IMHO, the only new class that needs to come out

[VampByDay]

So Paizo has been coming out with a lot of new classes since 2nd ed, and I get it. New classes are the fun new exciting thing! They are crazy fun and allow all sorts of fun new ideas. But now that we have gunslingers and inventors, I think we have most of our bases covered. A lot can go into flavoring. My storm druid can be a very different flavor than your plant druid, so much so that a casual observer might not be able to tell they are the same class. Your muse bard who stays in the back could look increadably different from my warrior bard with champion dedication on the front line.

I think, however, as I try to build a very few niche characters, there needs to be one more class. And it isn't the psychic or Thamaturge. While I like those classes, don't get me wrong, I think they would have been fine as archetypes, or level 1 archetypes like the wellspring mage.

I think we need a gish caster in the line of the magus (master in armor and weapons, master in spells, magus/summoner casting progression) but available to all casting traditions.

I think we need the inquisitor back, but with a twist.

Listen, I like the magus. But I think there needs to be a gish character class for every spellcasting tradition, and I think Inquisitor does it best. In my mind the 2e inquisitor would have four possible inquisitions, not based on their tactics, like in 1e, but based on what they were devoted to. YOu could have the hunter-inquisitor with the primal spell list that was devoted to punishing those who despoiled nature. The old school deific inquisitor who punishes those that go against their god. An occult inquisitor could be dedicated to fighting off the influences of the dark tapestry (or maybe for an evil version, bringing the dark tapestry's plans to fruition). An arcane inquisitor could be devoted to allowing magic to be practiced freely, and wanting to punish those that limit or curtail magic unfairly.

Instead of spellstrike, they could have judegements, kind of like old-school smite evils, that deal extra damage to their enemies, but the damage is increased under certain circumstances (such as seeing the other person violate one of the inquisitor's anathemas). I dunno, I'm just spitballing here.

Bottom line, I think the one class we are missing is basically the 1e inquisitor, the 1e hunter, and the 1e occultist all rolled into one. Sure the Magus is there for the arcane casters, but for the others who truly want to make a 'battle priest' or a 'avenging druid' that are more melee focused, the options are pretty limited.

I dunno, there are other options, especially like, a 2e battlerager, but I like the idea of a 2e inquisitor where they punish those that are against their creed, not just limited to a god.

Anyway, what do you think? I'd love to see your well-reasoned opinions either for or against.

[keftiu]

Inquisitor is my #1 most-wanted, so no complaints from me there. I’m sure the staff are glad to see someone other than me making this thread for once :p

Paizo clearly sees the love for gishes, and has established “wave casting” likely to enable more of them down the line. I don’t imagine a pick-a-tradition one is super likely, but I hope to see one got each spell list individually.

2e has a couple obvious cla!! h#@~s: Inquisitor, Kineticist, Shifter, and Medium I all see pretty strong arguments for returning, and I know a lot of people dearly miss Bloodrager. As for new additions, a Warlord and/or an Envoy would both be dearly welcome, while I know Michael Sayre has voiced wanting to pretty drastically overhaul Shaman.

We’ve got more than one class needed, at the very least.

[VampByDay]

keftiu wrote:

Inquisitor is my #1 most-wanted, so no complaints from me there. I’m sure the staff are glad to see someone other than me making this thread for once :p

Paizo clearly sees the love for gishes, and has established “wave casting” likely to enable more of them down the line. I don’t imagine a pick-a-tradition one is super likely, but I hope to see one got each spell list individually.

2e has a couple obvious cla!@ h~~#s: Inquisitor, Kineticist, Shifter, and Medium I all see pretty strong arguments for returning, and I know a lot of people dearly miss Bloodrager. As for new additions, a Warlord and/or an Envoy would both be dearly welcome, while I know Michael Sayre has voiced wanting to pretty drastically overhaul Shaman.

We’ve got more than one class needed, at the very least.

