I took a quick look at the class lists for the two editions, and decided to try to see which First Edition Classes have already been implemented (more or less) in Second Edition. I started with the First Edition class list on Archives of Nethys, and went from there. More in a moment, but first, a question: are the Barbarian, Monk, Rogue, and Summoner in Second Edition more similar to the original classes in First Edition, or to their Unchained versions? I have the impression it's the latter, so that's how I went in my list.
There are 44 base classes in First Edition. Twenty one of those have been or will soon be directly implemented in Second Edition: Alchemist, Antipaladin (as Champion), Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Gunslinger, Investigator, Magus, Monk, Oracle, Paladin (as Champion), Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Summoner, Swashbuckler, Warpriest (as Cleric), Witch, and Wizard.
Most of the ten hybrid classes from the First Edition Advanced Class Guide seem fairly straight forward: Arcanist (Wizard with Sorcerer Dedication), Bloodrager (Barbarian with Sorcerer Dedication), Brawler (Fighter with Monk Dedication), Hunter (Ranger with Druid Dedication), Investigator (Investigator), Skald (Bard with Barbarian Dedication), Slayer (Ranger with Rogue Dedication), Swashbuckler (Swashbuckler), Warpriest (Cleric). That leaves Shaman, which in First Edition was an Oracle/Witch hybrid. Not sure that one of those with the other as a multiclass dedication really fits though.
Cavalier and Vigilante are now Archetypes, available to any class if trained in a prerequisite skill, though they're Uncommon.
That leaves Inquisitor, Ninja, Samurai, Shifter, and the six classes from Occult Adventures. Not sure what to do with those. Maybe Paizo will come up with something..
Comments?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most of the ten hybrid classes from the First Edition Advanced Class Guide seem fairly straight forward: Arcanist (Wizard with Sorcerer Dedication), Bloodrager (Barbarian with Sorcerer Dedication), Brawler (Fighter with Monk Dedication), Hunter (Ranger with Druid Dedication), Investigator (Investigator), Skald (Bard with Barbarian Dedication), Slayer (Ranger with Rogue Dedication), Swashbuckler (Swashbuckler), Warpriest (Cleric). That leaves Shaman, which in First Edition was an Oracle/Witch hybrid. Not sure that one of those with the other as a multiclass dedication really fits though.
I disagree with most of your list here. Specifically, the Bloodrager, Skald, and Arcanist classes were a great deal more than the sum of their parent classes (the investigator and swashbuckler also landed in this area), and need more mechanical support before I'd consider them inside of PF2. They don't necessarily have to be full classes. Indeed, in some cases a couple good feats is all we need. I just don't think we're there yet. Entirely possible we'll get the feats I'd like to see in SoM though.
The War priest I somewhat disagree with, but I also think that's about as close as we're going to get, so I'll not push that too hard.
The Slayer pretty much is the PF2 ranger, and the important parts of the Brawler class were mined by the Fighter. Between SoM and the Warden spells from APG, we're good on the Hunter.
The shaman...probably just needs to be its own class. I don't really see a way to easily implement it. A class archetype perhaps, but even that might take some work.
That leaves Inquisitor, Ninja, Samurai, Shifter, and the six classes from Occult Adventures. Not sure what to do with those. Maybe Paizo will come up with something..Comments?
Samurai and Ninja I'm not sure what will happen to those. I feel like a good archetype might be able to cover those. I know a lot of us were hoping for a Drifter to absorb some of the class fantasy of the Samurai, but alas.
As for OA, Spiritualist is covered. The others I can see several different options, though I'd favor new classes for most, particularly the kineticist. I'm prepared to wait a bit on that now that I have a good 3p substitute (and I don't mean the legendary games one).
To be honest though, I wouldn't be shocked if the next hardcover after Guns and Gears is a monster focused Occult/Spirit book with a Psychic, Occultist, or Medium class. I'm semi convinced there will be a new playtest for 1 new class announced at Paizocon running for 3-4 weeks right after it.
The mechanical aspects of the PF1 Shaman have largely been subsumed by the Witch, though the aesthetic aspects are still available so I wouldn't be surprised to see a class called Shaman sometime in the future.
-Many PF1 Alchemist builds are better built w/ MCD Alchemist on top of a stronger chassis, especially melee builds though a buffer build might want a caster as its foundation.
-PF2's Warpriest seems only to be a defensive build for a Cleric, not so much a self-buffing offensive combat specialist like before. So an MCD Cleric on a martial class might prove better for those converting a PC over from PF1.
-I don't think Arcanist is well represented by a Wizard MCD Sorcerer (or the inverse) because its tricks were pretty significant. I might lean toward Sorcerer as base simply because its Focus Spells are superior and feel a bit closer.
-A Bloodrager would need a better way to cast while Raging (w/o using their whole round w/ Moment of Clarity).
-This goes for Skalds too, even more since Compositions are part of that.
While a Shaman blended Oracles & Witches, it also drew from Druidic influences and had access to a lot more breadth due to its options. So I don't think there's a single combo that captures all those flavors from PF1 Shaman builds. I believe though much of the flavor could be had by blending two of those three classes while being open to swapping in Sorcerer or Cleric (w/ appropriate bloodlines/domains).
