|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So after replaying the kingmaker and wrath of the righteous videogames, I've been thinking a lot about how to play certain character classes that don't really exist in PF2. Things like the slayer, Inquisitor, shaman, etc. in PF2. I think I have some pretty good ideas.
Now note that this is not a 100% 1:1 translation of such classes! This is not a 'perfect solution.' This is a 'I'd like to play a shaman in PF2, how close can I get?" kind of situation. I'll list st a few options, and let me know what you think. I know nothing here is going to be perfect, I'm just going for a 'feel' and 'close approximation.'
A)Inquisitors:
Inquisitors were pretty versatile in terms of how you wanted to play them. So Ithere are a few options on how to build one.
1)Randed DPS: A lot of inquisitors went ranged DPS with a bow and judgements to do a ton of damage. An option to approximate this is to go Thaumaturge for the high ranged damage (between implement empowerment and Exploit weakness-which you could flavor as bane) they could do pretty well. Instead of a bow you will have to go with a one-handed weapon, but you could still have a pretty solid ranged DPS build. Pick up a divine sorcerer archetype for some divine spellcasting. True, you are charisma and not wisdom based, but it seems solid enough.
2)Melee DPS: For early-mid levels, going straight battle oracle could also get you a decent chunk of damage.
3) Hunter/intimidator/skill monkey: If you want to replicate the high perception/high intimidation build of an inquisitor, a rogue is your best bet. Again, maybe consider archetyping into divine sorcerer to get yourself some divine spells.
B) Skald
1) Warrior Bard. You can flavor your bardsong as making people angrier and more powerful, making spellcasters put their all into spells and so on and so forth. Sadly can’t find a way to barbarian rage while doing inspire courage, but someone let me know if you figure it out.
C) Shaman
1) One with Nature: The obvious answer here is druid. Gives you armor, gives you spellcasting, gives you a set of weapons, not too bad. If you want to replicate a familiar, you can just be a plant leshy to get a plant leshy familiar, or be an animal druid and your ‘animal companion’ can be flavored as a larger familiar, like a hawk.
2) Familiar-Focused: If you want to focus on the shaman’s connection to a familiar, you can either make a fervor or wild witch to get either divine or primal smells like the shaman had in PF1
3) Leader/Storyteller of a tribe: If you wanted to focus on the aspects of a shaman as a leader/storyteller of a tribe (like the Shoanti) you could just be a bard, possibly with a sorcerer archetype to get some primal or divine spells in there.
D) Slayer
1) Warrior or ranger with the rogue archetype for that sneak attack.
2) Investigator with the rogue archetype for that extra sneak attack.
E) Ninja
1) Straight rogue with skill feats like water sprint and wall jump.
2) Rogue with monk dedication to pick up feats like Dancing Leaf, Wall Run, Wind Jump, etc.
Anyway, those are just a few I came up with, let me know what you think or other ideas you had for approximating 1e classes that we don’t have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
D) Slayer
Missed the easy one: Ranger.
Hunt Prey is Studied Target.Honestly PF2 Ranger is more like Slayer with a name change than PF1 Ranger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Medium: Ancestors Oracle with Exorcist archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A good discussion of magical archetypes can be found in Isaac Bonewits' Authentic Thaumaturgy. This should give folks some ideas. :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Although I understand the vibe of bringing a little of the 1st edition characters using the flexibility of 2nd edition classes, which even demonstrates how flexible these classes are for different builds, in the end I don't think it ends up being a cool idea especially for those who were fans of a particular PF1 class IMO this will create inappropriate comparisons and more frustration than actually satisfying someone's desire.
Rather than trying to adapt to the old, my suggestion is to leave it behind and embrace the new. The best experience is precisely to do like players who have never played PF1 and read each class as a new class, so the person gets the concept and mechanics of each one and discovering all the potential behind them and their combinations with others game elements such as ancestry, general and skill feats in addition to the wide range of combinations with archetypes.
In general, coming up with a very fixed and inflexible character idea in your head and then trying to adapt a class to fit it results in frustration, the opposite usually works much better, take the list of available options and from them will naturally come several character ideas.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although I understand the vibe of bringing a little of the 1st edition characters using the flexibility of 2nd edition classes, which even demonstrates how flexible these classes are for different builds, in the end I don't think it ends up being a cool idea especially for those who were fans of a particular PF1 class IMO this will create inappropriate comparisons and more frustration than actually satisfying someone's desire.
Rather than trying to adapt to the old, my suggestion is to leave it behind and embrace the new. The best experience is precisely to do like players who have never played PF1 and read each class as a new class, so the person gets the concept and mechanics of each one and discovering all the potential behind them and their combinations with others game elements such as ancestry, general and skill feats in addition to the wide range of combinations with archetypes.
In general, coming up with a very fixed and inflexible character idea in your head and then trying to adapt a class to fit it results in frustration, the opposite usually works much better, take the list of available options and from them will naturally come several character ideas.
I mean, it's not an either-or situation. If you have a creative new idea, by all means, do it. If you want to have fun recreating some of the old classes, here is an option. You don't have to take it.
Speaking of:I like breithauptclan 's medium idea. Hadn't looked into the exercist before.
F) Brawler: Surprisingly, swashbuckler with martial artist dedication. Stumbling style doesn't require you to be unarmored. True Swashbuckler requires you to have a 'weapon in hand' but you can just have a gauntlet on one hand and not use it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which part of Swashbuckler requires you to have a weapon in hand? It should work just fine with that stance.
I do think you might be better with just a straight Monk archetype, though, since while Stumbling Feint is still accessible through Martial Artist, it only works with Flurry of Blows, which you can only get through the Monk archetype.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which part of Swashbuckler requires you to have a weapon in hand? It should work just fine with that stance.
If you want to use one action for +2 AC for something like dueling parry, you'll need to be holding a weapon. But you can also just hold a shield and raise it for the same effect without needing to spend a feat, since the upgrade to dueling parry is a stance and can't be combined with stumbling stance if you're a non-monk.