The thing about it though is: several of those classes you mentioned can be done fairly well with the existing material. With cantrips scaling to your level, an elementalist is kinda already in the vein of a kineticist, and a wild druid can do some pretty good shapeshifting already. The summoner is basically already a medium with the dedication and rage phantoms, maybe just introduce a few more 'medium-ish' feats for the summoner that requires occult eidolons. I mean, I get wanting more classes, I just don't want 'class bloat.' 1e adressed that by having three different casting progressions and almost every class having a different spell list, with spell lists and casting progressions simplified . . . well it is a bit easier to reflavor. That's my two cents at least, don't let me dash your dreams of a 2e kineticist though.

[Rysky]

Elementalist is nothing like the Kineticist.

Summoner is nothing like the Medium (pretty sure you’re mixing that one and Spiritualist up).

[Squiggit]

I'm not super convinced by these 'all rolled into one' ideas. Sometimes I think people try too hard to find ways to package together really disparate concepts and I feel like it'll mostly lead to them feeling unsatisfying, considering that generally speaking class paths can only change a couple of features and the feat desires for these concepts are going to be really all over the place.

Feats I feel like especially would be a problem, designing feats give each subclass good customization without inhibiting the others.

Like even classes with relatively tight themes struggle in this regard (the weapon inventor qualifies for a single second level feat thanks to spending most of that level trying to accommodate other subclasses) and if we try to cram a whole bunch of other ideas into that I think it would just get worse.

When they have tried it, I don't think it's gone well for the classes being assimilated. I like the PF2 Summoner and I think it makes sense that they rolled elements from the PF1 Spiritualist into it, but the Spiritualist did not really survive the transition at all.

[The Raven Black]

We don't have class bloat in PF2. But archetypes bloat sure is here.

I wish they did only one per AP.

[VampByDay]

Rysky wrote:

Elementalist is nothing like the Kineticist.

Summoner is nothing like the Medium (pretty sure you’re mixing that one and Spiritualist up).

No, yes, I mixed up medium and spiritualist. But an elementalist and a keniticist both shoot out energy damage right? And with cantrips, an elementalist can do it all day long, and then they have higher spell slots for bigger blasts. Is it exactly like a kineticist, no, but it is somewhat similar. Sitting in the back and throwing out energy damage over and over. If you saw that in a TV show you would say they look pretty similar. If you are saying that elemetalist is less powerful than a Keneticist. . . . I mean probably but that's not the same as 'nothing like' that's just 'rebalanced.'

Or if you don't like elementalist, just choose from one of the many sorcerer bloodlines, like elemental.

[Squiggit]

About as similar as a fighter with a flaming rune on their longbow.

[keftiu]

Don’t most Kineticist fans not want them to be a slotted caster?

[AnimatedPaper]

VampByDay wrote:

But an elementalist and a keniticist both shoot out energy damage right? And with cantrips, an elementalist can do it all day long, and then they have higher spell slots for bigger blasts. Is it exactly like a kineticist, no, but it is somewhat similar. Sitting in the back and throwing out energy damage over and over. If you saw that in a TV show you would say they look pretty similar. If you are saying that elemetalist is less powerful than a Keneticist. . . . I mean probably but that's not the same as 'nothing like' that's just 'rebalanced.'

Or if you don't like elementalist, just choose from one of the many sorcerer bloodlines, like elemental.

Since you seem to be unfamiliar with the very many times this has been rehashed, suffice to say that a large part of the appeal of the kineticist class is to have a caster class with no spell slots. Any caster with slots is just not going to be sufficiently appealing mechanically to those that want a slotless caster.

There’s also the burn/elemental overload and other “limit break” mechanics that appeal to some (but not all) that want the class to return, and aside from the Oracle few have anything close to that.

The playtest psychic is mechanically closer than any of the current classes (which is kind of fascinating actually), and provides a roadmap for potential balance considerations.

I don’t intend to argue about all this; it’s been discussed to death. I only comment to offer a brief summary of why your suggestions are insufficient. There’s plenty of threads around if you want to see all of the various pros and cons people have brought up over the years.

