I was thinking about how the game is going, I am loving the direction but do anyone else feel like this year was a bit much? 4 new classes seems like a lot and while I am really really excited for the Thamaturge but 2 a year seems like enough already. The new books filled with lore seem cool.(I still can't get their pdf due to the prohibitive dollar price and trying to support my local book publishers so I mostly saw the classes only on nethys and the lore in spoilers from reddit).
Pf2 is doing wonders supporting classes with new archetypes already(luchador and etc). And classes do get one or two feats pretty often.
Before I came here to type I was thinking we need more class feats for existing classes... But now that I wrote I don't think so, we already have enough I think, class arquetypes maybe? Support existing arquetypes with a few more feats? What do you feel like it needs to be expanded now that we seem to have enough/nearly enough classes? Or do you feel like more classes are the way to go?
Sorry if the thread is a bit off I just wanted to talk about it I guess.
Yes?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The one class I think the game still needs is some sort of magicky damage-focused character. Probably Kineticist. Other than that I'd definitely say we have enough classes.
So... yeah, I'd mostly like to see more support for existing classes. Class feats and class archetypes that allow for new playstyles or better support ones that aren't so well-supported yet. Normal archetypes are cool and all but since the 2-feat restriction is there they kind of bottleneck after a point. Also, it's a lot harder for them to interact with specific class features.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think that this is year was a lot and would appreciate a slow down on classes release, we didn't even had time to digest Secrets of Magic and the new classes and then came Guns and Gears right after with even more classes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would love a focus on updating older classes with new class feats or “subclasses”.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think that this is year was a lot and would appreciate a slow down on classes release, we didn't even had time to digest Secrets of Magic and the new classes and then came Guns and Gears right after with even more classes.
To be fair, the original release cycle had SoM and G&G 6 or 7 months apart, but 'rona-induced shipping delays pushed them a month apart instead. I think 2-4 classes a year in a good aim to not overwhelm the players or writers, as long as they're in one big book a year, or spaced out ~6 months from each other.
---As to OP's.. slightly scattered point, I think class Archetypes are the way to go for fleshing out existing classes with new options instead of just a smattering of new feat, but I won't turn those down if I'm given them. I would like more Archetypes that have seldom few feats and don't have the 3 feat investment clause in the dedication, and/or multiple dedications that give access to the same pool (like the 3 different Hellknight dedications having a shared pool and a unique pool unto themselves). Subclasses I think are fine where they are for most classes, but a few classes could use more love in that department/really easy to make more of (wizard, sorcerer, alchemist are super easy. Cleric, investigator, magus could use one or two more to feel "complete" imo).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think more subclasses would be great and in some cases needed - patrons , mysteries etc
I can’t think of too many obvious class gaps once the two dark archive ones come out. I’d like another stance based caster as the shaman as I don’t think that niche is really covered by druid , sorcerer , oracle or cleric
Then another class to pair with that one. If environment / physical world is the steer for shaman then this could be Kineticist or some kind of shifter
After that you are kind of in “new class” territory and perhaps efforts should be focused on expanding existing ones. Definitely cleric doctrines. It would be nice if there are one more
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both, but I'd prefer a design direction that expands out existing classes in parallel with new classes.
I don't feel most classes need more power; but new subclasses, and classes getting feats that let them interact with newer material would be greatly appreciated. Like, seeing new oracle mysteries, cleric doctrines, investigator methodologies, eidolon options, etc.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been so busy I haven't even read the new Gunslinger and Inventor final versions yet, let alone playtesting the new occult classes.
While I personally am a bit overwhelmed with the new classes, I still think it's best to crack on with what's in demand. I was really excited about getting Magus and then gun rules, and I can imagine other people are equally excited about getting their Kineticist or Shifter, and I'd feel like a proper knob if I said we should slow down now that I've got what I wanted.
I've been so busy I haven't even read the new Gunslinger and Inventor final versions yet, let alone playtesting the new occult classes.
While I personally am a bit overwhelmed with the new classes, I still think it's best to crack on with what's in demand. I was really excited about getting Magus and then gun rules, and I can imagine other people are equally excited about getting their Kineticist or Shifter, and I'd feel like a proper knob if I said we should slow down now that I've got what I wanted.
Personally, I'd like to trade one or two archetypes for some new subclasses and feats, and keep the new classes coming until most of the old pf classes are done
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's a few classes that could do with a bit of love, but the main area I think feels lacking is usually ancestry feats when you venture outside of the core races (and the few that have had feats from multiple books beyond that, like Kobold and Leshy).
