What classes do you think will make the transition to 2e?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Archaeologist was used as an example of a 'generic role' Archetype (along with pirate and similar things) in an APG discussion, so it's probably in there.

How close it'll be to the 'no Performance Bard' PF1 version, I have no idea, though. Probably not very.

Hopefully not.

"My bard can be more personally powerful by selfishly keeping all the bonuses to myself" is not really a design space I hope they bring back. :P


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
"My bard can be more personally powerful by selfishly keeping all the bonuses to myself" is not really a design space I hope they bring back. :P

Why not? Someone who likes the majority of the Bard's aesthetic or mechanics but wants to play a more self contained class feels like pretty valid design space. The popularity of archetypes like arcane duelist, arrowsong and archaeologist kinda speaks to the staying power of such an idea too.

Breaking the mold is what archetypes should be all about anyways.


Squiggit wrote:
But if you want to be a true successor to the Magus class, you need to get that stuff up and running at level 1.

The original Magus didn't get their most signature ability until level 2, so I don't see doing everything at level 1 to be required for a "true successor."

Comparing to a level 1 Magus in PF1, the other unique feature of the class (Spell Combat) had the big draw of being able to cast and attack in the same round, which is something basically any caster can pull off now due to the new 3-action system. A lvl 1 Bard or Warpriest Cleric now can compare to the old lvl 1 Magus as a result, just with a more limited weapon selection (& better default armor for the Warpriest).

For a Wizard, grab an ancestral weapon familiarity feat, mage armor, and the shield cantrip and you're not far behind what the old magus would be at level 1 if remade in PF2. To be fair, arcane tradition seems to be the only one which lacks a class starting with training in light armor + some type of martial weapon, but I'd rather see some other spontaneous arcane class fill that niche (& thus allow Magus to build off that for arcane) rather than see Magus boxed into just the arcane tradition from the start. Because I can see the Magus niche as something that would work well being applied onto a caster of any tradition.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
We haven't seen what Class Archetypes can do yet. It's very plausible they can do things like change what level you get certain Proficiencies at and other 'chassis' stuff.

Considering classes typically get the same type of proficiency increases at the same levels - I could see a Magus-style class archetype as being a general caster class archetype that could be applied to any caster to swap their proficiency increases similar to how the Warpriest does it.

7th Level: Get expert weapon proficiency instead of expert spellcasting.
11th Level: Get expert spellcasting instead of expert weapon proficiency.
13th Level: Get expert armor increase in addition to expert unarmored increase gained.
15th Level: Get master fort saves instead of master spellcasting.
19th Level: Get master spellcasting instead of legendary spellcasting.

Add in a way to get additional weapon/armor training if the class doesn't have it within the first 3-4 levels and a feat for spell-strike and I'd say you've got a functioning magus archetype that can work on any caster. Add a couple optional focus spell feats for mimicking some of the previous magus arcana, and you've got most of what you'd need imo.

Lightwire wrote:
Are there any ideas from PF1 archtypes people want to see in PF2 in whatever fashion? A lot of those had the most flavor behind them. I was just thinking how much fun it would be get a archtype in this edition based on the Black Blade. Being say a Barbarian who gets in protracted arguments with their axe, and perhaps worries the rest of the party when they regularly loose them. I’m not sure what the mechanics would be but it seems like something that could be done fairly well on this system, and that’s just the first thing I thought of.

I'd agree on a Black-Blade style archetype.

Hoaxer (Bard) due to the interesting implications of deliberately creating cursed items.
Infiltrator (Investigator) due to focus on disguises and voice mimicry.
Magical Child (Vigilante) because I wanna make another mahou shoujo character - though wish mechanics focused less on the familiar.
Promethean Alchemist (Alchemist) While I have no idea how it'd work in PF2, I never got the chance to make one and the Homunculus Companion description seems like it'd set up tons of fun RP.
Sandman (Bard) because stealing spells is an interesting mechanic.
Spelleater (Bloodrager) is something that might be interesting, at least for having an archetype let you consume spell slots for a benefit.
Witchguard (Ranger) because it fun protecting party members & taking hits for them as a tanky character.
Witch Hunter (Inquisitor) because having an archetype dedicated to hunting down and killing bad spellcasters is always fun.

And do prestige classes returning as dedication archetypes count?
If so, Dragon Disciple for sure. And something similar to the Evangelist/Exalted/Sentinel from Inner Sea Gods as being something which can give enhanced deity benefits to any class that takes it.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Charon Onozuka wrote:
The original Magus didn't get their most signature ability until level 2, so I don't see doing everything at level 1 to be required for a "true successor."

Which is why I avoided mentioning Spellstrike. Spell Combat, Arcane Pool, martial weapons, light armor, cantrips and a respectable number of real spells per day were all part of the level 1 package, though.

Putting aside specific class features entirely, I say it's important to come online as soon as possible because, fundamentally, that's what the Magus exists to be. The PF1 Magus is a class that fulfills a niche right out the gate that previously could only be accomplished by smashing together feats and multiclassing options and didn't really work right until you were already deep (sometimes even nearing the end of) a campaign and even then never actually managed to combine those disparate aspects together.

