Can we start getting some more support for existing classes?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Well, you've already got fire ray as a the default focus spell for the fire domain. Is not being able to use a multi target version of that really a massive flavor fail? Personally, I think the gods granting a specific set of spells is more flavorul than anything that could loosely be connected to their domains.

Fire ray also pushes your curse, making it a "once or twice a fight" thing, and it competes for you focus points, while scorching ray can be used fairly readily alongside incindery aura and the like; just because you have whirling flame doesn't mean fireball doesn't have it's place, after all.

On top of that, oracles explicitly don't get their powers from gods, I'm not sure how it being flavorful that gods granting a specific set of spells (personally, I feel many gods are actually missing a significant number of theme appropriate spells from their lists due to the fact that most only grant 3, but that's a whole other topic) would have any relevance to the oracle. I'd argue it's actually more flavorful that oracles manifest their mysteries uniquely and free from the whims of gods


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

So I know beastmaster is mechanically strong but seeing it be called bland or flavorless is just mind boggling to Me. I mean sure if you only see your companion as a number cruncher sure. But it opens up do many potential avenues.

From the classic, "boy and their dog"

To the druid with a menagerie of companions.

I have an idea kicking around for a Beastmaster who befriends a pùca (like, legit irish mythology pùca), and the different animals are just new forms it learned to shapeshift into. Needs a little dm buy in, but the archetype is flavorful af

pixierose wrote:
I think between guns and gears and grand bazaar I'll be okay with fewer items for awhile.

I kinda differ here. Items are also important character customizing points, and by definition of being items, are the most open ended option of them all.

Imo though, I'd favor a shift towards more consumables (especially alchemical items and gadgets), and fleshing out new categories (spellhearts, tattoos, etc), or just ones that are a little sparse (talismans, ammunition, etc)

Oh don't get me wrong, I love items. I would love to see more items, I just would be okay if we got less if it meant getting more class feats/subclasses/etc. But if we can get both i would be happy with that as well ^^


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
pixierose wrote:
Alchemic_Genius wrote:
pixierose wrote:

So I know beastmaster is mechanically strong but seeing it be called bland or flavorless is just mind boggling to Me. I mean sure if you only see your companion as a number cruncher sure. But it opens up do many potential avenues.

From the classic, "boy and their dog"

To the druid with a menagerie of companions.

I have an idea kicking around for a Beastmaster who befriends a pùca (like, legit irish mythology pùca), and the different animals are just new forms it learned to shapeshift into. Needs a little dm buy in, but the archetype is flavorful af

pixierose wrote:
I think between guns and gears and grand bazaar I'll be okay with fewer items for awhile.

I kinda differ here. Items are also important character customizing points, and by definition of being items, are the most open ended option of them all.

Imo though, I'd favor a shift towards more consumables (especially alchemical items and gadgets), and fleshing out new categories (spellhearts, tattoos, etc), or just ones that are a little sparse (talismans, ammunition, etc)

Oh don't get me wrong, I love items. I would love to see more items, I just would be okay if we got less if it meant getting more class feats/subclasses/etc. But if we can get both i would be happy with that as well ^^

Because items are level bound I think we need way more. Grand Bazaar was a disappointment for me because I thought that would be THE item book and it really wasn't. That could be unfair expectations on my part.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
A few classes were supposed to expand with released content. Thanks to Secrets of Magic, casters got their cake. But Alchemist is still waiting for a bite.

Some casters got a slice of that cake in Gods and Magic. Druid certainly did. Wizard did with the new class archetypes. Clerics and Oracles got new Deities and new Domains.

All of them got new spells, but other than that...

Witch didn't get any new Patrons or Lessons.
No new Wizard Thesis options.
No new Sorcerer Bloodlines.

To be fair though, some of these have also been expanded on in other books. Kindled Magic gives us Lesson of Calamity. Several books have given new Sorcerer Bloodlines. Things like that.

So while it may be a slow and intermittent process, the existing classes are still getting support.


It took a few books to get new druid orders which were pretty obvious inclusions from day 1, but it worked out in the end.

Wayfinders Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
One thing I would like to see is more class feats in AP toolboxes in volumes that aren't the last one in a given campaign. I think both of the first two books of Ruby Phoenix did this, and that was great.

I suspect that the reason a lot of player options show up in the last couple volumes of an AP is that is where there is room to fit them. The first few volumes of an AP tend to be crammed with the immediate setting of the AP that the GM can use, along with NPCs, and maybe optional rules like hexploration and Kingdom / Charter building (ie like in Kingmaker and Horizons of the Vast.) What might be nice would be to have more player options in the AP Player's Guides. There are always some, but of course I am a greedy, greedy player and would love to see more.

Hmm


I could see Dark Archives and Book of the Dead having some good stuff for individual classes. I can see why they focus on archetypes, though. They are feats available to a wider swathe of characters.

Death druids for BD and Bloodragers for DA seem very possible, and I'm pulling for it.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I guess the consideration is, if there's a desire for "I want to use [foo]" is it better to release class feats for a number of different classes that enable [foo] or just to release an archetype that enables [foo] that lots of people can take.