If I could make a wish, it'd be to revise Alchemist (a mess to work with, even if it's ultimately competent) and Witch (most of the hex cantrips need to be buffed since without those it's straight up underpowered)
Agreed on everything really.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love new classes and options but I really would realy like to see expansions for existing content.
Archetypes are cool, but because they're all partially exclusive with one another, adding more archetypes only adds limited content to any given character and I'd really like to see more feats for both classes and ancestries/heritages.
Like right now a weapon Inventor has one singular second level feat they can take and I think it'd be a big bummer if they stayed that way for years. In general I think there's been a pretty decent thirst for more feats and options for classes to leverage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like it depends on the book. Paizo is going to print however many books in a year, and each of them are going to be about something different and that theme is going to determine what sort of things are appropriate for the book.
Like if it's about a region, you're not going to put a new class there, but you will put new ancestries there and feats for existing ancestries. If you're doing a book about, like, dragons you're going to have archetypes and feats and stuff for "dragoney characters" but not classes since "dragon" is not really a class. If it's something like the Dark Archive, you're going to have both.
I feel like Paizo should just write the books they want to write, and put whatever fits in those books in those books.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love new classes and options but I really would realy like to see expansions for existing content.
Archetypes are cool, but because they're all partially exclusive with one another, adding more archetypes only adds limited content to any given character and I'd really like to see more feats for both classes and ancestries/heritages.
Like right now a weapon Inventor has one singular second level feat they can take and I think it'd be a big bummer if they stayed that way for years. In general I think there's been a pretty decent thirst for more feats and options for classes to leverage.
Yeah; Inventor is oddly sparse for low level options, and while these options are mostly good, it feels kinda bad how same-y they feel to other inventors unless you multiclass
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think they want to fill in wide first before filling in deep. So they're using more classes to fill in the gaps in class fantasies, and then provide more options after that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like it depends on the book.
I mean, to some extent, but I think a lot of it has to do with what the developers want to create too.
Like that "dragon" book you mentioned could easily have, I dunno, 50 dragon themed feats spread across every existing class. Or 0 dragon themed class feats but a handful of new archetypes. Or 0 archetypes but a few special class archetypes. Or none of those because it has three dragon adjacent ancestries and a handful of spells instead. Or none of those either because it's just a bestiary.
There is a lot of room even within a given theme to create a wide variety of options.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I feel like it's about time we got to see more feats for all classes. Spellcasters could use more flavorful feats tied to their core mechanics and the Alchemists could finally have interesting feats that could make the class have an actual alternative build other than item dispenser.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I feel like it's about time we got to see more feats for all classes. Spellcasters could use more flavorful feats tied to their core mechanics and the Alchemists could finally have interesting feats that could make the class have an actual alternative build other than item dispenser.
Personally, I like being an item dispenser, I just wished I had some more interesting items to dispenser sometimes
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We're pretty close to all the classes I personally need; Inquisitor is the biggest missing tooth for me, though I have friends really pulling for Bloodrager, Kineticist, Shaman and Shifter. I do think we're likely to start seeing less new Classes and more Class Archetypes relatively soon, though, and that way lies Synthesist Summoner, Bloodrager Barbarian, and hopefully the body horror Alchemist.
But I think a few more subclass options - Oracle Mysteries chief among them, though I'd certainly like a few more Investigator Methodologies and Champion Causes - would cheer a lot of folks up, and Class Feats are always welcome. Skill Feats are what we're truly hurting for, if anything.
Personally, I feel like it's about time we got to see more feats for all classes. Spellcasters could use more flavorful feats tied to their core mechanics and the Alchemists could finally have interesting feats that could make the class have an actual alternative build other than item dispenser.Personally, I like being an item dispenser, I just wished I had some more interesting items to dispenser sometimes
Great. Then the alchemist already satisfies a concept you like. Now, they just need to satisfactorily cover all the other concepts that falls under the class' umbrella. Mechanically speaking. Like every other class in the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for alchemists, 2 of the 4 subclasses deliver a unique combat play style. Those being the bomber and toxicologist. The other 2 could use some more support. For additional subclasses, I'm not sure what could work, since the methodologies we do have cover every type of alchemical item except for alchemical tools and ammunition. Ammunition specialist could be pretty cool. Need more types of alchemical ammunition. A tool specialist would have to have some more useful tools.
My hope is a Class Archetype that trades out crafting for permanent personal modifications, akin to what they could do in 1e.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for alchemists, 2 of the 4 subclasses deliver a unique combat play style. Those being the bomber and toxicologist. The other 2 could use some more support. For additional subclasses, I'm not sure what could work, since the methodologies we do have cover every type of alchemical item except for alchemical tools and ammunition. Ammunition specialist could be pretty cool. Need more types of alchemical ammunition. A tool specialist would have to have some more useful tools.
Do I have to spend most of my batches creating items to give to my teammates in order to make a meaningful contribution with these two subclasses or I can simply focus on what I chose and have several feats that enhance my playstyle in a myriad of ways that allows me to go beyond just the lackluster Strike with different flavor? Something tells me that the first option is the answer.
The things I'm referring the alchemists need are feats that enhance their action economy, spice up their own Alchemical items that makes them more than just the store-bought versions, preferably that don't lean on Quick Alchemy (which sucks, is expensive and just outright punishes thinking ahead and preparing).
Just to clarify, item dispenser alchemist is an alright playstyle that some people like to play (There are those that liked playing Healbot Clerics, after all), but it should be an opt in play style not the essential to accomplish the bare minimum. That's all I'm asking.
Do I have to spend most of my batches creating items to give to my teammates in order to make a meaningful contribution with these two subclasses or I can simply focus on what I chose and have several feats that enhance my playstyle in a myriad of ways that allows me to go beyond just the lackluster Strike with different flavor? Something tells me that the first option is the answer.
Alchemist is a support class, so you shine by supporting your allies. That seems quite intended.
There are ways to play a bomber who doesn't give anything to other party members, it will just not be an Alchemist. There are ways to play a Mutagenist that doesn't give anything to other party members, it will just not be an Alchemist.The class has a chassis which is support oriented. Transforming the class into a combat focused class is a bit like trying to change the Barbarian into a caster: A lot of work without much guarantees. I think you should just use the Alchemist Dedication when you want to play a martial using Alchemical stuff, it works fine that way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The class has a chassis which is support oriented. Transforming the class into a combat focused class is a bit like trying to change the Barbarian into a caster: A lot of work without much guarantees. I think you should just use the Alchemist Dedication when you want to play a martial using Alchemical stuff, it works fine that way.
No, it doesn't work fine that way. Multiclass bombs are just weaker than using a normal ranged weapon for most levels, and multiclass mutagens don't even go above the normal item bonus for many levels. It's very inconsistent. And sure, you can squeeze value out of things like Mistform Elixir, but that's not what most people imagine when they think of a "combat Alchemist".
The difference between this and a full caster Barbarian is that I don't think there's a single living soul who wants the Barbarian to be a full caster in robes with a staff, but there's a whole lot of people who love the fantasy of an Alchemist but want to do cool and strong combat stuff, not be an item dispenser. The class is simply not fufilling the fantasy for those people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do I have to spend most of my batches creating items to give to my teammates in order to make a meaningful contribution with these two subclasses or I can simply focus on what I chose and have several feats that enhance my playstyle in a myriad of ways that allows me to go beyond just the lackluster Strike with different flavor? Something tells me that the first option is the answer.Alchemist is a support class, so you shine by supporting your allies. That seems quite intended.
There are ways to play a bomber who doesn't give anything to other party members, it will just not be an Alchemist. There are ways to play a Mutagenist that doesn't give anything to other party members, it will just not be an Alchemist.The class has a chassis which is support oriented. Transforming the class into a combat focused class is a bit like trying to change the Barbarian into a caster: A lot of work without much guarantees. I think you should just use the Alchemist Dedication when you want to play a martial using Alchemical stuff, it works fine that way.
Personally, even though giving out items to your friends is a supportive behavior, I wouldn't qualify it as a "Support Playstle" at all. In my mind, supports in combat are those that can leverage the action economy to help their friends. Lacking useful abilities in combat that makes you gravitate towards the generic support actions doesn't make the class support. Battle Medicine, Aid or all the skill combat actions are class-agnostic, thus hardly make an Alchemist support.
What I had in mind was an Alchemist, support or otherwise, that could use items faster. Or, alternatively, they could keep the janky action economy if they offered more bang per action (improved alchemical items that are made by a PC alchemist, rather than exactly like NPC made).
All I'm saying is that in PF1e Alchemists could perform various roles in a party and during the transition everything was hacked down to item dispenser. I hardly think that's fair for the Alchemists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The class has a chassis which is support oriented. Transforming the class into a combat focused class is a bit like trying to change the Barbarian into a caster: A lot of work without much guarantees. I think you should just use the Alchemist Dedication when you want to play a martial using Alchemical stuff, it works fine that way.No, it doesn't work fine that way. Multiclass bombs are just weaker than using a normal ranged weapon for most levels, and multiclass mutagens don't even go above the normal item bonus for many levels. It's very inconsistent. And sure, you can squeeze value out of things like Mistform Elixir, but that's not what most people imagine when they think of a "combat Alchemist".
The difference between this and a full caster Barbarian is that I don't think there's a single living soul who wants the Barbarian to be a full caster in robes with a staff, but there's a whole lot of people who love the fantasy of an Alchemist but want to do cool and strong combat stuff, not be an item dispenser. The class is simply not fufilling the fantasy for those people.
The highest high level damage dealer is a Fighter Mutagenist. You can Flurry of Blows with d12 Deadly d10 weapons at level 16, that's just crazy out of bounds.
The best Bomber is a Precision Ranger with Alchemist Dedication. You need to wait for the first few levels before getting access to enough reagents to last the whole adventuring day but you largely compete with a bow Ranger, exchanging (mostly useless) higher range for weakness exploit and excellent debuffing.These fantasies are playable, even if I agree that they are not playable right at level 1. So there's no need to make the Alchemist "the best bomber". If you want to play a pure bomber, take a martial chassis and add the Dedication. It works as intended.
Alchemist chassis is a caster chassis. So turning the Alchemist into a martial is nearly as complicated as turning a Barbarian into a caster.
And I agree that a lot of people, coming from PF1, want the PF1 Alchemist. But that's not gonna happen anymore considering how PF1 Alchemist was crazy overpowered (from personal experience, without even trying to optimize it I ended up with other players complaining so much about it that I stopped playing mine).
Having a class that is both a strong ranged damage dealer, a strong melee damage dealer and a utility class is just outside PF2 class budget. At some point, a choice has to be made, and Paizo chose support as the Alchemist core feature.
Personally, even though giving out items to your friends is a supportive behavior, I wouldn't qualify it as a "Support Playstle" at all.
Poison increase martial damage.
Poison and bombs debuff enemies.Elixirs of Life heal.
Many Elixirs buff various values (saves, speed, water breathing and such).
Mutagens buff skills and can sometimes be used as buffs for specific kind of character.
All these abilities are support abilities. So I think I can pretty safely consider the Alchemist a support class.
What I had in mind was an Alchemist, support or otherwise, that could use items faster. Or, alternatively, they could keep the janky action economy if they offered more bang per action (improved alchemical items that are made by a PC alchemist, rather than exactly like NPC made).
I agree with you on that. In the past, I was using my Familiar for that, before it got nerfed by a video explaining that you can't do that with a Familiar. I'd love to see some of these abilities back.
All I'm saying is that in PF1e Alchemists could perform various roles in a party and during the transition everything was hacked down to item dispenser. I hardly think that's fair for the Alchemists.
PF2 Alchemist performs multiple roles. My Alchemist has sometimes been the main healer of the party, sometimes the highest damage dealer, and I've helped with my utility and always buffed with my poison. So, the Alchemist can do all of that. The difference with PF1 is that you don't do that like the dedicated classes. Because a character who could be a damage dealer, a healer, a buffer, a debuffer at the same time is not acceptable, so it would mean having 4 completely separated subclasses inside the Alchemist, with not much in common between them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, even though giving out items to your friends is a supportive behavior, I wouldn't qualify it as a "Support Playstle" at all.Poison increase martial damage.
Poison and bombs debuff enemies.
Elixirs of Life heal.
Many Elixirs buff various values (saves, speed, water breathing and such).
Mutagens buff skills and can sometimes be used as buffs for specific kind of character.All these abilities are support abilities. So I think I can pretty safely consider the Alchemist a support class.
Are all of these supportive actions being done mid-combat and with reasonable action economy investment? I won't bring up Bards, but these actions can be performed like a Cleric, Wizard or any other classes that buff their party members?
That's a resounding no. That's my problem with the class and the "playstyle" it forces upon players. I am not against prepping stuff to pass around, that's a neat benefit, however this doesn't not constitutes as a playstyle.
Imagine martial classes without their feats or spellcasters without metamagic and using only cantrips. That's what it is playing a pure Alchemist. You're neither a martial nor a caster, yet you attack like a martial and have to menage resources and have the action economy of a caster, without the high impact.
So yeah, the design the class should pick a lane. Either make high-impact feats that cost actions or lean more on the martial side and allow the class to have a lot of abilities that makes them play smoothly on the battlefield using their items, prepared beforehand or otherwise, to aid their allies without bogging down everyone's action economy (Healing Bomb is unnecessarily bad, but it's a major, and welcome, step in the right direction).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are all of these supportive actions being done mid-combat and with reasonable action economy investment? I won't bring up Bards, but these actions can be performed like a Cleric, Wizard or any other classes that buff their party members?
Yes.
I think it's the difference between our visions of the Alchemist, I have no issue being both efficient and supportive during combat.Also, outside Poison, I don't give items to my teammates before combat (there are a few exceptions, but most of the time they are circumstancial). So maybe I'm not an item dispenser according to you?
But I heal during combat, I bomb (both for Debuff and damage) and I sometimes bring the proper utility elixir to the proper situation.
Well, I won't say what I don't mean: The Alchemist class lacks a lot of things. There are a lot of trap options, of tax feats, of useless or unusable abilities. But with high system mastery, you can do something out of the Alchemist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd vote for more classes since there are so many awesome archetypes.
But seriously, all you need to do change the free archetype rule from variant rule to core rule and you'd immediately have tons of 'in class support' options that don't spend your class feats to get.
My group uses free archetype, and it does help, but we do want more subclasses, since archetypes cant replicate them outside of class archetypes, which would be class specific because of how subclasses work
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Advanced Players Guide & SoM classes could definitely use more feats - a lot of them suffer from only having 2 or 3 feats at some levels (though they can always dip into lower level feats if they don't like the options at a given level).
They could also use more subclass options - more witch patron themes, oracle curses, etc.
I would definitely prioritize those classes over the core rulebook classes (as the CRB classes already received a pretty hefty second wave of options in the advanced players guide).
Books like Secrets of Magic and Guns & Gears have only really added very sporadic options (like, a few classes got a handful of random feats) so something comprehensive like where the APG gave all of the core classes a couple of pages of new stuff would be good.
I'm not really too keen on more classes, the only 1e class left that I really want that isn't covered by existing class or archetype options is the inquisitor (though would love to see cavalier anyway despite it sort of being covered by making a fighter with the marshal archetype). Anything else can wait until existing classes have more support as far as I am concerned.
I would maybe enjoy some of the weird hybrid classes from the 1e advanced class guide (most notably the bloodrager, slayer, and skald) though I think those would be best implemented as subclass options or class archetypes rather than discrete classes on their own. (For example, bloodrager could be a barbarian instinct or barbarian class archetype that grants you the sorcerer dedication in the same way that the rogue eldritch trickster racket does, and gives sorcerer spells the rage trait for you)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The PF2 Alchemist as an item dispenser can upset people who loved the PF1 Alchemist being above anything a self-buffer.
The PF1 class was the I change my body and my brain to become better class. A few feats do this for the PF2 Alchemist, but the focus is definitely weaker. I feel that the Inventor might better suit the Making myself stronger trope.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that the Inventor might better suit the Making myself stronger trope.
Actually, I like the idea. I'm wondering what can be done with an Inventor with Alchemist Dedication. I think you can make a pretty nasty Mutagenist with a Construct mount. Free move thanks to the mount, Flurry of Blows and Explode/Mega/Gigavolt should be a nice opening round. And the Lesser Cover from the mount compensates your lack of AC because of Bestial Mutagen.
Also, Flurry of Blows kicks in at level 10 when the Construct Companion starts to lose its edge.I think it's a pretty solid build, as long as you're ok to slightly change your playstyle while levelling. The only drawback is that your won't have a single feat outside the Dedication and your mount improvements. If you play with free archetype, it should be easier to build it.
