What do you still need?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 629 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

More good general feats and skill feats. Good as in generally applicable. Except for a couple the few skill feats we have gotten have been very very niche.

More class feats. Most of the expansion of feats are archetypes, which lock you in pretty hard to a particular path. A lot of classes, particularly the newer ones, need more class feats in their class.

I think a lot of this could be handled by making archetype feats backwards compatible with the right class. For instance just tag Quick Shield Block with the Magus tag too (No reason sparkling targe should have to archetype to improve it's blocking game so much.)

Or just general feats that some classes can take.

Also, proficiency scaling is weird. An errata that general feats granting proficiency all scale would be amazing.


Sporkedup wrote:
Big, hulking ancestries (if not large, at least just feat-supported as bigger than average)

I'm emphasizing this because I think it's a really good point.

D&D5E making centaurs Medium is apparently controversial, but I will staunchly defend the choice. Here's the thing, while a centaur's whole body might be large (though that can vary massively depending on the breed of horse you're using for reference) every practical way they interact with the world is based on their "human" half.

They wield human-sized weapons and have human-length arms. In most situations they are effectively a human that simply can never dismount their horse.

The fact that they should be easier to hit and their hind legs are far from their front are details on top of that. It just makes more sense to me to address those through Ancestry features rather than burdening them with a whole bunch of baggage that shouldn't apply to them just on a technicality.

However, even for other Ancestries with less obvious contrast, I feel there's plenty of wiggle room in the assumption of Medium Size category for Ancestries that are technically larger but have the relevant elements addressed on an Ancestry-basis rather than lumping everyone together.

Thus, to the original topic:
I want centaur. For me, they're symbolic of both fantasy and of something that TTRPGs can do that video games have a much harder time doing.

I campaign for ogres elsewhere. I'm not in need of it the same here because they don't have the same place in lore, but I will always take them.


TheRabidOgre wrote:
Here's the thing, while a centaur's whole body might be large (though that can vary massively depending on the breed of horse you're using for reference) every practical way they interact with the world is based on their "human" half.

Umm, ladders just called and said they wanted a word. Also there’s a missed call from dinghies. And ropes left a message.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paizo has seen fit to narratively handwave centaurs navigating areas they have little to no business actually getting around in before; one of the notable centaur populations in Avistan is in Kaer Maga, a very tightly packed city built inside a superstructure that's described as very dense and maze-like, with narrow passages, tight stairways & ladders between the various levels. Rather than relegating the centaurs to just the ground level or one of the more open areas, the book say they've just adapted to getting around.

Now I'm all for large or should-be-large-if-we're-being-honest-with-ourselves-but-we're-gonna-bend-t he-rules-slightly-and-say-they're-at-the-cusp-of-medium ancestries. I'm a big fan of goliaths in D&D and while I understand that paizo can't adapt them directly, I think the idea of a giantkin playable ancestry that's right at that line between medium & large, in the same way that dwarves are right at the line between medium & small, is a niche that Pathfinder needs filled.

Personally my pick for that role in PF has always been the cyclops. I think there's a lot to work with, narratively, with the lore of their lost civilization, the curse of their hunger, and their limited ability to see the future.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm perfectly content with Medium Centaurs, Giantkin, and Minotaurs, but as someone who's obsessive about my pet rules wishes, I can't possibly begrudge anyone who wants Large Ancestries.


TheRabidOgre wrote:

D&D5E making centaurs Medium is apparently controversial, but I will staunchly defend the choice. Here's the thing, while a centaur's whole body might be large (though that can vary massively depending on the breed of horse you're using for reference) every practical way they interact with the world is based on their "human" half.

They wield human-sized weapons and have human-length arms. In most situations they are effectively a human that simply can never dismount their horse.

This ignores that a Centaur would be able to use its mass to add a ton of power to strikes, has built-in natural weapons that can (depending on the species of equine) one-shot lions, and that weapon size has less to do with damage than you'd think. There's also the added carrying capacity, stability, and movement speed over flat ground to consider. Heck, they might even be able to sweat which would make them even more terrifying endurance hunters than humans are.