So a feat chain that feeds that to you piecemeal over 4 or 8 levels and leaves no real room for personalization just... doesn't cut it.

Quote:
For a Wizard, grab an ancestral weapon familiarity feat

You talk about not being boxed in, having your weapon choice restricted based on your choice of ancestry doesn't sound particularly satisfying either.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

Hopefully not.

"My bard can be more personally powerful by selfishly keeping all the bonuses to myself" is not really a design space I hope they bring back. :P

That's not quite how I'd characterize Archaeologist. Archaeologist's bonuses aren't mostly higher than standard Bard aside from on Saves, they just get some Rogue Talents and anti-trap stuff instead of applying them to other people.

A Bard Archetype trading away Inspire Courage in PF2 would need to gain a lot to make up for it, even more than in PF1, but a Class Archetype that does so doesn't seem utterly inappropriate any more than playing an Occult Sorcerer rather than a Bard is.


Personally I see a Magus Archetype more as a Caster-focused option than something for both sides of the Caster/Martial split. Not every general archetype has to be something that every class can benefit equally from.

To that end, the Dedication could grant some Weapon/Armor proficiency and a "Spell Combat" option (I see something along the lines of a free Strike with every Somatic Component being an option) or just Spellstrike (delivering Touch-range spells through a weapon Strike). Then you can increase options through feats, and maybe have a feat somewhere along the line to increase your martial proficiencies... or maybe a feat that lets you, say, use Spellcasting proficiency for your Spellstrikes if we really want to play up the "you should be focusing on Spellstriking" angle. Maybe a feat to allow you to use ranged attacks/spells in Spellstrikes.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I'd like to see the Magus as a full class rather than an archetype, just so you can explore all of its options more deeply.

In terms of balancing it, there is one route that could be taken that would potentially permit being a true gish: cut back on spell slots.

Currently, the Warpriest gets expert martial weapons and master spellcasting with full 10th level casting, and this is considered to be perfectly fair (and actually a bit weak at higher levels).

I propose that a Magus class gets 5/13 weapon expertise and mastery as is normal for a martial class, and also gets 9/17 expert and master spellcasting as well, but gets less spell slots as the tradeoff.

They'd still go to 10th level magic, but with a baseline of two slots per spell level instead of three.

This means that they still get access to high level magic, and still feels like a proper martial class, but without being overpowered.

The baseline for a martial class is 5/13 with 7/15 weapon specialisation, plus a little something extra. Fighters get accuracy, Rogues get Sneak Attack, Champions get their reactions and AC... Magi would use the same base and get limited spells and Spellstrike as their niche.


Still don’t really agree on the magus, but honestly it’s all just opinion at this point since we’re just making wild guesses. And to that I say to each their own and hopefully we’ll still see it back sooner rather than later. I wasn’t kidding when I said it was one of my favorites. Also we got a little off target for the thread.

On one hand there were a lot of examples of the selfish bard so it’s clearly a design space they liked using. On the other the way they did it in PF1 is at its heart a math fix which they’re avoiding. So I think we can look to see something with the same idea but no idea how exactly they’ll choose to pull it off.


TheGentlemanDM wrote:

Personally, I'd like to see the Magus as a full class rather than an archetype, just so you can explore all of its options more deeply.

In terms of balancing it, there is one route that could be taken that would potentially permit being a true gish: cut back on spell slots.

Currently, the Warpriest gets expert martial weapons and master spellcasting with full 10th level casting, and this is considered to be perfectly fair (and actually a bit weak at higher levels).

I propose that a Magus class gets 5/13 weapon expertise and mastery as is normal for a martial class, and also gets 9/17 expert and master spellcasting as well, but gets less spell slots as the tradeoff.

They'd still go to 10th level magic, but with a baseline of two slots per spell level instead of three.

This means that they still get access to high level magic, and still feels like a proper martial class, but without being overpowered.

The baseline for a martial class is 5/13 with 7/15 weapon specialisation, plus a little something extra. Fighters get accuracy, Rogues get Sneak Attack, Champions get their reactions and AC... Magi would use the same base and get limited spells and Spellstrike as their niche.

That's pretty much what I was thinking too, but I think they should be a little behind on casting too. I feel like they should be behind one level and not get 10th level slots. That would fit halfway between current multiclassing and current full casters, and seems to keep about 80% effectiveness compared to full casters, which is how they would stack up against full martials.

With just martial proficiencies and key stat str they'll do 75%-80% or a similar fighters damage from 1-20


3 people marked this as a favorite.

IMO the three main classes I would love to see and would add a lot to the game imo for being unique

Shifter - Druids are still spellcasters and shapeshifting has to be quite a bit worse than a martial because of this. It would be nice to have the power of a martial in a shapeshifting class.

Summoner - Focus on Eidolon could be cool

Kineticist - A magic character not limited from spell slots would be fun.

I looked at current Archetypes and honestly they are quite underwhelming. I know Lost Omens was mostly about flavor compared to power. Most just seem way limited compared to dedications. Hopefully I am wrong but from current archetype I would much prefer the old PF1 classes just get classes.


