Classes / Archetypes to come...

[Invictus Novo]

So I'm eagerly awaiting the Secrets of Magic book next year because I'm in love with the Summoner class (am in all game types). While I wait, I was thinking of the other classes from 1e that haven't yet arrived in 2e and as I looked there are a number that just seem like they would be better Archetypes or maybe class options rather than whole classes themselves. Here are my thoughts on what we have left, would love to hear other thoughts as well.

Cavalier - Archetype - this was just introduced in APG and I think it works well here

Gunslinger - Class - Just too many unique aspects for anything less I think

Inquisitor - Subclass of a Cleric or perhaps a type of Champion

Magus - Class - announced as part of Secrets of Magic

Shifter - Subclass of a Druid - I always thought this should be a Druid branch, basically trade spells for better and partial wild shaping (1e screwed the pooch on this though)

Vampire Hunter - Archetype - seems like it could go with a lot of classes and add some niche stuff

Ninja - Archetype - I initially though subclass for a rogue, but I can see other classes really benefiting from some Ninja training

Samurai - Archetype - they were basically a Cavalier without a mount and similar to our new Marshal

Arcanist - I'm torn between a Wizard subclass and a full class

Bloodrager - Subclass of a Barbarian - really seems to fit in nicely with the others

Brawler - I'm torn between a Monk subclass or a Archetype

Shaman - Class - I originally thought this would be a Druid or Summoner subclass, but there is enough uniqueness of this to warrant a class of its own I think

Slayer - Subclass of a Ranger - seems to fit in with the whole "hunter" vibe of the Ranger

Kineticist - Class - these are very unique with their own mechanic. Would love to see them redone in a more friendly way though (they had a very high learning curve, but were so fun once you got it)

Medium - ???? - I really have no idea

Mesmerist - subclass of a Witch? - Thematically the Witch and Mesmerist are very different. However both are controllers and de-buffers at heart. I could easily be convinced otherwise though

Occultist - Archetype - they always came across as rather gimmicky to me and I think they would make a good Archetype for a lot of 2e classes

Psychic - As they were in 1e, this could be a good Sorcerer or Wizard (I know they were spontaneous) subclass - That said, I would love to see them be made a bit more unique and become a full class

Spiritualist - Subclass of the Summoner - They are so very similar mechanically that it was almost like they wanted a re-do for the Summoner originally

So, those are my thoughts, anybody have any of their own to share?

P.S. please don't hate me if I didn't do your favorite class justice :)

[waltero]

A couple of quick thoughts...

Elemental bloodline Sorcerer sort of works like a kineticist.

I could see Occultist being an Investigator subtype.

[Mellored]

I still want to see a puppet / animation / Golem pet class.

Similar to a summoner, but no spells.

[Gisher]

Invictus Novo wrote:

...

Occultist - Archetype - they always came across as rather gimmicky to me and I think they would make a good Archetype for a lot of 2e classes
...
P.S. please don't hate me if I didn't do your favorite class justice :)

I hate you.

;)

[Snes]

Gisher wrote:

Invictus Novo wrote:

...

Occultist - Archetype - they always came across as rather gimmicky to me and I think they would make a good Archetype for a lot of 2e classes
...
P.S. please don't hate me if I didn't do your favorite class justice :)

I hate you.

;)

What is an occultist to you? I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept. If it really can be summed up as "They collect magical trinkets that give them spells" then it's entirely possible that it could work as an archetype instead of a full class.

[Lanathar]

waltero wrote:

A couple of quick thoughts...

Elemental bloodline Sorcerer sort of works like a kineticist.

I could see Occultist being an Investigator subtype.

There are a lot of people who really don’t like your sorcerer suggestion. It is floated semi regularly (which in my mind points to there actually being something to it). But the suggestion is soon met with anguished bowls of derision from a very very vocal fanbase

And leaving all that aside, one of the main 2E designers made the class and won’t be ditching it. I think he might even have said as much

[Kelseus]

I would say Brawler is already a martial artist Archetype.

[Deadmanwalking]

Yeah, Brawler is mostly covered by a Fighter going Martial Artist. Likewise Ranger already covers Slayer pretty directly with no needed changes.

And we know Summoner is going to be able to pick a Tradition, which I suspect will cover Spiritualist eventually if not immediately.

In terms of other Classes, I think we'll see Inquisitor again as its own Class, along with Shaman (possibly as the Spontaneous Primal Caster), Kineticist (as a cantrip and focus spell only caster), Occultist, and Psychic (either of which might be the Prepared Occult caster). The Inquisitor is too popular not to reappear and the rest all did something really unique in PF1 that can adapt well to PF2.

Bloodrager might show up as a Barbarian option, it's true, and Shifter could show up as a Druid one (though I doubt it), and I could see Mesmerist as a Bard Class Archetype (which could be very cool), but most of the rest are probably destined to not show up or show up as Archetypes.

Arcanist is, perhaps, an exception, though I have no idea how exactly they'd work it in. It'd be interesting to see, though.

