What would a Rare class look like?

[RiverMesa]

When it comes to the mehcanically-defined rarity mechanic, most classes in the game are common - Guns & Gears gave us our first uncommon classes, linked to thematic elements (gunpowder firearms and advanced steampunk tech) not found in every part of the world.

What, then, could a Rare class look like? What mechanical or thematic elements could warrant such rarity - and how could you go about accessing it?

It's unlikely we'll ever get one officially for a number of reasons, but if 13th Age, an RPG in the same fantasy d20 lineage as D&D and Pathfinder, can have what's functionally a Unique-rarity class (The Occultist), then surely Pathfinder could theoretically support Rare classes as well, right?

(I'm aware of Jason Bulmahn's Eventide and how it makes primal classes like druid rare to show that primal magic is all but gone in the world, but that's obviously third-party that plays by different assumptions than mainline Pathfinder and moreover the Lost Omens setting do; It's certainly the most prominent existing example, though.)

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

Mythic Archetypes could be rare when and if Paizo tackles mythic play for 2e.

[keftiu]

Whichever class they bring in from Starfinder, if they ever do a crossover book - there's probably not too many Solarians walking around Golarion in 4723, even if I wish there were.

[PossibleCabbage]

Yeah, the Solarian, if it gets backported to 2e, would be my model for a rare class. Not many people on the surface of Golarion spend a lot of time thinking about stars or are even aware of Black Holes, after all.

[Castilliano]

A rare class would look like a waste of space. Whether it actually would be one would require more data and context.

[PossibleCabbage]

Castilliano wrote:

A rare class would look like a waste of space. Whether it actually would be one would require more data and context.

It's not really worse than a rare ancestry. Since "class" is a top level choice it's not meaningfully different from uncommon in that "you ask the GM if you can play one of these in this campaign" and they say yes or no based more on "how well does this idea fit" than "relative proportions of different kinds of people on the planet."

There's a meaningful difference between uncommon and rare in terms of items, spells, etc. because those are things that are picked up in the course of play. But a choice that's made before session one is just "a thing that needs GM approval." The Inventor and Gunslinger being uncommon are basically just giving the GM permission to deny these classes in case "clockwork and black powder don't really fit in this story."

[HumbleGamer]

Talking about ancestries, there's already a lot of power creep comparing common to uncommon or rare ( size increase and flying speed availability mostly).

Being an extra, it would be up to the DM whether to allow you to play one or not, but personally, since I am for balanced stuff, I tend not to appreciate rare options.

Talking about classs archetypes, the runelord dedication is broken because of the automatic refocusing progression, saving the character a lvl 12 and 18 class featfeat ( in addition to focus spells, weapon proficiency and exclusive feats).

Anyway, I expect from a rare class more power as well as more flexibility ( because of power and better mechanics). Not necessarily unique stuff, though they may permanently get something other characters could only get temporarily ( expending resources) or at higher levels.

@possible cabbage: Gunslingers can fit any story, whether firearms and black powder exist ( or simply fit the story) or not, because of xbows. So there's really nothing to hold on for a DM, except asking them not to take black powder / firearms feats.

Inventors may be treated as the 5e artificer, making them a mix of crafting skill and magic. But I agree they may not properly fit a specific setting.

[Squiggit]

Don't really agree with any of the above. Rarity and power aren't meant to be tied together, and other than a few hiccups (mostly in APs where proofreading and design principles don't seem to matter as much) that's generally true.

Uncommon and rare races are very hit or miss, most of the time human will do the job just as good or better.

Runelord dedication is... okay? The free refocusing is good, but I mean that's the benefit for what you give up taking the archetype.

[HumbleGamer]

The fact not all rare stuff, whether it's ancestries, feats or classes ( classes, class archetypes, archetypes ) give huge power creep, doesn't invalidate the fact than some do.

The progression paizo uses for either size increase and flying speed is standardized for common, uncommon and rare ones, resulting in a huge advantage for the uncommon and even more for the rare ones.

The humans you mentioned, and I assume because of natural ambition, can be easily taken with just with a general feat, which is something almost anybody does, if their class has good lvl 1 feats they can get.

It's power creep too, don't get me wrong ( getting access to an extra class feat you won't normally have).

As for the runelord, the benefits are way more than the disadvantages ( because you build a character meant to go in a specific direction).

