What New Classes do you want to see in PF2?

[TiwazBlackhand]

The Hybrid classes were some of my favorite PF1 classes, so I'd like to see some more of them return and or see some new ones.

Slayer
Skald
Bloodrager
Brawler
Also I'd like to see a class that's a lot more like PF1 Warpriest than the PF2 Cleric Doctine.

[Gaulin]

I wonder when we're going to get info on the next batch of classes? I suppose they might wait for gencon, even though it is a lot later than it normally is.-

[Arachnofiend]

Well we've already got two books worth of new classes that haven't been released yet; surely they wouldn't drop another playtest on us before Secrets of Magic releases, right?

[Salamileg]

Arachnofiend wrote:

Well we've already got two books worth of new classes that haven't been released yet; surely they wouldn't drop another playtest on us before Secrets of Magic releases, right?

I could see one being announced, but no way we're getting another playtest release before SoM.

[AnimatedPaper]

Actually I think they might.

My logic: 4 playtests last year/into this year were pretty popular. If I could make it work logistically, I’d certainly consider doing 5. The decision to not do bestiaries opens up the possibility of a class in the rulebook for next February/March.

They seem to have playtests 9-10 months ahead of a book’s release. So if they have a playtest in June, it could be in time for a March or April release.

I wouldn’t expect more than 1 class though. Perhaps not even a class at all; a mass combat or mythic rules playtest (just to pull 2 PF1 subsystem examples) would probably be interesting to see.

[WWHsmackdown]

Inventor has me excited for any new classes they wanna throw out there.

[Perpdepog]

Yeah I'm pretty stoked for the Inventor as well.

[Sporkedup]

In regards to new classes, I'm hopeful they get very specific with anything further they create. Meaning, I think they've done a very thorough job making classes that cover broad concepts pretty well. I'm hoping that new classes are more directly tied to Golarion--specific places or peoples on Golarion--and aren't just built to cover a wide section of character concepts.

I think I'm spinning my wheels trying to explain, but I guess think of it more like new Lost Omens classes instead of just regular rulebook classes. That kind of lore-tied, individual specificity.

[Sagiam]

Sporkedup wrote:

In regards to new classes, I'm hopeful they get very specific with anything further they create. Meaning, I think they've done a very thorough job making classes that cover broad concepts pretty well. I'm hoping that new classes are more directly tied to Golarion--specific places or peoples on Golarion--and aren't just built to cover a wide section of character concepts.

I think I'm spinning my wheels trying to explain, but I guess think of it more like new Lost Omens classes instead of just regular rulebook classes. That kind of lore-tied, individual specificity.

Archetypes generally cover this field. Full classes are generally setting agnostic, and for good reason. It takes considerably more effort to make a full class than an archetype and thus they need the class to appeal to a lot of people running potentially a lot of different settings, not just Golarian.

The only full class of the style you're talking about Paizo's ever done was the Vampire Hunter, a very specific full class done for the Vampire Hunter D tie-in book they did, and that was a very special promotion.

[Perpdepog]

Sagiam wrote:

Sporkedup wrote:

In regards to new classes, I'm hopeful they get very specific with anything further they create. Meaning, I think they've done a very thorough job making classes that cover broad concepts pretty well. I'm hoping that new classes are more directly tied to Golarion--specific places or peoples on Golarion--and aren't just built to cover a wide section of character concepts.

I think I'm spinning my wheels trying to explain, but I guess think of it more like new Lost Omens classes instead of just regular rulebook classes. That kind of lore-tied, individual specificity.

Archetypes generally cover this field. Full classes are generally setting agnostic, and for good reason. It takes considerably more effort to make a full class than an archetype and thus they need the class to appeal to a lot of people running potentially a lot of different settings, not just Golarian.

The only full class of the style you're talking about Paizo's ever done was the Vampire Hunter, a very specific full class done for the Vampire Hunter D tie-in book they did, and that was a very special promotion.

Well, and the Omdura.

I suspect we are going to see a bit of this going forward. The Gunslinger and Inventor are more tied to the Mana Wastes and a few other close by states than other locations, and that's reflected in the fact the classes are uncommon. I don't think it will be incredibly hyper-specific to Golarion, though; that's going to be the provender of archetypes for sure.

[KaiBlob1]

I feel like hyper-specific isnt really what a class should be. I don't necessarily think they need to be setting agnostic, but definitely not hyperspecific. There needs to be room for the subclasses to all feel different from eachother, and for the variety of class feats to make every single high-level version of the class feel different from every other one. That's hard if the class only encompasses a very narrow idea or playstyle.

