I'm curious to see what classes you would like to see, and how, why, and/or in what form. Browsing through another popular forum based website, the most vocal opinions are, in no particular order, Gunslinger, Magus, and Inquisitor. There is also a lot of people simply saying "occult classes."
As for what I want: I would like a class called something like "Drifter." This class could contain all of the gritty, self-reliant, intense action, code of honor (not specifically good aligned) classes in one. We could get Gunslinger and Samurai in as subclasses for sure, both being the equal epitomes of the trope. Hell, I bet Brawler and Shifter could get in on this action. Marvel's Wolverine is a good example for Shifter, and while I don't have one for Brawler, something about it just screams that its appropriate to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
- Summoner. It'll be really useful for one of my homebrew settings. I'd definitely like to see it keep the customizable pet, whatever else that costs. (On the implausibly extreme side, I would be okay with the class even ditching the mortal side of the equation, and just making an eidolon class that rolls ancestry in.)
- Kineticist. Ranged magic class that uses class feats for at-will utility abilities. Preferably with burn still around in some form, since that was a cool thematic element, but I can absolutely respect folks who would rather see it replaced.
- Occultist. An item-focused Int-based magical class. I want to be able to interrogate objects again!
Those are my top three.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- Occultist. An item-focused Int-based magical class. I want to be able to interrogate objects again!
Its fun to imagine someone screaming at a sword "Who did you work for?!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like the bloodrager back in some focused manner. My first 1e character was a bloodrager and I'm rather fond of him so I'd like to see what he is like in 2e.
Rage Prophet was a prestige class in 1e that I was always interested in but never made work. If there was a Rage Prophet archetype I would appreciate that.
The Stonelord Paladin archetype was also a flavorful build I enjoyed, and if I'm able to recreate that in some fashion in 2e I would be very happy.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
- Summoner. It'll be really useful for one of my homebrew settings. I'd definitely like to see it keep the customizable pet, whatever else that costs.
Paizo doesn't seem to be walking away from the god-callers, so something that fills that role pretty much has to happen at some point.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like the medium and the occultist back for sure, and as their own classes. If we can make a psychic that feels meaningfully different than an occult-bloodline sorcerer, that would be nice too, but sorcerers being any-list has really reduced the pressure for that kind of thing in my opinion.
Magus. Def want a magus. I'd prefer they also be any-list, whether that means they are just an archetype or not.
I do miss gunslingers, but they'll be along, so I'm not really worried. I'll take however they come.
I wouldn't mind having the inquisitor come back, but I feel like it should be a cleric doctrine rather than its own class at this point.
We definitely need a kineticist, and that would have to be its own class. It will probably be the first class we get with focus cantrips but no actual spellcasting, which sounds really interesting as a design space.
I'd like Paizo to take another run at the shaman, so maybe I could figure out how they work this time?
I also kind of want the hunter back, but really that's just about wanting a Wis-based primal spontaneous caster. I can make do with ranger/sorcerers for the short term.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
-Mesmerist was my girlfriends favourite class, would love to see them back. Possible in the category of bard and witch with less spell slots but more utility build around it and their special cantrips (mesmerist stare) to support it
-Kineticist is one of my favourite classes, so many possibilities and the way their progression was build was already way closer to pf2 (even though some mechanics were clunky and really need a do-over)
-Samurai, which would probably be better served as archetype. A working sword saint would be nice, the concept was neat but the Iajutsu was horrible
-Magus had lots of flavour but was gimped by 3/4 attack bonus, considering that they would also be full caster (with 3 spells per level (question mark)) gives them potential to shine in 2e
Stuff I want and kind of expect to see at some point:
-Kineticist. At-will blasting with some utility is a great niche, I loved this class in PF1 and I think with PF2's action economy being more stable it'll be relatively easy to build this class to work well without some of the jank the original version dealt with.
-Magus. Not sure if archetype or full class, but being able to effectively blend swordplay and sorcery together is an archetypal niche that PF2 still doesn't do well. I'd prefer a full class because I think there's a lot of room to create combat feats and stances that further expand on that magic + martial combination. Unique Actions could be a big boon for the magus.
Stuff I want to see but am less sure of:
-Occultist. Loved this class. Legitimately one of my favorite things to play in PF1, especially the haunt channeler (at least thematically).
