Popularity Poll: What ONE Class should be prioritized for Aug 2021


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 194 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

But no really, you are pulling some impressive, and garish, gymnastics trying to be outraged there and trying to paint someone else as having a double standard.


Lanathar wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
keftiu wrote:
Forgive the double post, but if I can ask: any thoughts why Gunslinger isn't/won't be rolled into the Swashbuckler, and be a specialty for our fun tricksy Deeds class?

This is a good point. I think people are stuck of Grit and Panache being different because they were in the first edition . But perhaps it is because the ranged weapons might require such a big rewrite of the rules

Also the swashbuckler always gains panache through tumbling which doesn’t fit gunslinger

Sure it does! How many people in TV shows and movies do you see dodging and tumbling to avoid gunfire.
Kind of - except you can't currently use tumble to avoid ranged attacks in the game

That is good to know, definitely something for them to work on then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
But no really, you are pulling some impressive, and garish, gymnastics trying to be outraged there and trying to paint someone else as having a double standard.

Edited out the more specific double standard point as I was caught at a bad moment.

I personally find the proliferation of guns and the obsession with the 2A abhorrent. And i get uncomfortable when the boards are filled with people clamouring for them in the game - fantasy or not. And I appreciate that is seem like an odd stance to take when everyone else can run around and kill people with swords or magic

Perhaps it is because there are a lot more horrific incidents with firearms in contemporary news than swords or magic

So it touches a bit of a nerve.

There is clearly a cultural gap here


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think people clamor for guns because they project a modernism that isn't available in D&D.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
Rysky wrote:
But no really, you are pulling some impressive, and garish, gymnastics trying to be outraged there and trying to paint someone else as having a double standard.

Edited out the more specific double standard point as I was caught at a bad moment.

I personally find the proliferation of guns and the obsession with the 2A abhorrent. And i get uncomfortable when the boards are filled with people clamouring for them in the game - fantasy or not. And I appreciate that is seem like an odd stance to take when everyone else can run around and kill people with swords or magic

Perhaps it is because there are a lot more horrific incidents with firearms in contemporary news than swords or magic

So it touches a bit of a nerve.

There is clearly a cultural gap here

*nods*

I don't like guns in real life either, but in a fantasy setting I don't consider them any more evil than swords and bows, especially since you can usually kill more and effectively at that with the latter options.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Things made easier by not having the right to arm bears in your country, episode 342: discussion about firearms in fantasy RPGs.

In other news, rules for guns, not necessarily tied to a Gunslinger class, would be priority top 1 for me.


+1 for the Shaman


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Summoner 100% here

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have no ability to pick just one.

My top three are probably something like Magus, Drifter (as Drifter or something similar), and Kineticist all for doing something existing classes fundamentally don't, but there are a bunch of runner-ups.

keftiu wrote:
Forgive the double post, but if I can ask: any thoughts why Gunslinger isn't/won't be rolled into the Swashbuckler, and be a specialty for our fun tricksy Deeds class?

The thematics are pretty different, IMO. I don't see Gunslinger/Drifter/whatever being Charisma based, for one thing.


I am more interested in all new classes than the ones from 1e, but if there is a core fantasy RPG idea missing from the classes, its the magus. If they do convert it, they should probably do something like the black blade archetype with modifications.

Here are my thoughts on some of the other classes from 1e:

The gunslinger seem more like an archetype to me. A western gunslinger is basically a ranger with the gunslinger archetype.

Inquisitors seem more like a 3rd cleric subclass. They get light armor, war priest weapon progression, and access to some special inquisitor focus spells and class feats.

I love both the gunslinger and inquisitor classes in 1e, but don't really think we need them as classes in 2e.

Shaman are interesting with their spirit totems. It might be interesting if they were divine casters that get access to certain primal spells depending upon the totem spirits that they bring forth.

Summoners are only interesting in that the eidolan is a cool idea. I do not want them to also be conjurers. Instead, they should be an arcane spontaneous caster class whose main shtick is their eidolan-- that's what their class feats and abilities would focus on.

For new classes, I would like a class similar to a wizard, but that uses the occult tradition instead of the arcane tradition, and is sage like in that they make a study of various occult topics, gaining advantages in spell casting related to their topic. The topics that come immediately to mind are dreams, fey, the outer dark, and spirts/ghosts/hauntings.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
keftiu wrote:
Forgive the double post, but if I can ask: any thoughts why Gunslinger isn't/won't be rolled into the Swashbuckler, and be a specialty for our fun tricksy Deeds class?
The thematics are pretty different, IMO. I don't see Gunslinger/Drifter/whatever being Charisma based, for one thing.