A realistic Centaur with a lance or spear would be terrifying to a degree that a man riding a horse simply can't be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Unrelated to ancestries since we have another thread for that;

I'm going to require a chainsaw weapon be statted & reasonably optainable by the inventor class.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
S.L.Acker wrote:
This ignores that a Centaur would be able to use its mass to add a ton of power to strikes ... A realistic Centaur with a lance or spear would be terrifying to a degree that a man riding a horse simply can't be.

Would also be dreadfully prone to severe spinal damage from the force of most any lance or spear charge, sadly, but then realism has never been much of a deal-breaker in fantasy.

--

Personally, I would love for some kind of creature roughly equivalent to the themes and abilities of an Eberron changeling. There's nothing that quite tickles me like a character who could take on the appearance of anyone they wanted to be that day. Give me whatever limitations you need to make it work, just give me full control over my appearance and a little flavour about fluidity of identity and I'm finally bringing Jas over to Pathfinder.

(... I tried to add something back on the topic but I ended up talking about desired Ancestries again)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
S.L.Acker wrote:
This ignores that a Centaur would be able to use its mass to add a ton of power to strikes ... A realistic Centaur with a lance or spear would be terrifying to a degree that a man riding a horse simply can't be.
Would also be dreadfully prone to severe spinal damage from the force of most any lance or spear charge, sadly, but then realism has never been much of a deal-breaker in fantasy.

Depending on how exactly the connection between the human torso and the equine torso is handled that could 100% be the case, though my headcanon is that there's probably a lot of thick muscle there that mitigates the risk. Beyond that they'd also be prone to breaking their legs in ways that need magic to heal due to how little vascularity a horse's leg has, they'd have issues with a lot of spaces a humanoid can comfortably adventure in, require armor that would cost many times what a humanoid fitted set would cost, etc. These are issues, but no more so than people playing aquatic species in games that are mostly on land.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would not overthink the mechanics of centaurs.

I would hope that, as an ancestry, they would be kept large, perhaps with a higher speed like elves. And little to nothing else as part of the core ancestry package.

Things like being good at charges or with lances could be put into ancestry feats (weapon familiarity perhas). Deadly lion-killing hoof attacks could just be a natural attack granted by another balanced ancestry feat, with the lethality being represented by level. Haves yet another feat that increases bulk limits. There's a lot of room for making a balanced new ancestry with thematic mechanical options.

As for difficult to navigate environments, I think it's as easily handled as saying centaurs are not horses, they're centaurs, and centaurs have adapted to handle certain things that horses can't. They can maneuver about as easily as traditional humanoids.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Still waiting for Inquisitor. And more customization in general I know the limited options serves as a break for power creep but at the same time I feel 2e lost a lot of that concept of being able to create characters in several different manners as you were able in PF1.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Takamorisan wrote:
Still waiting for Inquisitor. And more customization in general I know the limited options serves as a break for power creep but at the same time I feel 2e lost a lot of that concept of being able to create characters in several different manners as you were able in PF1.

Yeah, it would be nice to have many paths that reach the same goal the way PF1 did.

I would also like some Book of Nine Swords-type classes that do martial arts but magic. Kind of like a 5e Battlemaster Fighter crossed with a cantrip-focused class that regains focus in a similar way to a swashbuckler. I'm aware that probably sounds OP in the current PF2 paradigm, but I like swiss army characters that fulfill the fantasy of being self-sufficient outside of the specific circumstance of facing threats large enough to be worth gathering an adventuring party to defeat them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's two separate issues regarding a potential Large ancestry.
1. This idea inherently appeals to powergamers who want essentially free reach at little to no cost.
2. Being large in a society designed for medium sized bipeds can potentially be an issue.

#1 you solve by making them medium, or making them large without free reach. If you want to give them reach you give them reach at a cost like Leshy's have. #2 is trickier, since for some people "A centaur is going to have a hard time in a library" is just sensical (the shelves are put close together in order to maximize storage space and they go all the way up to the ceiling so you need a ladder to get the ones at the top).