Late to the discussion, but I am going to echo the opinion/observation that PF2 is set up so that Paizo doesn't have to go back and add class support for new tech/options. As others have observed, this is primarily accomplished through the Archetype and Paizo clearly wants to leverage this schema.

If you want to use guns on a Ranger....grab Archetype with guns, or MC. This is the solution to the problem that Paizo discussed during the playtest. Whether by foresight, dumbluck, or some combination of both, Paizo realized that they could kill two birds with one stone using this Dedication approach.

Quote:
Of course, the answer isn't always cut and dry; I'm not sure that Bullet Dancer shouldn't have just been monk feats (since the dedication straight up calls out "monk abilities").

Sure, it's not going to be 100% robust for 100% of the options. But if Paizo "balances" the classes against each other, and then "balances" the Archetypes against each other, then they don't have to spend a lot (or any) resources making sure the "class support" is fair.

What's more, it's a simple matter of resource economy. A well crafted Archetype can be used by any class. Class features are only available to that specific class. That creates all kinds of long term considerations about which classes are getting more support vs others. There's no way Paizo wants to open that can of worms when they have a universal solution.

If I'm being objective, Paizo should not add any more feats to extant classes. General Feats, Skill Feats, sure. Spells, sure...those are easy to add (if we ignore "balance" considerations). Focus Spells are more problematic because for a class like the Ranger having all of their Focus Spells strapped to its own Class feat, so you can't simply add them to a list and have them be available.

Not really saying anything that hasn't already been covered by other posters, but just another opinion for the OP.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I'm with OP, here. While I love archetypes, a character's class is still the most important aspect of their functionality, and their subclass is usually that character's first foray into flavorful specialization. It doesn't make sense for a character's core to feel like the most boring part.

I would also like to join the Alchemist Support Group that sort of established itself on the first page of this thread. I *did* manage to play an effective one, but it required a little house-ruled leniency from the GM and picking up the Medic archetype. Although, since so much of the class depends on piddling around with items, and that's the bit that's most obnoxious to work with, I don't know how exactly the class could be improved.

Honestly, though, there's enough content *for now* that I'd be content to wait until late 2022/early 2023 for a big core class update. Perhaps a chunky ol' tome that dedicates multiple pages to each class, offering new subclasses and expanded feats for each? That sort of workload would be pretty easy to compartmentalize, and I can imagine high demand for such a product. Heck, the 5e crowd goes nuts for new subclasses (granted, that's all they have).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HolyFlamingo! wrote:
I'm with OP, here. While I love archetypes, a character's class is still the most important aspect of their functionality, and their subclass is usually that character's first foray into flavorful specialization. It doesn't make sense for a character's core to feel like the most boring part.

I personally don't like Archetypes and don't use them for any of my classes. Either the class is fun to play out of the box, or it's not. I don't want to spend time and effort trying to make the Class fun by digging through Archetypes as a solution.

That having been said, I recognize that Paizo would argue the Classes are fun, the Archetypes are for those people who want to build a Class, as it were.

I think Paizo is trying to have its cake and eat it to. They want a "Class" system, but they want lots of modularity for people who don't really like the class system. IMO, it suffers from the classic problem of being mediocre at two things rather than being really good at one. I would rather Paizo had baked far more functionality into the base chassis. But my preference is harder to future proof compared to what they've gone with. So I have to give Paizo credit for an solution to one of the design goals (of course I do not know if they borrowed the idea from some other system). The only questions is whether it's "fun?"

Quote:
, but it required a little house-ruled leniency from the GM and picking up the Medic archetype.

And I think that's the drawback of Paizo's approach. You have to go pick up an Archetype to feel fulfilled.

Quote:
Although, since so much of the class depends on piddling around with items, and that's the bit that's most obnoxious to work with, I don't know how exactly the class could be improved.

They probably should have given you feats with action economy discounts, exactly how they did with the Gunslingers. But they can't really go back and do that with this system.

Quote:
I'd be content to wait until late 2022/early 2023 for a big core class update.

While I would love get a completely overhauled (did someone say "Revised") Ranger, I don't see that ever happening. Paizo put so much effort into the tight math, you're asking them to go through what has to be an extremely tedious effort again. I suppose they could try and limit it to a few classes, like they did with Unchained, but the risk is they end up making classes out of tolerance.

I suppose whether that happens will also depend on how successful PF2 is in the face of D&D 6. At the point, maybe Paizo just pushes on to v3.

Dataphiles

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
HolyFlamingo! wrote:

I'm with OP, here. While I love archetypes, a character's class is still the most important aspect of their functionality, and their subclass is usually that character's first foray into flavorful specialization. It doesn't make sense for a character's core to feel like the most boring part.

I would also like to join the Alchemist Support Group that sort of established itself on the first page of this thread. I *did* manage to play an effective one, but it required a little house-ruled leniency from the GM and picking up the Medic archetype. Although, since so much of the class depends on piddling around with items, and that's the bit that's most obnoxious to work with, I don't know how exactly the class could be improved.