RPGnoremac wrote:

IMO the three main classes I would love to see and would add a lot to the game imo for being unique

Shifter - Druids are still spellcasters and shapeshifting has to be quite a bit worse than a martial because of this. It would be nice to have the power of a martial in a shapeshifting class.

Summoner - Focus on Eidolon could be cool

Kineticist - A magic character not limited from spell slots would be fun.

I looked at current Archetypes and honestly they are quite underwhelming. I know Lost Omens was mostly about flavor compared to power. Most just seem way limited compared to dedications. Hopefully I am wrong but from current archetype I would much prefer the old PF1 classes just get classes.

The Halcyon archetypes are pretty dang amazing, in my opinion. But most of them are a little underwhelming in most campaigns, I'd agree. Since the APG will have more setting-neutral archetypes, we should be able to get a better grasp of what kind of power we can expect from that.

I'd disagree on Shifter needing to be its own class, though. I think that one can be handled by a class archetype that either takes spellcasting away from the druid or gives shapeshifting to the fighter.


Salamileg wrote:
RPGnoremac wrote:

IMO the three main classes I would love to see and would add a lot to the game imo for being unique

Shifter - Druids are still spellcasters and shapeshifting has to be quite a bit worse than a martial because of this. It would be nice to have the power of a martial in a shapeshifting class.

Summoner - Focus on Eidolon could be cool

Kineticist - A magic character not limited from spell slots would be fun.

I looked at current Archetypes and honestly they are quite underwhelming. I know Lost Omens was mostly about flavor compared to power. Most just seem way limited compared to dedications. Hopefully I am wrong but from current archetype I would much prefer the old PF1 classes just get classes.

The Halcyon archetypes are pretty dang amazing, in my opinion. But most of them are a little underwhelming in most campaigns, I'd agree. Since the APG will have more setting-neutral archetypes, we should be able to get a better grasp of what kind of power we can expect from that.

I'd disagree on Shifter needing to be its own class, though. I think that one can be handled by a class archetype that either takes spellcasting away from the druid or gives shapeshifting to the fighter.

That's just such a big change though, there's no reason to keep the old class, they're totally different then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have a feeling a couple of these things (summoner, gunslinger, shifter, or anything else that had "issues" in PF1) might have long waits before they show up. I think they all will show up, but I think Paizo really wants them good (and be acceptable at most tables) when they do arrive and that takes time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Of we do get Magus, they better get Master on both Weapons and Spells, otherwise the whole thing falls apart at higher levels, like Warpriest. Compunding not getting a favorable "primary" stat with lesser profiency makes the new 3/4 BAB fall off harder than they would in PF1.


Squiggit wrote:
Putting aside specific class features entirely, I say it's important to come online as soon as possible because, fundamentally, that's what the Magus exists to be. The PF1 Magus is a class that fulfills a niche right out the gate that previously could only be accomplished by smashing together feats and multiclassing options and didn't really work right until you were already deep (sometimes even nearing the end of) a campaign and even then never actually managed to combine those disparate aspects together.

Part of the reason I see Magus as being better off as an archetype is because I don't see them having enough of a unique presence to have something special right out of the gate, which I would agree is essential for a full class. Spell Combat is no longer special and a satisfying variation of Spellstrike is likely too powerful to get at level one.

Outside of that, being a combination of caster/martial means that they have to sacrifice somewhere or they risk ending up just being outright better than other classes, particularly in any low level games where a slower progression doesn't mean much. Especially since now everyone gets +level to their attack rolls & casters seem to be an all or nothing for full classes. Which is also why I enjoy archetype possibilities, because it could potentially give a choice on if the Magus was focusing towards the magical or martial side of the class.

Squiggit wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:
For a Wizard, grab an ancestral weapon familiarity feat
You talk about not being boxed in, having your weapon choice restricted based on your choice of ancestry doesn't sound particularly satisfying either.

Maybe not the most ideal sure, but looking at how fellow 6th level caster Warpriest turned out (3rd level to get all martial training), I kinda get the feeling that paizo might consider trained in all martial weapons + armor + spellcasting at level 1 to be too much. Every other caster also seems to have some type of martial weapon choice restriction - with the most flexible being the Warpriest having training in their deity's favored weapon and simple weapons (despite also having all martial at lvl 1 in PF1).

Really, the primary problems I see with most suggestions for a Magus full class are 1) not enough uniqueness to justify it in my opinion, and 2) trying to simultaneously match both martials & casters for most of their career while also getting better action economy with some of the proposed Spell Combat updates, which seems unbalanced.


Charon Onozuka wrote:


Part of the reason I see Magus as being better off as an archetype is because I don't see them having enough of a unique presence to have something special right out of the gate, which I would agree is essential for a full class. Spell Combat is no longer special and a satisfying variation of Spellstrike is likely too powerful to get at level one.

I would argue that spell combat can be special. True, striking and casting in the same round is something anyone can do, but spell combat is essentially 2 weapon fighting with a spell. So start with the variations we have of that, combining the damage of a spell and a strike to overcoming resistances.

Spell Strike is more like power attack. So I’d look at that feat as a PF2 replacement for spell strike.