-Medium. A really cool idea for a class that sort of falls flat with the way its versatility clashes with the system. Having feats be class-centric like they are in PF2 might be a way to make the Medium function better at what it was originally intended to be, instead of just being a fighter with spells like most mediums i see in PF1 end up being.
Stuff I'm pretty sure won't ever happen but I still want:
-Arcanist. It's basically just a variant Wizard, but it has vastly more user friendly casting mechanics and exploits are more interesting and thematic than the class specific stuff PF1 Wizards got or PF2 Wizard class feats. Again, probably will never happen, but it's probably going to be long-term the thing that I miss the most from PF1.
-Factotum. Not sure if it's 'getting back' if I'm talking about a 3.5 class, but the Factotum was a really interesting concept. An int-based consummate dabbler that could pretty much do a little bit of everything. Sort of like almost a hodgepodge of Investigator and Occultist. The class was kind of a mess in 3.5 and did some really goofy things, but I think the design space of a class that dabbles in a bit of everything in an effort to be as utilitarian as possible is an interesting one and worth exploring. You can do a little bit of this with PF2 multiclassing, but it can be really slow too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-Factotum. Not sure if it's 'getting back' if I'm talking about a 3.5 class, but the Factotum was a really interesting concept. An int-based consummate dabbler that could pretty much do a little bit of everything. Sort of like almost a hodgepodge of Investigator and Occultist. The class was kind of a mess in 3.5 and did some really goofy things, but I think the design space of a class that dabbles in a bit of everything in an effort to be as utilitarian as possible is an interesting one and worth exploring. You can do a little bit of this with PF2 multiclassing, but it can be really slow too.
That sounds a bit like an alchemist with trapcrafting feat and the scoll and/or talisman archetypes comes somewhat close to this
I like the Drifter idea mentioned in the original post (something kicked around on here for a while).
Primarily because a gunslinger really doesn’t seem like it should be a class in its own right
Another name might be needed as Drifter doesn’t have universally positive connotations
I would like the bloodrager back in some focused manner. My first 1e character was a bloodrager and I'm rather fond of him so I'd like to see what he is like in 2e.
Rage Prophet was a prestige class in 1e that I was always interested in but never made work. If there was a Rage Prophet archetype I would appreciate that.
The Stonelord Paladin archetype was also a flavorful build I enjoyed, and if I'm able to recreate that in some fashion in 2e I would be very happy.
Living monolith seems to be turning into stone. It is of course tied to a specific region though.
I also wonder whether it loses too much by needing to take lots of LM feats to get the real benefit - trading out champion onesI’d currently only consider it with the “free archetype” variant
But a dwarf paladin with toughness, mountain stoutness, die hard and living monolith using the “free archetype” variant sounds loads of fun to play!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for what I want: I would like a class called something like "Drifter." This class could contain all of the gritty, self-reliant, intense action, code of honor (not specifically good aligned) classes in one. We could get Gunslinger and Samurai in as subclasses for sure, both being the equal epitomes of the trope. Hell, I bet Brawler and Shifter could get in on this action. Marvel's Wolverine is a good example for Shifter, and while I don't have one for Brawler, something about it just screams that its appropriate to me.
I definitely want this, as opposed to a more traditional Gunslinger Class.
The other Classes I really want are Magus, Inquisitor, Summoner, and Shaman, plus the Occult Classes (Kineticist, Occultist, Medium, and Psychic, specifically...I think Spiritualist can be combined with Summoner, and Mesmerist could be a Bard Muse) to round out the Classes I think should be converted directly.
Several others might show up as Archetypes, but I'm not super invested in most of them.
In terms of new Classes, aside from the Drifter mentioned above, I'm interested in seeing the Prepared/Spontaneous spellcasters for each tradition filled out (so, a Prepared Occult caster, maybe Occultist, a Spontaneous Primal caster, maybe Shaman, and a Spontaneous Arcane caster...I'm not sure what that'll look like), and seeing a Marshal/Warlord style Mundane Buff/Leadership Class.
and seeing a Marshal/Warlord style Mundane Buff/Leadership Class.