Honestly, though, there's enough content *for now* that I'd be content to wait until late 2022/early 2023 for a big core class update. Perhaps a chunky ol' tome that dedicates multiple pages to each class, offering new subclasses and expanded feats for each? That sort of workload would be pretty easy to compartmentalize, and I can imagine high demand for such a product. Heck, the 5e crowd goes nuts for new subclasses (granted, that's all they have).

Count me in on the alchemist support group, but honestly the problem with alchemist and archetypes is that it has so few free feats.

You need calc splash, sticky and expand splash to make your bombs actually useful.

You probably need Far Lobber and Uncanny Bombs to not go pop later in the game. Given how much the class is balanced around using all of its things, needing to dedicate 5 feats to get one of those things to scale correctly (maybe even 6 if you aren’t a bomber and also need Quick Bomber) is a bit sucky. Can we at least bake the straight up math feats into the chassis with the next errata?

That’s already 5/11 feats gone and most of the early feats. Trying to fit even Dual-Weapon Warrior on a bomber was extremely tight


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel one one of the issues with "feats are tight" is that in the base game the number of feats is set at a low level to avoid overwhelming people with too many choices. If you have a group that wouldn't be bothered by that, there's really no reason to not run double feats, free archetype, or something like that just because "people enjoy more flexibility in character building and it's not an especially big power boost."

Having an entire pool of feats you can only spend on archetype feats makes you think about them differently for sure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mainly want more class feats because a lot of the existing ones aren't exciting for me.

In addition there's the issue that because of the dedication mechanic means that any new archetypes just make me think 'well no point in me reading this' if your character already has an archetype, unless you're playing at levels of 10+.

There is no attraction to a feat midway through an archetype tree, if I already have another archetype dedication. Since getting that 'mid-way feat' will be 10 levels away.


I think most of what I want at this point for existing Classes would all be Class Archetypes: Synthesist Summoner, Bloodrager Barbarian, and (while I hope it doesn't come to this) Inquisitor Cleric would all make me very happy.

But I'd never say no to more Sorcerer Bloodlines, Rogue Rackets, Barbarian Instincts, and the like. I'm carrying a real flame for a spellcasting Methodology for Investigators, and I think the Oracle desperately needs more Mysteries.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This was one of my complain from the start with the way they were handling feat silos by class instead of making them general, but adding pre-reqs.

The longer the game goes the less space there is for more stuff, and the more the feats will start to look similar to each other but with extra steps. Just look at the vision feats between Magus, Gunslinger, Inventor, etc. All that text to give classes sometimes straight up worse vision when it could had been 1-2 feats. But no every new class will have a version of it. Just like every class will have their own version of getting +2 circumstance bonus to AC. And every class will have their own version of getting stride twice and strike.

Its also why I dislike the way they did eidolons. The summoner is currently just a glorified squire for the eidolon. The more eidolon feats that get added, the more do archetypes looks to be horrible for the Summoner. The more of a waste the whole class being called a "Summoner" and not just "Shifter" becomes.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
HolyFlamingo! wrote:

I'm with OP, here. While I love archetypes, a character's class is still the most important aspect of their functionality, and their subclass is usually that character's first foray into flavorful specialization. It doesn't make sense for a character's core to feel like the most boring part.

I would also like to join the Alchemist Support Group that sort of established itself on the first page of this thread. I *did* manage to play an effective one, but it required a little house-ruled leniency from the GM and picking up the Medic archetype. Although, since so much of the class depends on piddling around with items, and that's the bit that's most obnoxious to work with, I don't know how exactly the class could be improved.

Honestly, though, there's enough content *for now* that I'd be content to wait until late 2022/early 2023 for a big core class update. Perhaps a chunky ol' tome that dedicates multiple pages to each class, offering new subclasses and expanded feats for each? That sort of workload would be pretty easy to compartmentalize, and I can imagine high demand for such a product. Heck, the 5e crowd goes nuts for new subclasses (granted, that's all they have).

I also play an alchemist (shocking, I know :p), and I personally find the way they make items to be fine and pretty interesring; I just find it frustrating that they have greatly expanded what casters can do with their support options, but alchemists have hardly gotten anything new. I can accept the premise that alchemists only get expert attacks because they are a support class, but in order for that premise to be valid, I have to actually be able to support in cool and interesting ways.

At low levels, this is usually fine; a smoke cloud at level 1 is both unique and helpful; your bombs are actually about as accurate as other martials at this level, so they can do some real hurt (critting a blight bomb and basically melting a boss over 3 turns basically solo with one bomb was really fun)

At later levels, your support doesn't branch out as nicely as casters. Mutagens being an item bonus means you're only giving out a +1 over the gear people have, and you don't get anything much fancier than "give the target a climb or swim speed" when a support caster is getting stuff like "make the area difficult terrain that grabs people" or "make a wholeass wall from thin air". This issue can be solved by simply making alchemical items that have cooler and diverse effects. Bombs that make a well of gravity to suck people in, persistent area control effects, an elixir that lets you project your mind into the astral plane, etc.