From a mechanical standpoint, presumably Swashbucklers are still finesse fighters. A Drifter, Ronin, Knight Errant, or Gunslinger (all thematic sources to draw on) might also rely on precision damage, but they’re far more likely to have two handed melee and ranged weaponry.

So by the time you’ve redone Precise Strike and added enough feats to support the new weapon styles, as well as made sure you didn’t accidentally overpower something that was expected to only work with Agile or Finesse weapons, but now works with a bastard sword and heavy crossbow, you’re partway into making a new class anyways.

If it was a bolt on to a different class, I would expect it to get attached to the Ranger chassis, since Hunt Prey and Hunter’s Edge already work with all weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What is it people want from a magus class that isn't covered by multi-class dedications and feat selection? Mixing a martial with a caster is a much smoother process in 2e than the janky mess of multi-classing in 1e. One of the core benefits of the 1e magus was being able to cast and make a melee attack but the new action economy allows for that tactic and the Bespell Weapon feat encourages it.


Summoner for me to open up a stronger combat buddy concept (enables Spiritualists and lots of archetype potential).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Decimus Drake wrote:
What is it people want from a magus class that isn't covered by multi-class dedications and feat selection? Mixing a martial with a caster is a much smoother process in 2e than the janky mess of multi-classing in 1e. One of the core benefits of the 1e magus was being able to cast and make a melee attack but the new action economy allows for that tactic and the Bespell Weapon feat encourages it.

the problem is multiclassing here always results in either a wizard who can kinda (but not really) fight or a fighter with a small handful of spells with basically nothing encouraging you to combine them. A proper spellsword should from the ground up be built on the idea of magic in melee, which atm is impossible to do from either angle.


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
S. J. Digriz wrote:


Summoners are only interesting in that the eidolan is a cool idea. I do not want them to also be conjurers. Instead, they should be an arcane spontaneous caster class whose main shtick is their eidolan-- that's what their class feats and abilities would focus on.

I just cant see summoner working as a caster in this edition, casting eats too much of a classes power budget for the eidolon to do anything cool with what's left over, Instead i see summoner being restricted to eidalon based focus spells and maybe having the summon x spells as innate


Kekkres wrote:
S. J. Digriz wrote:


Summoners are only interesting in that the eidolan is a cool idea. I do not want them to also be conjurers. Instead, they should be an arcane spontaneous caster class whose main shtick is their eidolan-- that's what their class feats and abilities would focus on.
I just cant see summoner working as a caster in this edition, casting eats too much of a classes power budget for the eidolon to do anything cool with what's left over, Instead i see summoner being restricted to eidalon based focus spells and maybe having the summon x spells as innate

Well, you have druids and their animal companions. If summoners got fewer spells per level (3 max), and then also had an eidolon and class feats/focus spells that modified it, it would probably be OK as far as power level is concerned. You could also lower their arcane spell casting progression so that they at most obtain master proficiency.

I don't think they should have much special with regards to the arcane summoning spells-- they can obviously select them if they want. It should be mostly about the eidolon and the evolutions. They could have a focus spell that lets them apply an evolution to a summoned animal or dragon, however. And it would not be horrible to given them a class feat that lets them add summon giant, celestial, of fiend to their repertoire in place of some other spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I want all the summoner "power juice" to be pumped into their eidolon. That's what made 1E summoners unique to me, so I don't want to sacrifice options or power in order to attain spellcasting - I don't think the summoner needs it to stand on it's own. Eidolons also need be a far more character-defining than a druid's animal companion imo.

Casters as a whole in 2E generally get less powerful feats than martials (not to say caster feats are bad at all, and there are many standout ones). I think the summoner feats need to be "martial level" to really attain that oomph and make the eidolon into something truly customizable.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I have no ability to pick just one.

My top three are probably something like Magus, Drifter (as Drifter or something similar), and Kineticist all for doing something existing classes fundamentally don't, but there are a bunch of runner-ups.

keftiu wrote:
Forgive the double post, but if I can ask: any thoughts why Gunslinger isn't/won't be rolled into the Swashbuckler, and be a specialty for our fun tricksy Deeds class?
The thematics are pretty different, IMO. I don't see Gunslinger/Drifter/whatever being Charisma based, for one thing.