At the same time, it is possible to make a class feel too broad. As good as the Fighter is, I've always felt like "fighter" doesn't really mean anything and the flavor just isnt there for me.

[Temperans]

Fighter always had that problem. Its the quintessential example of the "hit things good class".

On that note. Yeah classes cannot be too specific because Golarion is not just 1 setting, but a myriad of different setting simultaneously. A single place might have a thrilling adventure, while another group is doing a mystery and intrigue, all while a third might be facing eldritch horrors. Same thing for generic archetypes.

But specific archetypes however, well that is a different story. Ex: Aldori Dueling sword are a very Brevoy thing. Even if its use is wide spread.

[Staffan Johansson]

I already mentioned I'd love to see proper artificers and warlocks, but another class I'd love is something like the Warblade or Swordsage—a martial character with mystical abilities that let them do awesome stuff, but not all the time like a fighter. In PF2, these abilities could possibly be focus spells, but if so they probably need early access to Refocus improvements (and likely get them for free, because I'd like them to be able to do 2-3 Cool Things in a fight fairly early).

[Ventnor]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

I already mentioned I'd love to see proper artificers and warlocks, but another class I'd love is something like the Warblade or Swordsage—a martial character with mystical abilities that let them do awesome stuff, but not all the time like a fighter. In PF2, these abilities could possibly be focus spells, but if so they probably need early access to Refocus improvements (and likely get them for free, because I'd like them to be able to do 2-3 Cool Things in a fight fairly early).

This concept can already be done by a Monk who uses weapons and gets ki spells. Though I do think that having some more ki spells that require weapons to work would be neat.

[Gaulin]

One thing I wonder will ever happen is the decoupling of wisdom, charisma and intelligence to prepared pick any spell, spontaneous, and regular prepared casting respectively. I personally like spontaneous casting the most, but don't really like playing charismatic characters, preferring wise ones.

[AnimatedPaper]

I would be interested in seeing that, but I’m not sure we will. This post makes it seem like those mechanics are a lot more wedded to certain tropes than I had previously thought,

Michael Sayre wrote:

The point in time at which we start talking about whether a character is e.g. a spontaneous or prepared caster is way down the list when the class has already been decided on and is being written, when the designer needs to converse with the team and say "What kind of spellcasting makes sense for this concept?" And that's typically decided by the story of the trope. Is it a character type whose story involves study and preparation? Probably prepared. Is it a character type whose power is more esoteric, channeled and shaped by instinct or an unknowable force? Probably spontaneous.

[Squiggit]

I hope we do. Some of my favorite archetypes in PF1 were the ones that changed spellcasting attributes and let you kind of take new spins on existing mechanics. Cha monks and Intquisitors were fun...

Honestly I think it would have been neat to just open that option up from the get go. I mean monks get to pick their tradition why not their spellcasting attribute too.

[Staffan Johansson]

Ventnor wrote:

This concept can already be done by a Monk who uses weapons and gets ki spells. Though I do think that having some more ki spells that require weapons to work would be neat.

Not really. You'd need to start with weapons and armor, and ideally you should be able to pull off at least two Cool Moves per combat, meaning you need to start with 2-point Refocus which usually comes online at level 10-12. Plus, you should have a wide variety of Cool Moves to choose from, at least a dozen per two levels (not as an individual character, but when making your character).

[Sporkedup]

Sagiam wrote:

Sporkedup wrote:

In regards to new classes, I'm hopeful they get very specific with anything further they create. Meaning, I think they've done a very thorough job making classes that cover broad concepts pretty well. I'm hoping that new classes are more directly tied to Golarion--specific places or peoples on Golarion--and aren't just built to cover a wide section of character concepts.

I think I'm spinning my wheels trying to explain, but I guess think of it more like new Lost Omens classes instead of just regular rulebook classes. That kind of lore-tied, individual specificity.

Archetypes generally cover this field. Full classes are generally setting agnostic, and for good reason. It takes considerably more effort to make a full class than an archetype and thus they need the class to appeal to a lot of people running potentially a lot of different settings, not just Golarian.

I understand all that.

Also I fundamentally disagree with the "just make it an archetype" crowd. Archetypes and class features are nowhere near on the same plane of function and impact. Sure, you could frankly go back to the B/X base human classes of Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User, and Thief and then make everything else an archetype. And I think if they made the game now, there would be people who'd want it to play that way.

But archetypes are not functionally equivalent to class concepts.

Anyways. I'm not pushing for weird and wild hyperspecificity. Just ideas that might be more actively Pathfinder/Golarion-based instead of generic class concepts. They're showing an increasing willingness to bend that way with ancestries, for example, so I am just musing if they might not, in the long run, start making classes and the like that are explicitly based in the setting they've made.

