An Original Class?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Nitro~Nina wrote:
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.

Depending on how Magus and Summoner casting shakes out, I’m betting that Occultists get that, and then use focus and charged items to make up the difference.

scary harpy wrote:


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.

A little curious what you mean by this. What kind of inspiration or mechanics would you center the class on?


also i doubt the following have any chance of happening but

maybe a Necromancer class since wizard necromancers don't make sense anymore cause arcane is mind and matter while necromancy should be focused on life and soul which is divine the polar opposite

maybe a Sage class (a caster that get all 4 lists but has the fewest slots and other weaknesses etc...) not as absurd as it sounds once you consider both polymath bard and halcyon/magaambyan can already do it

there is already the ooze-morph and golem-grafter archetypes so i wanted a class that is focused on seeking immortality by altering one's body to the point of becoming a completely comprehensible creature cuthulu-style maybe Evolutionist or Shape-Changer or Metamorph etc...

but please not something that is subordinate to nature like shifter druid

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ArchSage20 wrote:

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

A ton of different skills-based classes could exist.

Int-based skills classes examples;

One based off of knowledge and lore, a 'Sage' class that acts a little like the 3.X Archivist by using lore skills in combat to provide bonuses to allies / revealing weaknesses of foes (even, in some cases, *creating* weaknesses by 'revealing' tactical flaws that can then be exploited by allies).

One based of weapon/armorsmithing. In combat, they are a fighter type. Between combats, they maintain the parties armor and weapons to provide buffs (sharpening weapons, reinforcing armor, etc.) to everyone in the next fight. Said buffs wear off, and have to be re-applied between fights, so you have to keep the portable blacksmith with you and not just hit him up for a buff and then leave him at home. :) They'd also have an assortment of funkier buffs that alter a weapon or armor's properties, temporarily, so that they can further customize their allies for a particular encounter. ("I soaked this padding under your armor so that you'll be a titch more resistant to flame for this next fight against the red dragon, but it'll burn away quickly, so let's get this done fast!")

As you say, a 'clockwork' or gearsmith character who creates machinery. Temporary automated crossbow tripods or whatever. (Sort of medieval punk.) Spring-loaded javelin-throwers. Etc. I personally would prefer that to lasers and robots, but there's room for that, too, in Numeria. Golarion's a big place, and contains multitudes. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition Subscriber

I'd rather like an Occult Wisdom (Prepared) caster, perhaps tying into out-there concepts. Wisdom being needed to maintain sanity while invoking the incomprehensible and pushing the class toward Occult Cleric and Planar Druid. Focus spells could have some kind of backlash, like the Oracle's cursebound spells, related to mutating one's body into less stable forms.
I think this could be a "PF Warlock that isn't D&D's Warlock."


Did people forget PF already has a Warlock Archetype?

In PF1 it have spells, an at will blast (aka cantrip), temporary Elemental runes on weapons, resistance to energy that deals damage to unarmed attack, a Tattoo chamber to store a weapon, a familiar, or a weak simulacrum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm hoping for a number of single tradition classes that really solidify what it means to cast from that tradition. I feel like the tradition system was introduced perhaps without the devs really thinking through the implications enough, and now, whenever they have a class that can have a number of different flavours, especially planar ones, they automatically assume that it's a pick-a-list.

[rant]
Traditions of magic aren't defined simply by their source. There is no force in the world that could just give you arcane magic. Arcane magic is not defined by being dragon magic, but by being the set of spells that can be acheived by study. No class that studies their magic should be given divine spells, because, conversely no amount of study is going to give you those spells.

For example, I am one of those maniacs who thought the witch should get only occult magic, not because that was a flavour thing, but because witches are defined by beig taught esoteric secrets by mysterious patrons, and, in my book at least, no amount of ancient secrets can unlock the magic of faith, nor give you the mathematical precision recquired to master both mind and matter.