But I concede that some players may find hard to even renounce to something, in order to get something else in exchange.

So we already have example about how power creep is tied to either uncommon and rare stuff, though not all uncommon and rare stuff is meant to provide power creep ( some uncommon / rare options are just bad in terms of powers/feats).

But having to guess whether a rare class might be overpowered, balanced, or underpowered, I am going to bet on the first one.

[CorvusMask]

Umm, but what about power creep applied to common rarity tag options? That isn't anymore unlikely. (like tbh, main reason why everything in APs in uncommon isn't power or flavor, its so that players can't take options from APs without gm accepting it)

[HumbleGamer]

CorvusMask wrote:

Umm, but what about power creep applied to common rarity tag options? That isn't anymore unlikely. (like tbh, main reason why everything in APs in uncommon isn't power or flavor, its so that players can't take options from APs without gm accepting it)

Humans, in my opinion, can still be considered somehow too good because paizo didn't get rid of natural ambition.

On the other hand, because of adopted ancestry, everybody has the possibility to get it, as well as access to other human ancestry feats, by expending one general feat.

It's nice not to necessarily be a human in order to get an extra lvl 1 class feat ( though you can't get more than one adopted ancestry, so getting it would mean renoincing to something else).

Apart from that ( there are other common ancestry feats which rocks, and can be taken by any uncommon or rare ancestry through adopted ancestry, but I just wanted to mention the most common one), I get what you are saying about AP, but given the fact the group of heroes is unique, I don't see an issue in a player having a dark elf character in a campaign meant to fight dark elves in the dark lands.

But that's my point of view, and some DM may find inappropriate to have a dark elf among the heroes.

[Guntermench]

A Rare class would likely not be any stronger than a base class, but it would be more niche. For example in the Inquisitor thread it's been brought up that that type of character isn't appropriate for every deity, so making it Rare to reflect this could be appropriate so that GM's can feel free to allow it for deities they think it fits and disallow it from ones that don't.

[willfromamerica]

HumbleGamer wrote:

The humans you mentioned, and I assume because of natural ambition, can be easily taken with just with a general feat, which is something almost anybody does, if their class has good lvl 1 feats they can get.

It's power creep too, don't get me wrong ( getting access to an extra class feat you won't normally have).

How is it “power creep” when it’s something that’s been present in the game from the birth of the system? Not trying to be obtuse, that just clashes with my understanding of what that term means.

[HumbleGamer]

willfromamerica wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

The humans you mentioned, and I assume because of natural ambition, can be easily taken with just with a general feat, which is something almost anybody does, if their class has good lvl 1 feats they can get.

It's power creep too, don't get me wrong ( getting access to an extra class feat you won't normally have).

How is it “power creep” when it’s something that’s been present in the game from the birth of the system? Not trying to be obtuse, that just clashes with my understanding of what that term means.

Since it was an issue in the previous systems too ( players feeling themselves somehow forced to get a specific race to get an extra feat), it doesn't really mean whether it was present in a new system from its release or added later.

Whether it gives a feat that allows the character to hit the build they want 2 levels earlier, provide the extra feat you want to make the build work, or just provide an advantage you couldn't get in any other way, it's pretty much the same.

But if you prefer "unbalanced" or "exploited" rather than "powercreep" it's ok to me, as my only point was to just highlight the part above.

[PossibleCabbage]

Yeah, the "power creep" notion for ancestries is mostly just to combat the fact that since the CRB the most powerful ancestry was "humans".

Like how much easier was your life as a strength based earth kineticist in the playtest if you got to pick up medium armor proficiency at level 1?

[Temperans]

From the way I have seen it most of the time "rare" tag in PF2e is usually accompanied with the thing in questioned being more powerful.

* Rare items tend to be stronger, have extra traits, or is overal straight up better.

* Rare feats tend to be more powerful and have better progression.

* Rare spells tend to be stronger, more flexible, or just straight up be more impactful.

* Rare archetypes, backgrounds, and races tend to have considerably more impact and power.

The fact that they said "rarity tag is just to restrict access and not for power" then proceed to make most rare and unique abilities straight up better than anything else, tells me that not even they take that guideline too seriously.

[CorvusMask]

I mean, are any of rare ancestries feats inherently more powerful than halfling luck? Not every ancestry is able to get easy access to mobility options or nice innate spells yes, but ancient elf, natural ambition and halfling luck aren't bad either.

