What New Things?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So, in tonight's stream with Mark, Jason and Logan, Jason mentioned about trying to do new classes and archetypes going forward instead of *just* redoing everything from 1st edition.

So, what kinds of classes and whatnot could they do that weren't done in 1e?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A martial shapeshifter lel

In all seriousness I'm not sure. Pathfinder has cast a very wide net of concepts available - I think the most obvious missing piece is technology stuff that DND does with the Artificer, but at the same time I feel the Alchemist and Occultist both fill that "items are my class" niche while being more appropriate to Pathfinder's high magic style so I don't think I'd campaign for it.

I'd be more interested in them revamping concepts that were done poorly the first time around; the Shifter, of course, and I'd also recommend the Medium as something that I'd like to see "back" but in an entirely different style than what we got in PF1.


I'm pretty curious about the new playable ancestry that they didn't even talk about in PF1.

Since they talked about a lot of things that could be played in PF1.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Martial shapeshifter has been a priority of mine.

My original concept was a system like the Summoner (PF1) with the PC buying different abilities and having access to thematic spells.

If anything, PF2 supports that much better and wouldn't need the spells (though likely would want focus spell options). Every class feat could be a different body transmutation, i.e. add gills. Some could be unlocking polymorph forms, maybe not earlier, but hopefully with longer durations. There might even be stances based on different forms showing your mutability and giving solid powers w/o being able to stack because they're stances.
I think there'd have to be really flavorful options, things you just wouldn't expect any other martial to be able to do (except some minor overlap w/ some instincts I guess). Otherwise it'd just be reskinning, which yes, I know I could do with any and every martial class.
The class would be the martial mirror of a Wild Shape Druid, but you'd be trading the full-casting for proficiencies & h.p. (and perhaps faux armor & save bonuses baked in to replace magic armor) and perhaps more imaginative creations not based on specific monsters.

Heck, maybe it could be an archetype that does reskin abilities, though that might be the MC Dedication for the class too.

Cheers


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I want to see the knightly orders and tactician abilities of the Cavalier to be split off from the mount abilities into a new class, such as a "Commander" or "Knight". I favor "Knight" because it has a bit more flavor on it than the former.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
I want to see the knightly orders and tactician abilities of the Cavalier to be split off from the mount abilities into a new class, such as a "Commander" or "Knight". I favor "Knight" because it has a bit more flavor on it than the former.

Knight has a bit too much flavor I think - I'd want this class to be a suitable Warchief, too, not just a medieval knight commander.

Commander or even just Tactician seem fine to me for a character who's main job on the battlefield is to shout orders.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Rather than an occult version of class x, or class y with z grafted on, it would be great to see Pathfinder find a new path or two in terms of classes. The one class I would like to see developed is a charismatic battlefield leader who inspires and assists their allies. I could imagine a class that:

* controls the battlefield making it difficult for the enemy to attack certain allies
* rallies their allies when the enemy gets a critical hit (giving allies a burst of temporary hit points)
* as a reaction when an ally misses, let’s them re-attempt the attack
* gives a special bonus to an ally when they flank an enemy
* once per round as an action, can command one and eventually more allies, to each move into a particular position on the battlefield
* as a reaction, can warn all allies giving them a significant bonus on a particular save
* can demoralize enemy combatants when the enemy leader is defeated
* can inspire their allies with different beneficial effects when they spend a hero point
* Is an effective combatant but can make a highly effective “special” attack once per encounter against the enemy leader that can potentially turn the battle.

I think you get the idea; I’d have a lot of fun playing a class like this!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have always wanted a class that through personal discipline and mastery of the self can push the body to impossible limits, possibly at a cost(something like burn) inspired by the mythology of India, moreso than the Monk which is informed by the Wuxia tradition.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A dedicated Artificer class, akin to the one seen in the Eberron books.


A first-party Psion would be a lot of fun.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some ideas :

  • 1. A build-your-spell class that use a system like word of power or like the kineticist, but more focused on customizing their "spells".
  • 2. A cartomancer class with a deck-building system.
  • 3. A become-a-monster class like the 1E Synthesist summoner.
  • 4. A tinker class that can make special magic items and a customized mechanical servant.
  • 5. A monster trainer class ("To catch them is my real test, To train them is my cause").


A shapeshifter that plays more like debuff/support than martial damage, using different forms to do a variety of tricks on the battlefield quickly could be pretty neat and largely hasn't existed yet.