One of the new archetypes in the APG will be this (Marshal is the name after all), but a full class might be a bit more free in what exactly you can/can't do with it, more room for feats and baked in features
- *At the top of my list I really want Magus, my first PC was a Magus and my favorite iconic IS the Magus iconic (in case you don't have eyes :P)
- *Kineticist, my girlfriend played one, and I had one written up as a badguy in a campaign I was going to run (that got sidelined super hard) so I'd like another crack at that
- *Spiritualist/Summoner if only because STANDO POWAH, KONO DIO DAAA!!!
- *Psychic seems interesting, casting MINDBLAST! over and over like Professor X/Jean Grey seems like a fun thing to do, and it also have some other uses in a story that not much else does
That's it really, the other classes just don't seem interesting enough to warrant a full class (Slayer is kind of already remade in it's parent classes' new suites of abilities) except for Arcanist, but unless you HATE Vancian (which I do, down with Vance!) Arcanist just seems unnecessary, so I understand if it never makes it back to print (unless we see Neo-Vancian as an entire optional rule set in 2e's eventual equivalent of Ultimate Magic) so I can relegate that to the back burner.
* Gunslinger, moreso for my girlfriend than myself. I am interested to see how other classes can use guns though.
* As a 5e player Summoner and the Kineticist were the two classes I was always the most interested from an outsider's perspective. I'm not expecting to see the Summoner soon personally, that feels like something that will take a while to get the mechanics right.
* Magus is interesting to me, and I'm interested to see how it plays out. I tinkered around with a homebrew version for a bit, and I thought of making it a class with focus cantrips and full casting, but only getting two spells per level. I'm curious to see if we ever see a class with two spells per level, not necessarily the Magus.
My two favorite classes in 1E were Shaman and Slayer. I don't believe there's enough room for Slayer to be its own class anymore, unfortunately, but I would like to see a more rogue-like Ranger class path.
As for Shaman, I'm almost certain it won't come back, given Witches are going to be able to be Divine, there's not a whole lot of distinction left. Again, it would be a possible class path or archetype for Witches.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for Shaman, I'm almost certain it won't come back, given Witches are going to be able to be Divine, there's not a whole lot of distinction left. Again, it would be a possible class path or archetype for Witches.
As I suggested above, I think there's a place for Shaman's thematics in PF2 even if the mechanics will need to change a lot. In fact, I'd specifically say that Spontaneous Primal caster is a good place for it to land. It'd contrast nicely with Druid and you could build patron spirits more like Sorcerer Bloodlines than anything. It'd be neat, if no longer especially tied to Witch.
As for Shaman, I'm almost certain it won't come back, given Witches are going to be able to be Divine, there's not a whole lot of distinction left. Again, it would be a possible class path or archetype for Witches.As I suggested above, I think there's a place for Shaman's thematics in PF2 even if the mechanics will need to change a lot. In fact, I'd specifically say that Spontaneous Primal caster is a good place for it to land. It'd contrast nicely with Druid and you could build patron spirits more like Sorcerer Bloodlines than anything. It'd be neat, if no longer especially tied to Witch.
I should clarify, I like classes almost exclusively for their mechanical expressions, since I will reflavor anything to suit my needs. If a Shaman moves to far away from the Hexes, prepared Divine casting, and extreme flexibility, it would definitely no longer be my favorite class.
I 100% agree that the flavor of a Shaman could be put somewhere else, and even take the name. The Spontaneous Primal idea could be a good one.
Summoner - because it is a genuinely different class, not a hybrid or a variant.
Warlord - perhaps the Marshall will be interesting.
PF1 had a lot of interesting classes. Many I'd like to see return in some form in PF2 or at the very least the play style.
-Magus, Inquisitor, Occultist. Each had unique mechanics and flavor but in every game I ran or played in they all were played as a "gish". Definitely a spot for that in PF2.
-Summoner & Spiritualist had similar mechanics. A Thaumateurge type of class would be nice to have in PF2.
-Gunslinger I could see returning as an archetype with guidance for GMs on adjusting rarity and proficiency.
-Communing with spirits was a theme for Shaman and Mediums in PF1. I think there is a thematic space for them in PF2 even with the revamped witch and oracle.
-A tactician style class. In PF1 the cavalier had tactician and banner abilities to boost allies. The battle herald had abilities to boost allies. It would be nice to see that play style return and better supported in PF2 as a archetype or full fledged class.