I would like them to be Con-based.

And I have the same top 3.

1-Kineticist because it is different and you can make a kineticist manipulating any aspect of the game, so lot of room for creativity.

2-Drifter because this trope needs its class.

3-Magus because gish is needed and multiclass does not capture the 50/50 mix nor the feeling of the PF1 class.

Shifter (as in shape-shifting Martial) would be nice too but must be reinvented.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Decimus Drake wrote:
What is it people want from a magus class that isn't covered by multi-class dedications and feat selection? Mixing a martial with a caster is a much smoother process in 2e than the janky mess of multi-classing in 1e. One of the core benefits of the 1e magus was being able to cast and make a melee attack but the new action economy allows for that tactic and the Bespell Weapon feat encourages it.

Meeting more in the middle: not a 80% martial/20% caster, and also not a 20% martial/80%caster, but something more 50/50.

Also, more melee-range magical abilities (spells/feats).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
Decimus Drake wrote:
What is it people want from a magus class that isn't covered by multi-class dedications and feat selection? Mixing a martial with a caster is a much smoother process in 2e than the janky mess of multi-classing in 1e. One of the core benefits of the 1e magus was being able to cast and make a melee attack but the new action economy allows for that tactic and the Bespell Weapon feat encourages it.

Meeting more in the middle: not a 80% martial/20% caster, and also not a 20% martial/80%caster, but something more 50/50.

Also, more melee-range magical abilities (spells/feats).

The problem with wanting 50/50 is that it begs the question: what are they bad at?

I’m not saying all gish fans are like this, but a vocal number of that particular crowd want to be incredible warriors and spellcasters, and I never see a good explanation of what they’re supposed to have as a drawback.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The drawback for Magus is that there is a limit to how often you can use magic.

They are a class that is worse when they use the parts individually. But when they use their abilities together they are extremely powerful.

Their stick is blending magic and martial abilities, and being the best at it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Agree with the above. A wizard who MCs fighter isn't good enough at fighting for it to be a primary part of their shtick (against higher level enemies they're going to miss constantly, even). A fighter who MCs wizard just doesn't have very much magic to use.

More importantly, neither really combines the two elements synergistically.

The main thing the magus did that older types of gishes failed to do was make the end product feel somewhat cohesive. Arcane pool, weapon enhancing and spell combat/spell strike all gave you ways to merge magical abilities with your attacking. Simply casting a spell and then making a strike doesn't really cut it.

How quickly it comes together is also important. A PF1 magus has spell combat, weapons, armor and spellcasting at level 1. A PF2 fighter/wizard gets their first, singular first level spell at level 4 and a wizard/fighter is looking at a similar amount of work to cobble together the proficiencies they need.

Beyond that, the PF2 feat system, with its penchant for giving martials unique combat activities and strikes, seems like a great way to expand upon that by giving a hypothetical Magus special attacks or stances that blend magical power and mundane combat expertise and I don't think an archetype alone would be very good at exploring that.

So yeah, +1 for Magus. I like Gunslingers and Summoners and stuff but this is an iconic fantasy archetype that PF2 just can't manage very well right now. It's such a big hole I'm honestly kind of surprised it wasn't part of the APG instead of the more derivative stuff we got.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll throw in my vote for magus.

I think it should either be a focus caster or the first 2 slot/level caster.


keftiu wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Decimus Drake wrote:
What is it people want from a magus class that isn't covered by multi-class dedications and feat selection? Mixing a martial with a caster is a much smoother process in 2e than the janky mess of multi-classing in 1e. One of the core benefits of the 1e magus was being able to cast and make a melee attack but the new action economy allows for that tactic and the Bespell Weapon feat encourages it.

Meeting more in the middle: not a 80% martial/20% caster, and also not a 20% martial/80%caster, but something more 50/50.

Also, more melee-range magical abilities (spells/feats).

The problem with wanting 50/50 is that it begs the question: what are they bad at?

I’m not saying all gish fans are like this, but a vocal number of that particular crowd want to be incredible warriors and spellcasters, and I never see a good explanation of what they’re supposed to have as a drawback.