I know it would be a weird gamble but I honestly sometimes find myself lamenting how setting-agnostic much of this game is. I think there is lots of lore/narrative space that can be matched to the still-sizable chunk of mechanical space available to Pathfinder as is.

Either way, probably just me on this one.

[AnimatedPaper]

I can’t speak for everyone, but I’m having a little trouble understanding what you mean by this, as you’re speaking somewhat in generalities. I might agree with you, if I could picture an example.

Can you suggest an example of what this might be?

Do you mean something like the Harrow medium? Because I feel there’s a fair amount of support for that in particular.

[Squiggit]

Would classes like the druid or swashbuckler count? They're pretty much hard-coded to work around a very specific set of ideas and it's a little bit difficult to step outside that area with them. With their anathema and other specific rules the druids even really nail down a lot of the roleplay elements.

I feel like it'd be hard to get much more specific than that without venturing into something closer to a character build than a whole class.

[Sporkedup]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

I can’t speak for everyone, but I’m having a little trouble understanding what you mean by this, as you’re speaking somewhat in generalities. I might agree with you, if I could picture an example.

Can you suggest an example of what this might be?

Do you mean something like the Harrow medium? Because I feel there’s a fair amount of support for that in particular.

Yeah, I think that's a fair example.

I don't personally have too many ideas but I'm not the game designer. Just seems like the classes as exist are intentionally kept origin-agnostic so that Pathfinder can function as a more generic fantasy system. And I'm all for that. But same way we got more Golarion-linked ancestries in the Lost Omens line than in the rulebook line, I'm just thinking it could be done at a class level too.

Guess I'm just wondering why classes are the holy grail that must remain setting-agnostic, when ancestries and weapons and spells and everything else have Golarion-infused lines.

[HyperMissingno]

Sporkedup wrote:

Guess I'm just wondering why classes are the holy grail that must remain setting-agnostic, when ancestries and weapons and spells and everything else have Golarion-infused lines.

It's probably because classes take the most work to craft and balance. Weapons are just a statblock, spells are more involved statblocks but still just statblocks, and ancestries only have 5 levels of feats to worry about and a few level 1 features. Classes meanwhile have 11 levels of feats and 10 levels of features.

[Perpdepog]

And I'd argue that they aren't as tied to Golarion as all that in any case. Yes, the ancestries have lots of lore that ties them to Golarion, but I also think they are one of the most extreme examples of refuting system-agnosticism, and they still aren't too difficult to divorce from Golarion if a group so chooses. Most of the ancestries we have now were in PF1E, after all, and that system was more focused on being agnostic than PF2E is.

As for spells , I can't track down the thread, but I believe it was stated somewhere that spells deliberately avoid the trope of being named after specific mages and whatnot exactly so that they can be more agnostic and able to be introduced into people's home campaigns. Weapons, for their part, seem to largely come from real-world cultures, aside from the occasional exception like the polytool and I thiiiiiiiiiink the saw-tooth saber, though I could be wrong there, too.

[Cyrad]

Sporkedup wrote:

I know it would be a weird gamble but I honestly sometimes find myself lamenting how setting-agnostic much of this game is. I think there is lots of lore/narrative space that can be matched to...

I understand where you're coming from, but classes need to be broad enough to fulfill many concepts and fantasies. That's hard to pull off by making them too setting specific.

However, setting-specific classes do exist in Pathfinder!

For example, oracles, witches, spiritualists, and summoners *are* Golarion-specific. There might be classes with these names in other games, but the way they each work are very much specific to Pathfinder. In Pathfinder, an oracle is someone cursed by a god with divine power. A witch isn't just a spellcaster -- they're a spellcaster with a patron that communicates with them using a familiar. Summoners aren't just spellcasters who can summon creatures. They're a magical person with a bond with an eidolon.

Golarion has characters with these classes. There's a recurring NPC in PFS that's a spiritualist with a red phantom. If summoners/eidolons stopped existing, we wouldn't have Sarkoris god callers anymore.

These are great examples of classes with mechanics deeply entwined with the lore.

[AnimatedPaper]

What Cyrad says.

I think they might feel more setting divorced than they really are because the rulebook line at least nods towards setting agnosticism, and so far all classes have come out in the rulebook line. I assume that is because of how rule intense classes are; members of the design team go over Lost Omens content as it is but a class might require a designer to be fully attached to the book instead (assuming I understand how they do these things correctly).

Edit: for examples from the CRB, champions now have a deity and clerics have to have one as well. Those were both setting specific changes.

But, who knows? It’s not like the lost omens team are slouches at designing themselves. So perhaps the horse may sing.