Now, doing both of those in the same round will be a much higher level thing, if it can be done at all. (Honestly they seem kind of superfluous to try and do in the same round).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mechagamera wrote:
I have a feeling a couple of these things (summoner, gunslinger, shifter, or anything else that had "issues" in PF1) might have long waits before they show up. I think they all will show up, but I think Paizo really wants them good (and be acceptable at most tables) when they do arrive and that takes time.

This is what I think too. The 'easier' to convert classes will probably take priority, the ones with only small changes to game systems. Which is too bad, as the classes I tend to lean towards are the more out there ones like kineticist, BECAUSE they're so different a playstyle.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Hopefully not.

"My bard can be more personally powerful by selfishly keeping all the bonuses to myself" is not really a design space I hope they bring back. :P

That's not quite how I'd characterize Archaeologist. Archaeologist's bonuses aren't mostly higher than standard Bard aside from on Saves, they just get some Rogue Talents and anti-trap stuff instead of applying them to other people.

A Bard Archetype trading away Inspire Courage in PF2 would need to gain a lot to make up for it, even more than in PF1, but a Class Archetype that does so doesn't seem utterly inappropriate any more than playing an Occult Sorcerer rather than a Bard is.

That's fair. I'm admittedly biased because the only times I've seen Archeologist show up at my table was someone approaching it with the mindset of "how can I min-max a melee bard?" In particular, being a swift action from level 1 is a huge buff from that standpoint.

And of course this would inevitably be followed by the next words I see on their character sheet being "Fate's Favored". :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why do people keep ignoring Arcane Pool when talking about Magus. That ability is arguably one of the most unique abilities of the Magus, with few other classes being able to get something similiar. Heck Spellstrike wasn't even unique to the Magus in PF1, there is no reason to treat it as unique now.

Also yes no true gish in the same vein as Magus should ever get less than master in both martial and casting. To do other wise would require so crazy ability to break the system, and I am sure very few wants that. Finally stop looking at the Magus for just what the main class gives, Magus is one of the classes with most potential options (only Kineticist and Vigilante have more). The idea that Spellstrike makes or breaks a Magus is honestly kind of a weird hill to die one when the Swashbuckler clearly showed there are still ways to make exiting conversions that stick to the spirit of the class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Kasoh wrote:
I mean, Magus is looking for a new niche.
True, but unlike Shaman, it's pretty heavily thematically tied to being prepared and having a spellbook. I'd be surprised if they ditched that.
The existence of the eldritch scion would argue against that perspective. (I forget - is Regongar showing up in the 2E Kingmaker conversion?)

Spontaneous casting also worked well for the Mindblade Magus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Why do people keep ignoring Arcane Pool when talking about Magus.

Is there some reason to believe this won't just be focus? As in the Magus will be able to spend focus to do the sorts of things that the Arcane Pool used to do.

Like sure, you won't be able to use whatever ability 5 times in combat, instead going down to 1-3 more potent abilities but the same could be said about the monk's ki spells or the Paladin's LoH.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am just saying Spellstrike and Spell Combat are not the only things Magus gets and looking at only that distracts from the fact Magus has a lot more going for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
I am just saying Spellstrike and Spell Combat are not the only things Magus gets and looking at only that distracts from the fact Magus has a lot more going for it.

It does have other class abilities but however they choose to implement it most of those abilities aren’t compatible with the new system. The arcane pool for instance. The pool on a vanilla Magus had a lot of separate abilities but they almost all fit into a few small categories. There’s the weapon enhancement, which based on the current system would be both more powerful and much harder to pull off in the same way. The fact that the magic weapon spell doesn’t highten would imply the designers don’t want a spell to replace having the runes. There’s probably space for some design here, but I’m not sure exactly what that is.

There’s also the spell recall, but given how all the classes had their spells per day cut back I certainly can’t see any way to bring this back except as a reason for a feat for an extra high level spell or copying a wizards bond ability.

There were some pool based attacks that were used instead of spells, but with the improved combat abilities of cantrips that’s a moot point.

Then there’s the many options that give you a temporary bonus for one roll or another. They’re all math fixes, which is something this system is avoiding.

Metamagic has become an entirely different beast, so I don’t think any of those are relevant.

The weapon and armor proficiency has been brought up.

I can’t vouch for the others but for me at least I didn’t really bring up other abilities because I think most of them are irrelevant since they don’t really translate. We may get a focus spell or a feat with a name that references them, but I don’t think the Magus had any other abilities that translate into the new system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There are two things I really hope for the Magus compared to what I know of the PF1 Magus, it's versatility in how you build it and not getting locked to a specific flavor. For instance, I would remove the "one handed weapon and free hand" restriction. My ideal Magus weapon proficiencies would look like this:

Magus Weapon Proficiency wrote:

Trained in simple weapons

Trained in martial weapons from one weapon group of your choice
Trained in unarmed attacks

And you could use spell combat with any weapon you're at least trained in, including unarmed.

Similarly, I feel like there's a way to make the Magus work with spells other than touch spells. Here's how Spellstrike could work.

