Why is ______ its own class?


Advanced Player’s Guide Playtest General Discussion

51 to 62 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Because there is a limit to how many feats you can get and so balancing all that would be weird.

Also it sounds like it would be served better by regular archetypes (aka PF1e style archetypes). Problem is those cost feats too.

* I really hate that every thing costs a feat makes disgruntled noises


Coldermoss wrote:

Like I said earlier in that thread, these concepts can hold a ton more thematic and mechanical weight than a simple archetype would allow. What you're describing here isn't a game design issue, it's one of personal taste.

And the good news is that you can make characters to your taste even though these will all be full classes because they are going to come with multiclass dedications. So you can absolutely make that cleric who trades a curse for power or that wizard who gets in too deep by taking the Oracle dedication at level 2. There is nothing stopping you!

I wrote this thread based on the information provided so far. We have no idea at all what an oracle or witch dedication feat will provide. It's easy to assume that the oracle one will have you select a mystery, but it's not clear what it would actually provide to you beyond the mystery's trained skills and maybe the mystery cantrip (if the sorcerer dedication is any indication).


If it's like the Champion's you'll get a curse as part of the dedication but no mystery.


Temperans wrote:
If it's like the Champion's you'll get a curse as part of the dedication but no mystery.

Maybe - the issue is that at least as currently written, the curse only activates when you cast a revelation spell. So without the latter, the former means nothing, mechanically.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
If it's like the Champion's you'll get a curse as part of the dedication but no mystery.

i actually find this unlikely as you'd have to rip out their focus pool and replace it with the curse. you'll probably just get casting and the religion skill.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Isabelle Thorne wrote:
Rysky wrote:
I would like the return of a Knight class that focused on Challenges/Orders/Tactician rather than mounted combat. There’s plenty to work with there.
Same here, though with room for it to include some of the niches I tried to develop in some of my PF1 archetypes (sister-in-arms, green knight, warrior poet). Plus options for the toughness-through-willpower-and-dedication warrior samurai class.
A class based around the challenge/order side of the Cavalier could be designed to be pretty weapon/armor agnostic, which would make it well equipped for any of those concepts.

I could see this class combining elements that would allow you to create: a dedicated warrior/kensai/samurai; a sergeant/commander/marshall; or a gladiator/bushi/merc. [Kensai or bushi as in 1e ADnD Oriental Adventures and Samurai a la PF1.] Sure you could Featfinder a few of those concepts, but a single chassis that combined "dedications" (to codes, orders or techniques) and "connections" (either to people, places or spirit) would be fantastic. Then add the feats, because PF2.


Being a class in PF2 asks for a larger thematic load than being a class in PF1, because already baked into the cake right from the start are all the many subclasses built into each class. So only something that has a lot of thematic baggage can really work as a PF2 class without feeling too thinned out. Druid is a good example, how overstuffed the old dnd druid package was ended up being an asset because PF2 could effortlessly divide it into different aspects of being a druid. Druid with nature control opposed by druids that shapeshift and druids with animal pets, very clear distinct thematic borders.

But this means that PF1 basic classes needed fattening. PF2 Cleric absorbed Warpriest into itself right from the get-go, which spells out the obvious: Warpriest does not make sense as its own individual class anymore. I would be very perplexed if Paizo did bring Warpriest back with a different name, because why would you? What would it serve?

Bringing it back to the playtest, swashbuckler feels too specific, it feels complete. The feat list seems well thought out but also exhaustive. I don't see the same kind of potential as many other classes have on further exploration. By that I mean, "Finisher Gun: You gain ability to finisher with a gun" is not transformative.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
TLDR: I think its fine if classes tread on other classes design space. Just give both classes access to the feats and call it even.
I don't disagree with you philosophically. I just think that from a 'resources are limited' standpoint, having an Investigator class makes it a more relevant question as to whether or not designing a city savvy bounty hunter ranger or a smart rogue is worth the effort. Or whether fighters need more options for light armor and derring-do since we have a Swashbuckler already.

They’ve said somewhere before that the Swashbuckler will get some of the dueling feats from fighter; most likely for concept and to fluff out the feat list. That said making a Dualist Fighter and a Dualist Swashbuckler would still feel significantly different enough with their class features as to not really step on each others toes; with the Fighter getting bonus class feats and a higher hit chance and the swashbuckler having Panache and the Finishing Strike. They still plan to make the Magus class even with all the current tools to simulate such a concept, so something as niche as an Urban Ranger i think they would be willing to give due attention to.

On a slight side note about Cavalier; i notice that they haven’t made it as an Archetype yet in spite of it being one in the original PT. Part of me is curious if the reaction to it being sidelined as an Archetype made them possibly reconsider the idea. Not to give false hope, but until it comes out as an Archetype there may be a chance it comes out as a redesigned class at some point. Something to consider for the ’just Archetype it’ side of the discussion.

We haven't had any 'generic' archetypes yet- all of the ones we currently have are multiclass archetypes, or represent membership in a specific organization. The Advanced Player's Guide is going to be the source of our first generic.

It's the difference between "Red Mantis Assassin / Crimson Assassin" and "Assassin" which could also very well be in the APG.


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

One thing I think we are missing is any example of a class archetype. Without that, we cannot judge whether, for example, the Investigator should be its own class, a Rogue class archetype, or just a Rogue racket. Since the class archetype is clearly a middle ground between the two more extreme options, it might (if the mechanical details can be made to work out correctly) be the best option.

But at this point I really have no idea about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

IIRC Mark Seifter has clarified that the purpose of class archetypes is for taking away something from a class chasis (and giving something to replace it) because "adding something to a class" can just be done with new feats, a new subclass, or non-class archetypes.

So a class archetype is going to be something like "a rogue without sneak attack" or "a cleric without divine font".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

IIRC Mark Seifter has clarified that the purpose of class archetypes is for taking away something from a class chasis (and giving something to replace it) because "adding something to a class" can just be done with new feats, a new subclass, or non-class archetypes.

So a class archetype is going to be something like "a rogue without sneak attack" or "a cleric without divine font".

I'd also really like to see an archetype that changes how other features and feats interact with the class.

Like an Urban Ranger that can progress Monster Hunter with Society instead of Nature and lets you use feats like Camouflage and Favored Terrain in artificial environments.


DougSeay wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Panache Mode and Finishers are cool.

You are right they are cool. I built a swashbuckler and play tested some combat and the panache is fun.

51 to 62 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advanced Player’s Guide Playtest / General Discussion / Why is ______ its own class? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion