Did the design team ask these questions when writing this up? I don't see anything in these 4 classes presented that wouldn't work better and offer more player choice as dedication feats. It hasn't even been a year with pf2 and already we're getting things further locked into class boundaries - diminishing any strides the 'class feat' based class structure could provide.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well once they are classes they become multiclass archetypes so we’ll have that dedication option too.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, here's the thing.
They could have gone down the route of packing as many concepts as possible under as few classes as possible. This would mean people don't have to learn "what's the deal with this class?" too many times.
However, you end up expanding the number of options for each class to such an extent that you'd lose a lot of the benefit of the new feat pool paradigm.
Lots of the new and future classes would *require* Class Archetypes to make all the appropriate trades and give the right abilities. They'd also need a bunch of new class feats to support their kit and feel.
So you'd end up expanding the number of class feats available to all wizards while implementing a Witch subclass, for no real gain.
In short, adding a new class adds one option during the character gen process, whereas adding a new class archetype adds dozens of new options to every character of the same class.
|
| 32 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did you really need to make five different threads to ask the same question? I mean, seriously, that seems deeply unnecessary and verging on rude to just spam them out like that.
But to answer the question, fundamentally, the reason to make anything a Class is to make it play significantly differently.
Archetypes can grant Feats or abilities, but non-Class ones can't alter fundamental Proficiency progressions or change fundamental stuff inherent to the Class like Sneak Attack or Rage. Nor can they change Key Abilities. Nor can they do anything else to alter the fundamental package of things that are obligatory for the Class.
And Class Archetypes, while they can alter such things, become deeply unwieldy if they alter too many of them. To the point where a new Class has similar word count, and likely more clarity and flexibility. And a Class Archetype can never be taken by another Class, while a Class provides a Multiclass Archetype, which can.
So...if the play style and fundamental mechanics you have in mind for Witch are sufficiently different from Wizard, and yet require Prepared Int-based casting (which they do), then you have to make it a new Class for that to work well. The same is true, in principle, of all other Classes.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please also keep in mind: the APG is going to get sixty pages of archetypes! It's not one or the other; you're getting both.
Plus, you can't take archetypes until second level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The long and short of it is that people get more excited about "new classes" than they do about new archetypes or new class paths, so by extension "new classes" motivate people to buy books more than potential alternatives.
So there was always going to be a bunch of classes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The long and short of it is that people get more excited about "new classes" than they do about new archetypes or new class paths, so by extension "new classes" motivate people to buy books more than potential alternatives.
So there was always going to be a bunch of classes.
This is my greatest fear - that the game is being developed first in marketing, and not in game design. The goblin thing was the first indicator of that - this, I feel, is another.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like having a lot of classes. I'm pretty sure most of the PF1 classes are coming back, plus there's most likely going to be new classes too.
Considering that "your class" like "your ancestry" is a top-level choice, rather than one you have to make mid-stream, there's no risk in having too many of them. Where we get problems with analysis paralysis or bloat is when people have more to learn and remember midstream.
So practically everything should be a new class. Pretty much the only PF1 classes I think do not need to be a new class (and instead are well served as an archetype) are the Cavalier and the Vigilante.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually think all the new ones are extremely unique and have distinct non overlapping niches.
Built an investigator yesterday and I gotta say it’s certainly unique but feels right. I was worried about overlap with the rogue, but I gotta say it’s pretty impressive how they danced there way past the rogue into a niche that the game didn’t even really have. It’s both a support class but also a solid skill monkey with respect to mental skills. Was super skeptical, but super cool.
I made a whole thread about the Swashbuckler when it was announced and how I felt it overlapped with other class concepts. And while I’m still not crazy about the name, it’s fine, the class is completely unique. On paper I’m not sure how it translates to play, but the intent and design concept is really cool, I’ll probably build one of those next.