I feel that by reducing the tradition system to different colours of outsider cheapens the whole thing, and makes it much more bland. Ifthe only difference between different types of magic is whether it's from fey or fiends it becomes a far less interesting character decision than whether you got it through hard work or great faith. In the end there becomes no real point distinguishing between them at all, since if you want some different spells you just go to the guy with butterfly wings instead of bat ones.
[/rant]

So in light of all that, and of whether or not you now think me insane, I would like a number of classes which get tradition right. The magus at least seems a step in the right direction in that regard, but it would also be great to see a class that really showed off the defining features of primal magic while not just being a druid clone, and one for occult magic as well(because the devs didn't realise that divinity was not the defining feature of the oracle, but curses and mysteries, anyone hearing occult alarm bells going off, insane grumble). I think that setting a good precedent for the responsible use of the tradition system in the earlyish years of the games would be a really good idea.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Temperans wrote:

Did people forget PF already has a Warlock Archetype?

In PF1 it have spells, an at will blast (aka cantrip), temporary Elemental runes on weapons, resistance to energy that deals damage to unarmed attack, a Tattoo chamber to store a weapon, a familiar, or a weak simulacrum.

I did not. With the Magus coming, I think the simplest way to achieve that would be an Unarmed Magus. Not quite there yet, but I'm hopeful Mystic bolts will be either a focus spell or cantrip available to Magi. And both social simulcrum and elemental armor seem like good additions to SoM.

But given that Scary Harpy didn't really define what they were talking about besides "Not 5e warlock", I didn't want to assume that was what they meant.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
notXanathar wrote:
So in light of all that, and of whether or not you now think me insane, I would like a number of classes which get tradition right. The magus at least seems a step in the right direction in that regard, but it would also be great to see a class that really showed off the defining features of primal magic while not just being a druid clone, and one for occult magic as well(because the devs didn't realise that divinity was not the defining feature of the oracle, but curses and mysteries, anyone hearing occult alarm bells going off, insane grumble). I think that setting a good precedent for the responsible use of the tradition system in the earlyish years of the games would be a really good idea.

Interestingly enough, I want the exact same thing as you, but I am coming from the totally opposite direction. That sidebar in the core rulebook that says "Arcane is about studying" and "Divine is about an outside source"?

I HATE that sidebar.

Passionately.

I feel like it flies in the face of the entire essence concept they introduced, and that your class should define how you approach your magic, but that the magic itself should be somewhat arbitrarily accessible. I would prefer the explanation that the reason traditions would be associated with certain access methods is:
1. Some essences are simply harder to access than others, so for example while it is technically possible to study up on divine magic, it is extremely difficult and few manage to pull it off.
2. The Core classes that access their particular tradition are the most common class to do so, so their method is the one associated with a particular tradition. Which is why the Hated Sidebar seems to be describing druids/clerics/wizards instead of primal/divine/arcane casters in general.
The bard does not fit with point 2, though the witch would have, so you weren't alone in wishing witches were occult casters flavored by other traditions.

Wayfinders

TheDoomBug wrote:

I'd rather like an Occult Wisdom (Prepared) caster, perhaps tying into out-there concepts. Wisdom being needed to maintain sanity while invoking the incomprehensible and pushing the class toward Occult Cleric and Planar Druid. Focus spells could have some kind of backlash, like the Oracle's cursebound spells, related to mutating one's body into less stable forms.

I think this could be a "PF Warlock that isn't D&D's Warlock."

This sounds very cool, actually, and is exactly the sort of thing I think when I think "Warlock." I had actually forgotten that the Vigilante "Warlock" archetype existed but that's also not at all similar to what the word conjures for me outside of the comic-book context of the Vigilante. Warlocks are dark, mysterious, not perhaps necessarily eeeeeevil but certainly, yes, Occult in some way. Masters of things man was not meant to know, primarily, and I could see this sort of class being The Occult Caster in the same way that the Wizard, Cleric and Druid are for their respective traditions.

notXanathar wrote:
So in light of all that, and of whether or not you now think me insane, I would like a number of classes which get tradition right.