-Kineticist had a unique flavor for being a "blasting" style of character. Having a class that can shape and weave the elements would be good to have in PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Ninja class could be reworked to have a broader umbrella than just an alternative Rogue.
I can already see some class paths for it. There could be Ninjas focused on Ninjutsu abilities, similar to Ki Spells from Monks, but covering more thematic aspects of the combat style. Another Ninja focused on Throwing weapons effectively (Shurikens, Kunais, Bombs, etc), that could offer some specific niche abilities that aren't covered by other throwing builds and an alchemist (The investigator is already engaging a little bit with alchemy). Then another class path focused on martial prowess, by taking advantage of all unique weapons they have.
Most of the classes people want back (me included) are casters it seems like, with the exception of gunslinger. But barring a themed book like occult adventures, I imagine the next batch of classes will be a mix of magic and martial. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the more mundane classes got big tweaks like the investigator did to become a very different beast. Slayer, brawler, ninja, samurai could all be reimagined in second edition in really cool ways.
The Magus and the Summoner were both super fun to me. I really love them, so I'd be down to see them in PF2e in some fashion. Either as a full-blown class or as an archetype. I understand it won't be a one-for-one conversion and that's fine. Something that captures the spirit of the Summoner and the Magus is neat. If they did do a Magus class, it'd be cool to expand them to more than just using a one-handed weapon. Maybe have options for armor and shields, or other weapons, melee and ranged.
I like the Gunslinger, but I think I'd prefer just rules for guns and an archetype that can be taking by other classes. I'll be honestly, I'm a sucker for mage guns and magic bullets.
I like the Occult classes, especially the Occultist. I'd love to see that make a combat. After that, the Medium and Kineticist are some I love.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Occultist, but renamed to Antiquarian because it most certainly is not an Occult caster in 2E terms. Seconding Drifter.
Shaman could really lean harder in to the "speaking to the spirits of the land" thing, be the primal spontaneous caster.
Medium should get its day of glory by stealing class feats.
-I think the judgement abilties and inquisitions would provide enough space to design a class for.
-Factotum was an insane mess in 3.5. I'm not sure how a class built to do everything can truly shine, without outshining, in a niche based system.
-I love the idea of Shaman being the spontaneous primal. One of my favorite characters was a licensed medical professional and shaman, and insisted everyone call him "Dr. Witch Doctor." I do think there is some merit to considering folding the Medium and the Shaman into one class, that chooses primal for shaman or occult for Medium.
-I tend to agree that Spiritualist and Summoner could be folded together. Summoner could be another "pick a list" class, and your Eidolon determines the list or the list determines what sorts of eidolons you can access.
-Ninja seems like too strong a fit for a rogue racket to me. The racket could give access to ninja themed weaponry, and their racket specific feats could easily give focus spells. As for throwing stuff, that could be an all-racket accesible set of feats.
-Slayer seems like it doesn't have a spot to fill anymore. Picking someone/something and deciding it needs to be dead is covered by the Ranger. I don't think a class that overshadows it would be very welcome.
-I never did like the Psychic much, but obviously I wouldn't be offended if they did bring them back.
-Kineticest is really popular here! I never had a chance to play one, but I did always like the idea of them. I agree that they, and the Occultist (which needs a new name), have a unique enough flavor to get the full class treatment.
Most of the classes people want back (me included) are casters it seems like, with the exception of gunslinger. But barring a themed book like occult adventures, I imagine the next batch of classes will be a mix of magic and martial. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the more mundane classes got big tweaks like the investigator did to become a very different beast. Slayer, brawler, ninja, samurai could all be reimagined in second edition in really cool ways.
I believe a majority of classes in 1e were spellcasters in some fashion, so that makes sense. A lot of the groundwork for purely martial things is done and out there. Brawler, Gunslinger, Samurai, and Shifter are the only purely martial classes that don't have full representation in 2e in some fashion.
I include Shifter because while they have magical shape shifting abilities, they are still expressed in an almost purely martial fashion. My post right above this one covers my thoughts on Slayer.
Part of the reason I'm interested in more caster-y stuff is I feel like martials right now have the most breadth to them.
PF2 casters right now generally all feel like they're built using the same playbook, with the biggest difference being whether you get 3 slots/level and some extra class features or 4 slots/level.