A prepared pick a list was needed and so was a spontaneous divine. Both I think are excellent reinventions of the old classes and bringing new things to the table. Witch made me smile with lessons and Oracle Mysteries rework is a really brilliant take on how to implement it.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So practically everything should be a new class. Pretty much the only PF1 classes I think do not need to be a new class (and instead are well served as an archetype) are the Cavalier and the Vigilante.
I'd add Gunslinger to this list and note that a lot of ACG Classes are probably fine with just multiclassing in PF2 (we'd still need Shaman after the APG, but not a lot of others).
But yes, most PF1 Classes can probably be brought over into PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did the design team ask these questions when writing this up? I don't see anything in these 4 classes presented that wouldn't work better and offer more player choice as dedication feats. It hasn't even been a year with pf2 and already we're getting things further locked into class boundaries - diminishing any strides the 'class feat' based class structure could provide.
i'll flip this all on it's head, why should they be dedication lines?
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimately the problem is that feats are a bottleneck. You get a limited supply of them.
The more feats you have to spend defining the baseline abilities of your character, the increasingly less freedom you have to customize that character and the more homogenous characters pursuing the same path face.
There's also the issue of timing.
If the Swashbuckler was a series of archetype feats instead. That means level 1 Swashbucklers wouldn't exist (ancient elf nonswithstanding). You couldn't be a Swashbuckler until level 2.
Except even then not really, because dedication feats only give so much. You probably need to spend another feat on Precise Strike and another feat on your finisher and that's not even looking into actual Swashbuckler feats you want.
So you're looking at a level 1 Swashbuckler actually being a level 4 or 6 or maybe even level 8 character who actually only has maybe one 'free' feat left to themselves.
I'm not going to say you're entirely wrong. More classes does mean potentially taking away from the design space of other classes. Swashbucklers might mean less support for that king of rogue. Investigators might mean that we never see a properly fleshed out urban ranger. Who knows.
But the fact is that 'just solve it with feats' isn't a viable solution and new classes allow you to implement entirely new mechanics and dynamics of features that you couldn't accomplish otherwise.
That's why classes are good.
The goblin thing was the first indicator of that
Really?
Personally, I feel archetypes should mostly stay away from generally ideas, and stick with being rooted to the setting. I'm sure the APG will be full of more general archetypes, and I'll find a way to deal with it, but I'd rather archetypes mostly be prestige classes instead of subclasses (multiclass dedications excepted, of course).
Like, "having a specific, named patron" like the Red Crusader or Baba Yaga is an A+ idea for an archetype. "Having a patron at all" is a less ideal theme for an archetype for my tastes. A subclass or class archetype, maybe, but something that vague that touches that many ideas really needs to be a full class in order to get the number of class feats and features needed to explore all the options there. Both can exist in the same game; we can use the work they do with creating the witch class to eventually create witch-like archetype feats that are super specific to particular patrons, but aren't fettered to the general witch framework. Like an archetype that allows Mengkare as your patron might have 7 feats, 4 of which are refluffed or direct copies of witch feats/class features, with the others eschewing tradition witch abilities like familiars and cackle in favor of draconic themed lessons and abilities.
I'm not going to say you're entirely wrong. More classes does mean potentially taking away from the design space of other classes. Swashbucklers might mean less support for that king of rogue. Investigators might mean that we never see a properly fleshed out urban ranger. Who knows.
You've brought this up before, but I'm going to have to slightly disagree with you. It's pretty easy to simply have rogues also get access to those feats, and not even via multiclassing; we already have several examples of identical class feats and focus powers being printed for multiple classes. So while those feats might be intended to work for the investigator, might work best for the investigator due to synergy with other class features, that doesn't mean investigators will have exclusive access to them.
Imagine, for instance, in addition to the Investigator class, we at the same time get a rogue racket that is basically Take the Case, the Swashbuckler style that keys off Recall Knowledge that I joked about yesterday, and lets say a cleric subclass that gives better perception and the Study Suspect ability, with all three classes getting access to some of the investigator feats in their own right. You now have four detectives wandering around, making recall knowledge checks left right and center, but all play a little different at the table and appeal to slightly different players.