Another "stealth" problem with the archetype approach and alchemist specifically is how basic alchemy benefits interact with your reagents. While casters get extra spells by branching into another casting multiclass, alchemists don't. They just get more stuff they can do; which is nice, but the first feat of archetypes that should, in theory, be nice for them, is a dead feat, on a class that's already pretty feat starved. This basically makes it so that any new alchemist goodies delivered via archetypes are actually new goodies for everyone but the alchemist


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alchemic_Genius wrote:
Another "stealth" problem with the archetype approach and alchemist specifically is how basic alchemy benefits interact with your reagents. While casters get extra spells by branching into another casting multiclass, alchemists don't. They just get more stuff they can do; which is nice, but the first feat of archetypes that should, in theory, be nice for them, is a dead feat, on a class that's already pretty feat starved. This basically makes it so that any new alchemist goodies delivered via archetypes are actually new goodies for everyone but the alchemist

I disagree with the analysis. When you consider every archetypes, the classes which are supposed to be the best at that thing the archetype does don't get anything from it. A Dual-Weapon Warrior just gets Double Slice that any Fighter gets at level 1, a Beastmaster gets an AC that Druids have right at level 1 and so on.

I would really hate if the archetypes were improving the abilities that are already core to your class. It would push every 2-weapon Fighter to take the 2-weapon archetype, every Alchemist to take Alchemist archetypes, etc... killing the versatility that archetypes are supposed to bring.
Archetypes are there to allow classes that don't have core access to some specific combat types and abilities to get scaling proficiency in these things without ever achieving the level of expertise of the class which is supposed to be the best at it. That's the best design in my opinion, I'd really hate if PF2 was going in the direction of overspecialization like PF1 did.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:


I disagree with the analysis. When you consider every archetypes, the classes which are supposed to be the best at that thing the archetype does don't get anything from it. A Dual-Weapon Warrior just gets Double Slice that any Fighter gets at level 1, a Beastmaster gets an AC that Druids have right at level 1 and so on.

The problem with this analysis though:

A fighter with dual weapon warrior can simply retrain the double slice they took at level 1, or just simply not take it. The dedication still does something, and it straight up has full benefit

A animal druid taking Beastmaster gets a second companion from the dedication. Likewise, a witch taking familiar master gets enhanced familiar, etc

The feats dont have to power up your main thing, they just need to not be literally dead feats. It would be fine if it, say, firework technician gave an alchemist a 4th level display feat for free or some small, alternate ability to make it so the feats aren't straight up dead options. The aforementioned beastmaster and familiar master are already existing precedents that this type of thing is possible without being overpowered

As for optimization, if you take the path I suggested, or similar, you wouldn't have alchemists only taking alchemist archetypes, since they become new options that expand your kit, but don't supply must haves, like a ton of extra reagents. At this point, they get a choice of more options for their main thing (which all fighting style already give atm), expending into a supplemental shtick (wizard/witch mcd is pretty solid, any combat style to get a little better with weapons, etc) when considering archetypes


Alchemic_Genius wrote:
A fighter with dual weapon warrior can simply retrain the double slice they took at level 1, or just simply not take it. The dedication still does something, and it straight up has full benefit

It does something, but something weaker than what the Fighter can access through its class (as Double Slice is a first level feat, so you pay a higher level feat to get the same benefit).

Alchemic_Genius wrote:
A animal druid taking Beastmaster gets a second companion from the dedication. Likewise, a witch taking familiar master gets enhanced familiar, etc

The witch can access Enhanced Familiar at the same level, so it's something that the Witch can already do. As for the Druid, it's true that Beastmaster gives a few abilities that aren't in the Druid toolbox but the main ability of the Beastmaster (getting an AC) is already covered in the Druid class and it's better in the Druid class (lower level + Heal Animal for free).

For the Alchemist, to make things balanced, you need to separate the reagents from the Archetype from the reagents from the class. And I think Paizo didn't want to consider that multiple sources of reagents don't combine themselves and have to be considered as separated entities. Maybe for complexity reasons.
And if you combine the different sources of reagents, then the Archetype gives something that the Alchemist class can't provide and is highly desirable: Extra reagents. So most Alchemists would be pushed toward archetyping to get more of them. And that's what I don't want.


SuperBidi wrote:

For the Alchemist, to make things balanced, you need to separate the reagents from the Archetype from the reagents from the class. And I think Paizo didn't want to consider that multiple sources of reagents don't combine themselves and have to be considered as separated entities. Maybe for complexity reasons.

And if you combine the different sources of reagents, then the Archetype gives something that the Alchemist class can't provide and is highly desirable: Extra reagents. So most Alchemists would be pushed toward archetyping to get more of them. And that's what I don't want.