Hm. Thank you for this in-depth comment. I don't think you insane, and I sympathise with your point, but I'm also not sure that your description of what a "Tradition" is quite fits with the assumptions of Pathfinder or its core setting. It's built-in that Arcane magic isn't the sum total of what can be studied; it's merely the sum total of what can be written-down and understood through the singular lens of the mortal scholar. Through careful manipulation and study of those techniques, as well as careful study of their underlying principles and how those principles interact with other kinds of magic, you can derive an understanding of other forms of magic (as with Jatembe's philosophy carried through Magaambya), and it's definitely possible for a Sorcerer be marked with the wonky programming of this highly artificial tradition. I balk at the assumption that other magics shouldn't be accessible through fundamental understanding of the laws of reality; that's sort of the Point of arcane magic... As opposed to a true connection with the purity and wisdom of the Divine, a deep and instinctive understanding of the Primal forces of nature, or a spirit-touching talent for understanding the incomprehensible Occult.

Not one of these three necessarily works well with Arcane methods, so I agree in that sense. You can't necessarily impose consistent, scientific methodologies upon ancient Occult understanding, though I contest that you can't achieve some success through careful, open-minded study. For instance, the Polymathic Bard may indeed "study" their craft, understanding that the true heart of their magic comes from the connection of their spirit with those of others; however, that doesn't mean that they can't apply their knowledge of psychology and voice control to their magic, nor that they can't work out some sort of non-standard notation to represent their magic in-text. We also know that Nethys himself achieved true Divinity through mastery of the fundamental principles of magic, as much as the effort split him down the middle. If the jerk had any actual academic integrity, he'd let the rest of us iterate on his methods; what kind of scholar just covers up a bad outcome!? The so-called "All-Seeing Eye" is exactly what's wrong with modern academia and in this essay I will...

As for Witches; while they're certainly taught in a mysterious fashion and are indeed canny negotiators of an occult-seeming pact, it's pretty apt to me that they get to cast different traditions. Witches aren't just taught of esoteric magics; they're actively borrowing magic from something else, using its tradition to cast spells rather than having any great power of their own. I'm pretty sure this comes from the classic folklore of the witch bargaining for power with a devil or false god, whether that power be used to heal, harm, or call down a plague, so really the classic Witch could be considered Divine before anything else (though this is Complicated and I've edited out a big long iffy comment about it). If we're going for a more modern folkloric "evil eye" witch, they do tend to be more Occult-flavoured, but then again you have the lighter-n-softer cauldron-and-bookshelves witch whose familiar is often depicted as a teacher of Arcane-style utility-magic, or the mysterious poultice-and-poison hedge-witch who claims to draw mystic power over from pagan deities or nature itself. Witches are really diverse throughout folklore (even if we keep it to this sort of witch*), but they do tend to have some form of arrangement with other powers and a mysterious companion spirit of some kind, so I quite like that as the throughline rather than having them shoehorned into a single tradition. That would leave us with Witches that never take the forms of wolves or summon dancing devils or call down a storm to light the thatch, and those wouldn't be the witches that I, personally, grew up learning about.

Honestly, in my opinion, the Witch chassis is an incredibly impressive and highly elegant expression of perhaps the most unfairly-maligned and diverse-yet-basically-quite-cohesive concept in all of western folklore. "Lessons" was a masterstroke, emphasising what all these different ideas have in common. It still lets you play your hex-Witch, but the class also allows others to play their dark Tam O'Shanter devil-Witch or smart Celtic herb-Witch. If you don't like that so much, it's very easy to not have anything to do with them.

On the Oracle, however... While cursed in ways oft-misunderstood, the Oracle is, to me, definitively all about their Divine source, given that it's pretty clearly meant to evoke the idea of the cursed prophet from real-life mythology and religion. I'd much prefer any Occult equivalent to be a little more like TheDoomBug's idea above rather than interfering with that wonderful and extremely terrifying idea of "literally the most powerful beings in the universe are Taking An Interest". So I don't agree there either, but I do think that there's a lot of narrative space for what you're talking about in another class.

My apologies if I come across combative at all; I'm glad of the excuse to think really deeply about this sort of thing and I welcome any counterpoints.

---

* The terms I'm using are through the Pathfinder lens, but refer to far broader and more complicated concepts that are not bound by what we're currently deciding to call them. See Harry Potter's wizards-who-are-girls for an example of the nomenclature not being very consistent.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
notXanathar wrote:
There is no force in the world that could just give you arcane magic.

Isn't that literally exactly what being a sorcerer is? A sorcerer 'just gets' Arcane magic without an emphasis on studying it like the Wizard does. That's true in PF2 and the principle difference between them and Wizards in PF1 as well.