A champion cause for Law and Chaos could be new and interesting, PF1 had no good way of accomplishing this.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I would definitely like a "Chaos Mage" or "Primal Magic" class which has unpredictable riders to their spells and perhaps minimal control over what form their magic takes, all of which involves rolling on tables. Bonus if you can subconsciously just warp reality around you when you're high level.

Like you're powerful, but you can't control whether that magic you just unleashed hurts someone else real bad, or if it's a buff, or something else entirely- you can only aim it once it starts taking form.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I would definitely like a "Chaos Mage" or "Primal Magic" class which has unpredictable riders to their spells and perhaps minimal control over what form their magic takes, all of which involves rolling on tables. Bonus if you can subconsciously just warp reality around you when you're high level.

Like you're powerful, but you can't control whether that magic you just unleashed hurts someone else real bad, or if it's a buff, or something else entirely- you can only aim it once it starts taking form.

Could this be what the Kineticist becomes? Right now the base chassis of Kineticist is replicated by elemental sorcerer except spells replace blast alterations . And it could do with something different...

My groups Kineticist recently lost control of a blast through a magical fumble hitting the entire party but not the original target - killing one and knocking another out. It was shocking but there was general feeling like that risk should always have been there with Gather Power


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What I would love to see would include redoing 1e, but taking advantage of 2e's streamlined rules to completely overhaul the class mechanics while keeping the flavor.

- Firstly, something completely new: an Artificer type class, but deviating away from dedicated magic item crafter of D&D. Instead, a magical version of the Starfinder Mechanic class would be a lot of fun, with either a customizable golem companion or a set of magical gear, and the ability to create temporary runes like how the alchemist makes temporary alchemical items.

- 5e-style warlock, where a character explicitly gains power from making a pact with a powerful being and gaining a different list of spells depending on the patron, as well as edicts and anathemas. This can be done through a sorcerer class archetype, since it's easy enough to fluff the sorcerer's abilities as pact magic rather than blood magic. I'd most love to see what 5e's warlock doesn't do, which is the character paying a price for power, slowing gaining corruption or insanity. This could be based on how oracle curses work. The ability to overchanneling their power at the risk of chaotic wild magic effects would be interesting too.

And old stuff I want to see overhauled:

- Shifter done right, using solely focus powers with no slot casting. Class feats should allow a variety of chimeric forms or extra appendages for combat and utility

- Unchained summoner/spiritualist fusion outsider pet class. Considering how 2e spell lists work, the summoner this time around should get a different spell tradition depending on the types of eidolon (eg. divine for celestials and fiends, primal for fey and elementals, occult for phantoms and aberrations, and arcane for native outsiders). Focus power to summon eidolon, class feat based eidolon progression instead than evolution points, and a very low number of spell slots per day but with extra slots to cast summon spells like the cleric's additional heal/harm slots.

- On the topic of summoner, synthesist done right. Instead of wearing an eidolon as armor, simply ditch the eidolon and allow the summoner to spend focus to transform into an outsider, and any eidolon evolution feats would be applied to the summoner himself. That means no more ridiculous HP stacking or dumping physical ability scores. To offset the lack of extra actions from an eidolon, let them summon other monsters while transformed.

- Shifter, golem companions, and eidolons(including phantoms) should share some enhancements in common where it makes sense, and have individual feats where it doesn't.

- Kineticist with less math and more elemental martial arts, rather than just standing still and shooting. Kinetic blasts as cantrips, infused blasts and utility wild talents as focus powers (think bard compositions, which can be cantrips or focus spells), gather power as an in-combat refocus, and burn as a stacking condition with penalties. Add some martial synergy abilities without needing an archetype.


I heard on a pod someone mention a class that could make minor magical items and talismans in the way alchemist does - this would be the artificer or tinker mentioned by ravingdork and charlesfire above

*

I was wondering if there is an unexplored route to alchemy. I was thinking of sources of magic : blood, knowledge , deities, nature , items.

I wonder if there is someone who gains or augments magic through drinking alchemical substances. Think the blue lipped warlocks of Qarth in ASOIAF (ok so i was thinking how you would construct real Euron)

*

Those two plus the battlefield commander idea

I have also really wanted a proper aristocrat class that is playable but accept this is largely addressed now by giving that background to anyone.


How is the flavor of a Warlock at all different from Pathfinder's Witch?


keftiu wrote:
How is the flavor of a Warlock at all different from Pathfinder's Witch?