Rare backgrounds on otherhand aren't necessarily more powerful, but they tend to have mechanical gimmicks normal backgrounds don't have usually in exchange for the skills or skill feats. Some of those are powerful, but its bit hard to rate "is once per day able to make one extra stride really much more powerful than battle medicine" for example.

With rare feats, items and spells lot of them tend to be more powerful because they are from adventures (which clearly get less oversight regarding player content) so its hard to rate if its really because of rarity itself. Though admittedly, it would be kinda lame if rare items were all just "very nice antique spoon" type of rarity since players and gms often equal rare with special, so they better be some darn good rare loot :p

I wouldn't call most of rare archetypes straight up better either, they are more special yes since they are all pretty weird, but I hear people complaining about undead archetypes so x'D

(I think right balance for rare trait stuff is that their presence shouldn't break balance, but you should always have "wow that is cool" reaction rather than mundane sort of rarity)

[willfromamerica]

HumbleGamer wrote:

willfromamerica wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

The humans you mentioned, and I assume because of natural ambition, can be easily taken with just with a general feat, which is something almost anybody does, if their class has good lvl 1 feats they can get.

It's power creep too, don't get me wrong ( getting access to an extra class feat you won't normally have).

How is it “power creep” when it’s something that’s been present in the game from the birth of the system? Not trying to be obtuse, that just clashes with my understanding of what that term means.

Since it was an issue in the previous systems too ( players feeling themselves somehow forced to get a specific race to get an extra feat), it doesn't really mean whether it was present in a new system from its release or added later.

Whether it gives a feat that allows the character to hit the build they want 2 levels earlier, provide the extra feat you want to make the build work, or just provide an advantage you couldn't get in any other way, it's pretty much the same.

But if you prefer "unbalanced" or "exploited" rather than "powercreep" it's ok to me, as my only point was to just highlight the part above.

Got it! I agree with you that it is a very powerful option. I’ve typically just seen power creep used to denote when options introduced later in a system’s lifetime become more and more powerful in order to get players to buy the newest books. Other than the use of that term, I completely agree with you :P

[Perpdepog]

I imagine a Rare class getting that way because it primarily interacts with a Rare mechanic or category of item. Something like a gunslinger, but that is entirely centered around using high-tech weaponry, which I think we can agree would be rare rather than uncommon.

Otherwise, and I think it was PossibleCabbage who made this point, there wouldn't be much point in making a class Rare because that is a front-loaded character option. Indeed it's usually your first option you settle on. If Rare isn't meant to denote an increase in power, then its only function would be to serve as a note for the GM, and at that point the Uncommon tag does its job just as well. If the goal is to attract attention to a thing, then the emphasis matters a lot less, and Uncommon/Rare/Unique are all degrees of emphasis.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think the main example of rarity being tied to power (rather than availability) are those spells that have the ability to ruin entire plots, so their rarity is explicit permission for the GM to deny them to the party.

[Captain Morgan]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the main example of rarity being tied to power (rather than availability) are those spells that have the ability to ruin entire plots, so their rarity is explicit permission for the GM to deny them to the party.

Many such spells are uncommon though, not rare.

[breithauptclan]

Quote:

What would a Rare class look like?

There would be a small rectangle up in the top line with a blue background that has the word 'Rare' printed on it.

OK. I'll see myself out now.

[PossibleCabbage]

Captain Morgan wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the main example of rarity being tied to power (rather than availability) are those spells that have the ability to ruin entire plots, so their rarity is explicit permission for the GM to deny them to the party.

Many such spells are uncommon though, not rare.

Yeah, they're uncommon because when they aren't liable to ruin plots, there's no reason to limit access. Rare spells are generally from AP books where you learn something from a specific individual in the course of the story. "A spell you have to learn from a specific person or a specific book" is by definition a rare one.

So I guess a rare class would be "something you have to be taught by a specific person or organization, not something you can really pick up on your own or from a variety of sources."

Like the Solarion would be rare assuming you learn it from a specific order of astronomer monks who understand the life cycle of star and general relativity.

[SuperBidi]

Temperans wrote:

From the way I have seen it most of the time "rare" tag in PF2e is usually accompanied with the thing in questioned being more powerful.

* Rare items tend to be stronger, have extra traits, or is overal straight up better.

* Rare feats tend to be more powerful and have better progression.