Spellstrike wrote:
You mix arcane might with martial training. Whenever you cast a spell that targets creatures or an area, you can choose to Strike as part of casting the spell. If the spell targets multiple creatures or affects an area, it instead only targets the target of your Strike. If the spell requires an attack roll, it uses the result of your Strike. On a critical hit, treat the result of any saving throws caused by the spell to be one degree worse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a GM, I'm not a big fan of "trained in a weapon group of your choice" thing. One thing I've been very appreciative of in 2E is that you don't hyper-invest in one particular weapon to the detriment of all others. That way, I can hand out varied weapon loot that my players are actually capable of using.

I also don't think it's a good drawback to add to a class's martial capabilities. It doesn't make them less powerful, only less versatile. This seems contrary to 2Es overall design.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm sure we'll get them all eventually, just not as classes. Some will be classes, others as archetypes or subclasses. Still more will exist through existing multiclass archetypes and feat combinations as "concept" classes.


@Henro
That's fair enough. I was mostly basing it on how fighters get legendary in one weapon group far earlier than other martial weapons, so I figured it's at least something that's been done in the rules already.


Another way to handle it might be to have it be determined by subclass. All Magi get simple weapons, one gets melee martial weapons, one gets ranged martial weapons, and the other only has simple weapons but gets improved spellcasting somehow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think pf2 handled the loot situation such that a player could only use one weapon group and be fine. Properties are transferable between weapons so it doesn't really matter what you hand out.


It does depend quite a bit on which weapon group there is. There's 3 martial spears and picks, while there's 8 martial knives and 15 martial swords.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Salamileg wrote:
It does depend quite a bit on which weapon group there is. There's 3 martial spears and picks, while there's 8 martial knives and 15 martial swords.

What I mean is that you presumably start with the weapon you want and after that it doesn't matter what drops. If you use a bastard sword and the GM gives you a +1 Striking Dagger, you can just move the potency and striking runes over and you've now got your +1 striking bastard sword.


@Topic: One thing I really hope for is that PF2 doesn't treat all the old classes as a checklist that has to be followed.

AnimatedPaper wrote:
I would argue that spell combat can be special. True, striking and casting in the same round is something anyone can do, but spell combat is essentially 2 weapon fighting with a spell. So start with the variations we have of that, combining the damage of a spell and a strike to overcoming resistances.

How would that work considering most spells are dealing damage of a different type than weapons?

AnimatedPaper wrote:
Spell Strike is more like power attack. So I’d look at that feat as a PF2 replacement for spell strike.

So like a scaling version of Bespell Weapon? Because if that's what spellstrike becomes, I'd be disappointed & see less reason for Magus to be something separate rather than become a thesis/subclass of Wizard.

Temperans wrote:
Why do people keep ignoring Arcane Pool when talking about Magus. That ability is arguably one of the most unique abilities of the Magus, with few other classes being able to get something similiar. Heck Spellstrike wasn't even unique to the Magus in PF1, there is no reason to treat it as unique now.

Because the initial ability of the Arcane Pool was a math fix that wouldn't translate well into PF2. As for Magus Arcana which used the arcane pool, multiple classes received some type of class pool in PF1, and in PF2 it'd likely turn into a set of focus abilities - which is something numerous classes have. So not really unique enough to base the class around.

While Spellstrike & Spell Combat aren't the only things the Magus got in PF1, they're the most standout features that you'd look at when trying to recreate the class in PF2. Arcane Pool/Arcana have a few interesting things, but not enough to form the core of a class - especially when most were optional to begin with and a lot do not translate well into PF2 (i.e. all the "add INT to non-INT ability" seems to be something paizo wants to avoid in this edition). And several other core progression features for the Magus were really just mimicking things the Fighter & Wizard had. (Which is part of why I'm not too keen on the full class idea, since it seems like it'd have to reprint/overlap on a lot of existing material to be satisfying.)


7 people marked this as a favorite.

The Magus is not needed because "spell combat" and "spellstrike" are needed.

The Magus is needed because splitting the distance between "good at combat" and "good at magic" is not really well done by multiclassing- a fighter who takes the wizard multiclass archetype is really good at weapons and kind of okay at magic; a wizard who takes the fighter archetype is really good at magic and kind of okay at combat. What people want is a character who is pretty good at both.

Moreover a character who is one class and takes all the multiclass feats for the other class doesn't really have the room for customizability that a whole class would, because a whole class gets to pick feats every other level while the fighter/wizard is tied into Basic Spellcasting, Expert Spellcasting, Breadth, Master Spellcasting, etc.


Charon Onozuka wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Why do people keep ignoring Arcane Pool when talking about Magus. That ability is arguably one of the most unique abilities of the Magus, with few other classes being able to get something similiar. Heck Spellstrike wasn't even unique to the Magus in PF1, there is no reason to treat it as unique now.

Because the initial ability of the Arcane Pool was a math fix that wouldn't translate well into PF2. As for Magus Arcana which used the arcane pool, multiple classes received some type of class pool in PF1, and in PF2 it'd likely turn into a set of focus abilities - which is something numerous classes have. So not really unique enough to base the class around.