Going by the Warpriest, they almost certainly won't get legendary casting, nor will they get a key ability in either Str or Dex. Combined, those are going to leave them playing catch up behind pure martials and pure casters, facing the same problems Champions and Monks have. They're also likely to get more of their feats dedicated to casting and using spell slots (specifically in combination with Spell Strike and Spell combat), meaning they'll lack the feat options Monks and Paladins have to make up for their MADness.

Salamileg wrote:
I think it should either be a focus caster or the first 2 slot/level caster.

Hard disagree with focus caster, but I don't object to 2 spells per level.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

+1 Magus, although Gunslinger is a close second for me


+1 Summoner


Kineticist.
Then Inquisitor as a cleric path and I like this Antiquarian idea.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Spiritualist, as something separate from Summoner. Give it the phantom as an option but other neat abilities like the ghost based classes from the ghostwalk campaign setting for 3.0, Danny phantom, or the current moonknight storyline.


keftiu wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Decimus Drake wrote:
What is it people want from a magus class that isn't covered by multi-class dedications and feat selection? Mixing a martial with a caster is a much smoother process in 2e than the janky mess of multi-classing in 1e. One of the core benefits of the 1e magus was being able to cast and make a melee attack but the new action economy allows for that tactic and the Bespell Weapon feat encourages it.

Meeting more in the middle: not a 80% martial/20% caster, and also not a 20% martial/80%caster, but something more 50/50.

Also, more melee-range magical abilities (spells/feats).

The problem with wanting 50/50 is that it begs the question: what are they bad at?

I’m not saying all gish fans are like this, but a vocal number of that particular crowd want to be incredible warriors and spellcasters, and I never see a good explanation of what they’re supposed to have as a drawback.

I know it doesn't translate well, but I really like P1E's magus. Less BAB than e.g. the fighter, less spells than e.g. the sorcerer. Perhaps master proficiency, but you split class feats between spells and swordplay, so you get less of each? Like spell slots as class feats.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Artificial 20 wrote:
keftiu wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Decimus Drake wrote:
What is it people want from a magus class that isn't covered by multi-class dedications and feat selection? Mixing a martial with a caster is a much smoother process in 2e than the janky mess of multi-classing in 1e. One of the core benefits of the 1e magus was being able to cast and make a melee attack but the new action economy allows for that tactic and the Bespell Weapon feat encourages it.

Meeting more in the middle: not a 80% martial/20% caster, and also not a 20% martial/80%caster, but something more 50/50.

Also, more melee-range magical abilities (spells/feats).

The problem with wanting 50/50 is that it begs the question: what are they bad at?

I’m not saying all gish fans are like this, but a vocal number of that particular crowd want to be incredible warriors and spellcasters, and I never see a good explanation of what they’re supposed to have as a drawback.

I know it doesn't translate well, but I really like P1E's magus. Less BAB than e.g. the fighter, less spells than e.g. the sorcerer. Perhaps master proficiency, but you split class feats between spells and swordplay, so you get less of each? Like spell slots as class feats.

Agree. Also, I feel that Fighter (with Wizard dedication) and Wizard (with Fighter dedication) currently do not allow for an effective gish build. The way monsters scale, those characters are either going to excel at spellcasting and suffer at fighting or the other way around. The way I see it, there is plenty of design space to translate this niche.

In addition to that, Magus has a plethora of unique feats and talents that, in my opinion makes them the best iteration of the Fighter-Wizard archetype in any f20 system. Spell Strike and Arcane Pool provide very interesting ways to build a character that blends both skillsets.

Slightly off topic, but I should point out that an user in the Reddit forums has been taking an effort to homebrew Magus first as a Wizard thesis and then as a class archetype for wizard and sorcerer. Their material seems great and could appease us Magus lovers while Paizo does not update the classe to 2e.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can't manage to limit myself to just one, but I'd give top 2.

+1 Shaman (because it's the only hybrid left after APG I think has enough theme to be worth its own class & could neatly fill the primal spontaneous niche).

+1 Magus Archetype (because spellstrike was fun/thematic and I'd hope to see a version of it again + with cantrip scaling there is little worry of it not being strong enough even if you'd be very limited on spells via archetype feat access. Also love the idea of an archetype allowing you to decide if your magus originated off a martial class or casting one and which side they leaned towards.)

Temperans wrote:
The drawback for Magus is that there is a limit to how often you can use magic.