I would maybe enjoy some of the weird hybrid classes from the 1e advanced class guide (most notably the bloodrager, slayer, and skald) though I think those would be best implemented as subclass options or class archetypes rather than discrete classes on their own. (For example, bloodrager could be a barbarian instinct or barbarian class archetype that grants you the sorcerer dedication in the same way that the rogue eldritch trickster racket does, and gives sorcerer spells the rage trait for you)
I've actually been working on a bloodrager homebrew, and the "give sorc dedication and such" route doesn't really work, for the same reasons Eldritch Trickster doesn't; the two abilities just dont mesh well; ET doesn't work since spell attacks are bad enough, let alone with slowed progression, and they lack a way to make their spells sneaky, outside of taking conceal spell as a level 4 feat of the dedication offers it. Bloodrager as a "sorc dedication, but the spells can be cast during rage" kinda works, but very few of the bloodline effects translate well, since they are built for casters. Of the ones we have, only demon, dragon, sorta abberation, and all of those either only have partial synergy (tentaclar arms gives you a reach, but so does deer instinct, while also not taking an action and a better damage die), straight up better options (just take dragon, the abilities are made to work with your rage, and if you really need dragon claws, dragon disciple gives you what you want). Demon admittedly works pretty cool as a weaker damage, but bulkier alternative to the animal's unarmed attacks, but still costs actions that animal isn't spending. A big part of bloodrager was the bloodline powers, the 4 spells a day were more like a neat trick for clutch buffs and such for hard fights.
From my general conclusion, given that dragon already works well, the way to go is making a general "rage caster" class archetype thats main thing is giving barbarians magic they can use in rage to handle the spells part, and more bloodline themed instincts to handle the "blood" part
I've actually been working on a bloodrager homebrew, and the "give sorc dedication and such" route doesn't really work, for the same reasons Eldritch Trickster doesn't
I play an Eldritch Trickster and it works fine. What doesn't work is Magical Trickster, the feat to add Sneak Attack to Spell Attack rolls. But having a bunch of spells on the side of a martial character is always a good idea.
So, even if it may not be the most optimized route (Thief stays the best and most obvious Racket for a Rogue) it's very usable as is.Now, I don't speak about the Bloodrager as it's very different. I still think having the ability to cast spells while raging is already a strong ability. Also, if it adds the Rage trait to spellcasting it means that you can use your Rage action to cast a spell at level 11+, it's a strong way to start a fight. If the rage damage bonus is ok, and if you open some strange rage damage types (force, negative or whatever), I think you have a very valid Barbarian concept.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've actually been working on a bloodrager homebrew, and the "give sorc dedication and such" route doesn't really work, for the same reasons Eldritch Trickster doesn'tI play an Eldritch Trickster and it works fine. What doesn't work is Magical Trickster, the feat to add Sneak Attack to Spell Attack rolls. But having a bunch of spells on the side of a martial character is always a good idea.
So, even if it may not be the most optimized route (Thief stays the best and most obvious Racket for a Rogue) it's very usable as is.Now, I don't speak about the Bloodrager as it's very different. I still think having the ability to cast spells while raging is already a strong ability. Also, if it adds the Rage trait to spellcasting it means that you can use your Rage action to cast a spell at level 11+, it's a strong way to start a fight. If the rage damage bonus is ok, and if you open some strange rage damage types (force, negative or whatever), I think you have a very valid Barbarian concept.
Tbh, I can't imagine any ET I'd rather play as literally any other racket and taking the MCD normally.
Like, say, if I take Thief and MCD, compared to the ET, I'm trading a second level feat for dex to damage. I'd cede the point though if ET had feats that had level advantage on the casting benefit feats similar to captivator.
Not saying that your rogue is badwrongfun (imo, my eldritch trickster fantasy is literally what Captivator dedication does), but ET does fail to deliver the fantasy of spell sniping, and bloodrager would fail in a similar way if the approach was just "get sorc dedication in exchange for your cool starting benefit"
Like, say, if I take Thief and MCD, compared to the ET, I'm trading a second level feat for dex to damage.
There are a few points to take into consideration:
Thief doesn't increase ranged damage.And... ET is better with a ranged weapon as you can use the classical 2-action spell + no-MAP attack combo.
So, if you play an archer, you take ET over Thief always.
Also, you can take Int/Wis/Cha as main attribute, which may be cool depending on what you want to play. A Legendary Perception Rogue with 18 starting Wis is a fun build (even if its really niche). I've personally chosen the 18 Cha route with strong Intimidation + Dread Striker and spells to complement when I can't Demoralize any more (and I'm strongly thinking in Retraining to Captivator). So a more debuff oriented Rogue.
So, I can think of many cases where I'd play an ET over a Thief.
I probably won't play most of the classes after Summoner and Magus. My group probably won't either.