Edit: to be painstakingly clear, some kineticist players wanted to be an elemental blaster, without caring about mechanics. For that, yes, an elementalist might work. If you care more about specific mechanics than the elemental theme, like me, then no.

[Rysky]

The whole point and appeal of the Kineticist is that it’s a not-caster blaster.

Just brushing it and people who want it off as “they can just can just play any caster and use elemental spells” shows a complete lack of knowledge and understanding about the class and it’s fans.

[Golurkcanfly]

Kineticist is made to appeal to the blaster fantasy and allow for thematically focused casters without hamstringing them relative to generalists.

It's something the Elementalist fundamentally fails at. It becomes significantly more restrictive, but doesn't increase the strength of what it's allowed to do in a way that makes up for their overall loss of options.

That and some people (myself included) don't find Vancian to be interesting nor conducive to various narratives. Vancian is kind of the last bastion of the concept of the Adventuring Day in PF2e.

[Paradozen]

So I like pick-a-list classes, but I don't think they work as substitutes for concepts that fit single-list classes. Been having trouble articulating this, but here's my third and best try at it.

I think pick-a-list spellcasters work best if the spellcasting is important but there is a bigger other conceptual and mechanical feature that defines the class. Eidolon or Bloodline or Patron give more flavor to their respective classes than the spell list, the spell list is more of a background thing. What the summoner fundamentally does is not particularly arcane or primal or divine, it's fundamentally a Summoner thing that gets a certain kind of magical spice mixed into the practice by their tradition.

But decoupling tradition from other mechanics, then locking the tradition to one, informs the other mechanics for the single-tradition classes, so those classes feel more like their traditions and help define those traditions as well. Wizard's non-spell mechanics are arcane theses and arcane schools and frame arcane magic as something to be studied, understood academically and then applied to the world. In that way those classes add depth to the notion of what Arcane magic is in the setting and that's something I think is cool. What a wizard does is fundamentally arcane, and the spice mixed in is the deeper layer of schools or theses they focus on.

Extrapolating these ideas out to a new class concept, I don't think Inquisitor is a concept I particularly want to have be a pick-a-list concept. The Inquisitor things that I think would fit the class feel like they'd be better explored as added layers of depth to divine magic than they would as primarily Inquisitor things which have a tradition spice mixed into it.

[VampByDay]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

VampByDay wrote:

But an elementalist and a keniticist both shoot out energy damage right? And with cantrips, an elementalist can do it all day long, and then they have higher spell slots for bigger blasts. Is it exactly like a kineticist, no, but it is somewhat similar. Sitting in the back and throwing out energy damage over and over. If you saw that in a TV show you would say they look pretty similar. If you are saying that elemetalist is less powerful than a Keneticist. . . . I mean probably but that's not the same as 'nothing like' that's just 'rebalanced.'

Or if you don't like elementalist, just choose from one of the many sorcerer bloodlines, like elemental.

Since you seem to be unfamiliar with the very many times this has been rehashed, suffice to say that a large part of the appeal of the kineticist class is to have a caster class with no spell slots. Any caster with slots is just not going to be sufficiently appealing mechanically to those that want a slotless caster.

There’s also the burn/elemental overload and other “limit break” mechanics that appeal to some (but not all) that want the class to return, and aside from the Oracle few have anything close to that.

The playtest psychic is mechanically closer than any of the current classes (which is kind of fascinating actually), and provides a roadmap for potential balance considerations.

I don’t intend to argue about all this; it’s been discussed to death. I only comment to offer a brief summary of why your suggestions are insufficient. There’s plenty of threads around if you want to see all of the various pros and cons people have brought up over the years.

Sure, I get that. Notice how I've never said elementalists ARE Kineticists. I've played a couple 1e Kineticists up to decent levels, I know how they work. I'm not saying that they are 100% replicated already. Not even 75% replicated. Just like I am not saying that a wild druid= shifter and I am not saying that a spiritualist=summoner. And I get the idea of wanting to have a caster-ey character with a supercharge button and no spell slots. I'm saying . . . hmmmm.

