic but wanted to throw that in.

    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    We should run the same program, IMO, for a spontaneous primal and spontaneous arcane class too.

    I agree with this idea. Personally for me it's more that just the Oracle doesn't feel like it really treads on a lot of new territory. It's definitely going to be different than the Sorcerer, but.. THAT different?

    I don't have the same problem as the OP does with the options but I was really hoping Paizo's next round of classes was going to make me excited to build things that I can't build in PF2 right now and... the Oracle, Swashbuckler and Investigator don't really give me that vibe, even if I'm sure they're going to cool classes.

    I also think Oracle with nerfed spell progression in exchange for better weapons is going to be a hard sell. I know Oracles had weapons and BAB in PF1, but I also know a lot of people who played Oracle and just ignored that part of their class entirely.

    That aside, what would you make a spontaneous primal and arcane caster? What do they look like in your mind? I'm curious.


    Slyme wrote:

    The Oracle seems like an odd choice for the APG, especially now that the Sorcerer has options for divine casting...Oracle always seemed like the Sorcerer version of the Cleric...and I'm not sure how they plan on differentiating the two now.

    Investigator was the Alchemist/Rogue hybrid class...and isn't the new multi-classing rules supposed to cover making hybrids like that?

    Swashbuckler is another hybrid class...but they are introducing it before they introduce one of the classes it is a hybrid of? Seems like a questionable choice.

    Witch in 1e was written to be thematically almost exactly like the Warlock from 5e (magic via otherworldly pact)...but played nothing like the Warlock...and slumber hex was so game breaking, that almost every witch I have ever seen took it. Hopefully they avoid that mistake this time around.

    What I would really like to see are things that add totally new mechanics, things that don't follow the decades old character tropes, etc. Some of them I could see potentially being archetypes or handled via multi-classing...things like the Brawler could be done as a monk or fighter archetype, or multi-classing.

    Well, the stream mentioned that the Sorcerer did touch on some things for the Oracle, but they did specifically mention Curses and touching on the Pantheistic roots of the Oracle (mentions Divine elements, even a bit of Occult).

    The Swashbuckler was mentioned to be "The Ultimate Mobility Warrior". Apparently the new action economy makes them quite exciting.

    The Investigator, meanwhile, is very skill-focused, about solving problems through skill use.

    The Witch, of course, is rocking those Hexes and familiar.

    I'm betting each of those classes have a lot of unique elements to them. We'll find out in October, excitingly enough.


    Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Wheldrake wrote:

    Pffft!

    We just got *12* interesting classes.

    Sure, most of them share names with the old PF1 classes, but the resemblance stops there. They are loaded with new and unique features and abilities.

    I understand about being bored with the same old, same old. But IMHO the PF2 offerings are anything but "same old". I mean, I started playing RPGs in October '74 (I got D&D for my birthday! Little did my parent suspect what a monster they'd created!) so I have nearly as much right to be blasé about it as the OP does. But PF2 seems simply all new and shiny.

    So don't knock it til you've tried it for a while.

    This is basically what I was thinking. Also, that is talking about character options in a vacuum. The way the interact with other parts of the system are new and varied.


    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    I'm pretty sure I can make more diverse and viable builds out of the PF2 Fighter than I can if I totaled together every martial class in the PF1 CRB.


    That's more a fault of PF1e bare core Fighter being bad (they didn't get the good stuff until much later). Almost everyone else is about even (Ex: Barbarian or Sorcerer) or less (Ex: Wizard, Ranger, or Druid). Rogues overall got a buff; Clerics also got more features, but they were worse than Fighter in pure feature count, making it up in just sheer power & spell knowledge.


    Squiggit wrote:
    Slyme wrote:
    and even after 2 rounds of FAQs and errata is still probably the worst archetype in all of 1e mechanically
    Personally I'd still give that title to the Brute vigilante.

    LOL No need to argue as they are both... just awful. Lets call it a tie in a race for the bottom. :P

    On the OP, I can understand the worry: how long is it going to take before the shine is going to wear off the base 'races' and classes and you start to want something else to play with and how long until new things show up. Luckily it doesn't seem like we have to wait long with a new round of playtests right around the corner. So on the rulebook front, things seem fine. What had me wondering is what kind of player options, and how much, we'll see in the companion line of books.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    graystone wrote:
    Squiggit wrote:
    Slyme wrote:
    and even after 2 rounds of FAQs and errata is still probably the worst archetype in all of 1e mechanically
    Personally I'd still give that title to the Brute vigilante.