It just matter what spells one focused on before.
(For example, my PF1 Shaman would likely translate best as a Cleric w/ access to Fireball through their deity or an outright Druid since I can't recall using offensive hexes.)
Inquisitor's in a sticky spot (much the same as Warpriest, dependent on self-buffing which we may not see much of in PF2). Many people ask for one for PF2, but I'd like to know which parts they're asking for. I don't see Bane weapons at will or uber-Intimidate returning.
And a Rogue or Ranger w/ Cleric could do a lot of the basic stuff we could expect to see.
I could see this as a Dedication w/ a few Focus Spells.
Ninja seems unnecessary at this point.
Rogue, perhaps w/ MCD Alchemist for smoke bombs, seems to succeed here.
Samurai too seems unnecessary, though I could see a Dedication for Iaijutsu and a few other of their tricks. It'd be nice if it could piggyback off either a Fighter or Champion (or even Ranger or more).
Shifter...
Yeah, that's awkward. I'd love to see a polymorph-based martial class.
Occult classes.
-Psychic & Mesmerist involved a lot of complex mechanics layered on top of a simple chassis, so in that vein I could see both of them as Dedications to get those various tricks, ones that might be appropriate for Bards, Occult Witches, or Occult Sorcerers, but likely many more classes too.
-The Summoner will hopefully cover Spiritualists. If not with enough flavor, maybe a Dedication too? I'd think it'd be cool to have that flavor on some types of Barbarian or a Dwarf Fighter, etc.
-Kineticists were among my favorite and the class's chassis resembles feat progression in PF2 a lot, so hopefully we'll see those, albeit I expect them to begin far less powerful. :( So no flying at will until much higher levels for example. While there's been ample demand for them, I vaguely recall a developer saying they weren't in any rush though perhaps enough time has passed.
-The Medium has so much quirkiness and breadth it might kill itself by trading power for options. I could see it returning as its own class, though I doubt it's a priority. And it seems to have too much for a Dedication too, though maybe a couple Dedications (much like a few current Dedications have partners). Then one could choose which Spirits to focus on without having a whole class dedicated to too many spirits. Or maybe not, since so many abilities revolved around buffs of some sort and PF2 has lessened those.
All that said, there are still PF1 Archetypes that have fallen through the cracks too! I suppose Dedications could suffice in many cases.
Inquisitor's in a sticky spot (much the same as Warpriest, dependent on self-buffing which we may not see much of in PF2). Many people ask for one for PF2, but I'd like to know which parts they're asking for. I don't see Bane weapons at will or uber-Intimidate returning.
Inquisitor I can see a couple different options. My personal favorite method would be to make it an Investigator class path, with its power being something resembling the cleric's divine font, except only usable to do stuff like Emblazon Armament instead using it to heal. A Magus class archetype also seems feasible, with a couple more skills and divine spellcasting instead of arcane.
Who knows, they may even implement several methods. As you said, "Inquisitor" covers a lot of ground, and they may choose to take different approaches to tackle different aspects of it, instead of or in addition to just making it a class.
I do hope that some of the hybrid classes like skald, bloodrager, hunter, shaman, etc. come out eventually (as I'm sure they will), but it would be cool if we got feats in secrets of magic to make those multiclass options a little easier. Something like an instinct for barbarian that lets you use verbal stuff while raging, let's you cast a self buff spell as a free action while raging, cool stuff like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bloodrager and Skald definitely need to be either a class archetype or its own class, Moment of clarity is not enough for them to be a satisfactory thing to play through multiclassing.
A shifter class would be cool, as Wild Druids do the thing decently but it is more like a side shtick than their main thing.
Inquisitor is also something that cannot be replicated very well right now. I think it would need to be its own class.
The only contact I had with Occult classes was with the Kineticist. It definitely needs to be its own class at some point, it was interesting and it cannot be replicated at all right now.
I always found the Samurai in 1st ED to be a little bit lame except for the iaiutsu thing. That could be brought back with an archetype.
Ninja seems unnecessary at this point.
First ED Ninja went for the quasi-magical eastern assassin trope we can see in anime and movies that I think it's not quite there in 2E. It would make a cool Archetype, With access to focus spells, access/proficiency with thematic weapons and stealth stuff.
Honestly I think we are in a great spot right now. I would much rather get new classes than get everything back as soon as posible.
First ED Ninja went for the quasi-magical eastern assassin trope we can see in anime and movies that I think it's not quite there in 2E.
I think Monk is supposed to do this now, especially with the shuriken support the class has in 2e. Ninja was a very monk-ish Rogue in PF1 anyways so it makes sense to do it that way, just take stealth as your primary skill increase and go from there.