[PossibleCabbage]

Regarding "naming spells after specific peoples" that's something that immediately brings in the rarity system since the only people who are going to cast "Mr. X's Whatnot" is a subset of "people who are aware of Mr. X" which is assuredly not everyone on the planet.

Like people in Arcadia, Sarusan, southern Garund, eastern Casmaron, and large parts of Tian Xia probably have never even heard of Abrogail Thrune even though she's one of the most well-known people in the inner sea region, but every wizard of a sufficient level everywhere can cast fireball or slow.

So spells named after specific people are just lower priority to print than "spells that anyone anywhere can access."

[Gaulin]

I was talking with a coworker a while ago about basically the opposite of what's being spoken about here; I would prefer if classes weren't so specific on where they draw their power. Starfinder does a cool job of this in that it gives a few examples of where a mystic or a vanguard or what have you might draw their power from, but ultimately it's up to the player.

Sometimes mechanics of classes are really cool, but people aren't super into the flavour of it. Separating them could give players more freedom, for better or worse.

[Staffan Johansson]

Cyrad wrote:

However, setting-specific classes do exist in Pathfinder!

For example, oracles, witches, spiritualists, and summoners *are* Golarion-specific. There might be classes with these names in other games, but the way they each work are very much specific to Pathfinder. In Pathfinder, an oracle is someone cursed by a god with divine power. A witch isn't just a spellcaster -- they're a spellcaster with a patron that communicates with them using a familiar. Summoners aren't just spellcasters who can summon creatures. They're a magical person with a bond with an eidolon.

Golarion has characters with these classes. There's a recurring NPC in PFS that's a spiritualist with a red phantom. If summoners/eidolons stopped existing, we wouldn't have Sarkoris god callers anymore.

These are great examples of classes with mechanics deeply entwined with the lore.

I think that's in reverse. Setting-specific classes means "This is a thing that exists in the setting, and here's a class that represents that thing." What you are describing are generic classes that have been given a place in the setting.

In other words, the Summoner class isn't there to describe god-callers. God-callers are in the setting to provide context for the Summoner class.

Of course, this distinction is less relevant in PF2 because of the greater integration between rules and setting. In PF1, the rules were intended to be generic and a replacement for D&D 3.5, and Golarion was meant as the particular setting Paizo used for their adventures. In contrast, PF2 is much more "The Golarion RPG."

One place where you can see this difference is the Cleric class. In the PF1 rules, clerics could choose to particular concepts or philosophies, and the rules supported this. You had spells like Spiritual Weapon that created a replica of your deity's favored weapon, and if you didn't have a deity it was based on your alignment instead. Then you had the Golarion material on top of that which specified that yes, as a cleric you do need a patron deity, and even if you follow a philosophy you need to pick one of the deities supporting that philosophy. If Golarion had existed under regular D&D metaphysics, for example, you would have had genuine clerics of Razmir who would have gained power from their faith, even if Razmir himself is fake. But in PF2, the rules have been aligned with the setting, and clerics do need a patron deity.

[Schreckstoff]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Schreckstoff wrote:

With the Magus there's an Arcane Fighter now and the monk and paladin are occult/divine fighters leaving a hole that is a primal fighter.

Which could be the shifter but wholly elemental themed would be nice too.

Other than that it's difficult to come up with something that couldn't be an archetype or class archetype instead.

The Ranger is at least as much the primal fighter as the monk is occult, and Barbarian gets a taste of that too. I'm not saying that there's not space for a more heavily primal-themed martial or semi-martial class, but I don't think the "occult fighter" slot is filled all that well either.

That's totally right particularly the barbarian covers the primal fighter pretty well.

And the monk picking a tradition is just windowdressing since the abilities from it are mostly monk themed instead of borrowing from a tradition.

Which means what's actually missing most is an occult fighter, which is kind of hard to categorise being lovecraftian and other bizarre things.

[AnimatedPaper]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Cyrad wrote:

However, setting-specific classes do exist in Pathfinder!

For example, oracles, witches, spiritualists, and summoners *are* Golarion-specific. There might be classes with these names in other games, but the way they each work are very much specific to Pathfinder. In Pathfinder, an oracle is someone cursed by a god with divine power. A witch isn't just a spellcaster -- they're a spellcaster with a patron that communicates with them using a familiar. Summoners aren't just spellcasters who can summon creatures. They're a magical person with a bond with an eidolon.

Golarion has characters with these classes. There's a recurring NPC in PFS that's a spiritualist with a red phantom. If summoners/eidolons stopped existing, we wouldn't have Sarkoris god callers anymore.