From what's left to transfer over, probably looking forward to an Inquisitor.
They moved really fast making PF2 versions of the PF1 classes. Not even sure where they got from here.
Like, say, if I take Thief and MCD, compared to the ET, I'm trading a second level feat for dex to damage.There are a few points to take into consideration:
Thief doesn't increase ranged damage.
And... ET is better with a ranged weapon as you can use the classical 2-action spell + no-MAP attack combo.So, if you play an archer, you take ET over Thief always.
Also, you can take Int/Wis/Cha as main attribute, which may be cool depending on what you want to play. A Legendary Perception Rogue with 18 starting Wis is a fun build (even if its really niche). I've personally chosen the 18 Cha route with strong Intimidation + Dread Striker and spells to complement when I can't Demoralize any more (and I'm strongly thinking in Retraining to Captivator). So a more debuff oriented Rogue.
So, I can think of many cases where I'd play an ET over a Thief.
I still disagree. Even if I'm playing a mostly ranged character, thief gives me switch hitting; especially now that I can one hand an air repeater, and rapier or something in the other and get both to share runes. Ranged rogue typically still want to be able to do something in case enemies get close, because a smart adventurers packs stuff for all ranges.
Mastermind gives me a new way to flat
foot someone, so I dont need to lean as much into dread striker
Scoundrel lets me nerf perception and ref saves with scoundrels feint which is kinda niche, but also still fun
Its also worth noting that you cant take capitvator with ET since ET has to be a multiclass, so if you want to do the "I'm a rogue with some illusions and charms" thing, you're better off taking anything but ET so you don't get locked out of it until level 8 at the earliest
Ranged rogue typically still want to be able to do something in case enemies get close, because a smart adventurers packs stuff for all ranges.
Sorry, but I disagree with that point. Outside attacks of opportunity, there's no reason to switch hit once stuck at melee range, especially considering that bows deal more damage than most melee weapons. And instead of losing an action to draw a weapon, you'd prefer to Step/Mobility outside melee range.
You have all the right in the world to prefer a Thief over an Eldritch Trickster. But I don't think you'll possibly convince me that there's no build that would be done better with an Eldritch Trickster. Now, we can discuss about the efficiency of these builds, but the fact that I end up with an Eldritch Trickster proves that they are at least interesting enough to give it a try.
Now, I fully agree that the Thief is the best Rogue Racket right now. It's still not the only one worth consideration and it can't outbuild every ET builds.
Also, as a side note, a second level feat is still a second level feat. Considering that there's no point in gaining a second level feat is a bit of a stretch.
And yes, I'm hesitating with Captivator as it asks me to retrain my Racket and with the issue of the Dedication being a level 4 feat it screws most of my build despite giving earlier access to spellcasting proficiencies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ranged rogue typically still want to be able to do something in case enemies get close, because a smart adventurers packs stuff for all ranges.Sorry, but I disagree with that point. Outside attacks of opportunity, there's no reason to switch hit once stuck at melee range, especially considering that bows deal more damage than most melee weapons. And instead of losing an action to draw a weapon, you'd prefer to Step/Mobility outside melee range.
You have all the right in the world to prefer a Thief over an Eldritch Trickster. But I don't think you'll possibly convince me that there's no build that would be done better with an Eldritch Trickster. Now, we can discuss about the efficiency of these builds, but the fact that I end up with an Eldritch Trickster proves that they are at least interesting enough to give it a try.
Now, I fully agree that the Thief is the best Rogue Racket right now. It's still not the only one worth consideration and it can't outbuild every ET builds.
Also, as a side note, a second level feat is still a second level feat. Considering that there's no point in gaining a second level feat is a bit of a stretch.And yes, I'm hesitating with Captivator as it asks me to retrain my Racket and with the issue of the Dedication being a level 4 feat it screws most of my build despite giving earlier access to spellcasting proficiencies.
I never really implied ET doesn't have it's place, but my comment said that I, as in me personally, can't think of a single time where I'd want to trade a unique ability for one that's replicated through a feat.
To get back onto the topic, I used it as an example of how the "bolt on an MCD doesn't fulfill the original 1e class fantasy", which it doesn't (since for whatever reason, the thing folks remember about the OG AT was sneak attacking with spells), which doesn't imply the racket is bad or useless, it just means that like the 2e alchemist, it's got a new playstyle, and I kinda doubt people clamoring for a bloodrager would be happy with the result of giving it the same treatment