The Reveals of Magus and Summoner have made me ponder something for quite a while (as much as it has been a while since then), about what is the future of Pathfinder 2E.
When do you guys think we get an entirely new class in this edition? Is that ages away? Will it happen when this 10 year travel is almost over? Do you think all classes should be ported over from 1e first before thinking of something new, Or would trying to create something entirely new take priority for freshness? And More importantly...what would you like it to be? Any ideas for that?
Warlord pls, if i may wish.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They have said multiple times, most recently in GenCon panels, that they are not going to port over many of the classes from 1e, and now that the 'core' books are done, they are going to focus on creating new classes and content
I would like to see them introduce psionics as a fifth discipline soon, so that it has time to grow with the system as they progress
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't be surprised if we got an Artificer/tinkerer class. It is a trope that was only really touched on in a scant few archetypes and the structure of the alchemist could give some ideas for how such a class could operate. The new edition would really support it, as well.
I don't think we'll need to wait that long and I certainly don't think we will be seeing all the classes arise again. The Vigilante, Cavalier, and Warpriest are definitely subsumed into other things. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bloodrager, Spiritualist, Brawler, Hunter, Slayer, and Skald are also absorbed by other things.
While there are still fan favorites that we want, I bet they are also itching to make something brand new. I don't think it's too far out
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In terms of PF1 stuff, the only ones I'm pretty sure we'll see in some form are Inquisitor and at least some of the PF1 Occult Classes (Kineticist, Occultist, and Psychic at the very least).
Everything else will likely either be new, or an old name but very new mechanics (I could easily see Shaman as a Spontaneous Primal caster, for example).
maybe a int based class considering its one of the least used attributes
wish there was one that was like the alchemist but instead focused on machines and robotics
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Secrets of Magic is anything to go by, I imagine we'll see a Secrets of Artifice tested either next year or the year after with the mechanically based classes, like Artificer, Gunslinger, maybe a specialised golem master or something similar.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the Gencon this year was promised that at least one of the next 5 classes will be a totally new one.
Dragon: the class plz
In the Gencon this year was promised that at least one of the next 5 classes will be a totally new one.
Ooh that does have me very intrigued. I wonder what it is.
Dragon: the class plz
Dragon the class?
Aside from a tinker/artificer type thing, what other class trope hasn't been done?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Secrets of Magic is anything to go by, I imagine we'll see a Secrets of Artifice tested either next year or the year after with the mechanically based classes, like Artificer, Gunslinger, maybe a specialised golem master or something similar.
I believe they said explicitly that they were not going to be doing a "Secrets of ________" book series like the "Ultimate_____" or "_________ Adventures" lines from P1. This one is secrets of magic b/c it's about magic, the next may be about dungeon delving so it is "Dungeon explorers".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aside from a tinker/artificer type thing, what other class trope hasn't been done?Lore master
Monster tamer/maker or becoming a monster
chronomancerones paizo will probobly never do
Spell weaver (make your own spells)
puppet master (control hoards of minions) GM territory slow down the game too much
Loremaster is an archetype isnt it?
I want to see those sweet new essence combos (currently 2 outstanding I think) because some cool character concepts can derive from that.
And honestly, some of the current Classes are so different from their PF1 counterparts, I would call them original, but that's me.
Mechanically, that is. I'm all for original concepts being introduced, but tbh, how many of those do we have that weren't exemplified (at least in part) by what's already been made?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see a Necromancer archtype, probably doesnt need to be a whole class.
Would fit for melee types as an armored death knight type or numerous spellcasters, many of which had a necromantic themed archtype in 1e
There were quite a few "weapon bound" archtypes, wonder if that could be a class itself like a Solarian
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we'll start seeing original classes after this round of books. The only outstanding "needs to be done" class is the Gunslinger, and I know many of us hope that the Gunslinger grit mechanics will be attached to more general "Man without name" class concept.
I'm a little disappointed SoM didn't try to squeeze one in. They did a lot of new things with the magic system in PF2; I would have liked to have seen a class inspired directly by those changes, instead of working with the changes to evoke a PF1 class. Like, say, a class built around Fortune effects.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In terms of PF1 stuff, the only ones I'm pretty sure we'll see in some form are Inquisitor and at least some of the PF1 Occult Classes (Kineticist, Occultist, and Psychic at the very least).