I appreciate everyone has their own perspectives, but this doesn't seem to line up with Traditions as they're defined in Pathfinder, which really do seem to be based on their source. Like I said, everyone has their own perspective, but given that it seems unfair to accuse Paizo of getting the traditions "wrong" in this context.

Honestly, I think that's a good thing. Declaring that something is simply unknowable and impossible to study feels incredibly arbitrary and just a way to build walls around ideas, without having to really explore those concepts at all. It just is, so deal with it. That doesn't strike me as good writing and from a player facing perspective just shuts down character concepts that seem perfectly valid.

It's not like the definitions you're talking about are lost either, they're just contained within the class themselves instead of being universal constants. Wizards don't stop being studious and Clerics don't stop being empowered by faith just because Witches exist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
notXanathar wrote:
There is no force in the world that could just give you arcane magic

but wizards literally do that to their familiars


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
ArchSage20 wrote:
notXanathar wrote:
There is no force in the world that could just give you arcane magic
but wizards literally do that to their familiars

Does that mean familiars doing the same to their witches has nothing to do with outside forces or esoteric powers, but is a long delayed revenge?


The biggest difference between Arcane and Divine magic as far as previous lore is concerned is how much the character had to study to use it. Regardless of who gave the character magic.

Most arcane classes/archetypes had to learn spells, even if the spell was given to them by a deity.

Meanwhile, most divine classes know all spells that they can cast, even if you never studied magic.

That is the difference between the two, how much work do you have to put in to achieve it. The reward in the previous edition was the type of spells you can cast and at what power. But that is just not possible in PF2 since there are no longer individual spell lists.

Witches were borrowing the magical power to cast spells. But were casting spells because they had learned it, not because it was part of the source. Its why you can have Arcanist use Wizard, Witch, or Druid spells even though they have no connection to those classes.

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

* P.S. I still think that Witch really should not had been pick-list in my opinion. That space would had been more useful if given to something like the Arcanist or some other new class. But what's done its done and I dont see Paizo making any changes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition Subscriber

I don't think there's anything stopping a different Int-caster from having list options just because the Witch has it; it just has to do it differently. The patron's aren't as mechanically involved as a Sorcerer's bloodline or an Oracle's mystery. I can see a scholar class running with the concept like this with the sub-choices (Research Field) being the spell list and base features they're emulating.

I think any existing spell list and casting stat combo could be repeated by a new class as long as the features and feats make them clearly different. The only thing I'm hesitant about is giving a full-on prepared caster access to the Arcane list.

I do want to clarify two things about my idea. First, I never meant to suggest my idea was the Warlock, just that it could have that name. I still haven't come up with one, since the first three I thought of are already taken (Occultist, Warlock, Sage). Then, when I said Occult Cleric and Planar Druid, I didn't mean that it was supposed to be them; just that that is what Wisdom casting means to me. Int is studying magic scientifically, Cha is making magic work by force, and Wis is feeling the magic. Clerics let God take the wheel, Druids go with nature's flow, Monks can awaken to their ki, and my caster follows those ideals depending on what they're fixated on.

Sub-choice ideas:
Worshiper: Your faith is a magical as a Cleric, even if your "god" doesn't even know you exist. I love the idea of big AoE Focus spells where you are the central target; just drop a psychic fireball on yourself.
Metamorphist: Did you need an extra arm? How about eyes? Downside is probably damage during, or fatigue after, because your body is not meant to do that! Alternatively, maybe your new limbs aren't as obedient as your old ones.
Enlightened: Reality can be whatever you want it to be. Downsides are logical trades: If I treat darkness like bright light, then bright light becomes darkness. If I treat air as water to swim through the sky, I probably can't breathe it.


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

Based on some of the descriptions above of what a PF2 Warlock should be it almost seems like they should be the new Occultist.
Calling them Warlocks might be better as Occultist might not be the best name if they wind up being able to use magic traditions outside of occult.