These are great examples of classes with mechanics deeply entwined with the lore.

I think that's in reverse. Setting-specific classes means "This is a thing that exists in the setting, and here's a class that represents that thing." What you are describing are generic classes that have been given a place in the setting.

In other words, the Summoner class isn't there to describe god-callers. God-callers are in the setting to provide context for the Summoner class.

Originally sure, but thanks to PF1, those classes are in setting and do feel like a part of the setting. This isn't true of a all classes; Cavaliers, Brawlers, and Vigilantes felt like things that probably existed rather than deeply integrated the way Witches, Summoners, and Gunslingers are. So while they were generic, now they are specific, and their reintroduction into PF2, especially the manner in which they are being reintroduced, has a lot to do with how they are on Golarian.

On a mechanical level, I personally object to Gunslingers being an all up class instead of an archetype, or at least a class archetype. But if they came with the logic that "gunslingers are a part of Golarian, and it is important to how we want to write the setting that a class named 'gunslinger' exists as a concept" I would have little counter argument.

On the flip side, Kineticists coming out of PF1 did not feel, to me, attached at all to the setting. If that feeling is widespread, perhaps that could be why they had a lower priority to be brought back despite being a fairly popular class overall. But if that is the reason, they also seem to be working on the problem by finding small ways to make it a part of the setting by way of ancestry feats and NPC stat blocks before bringing it back entirely.

[Jokey the Unfunny Comedian]

Schreckstoff wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Schreckstoff wrote:

With the Magus there's an Arcane Fighter now and the monk and paladin are occult/divine fighters leaving a hole that is a primal fighter.

Which could be the shifter but wholly elemental themed would be nice too.

Other than that it's difficult to come up with something that couldn't be an archetype or class archetype instead.

The Ranger is at least as much the primal fighter as the monk is occult, and Barbarian gets a taste of that too. I'm not saying that there's not space for a more heavily primal-themed martial or semi-martial class, but I don't think the "occult fighter" slot is filled all that well either.

That's totally right particularly the barbarian covers the primal fighter pretty well.

And the monk picking a tradition is just windowdressing since the abilities from it are mostly monk themed instead of borrowing from a tradition.

Which means what's actually missing most is an occult fighter, which is kind of hard to categorise being lovecraftian and other bizarre things.

The Phrenologist! A warrior who knows exactly where to stab you in the head due to their extensive studies on the subject of skull shape.

[nick1wasd]

Schreckstoff wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Schreckstoff wrote:

With the Magus there's an Arcane Fighter now and the monk and paladin are occult/divine fighters leaving a hole that is a primal fighter.

Which could be the shifter but wholly elemental themed would be nice too.

Other than that it's difficult to come up with something that couldn't be an archetype or class archetype instead.

The Ranger is at least as much the primal fighter as the monk is occult, and Barbarian gets a taste of that too. I'm not saying that there's not space for a more heavily primal-themed martial or semi-martial class, but I don't think the "occult fighter" slot is filled all that well either.

That's totally right particularly the barbarian covers the primal fighter pretty well.

And the monk picking a tradition is just windowdressing since the abilities from it are mostly monk themed instead of borrowing from a tradition.

Which means what's actually missing most is an occult fighter, which is kind of hard to categorise being lovecraftian and other bizarre things.

We have the warrior muse Bard, but that's pretty much it. We had the Mindblade Magus in 1E, maybe something like that could become a class path for Psychic, or be it's own thing. Sword swipes that deal mental damage instead of physical damage, caused stunned on a crit like Daze, stuff like that maybe?

[Sagiam]

Schreckstoff wrote:

Which means what's actually missing most is an occult fighter, which is kind of hard to categorise being lovecraftian and other bizarre things.

If you want an example of an occult fighter there are whole 3pp books full of psychic warriors, at this point.

They've been a common trope since the psychic book in 3e D&D.

[StarMartyr365]

Schreckstoff wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Schreckstoff wrote:

With the Magus there's an Arcane Fighter now and the monk and paladin are occult/divine fighters leaving a hole that is a primal fighter.

Which could be the shifter but wholly elemental themed would be nice too.

Other than that it's difficult to come up with something that couldn't be an archetype or class archetype instead.

The Ranger is at least as much the primal fighter as the monk is occult, and Barbarian gets a taste of that too. I'm not saying that there's not space for a more heavily primal-themed martial or semi-martial class, but I don't think the "occult fighter" slot is filled all that well either.

That's totally right particularly the barbarian covers the primal fighter pretty well.

And the monk picking a tradition is just windowdressing since the abilities from it are mostly monk themed instead of borrowing from a tradition.