Don't hold your breath for the Kineticist, Legendary Games has already converted it and it turned out pretty darn great so I doubt we'll ever see a Paizo official release of this Class since I don't think they're apt to step on 3PP's toes, especially when they're as close to the Golem as LG.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In terms of PF1 stuff, the only ones I'm pretty sure we'll see in some form are Inquisitor and at least some of the PF1 Occult Classes (Kineticist, Occultist, and Psychic at the very least).Don't hold your breath for the Kineticist, Legendary Games has already converted it and it turned out pretty darn great so I doubt we'll ever see a Paizo official release of this Class since I don't think they're apt to step on 3PP's toes, especially when they're as close to the Golem as LG.
If not the kineticist directly, I imagine we'll see some class that makes heavy use of cantrips and focus spells. That's one possible way the Magus might end up in fact (though I personally hope not).
If it does though, my personal interest in a Kinetecist will drop quickly. I was always more attached to the all day caster mechanic than any particular implementation of it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do like the idea of the gunslinger rebranded as the Drifter. I like grit mechanics and the idea of risky expenditure as both a narrative and mechanical concept. It just needs to be expanded out to include other weapons and fighting styles.
A weirder idea for a martial class could be the "prepared martial". Embrace the flexible martial abilities by day and even have abilities to mimic enemies or adapt to unusual situations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we'll start seeing original classes after this round of books. The only outstanding "needs to be done" class is the Gunslinger, and I know many of us hope that the Gunslinger grit mechanics will be attached to more general "Man without name" class concept.
I'm a little disappointed SoM didn't try to squeeze one in. They did a lot of new things with the magic system in PF2; I would have liked to have seen a class inspired directly by those changes, instead of working with the changes to evoke a PF1 class. Like, say, a class built around Fortune effects.
For the gunslinger there are a few great possibilities:
in PF1 they had muskets. because PF2 is in the future of PF1 rifling might be developedthe traditional smooth bore musket had an effective range of 900 ft (human sized target)
where as a rifled one around the same time period had an effective range of 1500 ft https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/iusburj/article/view/19841/2 5918
of course the is a longbow was also around 900 ft. of course they where also able to be used on horseback during the 100 years war unlike the PHBconcepts
old style Gunslinger - old west style
rifleman/sniper - sneak attack with rifle
spell-slinger - magic bullets/casting through the gun. (outlaw star, youjo senki)
When they say additional styles of weapons, they don't mean additional guns.
The most suggested propositions are to include the Ronin/Samurai as well as the Cutthroat with thrown knives and various other "cool hand split second decision" fighters.
Guns shouldn't be restricted to a single class, and it was so problematic in PF1 as a result that almost every class got a Gun archetype to resolve the issue.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, Guns are cool, so why restrict them to one class?
Now the Drifter can certainly have a Gun focused Class Path (I encourage you to check out Cozzymandias Homebrew version of the Drifter which had a lot of promise), but most would rather "I shoot guns" to not be the focal point so much as an additional item.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the guns are soo cool maybe instead of beating AC you attack vs Reflex save
Hard pass. Guns should target AC or I riot.
Dodging bullets is a thousand times more unrealistic than magical adamantine armor blessed by the god of war being useless against a sorta fast ball of lead.
I will give my shot here... So next year if I am right I can brag about.
2021 will have the playtest for guns rules and gunslinger/class equivalent that will be released in 2022.
In 2022 will be the psychic playtest, because it was promised at least one new class in next five (at this point would have 3, Magus, Summoner and Gunslinger), it will have 2 classes to playtest one totally new.
But the guns are soo cool maybe instead of beating AC you attack vs Reflex saveHard pass. Guns should target AC or I riot.
Dodging bullets is a thousand times more unrealistic than magical adamantine armor blessed by the god of war being useless against a sorta fast ball of lead.
I'm not sure I'd change it PF2e because most of the weapons already work the way they do and there's plenty of avenues to use within that framework (In this case, I know Jason has spit-balled the fatal trait on stream, but of course that's his personal speculation pre working on the problem for an actual product)--
but I was gonna say I kinda dig the idea of a game where there isn't a master defense stat and instead its distributed over reflex, will and the others, with things like reflex being used by more weapons.
But then I remembered its been done, by 4e, which was my introduction system. So never mind then.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ray spells target AC now, so I think that ship has sailed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want psionics (or some form of psychic something). And I loved the PF1 shaman and arcanist.
For funsies, I'm going to home bake my own dragon shaman from the 3.5 dragon magic book. I loved that class.
I think the important thing about revealing new classes is that they represent a kind of thing that is more common outside of Avistan. It's hard to swallow something like "Shifters have been there in druidic circles all over all along" 9+ years into a product's lifeline than it is to swallow "Psychic Magic is common in Vudra".
I want psionics (or some form of psychic something). And I loved the PF1 shaman and arcanist.