While Spellstrike & Spell Combat aren't the only things the Magus got in PF1, they're the most standout features that you'd look at when trying to recreate the class in PF2. Arcane Pool/Arcana have a few interesting things, but not enough to form the core of a class - especially when most were optional to begin with and a lot do not translate well into PF2 (i.e. all the "add INT to non-INT ability" seems to be something paizo...

The initial benefit of Arcane Pool is literally get free weapon potency runes for 1 minute, that is not a hard or game breaking thing. The secondary part is again just giving you free runes for 1 minute, which again doesn't break things. Arcane Pool's main benefit is being able to reallocate wealth to something else, which is always useful. Then there are the secondary benefits from archetypes such as improving armor, speed, skills, etc.

How does "classes have focus spells" become "magus arcane/focus spells can't be interesting"? I literally cant follow that logic. Occultist is pretty much a focus caster, are you saying they can't exits because "other classes have focus spells"?... All that focus spells are its a framework, Paizo can literally give them any effect and add in any altering mechanics they want, there is 0 reason to only use mechanics introduced in core, specially when designing a new class. Heck some of the most fun classes were fun because they didn't follow the abilities set in core.

Spell Combat has been mostly made into something that every one can do, so there is no reason to convert it just like Bloodline Arcana wasn't converted, or how Smite wasn't really converted.

Also, most of the abilities that Magus had weren't not replicated in other classes for years if at all. So I fail to see how "they are based on Fighter/Wizard. I swear that is the same logic that was used against swashbuckler, saying it was just Fighter/Rogue mechanics.

*******************

Having said all that. I do feel like Shifter has a better chance to shine in this edition with Druids becoming overall worse at shifting than before. It means that Shifters have more space to become a good class, but they would need a lot of new abilities to fill out an entire class.

Mesmerist seems like it would be an Archetype, but that is because I haven't read much about it.

I would hove that the Orders and Challenge mechanics get converted as those were really good system. Not to mention that Orders are pretty much the origin of PF2 anathema. I think they would be an Archetype so that any class can take them.

I do wish prestige classes don't change unless needed. Many of their abilities were really nice and it would be good to get them back.


To be honest, I think the actual casting ability you get from multiclassing is about where it should be on a magus, topping off at 6th level spells and master spellcasting, and 2 spells per level. The annoying thing is that you need to give up five class feats to get there.

So maybe a class that gets both casting proficiency and combat advancement at about the rate a Warpriest does (or maybe a little faster, but not as fast as a proper martial), with casting advancement roughly aligned with multiclass casting, and an ability (perhaps as a focus spell) to "overcast" a spell (treat it as heightened) (reflecting how 1e magus spells were cast at full caster level even if their acquisition was delayed).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

One way to do Summoner would be as an occult caster, using Focus spells as the method of summoning the eidolon.

The psychic could be a primary Occult caster with focus spells and additional spells. The mesmerist, too, although the mesmerist and occultist work as bard archetypes, too.

Gunslinger is interesting. On the one hand, most of the classes got gun archetypes. On the other hand, they weren't all looking for the same things. If the gunslinger called back to the fighter and swashbuckler, and focused on light armor/no armor, and guns were in general widely available to characters who took the appropriate abilities, it could work.

The witch could be a full caster with occult and primal casting options.


Staffan Johansson wrote:
To be honest, I think the actual casting ability you get from multiclassing is about where it should be on a magus, topping off at 6th level spells and master spellcasting, and 2 spells per level. The annoying thing is that you need to give up five class feats to get there.

In PF1, a lot of Magus archetypes (including some popular ones) had reduced spellcasting in exchange for better martial acumen. So I imagine that via subclassing you would have to select between "better at magic than weapons" or "better at weapons than magic" as subclass options.

Sort of like the cloistered cleric/warpriest but the "more magic" magus starts out further along the armor/weapon proficiency curve and has less magic than the CC.


Charon Onozuka wrote:


AnimatedPaper wrote:
I would argue that spell combat can be special. True, striking and casting in the same round is something anyone can do, but spell combat is essentially 2 weapon fighting with a spell. So start with the variations we have of that, combining the damage of a spell and a strike to overcoming resistances.
How would that work considering most spells are dealing damage of a different type than weapons?

Exactly the same as every other dual wield feat I would assume, since all of them potentially run into the same issue. Before property runes come into play, that’s not a lot, but you also get the benefit of any weapon properties combined with the spell’s damage.

Also, the ranger and monk version have a action saving bonus, while the fighter version has an MAP bonus. Either would work for this, although I think the action saving bonus would be more in line with PF1.
Charon Onozuka wrote:


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Spell Strike is more like power attack. So I’d look at that feat as a PF2 replacement for spell strike.
So like a scaling version of Bespell Weapon? Because if that's what spellstrike becomes, I'd be disappointed & see less reason for Magus to be something separate rather than become a thesis/subclass of Wizard...

Exactly the opposite. The spell gets the extra die, and gets the die from your weapon, not whatever the spell’s die is.