Which means what's actually missing most is an occult fighter, which is kind of hard to categorise being lovecraftian and other bizarre things.

The Hexblade from 3E is the only thing that comes to mind that would fit that mold. I vaguely remember a few third party classes that also used the debuff/hinder mechanic on a fighter frame. It would be a neat design space to explore.

[Schreckstoff]

StarMartyr365 wrote:

Schreckstoff wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Schreckstoff wrote:

With the Magus there's an Arcane Fighter now and the monk and paladin are occult/divine fighters leaving a hole that is a primal fighter.

Which could be the shifter but wholly elemental themed would be nice too.

Other than that it's difficult to come up with something that couldn't be an archetype or class archetype instead.

The Ranger is at least as much the primal fighter as the monk is occult, and Barbarian gets a taste of that too. I'm not saying that there's not space for a more heavily primal-themed martial or semi-martial class, but I don't think the "occult fighter" slot is filled all that well either.

That's totally right particularly the barbarian covers the primal fighter pretty well.

And the monk picking a tradition is just windowdressing since the abilities from it are mostly monk themed instead of borrowing from a tradition.

Which means what's actually missing most is an occult fighter, which is kind of hard to categorise being lovecraftian and other bizarre things.

The Hexblade from 3E is the only thing that comes to mind that would fit that mold. I vaguely remember a few third party classes that also used the debuff/hinder mechanic on a fighter frame. It would be a neat design space to explore.

I was thinking of the 5e hexblade but demonic pacts would be divine in nature.

Given Bards are the quintessential occult spellcasters so an occult melee hybrid could just as well be a dancer class of sorts. Something like a areliguous dervish.

[Albatoonoe]

I think it is important for PF2 classes to have a strong thematic ties to pop culture. D&D and it's ancestors ultimately arose from this deep love of folklore, mythology, occultism, and fantasy.

I think that is what makes the Occult classes work better than psionics. They draw heavily from these time-weathered ideas of spiritualism.

By contrast, I think SF can do more singular, mechanic-focused classes a lot better. The age of information fundamentally altered how we exist as a society and it fits the more modern sensibilities.

It is an interesting line to walk, but so far I think it has been nailed.

[Temperans]

For martials related to the Occult. PF1 had Occultists, yes they were martial, very good ones at that. Various Magus with weird powers: Mindblade, Card Caster, Hexcrafter, Sorrow Soul, Esoteric, Puppeteer, etc. Gloomblade Fighter was very occult like. Bards used to be great martials to the point that the PF2 versions doesn't fit. Alchemist had plenty of weird for their discoveries.

But yeah outside the Occultist with Trappings of the Warrior. Magus with its various archetypes was the moat occult.

I don't think Pathfinder should bring in Hexblade as that is a very DnD thing. But something along the lines of PF1 Warlock and Cabalist Vigilante should work well.

[Perpdepog]

You know what all the talking about occult fighters has me wishing for again, oddly enough? The Psychic Detective investigator archetype from 1E. I know that I could get a similar feel by slapping a casting MC on an investigator now, but I think it'd be neat to see a couple focus spell feats come out for the investigator down the line, with a choice of being occult or arcane, since investigator's are all about the mind.

Just something that suddenly popped into my head, and something I'm slightly hoping will appear in SoM.

[Ventnor]

Perpdepog wrote:

You know what all the talking about occult fighters has me wishing for again, oddly enough? The Psychic Detective investigator archetype from 1E. I know that I could get a similar feel by slapping a casting MC on an investigator now, but I think it'd be neat to see a couple focus spell feats come out for the investigator down the line, with a choice of being occult or arcane, since investigator's are all about the mind.

Just something that suddenly popped into my head, and something I'm slightly hoping will appear in SoM.

I think the concept could merit becoming one of the Investigator's methodologies.

[Staffan Johansson]

Schreckstoff wrote:

I was thinking of the 5e hexblade but demonic pacts would be divine in nature.

The 5e hexblade mentions "a mysterious entity from the Shadowfell", which is pretty much the same as the Plane of Shadow, and that's mostly an Occult realm rather than a Divine one.

[Perpdepog]

Ventnor wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

You know what all the talking about occult fighters has me wishing for again, oddly enough? The Psychic Detective investigator archetype from 1E. I know that I could get a similar feel by slapping a casting MC on an investigator now, but I think it'd be neat to see a couple focus spell feats come out for the investigator down the line, with a choice of being occult or arcane, since investigator's are all about the mind.

Just something that suddenly popped into my head, and something I'm slightly hoping will appear in SoM.

I think the concept could merit becoming one of the Investigator's methodologies.