The poster mentioned making a pact “explicitly”. If i recall a lot of witches don’t know who their patron is ...

So perhaps that is the difference

E.g. I actively bargained with a Fey Queen or Succubus for more power. Although with those two examples i would not expect all day blasting

Indeed as mentioned it fits an offshoot of a sorcerer
(Of course you can already fluff your sorcerer that way but I think the poster wants the potential downsides)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
How is the flavor of a Warlock at all different from Pathfinder's Witch?

The warlock knows exactly who or what their patron is. A fiend warlock for example has personal contact with the contract devil that owns their soul.

The Pathfinder witch, meanwhile, has a mechanic named "pact" with an entity named "patron", but in actual play none of this really matters. Witches don't know the nature or identity of their patrons any more than everyone else, and can do whatever they want and never lose their powers.

The fluff is completely different, even though they use the same term for some concepts.


Frogliacci wrote:
keftiu wrote:
How is the flavor of a Warlock at all different from Pathfinder's Witch?

The warlock knows exactly who or what their patron is. A fiend warlock for example has personal contact with the contract devil that owns their soul.

The Pathfinder witch, meanwhile, has a mechanic named "pact" with an entity named "patron", but in actual play none of this really matters. Witches don't know the nature or identity of their patrons any more than everyone else, and can do whatever they want and never lose their powers.

The fluff is completely different, even though they use the same term for some concepts.

They have stated that they will play up patrons and familiars a LOT as part of the new witch.

So hopefully that will scratch that itch, and we get the playtest for that in October.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I would definitely like a "Chaos Mage" or "Primal Magic" class which has unpredictable riders to their spells and perhaps minimal control over what form their magic takes, all of which involves rolling on tables. Bonus if you can subconsciously just warp reality around you when you're high level.

Like you're powerful, but you can't control whether that magic you just unleashed hurts someone else real bad, or if it's a buff, or something else entirely- you can only aim it once it starts taking form.

I can see this being a general archetype that can be applied to any spellcasting class. Sorcerers with blood too potent to control, mad genius wizards who cast unstable experimental spells, bards with unstable passions (Vanya from Umbrella Academy comes to mind), druids who literally let nature take the reins, and clerics of insane gods....


Frogliacci wrote:
keftiu wrote:
How is the flavor of a Warlock at all different from Pathfinder's Witch?

The warlock knows exactly who or what their patron is. A fiend warlock for example has personal contact with the contract devil that owns their soul.

The Pathfinder witch, meanwhile, has a mechanic named "pact" with an entity named "patron", but in actual play none of this really matters. Witches don't know the nature or identity of their patrons any more than everyone else, and can do whatever they want and never lose their powers.

The fluff is completely different, even though they use the same term for some concepts.

I've seen plenty of Warlocks with no clue who their patron is, though. It's a pretty common angle on Star Pact/Great Old One Warlocks, that Something reached out to them and formed a bond. There's a Warlock in a certain popular Actual Play who didn't even intentionally make their pact, IIRC.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Difference though is that warlock's mechanics had strong flavor with what type of the patron is and the enigma while with witches the patron was basically just spell-list without any flavor of how elements patron differs from water patron.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure that can be resolved just by leaning into the patron more as a class feature. In the PF2 paradigm the witch may have class feats that require specific patrons - that could mean hexes that are patron exclusive.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think that is what James Jacobs was advocating for at least, like having Baba Yaga or something as patron


Arachnofiend wrote:
I'm pretty sure that can be resolved just by leaning into the patron more as a class feature. In the PF2 paradigm the witch may have class feats that require specific patrons - that could mean hexes that are patron exclusive.

That sounds fantastic.

My frustration with 1e witch was that there were no reasons to pick patrons for anything other than mechanics. At best, you pick the best mechanics for your character's power theme (say, elemental or seasonal patrons for elemental spells). The patron ITSELF simply isn't a part of your character's story, and even if it is, any two patrons could serve the same narrative role. This is completely unlike a cleric's choice of deity, which offers a similar mechanic but far more roleplay implications.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
vagrant-poet wrote:


They have stated that they will play up patrons and familiars a LOT as part of the new witch.

So hopefully that will scratch that itch, and we get the playtest for that in October.

As long as they don't repeat the 1e problem of "hey, know that familiar which is core to your class flavour... don't ever let it do anything because it dying means your character should outright retire"


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The problem with the D&D warlock is that it's sort of split, the kineticist has the closest thing to its mechanics but the witch has the closest thing to its flavor. So if you're interested in that whole package you're kinda SoL.