I'm saying I'd like to take care of theme ideas first, and then take care of mechanical ideas. You want a person who can throw fire damage all day long? You can already do that with a fire bloodline sorcerer out of the box. If you want a person who can turn into animals to maul your enemies, you can do that with a wild druid out of the box. If you want to make a Skald-ish character that can run into battle and not die instantly, the warrior bard can do that out of the box. So I guess I'm saying those classes are on the back burner. You can accomplish them thematically, just not mechanically.

The one thing I'm having trouble doing is making a martial focused character with a smattering of spells that isn't using up half of their class feats for a spellcaster dedication. That's why I want to see an inquisitor. It could combine the 1e classes of hunter, inquisitor, occultist, all into one, and give us that last little bit of theme that I think we need. The one 'hole' that I feel 2e has is the non-arcane gish martial. If that comes out as a bloodrager or an inquisitor or a sacred fist, that's all kinda . . . that's where I'm seeing the theamatic hole.

I guess I'm coming at it from a different perspective. You want a keneticist mechanically, and I'm looking at it going 'if you want to throw fireballs all day you can already do that.' Nothing against your way of thinking, it is perfectly valid, I'm just trying to show you my thoughts on the matter. But yes, I'll agree there is nothing near a MECHANICAL kineticist in 2e. Closest we have is basically the inventor with their variable power cores and things like gigavolt blast.

[keftiu]

“Non-arcane gish” and “slotless caster” are both mechanical niches.

[VampByDay]

Paradozen wrote:

So I like pick-a-list classes, but I don't think they work as substitutes for concepts that fit single-list classes. Been having trouble articulating this, but here's my third and best try at it.

I think pick-a-list spellcasters work best if the spellcasting is important but there is a bigger other conceptual and mechanical feature that defines the class. Eidolon or Bloodline or Patron give more flavor to their respective classes than the spell list, the spell list is more of a background thing. What the summoner fundamentally does is not particularly arcane or primal or divine, it's fundamentally a Summoner thing that gets a certain kind of magical spice mixed into the practice by their tradition.

But decoupling tradition from other mechanics, then locking the tradition to one, informs the other mechanics for the single-tradition classes, so those classes feel more like their traditions and help define those traditions as well. Wizard's non-spell mechanics are arcane theses and arcane schools and frame arcane magic as something to be studied, understood academically and then applied to the world. In that way those classes add depth to the notion of what Arcane magic is in the setting and that's something I think is cool. What a wizard does is fundamentally arcane, and the spice mixed in is the deeper layer of schools or theses they focus on.

Extrapolating these ideas out to a new class concept, I don't think Inquisitor is a concept I particularly want to have be a pick-a-list concept. The Inquisitor things that I think would fit the class feel like they'd be better explored as added layers of depth to divine magic than they would as primarily Inquisitor things which have a tradition spice mixed into it.

I get what you are saying, but I'm saying that an inquisitor's driving force is what they are fighting for, and their spell list should reflect that. If you want a martial druid-ish character that wants to punish those who despoil nature, isn't that character on a sort of inquisition or crusade of their own? If you have a Van-Hellsing-esque character who is on a one man crusade to fight the elder gods . . . isn't that a character that lends itself to using evil to fight evil through occult spells? If you have a person who wants to see arcane magic practiced freely and openly, doesn't it only follow that they would cast arcane spells themselves?

If you don't want to call them inquisitors, I am FINE with that. They could be crusaders, or they could be called magical warriors or any number of other things. It just occurred to me that a magical warrior on a dedicated mission didn't necessarily have to be limited to gods.

[Ascalaphus]

I think there's room for a gishy possibly wave-caster class for each of the traditions. I rather like the magus, but I don't think you can just switch the tradition and get an equally satisfying result; the arcane spell list works quite well with the class features of the magus, but the divine list wouldn't be as amazing with it.