I think the only example we've had of an ancestry that's just going to have a hard time in certain settings or stories is the Azarketi, who you don't want to take to the desert. But we don't really need to handwave "Desert Azarketi find a way" because they just don't go to the desert if they can avoid it.

They should do a centaur ancestry absolutely, but I think it might require signposting about "the centaur is not a good choice for this campaign" from place to place. Thankfully, this is essentially the same consideration as "would a mounted character work here" since "you regularly can't use most of your class features" is as much of a dealbreaker as "you can't really navigate this space".

Though TTRPG players being the lateral problem solves that they are, I think we would end up with a lot of Centaur Druids who can just wild shape in and out of spaces, Centaur Summoners who have a unique use for Meld into Eidolon, and Centaur Monks with Water Step and Wall Run.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Could Paizo take inspiration from WotC's Goliaths and their Oversized Build trait?

Since weapon damage is no longer tied to size, how about giving a semi-Large race all benefits from being Large while remaining Medium? It could be larger carrying capacities, bonuses to and against maneuvers and such.

That goes back to me wishing for a giantkin versatile heritage, with the major trait emphasizing being bigger than usual.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Besides kineticist, medium is the pf1 class I miss most in pf2e. Ancestors oracle is just not the same at all.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
_shredder_ wrote:
Besides kineticist, medium is the pf1 class I miss most in pf2e. Ancestors oracle is just not the same at all.

Inquisitor and Shaman are my top two, but Medium is right there in my third slot. I'd love something for that fantasy.


after everything pathfinder 2e put out

it is very difficult to imagine a inquisitor class

4 or 5 archetype for all the inquisitor concept maybe


Ravingdork wrote:
Animakuro wrote:

Starting this hobby with 4E, I have a real softspot for the Warlord.

I'd like to see PF2 do a take on a class whose core identity is leadership, tactics and inspiration purely from a non-magical standpoint.

Aside from that, I think PF2 can afford slow down the new shiny classes and add more subclasses, feats and other options to the existing ones.

Have you seen the Marshel archetype?

I did know a "warlordy" archetype existence, I just couldn't remember what it was called. Thanks!

But - and this is always going to be kind of subjective - I still think Martial Battlefield Leader/Supporter/Buffer is a playstyle with enough mechanical and narrative space to explore to be its own class. Just from what 4E did you've got examples of:

-Leading through inspiration and personality
-Leading through tactics and strategy
-Leading by example, being the first into battle
-Leading through resourcefulness and creativity

Of course, what is worthy of a full class will differ with each of us. Like personally, I think it's fine if we never get a full Inquisitor class because I think there are multiple classes and archetypes that fill out that fantasy in with different mechanical/narrative niches.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

after everything pathfinder 2e put out

it is very difficult to imagine a inquisitor class

4 or 5 archetype for all the inquisitor concept maybe

We've had some animated discussions on the subject in the past, but it's safe to say there's no shortage of mechanical space there.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

after everything pathfinder 2e put out

it is very difficult to imagine a inquisitor class

4 or 5 archetype for all the inquisitor concept maybe

We've had some animated discussions on the subject in the past, but it's safe to say there's no shortage of mechanical space there.

I think the need for "maybe 4 or 5 archetypes" to cover the concepts of the inquisitor is speaking volumes already :D


Karmagator wrote:
keftiu wrote:
25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

after everything pathfinder 2e put out

it is very difficult to imagine a inquisitor class

4 or 5 archetype for all the inquisitor concept maybe

We've had some animated discussions on the subject in the past, but it's safe to say there's no shortage of mechanical space there.
I think the need for "maybe 4 or 5 archetypes" to cover the concepts of the inquisitor is speaking volumes already :D

investigator and swashbuckler can be easily divide into 4 archetype and neither should ever have become a class

soul warden is pretty much the pharasma inquisitor and there will most likely be more archetype like this but for follower of different group of demigod

one for eldest empyreal lord demon lord four horseman archdevil two for the rest of monitor

inquisitor was most likely to be one of the neutral champion

but with how three last wall archetype turn out archetype would be a much more likely outcome


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Feel like that's a better explanation for why an archetype won't work very well. You need too much. There's no way to capture it all in just a handful of feats.