Mixing Medium and Shaman into one versatility-focused package would make sense to me. I know some people are leery of multi-tradition casters by now, but they're useful. Permanent Witch lessons aren't close enough to spirits for my taste, so I don't quite agree that they have Shaman's mechanical stuff already — but how they would translate that doesn't just overshadow the Witch remains to be seen. There's definitely space to mix with Medium, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mixing Medium and Shaman into one versatility-focused package would make sense to me. I know some people are leery of multi-tradition casters by now, but they're useful. Permanent Witch lessons aren't close enough to spirits for my taste, so I don't quite agree that they have Shaman's mechanical stuff already — but how they would translate that doesn't just overshadow the Witch remains to be seen. There's definitely space to mix with Medium, though.
I think trying to cram both into a single class will shortchange both. Not least because the medium wasn't really a caster class, and the shaman was.
I'm aware you could get up to 6th level casting on the medium. But that was an option, not the mechanical weight of the class, and few of its class features interacted with it.
There might be some similarities you could explore, but I think you'd be better off making several classes of differing types that explored those themes rather than 1 class at 1 power level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First ED Ninja went for the quasi-magical eastern assassin trope we can see in anime and movies that I think it's not quite there in 2E.I think Monk is supposed to do this now, especially with the shuriken support the class has in 2e. Ninja was a very monk-ish Rogue in PF1 anyways so it makes sense to do it that way, just take stealth as your primary skill increase and go from there.
I always found Monk to be quite different to 1st ED Ninja even after Paizo added Shuriken support. Monks do not feel like assassins with their current feat pool and class abilities. You don't need to rely on subterfuge to do your thing.
Classes like brawler, slayer, and hunter will very likely be ported over, but play very differently. Look at investigator and compare it to first edition - very different. Those old classes will probably have a lot of their old identity, but with more 2e flair.
Medium and shaman have a lot of fun design space I think, they'll be really cool once they make the transition. I also losely remember a stream where jason buhlman had said they are very very careful about what old classes they make archetypes, and aren't planning to make any more old classes into archetypes.
I always found Monk to be quite different to 1st ED Ninja even after Paizo added Shuriken support. Monks do not feel like assassins with their current feat pool and class abilities. You don't need to rely on subterfuge to do your thing.First ED Ninja went for the quasi-magical eastern assassin trope we can see in anime and movies that I think it's not quite there in 2E.I think Monk is supposed to do this now, especially with the shuriken support the class has in 2e. Ninja was a very monk-ish Rogue in PF1 anyways so it makes sense to do it that way, just take stealth as your primary skill increase and go from there.
Hmm, I may take this as a build challenge to see if this can be a little purposeful feat choice and reflavoring away from working.
Monk with assassin dedication for ninja?
I never really expect any PF2E class to be one for one the same as the PF1E equivalent. But Paizo has said they don't want to end up with 44 classes in PF2E, so...
There are some 115, iirc, Prestige Classes in first edition. Some of those have already become their own Archetype in PF2E, but not very many.
Ninjas are pretty easy, though I wouldn't say there's one solution.
By mixing Monk, Rogue, Martial Artist, Assassin, Scout, and even MCD Alchemist or MCD spellcaster one should be able to rebuild most any PF1 Ninja concept.
Concepts which stretch too broadly or are inflexible on having every element be exactly as one had it in PF1 would be difficult of course, but stealth-based killers w/ chicanery & underhanded tactics would be achievable.
If somebody had a list of what they wanted their ninja to do (and had the patience to understand low-level ninja take time to develop) then the Advice Forum could certainly rise to the challenge and deliver options.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One way Paizo might do Ninjas is making them a Rogue Racket that gets some access to ki spells. Heck, the way I'd do so now is a Rogue that archetyped into Monk or Shadowdancer (or both).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My guess is that ninja ends up as an archetype that has more to do with historical ninja than popular culture versions thereof.
Shaman, I think, gets its thematics moved to the dedicated spontaneous primal caster (which coexists with the primal sorcerer like the bard coexists with the occult sorcerer).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I want to touch on (and I think it's already been brought up some), is that due to self buffing a lot of classes in PF1 could do well in martial pursuits, even if on their surface they weren't a martial class.
That is not really the case in PF2.
If you want a warpriest type character, using the warpriest doctrine cleric is honestly likely to disappoint you.
You're much better off making a fighter with a cleric dedication.
Same for a martial like alchemist.
Same for most any class (from PF1) that you'd like to use a weapon and do other stuff on the side.
I feel like fighters with multiclass dedication are the best path for too many builds because of proficiency and the lack of strong methods to increase attack bonuses.
Because of proficiency (and the lack of buffs), I think the fighter is the best class at using a weapon, too much so IMO.
Not that other classes don't have ways of getting themselves to be relevant/on par, but they all tend to take actions and setup and the fighter is just always on and ready to go.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You say that as though it's a bad thing.
A fighter won't have the damage of a barbarian or the defenses of a champion. They won't have the mobility and other benefits of a monk or swashbuckler, or the skillset of a rogue or investigator.
All they have going for them is their ability to hit well and innate Attack of Opportunity.
Trying to make other classes "Fighter, but better" is just duplicating the problems of PF1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My general expectations for the remaining classes
Inquisitor - likely to be either it's own class, due to both popularity and uniqueness. If not my second guess would be an investigator path.