* Rare spells tend to be stronger, more flexible, or just straight up be more impactful.

* Rare archetypes, backgrounds, and races tend to have considerably more impact and power.

The fact that they said "rarity tag is just to restrict access and not for power" then proceed to make most rare and unique abilities straight up better than anything else, tells me that not even they take that guideline too seriously.

I've never seen anything like that. Rare tag has no impact on effectiveness. The best options are common.

If you put APs on the side, all Uncommon/Rare/Unique material I've seen so far is balanced. The tag is either there to denote an in-world rarity, to signal a potential plot breaking ability or to indicate a strong mechanical impact (like Antimagic Field that can really affect how fights are handled).

[HumbleGamer]

SuperBidi wrote:

Temperans wrote:

From the way I have seen it most of the time "rare" tag in PF2e is usually accompanied with the thing in questioned being more powerful.

* Rare items tend to be stronger, have extra traits, or is overal straight up better.

* Rare feats tend to be more powerful and have better progression.

* Rare spells tend to be stronger, more flexible, or just straight up be more impactful.

* Rare archetypes, backgrounds, and races tend to have considerably more impact and power.

The fact that they said "rarity tag is just to restrict access and not for power" then proceed to make most rare and unique abilities straight up better than anything else, tells me that not even they take that guideline too seriously.

I've never seen anything like that. Rare tag has no impact on effectiveness. The best options are common.

I guess we are playing a different game then.

Note that temperans wrote "tend" Rather than "are", meaning it's not always granted that something rare is better or more effective.

But apart from personal taste, it's undeniable that rare ( and even uncommon) tag stuff can be better than common.

The size increase and flying speed is the standard one for ancestries ( that being uncommon and rare only, cannot be pick with adopted ancestry, while they can easily get halfling luck or natural ambition, to mention some).

Same goes with with some spells like all is one/one is all, or skill feat, like paragon battle medicine.

You may not like them, but I dare you saying they are not stronger than their counterpart ( if they do exist), offering unique effects you can't get in any other ways.

[SuperBidi]

HumbleGamer wrote:

I guess we are playing a different game then.

Note that temperans wrote "tend" Rather than "are", meaning it's not always granted that something rare is better or more effective.

But apart from personal taste, it's undeniable that rare ( and even uncommon) tag stuff can be better than common.

The size increase and flying speed is the standard one for ancestries ( that being uncommon and rare only, cannot be pick with adopted ancestry, while they can easily get halfling luck or natural ambition, to mention some).

Same goes with with some spells like all is one/one is all, or skill feat, like paragon battle medicine.

You may not like them, but I dare you saying they are not stronger than their counterpart ( if they do exist), offering unique effects you can't get in any other ways.

Permanent Flight is available to Strix at level 13. Strix Ancestry is weak, so no power creep (and permanent flight at level 13 is nothing game breaking).

For Size increase, you need also a level 13 feat. Enlarge is a level 2 spell, so nothing out of bounds. Half Elf and Half Orc seem better than Beastskin to me, so no power creep.

All is One, One is All is like Antimagic Field: It has a strong mechanical impact on the fight, but it's not really stronger/better than anything else. I don't find its effects to be out of bounds for a level 8 spell, compare it to Maze, Disappearance, Prismatic Wall, etc...

Paragon Battle Medicine is quite strong, I agree. But it's nearly limited to Medics and Investigators. Otherwise it's just a once per day ability, nothing incredible. It's very strong if you are a follower of the Laws of Mortality, but the cost of being such a character is extremely high. So, the level of power creep is once again extremely low.

So, I'm not impressed by your Rare tags feats and spells currently.

[CorvusMask]

Yeah, automaton perma large sounds impressive, but its permanent version of level 2 spell that lasts 5 minutes normally and by level 13, druid or wizard could cast the level 4 version on entire party. Its cool, but its not particularly more powerful compared to other options at level. Plus large ancestries come with pain of "oh no this building has only 5 feet halls"

Its what I said before: outside of AP or adventure module questionable balance options(uncommon sudden bolt is pretty good example, I wouldn't call it broken spell and its single target only, but it does have biggest single target damage potential out of all level 2 spells with 4d12 and 60 feet is fairly long range. I dunno if that means it breaks balance or is example of power creep since again, its not like its OP spell, but it stands out in this respect. It doesn't help that plenty of AP/module uncommon options aren't anywhere more powerful or even "unusual" in flavor and seem to be uncommon just because they are from module), rare tends to be more of "flashy cool option" rather than mechanically superior option. To me it kinda tends to be minority of rare options that are straight up better. I think most of those options are because writer figured out that as reward for something nice(such as being taught by mother of modern medicine) it HAS to be something good and they ignore the guideline that rarer options shouldn't be strictly better than common ones. I dunno if that is good or bad thing design wise, but it does confuse the matter of whether rare options are supposed to be better or not.