We agree that int + 2*level reagents isn't desired, and FT is admittedly a poor example (you still get the displays, and the flower is actually pretty handy in a very non niche way)

But like, poisoner, herbalist, etc, archetypes that just dont give you anything for taking it as an alchemist, could easily give you a minor boon if you already have reagents, which is what I suggested


Alchemic_Genius wrote:

We agree that int + 2*level reagents isn't desired, and FT is admittedly a poor example (you still get the displays, and the flower is actually pretty handy in a very non niche way)

But like, poisoner, herbalist, etc, archetypes that just dont give you anything for taking it as an alchemist, could easily give you a minor boon if you already have reagents, which is what I suggested

Well, why not, as long as they are still poor choices for an Alchemist, I'd be ok with it. But I'm questionning the use of it. In my opinion, discouraging Alchemists to take Alchemist Archetypes is intended. There's no much point in creating a special rule for characters with another access to reagents as it would imply that taking the archetype is a good idea.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Alchemic_Genius wrote:

We agree that int + 2*level reagents isn't desired, and FT is admittedly a poor example (you still get the displays, and the flower is actually pretty handy in a very non niche way)

But like, poisoner, herbalist, etc, archetypes that just dont give you anything for taking it as an alchemist, could easily give you a minor boon if you already have reagents, which is what I suggested

Well, why not, as long as they are still poor choices for an Alchemist, I'd be ok with it. But I'm questionning the use of it. In my opinion, discouraging Alchemists to take Alchemist Archetypes is intended. There's no much point in creating a special rule for characters with another access to reagents as it would imply that taking the archetype is a good idea.

Why should they be poor choices for the alchemist? I'm not saying that they should be amazing or anything, but making it even as good as a "reasonable" choice seems like it wouldn't break anything.

The point of letting the alchemist take alchemist archetypes is the same as the point of letting a fighter take Dual Weapon Warrior - it lets them focus further in that direction. I have a Champion build that takes Bastion, for example. He wanted more shield with his shield. I don't think we have to go so far as to say "well, you can, but it's obviously the wrong answer" as long as we aren't making it OP.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Well, why not, as long as they are still poor choices for an Alchemist, I'd be ok with it. But I'm questionning the use of it. In my opinion, discouraging Alchemists to take Alchemist Archetypes is intended. There's no much point in creating a special rule for characters with another access to reagents as it would imply that taking the archetype is a good idea.

Casters aren't discouraged from taking more casting archetypes and martials get more options out of combat style feats; every single combat style feat has archetype specific feat; so why make alchemy themed archetypes bad for alchemists? That stance just does not mesh at all with the design principles in other archetypes. It's not like alchemists are super OP and need to be reined in for balance


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Why should they be poor choices for the alchemist? I'm not saying that they should be amazing or anything, but making it even as good as a "reasonable" choice seems like it wouldn't break anything.

I think the problem is that given Paizo's deisgn objective, the choice is "reasonable."

Quote:
The point of letting the alchemist take alchemist archetypes is the same as the point of letting a fighter take Dual Weapon Warrior - it lets them focus further in that direction.

I don't think that is what Paizo intends for Archetypes. The way I've interpreted the design, it aligns with what SuperBidi is saying. The Archetypes are not intended for focus, they are primarily intended to allow a character to do something that is otherwise or to some degree orthogonal to its Class. The more aligned you are with the archetype, the less benefit you are intended to receive. Paizo's trying to facilitate the Rogue who can make some bombs. They are not trying to facilitate the bomb-making Alchemist who is even better at making bombs.

I see two primary reasons for this. The first is exactly what SuperBidi identifies: Paizo absolutely wants to avoid players feeling compelled to take Archetypes to fulfill their class function. The second is simply the "balance"/tight math aspect of PF2. Paizo has gone out of its way to reduce benefits of stacking/synergy. The game design seems to advocate horizontal improvement over vertical improvement i.e. Robust vs Specialized. Paizo doesn't want the the Alchemist-Alchemist to be doing 15% more damage than the plain old Alchemist.

That having been said, I feel your pain. I think part of the problem is that imo, Paizo, once again tries to have its cake and eat it too. Rather than providing zero benefit from taking thematically associated Archetypes, Paizo insisted on putting some unique benefit. So an archery Ranger looks at the Archer and sees some benefit, but is uncertain if it is enough to justify the Archery dedication given how feat starved the Ranger feels.

What exasperates this problem is that some classes are more victimized than others. Some classes, like the Ranger imo, are having to use their Class feat currency to cover narrative, utility, and combat gaps. A class like Fighter doesn't really suffer from that dilemma, imo.

My guess is Paizo doesn't see a problem. Either the Archetype gives you want you want and you take it, or it doesn't and you don't. And as someone who doesn't play an Alchemist, it's kind of hard to understand the complaint other than a fundamental complaint about the Alchemist class itself. I guess I feel if you're wanting the Achetype to do more for you class, isn't that just wanting your class to do more for itself? Shouldn't the best way to improve an Alchemist be to take more Alchemist Class feats?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would personally love more content for alchemists and casters, especially! Actually, really, what I’d really love to see is more investment on the itemizer role, to be honest. Is that an alright word for it? I think Paizo has a real chance to break off from the typical d20, medieval fantasy paradigm if they want to, in the sense that the alchemist does really feel like something outside from the typical martial-caster paradigm. Like… A third kind of role (that isn’t gish, something more separate). But there isn't a whoooole lot of class content for it. Aside from the Alchemical Sciences methodology from the Investigator, I think that’s it, right? I guess archetypes kind of help with that though, a little. We’ve got the Herbalist, for example… Archetypes that specializes on making a particular sort of item do sound fun tbh.