That said, yeah, the issue with patrons is more just a general failing of 1e's full caster design, spells were such an overloaded class feature most of them had almost nothing else going on and as a result these potentially flavorful options like patrons ended up just kind of being nothing.

2e is a huge opportunity to fix that.

... That said, that's not a new thing really. I second the suggestion for a martial commander/tactician type class. Something similar to the 1e cavalier but with the mount support stripped out for more buffs and utility.

With the ranger losing its mystical quality I think it kind of opens up the possibility for a primal-warrior style character. Something like the 4e Warder class, if anyone here remembers that, a focus on elemental/animal themed abilities and battlefield control, aggressive and martial but with a suite of druidic abilities. This could definitely come in the form of a Champion or Druid archetype/path/whatever though.


Squiggit wrote:

The problem with the D&D warlock is that it's sort of split, the kineticist has the closest thing to its mechanics but the witch has the closest thing to its flavor. So if you're interested in that whole package you're kinda SoL.

That said, yeah, the issue with patrons is more just a general failing of 1e's full caster design, spells were such an overloaded class feature most of them had almost nothing else going on and as a result these potentially flavorful options like patrons ended up just kind of being nothing.

2e is a huge opportunity to fix that.

... That said, that's not a new thing really. I second the suggestion for a martial commander/tactician type class. Something similar to the 1e cavalier but with the mount support stripped out for more buffs and utility.

With the ranger losing its mystical quality I think it kind of opens up the possibility for a primal-warrior style character. Something like the 4e Warder class, if anyone here remembers that, a focus on elemental/animal themed abilities and battlefield control, aggressive and martial but with a suite of druidic abilities. This could definitely come in the form of a Champion or Druid archetype/path/whatever though.

1e had the Havocker witch that gets kinetic blasts. It's probably a direct emulation of the 5e warlock. But personally I don't really care for blasting as a witch. I'm just really into the fluff of pacts, because a patron doesn't have to be nearly as powerful as a deity and opens up a lot of up close and personal RP opportunities.

A martial druid with less spells sounds like what the 1e hunter does.


New multiclass system would let you splice the eventual witch and Kineticist classes together ...

That is probably the closest you can get to warlock

Even adds the twist of you only discovering a patron sponsor as your career goes past level 1


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Lot of good stuff here.

I really like the idea of a commander/tactician class. And also agree with the no mount support. Just in the mix giving orders to people.

I don't know much of anything about the artificer, but the idea of creating temporary runes on items sounds neat.


Mogloth wrote:

So, in tonight's stream with Mark, Jason and Logan, Jason mentioned about trying to do new classes and archetypes going forward instead of *just* redoing everything from 1st edition.

So, what kinds of classes and whatnot could they do that weren't done in 1e?

ARTIFICER! SKY CAPTAIN! THE MOLEMAN!


Actually, an Artificier/Tinkerer could be an alchemist's research field focused on alchemical tools and snares.
Add to that some feats to get/improve a mechanical companion (animal companion with some modifications) and some exclusive feats to add improvements (bomb launcher, speed module, mechanical wings, improved detection, etc) to that companion and that would makes a nice Artificier/Tinkerer...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, I’d be all over a proper Warlord, with most of the Cavalier’s non-mount bits.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I always wanted a class that created its own weapons much like how the mind blade magus or soul knife from psionics did. Just without the spells. Being able to create and enhance these weapons on the fly was always a draw card for me (and personally I felt the arcane pool enhancement ability was the main part of a magus than the spell half, but that is just me).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ellias Aubec wrote:
I always wanted a class that created its own weapons much like how the mind blade magus or soul knife from psionics did. Just without the spells. Being able to create and enhance these weapons on the fly was always a draw card for me (and personally I felt the arcane pool enhancement ability was the main part of a magus than the spell half, but that is just me).

The Gloomblade Fighter did a really good job of this in PF1; it was one of my favorite archetypes and I'd love to see it expanded into something more.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Ellias Aubec wrote:
I always wanted a class that created its own weapons much like how the mind blade magus or soul knife from psionics did. Just without the spells. Being able to create and enhance these weapons on the fly was always a draw card for me (and personally I felt the arcane pool enhancement ability was the main part of a magus than the spell half, but that is just me).
The Gloomblade Fighter did a really good job of this in PF1; it was one of my favorite archetypes and I'd love to see it expanded into something more.