I could see that really easily. I could also see them stealing a page from rogue's playbook and giving you access to a multiclass feat at first level, calling it Eldritch Detective or the like.

It wouldn't be my favorite solution--I'd rather the investigator got some focus spells of their own--but I also wouldn't complain if it appeared in the game, either.

[Thunder999]

TiwazBlackhand wrote:

The Hybrid classes were some of my favorite PF1 classes, so I'd like to see some more of them return and or see some new ones.

Slayer
Skald
Bloodrager
Brawler
Also I'd like to see a class that's a lot more like PF1 Warpriest than the PF2 Cleric Doctine.

2e ranger pretty much is slayer, hunt prey is basically studied target and the precision edge is very similar to the sneak attack, and ranger doesn't really do casting anymore, just like slayer.

Skald could be fun, though 2e seems a lot more focused on niche protection so I doubt we'll get the ability to just give other people barbarian rage.

A barbarian with sorcerer dedication feels like a bloodrager to me, most of the Instincts are pretty overtly supernatural (breath weapons, energy damage, natural attacks etc) and grabbing a few spells is easy.

I'm not sure what brawler would be, martial flexibility probably wouldn't work with 2e's much more limited pool of feats and other than that it's just a more mundane themed monk.

A warpriest that's actually close to 1e warpriest would be nice, but seems unlikely. You could always just be a fighter with cleric dedication.

[Staffan Johansson]

Thunder999 wrote:

I'm not sure what brawler would be, martial flexibility probably wouldn't work with 2e's much more limited pool of feats and other than that it's just a more mundane themed monk.

You can get pretty close to Brawler with a fighter with the Martial Artist dedication. Could do with some more stances, though.

[KaiBlob1]

Bloodrager could be a barbarian class archetype, maybe even in secrets of magic

[The-Magic-Sword]

This is why I'm actually really eager to see SoM now that we know it explicitly has our first class archetypes-- some stuff where 'Like X, but different in this specific way' is probably the niche for that mechanic in the system.

Like, a Pugilist who is really a lot like a Monk, but the class archetype messes with proficiency and/or Flurry of Blows (replace it with a Haymaker mechanic?)

Obviously the Synthesist Summoner replacing its eidolon manifest with a fused version.

Maybe Samurai and Ninja would be good class archetypes for the Fighter and Rogue? I'm especially feeling the Ninja as a Rogue Class Archetype with Ninjutsu focus spell support.

There's a lot of room they can cover that way instead of with full classes. Some things do deserve to be full classes, but not everything that was in PF1e (we've already seen that with the vigilante, Cavalier, and so forth)

[Opsylum]

Seeing how there's a lot of new class stuff being talked about in the Gencon thread, figured this might be a useful thread to revive. With Psychic and Thaumaturge about to release, what other classes are you wanting right now?

My hopes:

Justicar:

I think this would make a good name substitute for Inquisitor. Inquisitor's in a weird place, because the social elements of the character (tracking down foes, interrogating people, putting dots together to solve mysteries) have been absorbed by Investigator, while its combat flavor (giving an enemy a vulnerability and exploiting it) has recently been absorbed by Thaumaturge. Both elements are in the game, yet it's still difficult to make an Inquisitor proper. So here's what I think would be cool to see in the Justicar class, however it's designed:

(1) Glass cannon support combat style: Teamwork feats were built into the core chassis of 1e Inquisitor, so it would be nice for these cooperative elements to work their way into the class's core features, especially with things like Judgment. To distinguish Justicar from Thaumaturge a little more, also shift some of its martial budget towards spellcasting.
(2) Wavecasting: Justicar should have some divine spellcasting ability, and this seems like a good way to handle it.
(3) Robust skill options for Stealth, Deception, and Intimidation: Give Justicar something like "Pursue a Lead" but restricted to tracking down its heretic. Plenty of social/skill feats designed to let the Inquisitor sneak, infiltrate, and catch their quarry unawares.

Also, while we're on names, Vigilant for good-aligned Justicars, Watcher for neutral, and Inquisitor for evil.

Shifter:

Following Inventor's lead with customizable components, I like SanityFaerie's idea of a Shifter that focuses on passive bodily modifications, that augment you even after you've shifted. Combine this with Sayre's pitch for an evolutionist-type class that adapts to the battlefield. Would be fun if the Shifter also had some way to mimic the abilities of their foes mid-battle, perhaps temporarily gaining the benefits of an archetype's dedication feat, or a scaled-down version of a monster's special ability, at the GM's discretion (no crit effects, single target, uses your own class's array of modifiers, DCs, and other damage/condition restrictions). Picture a Shifter that hears a Harpy's Captivating Song, succeeds on a Nature check to restructure its own vocal cords, and sings another Captivating Song right back at said Harpy on its next turn. Something like that.