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.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't like having new classes, you don't have to play them.
The majority of players want more classes, as it results in a greater diversity of playstyles and characters, and a distinct class is a better design than trying to awkwardly squish such a broad concept into an archetype.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think if a class is going to be made, it should be significantly different than pre-existing classes or classes Paizo is planning to make in a year or two. I don't mind if they make the Investigator a class, as long as it clearly looks and plays differently than a Rogue or an Alchemist.
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.
Otherwise I agree with you, the more ways you can approach a concept the better. My concern is more that it might become a developmental mindset that certain classes own certain niches.
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.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
For reference: Fighter vs. Swashbuckler.
If it doesn't feel like this, something is amiss. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
having an Investigator class makes it a more relevant question as to whether or not designing a city savvy bounty hunter ranger
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.
Not the point, but an Outwit/Monster Hunter build ranger is already pretty close to what you'd like. Seriously, add like two feats (one at 4th that allows humanoids as favored enemies, one at 6th that allows swift Urban Tracking) and you've got at least 1 urban ranger build. The Urban tracking skill feat in this playtest almost closes that gap up pretty nicely all by itself; if you take that you can basically use the ranger class as is to play an urban bounty hunter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did the design team ask these questions when writing this up? I don't see anything in these 4 classes presented that wouldn't work better and offer more player choice as dedication feats. It hasn't even been a year with pf2 and already we're getting things further locked into class boundaries - diminishing any strides the 'class feat' based class structure could provide.
Well, the main issue I think is that these classes have been significantly restricted and simplified for the very brief playtest period. I expect all of the classes to be much more built out and diversified in the final version.
That said, I'm not a fan of any of these classes either. Oracle in 1e was a very popular and cool class. The 2e playtest version is trash. Hopefully the final version will be alot better. Then again, the 1e Alchemist was a popular and cool class as well, and the 2e version doesn't seem nearly as well-liked. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
From a theoretical design perspective, it does seem like there is some confusion/argument within the core classes we already have about whether "new idea" is best fit as a new class or as a subclass or archetype.
For example, a scoundrel character could easily have been a unique class, as could the paladin, and the liberator. Having classes where you have many advanced feats that only work for specific choices made at character creation feels like it is a counter to the idea that unique idea needs a new class, especially because we already have a fair bit of overlap between classes and archetypes offering several of essentially the same feats.
I am not saying I have strong feelings about it one way or the other, but it does seem like the decision between what is a unique class and what is a subclass are rather arbitrary and not conceptually clear to me yet.
For example: Is the champion going to end up with 9 sub-classes? If so, when? and that is a whole lot of feats that are going to be floating around in one class.
Is there a limit to the number of rogue rackets that will be developed?
Will we get significant class based archetypes that will do things like modify the basic proficiencies of classes like fighter, to make a heavily armed fighter?
All of these could have just been separate classes and with MC dedications, there would still have been an incredibly amount of flexibility, but it doesn't seem like unique mechanic/unique class is a universal design principle of PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So practically everything should be a new class. Pretty much the only PF1 classes I think do not need to be a new class (and instead are well served as an archetype) are the Cavalier and the Vigilante.
I'd be careful of this. While I can see a niche for the 4 in the playtest (though I haven't had time to look too much at anything but my old fav of the Witch), I absolutely don't want PF1 classes to just be a checklist that must return.
For example - most of the hybrid classes really don't have much of a place anymore. Investigator had enough theme to manage it & I could see the Shaman doing similar (as primal spontaneous) but the rest could probably be just done with multiclass, archetypes, and/or extra feat options in their parent classes.
Similarly, I'm not sure there's much room for too many casters. I can see spontaneous, prepared, pick-any spontaneous, and pick-any prepared as being a good limit for casting tradition classes to avoid trying to get too much overlap. So I'm not sure I'd want to see Investigators come back as another spontaneous divine - and our current classes would really just leave room for one each of spontaneous arcane, spontaneous primal, and prepared occult.