Combine them, and let’s assume you’re somehow able to do both by level 2, you’d wind up with, say Produce Flame and a dogslicer. For a three action attack, you get 1d4 fire+ spell attack modifier+1d6 fire from Spell Strike+an additional 1d6 slashing+strength, assuming your second attack hits at -8. If any of that crits, the target is off balance AND on fire.

A fighter can do more pure weapon damage, but this would fit the paradigm of “spell plus sword” a little better, not overshining either martials or casters but also doing something not quite available with current options, even with multiclassing.

And that’s just two feats. If that was all the class offered, I might agree it could be an archetype, but add in the arcane pool options Temperans wants. The multilist options I’d like to see. Feats for ranged and dual wielding AND 2h fighting with spells and weapons.

Ymmv on all of this, but I think there’s enough there just rewriting martial feats so that they work properly with spells to make this a thing. And no, just making THAT the thesis wouldn’t quite work, due to the fact that martial feats are written with the assumption of a 1 action strike rather than 2 action spell cast.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
To be honest, I think the actual casting ability you get from multiclassing is about where it should be on a magus, topping off at 6th level spells and master spellcasting, and 2 spells per level. The annoying thing is that you need to give up five class feats to get there.

...of note, a Multiclassed Mage can get up to 8th level spells, not 6th. You're otherwise right about it taking 5 feats to get 2 spells of each level, but you are only 2 spell levels and 1 spell per level behind most classes at that point. And also only 1 Proficiency Tier behind in spell attacks/DCs (at Master).

In contrast a Multiclassed Martial can reach Expert in Martial weapons (with two Fighter feats) or Armor (with two Champion feats... and all the conditions attached to Multiclass Champion), or Trained in Advanced weapons (with the same two Fighter feats as Expert Martial).


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

OK its been a few days and reading through everyone elses thoughts i will refine my stance somewhat on all the classes

Cavalier & Vigilante - Confirmed as archetypes so irrelevant here

Gunslinger - I think this would probably be best suited as an archetype, either a broad one, or more likely one for the swashbuckler, PF2 is a system that will not tolerate the kind of intrinsic finicky nonsense of pf1 gun-play so having a bunch of features that remove that jank is not needed and there isn't enough left for a full class.

Summoner & Spiritualist - I think first of all if spiritualist comes back it will be a archetype or subclass of summoner. Onto summoner itself i actually do not see it being A caster at all (this is an opinion you will see a few times) None of the spell lists encourage summoning significantly and instead giving them Summon-supporting focus spells a suit of class abilities that are wholly devoted to aiding the edilon and maybe the a summon X spell or two as an innate spell.

Inquisitor & Magus - both of these are somewhat similer in that its tempting to make them an archetype or cross class but in both cases the end result is statistically inept for what the original class wanted to do. For both of them i think its best to focus more on the thematic archetype you are working with, the monster/demon/heretic hunting loner and the spellsword using magic to empower his swordplay. In both cases i think, like the summoner they would not be served well as 10 level casters. My suggestion is that they both get the same limited 8 level progression as archetype casters, and like the summoner a focus on focus spells over spell spells. As for spellstrike a possibility would be a focus spell that can burn a spell slot instead of a focus point(and casting itself at the appropriate level)

Shifter - I am legitimately unsure what they would give this to make it compare favorably to wild druid. Wild druid is already fantastic at shifting and has full casting on top.

Antipaladin - Unneeded, evil champions are coming

Ninja and Samurai - Archetype fodder with how flexible pf2 is alternatives this close to the original do not need to be distinct things mechanically

Arcanist - I dont know man, there really isnt enough here thematically to distinguish them from the wizard but at the same time im not sure they would make a wizard archetype that changes the core casting mechanic. My honest opinion is that in 2e "arcanists" proper never return but their casting style given as an option in ultimate magic or whatever.

Hunter - Ranger with Druid dedication Replicates this very well already, I could see it coming as a more specialized ranger archetype but nothing more and even thats a long shot

Bloodrager - given how the dragon instinct works for barbarians, Im not sure i really see that existing in the same world as a dragon bloodrager. Like the above if the bloodlines are not reduced to instincts at best i see this as a barbarian archetype

Brawler & Slayer - I'm of two minds about these two, they both do well enough with multi-class archetypes, furthermore with how much more open classes are there is no longer a need for a de-mystic-ed monk because you don't need any wisdom or ki at all if you don't want it. Realistically i don't think there is a need for either to return but i cant help but feel that there is some potential there.

Skald - Initially i thought barbarian with bard dedication covered this entirely but i have since discovered that compositions count as spells fully and are incompatible with rage. So it will probobly be either a warchant themed muse or instinct to cover this area.

Shamans - complete honesty here, i dont know what shamans do, ive never seen one in play so i dont know exactly how they work "in the wild" but based on the srd it looks like they would be best served as a witch archetype, perhaps that trades a static patron for a rotating suite of spirits


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

Addendum forgot occulties

Kineticist - No other class does what this does or comes even close, A lot of people think it should be its own class and i 100% agree that its a unique playstyle that should be represented

Mesmerist - I feel like it should be a bard muse, while mesmerists did not have anything musical about them before their general playstyle fits into the bard chassis quite nicely

Psychic - Im really not sure, I feel like thematically at least it should exist but with the current framework of 2e it would be a somewhat awkward transition, If we do see a returning psychic i feel it will likely look very different.