Runeknight:

Really want to see Michael Sayre's class concept come to life, except maybe pair it with the Defender class people are wanting to see. I see this class revolving around customizing a unique magical set of armor, which grants legendary defenses. This class would have a flavor similar to a Black Knight or a Rōnin – a lone, formidable warrior, the very sight of which invokes a certain respect and fear. They have a special relationship with their armor (maybe even akin to a Patron's), which grants them wavecasting ability so long as they wear it, and passive effects on their equipment from untapped spells. They kind of have the opposite presence of a Champion. Whereas the latter charges at enemies and leads its allies – the Runeknight may invite their foes to come to them, hurling spells at range, and focusing their magic on empowering themself, becoming this nigh untouchable fortress of practical and magical defenses that's quite comfortable fighting on its own.

Shaman:

This class I'm really excited for, despite the fact that its chassis doesn't even exist yet, what with devs implying it'll be completely different from its 1e iteration when it finally drops. I had some ideas for what I'd like to see. The class functions a little like a Bard, supporting allies with composition-like abilities, except they're more effective the closer to death an ally gets. They might even gain the ability to temporarily rouse the unconscious body of a fallen ally, empowering their ally's spirit to reassert control over their body and fight on for a few more rounds, stalling the need to roll recovery checks (immune after receiving benefit until long rest, 1 hp with temp HP and bonuses, doomed 1 penalty if they fall again). The Shaman might receive a stronger version of this ability should they personally fall. Lots of feats supporting the Medicine skill, and perhaps absorbing the Medium's big thing as part of their core class features: choosing a spirit each day to commune with, and gaining benefits from that spirit's gifts (and avoiding its taboos).

The class is supposed to be based on real-life Shamanistic practices, so obviously all this is just rambling, placeholder fantasies. Can't wait to be blown away when the real thing drops.

Herald:

As per Michael Sayre's suggestion, basically the Envoy. Just bring as much of that class into 2e's umbrella as possible. A class revolving around social talents, skill abilities, and party support. Sometimes you just want to make an adventurer whose big thing is that they are just really good at talking and getting into people's heads, even without being amazing with a sword or a spellcasting extraordinaire.

Kineticist:

This class probably doesn't even need an introduction. Lot of people are excited for this one, a class that manipulates energy, the very terrain around them, and unleashes tremendous power, whatever the cost. This class is probably the biggest unexplored area in the design space so far, and a little contentious in what people want it to focus on specifically. In any case, I'm excited to play regardless of how it turns out, and hope fans original and new find the tools needed in its chassis to bring their dream characters to life.

[keftiu]

Opsylum wrote:

Seeing how there's a lot of new class stuff being talked about in the Gencon thread, figured this might be a useful thread to revive. With Psychic and Thaumaturge about to release, what other classes are you wanting right now?

My hopes:

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **...

I’d be very content with Inquisitor, Envoy/Herald/Warlord/etc, a reworked Medium, a reworked Shaman, Kineticist, and a reworked Shifter. Each feels like it has open design space, and enables a lot of important narrative and thematic space within the setting.

That latter point is my main motivation: Shamans fill the spiritual needs of a lot of communities on Golarion, especially for nomadic peoples and non-theist faiths, who rarely get the spotlight, tons of gods have Inquisitors acting against their foes, etc.

I wouldn’t lose too much sleep if we never saw the Shifter or Envoy, but the other four feel very important to what Pathfinder is, IMO.

[PossibleCabbage]

So my favorite 4e class was the Warden, which was an incredibly tanky (because of the power of nature to curate life) primal class was also very sticky because they could make difficult terrain by like controlling roots, making the ground swampy, etc.

If we're going to have a martial primal class, I would prefer that to a shifter redux.

Give a class a huge HP pool, some self healing, natural reach, the ability to prevent people from getting away from them, and give them the ability to use stones, roots, thorns, etc. to fight.

[keftiu]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So my favorite 4e class was the Warden, which was an incredibly tanky (because of the power of nature to curate life) primal class was also very sticky because they could make difficult terrain by like controlling roots, making the ground swampy, etc.

If we're going to have a martial primal class, I would prefer that to a shifter redux.

Give a class a huge HP pool, some self healing, natural reach, the ability to prevent people from getting away from them, and give them the ability to use stones, roots, thorns, etc. to fight.

The splashy signature ability of the 4e Shifter was taking on primal alternate forms (that’s what all their Dailies were), which is a space I’d love to see - let me turn into a whirlwind of obsidian, please!