Similarly, I'm not sure there's much room for too many casters. I can see spontaneous, prepared, pick-any spontaneous, and pick-any prepared as being a good limit for casting tradition classes to avoid trying to get too much overlap.
I don't know. Since everybody who uses, for example, the arcane spell list can cast all the same spells at the same spell levels as all the other arcane spellcasters, there doesn't really seem like there's a problem with having lots and lots of different classes that use it. We're never going to have situations where a spell is listed as
So as long as there's enough mechanically and thematically differentiate two caster classes who use the same list, via class features, feats, and flavor text I don't know why there shouldn't be both. Like the Magus is going to be a prepared spellcaster from the arcane list, so how do we make it different from the Wizard? Why not have a Primal Magus too?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So practically everything should be a new class. Pretty much the only PF1 classes I think do not need to be a new class (and instead are well served as an archetype) are the Cavalier and the Vigilante.
I wouldn't even put Cavalier in that category. Cavalier isn't just about mounted combat, it's also about leading your small army into battle as a martial support. Heck almost all my cavaliers use an archetype to drop the mount entirely.
Personally I would dislike seeing the class be reduced to a mere archetype, though if Paizo wants to make Mounted Combat its own archetype while making a new class that has Cavalier's martial/support prowess without the horse I would also be happy.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like linguistically the "leading a small army into battle at a martial support" class would be better termed as "Marshal" or something than "Cavalier" which literally means "horseman".
I have an idea. Give every character every feature of every class, and Legendary proficiency in everything. And give it all to them at level one. That seems to be what folks want, anyway.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have an idea. Give every character every feature of every class, and Legendary proficiency in everything. And give it all to them at level one. That seems to be what folks want, anyway.
What brought that on?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So practically everything should be a new class. Pretty much the only PF1 classes I think do not need to be a new class (and instead are well served as an archetype) are the Cavalier and the Vigilante.I wouldn't even put Cavalier in that category. Cavalier isn't just about mounted combat, it's also about leading your small army into battle as a martial support. Heck almost all my cavaliers use an archetype to drop the mount entirely.
Personally I would dislike seeing the class be reduced to a mere archetype, though if Paizo wants to make Mounted Combat its own archetype while making a new class that has Cavalier's martial/support prowess without the horse I would also be happy.
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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the fact is that 'just solve it with feats' isn't a viable solution and new classes allow you to implement entirely new mechanics and dynamics of features that you couldn't accomplish otherwise.
Problem is, I still don't see the swashbuckler as any better than doing a 'swashbuckler' as a fighter or rogue.
Entirely new mechanics aren't always a plus. I'm still at a loss what purpose several of the new mechanics actually serve. None of the new ones seem particularly good or straightforward, and alchemist (just be a real class and go to a shop), bard and sorcerer are still puzzling balls of multiple mechanics (scaling cantrips, higher level cantrips and focus spells) all providing the same essential function.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The more I try to play with it the more I hate the archetype system in PF2, quite frankly. The opportunity costs are just too large for anything with real meat. Trying to do a Swashbuckler as a Fighter+archetype will end up hollow and unsatisfying, I guarantee it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The more I try to play with it the more I hate the archetype system in PF2, quite frankly. The opportunity costs are just too large for anything with real meat. Trying to do a Swashbuckler as a Fighter+archetype will end up hollow and unsatisfying, I guarantee it.
This is pretty much my thoughts. Before PF2 I was all in on the 'why have classes' bandwagon because PF2 promised so much in class customization.
But in practice, archetypes are slow and eat up a lot of resources and any attempt to convey a big idea entirely through them just... feels kinda bad as a result.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm just gonna drop a...probably lukewarm take here, I'd rather have 3 classes that do the exact same thing than force everything into little over 10 classes. It's one of the reasons I dislike 5E even after playing around in it, concepts that could be much more fleshed out if they were fully fledged classes. Divine Soul sorcerer instantly comes to mind for me as a cop-out for having a proper Oracle class in that game.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
|
|
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.