So would you like a Magus w/o spell slots?

Perhaps one with lots of magical feats or focus spells.
I could see something like Wind Stance is for Monks, where the Magus spends a focus point and keeps the weapon or weapon enchantment/transmutation throughout the battle.
Add something like Sword Ally (from Champion) too and we'd have the same magical combatant feel.
Add feats like Wild Winds Gust and you'd hardly know they didn't have spells, though they could MCD too of course.

Hmm...I'm starting to think this may overlap w/ Kineticist.
If it skewed away from elements and drew on popular archetypes like Kensai then it could become distinct enough.

Now that I'm thinking about it, I think the stances route would work really well for Kineticists. Base stance (simple weapon equivalent + elemental side ability) w/ later options for martial melee weapon, ranged (repeated use & big blast options), AoE, defense, etc. It may constrain people too much to the same feat chains though so there'd need to be lots of neutral abilities too, though those that combine two different elements (or whatnot) might work too.
If Paizo wishes to keep "Burn" it could be tied to retrieving focus points though that mechanic might be best forgotten.

The Exchange

Burn still can function in 2nd edition. No need to drastically change it.

The kineticist is a good base for a lot of concepts that are magical but not spell casters. Replace the elemental theme with something else (tattoos, possession by spirits/entities, animal powers, runes of power...what ever).

I would like a character class that is actually 2 bodies. Something like three actions divided between the bodies and class abilities to work well in tandem with your self. - a summoner May be able to do that fine if on half wants to be a spell caster.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Castilliano wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Ellias Aubec wrote:
I always wanted a class that created its own weapons much like how the mind blade magus or soul knife from psionics did. Just without the spells. Being able to create and enhance these weapons on the fly was always a draw card for me (and personally I felt the arcane pool enhancement ability was the main part of a magus than the spell half, but that is just me).
The Gloomblade Fighter did a really good job of this in PF1; it was one of my favorite archetypes and I'd love to see it expanded into something more.

So would you like a Magus w/o spell slots?

Perhaps one with lots of magical feats or focus spells.
I could see something like Wind Stance is for Monks, where the Magus spends a focus point and keeps the weapon or weapon enchantment/transmutation throughout the battle.
Add something like Sword Ally (from Champion) too and we'd have the same magical combatant feel.
Add feats like Wild Winds Gust and you'd hardly know they didn't have spells, though they could MCD too of course.

Hmm...I'm starting to think this may overlap w/ Kineticist.
If it skewed away from elements and drew on popular archetypes like Kensai then it could become distinct enough.

Now that I'm thinking about it, I think the stances route would work really well for Kineticists. Base stance (simple weapon equivalent + elemental side ability) w/ later options for martial melee weapon, ranged (repeated use & big blast options), AoE, defense, etc. It may constrain people too much to the same feat chains though so there'd need to be lots of neutral abilities too, though those that combine two different elements (or whatnot) might work too.
If Paizo wishes to keep "Burn" it could be tied to retrieving focus points though that mechanic might be best forgotten.

That would actually be a badass way to potentially handle the magus, heavy emphasis on focus and focus spells.


Castilliano wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Ellias Aubec wrote:
I always wanted a class that created its own weapons much like how the mind blade magus or soul knife from psionics did. Just without the spells. Being able to create and enhance these weapons on the fly was always a draw card for me (and personally I felt the arcane pool enhancement ability was the main part of a magus than the spell half, but that is just me).
The Gloomblade Fighter did a really good job of this in PF1; it was one of my favorite archetypes and I'd love to see it expanded into something more.

So would you like a Magus w/o spell slots?

Perhaps one with lots of magical feats or focus spells.
I could see something like Wind Stance is for Monks, where the Magus spends a focus point and keeps the weapon or weapon enchantment/transmutation throughout the battle.
Add something like Sword Ally (from Champion) too and we'd have the same magical combatant feel.
Add feats like Wild Winds Gust and you'd hardly know they didn't have spells, though they could MCD too of course.

Hmm...I'm starting to think this may overlap w/ Kineticist.
If it skewed away from elements and drew on popular archetypes like Kensai then it could become distinct enough.

The coolest thing about the Gloomblade was how your shadow weapons were, for all intents and purposes, the weapon you created - if you wanted straight damage, you made a falchion, if you wanted reach you could make a glaive... It'd be even cooler in PF2 with so many more weapon properties that are generally useful.

I think shying away from Magus comparisons and focusing more on the ability to spontaneously create the perfect weapon would justify a class entirely on its own.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would also like a kind of class that can create weapons, items, constructs etc. It could work a lot like alchemist does now, with different paths. Could have a weapon based path, functioning like gloomblade, an item based one focused on creating consumables like talismans and utility items like kits, and a construct path making minions and such.

I would also like a mystic style class. Something close to monk, but less martial focused, like how cleric is to champion.

That being said kineticist is the thing I'm looking forward to the most. A little worried about it, hope it doesn't take too long to come and hope it keeps the things that made it so special to me.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Indeed, the gloomblade was lovely just haven’t yet had an opportunity to play one.

I would also like to see a class focused around stealing monsters abilities from those you killed, al la you become what you eat type thing. There was a 3pp product for PF1 that was pretty much what I was looking at (vorpal knight and gourmand classes) which were very interesting.


A Summoner w/o regular spells.
It's probably the only way to balance the class.

They could use focus spells for summoning other things (when their eidelon was gone) or to do those few tricks they had, if they take the feat(s).

I recognize that the eidelon shouldn't match a martial in power (unless the Summoner was knocked down to Animal Companion strength, which would be highly improbable), but maybe they could be made tough & resilient (at least stronger than an AC given how fast those died in the playtest w/o a Druid constantly healing). This toughness would be the cost of h.p. or actions from the Summoner so the Summoner's tied up while the eidelon's effective.
Unlike Druids & Rangers, I would not expect the Summoner/eidelon to fight side-by-side.

Nor am I in a rush to see them. This simply occurred to me.
Cheers


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GeneticDrift wrote:
Burn still can function in 2nd edition. No need to drastically change it.

Or, it's the perfect time "to drastically change it"!

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
GeneticDrift wrote:
Burn still can function in 2nd edition. No need to drastically change it.
Or, it's the perfect time "to drastically change it"!

I brought this up elsewhere but I wouldn't mind seeing Burn come back as an anti-Focus, so to speak.

You build up points and then when you hit max you can't gain any more until you cooldown. may or may not impart penalties or damage.

Could look at the Solarion for similarities maybe.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
keftiu wrote:
A first-party Psion would be a lot of fun.

And we can be pretty sure that that one won't happen unless Dreamscarred Press decides to try to persuade Paizo to buy them out.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
keftiu wrote:
A first-party Psion would be a lot of fun.
And we can be pretty sure that that one won't happen unless Dreamscarred Press decides to try to persuade Paizo to buy them out.

Dreamscarred Press don't own the Psion or Psionics, they just did the Pathfinder versions so Paizo could technically make them, they just have no interest in doing so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rysky wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
keftiu wrote:
A first-party Psion would be a lot of fun.
And we can be pretty sure that that one won't happen unless Dreamscarred Press decides to try to persuade Paizo to buy them out.
Dreamscarred Press don't own the Psion or Psionics, they just did the Pathfinder versions so Paizo could technically make them, they just have no interest in doing so.

Exactly. Paizo has no interest in stepping on the toes of Dreamscarred Press, so the only way to get a 1st party Psion would be for Dreamscarred Press to become part of Paizo and then get Paizo to publish their 2nd edition version of psionics. Otherwise, what we will get will be a 3rd party version of psionics of equal or better quality.


Honestly the Aegis would be a good 'make everything' class. Its an armor summoner, itd be easy to expand to weapons, and it did have an archetype that summoned a construct, so there you go, your three paths.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
keftiu wrote:
A first-party Psion would be a lot of fun.
And we can be pretty sure that that one won't happen unless Dreamscarred Press decides to try to persuade Paizo to buy them out.
Dreamscarred Press don't own the Psion or Psionics, they just did the Pathfinder versions so Paizo could technically make them, they just have no interest in doing so.

Exactly. Paizo has no interest in stepping on the toes of Dreamscarred Press, so the only way to get a 1st party Psion would be for Dreamscarred Press to become part of Paizo and then get Paizo to publish their 2nd edition version of psionics. Otherwise, what we will get will be a 3rd party version of psionics of equal or better quality.

Unless I have misread, Rysky is saying the opposite to what you said. Having Dreamscarred be part of Paizo is not the “only way” to get 1st party psions as they don’t have copyright over psychic magic

1 to 50 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / What New Things? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.