Ninja - either a mystical rogue racket or an archetype
Samurai - I'm not sure this class ever really did enough to distinguish itself from cavalier, maybe it gets an archetype but I honestly do not expect to see pf1 samurai return.
Arcanist - I do not think this will be it's own class, its base conceit is too close to the wizard, it might appear as either a new thesis (spontaneous study or something) or an alternative casting option in som
Bloodrager - I do not expect that this class will return. I feel like dragon barbarian shows a lean towards moving bloodlines to barbarian instincts.
Brawler - between the martial artist archetype and out the box non magical monks this is covered
Hunter - the beastmaster largely covers this fantasy and can be stapled to ranger or druid for either casting or martial focus
Skald - I see this being a new barbarian instinct, perhaps warding instinct or something that has an ally bolstering ability, perhaps a non concentration focus spell.
Shaman - i have never actually seen a shaman in play but I could see it sharing space with medium as a "spirit vessel" option. Most likely as a 2 page archetype rather than a class on its own.
Slayer- this is just the ranger
Shifter - I struggle to see how this would work, the way shapeshifting abilities are set up being a martial shapeshifter is a minor buff at best since your new shape just hands you your to hit bonus.
Kineticist - more or less needs to be it's own class, popular, mechanically and aesthetically unique and impossible to really replicate with
Existing options.
Mesmerist - this if anything will be a new bard muse perhaps with some unique focus spells.
Psion - I've never seen one in play but they will be a hard sell with bard being the defacto occult caster, it would be hard to make a dedicated occult mage that doesnt feel like "bard but without compositions"
Occultist - this class feels difficult to evaluate. It breaks a lot of the base conceits of it's own system with it's odd casting and obscure "set bonuses" I would say that this could be THE focus spell class with all sorts of weird powers but unless they get some heavy help to make focus work different for them, I dont see "the focus spell class" as a good place to be given how limited that would make "your thing" in combat. In any case though I do expect occultist to be a new class.
So tldr tally my expectations are
New class: inquisitor, keneticist, occultist
Archetype: shaman/medium
Existing class path: ninja, bloodrager, skald
Unneeded: samurai, arcanist, brawler, hunter, slayer
Dunno: psion and shifter
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You say that as though it's a bad thing.
A fighter won't have the damage of a barbarian or the defenses of a champion. They won't have the mobility and other benefits of a monk or swashbuckler, or the skillset of a rogue or investigator.
All they have going for them is their ability to hit well and innate Attack of Opportunity.
Trying to make other classes "Fighter, but better" is just duplicating the problems of PF1.
The barbarian thing is misleading.
Not accounting for chance to hit and crit, yes the barbarian deals more damage per attack. When you take into account that difference in proficiency, I think the fighter still ends up with more damage.
There might be some really specific builds where the barbarian out damages the fighter (not accounting for damage resistances) but not common.
The problem is, for any class who's main thing is hitting an enemy with a stick then your main point of comparison is abilities which allow you to do that better.
Barbarians can do some really cool stuff, like turning into dragons. Definitely something a fighter can't do. But they're also not as good at hitting the enemy with a stick.
So I guess my point is, if you want to hit things with a stick, your best bet is to start as a fighter and multiclass dedication into other things.
Also, please don't act like I suggested that classes should be fighter but better. It's disingenuous as I did not suggest that at all.
What I am suggesting is that a lot of builds from PF1 are best ported to PF2 by starting with a fighter and multiclassing. It's going to get you far closer to your desired feel than most other classes.
But, I do think that's bad.
Shifter could pretty easily be an archetype. Druid multiclass runs into a wall since you can't get higher level form feats; an archetype could grant wildshape and the wildshape feats without the delay, maybe toss a few other feats in to round it out.
I'm not sure this is actually true, given the way wildshape and battle form spells work. There's a couple limited builds that might work, but on the whole locking yourself out of your martial class abilities and your spells to be a limited druid seems like an uneven trade. It works for the druid because they have class features supporting it; trying to staple the build onto another class without those supports doesn't seem like it would work out well.
That said, I could see the Shifter combining well with the Medium instead of the Shaman, and possibly the Synthecist Summoner. Flavorwise they're all quite different, but mechanically they resemble a build-a-battle-form, with Mediums using class abilities and Summoners/Synthecists using creature abilities (basically, all three would give a set number of basic abilities, and your feats would unlock additional abilities usable within that battle form. Not too unlike Barbarians, actually, but without the concentrate restriction).
Doesn't have to be done that way, but I could see that as one possibility.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
stuff
I think it's important to remember that when a class is being moved over, the cog and gears of its 1e mechanics are less relevent that the fantasy that class and those mechanics where trying to play out. While it's true that medium, shifter and synthesis had a similar mechanical core of the tinker-toy combat form, lumping them together would be a disservice to the fantasy of all three.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stuffI think it's important to remember that when a class is being moved over, the cog and gears of its 1e mechanics are less relevent that the fantasy that class and those mechanics where trying to play out. While it's true that medium, shifter and synthesis had a similar mechanical core of the tinker-toy combat form, lumping them together would be a disservice to the fantasy of all three.
I have the exact opposite opinion. I can throw any flavor I want at a sack of mechanics; I need the sack of mechanics to work first though.
Edit: which isn't to say the flavor is irrelevant, but flavor can be updated too. Look at how the flavor of bards moved between editions to more fully embrace the Occult tradition they tried to carve out.
Not accounting for chance to hit and crit, yes the barbarian deals more damage per attack. When you take into account that difference in proficiency, I think the fighter still ends up with more damage.There might be some really specific builds where the barbarian out damages the fighter (not accounting for damage resistances) but not common.
I didn't do the math, but I admit was sure the barbarian was the winner in terms of damage ( just considering the average rage damage bonus, and not stuff like hitting X targets with a dragon breath or a whirlwind attack on a huge giant barbarian ).
How large is the gap between the 2 classes in terms of pure damage?
I know there's been a lot of comparisons thrown up on the website where people have shown damage graphs as you level up. I don't recall exactly what the difference was off the top of my head. The fighter was better (mostly due to crits) but not hugely so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You say that as though it's a bad thing.
A fighter won't have the damage of a barbarian or the defenses of a champion. They won't have the mobility and other benefits of a monk or swashbuckler, or the skillset of a rogue or investigator.
All they have going for them is their ability to hit well and innate Attack of Opportunity.
Trying to make other classes "Fighter, but better" is just duplicating the problems of PF1.
The barbarian thing is misleading.
Not accounting for chance to hit and crit, yes the barbarian deals more damage per attack. When you take into account that difference in proficiency, I think the fighter still ends up with more damage.
There might be some really specific builds where the barbarian out damages the fighter (not accounting for damage resistances) but not common.
The problem is, for any class who's main thing is hitting an enemy with a stick then your main point of comparison is abilities which allow you to do that better.
Barbarians can do some really cool stuff, like turning into dragons. Definitely something a fighter can't do. But they're also not as good at hitting the enemy with a stick.
So I guess my point is, if you want to hit things with a stick, your best bet is to start as a fighter and multiclass dedication into other things.
Also, please don't act like I suggested that classes should be fighter but better. It's disingenuous as I did not suggest that at all.
What I am suggesting is that a lot of builds from PF1 are best ported to PF2 by starting with a fighter and multiclassing. It's going to get you far closer to your desired feel than most other classes.
But, I do think that's bad.
You'd be wrong. Even on throwing builds - the thing where they start behind due to lower Dex - they're ahead in damage by about 10%. They're more damaging in any comparison you come up with.
If you base your builds entirely on "how accurately can I hit an enemy with a stick" of course you're going to end up with fighter first, because that's basically all PF1 martials had going for them. But if you want other things, like my Warpriest/Champion of Ragathiel that likes to Chuck out incredibly large Channel Smites while having paladin reaction in full plate, then you start with other things. Or my Swashbuckler that dual wields rapier/whip and Aids with Diplomacy. Even my switch-hitting toxicant is still an alchemist, because the thing iconic to her was delivering disabling poisons through a dagger (and healing, I suppose, Chirurgeon basically got entirely subsumed by Treat Wounds).
Starting with fighter and going full archetype into another class is realistically not very effective, because multiclass archetypes usually don't manage to pick up the best parts. A Fighter/Swashbuckler isn't going to be nearly as effective at being a Swashbuckler - it certainly will hit more often, but it won't have the single-hit damage, the mobility, and the riposte will be 5 levels behind. Will be better at just standing there and fighting as a duelist, though, especially if they take something like a bastard sword with the one-handed style and Dual-Handed Assault. Very different style, though.
I know there's been a lot of comparisons thrown up on the website where people have shown damage graphs as you level up. I don't recall exactly what the difference was off the top of my head. The fighter was better (mostly due to crits) but not hugely so.
Not accounting for chance to hit and crit, yes the barbarian deals more damage per attack. When you take into account that difference in proficiency, I think the fighter still ends up with more damage.There might be some really specific builds where the barbarian out damages the fighter (not accounting for damage resistances) but not common.
I didn't do the math, but I admit was sure the barbarian was the winner in terms of damage ( just considering the average rage damage bonus, and not stuff like hitting X targets with a dragon breath or a whirlwind attack on a huge giant barbarian ).
How large is the gap between the 2 classes in terms of pure damage?
I grabbed a quick math sample from level 15:
Greatsword Fighter, 21 Str, legendary; +2 greater striking flaming frost greatsword for +30 (3d12+2d6+13, avg 39.5) vs AC 34 - averaging 47.4/27.65Dragon Barbarian, 21 Str, master; +2 greater striking flaming frost greatsword for +28 (3d12+2d6+27, avg 53.5) - averaging 48.15/29.425
I'll also note that if you remove property runes, the barbarian pushes further ahead.
This here is what I'm thinking of.
If you look through it, it shows the fighter ahead of the barbarian.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want a warpriest type character, using the warpriest doctrine cleric is honestly likely to disappoint you.
You're much better off making a fighter with a cleric dedication.
Same for a martial like alchemist.
Same for most any class (from PF1) that you'd like to use a weapon and do other stuff on the side.
This only applies if your only concern is DPR and you have a fetish for spreadsheets and big numbers. Otherwise, you can make perfectly valid characters of all these types, again, your bias for only considering optimized PCs who can dish out damage is showing.
I know I'm not the only one who has pushed back against this idea, even in this thread like Cyouni has, but I think it is worth mentioning that you have repeatedly and unrelentingly insisted on only focusing on to-hit and damage average calculations that are totally and utterly meaningless during an actual game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This here is what I'm thinking of.
If you look through it, it shows the fighter ahead of the barbarian.
I manually checked 2 action melee expected damage vs level-2.
Vs AC 33:
Halberd Fighter, 21 Str, legendary; +2 greater striking flaming frost halberd for +30 (3d10+2d6+13, avg 36.5) - averaging 47.45/29.2 = 76.65
Dragon Barbarian, 21 Str, master; +2 greater striking flaming frost halberd for +28 (3d10+2d6+27, avg 50.5) - averaging 55.5/30.3 = 85.8
Fury Barbarian, 21 Str, master; +2 greater striking flaming frost halberd for +28 (3d10+2d6+23, avg 46.5) - averaging 51.15/27.9 = 79.05
The halberd fighter is in the same spot as noted in chart, but notably barbarian is not. Whatever was done with barbarian was clearly missing some big numbers.
If you want a warpriest type character, using the warpriest doctrine cleric is honestly likely to disappoint you.
You're much better off making a fighter with a cleric dedication.
Same for a martial like alchemist.
Same for most any class (from PF1) that you'd like to use a weapon and do other stuff on the side.
This only applies if your only concern is DPR and you have a fetish for spreadsheets and big numbers. Otherwise, you can make perfectly valid characters of all these types, again, your bias for only considering optimized PCs who can dish out damage is showing.
I know I'm not the only one who has pushed back against this idea, even in this thread like Cyouni has, but I think it is worth mentioning that you have repeatedly and unrelentingly insisted on only focusing on to-hit and damage average calculations that are totally and utterly meaningless during an actual game.
I disagree, and your assertions are insulting.
I think everyone here, would agree that bigger numbers are better (as a player) supposing your not sacrificing something else. Of course, with class selection your always sacrificing something.
When it come to multiclassing, you're going to sacrifice a lot of class feats for the multiclass dedication. So you need a class that is does what you want without those talents. Fighter is perhaps one of the easiest to sacrifice class feats (IMO). Not to mention it's on a chassis that has the highest accuracy.
And I don't believe I've ever said other characters are invalid. Again please quit making assumptions about things I've never said.
Also, to hit and damage calculations aren't meaningless. They are a helpful tool of comparison, but they shouldn't be the only tool of comparison. And I don't think I've ever said other wise.
I find your argument insulting and disingenuous.
This here is what I'm thinking of.
If you look through it, it shows the fighter ahead of the barbarian.
I manually checked 2 action melee expected damage vs level-2.
Vs AC 33:
Halberd Fighter, 21 Str, legendary; +2 greater striking flaming frost halberd for +30 (3d10+2d6+13, avg 36.5) - averaging 47.45/29.2 = 76.65
Dragon Barbarian, 21 Str, master; +2 greater striking flaming frost halberd for +28 (3d10+2d6+27, avg 50.5) - averaging 55.5/30.3 = 85.8
Fury Barbarian, 21 Str, master; +2 greater striking flaming frost halberd for +28 (3d10+2d6+23, avg 46.5) - averaging 51.15/27.9 = 79.05The halberd fighter is in the same spot as noted in chart, but notably barbarian is not. Whatever was done with barbarian was clearly missing some big numbers.
It's possible, I did not check the numbers myself.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want a warpriest type character, using the warpriest doctrine cleric is honestly likely to disappoint you.
You're much better off making a fighter with a cleric dedication.
Same for a martial like alchemist.
Same for most any class (from PF1) that you'd like to use a weapon and do other stuff on the side.
This only applies if your only concern is DPR and you have a fetish for spreadsheets and big numbers. Otherwise, you can make perfectly valid characters of all these types, again, your bias for only considering optimized PCs who can dish out damage is showing.
I know I'm not the only one who has pushed back against this idea, even in this thread like Cyouni has, but I think it is worth mentioning that you have repeatedly and unrelentingly insisted on only focusing on to-hit and damage average calculations that are totally and utterly meaningless during an actual game.
I disagree, and your assertions are insulting.
I think everyone here, would agree that bigger numbers are better (as a player) supposing your not sacrificing something else. Of course, with class selection your always sacrificing something.
When it come to multiclassing, you're going to sacrifice a lot of class feats for the multiclass dedication. So you need a class that is does what you want without those talents. Fighter is perhaps one of the easiest to sacrifice class feats (IMO). Not to mention it's on a chassis that has the highest accuracy.
It depends. For certain things, Fighter chassis is by far the best.
You want a more magus-lite feel? Fighter MC wizard.Want PF1 warpriest with limited casting and more martial abilities? Fighter MC cleric.
Want the PF1 cleric of yore who had medium armour and full casting? Warpriest.
Fighter chassis does excel at certain things - it has more class feats than anyone else thanks to combat flexibility, has AoO built in, and legendary weapon proficiency. Thus, if you're planning on doing heavy dedications with very little class feats of your own, fighter is great because it's got a solid chassis with extra feats.
Trying to do certain other things, like trying to ape champion with fighter/champion all in, doesn't go so well. (and this is one of the better ones to do it with!) Fighter basically eats all its class feats trying to catch up to champion baseline (dedication, healing touch, reaction, divine ally), and is really running on AoO/proficiency for 6 levels. Meanwhile, champion will have actual class feats and will still be running on a higher AC proficiency - something that's quite big.
Summary, to me, is that fighter is the blandest chassis, and while that makes it really good for archetyping, having actual base features on other martial classes will make them significantly more versatile and effective than a fighter trying to copy their schtick.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ninja being a Wis Racket with Ki Powers seems like it would fit. It starting with Ki Rush just seems to make thematic sense. I'm unsure if giving a focus spell is too powerful for a racket though. Also could be a different focus power so that Wis would be more useful.
Another option for Ninja could be to have Stealth or Acrobatics scale off Wis.
A different thematic focus for Ninja could be Deception/Impersonation focused. Allowing Impersonate (Deception Untrained Action) to scale off Dex so instead of sneak attacking a Ninja could backstab disguised as the enemy.
Bloodrager could possibly work if Barbarians got an upgrade for moment of clarity that upgraded to last until rage ends. I would like it to be a lvl 4 feat so you could get sorcerer dedication. If not it could be a 1 action focus spell with concentrate(rage) that stays active until rage ends.
How powerful would the ability to switch spell lists once a day be? A Shaman or Medium that could switch out spell lists by choosing different spirits could be interesting. Like 2 spells per day and 1 focus power from the Spirit.
A Shifter as a Master Martial who can use his own Attack and in Shapeshifted form. He then could add special stuff like essentially weapon property runes to his form. So adding Ghost Touch aor Flaming to his forms. But only get 1 while transformed so the Shifter can Shift into the Right Form for each situation. The amount of Property Runes they could have be limited so they can't have every solution.
Trying to do certain other things, like trying to ape champion with fighter/champion all in, doesn't go so well. (and this is one of the better ones to do it with!) Fighter basically eats all its class feats trying to catch up to champion baseline (dedication, healing touch, reaction, divine ally), and is really running on AoO/proficiency for 6 levels. Meanwhile, champion will have actual class feats and will still be running on a higher AC proficiency - something that's quite big.
Summary, to me, is that fighter is the blandest chassis, and while that makes it really good for archetyping, having actual base features on other martial classes will make them significantly more versatile and effective than a fighter trying to copy their schtick.
I 100% agree. And you really wouldn't get much from the fighter base chassis on a Champion multiclass. You can already pick up AoO elsewhere. You're otherwise just looking at legendary weapon proficiency, but you still get master without it. If you're looking for all those defensive capabilities that the champion offers, you're better off actually just being a champion.
Bloodrager (and perhaps Skald) could fall under an Instinct, essentially the opposite of Superstitious! This would help alleviate the pressure on class feats so that those could be used to pick up a spellcasting MCD.
The first ability would be an improved Moment of Clarity (so improved it'd likely have a different name). It'd be a free action and not end one's Rage, but maybe only work for the purposes of casting one spell.
The extra Rage damage might even be tied to whether the Barbarian had done something magical that round or the last (similar to PF1's Arcane Strike) w/ Cantrips & Focus Spells counting because it's not like the Barbarian will have many options. Or it could be similar to Panache, where the Barbarian, upon casting, gets better bonuses out of Rage (perhaps with an opportunity to spend it too for a burst).
I suppose at 1st they'd need a Cantrip to get going, though their 6th/12th/whatever Instinct feats might provide more options too (preferably unique Focus Spells).
So: Magical Instinct (avoiding Bloodrager since I think it'd be cool if it could work for Skalds and any other caster blends)
1st "Casting Clarity", one Cantrip (Limited to certain list(s)?)
Maybe can bypass stat reqs for one MCD?
Anathema: Who knows...
Instinct Ability: Modest base bonus damage, more damage after casting.
7th as with most Instincts, simply more damage
Raging Resistance: two energy types? Force damage option? spells off a specific list, i.e. divine? (maybe off list chosen at 1st?)
6th level feat: ?
12th level feat: ?
I'd looked through the PF1 Bloodrager and other than casting they don't get any high-level abilities abnormal for a Barbarian. Maybe some of the more mystical Barbarian Rage Powers could be updated to fit into those feat slots.
As mentioned, I'd really prefer Focus Spells there, maybe even one cast as a Reaction to being hit with enemy magic. And maybe another for converting spell slots into a powerful strike (likely 2-action, like Channel Smite).
---
I could also see the Instinct granting the entry feat for an MCD (much like Eldritch Trickster does) except if the class also gets some Clarity ability (which it kinda needs), for balance that might cut into how much damage they get with Rage. If Rage's bonus damage is decent ONLY after casting (this round or last) that might balance it enough.
Bloodrager (and perhaps Skald) could fall under an Instinct, essentially the opposite of Superstitious! This would help alleviate the pressure on class feats so that those could be used to pick up a spellcasting MCD.
The first ability would be an improved Moment of Clarity (so improved it'd likely have a different name). It'd be a free action and not end one's Rage, but maybe only work for the purposes of casting one spell.
The extra Rage damage might even be tied to whether the Barbarian had done something magical that round or the last (similar to PF1's Arcane Strike) w/ Cantrips & Focus Spells counting because it's not like the Barbarian will have many options. Or it could be similar to Panache, where the Barbarian, upon casting, gets better bonuses out of Rage (perhaps with an opportunity to spend it too for a burst).I suppose at 1st they'd need a Cantrip to get going, though their 6th/12th/whatever Instinct feats might provide more options too (preferably unique Focus Spells).
So: Magical Instinct (avoiding Bloodrager since I think it'd be cool if it could work for Skalds and any other caster blends)
1st "Casting Clarity", one Cantrip (Limited to certain list(s)?)
Maybe can bypass stat reqs for one MCD?
Anathema: Who knows...
Instinct Ability: Modest base bonus damage, more damage after casting.
7th as with most Instincts, simply more damage
Raging Resistance: two energy types? Force damage option? spells off a specific list, i.e. divine? (maybe off list chosen at 1st?)6th level feat: ?
12th level feat: ?
I'd looked through the PF1 Bloodrager and other than casting they don't get any high-level abilities abnormal for a Barbarian. Maybe some of the more mystical Barbarian Rage Powers could be updated to fit into those feat slots.
As mentioned, I'd really prefer Focus Spells there, maybe even one cast as a Reaction to being hit with enemy magic. And maybe another for converting spell slots into a powerful strike (likely 2-action, like Channel Smite).---
I could also see the Instinct granting the entry feat for an MCD (much like Eldritch Trickster does) except if the class also gets some Clarity ability (which it kinda needs), for balance that might cut into how much damage they get with Rage. If Rage's bonus damage is decent ONLY after casting (this round or last) that might balance it enough.
One thought might be that the Instinct grants the [RAGE] trait to every spell granted through the Bloodrager Instinct, which would let Bloodrager Instinct barbarians cast their spells while raging.
Ventnor, that'd be a cleaner way to do it, yes.
Instinct gives the Barbarian an MCD feat + the Rage trait on all spells gained from that MCD (including Focus Spells say from MCD feats).
It's better than the feat from Fury Instinct, but also would have anathema, so it should be able to have comparable damage (or more if/when it's tied to casting).
That'd also help avoid gain by gaming that advantage in unexpected ways if somebody went MCD Barb.
One ability I just thought of for a Barb feat would be to spend one's Rage like Furious Finish, but to aid a spell (or recharge one from the specific MCD).
I'm not sure I agree with the fighter being the "best" martial.
Rogues are amazing, skills are so good in PF2.
Champions are amazing they can do such great thing. Every martial ive seen in action in this version of the game has been tremendous.
It's wizard who I think sucks. I know people love the Vancian magic system and that's why it was kept because most people voted for it, but I think it's awful and the worst thing about the game, and I can't wait to see the alternative magic systems in Secrets of magic.
I'm not sure I agree with the fighter being the "best" martial.
Rogues are amazing, skills are so good in PF2.
Champions are amazing they can do such great thing. Every martial ive seen in action in this version of the game has been tremendous.
It's wizard who I think sucks. I know people love the Vancian magic system and that's why it was kept because most people voted for it, but I think it's awful and the worst thing about the game, and I can't wait to see the alternative magic systems in Secrets of magic.
I don't think I ever said "best martial", but rather best martial if you plan to multiclass (with a typically not martial class) because the fighter feats are so generic you don't feel like your missing much, and because you'll get AoO and legendary weapon proficiency baked in.
And in general, if you want to focus on hitting things with a stick, they're the best at that. Although (maybe) not the best in total damage (dpr).
Rogues are fun in PF2, they have enough damage to be relevant but lots of skills and class feats to support those skill actions. Becoming amazing at stealth with Sneak Savant is one example.
And champions are great for defense and "off" healing.
But neither the champion or the rogue are offense oriented martials, so it is easier for them to carve out a niche from the others and doesn't try to compete in the DPR game.
The problem is, there are only so many niches to be had, and eventually classes start to step on each others toes. So inevitably, you will compare what they can do (in the specific realm of interest).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the reason why fighter/wizard are really good chassis to archetype from is because they're less likely to have things that improve basic class features. This is less true of wizard than fighter (arcane bond feats are aplenty) but they were the most-suited caster on the list. While PF2 generally works more on a toolbox system, where each class feat gives you a new tool, fighter/wizard generally get less that interact directly with the chassis. Investigator, for example, would pass up things relating to Pursue a Lead, while Swashbuckler would lose out on more varied Finishers or things that interact with Riposte.
While you obviously can still archetype out of other classes, I think people are more likely to feel that it loses class identity when you do so, whereas fighter/wizard are always going to be "person who hits good" or "spellcaster".