(basically I think disagreement here is "rare tend to be better" vs "some rare options are better than common, some common are better than rare")

[Laclale♪]

Likely forgotten about rare background.

No Uncommon background for now, but out of background template about told in Deep background option.

[JiCi]

keftiu wrote:

Whichever class they bring in from Starfinder, if they ever do a crossover book - there's probably not too many Solarians walking around Golarion in 4723, even if I wish there were.

If we can have SF alien races in PF (before SF was a thing), pretty sure we can get a solarian :P

[HumbleGamer]

SuperBidi wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

I guess we are playing a different game then.

Note that temperans wrote "tend" Rather than "are", meaning it's not always granted that something rare is better or more effective.

But apart from personal taste, it's undeniable that rare ( and even uncommon) tag stuff can be better than common.

The size increase and flying speed is the standard one for ancestries ( that being uncommon and rare only, cannot be pick with adopted ancestry, while they can easily get halfling luck or natural ambition, to mention some).

Same goes with with some spells like all is one/one is all, or skill feat, like paragon battle medicine.

You may not like them, but I dare you saying they are not stronger than their counterpart ( if they do exist), offering unique effects you can't get in any other ways.

Permanent Flight is available to Strix at level 13. Strix Ancestry is weak, so no power creep (and permanent flight at level 13 is nothing game breaking).

For Size increase, you need also a level 13 feat. Enlarge is a level 2 spell, so nothing out of bounds. Half Elf and Half Orc seem better than Beastskin to me, so no power creep.

All is One, One is All is like Antimagic Field: It has a strong mechanical impact on the fight, but it's not really stronger/better than anything else. I don't find its effects to be out of bounds for a level 8 spell, compare it to Maze, Disappearance, Prismatic Wall, etc...

Paragon Battle Medicine is quite strong, I agree. But it's nearly limited to Medics and Investigators. Otherwise it's just a once per day ability, nothing incredible. It's very strong if you are a follower of the Laws of Mortality, but the cost of being such a character is extremely high. So, the level of power creep is once again extremely low.

So, I'm not impressed by your Rare tags feats and spells currently.

Again, it's not all rare that are better, but some rare are.

If you argument is that you fan achieve what some ancestries/spells/skills give in other ways ( temporary effect like enlarge or casting fly on yourself ) belittling their power ( even by saying stuff like "eh, it's limited to investigator or medic users" For example ), I think this is going nowhere.

[SuperBidi]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Again, it's not all rare that are better, but some rare are.

If you argument is that you fan achieve what some ancestries/spells/skills give in other ways ( temporary effect like enlarge or casting fly on yourself ) belittling their power ( even by saying stuff like "eh, it's limited to investigator or medic users" For example ), I think we are going nowhere.

Paragon Battle Medicine is strong, I agree. Not out of bounds, still.

All is One, One is All is a complex "Ho s**t" ability, a proper level 8 spell in my opinion. I'm not sure I'd take it if I had the choice.
Strix and Automaton are weak, Beastskin is fine.

So my argument is that you have not shown much with your examples. They are balanced. Among all the Rare, I expect some of them to be strong. But if your argument is that some Rare are as strong as the best common options, then it's not power creep, it's just more choice.

[HumbleGamer]

Any stryx spellcaster is broken ( being able to achieve permanent flying speed equal to your movement speed is also good by lvl 17 with uncommon ones ).

Being permanently enlarged is gated behind rare and uncommon ancestries, and it's strong ( leaving apart its accessibility).

Paragon bm is pretty strong and versatile ( the difference between a bm build with or without that perk is tremendous).

One for all is repositioning + healings. It also allows you to use familiars as healing source, given the 10 targets.

My argument is that, given the fact we have seen either op rare stuff and weak stuff, I simply bet on the former.