Slayer seems like it doesn't have a spot to fill anymore.
I agree. I'd go as far as to say that we already have the slayer, even. The PF2 ranger feels like it takes design notes a lot more from that class and then poaches feats from the PF1 ranger, rather than the other way around.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cavalier: Depending on how (I hope) the Cavalier archetype turns out in APG - I'd like to see archetypes based on the Cavalier Orders without any connection to mounted combat or being a tactician. Seems like a very cool thematic option to apply onto any class and I could see GMs making campaigns with a specific order being given to all players as a free archetype at the start.
Inquisitor: Cleric Doctrine similar to the Warpriest
Magus: Archetype. I'd want to see Magus able to tap into any tradition of magic with their core theme of blending magic and swordplay, but do not want a pick-a-list caster without strong thematic reasoning for it (Sorcerer Bloodline, Witch Patron). Also see it as similar to the Vigilante where it had archetypes mimicking many other classes and would be better to have as an archetype from the start.
Shaman: Class, Primal Spontaneous Caster. Focus on thematic connection to spirits/spirit animals and perhaps take some influence from the Hunter's Animal Focus (themed as borrowing abilities from spirit animal) and/or the Medium.
Summoner: Class, but not an actual caster. Has some focus spells, maybe cantrips, & some extra abilities with rituals (how they summon Eidolon). This way the Eidolon can actually be a stronger companion without the main character also having the versatility of a caster. Also absorb the Spiritualist into the class, maybe as a class path. Finally, get rid of the extra castings of summon monster - that feels like something more appropriate to a Conjuration Specialist rather than being sectioned off into a unique class.
Most other Hybrid Classes: Break unique features into class feats and/or class paths for their parent classes.
I include Shifter because while they have magical shape shifting abilities, they are still expressed in an almost purely martial fashion. My post right above this one covers my thoughts on Slayer.
I feel like the Shifter could be something like: Take a Wild Druid, remove the spellcasting other than focus spells (wild morph and wild shape), give Martial proficiencies (attacks and AC go to master, maybe even one thing going to Legendary) and come up with some interesting class feats. Bam, shifter.
I personally hope that if shifter comes out it's a lot closer to adaptive shifter than regular shifter, but that's just me
I too want a shifter back. I also want there to be ooze-based shapeshifting converted. Both the oozemorph style (you are an ooze and shapeshift into not-ooze with ooze weapons to attack) and the cave druid style (you shapeshift into an ooze to attack). I like oozes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have much to add since the last time these threads came around (bring everything back in name at least, come up with new mechanics if PF2 rendered previous mechanics obsolete), although I actually did what I threatened and 'brewed up a Dragonfire Adept knock-off. Except I keep picking at that gun statblock in AoA2.
It looks a lot like a spell to me. Those reload components mirror spell components, except that because its a set of actions instead of one activity, it can be split over multiple rounds. Also worth noting is that it takes a whopping 5 actions for a single shot.
If that is their starting point for how guns work in PF2, instead of basically an advanced weapon with perhaps a new tag or two (what most assumed, myself included), I can see why playtesting guns will be tricky. The more I look at that, the more I think the gunslinger might actually come back as a standalone class. I rather doubt an archetype will have the page and feat support necessary to carry them.
I would like to see a skill, fighting, and magic class path included within the gunslinger class, assuming it is a full class.
Right now, I really want to see the Magus. I would prefer a full class, but an archetype version could be great also with the possibility of putting it on top of any caster class.
Then, Inquisitor, Gunslinger and Kinecticist in that order.
I don't necessarily think that the AoA NPC's blunderbuss mirrors how guns will work. However, I may be wrong. I should also point out that AoA also gave us an NPC that had Spell Strike and I thought that version of the ability could work fine.
I include Shifter because while they have magical shape shifting abilities, they are still expressed in an almost purely martial fashion. My post right above this one covers my thoughts on Slayer.I feel like the Shifter could be something like: Take a Wild Druid, remove the spellcasting other than focus spells (wild morph and wild shape), give Martial proficiencies (attacks and AC go to master, maybe even one thing going to Legendary) and come up with some interesting class feats. Bam, shifter.
Another take could be: start with the monk, give them Wild shape and wild morph, and let wild morph be able to cast for free within a certain stance or stances.