Gunslinger, in the sense of using guns will, I think, be an Archetype, but there's been a lot of discussion of a 'Drifter' class using a Grit mechanic to reflect archetypal steely-eyed wanderers appropriate to Westerns, Samurai movies, and several other genres but unrestricted in weapon selection, and I think that's plausible (and might have a Class Path or set of Feats specifically for guns).

[Gisher]

Snes wrote:

Gisher wrote:

Invictus Novo wrote:

...

Occultist - Archetype - they always came across as rather gimmicky to me and I think they would make a good Archetype for a lot of 2e classes
...
P.S. please don't hate me if I didn't do your favorite class justice :)

I hate you.

;)

What is an occultist to you? I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept. If it really can be summed up as "They collect magical trinkets that give them spells" then it's entirely possible that it could work as an archetype instead of a full class.

I hope it was clear from the ";)" that I was joking. I just couldn't resist the setup line. I'm fine with the Occultist being an archetype or a class subtype.

[cavernshark]

Invictus Novo wrote:

So I'm eagerly awaiting the Secrets of Magic book next year because I'm in love with the Summoner class (am in all game types). While I wait, I was thinking of the other classes from 1e that haven't yet arrived in 2e and as I looked there are a number that just seem like they would be better Archetypes or maybe class options rather than whole classes themselves. Here are my thoughts on what we have left, would love to hear other thoughts as well.

Cavalier - Archetype - this was just introduced in APG and I think it works well here

Gunslinger - Class - Just too many unique aspects for anything less I think

Inquisitor - Subclass of a Cleric or perhaps a type of Champion

Magus - Class - announced as part of Secrets of Magic

Shifter - Subclass of a Druid - I always thought this should be a Druid branch, basically trade spells for better and partial wild shaping (1e screwed the pooch on this though)

Vampire Hunter - Archetype - seems like it could go with a lot of classes and add some niche stuff

Ninja - Archetype - I initially though subclass for a rogue, but I can see other classes really benefiting from some Ninja training

Samurai - Archetype - they were basically a Cavalier without a mount and similar to our new Marshal

Arcanist - I'm torn between a Wizard subclass and a full class

Bloodrager - Subclass of a Barbarian - really seems to fit in nicely with the others

Brawler - I'm torn between a Monk subclass or a Archetype

Shaman - Class - I originally thought this would be a Druid or Summoner subclass, but there is enough uniqueness of this to warrant a class of its own I think

Slayer - Subclass of a Ranger - seems to fit in with the whole "hunter" vibe of the Ranger

Kineticist - Class - these are very unique with their own mechanic. Would love to see them redone in a more friendly way though (they had a very high learning curve, but were so fun once you got it)

Medium - ???? - I really have no idea

Mesmerist - subclass of a Witch? - Thematically the Witch and...

I think a lot of the hybrid classes don't really need to come back. For example, a lot of the best things about the Arcanist already exist in the Sorcerer and the Wizard base classes and it's pretty easy to blend them together. Slayer is another example that feels unnecessary given how the rogue and ranger both exist and can interact with one another. Shaman is pretty easy to capture from Druid and Witch, imo.

Gunslinger: Can't disagree enough on this... it's exactly the kind of thing that should be an archetype given how many different "with a gun archetypes" existed in 1E.

Shifter: This one really feels a lot like the Martial Artist, except focused just on the feats from wild shape without all the burden of the druid class. Dedication might be access to wild morph and then every dedication feat being access to wild shape feats at a slightly delayed, but close to the Wild Druid rate, the way that Martial Artist gives access to the style feats.

Inquisitor: I used to be on team 'Cleric Doctrine,' but as I've thought about it and the broad range of inquisitor types that exist, I can easily see this being an archetype that adds iconic inquisitor features on any number of base classes. Rogues, rangers, fighters, clerics, champions, etc. Distilling down to key things like judgements, some limited divine magic, stern gaze, and tracking feels like the kind of kit that can fit on a lot of different classes in exchange for normal class feats.

Bloodrager: Given how supernatural the class already is in their rage effects, it feels like a reasonable Instinct that works a little like the Eldritch Scoundrel rogue archetype, but limited to a free sorcerer dedication at level 1, and maybe Moment of Clarity built in.

I think a lot of the occult classes need to be looked at differently given that the Occult spell list is kind of baked in to the core game. A mesmerist is basically a debuffing bard, but Bards now would theoretically have the same spell list and also have pretty substantial debuffing roles in addition to buffing. I'm not saying a mesmerist should be a different bard, or a psychic should be an occult sorcerer, or even a kineticist as an elemental sorcerer, but I think the bar needs to be higher for a new class and mechanics to justify their "rebirth" in 2e.

[shroudb]

Arcanist is tricky, but a potential venue for him could be an archetype for prepared casters that gains Metamagic Focus powers (similar to some Metamagic Compositions but stronger)

I could more easily see Shifter as a set of shapeshifting focus powers/archetype for Ranger rather than druid.

Mesmer can probably be fitted to bard.

Slayer, ninja, brawler, i don't see them coming back, they can be pretty easily covered by ranger, rogue (with some archetypes), and martial artist,

[Perpdepog]

Snes wrote:

Gisher wrote:

Invictus Novo wrote:

...