When I think of a "Warlock" it brings to mind Constantine and Dresdan with utilizing summoning circles, ancient tomes, having various ancient artifacts around or on them which they have studied to unlock their power. Maybe they get some bonuses to perform rituals.
I think it'd interesting to see a class that gets their spells or abilities by unlocking their spells from interesting items or mysterious places. The 1e occultist seemed to do that pretty well though the item mattered less than the school of magic chosen.
I don't know, the DnD warlock as a blaster with a few spells just didn't seem to fit. Warlock brings to mind someone who gets power from little understood ancient or secret sources and make bargains with dangerous creatures.

Liberty's Edge

Lots of folks chatting about things that have been done before like an all-day-blaster or what essentially boils down to a hybrid between two Classes or something that can be handled with Archetypes but I really wonder if there is design space for a class that is devoted to almost exclusively dealing with non-violent conflict resolution, negotiation, non-lethal damage, social tasks/skills, and legalism.

Given that the options for "talking down" an encounter are really very few and far between I think this might be really interesting even if their combat role is primarily to bolster their allies defenses, distract enemies, and effectively coerce opponents to surrender/flee.

Just spitballing but it's not something I've seen before outside of flat-out magical effects produced by Bards or Mesmerists who befuddle the minds of their enemies rather than to actually make a connection of sorts with them to "improve their attitude/disposition" even if it's only functional "in the moment."


AnimatedPaper wrote:
scary harpy wrote:

I'm hoping for a Warlock class.

...
A little curious what you mean by this. What kind of inspiration or mechanics would you center the class on?

I have neither inspiration nor mechanics. I'll leave that to people-who-know-what-they-are-doing.

Nitro~Nina wrote:
TheDoomBug wrote:

I'd rather like an Occult Wisdom (Prepared) caster, perhaps tying into out-there concepts. Wisdom being needed to maintain sanity while invoking the incomprehensible and pushing the class toward Occult Cleric and Planar Druid. Focus spells could have some kind of backlash, like the Oracle's cursebound spells, related to mutating one's body into less stable forms.

I think this could be a "PF Warlock that isn't D&D's Warlock."

This sounds very cool, actually, and is exactly the sort of thing I think when I think "Warlock." I had actually forgotten that the Vigilante "Warlock" archetype existed but that's also not at all similar to what the word conjures for me outside of the comic-book context of the Vigilante. Warlocks are dark, mysterious, not perhaps necessarily eeeeeevil but certainly, yes, Occult in some way. Masters of things man was not meant to know, primarily, and I could see this sort of class being The Occult Caster in the same way that the Wizard, Cleric and Druid are for their respective traditions.

...

I had forgotten the Vigilante Warlock too. I was hoping the Warlock would be it's own class but I guess we will probably get an archetype then.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Someone said wrote:
a class that is devoted to almost exclusively dealing with non-violent conflict resolution, negotiation, non-lethal damage, social tasks/skills, and legalism.

This would be amazing. Could finally make The Doctor in pathfinder then

Liberty's Edge

Rude_ wrote:
Someone said wrote:
a class that is devoted to almost exclusively dealing with non-violent conflict resolution, negotiation, non-lethal damage, social tasks/skills, and legalism.
This would be amazing. Could finally make The Doctor in pathfinder then

You see, that's it right there, that's precisely the thing I was talking about. Someone who, despite all typical common sense, wades into the thick of things and is dead set on talking their way out of ANY conflict even if at the end of the day it fails they would still fall back on a non-lethal solution and also helping to serve as a counterweight to the culture of muderhobo-ism that's prevalent at pretty much every table.


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Yep. A class like this would probably encourage newer players to try role playing or approach combat differently even if they're not familiar with or comfortable yet being in character, there would be mechanics for the class that show them they can use a different approach.
There is that trope of getting a great diplomat or figure somewhere to resolve some great conflict but that person would always be an NPC. It would be interesting to have the PCs show up or be hired because they're great negotiators and not combatants.


Now that my irrational anger at seeing someone who deigned to disagree with me has died down, I am reminded of a mistake I made when I was being introduced to the hobby, when I couldn't remember the class list and posited that one might be able to have levels as a merchant. While this wouldn't work for The Doctor, the fact that the game balances for gold to such a degree that it might be a viable design.