I'm still hoping for Monk "schools" at a certain point, where you add an anathema and get a new power and stance and access to higher level feats that build on those. I think a primal casting monk whose abilities worked while in wild form would work well for a shifter and within that kind of framework, assuming they don't go for a full class. I assume being 'shaped would preclude you from most stances (that's how I'd rule it at least), but you could still use ones like Wolf, Dragon, and Tiger Stance.
A brawler could be another school, where the anathema is you're not able to take Ki spells, but get those shifting fighter feats instead. Or more readily, get a brawler stance where every time you enter it you can select a number of fighter feats, probably at a 1-1 rate. I.e, at first level you get the stance and 1 feat when you enter it. at a higher level, you get the improved stance feat and can choose a second feat, and so on.
I don't necessarily think that the AoA NPC's blunderbuss mirrors how guns will work. However, I may be wrong. I should also point out that AoA also gave us an NPC that had Spell Strike and I thought that version of the ability could work fine.
Link so we're all on the same page
I think that would be slightly OP as the basic pattern for a spell strike, but perfectly fine as a higher level improved version. If it counted as two strikes on the MAP or required adding an action, both of which you could spend a feat to eliminate later on, it would work for me.Edit: Also adding the gun link again, because apparently I didn't do it correctly the first time.
I don't necessarily think that the AoA NPC's blunderbuss mirrors how guns will work. However, I may be wrong.
They're very insistent that guns will require a lot of playtesting, and I don't really see why that would be true if guns more or less worked the same as every other weapon. THAT clusterfluff of stat block, that I can see needing to be tuned.
I don't necessarily think that the AoA NPC's blunderbuss mirrors how guns will work. However, I may be wrong. I should also point out that AoA also gave us an NPC that had Spell Strike and I thought that version of the ability could work fine.Link so we're all on the same page
I think that would be slightly OP as the basic pattern for a spell strike, but perfectly fine as a higher level improved version. If it counted as two strikes on the MAP or required adding an action, both of which you could spend a feat to eliminate later on, it would work for me.Edit: Also adding the gun link again, because apparently I didn't do it correctly the first time.
I don't necessarily think that the AoA NPC's blunderbuss mirrors how guns will work. However, I may be wrong.They're very insistent that guns will require a lot of playtesting, and I don't really see why that would be true if guns more or less worked the same as every other weapon. THAT clusterfluff of stat block, that I can see needing to be tuned.
Completely agree
The problem with guns is how do they make them more distinct than "loud crossbows." I agree that that would need a bunch of playtesting, just to make sure they are satisfying for players.
The problem with guns is how do they make them more distinct than "loud crossbows." I agree that that would need a bunch of playtesting, just to make sure they are satisfying for players.
They could have specific traits. One thing that could be interesting is that different kinds of ammunition added different traits to the weapon, if they want the guns to be more "tamed", otherwise they could do like it happened in PF1e with alchemical cartridges, bullets with spells in them, etc.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see the Occultist reworked as a branch of a 'Master Craftsman' Class that works with Weapons, Armor, Trinkets, other Magic Items, Constructs, and non-alchemical Equipment at large.
One branch focuses on crafting, repairing, sharpening, and improving equipment in the field quickly and with limited resources. Using Focus Spells they can dramatically improve the tactical edge their equipment provides via temporary Runes and perhaps even adding Weapon Traits to equipment like Fatal or Deadly on the fly. A master armorer/quartermaster who travels with the party that spends time preparing weapons, armor, and other equipment for use during the day to give an "edge" on their opponents through routine maintenance and hard work rather than magic.
The second branch focuses on crafting, using, and performing tricks Trinkets and Magic Items and would fill the roles that Occultist did in 1st Ed. Focus spells should allow them to emulate having a Spellcasting Tradition/Spell List and possessing Feats temporarily so they can use Talisman in a flexible manner as well as being able to "consume" Talisman in the same way Wands are used, one free use per day with at 50% chance of it breaking on the second attempt.