Occultist - Archetype - they always came across as rather gimmicky to me and I think they would make a good Archetype for a lot of 2e classes
...
P.S. please don't hate me if I didn't do your favorite class justice :)

I hate you.

;)

What is an occultist to you? I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept. If it really can be summed up as "They collect magical trinkets that give them spells" then it's entirely possible that it could work as an archetype instead of a full class.

Even though this poster was joking, and I also wouldn't mind if the occultist came back as a subclass or archetype, I'll still try to answer. The focus on, well, focuses was what really separated the occultist from the other classes in my mind, as well as their dependence on minor rituals, which they tended to get at later levels to contact outsiders and the like. It made the class feel very street, to me, very grab-baggy, which was understandable given that Harry Dresden was a big inspiration for that class.

I could see them being an archetype, but I think there would be more to explore with them. Letting them manipulate and screw with magic items, create temporary ones, and maybe reset item DCs like alchemists can do for poisons and rangers can do for snares.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Gunslinger, in the sense of using guns will, I think, be an Archetype, but there's been a lot of discussion of a 'Drifter' class using a Grit mechanic to reflect archetypal steely-eyed wanderers appropriate to Westerns, Samurai movies, and several other genres but unrestricted in weapon selection, and I think that's plausible (and might have a Class Path or set of Feats specifically for guns).

This also sounds like it could be made into a swashbuckler archetype to me, as well. Panache was functionally identical to grit in 1E, and at least as of yet I don't see any reason that would change. If they did decide to make it its own class though that would be pretty awesome.

[Andrew the Warwitch]

Something I would like to see is the addition of the Gravewalker to the Witch.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Andrew the Warwitch wrote:

Something I would like to see is the addition of the Gravewalker to the Witch.

What's a Gravewalker?

[Squiggit]

Snes wrote:

If it really can be summed up as "They collect magical trinkets that give them spells" then it's entirely possible that it could work as an archetype instead of a full class.

Not if that's what you want your entire character to be about on a fundamental level like an Occultist.

Ultimately, no archetype is going to be able to replace a class, ever. That doesn't mean every PF1 class can or should be ported over, but if what you're looking for is a certain class' theme and flavor and the ability to run it right out the gate, you need some sort of internal support in a base class for it to make sense.

[WatersLethe]

Kineticist is nothing like an elemental sorcerer in practice. Needs more avatar style "bending" and all-day function like a martial.

Shaman being converted to a spontaneous primal caster is just stealing the name to fill an empty niche in the mechanics. Shaman should be prepared, possibly with built-in access to some minor sponanteous slots like PF1 Spirit Magic did. Shamans were allllll about preparing for the day, being able to change out hexes and spirits and spells.

[Natan Linggod 327]

I think the Shifter should be it's own class with subclasses depending on what kind of creatures it shifts to.

Just as in PF1 there were variants for Elemental shifters, Fiendish shifters, Dragon shifters and Fey shifters and not just animal based ones.

[Temperans]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Andrew the Warwitch wrote:

Something I would like to see is the addition of the Gravewalker to the Witch.

What's a Gravewalker?

Gravewalker Witch

Its a very interesting archetype.

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

Arcanist should be its own class given all the exploits they had access to and all the fun abilities that they can potentially get.

An Archetype does not do an Arcanist justice.

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

Shamans are Prepared casters not spontaneous. And their big thing was their spirits and access to heaviliy modified Oracle mysteries.

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

Kineticist do not use spell slots. They are not Archetypes. They are not Sorcerers. They are their own very different very unique thing.

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

Spiritualist, Medium, Psychic and Occultist all make for good classes with plenty of interesting abilities.

Mesmerist is a weird one, I dont know much about them.

Hunter and Slayer are weird given how similar they can be to other classes.

[Arachnofiend]

Temperans wrote:

Mesmerist is a weird one, I dont know much about them.

I think a PF2 Mesmerist would look like a reverse bard; hypnotic stare and its variations could be turned into "stare cantrips" to give the Mesmerist all day, reliable debuffing. Probably converted into a proper full caster, since that's basically what the Mesmerist was - while gishing was possible, you had to try pretty hard to do it like a Bard did and its toolkit was designed for the purpose of feeling like a proper caster despite it's 6th level spell slots.

[Squiggit]

Reverse bard is a pretty good descriptor. Decent martials, emphasis on debuffing. Lots of ways to penalize and weaken enemies.

Depending on how robust Class Archetypes end up being it might work as one of those. You'd have to strip out quite a few Bard features but the Mesmerist does share a lot of mechanical commonalities with them too, so it could be possible.

Temperans wrote:

Hunter and Slayer are weird given how similar they can be to other classes.

Honestly you could make a good argument that the slayer's already in PF2. Hunt Prey has more in common with Studied Target than it does with any PF1 ranger class features and the more martial bent to the PF2 ranger is a lot more thematically similar to the Slayer too.

[Temperans]

Yeah the PF2 Ranger went very hard on the Studied Target/Hunt Prey mechanic. While also having the basic feats for the most general Slayer types: Two Weapon and Archery.