But that’s a little beside the point of the thread, I’m sorry! I’m sure we’re going to get continued support as the years go by, but… Well… I genuinely do not want to ruin anyone’s expectations, it’s just that after Secrets of Magic, I am not sure if we are going to get any sort of substantial amount of, say, class feats on a single release. Because, I mean… Was there any better time throw a bunch of class feats for a specific, limited group of classes on single book than SoM? But we’ve barely gotten any. I think that for Paizo, it probably comes off as a better investment to work on more universal options. So it’s easier to pump out spells, archetypes and items, and probably more worth it. But, say… More oracle mysteries? Investigator methodologies? I think we will get those in a similar format to how we got the phoenix bloodline for sorcerers. One option here in this book, another option there in that book, that sort of stuff.

Like, I fully agree, I’d love to see more specific class content. But... Setting expectations right is important, I think.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not a fan of archetypes fixing classes, or them being the primary way to add class options. The classes have identities that can be expanded without needing to branch into archetypes. Druid orders, cleric doctrines, bloodlines, etc. All have some room for more stuff.

And given how siloed things are, maybe instead of something as open as an archetype we could see multi-class feats like some kind of finesse fighting Feat for Fighters, Rogues, Investigators, and Swashbucklers. Or a metamagic Feat for multiple caster classes (I think we have some, but more would be great). I dunno, I see a lot of design space that's ripe for development there.


Angel Hunter D wrote:
Or a metamagic Feat for multiple caster classes (I think we have some, but more would be great).

What do you mean, by the way? Where are such feats?

Or do you mean class metamagic feats which sometimes the same for different classes? Because that's not the same thing.
I would love to have some way to get Silent spell without taking wizard dedication (probably, witch too? don't remember).

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Errenor wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Or a metamagic Feat for multiple caster classes (I think we have some, but more would be great).

What do you mean, by the way? Where are such feats?

Or do you mean class metamagic feats which sometimes the same for different classes? Because that's not the same thing.
I would love to have some way to get Silent spell without taking wizard dedication (probably, witch too? don't remember).

Thought are seven classes could get Reach Spell, for example. I'd like more of that, and for Martials too.


Angel Hunter D wrote:
Thought are seven classes could get Reach Spell, for example. I'd like more of that, and for Martials too.

I think this is more of the PF1/D&D 5e paradigm right? Make a bunch of generic feats that are more combat-oriented or improve efficacy along a specific vector. that any class can take.

As others have mentioned, PF2 has made it a point to really gate a lot of that behind the Class. For example a Hunted Shot is only available to the Ranger/Ranger MC. It's not part of the Archer Archetype and you do not appear to have access to it any other way. While I cannot imagine how Paizo "balances" all these decisions, they clearly have a concept of using the Archetype system to keep the system "balanced." I suspect that if they start handing out general feats like Reach, it will slowly or maybe even rapidly start undermining that Tight Math.

The curious thing is that Spells are the exception. Paizo has to add spells to a list available to almost any character directly a via Multi-class. So that means there is still high probability that new spells will upset the "balance." Spells have always been a problem for D&D style games and "balance." The IC and OOC fact that its "magic" makes it somewhat hard to have hard lines that cannot be crossed with spell design, especially compared to martial feats. It will be interesting to see how Paizo handles this moving forward.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I wish they had separated archetype dedication from dedication feats. In other words, I should be able to access archetype feats without actually taking the dedication feat (yet still committing to the dedication). Too many dedication feats are dead feats. Why should my Champion have to waste a feat to have access to a feat that improves his ability to wear plate armor (Sentinel)? Why should my 2H fighter have to waste a feat to get access to bunch of 2H weapon or bow feats (Mauler and Archer). Why should my Druid only get a basically pointless 2nd animal companion just to have access to feats that enhance animal companions?

That another class with an archetype is better at something a class is a specialist in seems wrong to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aaron Shanks wrote:

Based on what I have heard from the design team, the core of the Pathfinder game now established. They now create materials that explore new ground and deepen various optional areas.

That said, each product usually touches on the existing classes. Certainly Secrets of Magic supported existing classes, especially with those new spells. If you want rules only from our Design Team then look to Book of the Dead next, which will no new classes. It will surely have new archetypes.

We sow seeds everywhere. There is a designer assigned to every product we make, so new options appear in the Lost Omens Setting, Adventures and Adventure Paths.

(Note, the design team considers the chose of deity to be the optimal way to flavor a Cleric over doctrine. I'd like to see a more skills-focus doctrine, but that's my opinion.)

Finally, Pathfinder Infinite and Pathfinder Compatible products are often created by experienced Pathfinder freelancers.

Pathfinder 2 is just over 2 years old. Thanks for supporting its growth.

That's good to know. Does the design team have any plans on releasing actual class feats tied to classes, too, out of curiosity? Not ones that are part of shiny new archetypes and can't be chosen any other way, but ones with actual class traits on them. Things like, e.g., new Fighter feats for the fighter that fights by jumping on his enemies, or new Druid feats for the druid that wants to wildshape into a kitten the size of New Zealand, or new Swashbuckler feats for making your enemies' knees buckle when you swash them with your buckler, or new Sorcerer feats for loading a gun with unstable magic instead of a bullet so it triggers a wellspring surge when it hits, or new Alchemist feats for that cheerful giftmaker who conveniently forgot to mention what makes those alchemical hourglasses glow in the dark?