Lastly, the third branch would be setup for Golem and Construct Minion creation and usage. Minions are easier than ever to sketch up and keep within the mechanical balance of the system and offering a way that a character can begin building their Iron Golem right out of the gate would be a huge improvement over the high-level requirements, coin cost, and crafting time required currently which makes using these types of constructs as a Player burdensome if not prohibitively hard to get access to.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really wanted to see archtypes that are connected to a single weapon or can summon them. Bladebound magus, Steelbound fighter, Gloom Blade, Phantom Blade, etc. Could probably just roll all these up into one archtype.
Loved the occult stuff when it came out and can't wait to see some return. Also Gunslinger and Magus of course
Really wanted to see archtypes that are connected to a single weapon or can summon them. Bladebound magus, Steelbound fighter, Gloom Blade, Phantom Blade, etc. Could probably just roll all these up into one archtype.
Those were always very cool to me, even more so after I read Brandon Sanderson's books.
I would think some classes are unlikely to come back as separate classes, which is fine by me. But I've already been surprised by the APG lineup, namely that Swashbuckler is even distinct enough to warrant a separate class from the Fighter.
The distinction of occult and arcane is a good one for new design space. It differentiates witches, bards and wizards nicely, since I have no doubt witches are at least somewhat occult or maybe primal (would be pretty weird if not). But I have to wonder if they are going to make a fifth in the form of psychic just so they can fit back in the psychic spellcasters and how they might appear.
One I am interested in seeing return is definitely kineticist and summoner. Both of those are fairly interesting classes with mechanics that let them operate fairly differently to the others. Kineticist burn us maybe one of the most unique limitations I saw out of PF1 design.
I would imagine Kineticist burn to work along the lines of the oracle curse. Notably how the life one taxed their body. At least if the idea is to stick to that theme
Perhaps unlike oracle it gets focus slots but can increase the number through “burn” - if I have remembered how it worked in the playtest
Legendary games are apparently doing something that involved the stunned condition. It is certainly intriguing that someone who writes for paizo is designing a third party version of a class that will definitely come out in 2E before the main team get a chance. It seems like treading on toes of the design team to me and potentially trying to put ideas in their heads before it happens . I would hope (and expect) the design team to pay limited attention to what third parties are doing even if there is a partial working relationship there
I think that is the case as the design team are quite separate
The design team indicated during their AMAs for PaizoCon that the actual "psychic" casters (ie, psychic) would use the occult list and have their own gimmicks. Like I can totally see psychic as a fun occult caster with Phrenic Amplifications and Disciplines.
Occultist is most certainly an arcane caster in 2E terms, so it doesn't really need to worry about that.
Also, why would they ignore good ideas if they come from 3pp? While it's certain that Paizo will probably make their own kineticist a lot more in-depth - I anticipate a lot more in terms of relation to the planes - that doesn't somehow invalidate any good ideas in Legendary's.
I said why - Legendary’s is coming from a “fan” of the class and therefore someone who potentially has significant bias.
It is an unusual project given that it is definitely going to be superseded at some point. Possible only in one year
***
Connected to this I wonder what kind of “concept book” this class (and other new ones) would fit into. The design team have indicated that there is unlikely to be thing like “ultimate magic”, “ultimate combat”, ACG going forward
So how should future classes be batched up?
By region perhaps ?
And does this give new inspiration for “new” classes?
If we assume region where would the unreleased 1E potentially be tied to?
Leaving aside whether they will be full classes :
Gunslinger - impossible lands
Magus - could potentially be impossible lands as well
Occultist - eye of dread
Shaman - saga lands
Skald - saga lands
Etc
I said why - Legendary’s is coming from a “fan” of the class and therefore someone who potentially has significant bias.
It is an unusual project given that it is definitely going to be superseded at some point. Possible only in one year
What effect do you think the bias will result in that the eventual playtest won't address?
In theory - none. Assuming a perfect playtest
But playtest is feedback based. If the fans love a theoretically “too powerful” version of the class I am not sure how a playtest will actually uncover that aspect
Or it might call for people giving feedback to loudly call for certain theoretically “too powerful” elements in large numbers
But I cannot remember the full scope of the playtest .
I assume there were GM sections where they said “this class over or underperformed expectations”
*
This does of course assume that it ends up on the strong side. It might not.
I am more confused about why it needs to happen. Unless there is some whispers that Kineticist doesn’t make the 2021 release. In which case “fair enough”. But work started on this seemingly before the full release of 2E or shortly after (presumably after it became obvious it wasn’t going to make APG)