EDIT(remebered an idea just as clicked submit post): I would very much be in favour of the occultist being renamed warlock, and something similar happening for arcanist. If nothing else it would free the devs from having to have the class define their homonymous traditions to the point where the arcanist is trying to out do the wizard. However, it would also please me more on the aesthetic level in that I have very specific veiws about what is a valid name for a spell casting class.


scary harpy wrote:


Nitro~Nina wrote:

This sounds very cool, actually, and is exactly the sort of thing I think when I think "Warlock." I had actually forgotten that the Vigilante "Warlock" archetype existed but that's also not at all similar to what the word conjures for me outside of the comic-book context of the Vigilante. Warlocks are dark, mysterious, not perhaps necessarily eeeeeevil but certainly, yes, Occult in some way. Masters of things man was not meant to know, primarily, and I could see this sort of class being The Occult Caster in the same way that the Wizard, Cleric and Druid are for their respective traditions.

...
I had forgotten the Vigilante Warlock too. I was hoping the Warlock would be it's own class but I guess we will probably get an archetype then.

Now that I think about it, the same thing could be said about the Mystic Theurge...I would have preferred it as it's own class but it will probably be archetype...if anything at all.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition Subscriber

I am in love with this diplomat idea. It could be done with Rogue, Investigator, or, less effectively, Champion, but it could certainly be made without being redundant. The only problem I'm seeing is, what do you do when negotiations fail, or unresponsive like zombies, and violence is now? What do you do that's different from those three that also still tells the player, "This is the snafu option."? Special proficiency in Nonlethal weapons like the sap?

Totally want to make a true pacifist redeemer.


Yes, I imagine non-lethal weapon proficiency, or an inverse of the monks powerful fists to allow non-lethal attacks with anything sans penalty. I would probably say this: like a wizard uses weapons when spells fail, so too do you use them, albeit more proficiently, when negotiations inevitably fail.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem I see with the Diplomat is that their success and failure seem just opposed to those of the other characters. If a Diplomat can win a fight by himself, what use are the other PCs?

Wayfinders

A class like that would have to be very carefully handled so as to not mess with the players who want to have big fun combats all the time. Definitely could be done, I think, just with a lot of caution, and I for one absolutely love the idea of a class that is to Legendary Negotiation what the Rogue is to Legendary Sneak. It'd definitely need some redeemer-style debuffs through skill checks and such, though all of their in-combat actions being attempts at peace could be a very cool idea. Obviously, it'd need to be more diverse than that too, but so's the example in play; The Doctor isn't always trying to make peace, at least not with the people you expect....

-

Also, while this doesn't hold for every incarnation, Twelve is already very much here. Just be an Empiricist Investigator, except tell the GM to give you random Expeditious Investigation results every single round whether you want them or not. Oh, also, grab some Venusian Aikido while you're at it, and make sure not to dump Charisma so you can still be utterly terrifying as-required. Jokes aside, just looking through the names of Investigator feats feels like a best hits of his era. Fascinating Performance and Virtuosic Performer (Strings) are an absolute necessity and this is non-negotiable; note that this is not the jokes bit of the paragraph.


To be fair, any build for the doctor would need at least to have the investigator multiclass, unless you got a planar ranger archetype with a recall knowledge build.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

TBH, I do not see the doctor as a PC within a party of equals. They are very obviously the star of their own show.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:
I really wonder if there is design space for a class that is devoted to almost exclusively dealing with non-violent conflict resolution, negotiation, non-lethal damage, social tasks/skills, and legalism.

To me this sounds more like an addendum to a class than an actual class itself. It's about methodology and approach that anyone can or should be able to adopt, more than the totality of a class itself.

In the same way you could build a fighter or ranger or barbarian to use an axe, or focus on combat maneuvers, but Axe Specialist or Triplord probably wouldn't make sense as entire classes by themselves.

That's not even getting into the awkward party dynamic issues other posters have brought up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A pacifist negotiator is useless against animals, constructs, oozes, most aberrations and elementals, plenty of undead...

It only works in adventures tailored directly to that class, which does not bode well.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, that's why I phrased it as a question so we could see if there is enough brainstorming space in between the existing classes and archetypes where something like this could really take root.

For a long time, I've had this feeling like there has been a component of REAL interpersonal communication and connection between PCs and NPCs and especially monsters/baddies that has been missing from RPGs.