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Thought are seven classes could get Reach Spell, for example. I'd like more of that, and for Martials too.

I think this is more of the PF1/D&D 5e paradigm right? Make a bunch of generic feats that are more combat-oriented or improve efficacy along a specific vector. that any class can take.

As others have mentioned, PF2 has made it a point to really gate a lot of that behind the Class. For example a Hunted Shot is only available to the Ranger/Ranger MC. It's not part of the Archer Archetype and you do not appear to have access to it any other way. While I cannot imagine how Paizo "balances" all these decisions, they clearly have a concept of using the Archetype system to keep the system "balanced." I suspect that if they start handing out general feats like Reach, it will slowly or maybe even rapidly start undermining that Tight Math.

The curious thing is that Spells are the exception. Paizo has to add spells to a list available to almost any character directly a via Multi-class. So that means there is still high probability that new spells will upset the "balance." Spells have always been a problem for D&D style games and "balance." The IC and OOC fact that its "magic" makes it somewhat hard to have hard lines that cannot be crossed with spell design, especially compared to martial feats. It will be interesting to see how Paizo handles this moving forward.

I don't think it's an old paradigm. Like you said, spells already do it. I don't see why martial feats can't as well. And like we often see, feats rarely improve something, most give you new things to do. Given how I've seen a fair number of people not like dedication feats, I don't think some more generic feats would have a negative impact. Given the pseudo dead levels some classes have (seemingly to encourage dedications) there are even some good places to fit them in already without affecting the power of any class very much

Liberty's Edge

I think they do a class by class analysis to decide on the class feats even those that are common to several classes.

For example, Bard has no Widen Spell class feat, whereas it is available to all other full casters.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
rnphillips wrote:

I wish they had separated archetype dedication from dedication feats. In other words, I should be able to access archetype feats without actually taking the dedication feat (yet still committing to the dedication). Too many dedication feats are dead feats. Why should my Champion have to waste a feat to have access to a feat that improves his ability to wear plate armor (Sentinel)? Why should my 2H fighter have to waste a feat to get access to bunch of 2H weapon or bow feats (Mauler and Archer). Why should my Druid only get a basically pointless 2nd animal companion just to have access to feats that enhance animal companions?

That another class with an archetype is better at something a class is a specialist in seems wrong to me.

If the specialist makes the same investment in the even more specialized archetype, they are still better at their thing than another class that invested in that same more specialized archetype.

The dedication feat for Sentinel just brings other classes closer to (but still below) the awesome proficiency the Champion has on armored defense.

Everything working as intended AFAIC.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
rnphillips wrote:

I wish they had separated archetype dedication from dedication feats. In other words, I should be able to access archetype feats without actually taking the dedication feat (yet still committing to the dedication). Too many dedication feats are dead feats. Why should my Champion have to waste a feat to have access to a feat that improves his ability to wear plate armor (Sentinel)? Why should my 2H fighter have to waste a feat to get access to bunch of 2H weapon or bow feats (Mauler and Archer). Why should my Druid only get a basically pointless 2nd animal companion just to have access to feats that enhance animal companions?

That another class with an archetype is better at something a class is a specialist in seems wrong to me.

If the specialist makes the same investment in the even more specialized archetype, they are still better at their thing than another class that invested in that same more specialized archetype.

The dedication feat for Sentinel just brings other classes closer to (but still below) the awesome proficiency the Champion has on armored defense.

Everything working as intended AFAIC.

Except that the Champion is being charged a tax for access to those other feats. Which they really shouldn't given they are "legendary in armor".

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
rnphillips wrote:

I wish they had separated archetype dedication from dedication feats. In other words, I should be able to access archetype feats without actually taking the dedication feat (yet still committing to the dedication). Too many dedication feats are dead feats. Why should my Champion have to waste a feat to have access to a feat that improves his ability to wear plate armor (Sentinel)? Why should my 2H fighter have to waste a feat to get access to bunch of 2H weapon or bow feats (Mauler and Archer). Why should my Druid only get a basically pointless 2nd animal companion just to have access to feats that enhance animal companions?

That another class with an archetype is better at something a class is a specialist in seems wrong to me.

If the specialist makes the same investment in the even more specialized archetype, they are still better at their thing than another class that invested in that same more specialized archetype.

The dedication feat for Sentinel just brings other classes closer to (but still below) the awesome proficiency the Champion has on armored defense.

Everything working as intended AFAIC.

Except that the Champion is being charged a tax for access to those other feats. Which they really shouldn't given they are "legendary in armor".

Spending the same resources as other classes to get access to the feats is not a tax.

And, even when spending all their feats, no other class gets the "legendary in armor" of the Champion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Except that the Champion is being charged a tax for access to those other feats. Which they really shouldn't given they are "legendary in armor".