It's not "it's going to be an op class" But "I expect it to be op"

To make this even more clear;

Obviously, some choices have drawbacks, but it's not that if a stryx has no reach the ancestry is weak, because you won't probably be making a combatant.

Same goes with being permanently enlarge ( You won't probably lower your AC by going for that if you want to tank) or bm paragon ( you won't take that if you don't go with a bm build).

Seems that your considerations are more about a balanced point of view rather than a player bringing out the best a perk/class/feature can offer.

I really see no point in considerations like "stryx ha flying speed but it has combat issues, so it's not op", just because it's not meant to excel as a combatant, and the advantage of getting permanent flying speed on a caster are for real.

[SuperBidi]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Any stryx spellcaster is broken ( being able to achieve permanent flying speed equal to your movement speed is also good by lvl 17 with uncommon ones ).

I've never cast Fly on a caster during combat, always on martials. PC casters don't need to fly at all, they need to stay behind the protection of martials (NPC casters on the other hand love to fly as their martials won't protect them). Martials need to fly as they sometimes have to get to a flying enemy.

HumbleGamer wrote:

Being permanently enlarged is gated behind rare and uncommon ancestries, and it's strong ( leaving apart its accessibility).

Anyone can get Enlarged during combat at level 12 with Barbarian Dedication (if you want to be Enlarged, you are rarely a spellcaster). And it's not really strong, you are permanently Clumsy for 5ft. of Reach and 2 points of damage at levels where the average Reach is bigger than yours anyway. So it's ok at best.

HumbleGamer wrote:

One for all is repositioning + healings.

It's not really healing. If the party has taken a lot of damage you won't get much out of the healing part. If only one character has taken a lot of damage you'll certainly prefer a healing spell (level 8 Heal heals 100 points of damage on average which should be enough to get a character back on feet).

And repositioning the entire party is overkill, you rarely have everyone to move outside of ambushes. In general, you need to move one badly positioned character.
It's a complex "Ho s**t" ability. But far from outstanding (for a level 8 spell, because it's really nice, as expected for such a high level spell).

HumbleGamer wrote:

Paragon bm is pretty strong and versatile ( the difference between a bm build with or without that perk is tremendous).

I agree. The only one that I find strong and potentially problematic from a power point of view. Still, it asks for Legendary Medicine to shine and there are a few outstanding skill feats with such prerequisite.

HumbleGamer wrote:

Obviously, some choices have drawbacks, but it's not that if a stryx has no reach the ancestry is weak, because you won't probably be making a combatant.

No, the Ancestry is weak because it gives only Low Light Vision and a bonus to Leap, it has weak attribute bonuses and only one good high level feat. So it's plain bad.

I really don't value anything you have brought so far. It looks like we will just have to agree to disagree.

[HumbleGamer]

We can easily do that, though it seems you only consider combat scenarios while I consider the perks for all day long purposes.

No issue with that either, but now I can better understand our differences.

I am so much ok with paizo getting either permanent flying speed and size increase gated behind rarity, for what it counts.

[Themetricsystem]

This is CRAZY wishful thinking but... if they could ACTUALLY score the rights for it instead of just getting a like half-baked "sure you can do this I guess but it's not legit, but is sorta is, but don't use it anyway just in case" would be the Omdura Class that dropped for PF1.

It was just downright COOL and honestly, I just wish a few of the more persuasive Paizo staff could spend a couple of hours on the phone hashing out the rights.

[Zaister]

I could imagine the kineticist being a rare class.

[Zaister]

Themetricsystem wrote:

This is CRAZY wishful thinking but... if they could ACTUALLY score the rights for it instead of just getting a like half-baked "sure you can do this I guess but it's not legit, but is sorta is, but don't use it anyway just in case" would be the Omdura Class that dropped for PF1.

It was just downright COOL and honestly, I just wish a few of the more persuasive Paizo staff could spend a couple of hours on the phone hashing out the rights.

The Omdura would be a good example for a rare class, too. However, I think it has no place in Golarion, it's specially designed for the world of Asunda.

By the way, go read the comics, they're great.

[keftiu]

Zaister wrote:

I could imagine the kineticist being a rare class.

I would personally imagine more Kineticists in the world than Psychics, and Paizo still wound up shying away from making the latter Uncommon.

[Squiggit]

What I mostly see a Rare class being is something that radically departs from normal lore or acceptability.