    LOL No need to argue as they are both... just awful. Lets call it a tie in a race for the bottom. :P

    On the OP, I can understand the worry: how long is it going to take before the shine is going to wear off the base 'races' and classes and you start to want something else to play with and how long until new things show up. Luckily it doesn't seem like we have to wait long with a new round of playtests right around the corner. So on the rulebook front, things seem fine. What had me wondering is what kind of player options, and how much, we'll see in the companion line of books.

    World Guide has ten archetypes, the Lost Omens player book has three ancestries and at least five more archetypes, the APG has four classes, eight ancestries, and sixty archetypes...

    Players aren’t hurting for options.


    GameDesignerDM wrote:
    Odraude wrote:
    Arachnofiend wrote:
    Odraude wrote:
    keftiu wrote:

    Y’know, you could phrase this thread as “how long until the content /I/ want?” instead of “the current options are boring” and not broken anything.

    We’re having four new classes playable in October and gonna have bare minimum 15 archetypes by the end of this year. Complain that you don’t like what we’re getting, sure, but there’s 0 comparison to 5e’s glacial release cycle.

    Just curious, where is the listing for these classes? I'm looking for the 2e APG but I can't seem to find it anywhere.

    Investigator, Oracle, Witch, and Swashbuckler. There's also going to be 60 pages of archetypes so plenty of toys for the existing classes to change up their style.
    Right, but I don't see the APG 2e under the products section. The only upcoming book I see is the GMG for 2e
    They just announced it at GenCon for release next year at GenCon. I doubt it'll be up until... next year at some point, after the Class Playtest in October.

    Out of curiosity, did they specify that those 4 classes are the only ones that will be released in the APG next year or just that those will be the only ones in the playtest in October? It would be cool to be surprised with other new classes in the release whose mechanics don't need to be playtested as such. That said, with 60+ archetypes I'm sure I'll be pretty overwhelmed with options for it even if that isn't the case.


    keftiu wrote:

    World Guide has ten archetypes, the Lost Omens player book has three ancestries and at least five more archetypes, the APG has four classes, eight ancestries, and sixty archetypes...

    Players aren’t hurting for options.

    That's nice and all but I'm also wondering on what percentage of player info vs dm info there will be. For instance if World Guide has ten archetypes that's maybe 10 pages out of maybe a few hundred? In the PF1 companions I could expect to find player content on almost every page: since I have the PF1 books, a rehash of pathfinder lore is far less useful than new content.


    graystone wrote:
    keftiu wrote:

    World Guide has ten archetypes, the Lost Omens player book has three ancestries and at least five more archetypes, the APG has four classes, eight ancestries, and sixty archetypes...

    Players aren’t hurting for options.

    That's nice and all but I'm also wondering on what percentage of player info vs dm info there will be. For instance if World Guide has ten archetypes that's maybe 10 pages out of maybe a few hundred? In the PF1 companions I could expect to find player content on almost every page: since I have the PF1 books, a rehash of pathfinder lore is far less useful than new content.

    Seems like the World Guide will be more setting material and in that way GM focused, while the Character Guide will be loaded to the maximum with player useable options.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Samdroid wrote:
    Out of curiosity, did they specify that those 4 classes are the only ones that will be released in the APG next year or just that those will be the only ones in the playtest in October? It would be cool to be surprised with other new classes in the release whose mechanics don't need to be playtested as such. That said, with 60+ archetypes I'm sure I'll be pretty overwhelmed with options for it even if that isn't the case.

    I think "this uses similar mechanics to other classes so we don't need to test it" is how you get the Shifter. In fact, because of what happened with the Shifter, they said that they are going to make a policy of always playtesting classes before releasing them. So whatever classes are in the APG playtest in October are the ones that will be in the book.

    Right now they have announced those four, but it's possible between now and October they will add another. We'll know in October.


    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    I think "this uses similar mechanics to other classes so we don't need to test it" is how you get the Shifter. In fact, because of what happened with the Shifter, they said that they are going to make a policy of always playtesting classes before releasing them.

    *thumbs up* I couldn't be happier to hear this.

    vagrant-poet wrote:
    Seems like the World Guide will be more setting material and in that way GM focused, while the Character Guide will be loaded to the maximum with player useable options.

    Well those are easier to guess but moving forward I'm concerned about less easy to guess books. With Golarion 'infused' into every book, I'm expecting more background and less options then we used to see in companion books and instead seeing a balance closer to setting books. We'll see.

    1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / How long until we get interesting classes? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.