In the same way that a fighter duelist doesn't capture the same energy as a swashbuckler or a fighter wizard fails to replace the magus.

Archetypes are great for what they are, but the reality is that every class that's been relegated to archetype or subclass territory has essentially just become something that's been lost in the PF1->2 transition.

I'm admittedly not super tied to the inquisitor specifically, but the general space of magical divine warrior is just too big and to impossible to relegate to archetype space for me to consider that a good idea.


many class are completely different between 1e and 2e

the assumption 2e inquisitor will have the same content as 1e obviously doesn't work

if there are need for champion and inquisitor as divine martial alone

than there are need for one more class for arcane or occult martial required and one or two primal martial depend on if ranger are primal enough

too many class is a obvious mistake should be avoided after apg


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Like I always say when this comes up: the existence of so many people saying “no, we want a full class” is proof enough that it should exist. The classes we currently have aren’t cutting it, even with archetypes, for the people who enjoy this fantasy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

that was the ridiculous logic lead to the bloat of 1e

people also still ask for ninja as a class for some reason and it is a terrible idea that are extremely unlikely to happen in 2e

a lot of people are also against 2e and keep saying it should be something else before 2e come out

turn out what needed was 2e


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:
too many class is a obvious mistake should be avoided after apg

Clearly not, considering how often people request new classes and how many ideas you still can't pull off in PF2.


Squiggit wrote:
25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:
too many class is a obvious mistake should be avoided after apg
Clearly not, considering how often people request new classes and how many ideas you still can't pull off in PF2.

and how many of those idea are too good at too many things

clearly it was a bad idea class are much more difficult to fix than archetype

there is no fixing investigator or swashbuckler at this point but change some number can fix heaven seeker


9 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread is about sharing what you want, not telling other people not to want things. The latter thing is significantly less fun.


Ravingdork wrote:
I would not overthink the mechanics of centaurs.

I’m not sure ropes, ladders or small boats and the problems a horse-sized tauric might have is “overthinking” things. ;)

Ravingdork wrote:
As for difficult to navigate environments, I think it's as easily handled as saying centaurs are not horses, they're centaurs, and centaurs have adapted to handle certain things that horses can't. They can maneuver about as easily as traditional humanoids.

This is ridiculous to me. I get it, we have elves, and wiza….magic users and overlarge swords blah blah blah. But when the centaur happily launches off the edge of the deep deep hole to the nether end of Grigdorbium…on…ya know…the rope. It just feels, really stupid.

I had a centaur character, very loosely (okay, okay, completely) modelled on the poor wandering reincarnated Centaur from the ADnD Rogue’s Gallery. I loved that character. Never got to play it, but really wanted to. So I get the love (there’s also an awesome old Dragon magazine cover in a kind of cartoon style that has a well-armored centaur knight taking on a dragon on a perilous precipice) but…the rope thing. The rope…it burns!!!


Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
… So I get the love (there’s also an awesome old Dragon magazine cover in a kind of cartoon style that has a well-armored centaur knight taking on a dragon on a perilous precipice) but…the rope thing. The rope…it burns!!!

[Emphasis mine] It’s clearly a collapsing bridge, not a precipice, but yes, perilous. Man, your memory is funny.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm still very much on the fence about making the jump to 2e all these years later, in large part because of the trimming down of options & fewer classes from 1e.

Also the lesser amount of modularity & customization in classes(the fact that I can't switch out shield block as a fighter is a grain of sand beneath my eyeball).

And the lack of ridiculously high numbers. Like, I recognize that's just a different design philosophy so it's not something I'm going to actively ask for, and I recognize that people prefer the lower, more contained numbers and "tighter math" for some reason I can't fully comprehend. But the fact that the highest I can get an ability score on a character is 24 goes against every instinct I have for ttrpg. In pf1e it wasn't uncommon for me to start at level one with characters having a 22 in their primary stat.