Characters like The Doctor, Spock, Vash the Stampede, or MacGyver are all more/less pacifists who would always first lean into their talents and skills to resolve conflict non-violently or in the very least in a way that minimized injury or harm to others regardless of if they're enemies or allies. As it stands there is very little reason for most PCs to ever even consider putting their hands up and trying to calm a situation down, they just don't have the skill/talent to have it mean a lick of difference versus them simply having wasted their time/rounds/actions when the situation is invariably going to boil down to violence anyhow.

Regarding opponents that "reason" would simply fail on, that's totally fine, those things won't work and that's fine, every role has its foil and this type of character could always fall back to the "least violent" option such as rendering them unconscious or in a situation where the enemy is truly not worthy of redemption destroying them can always still be on the table although that would likely be best left of their friends and peers.

Figured it might be something worthy of discussion.


Themetricsystem wrote:


Figured it might be something worthy of discussion.

Definitely. I've tried playing this sort of character before a few times myself, and my finding has been that it's fine to have that preference, as a character trait, but building your character with the expectation of solving your problems that way, or something you are dogmatically committed to, is just fundamentally at odds with the heart of the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also all those listed characters would still use weapons and stuff as needed.

You dont really need a class to be a diplomat. All you need is to approach fights from a diplomatic sense from the start and let the GM know about it. Feats that PF1 had like Call Truce, were very useful to handle this sort of situations.

Its something for an intrigue campaign, not quite for a regular campaign.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
ArchSage20 wrote:

also i doubt the following have any chance of happening but

maybe a Necromancer class since wizard necromancers don't make sense anymore cause arcane is mind and matter while necromancy should be focused on life and soul which is divine the polar opposite

maybe a Sage class (a caster that get all 4 lists but has the fewest slots and other weaknesses etc...) not as absurd as it sounds once you consider both polymath bard and halcyon/magaambyan can already do it

there is already the ooze-morph and golem-grafter archetypes so i wanted a class that is focused on seeking immortality by altering one's body to the point of becoming a completely comprehensible creature cuthulu-style maybe Evolutionist or Shape-Changer or Metamorph etc...

but please not something that is subordinate to nature like shifter druid

Wait... ooze morph?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
Wait... ooze morph?

Yep, Oozemorph.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Wait... ooze morph?
Yep, Oozemorph.

Legal in pfs???

Sczarni

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

Oozemorph is... oozing with flavor

Liberty's Edge

Verzen wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Wait... ooze morph?
Yep, Oozemorph.
Legal in pfs???

No idea.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's made legal for people who go through the module it's from, though.


Themetricsystem wrote:
The Doctor, Spock, Vash the Stampede, or MacGyver

One of these things is not like the other...

I get Vash was a pacifist in spirit, but to say he was non-violent in respect to the other 3? I'm not sure I agree.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Also all those listed characters would still use weapons and stuff as needed.

You dont really need a class to be a diplomat. All you need is to approach fights from a diplomatic sense from the start and let the GM know about it. Feats that PF1 had like Call Truce, were very useful to handle this sort of situations.

Its something for an intrigue campaign, not quite for a regular campaign.

You don't really need a class to be a [insert anything here]. Want to be a warrior? Pick literally any class and give them a sword and armor. Want to be a thief? Again pick any class and give them stealth and thievery. The only thing that requires class is spellcasting in the pf2 system. So yes, you don't need a class to be a diplomat, but that doesn't preclude the desire or the space to have one exist.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh I agree there could be archetypes for intrigue games. But that is not something that is generally useful in other games.

For example the water archetypes are very useful for water campaigns but not so much else where.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

Now I'm imagining an entire system being layered on top of the current rule set to fill out social combat rules.

Stuff like "weapons" to equip, defensive actions to take, all of it. And an independently tracked level system for it (NPCs already have different levels for social and combat challenges, so could PCs).


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

yeah sounds like a subsystem and an archetype or two for an Ultimate Intrigue type book.