Yesssssssssss
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
The more I try to play with it the more I hate the archetype system in PF2, quite frankly. The opportunity costs are just too large for anything with real meat. Trying to do a Swashbuckler as a Fighter+archetype will end up hollow and unsatisfying, I guarantee it.
The archetype system works okay with double class feats, or with free archetype feats.
It doesn't work well for me without those. You just sacrifice too much and it takes too long.
So I'm just gonna drop a...probably lukewarm take here, I'd rather have 3 classes that do the exact same thing than force everything into little over 10 classes. It's one of the reasons I dislike 5E even after playing around in it, concepts that could be much more fleshed out if they were fully fledged classes. Divine Soul sorcerer instantly comes to mind for me as a cop-out for having a proper Oracle class in that game.
Having played a lot of 5e, and come up against the character options wall many times there, I agree with most of that concern. However, the issues I see with 5e's lack of options isn't so much the lack of distinct classes, it's that after 3rd level, for the most part, there is no variation in a given class/subclass choice. A 7th level 5e Swashbuckler made by Player A will be nearly identical to a 7th level 5e Swashbuckler made by Player B. I do not, however, have that concern with PF2, because choices continue to be made throughout all levels of character growth.
Of course it would come down to how the various archetypes (small a) are created. Some might work best as a distinct class, some might not. My question was not so much a statement that they shouldn't be classes, but whether it was even considered that they might not need to be.
The more I try to play with it the more I hate the archetype system in PF2, quite frankly. The opportunity costs are just too large for anything with real meat. Trying to do a Swashbuckler as a Fighter+archetype will end up hollow and unsatisfying, I guarantee it.
While I agree with you that traditional Archetypes seem lack luster right now, MCDs are awesome.
And I think a Swashbuckler built fighter with MCD rogue is not super expensive for a decently strong build setup.
And I’m still holding out for the “more than one type of dedication feat” for the fighter and champion classes so martials can dabble too.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a reply to a post in the Oracle thread, which I'm making here because, unlike these classes, there's zero reason to have this many threads
The benefit of the dedication feats I propose, is that you aren't making 'Sorcerer (Oracle)' be the replacement for the 1e Oracle class - you can have, instead, a 'Cleric' that is cursed by a mystery that trades a curse for power - or a wizard who dabbled a bit too much in his youth and was cursed with a similar affliction. The variety of these mechanics being able to be added to a number of base classes is far more enticing to me than the choice of 'I'm an Oracle' from level one, and that's just what you are for the rest of the game.
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!
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Panache Mode and Finishers are cool.
Panache Mode is my favorite band. Their hit song 'Enjoy the Silence Spell' is a classic.
The more I try to play with it the more I hate the archetype system in PF2, quite frankly. The opportunity costs are just too large for anything with real meat. Trying to do a Swashbuckler as a Fighter+archetype will end up hollow and unsatisfying, I guarantee it.While I agree with you that traditional Archetypes seem lack luster right now, MCDs are awesome.
And I think a Swashbuckler built fighter with MCD rogue is not super expensive for a decently strong build setup.
And I’m still holding out for the “more than one type of dedication feat” for the fighter and champion classes so martials can dabble too.
What do you mean when you reference more than one type of dedication feat for fighter and champion? Do you mean those classes get to take more than one ? Or there are extra types of fighter dedication ? And why those two classes? I assume this has been brought up somewhere else ...
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do you mean when you reference more than one type of dedication feat for fighter and champion
Fighter and Champion dedication just give proficiencies right now, so some players who want to multiclass for Fighter or Champion abilities have complained that it feels like a feat tax for characters who already have those proficiencies, since it essentially turns into an expensive version of skill training.
So some people have suggested that instead somewhere down the line Paizo could/should print alternate dedication feats that give some other bonus but require proficiency as a prerequisite.