But that's a lost battle & a hill I'm not going to bother dying on. I'll just go back and play 1e when I feel like indulging in actual power fantasy.

For battles to be fought in the here and now, more classes, yes please.

Now I don't know that every single class from 1e needs to be carried over. The spiritualist, for example, was just a necromancy reskin of the summoner & folding them into one class isn't a terrible idea in my opinion. Though I'm also not super crazy about how the summoner was converted but that's another discussion.

The medium has one of my favorite concepts for a class in terms of it's core fantasy, I really like it conceptually, but everything I read on the subject has it as one of the worst put together classes in 1e mechanically. So another take on it in 2e might be able to salvage & redeem it.

The inquisitor is another class that mechanically wasn't particularly great in 1e but does have a very strong fantasy. The flavor of the inquisitor is very distinct from the cleric or the paladin/champion or the warpriest. There's something to be done with that and I think it could be done with more than just a few archetypes.


Could the Inquisitor be a Cleric's Doctrine?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
Could the Inquisitor be a Cleric's Doctrine?

Doctrines are way too limited in both scope and power to adequately fill the inquisitor concept. Their current iteration is for shuffling some proficiencies around, not major mechanics like having a full set of spell slots or not.

A class archetype would be weird as well. You'd be ripping everything but the god and maybe a bit of spellcasting out of the cleric, only to replace it with something new. At that point, a class archetype really isn't the right tool for the job anymore.


FormerFiend wrote:
The inquisitor is another class that mechanically wasn't particularly great in 1e but does have a very strong fantasy. The flavor of the inquisitor is very distinct from the cleric or the paladin/champion or the warpriest. There's something to be done with that and I think it could be done with more than just a few archetypes.

It is strange to me that I have a diametrically opposed view on your first two points:

I think the inquisitor’s mechanics were an amazing chassis. Between the monster hunting lore, the teamwork feats and the judgments there was always a lot to choose from and a lot to do, even before you got around to spellcasting. And the sheer number of awesome archetypes (both in terms of theme and function) to me at least, justified the breadth of that chassis.

As for the flavor, I could often take or leave it, and besides, you could just as easily play a cleric, warpriest of paladin as the strict arm of the church, temple sanctified slayer of defender of the faith. I pretty much only played the non-deity kind of inquisitor also, which suited me better.


A lot more niche, but a silencer-type item that doesn't break on the first shot would be nice. Or something that at least reduces the noise to regular combat levels. Firearms already have enough built-in drawbacks ^^


everyone want something

what make the desire for repeat the mistake of apg class every year so much more important than the desire for not repeat the mistake of apg class every year

that the former must remain as loud as possible and the later must be silenced

what make the desire for more likely functional new archetype so much worse than the desire for more likely non functional new class


Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
FormerFiend wrote:
The inquisitor is another class that mechanically wasn't particularly great in 1e but does have a very strong fantasy. The flavor of the inquisitor is very distinct from the cleric or the paladin/champion or the warpriest. There's something to be done with that and I think it could be done with more than just a few archetypes.

It is strange to me that I have a diametrically opposed view on your first two points:

I think the inquisitor’s mechanics were an amazing chassis. Between the monster hunting lore, the teamwork feats and the judgments there was always a lot to choose from and a lot to do, even before you got around to spellcasting. And the sheer number of awesome archetypes (both in terms of theme and function) to me at least, justified the breadth of that chassis.