For funsies, I'm going to home bake my own dragon shaman from the 3.5 dragon magic book. I loved that class.
You and me both.
Although the Dragonfire Adept was from that book. Dragon Shaman was from Player's Guide 2. But since they're both in the "GIMME please?" territory...
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd love an item-focused class; not necessarily The Crafter but more like a true utility-to-combat gadgeteer with a very Pathfinder twist. What the Psychometrist Vigilante was sort of trying to be, but really honed as its own concept... Or more like the Technician, for those familiar with Spheres, with a touch more magic, like the Scroll Trickster. A sort of Wizard-Rogue to the Occultist's Bard, perhaps, though with magic as one tool of many rather than The Point.
In combat, I'm thinking that a cool niche would be using explicitly utility-based abilities to lay down effects and deal damage. Grappling hooks used to grapple, kickin' folks with leaper-boots, thieves' tools for combat tricks and stuff like that. Every tool should have at least three functions, and at least one of those functions should be "ow". Proficiency in Unarmed, Simple, some tool-adjacent Martials and the Polytool. What else could you possibly need? Melee d12s are for people who don't have environmental trickery and a grappling hook. Or Improvised proficiency, which I think they should maybe get as a 1st-level Class Feat.
Basically, I want the Polytool as a class. I think it'd be neat. I haven't thought it through or anything, so this all might be very silly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My most fervently anticipated book (now that SoM is on the horizon) would be something that does the same on the equipment side. I would want the focus to be on how various levels of technology fit into and change a setting, so less "Ultimate Equipment", but more "Technology Guide" expanded to cover all equipment, including magical items.
I could see a class like you're proposing fitting into such a book, as well as a Gunslinger/Drifter as well as an Occultist/Antiquarian.
Desna knows SOME class has to take on Trinkets and make them work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, yea. It was PH2 that dragon shaman was from. My bad. I had all those dragon books. Dragon magic. Races of the dragon. Draconomicon. I think Races of the Dragon was what dragonborn were out of originally. One of those books, anyway.
|
Classes in pathfinder have always been built around mechanical ideas as much as flavor. Sneak attack is appropriate only for the assassin type of rogue, not for the concept of rogue in general, but it was used as the mechanical aspect of the "rogue" class for pathfinder. So you could easily build another class around the rogue concept and call it a wanderer. Then you could build another rogue concept class and call it a charlatan, and so on (each would have a new different base mechanic to go along with the theme). While I doubt they will do something like this, that design space is open. They could really make as many classes as they wanted with the way pf2 is designed.
(It's tricky to write about this when "archetype" is really the word I really want to use, but it will be confused with its game definition).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, betting pool, When will they decide to break their own rule and make a class that can have a Focus Pool greater than 3?
Whenever they get around to the Occultist. The occultist is either going to have a larger focus pool, or a way to turn 1 focus point into multiple focus spells by investing it in an implement.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if the Occultist might not use an entirely different system. They can't just break the Focus rule because that'd make the Occultist way better at multiclassing into, say, Bard than anyone else, which is presumably a genuine balance concern.
I'm guessing that it might work a little more like prepped staves, where they convert slots into item charges. I'm guessing that they're going to be a weird full-caster in that respect, where their spells are mostly locked up in those charges rather than being slot-castable, if that makes any sense.
Anyway, I was trying to be good and not turn this into an Occultist thread, but frankly it's kind of likely to be an all-new interpretation of the class in my opinion. There's so much freedom to play with now that it's not locked down to the og focus pool or an action system that hated its guts... assuming of course that they don't lock it down to the newfangled focus pool. Which I would really doubt.
I'm hoping for a Warlock class.
Not a copy of the D&D Warlock; I want Pathfinder to have a new class name Warlock.
I really don't want the D&D Warlock and the Pathfinder Warlock to be similar in any way.
I just want to play a warlock in Pathfinder.
|
|
I'm hoping for a Warlock class.Not a copy of the D&D Warlock; I want Pathfinder to have a new class name Warlock.
I really don't want the D&D Warlock and the Pathfinder Warlock to be similar in any way.
I just want to play a warlock in Pathfinder.
What do you envision such a class being like? I'd love a bit of a darker, fairy-tale inspired casting class, if that's what you mean.
I definitely don't think we need to worry that PF2's just going to port over the 5e Warlock or anything; I think the Witch is as close as we're likely to get, and those two are really nothing alike besides "Patron" and "Familiar" and "I'll use my leftover action to Hex".
I'm not familiar with the older 3.x Warlock, but I hear it was a blaster and that doesn't scream "Warlock" to me. Even though I know it's the iconic Warlock to a lot of people.