So I'd rather have a fancy primal gish, a snazzy occult gish and an awesome divine gish class, all with different ideas behind them. I don't think we need to be trying too hard for symmetry, I'd rather just have three classes that are all strong on their own rather than leaning on being a set.

And quite aside from that, yeah I'd love to have a kineticist as an all-day blaster. Or rather, all day bender really. I think PF1 didn't really go far enough in low-grade freeform creative utility powers. I'd like to see more of that. While all day blasting is what you do in combat, for out of combat, I think the key thing is to avoid narrowing it down to really specific things, keep it broad.

Maybe with some new advanced way of describing freeform class features that don't automatically trump random skill challenges. We've taken baby steps in that direction in PFS with the Summoner, with a clear ruling that for "everyone in the party can make a check" and "you need successes equal to % of the number of players", a summoner counts for one and gets a single check, but with the advantage that if your eidolon is better at it, let them handle that check. I think for a freeform element bender we need some similar meta rule about how that'll work in skill challenges, to not automatically wipe the floor with them but also not to have to make those abilities overly narrow.

[VampByDay]

keftiu wrote:

“Non-arcane gish” and “slotless caster” are both mechanical niches.

Yes, Slotless caster I meant as a mechanical thing. As for non-arcane gish, I guess you got me, but I was using that as shorthand. I suppose I could have said "I'd like to see someone who can fight well but also cast a smattering of spells that can heal or do things that the Magus can't."

[Golurkcanfly]

There's definitely room for gish-y stuff for each tradition, but each one should be able to justify it's existence mechanically the same way a Magus is highly distinguishable from a Fighter w/ Wizard archetype.

The 1e Warpriest is an excellent example of this. A 2e class based off of it (and no, Warpriest Cleric does not satisfy the same fantasy) would be an excellent example of a divine gish, using the accelerated self-buffs to give it an identity separate from an archetyped character.

But we don't necessarily need gishes just to have them, nor do we need wave casting just to fill a niche. Like, the Shifter probably wouldn't benefit from wave casting, but would be a great martial with focus spells.

[VampByDay]

Ascalaphus wrote:

Maybe with some new advanced way of describing freeform class features that don't automatically trump random skill challenges. We've taken baby steps in that direction in PFS with the Summoner, with a clear ruling that for "everyone in the party can make a check" and "you need successes equal to % of the number of players", a summoner counts for one and gets a single check, but with the advantage that if your eidolon is better at it, let them handle that check. I think for a freeform element bender we need some similar meta rule about how that'll work in skill challenges, to not automatically wipe the floor with them but also not to have to make those abilities overly narrow.

Or at least codify it.

Pathfinder society multi-table special minor spoilers:

They have actually started doing that in PFS. In the multi-table special there is a bit where you can attempt a skill check, or if you expend a spell slot for an appropriate spell (GM's ruling) you get one success towards winning. If you cast your highest level spell slot, it becomes a crit success. I've heard a lot of creative uses of spells, for the dude who was trying to align his thoughts to a crown while cursed by the fae. Ideas thrown out were teleport (the fey magic was to strong for it to work totally, but it loosened his grip), to remove curse which reduced the curse but didn't counteract it, to even calm emotions to help the captive mediate and get in the proper frame of mind. So yeah, it's getting there.

[AnimatedPaper]

VampByDay wrote:

You want a keneticist mechanically, and I'm looking at it going 'if you want to throw fireballs all day you can already do that.' Nothing against your way of thinking, it is perfectly valid, I'm just trying to show you my thoughts on the matter. But yes, I'll agree there is nothing near a MECHANICAL kineticist in 2e.

Sure sure. Like I said, nothing really to argue about that hasn’t been said before. Just clarifying what some of us are after when we express this particular desire.

And with that, I’ll stop derailing.

As far as your OP, I had an idea similar to yours regarding gish characters, but my concerns are ultimately similar to Squiggit’s. An idea that broad for a class might come off as ultimately too general to excite players, or too specific in its subclasses to provide a good balance of feats for.