Occultist - much like summoner magus and inquisitor i think a full 10 level spell list is unfitting so instead i see this class focusing more on their implements, focus spells and especially rituals. no other class is thematically suited to specialize in rituals quite like occultists, and overall i see them moving to a dedicates support/utility role rather than their odd duck build-a-bear spell list and playstyle from pf1,

Medium - for me the 1e medium was always a disapointment mostly in that the spirits felt so flat and flavorless, however i cannot deny that no class can really replicate medium in any way so if they do chose to bring it back i hope they return to the playtest concept of the harrow deck spirits rather than the 6 "stat spirits"


Kekkres wrote:
Skald - Initially i thought barbarian with bard dedication covered this entirely but i have since discovered that compositions count as spells fully and are incompatible with rage. So it will probobly be either a warchant themed muse or instinct to cover this area.

Of note, there's actually nothing about Barbarians that explicitly denies Casting in general... just Concentrate-tagged Actions. On that note, the Cast A Spell Activity is not inherently Concentrate-tagged, and the only component that does have the Concentrate tag is Verbal components. As such, provided your spell doesn't have Verbal components (such as, say, a Visual-Performance Composition) you can cast it during a Rage just fine. Unfortunately the errata patched the "replace all components with Somatic components, and thus get rid of Concentrate tags in all spells" exploit by making playing the instrument just fulfill the component instead of replacing it.

All that said, Barb-MC-Bard still makes a poor substitution for Skald mechanically. After all, the big thing of the Skald is not being a Bard with Rage, but instead being able to inspire Rage in your allies. Something that is currently only possible with one of the Barbarian's Capstones.


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

Thinking on it a little more I actually think medium and shaman could work well as subclasses of the same chassis, what the class as a whole would be called I do not know, but the menagerie of otherworldly entities influencing and empowering you that I think there is a strong enough shared base to make something work there


I know in some stream one of the devs said gunslinger might make a return as a full class, but I honestly don't see how. "I use a gun instead of a bow... herr derr" makes for a fantastic archetype, but a full class? Unless you're going all Lone Ranger/John Wick on people with crazy trick shot gunplay using ricochets and muzzle flash and the like, I just can't see any ground for that to stand on. As a full class it would also be an archetype anyone could pick up, which is a nice piece of design of PF2, but those come with key stat prereqs, which can be lame. Kineticist HAS to be a full class if it returns, there's no way it can be anything less; but will it make a return at all? That class was absolutely massive, I imagine redoing it would be so much headache that Paizo might not even bother, so my hopes for that are slim, but if it's not DoA, it'll be MAJESTIC! As to Magi, dang we need a new thread just for them, those guys just invade any class related thread like termites :P But I'd love to see them return, I want Seltyiel back! Uhh... What other classes are there... ARCANIST! I can actually see them as a full returning class, being the "spontaneous arcane" slot that Paizo has kinda carved out with the "prepared/spontaneous X" pattern that has arisen with their class design. Neo-Vancian sounds like a quite fun thing to do in PF2, because (hot take) I really hate Vancian, and anything that gets me away from it I will hug, and I can see enough Exploits being turned into class feats to fuel a whole class suite. (I'm sorry if I'm rambly, I'm running on not a lot of sleep)


Yeah, I don't quite get the decision to make Gunslinger a class either. If they do, I hope that they don't make gun usage completely restricted to them again. I want a big game hunter ranger.


Salamileg wrote:
Yeah, I don't quite get the decision to make Gunslinger a class either. If they do, I hope that they don't make gun usage completely restricted to them again. I want a big game hunter ranger.

Don't worry, there's definitely not been a decision made. As I understand it, James Jacobs said he thought it should be a class, and Jason Bulmahn has definitely stated multiple times that he likes the idea of it being an archetype.

Clearly Paizo has not put their resources into building gunslingers yet, and so we're getting some spitballed thoughts here and there. At the very earliest we might see them in Jan 2021, but I'd be surprised if they were that early even.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

"I can use guns well" is an archetype.
"The Man With No Name- Fantasy Edition" is a class.


Salamileg wrote:
Yeah, I don't quite get the decision to make Gunslinger a class either. If they do, I hope that they don't make gun usage completely restricted to them again. I want a big game hunter ranger.

I also want this despite really not liking guns in my fantasy. I wanted to play an Allan Quartermain style character. But I recall the ranger archetype having some key holes


PossibleCabbage wrote:

"I can use guns well" is an archetype.

"The Man With No Name- Fantasy Edition" is a class.

I am not genre savvy enough to understand what unique things that would bring to justify a class ...? Could you please expand ?


Lanathar wrote:
I am not genre savvy enough to understand what unique things that would bring to justify a class ...? Could you please expand ?

So the basic idea would be that just like the monk is the clearinghouse for all manner of wuxia tropes, the gunslinger would be the clearinghouse for all manner of western (the genre) tropes.

51 to 100 of 174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / What classes do you think will make the transition to 2e? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.