I really think it's made on purpose, to discourage Champions to take the Archetype. And I like it that way.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Overspecialization in PF2 is a trap option, and not a style of play to be easily encourage by game choices. Trying to push past the head of the curve established by the basic class choices of the class that is best at something is almost always a recipe for siloing your character into a style of play that will not always work out for you in play.

PF2 is very good at punishing players that try to turn every encounter into a nail to be hit with a hammer.

If we do get further support for core classes, I really hope it maintains the clear and current pattern of pursing different options rather than better options. Whether you like where the game is currently or not, supplemental support is not a good place to fix balance issues.

If the core balance of the game is not where you like it, I suggest considering any number of homebrew changes to the core math of the game, or even making your own and reporting it back here. Perhaps if enough people adopt them, 3rd parties will begin tailoring content to your preferred variant.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

Overspecialization in PF2 is a trap option, and not a style of play to be easily encourage by game choices. Trying to push past the head of the curve established by the basic class choices of the class that is best at something is almost always a recipe for siloing your character into a style of play that will not always work out for you in play.

PF2 is very good at punishing players that try to turn every encounter into a nail to be hit with a hammer.

If we do get further support for core classes, I really hope it maintains the clear and current pattern of pursing different options rather than better options. Whether you like where the game is currently or not, supplemental support is not a good place to fix balance issues.

If the core balance of the game is not where you like it, I suggest considering any number of homebrew changes to the core math of the game, or even making your own and reporting it back here. Perhaps if enough people adopt them, 3rd parties will begin tailoring content to your preferred variant.

Absolutely. Mostly what I'm wanting support wise is stuff like new subclasses and frat support to let other classes interact with new stuff (like ranger getting a crossbow expert for work with simple guns, magus getting a gun hybrid study or conflux spell that aids with the action economy of reloading a gun, etc)

Oracle still has plenty of design space for new mysteries, witch for more patrons, etc.; though I full heartly agree that new support shouldn't be power creep.

*I think alchemist want a boost, but that boost should come in the form of more alchemical items with a wider range of effects, and new alchemical items technically are new goodies for everyone


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
Spending the same resources as other classes to get access to the feats is not a tax.

A feat that provides no meaningful benefit beyond allowing you to access another feat you want to take is literally the definition of a feat tax.

You can argue it's balanced or not a problem or on purpose, but it is what it is too.


I sure hope so! I miss the "Complete" series a lot!

Marketing & Media Manager

14 people marked this as a favorite.

So, you are all saying there is demand for more Pathfinder? ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aaron Shanks wrote:
So, you are all saying there is demand for more Pathfinder? ;)

Yes :'3 but hopefully with basically no lore and just rules/mechanics/options.

Marketing & Media Manager

7 people marked this as a favorite.
PrismaticPandaBear wrote:
Aaron Shanks wrote:
So, you are all saying there is demand for more Pathfinder? ;)
Yes :'3 but hopefully with basically no lore and just rules/mechanics/options.

Blech. You get 80/20 lore/rules or 20/80. We gotta add some spices!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Aaron Shanks wrote:
PrismaticPandaBear wrote:
Aaron Shanks wrote:
So, you are all saying there is demand for more Pathfinder? ;)
Yes :'3 but hopefully with basically no lore and just rules/mechanics/options.
Blech. You get 80/20 lore/rules or 20/80. We gotta add some spices!

I mean I'll take 20/80 lore/rules.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I enjoy more of a 50/50 split


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
I enjoy more of a 50/50 split

Unfortunately, I think your stance is more popular than mine :c


13 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm still waiting for the Pathfinder book that is just numbers without context.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

Overspecialization in PF2 is a trap option, and not a style of play to be easily encourage by game choices. Trying to push past the head of the curve established by the basic class choices of the class that is best at something is almost always a recipe for siloing your character into a style of play that will not always work out for you in play.

PF2 is very good at punishing players that try to turn every encounter into a nail to be hit with a hammer.

If we do get further support for core classes, I really hope it maintains the clear and current pattern of pursing different options rather than better options. Whether you like where the game is currently or not, supplemental support is not a good place to fix balance issues.

If the core balance of the game is not where you like it, I suggest considering any number of homebrew changes to the core math of the game, or even making your own and reporting it back here. Perhaps if enough people adopt them, 3rd parties will begin tailoring content to your preferred variant.

My players are slowly learning this. You may be able to double slice 80% or so of the time, but if you don't have a ranged weapon for that other 20% you get to sit there doing nothing. I much prefer the mix it up type of combat, but so many players due to video games and PF1/3E are extremely used to want to do their "routine." If they can't do their routine, they sit their looking sullen. I have to tell them step up and play like a warrior who can't do the same thing all the time. Battle shouldn't be the same all the time. You should have to mix it up tactically.


SuperBidi wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Except that the Champion is being charged a tax for access to those other feats. Which they really shouldn't given they are "legendary in armor".
I really think it's made on purpose, to discourage Champions to take the Archetype. And I like it that way.

You are giving them too much credit. It is completely inconsistent. Focus on shield? No feat tax. Focus on armor? Feat tax. Focus on dual wield? No feat tax. Focus on 2h? Feat tax. And so forth.

51 to 100 of 260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Can we start getting some more support for existing classes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.