Mind, given the inundation of archetypes Raven also mentioned, that might not be a big deal. If class design just assumes most characters are going to archetype, then making sure you have a good selection of feats for each subclass at most levels is probably less of a concern.

[Paradozen]

VampByDay wrote:

I get what you are saying, but I'm saying that an inquisitor's driving force is what they are fighting for, and their spell list should reflect that. If you want a martial druid-ish character that wants to punish those who despoil nature, isn't that character on a sort of inquisition or crusade of their own? If you have a Van-Hellsing-esque character who is on a one man crusade to fight the elder gods . . . isn't that a character that lends itself to using evil to fight evil through occult spells? If you have a person who wants to see arcane magic practiced freely and openly, doesn't it only follow that they would cast arcane spells themselves?

If you don't want to call them inquisitors, I am FINE with that. They could be crusaders, or they could be called magical warriors or any number of other things. It just occurred to me that a magical warrior on a dedicated mission didn't necessarily have to be limited to gods.

I think I did a poor job of articulating my point because I was trying to get at the idea that I disagree with the idea that the driving force can be moved around and still fit the same class, and I don't think these four things are particularly fitting for the same class. The name isn't really the issue, the issue is the concept behind it. Fundamentally the concept the Inquisitor is not carried over in my mind if it isn't an exploration of the different tools of different religions through the Divine lens. The driving force that moves around is the different religions, the different aspects of subtly and conflict Gorum values compared to Shelyn or Norgorbor. But that layer of distinction needs a class to be properly explored, it wouldn't fit in one of four subclasses all designed to fit their own class.

I also don't think the other 3 concepts really fit with one another. The driving force doesn't seem strong enough to carry a whole concept. To me the wavecasting doesn't really fit someone opposed to the censorship of arcane magic or someone on a quest to find and kill elder gods with spooky magics. The latter feels like it is hanging off of the Thaumaturge's conceptual space pretty heavily (other than the using Evil part at least), the former seems like a character arc handled more in intrigue settings that would de-emphasize the martial aspect of a wavecaster. These feel like four different character concepts that don't fit in one class to me.

[aobst128]

They'll probably do another wave casting martial at some point. A flexible tradition one would cover a lot at once. I don't know if it should be wisdom based though. We don't have a flexible wisdom caster as of yet. I wonder if that's part of the power budget. Something primal would be cool. Druid already has something of a martial leaning with medium armor and shield block. I could see something like a Shaman filling that role.

[Temperans]

Squiggit wrote:

When they have tried it, I don't think it's gone well for the classes being assimilated. I like the PF2 Summoner and I think it makes sense that they rolled elements from the PF1 Spiritualist into it, but the Spiritualist did not really survive the transition at all.

PF2 Summoner is just PF1 Spiritualist with more spirit options.

It was the Summoner who did not make the transition at all besides the name of the class and "evolution".

But otherwise I agree that every single time they try to combine 3+ different styles of play they fail at making all of them work. With core martial classes it's less noticeable because you mostly just strike, and those classes were given a lot of action economy.

[pixierose]

I will say as a fan of the summoner and the spiritualist from 1e, I for the most part like their renditions with the Summoner being my favorite class in 2e(or one of them at least). That being said there are things missing from both in the final class. I think both have survived but are missing aspects. To be upset at the summoner for features it doesn't contain and then say the pf2e summoner is just the spiritualist with more options I feels some bias in thought. The 1s spiritualist had multiple modes of interacting with your spiritualist, you received bonuses for keeping your phantom in your head, all things that don't currently exist in the spiritualist that felt sort of iconic to the class. Heck they can't go intangible without a feat that competes with some of the funniest and useful feats a low summoner can desire (AoO and Eidolons wrath. That being said at least to me the spirit of both classes still exist imo, even though I sympathize with those that disagree.

Overall I don't mind folding classes into other classes or archetypes but I don't think it should be done willy nilly. It needs to be done carefully, and trying to stuff like more then 2 at base will lead to a lot of problems I think.