This is not a drawback, it is encouragement to return to novaing and 15-min adventuring days. Which was part of the issue with the class in PF1 that caused some GMs to find it disruptive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon Onozuka wrote:
Temperans wrote:
The drawback for Magus is that there is a limit to how often you can use magic.
This is not a drawback, it is encouragement to return to novaing and 15-min adventuring days. Which was part of the issue with the class in PF1 that caused some GMs to find it disruptive.

A Magus in PF1e suffered from 15 minute adventuring if they went for the Shocking Grasp nova build.

If they went for the Multi Touch spell build they could very much cast 2 spells per combat: Mirror Image and Chill Touch.

In any case having a Magus class gives you a Magus archetype.
Having a Magus class gives you more feat support.
Having a Magus class means that anyone that wants to blend magic and combat can do so at level 1.

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

Also this is not the thread to discuss magus and the classes. So lets not derail too much by debating whether things should be archetypes or not. Lets just agree to disagree in this thread and discuss it else where.

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.

If I had to pick just 1 right now off the top of my head, Solarion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
If I had to pick just 1 right now off the top of my head, Solarion.

You're a freakin genius. I want to add Solarian to my list too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
Rysky wrote:
If I had to pick just 1 right now off the top of my head, Solarion.
You're a freakin genius. I want to add Solarian to my list too.

I think Solarion could be rolled into Kineticest as part of a melee focused suite of abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Solarion is a really great class and tbh I've had trouble playing Starfinder after getting used to PF2's action economy, not a bad pick at all.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd be completely on board with a Solarian inspired melee Kineticist build. That sounds awesome, and a great idea for pulling the somewhat too sci-fi thematics of Solarian into the standard fantasy setting of Pathfinder.

Given Fire and Void as existing Kineticist elements I think it would probably let you cover most of the Solarian stuff pretty well, while still focusing on the more fantastical element structure.


+1 Magus as a true Master/Master 2-slotted gish.

+0.5 Drifter as a very close second.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kineticist!!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm keeping a running total as a curiosity, and also to make it easier for Paizo to see where this thread is actually leaning. Using a rough 1 point for a first pick, and 0.5 points for secondary options...

Magus: 17 points. A few want it as an archetype, but the vast majority want it as a full class.

Drifter/Gunslinger: 13.5 points. The split on the name is roughly equivalent; a few are strongly either way, and most are ambivalent.

Kineticist/Solarian: 8 points.

Summoner: 7 points.

Inquisitor: 4.5 points

Antiquarian/Occultist: 4 points

Shaman: 2.5 points

Psychic, Medium and Bloodrager have also been mentioned.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have to say Drifter or Magus. Magus was my most played class in PF1 by an exceptional amount (if we’re talking player only), so it seems like betrayal to not pick it. The Drifter talk has just been on my mind as of late.

Verdant Wheel

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gunna say Hybrid Warrior/Mystic.

I am playing a Ranger / Cleric and Wizard / Fighter right now, and while I am having a blast, I will cede that the Ranger / Cleric plays essentially like a Ranger with a few neat tricks, and the Wizard / Fighter plays essentially like a Wizard with a few neat tricks.

Spell Slots somewhere between what a Spellcasting Class gets (2 or 3 or 4 New Slots @ 0/1/3/5/7/9/11/13/15/17/19) and what a Multiclass Spellcaster gets (1 or 2 New Slots @ 2/4/6/8/12/14/16/18/20).

Perhaps there are Two base Chassis: One that prioritizes Quality of slots (Fewer but Higher Level), and one that prioritizes Quantity of slots (More but Lower Level)?

Unsure if "true 50%/50%" is actually possible...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of my favorite PF1 classes was Inquisitor. I'd like to see it return as one of the Neutral aligned Champion options or in some way


Personally I am looking forward to Shaman, which I view as conceptually related to Occultist, just with latter focusing on particular objects as focus of spirits, so those could be specializations within a class. I also see those as being vehicle for Material-Spiritual Essence Tradition, which to me feels thematically appropriate while still mechanically coherent, not just about abstract "grid filling" of abstract Essence combos. How that translates to Knowledge skills is a bit awkward, but I am confortable allowing Occult to cover these classes' Traditions parallel with standard Occult Tradition (just as it also covers Monk abilities). Medium is also a Class concept closely related to Shaman/Occultist, and could make sense to publish at the same time.