I don't see any of these happening, but ... like, a class that was heavily coded toward evil might be rare by default. A 'monster class' like 4e's Vampire, would probably be rare.

[PossibleCabbage]

There are basically two ways to make a class rare:

1) You need specific training to be able to do what the class does, and this training is only available in an extremely limited number of places (but hypothetically it could become more common). Like when Old Mage Jatembe founded the Magaambya "Wizard" was a rare class, but it isn't now.

2) To be this class you need something to happen to you, which happens to a very small number of people. Oracles and Sorcerers are classes that "had something happen to you" so hypothetically something like this that's incredibly uncommon could be rare.

[The Raven Black]

Child of a deity.

SciFi-based class.

[Qaianna]

The Raven Black wrote:

Child of a deity.

SciFi-based class.

'Child of a deity' sounds more like a rare versatile heritage, just like 'aasimar' assumes a celestial in your family tree or 'half-orc' assumes a human in there.

[Temperans]

Godling is 100% an ancestry/mythic/background thing. Also 100% would be rare at the very least.

As for what would be a rare class, let's see:

* Any Starfinder class.
* Any "Unchained" class that might get released in the future.
* Any class that is stronger than baseline.
* Any class that requires a specific ancestry/background.
* Any class that is exclusive to a specific planet, (such that you cannot access it by just traveling normally).
* Any class that relies on a rare weapon, as otherwise the class would be kind of unusable.
* Etc.

***********************

If kineticist needs to be rare to get the amount of power it should have, then fine. By lore the way to get that class is usually tied to some traumatic experience.

[The Raven Black]

Stronger than baseline is not linked to rarity.

It will not happen, period.

[Temperans]

The Raven Black wrote:

Stronger than baseline is not linked to rarity.

It will not happen, period.

People keep saying that, but as has already been stated the evidence shows otherwise. Want more evidence?

Spoiler:

* Demolishing rune: vs constructs 1d6 persistent force on a hit, 1d12 persistent force on a crit.
* Speed rune: Constant quickened for bonus strike.
* Vorpal rune: roll a nat 20, foe must have a head (most enemies), they must make a DC37 check or instantly die.
* Ancestral Echoing: Straight up +2 to hit with advance weapons, which are usually capped 1 step behind martial.
* Reforging shield: Recovers damage every turn and is close in stats to Sturdy Shields.
* Redpitch Bomb: 1 fire, 1d4 persistent fire, 1 fire splash, on a crit target is clumsy 1. Alchemist fire is 1d8 fire, 1 persistent fire, 1 fire splash, no crit effect.
* Ambrosia of Undying Hope: The next time you would die from a non-death effect you don't.
* Sun Orchid Elixir: Aka elixir of youth.
* Reveal True Name: OP roleplay wise given that can give you total control over a creature.
* Blasting Beams: This is close to what a Kinetic Blast should be, also you can quite literally play as a Dragonball character. Notice that it's also better than most cantrips.
* Deviation abilities: They are all better than regular cantrips, with the only downside I saw being that they have limited uses a day.
* Chronoskimmer: Whole bunch of time manipulation (modifying initiative alone is very strong).
* All the undead archetypes by nature are stronger.
* All the aftermath feats are relatively strong.
* Some of the backgrounds give powerful abilities, like the Energy Scarred background straight up giving you resistance to an energy type including Force.
* Etc.

[HumbleGamer]

The Raven Black wrote:

Stronger than baseline is not linked to rarity.

It will not happen, period.

I'd rather say:

Stronger than baseline is not "necessarily" linked to rarity.

It may happen or not, perdiod.

[The Raven Black]

Maybe there is a misunderstanding. I meant that stronger than baseline will not happen.

[Temperans]

That is a very different statement, I still say that the odds are in favor of anything rare tagged will be stronger than baseline.

[SuperBidi]

Considering the amount of work to create a class, there's just no point releasing one if it's not supposed to be played. So Rare is possible, but (voluntarily) stronger than baseline definitely not.

[PossibleCabbage]

I don't think "stronger than the baseline" is a good thing to do at the class level anyway. Since presumably the party will consist of a number of classes that are at the baseline, it's seldom good when one player gets more stuff because of a top level choice they made.

If you wanted to tell a story with PCs who are uncommonly capable, things like free archetype, deep backgrounds, and dual classing works better.