Would be interesting if something like this ever appears.
This type of class could engage with enemies using diplomacy but should that go south they could act sort of like Starfinder's envoy and inspire others or maybe like a mesmerist and try to captivate or demoralize opponents, maybe some type of focus spell attack or weapons that deal non lethal damage. Gets into bard or mesmerist territory but is still an interesting discussion on something completely different

With all the "haunt" flavored archtypes in 1e I think it'd be cool to see a Warlock that somehow uses "spirits" as a resource. Not like moving haunts around, as they were just ghostly traps but something that utilizes souls and spirits like a hag. Contacting spirits, hags and creatures trading souls are a thing that are talked about but what do they actually do with them? I guess that was the realm of the medium, which seemed really interesting but quite a bit to manage


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rude_ that sounds like a Soul Drinker and similar classes/archetypes. Everything from "uses souls as a power source" to "uses souls to get HP".


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

Hm, looks like a warhammer thing, not familiar with it.
I guess I'm longing for those occult classes and a class with a spooky vibe


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
gnoams wrote:
You don't really need a class to be a [insert anything here]. Want to be a warrior? Pick literally any class and give them a sword and armor. Want to be a thief? Again pick any class and give them stealth and thievery. The only thing that requires class is spellcasting in the pf2 system. So yes, you don't need a class to be a diplomat, but that doesn't preclude the desire or the space to have one exist.

It sounds like you're disagreeing with Temperans here, but PF2 doesn't have a dedicated thief class, probably specifically for that reason and has several "warrior" classes that can all use swords and armor in different ways.

So, yeah. You're kind of just reinforcing their point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
gnoams wrote:
You don't really need a class to be a [insert anything here]. Want to be a warrior? Pick literally any class and give them a sword and armor. Want to be a thief? Again pick any class and give them stealth and thievery. The only thing that requires class is spellcasting in the pf2 system. So yes, you don't need a class to be a diplomat, but that doesn't preclude the desire or the space to have one exist.

It sounds like you're disagreeing with Temperans here, but PF2 doesn't have a dedicated thief class, probably specifically for that reason and has several "warrior" classes that can all use swords and armor in different ways.

So, yeah. You're kind of just reinforcing their point.

To build on this, the best way to make sure the rest of the party is willing to support you in your peaceful endeavors is for everyone else to also be members of a class that favors diplomacy over fisticuffs.

My roommate brought home a bottle of sake, I can't help my language at the moment

I was semi joking about this being a separate system, but really, can't it? We saw how the vigilante could be bolted on to basically any class for an intrigue game, and now the game itself is built to facilitate exactly that. What if instead of a single class, you had 3-5 super archetypes, each 10-15 feats long, that let you turn any class into a Spy, a Rake, an Intimidator, or a Calm Weaver? Someone mentioned the Doctor, but Granny Weatherwax rarely used big magic in Discworld, and Nanny Ogg used even less. What if the Bard's insistence on seducing everything with a pulse was actually a valid strategy and not a disruption? Could we get THAT into a party? Or a master spy that rarely is seen but whose presence is oft felt?

Multiple "classes" might make for a better game than just one flying against the expectations of everyone else.


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

Seems like a system and archetypes for an Ultimate Campaign for PF2.
I like the discussion as I have players in one group who feel they "aren't good" at role playing and some that excel at it and want to dedicate large parts of the game to role playing encounters.

My thought that with a class or classes like this it would encourage role playing or solving combat in a different style through mechanics of the class. Might be interesting for veteran players to do something which is pretty different as well. That being said, I have played in heavy RP games with 0 combat and it can be as dull as one thats just an endless string of combat encounters. Like most posts above, not sure how you mix a class like this with a bunch of murder hobos. It does seem to hit the fantasy genre of the famous person who shows up and speaks wisely but doesnt actually do anything with a sword or a spell. Maybe thats just more of a story telling device than something that works in an rpg


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love metamorph type of using aspects like growing fleshbows or boneblades to claws, with its subclasses being like ozoomorph(acutral one) or void creature so more of blue mage type. If was made I rather it have no link to druid, no wildshape as wildshape is druid thing.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of the very first character I played in 3.5 was a diplomatic character with huge skills and approximately zero combat ability. It sounded nice on paper but ended up exceedingly frustrating.

Based on this experience, I think a skilled character who would shine out of combat and would use Deception in combat to take the opponent off guard would be a great fit. A Rogue, especially a Scoundrel, sounds just fine.

51 to 100 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / An Original Class? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.