While I think all expectations point to Kineticist being Focus based (if a unique variant on normal Focus mechanic), I think it would benefit from being conceptualized and mechanically approached under heading of Primal Tradition, Vital and Material, which seem appropriate to it's themes. I feel there is space for Kineticist class to not just be limited to "Elemental" aspects (even in P1E it tended to go beyond that), but encompass "Vital" aspects including Animal/Plant, which might open door to Shifter being a specific "aspect" within Kineticist (and while 'pure specialists' would still exist, hybrids with elemental and plant/animal powers would also be possible), although perhaps the overall name should then be adapted to be more broadly appropriate (Vitalomancer? Blood Channeler?)

Kineticist/Shifter delving in Elements and Vitality actually seems rather close to space a Primal Champion would operate in, but I don't see that as more problematic than Divine Sorceror VS Oracle VS Cleric... The Kineticist/Shifter would simply "have" these powers free of moral Anathema, while a Primal Champion would of course be subject to appropriate Anathema (even if they may be not be couched in Alignment terms to degree that Good/Evil Champion Anathema are). I could really see all the above classes being published alongside other Neutral Champions (Soul Cycle being other obvious Neutral Tenet).

Although it feels a bit "grid filling", I would suppose that Vital/Mental is also a potential Tradition niche... Perhaps it could be appropriate to manifest themes like Mesmerist, Psychic, or even Blood Rager? Those don't really feel like immediate publishing priorities to me, but certainly would be reasonable to occur eventually, and a distinct Tradition feels more compelling than yet another Occult class... I guess skill correlation is also issue here, while also attaching it to Occult skill could work, I could also see attaching it Nature skill as working, and appropriate considering Nature covers Beasts like Lamia, and Sphinx whose abilities seem up this Tradition's ally even if currently they are typed as Occult Innate spells. The idea of mental as well as supernatural vital powers simply occuring "naturally" as part of creature seems in line with Mesmerist/Blood Rager class concepts as well as those examples of creatures, as well as other creatures which could even be relatively low level while having some mental/vital powers.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

+1 for Magus. Was just watching Final Fantasy: Kingsglaive again the other day, and man do I want to make a Glaive! And casting spells through your sword is just plain awesome.

Henro wrote:

I want all the summoner "power juice" to be pumped into their eidolon. That's what made 1E summoners unique to me, so I don't want to sacrifice options or power in order to attain spellcasting - I don't think the summoner needs it to stand on it's own. Eidolons also need be a far more character-defining than a druid's animal companion imo.

Casters as a whole in 2E generally get less powerful feats than martials (not to say caster feats are bad at all, and there are many standout ones). I think the summoner feats need to be "martial level" to really attain that oomph and make the eidolon into something truly customizable.

This. I like the idea of a character that's actually mechanically weaker than their companion. I haven't played 2e Ranger yet, but when I was playing a 5e Ranger, I seemed to spend a lot of time protecting my animal companion and getting them out of danger. It'd be really fun seeing this concept reversed with 2e Summoner, where you have bonded with something much more powerful than yourself, that protects you from danger. Maybe make robust rules for a powerful companion creature chassis and find a way to let Spiritualist make use of them, or else meld with the Summoner class itself somehow.

I'd also really like to see a fresh look at Shamans.


+1 for Occultist.

I loved the class back in 1st Edition, so looking forward to see the 2e spin.


TheGentlemanDM wrote:
I'm keeping a running total as a curiosity, and also to make it easier for Paizo to see where this thread is actually leaning. Using a rough 1 point for a first pick, and 0.5 points for secondary options...

if that's how it's done...

+ 0.5 Summoner


Well if we keep to the 4 classes per book then ill go with

1. Gunslinger with a full section of gun rules in the book.

2. Summoner that can choose its spell list which affects the form of the Eidolon. I would want the class to be far more focused on augmenting and working with your Eidolon with a few support focus spells. The go to pet class.

3. Magus for that true gish experience. definitely needs spell strike and a blackblade subclass, Maybe the ability to add runes to your blade mid combat.

4. Inquisitor with teamwork feats and focus spell based judgements


Upon realizing the existence of .5 - also a +.5 for Summoner.


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

Summoner. The God Callers fascinate me.

51 to 100 of 194 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Popularity Poll: What ONE Class should be prioritized for Aug 2021 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.