As for the flavor, I could often take or leave it, and besides, you could just as easily play a cleric, warpriest of paladin as the strict arm of the church, temple sanctified slayer of defender of the faith. I pretty much only played the non-deity kind of inquisitor also, which suited me better.

that flavor just doesn't sound like how even organized golarion church work

isn't the novel of pharasma inquisitor also show to be part of the church undead hunter just like cleric or champion would be

why would hellknight tyrant knock down door of law breaker any different than hellknight inquisitor do

isn't the champion cleric and inquisitor of desna all just traveling helper of other traveler


6 people marked this as a favorite.
25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

everyone want something

what make the desire for repeat the mistake of apg class every year so much more important than the desire for not repeat the mistake of apg class every year

that the former must remain as loud as possible and the later must be silenced

what make the desire for more likely functional new archetype so much worse than the desire for more likely non functional new class

Calling any class in 2e non-functional, APG or not, is just incorrect. Some are a bit underpowered, sure, but none of them are even remotely broken. It's just that for some classes, the creators cooked with tabasco pepper and fire, like the thaumaturge. For others, they used mild curry, like the witch or alchemist (or investigator to a lesser extent). Both are perfectly edible, but one is a lot more spicy.

Since the APG, class releases seem to have been very successful and accepted by the community. So calling that a "repeat mistake every year" seems baseless as well.

Lastly, we are silencing nobody. We are simply stating that in our opinion, any kind of archetype solution is insufficient for the "inquisitor" concept. And by saying we would need like 5 to get to that point, you illustrated our point, that's all.


Karmagator wrote:
25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

everyone want something

what make the desire for repeat the mistake of apg class every year so much more important than the desire for not repeat the mistake of apg class every year

that the former must remain as loud as possible and the later must be silenced

what make the desire for more likely functional new archetype so much worse than the desire for more likely non functional new class

Calling any class in 2e non-functional, APG or not, is just incorrect. Some are a bit underpowered, sure, but none of them are even remotely broken. It's just that for some classes, the creators cooked with tabasco pepper and fire, like the thaumaturge. For others, they used mild curry, like the witch or alchemist (or investigator to a lesser extent). Both are perfectly edible, but one is a lot more spicy.

Since the APG, class releases seem to have been very successful and accepted by the community. So calling that a "repeat mistake every year" seems baseless as well.

Lastly, we are silencing nobody. We are simply stating that in our opinion, any kind of archetype solution is insufficient for the "inquisitor" concept. And by saying we would need like 5 to get to that point, you illustrated our point, that's all.

that seems to be ignoring the fact multiple hundred reply thread exist argue over why the one trick of investigator and swashbuckler doesn't work and they end up with not just worse damage but worse support compare to rogue

because they are going to be compared to rogue

the idea witch is undercooked and it is a good thing pretty much prove why class should not be rushed and apg did made mistake

and if the scattered idea and content couldn't be fit into a class framework than archetype is the obvious choice


5 people marked this as a favorite.
25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

everyone want something

what make the desire for repeat the mistake of apg class every year so much more important than the desire for not repeat the mistake of apg class every year

that the former must remain as loud as possible and the later must be silenced

what make the desire for more likely functional new archetype so much worse than the desire for more likely non functional new class

“Must be silenced” is an absurd thing to say in a thread about asking for things.

There’s an obvious mechanical niche for an Inquisitor: an offense-focused Divine class, to pair with the defensive Champion and support Cleric. The niche is well-defined both in Golarion lore and wider pop culture, and would enable characters I’ve been trying to make since PF2 launched.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

that seems to be ignoring the fact multiple hundred reply thread exist argue over why the one trick of investigator and swashbuckler doesn't work and they end up with not just worse damage but worse support compare to rogue

because they are going to be compared to rogue

the idea witch is undercooked and it is a good thing pretty much prove why class should not be rushed and apg did made mistake

and if the scattered idea and content couldn't be fit into a class framework than archetype is the obvious choice

The swashbuckler was and probably still is the best reviewed playtest class ever. It and the investigator are incredibly fun and interesting to play. When I played them, at no point did I feel like a worse rouge, and I played with a rouge with my swashbuckler. But, if we are going to look solely on damage numbers, barbarians, rouges and rangers are just worse fighters. All three of those classes deserve to exist, as do investigators and swashbucklers, because they have very distinct feels and playstyles


25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

that seems to be ignoring the fact multiple hundred reply thread exist argue over why the one trick of investigator and swashbuckler doesn't work and they end up with not just worse damage but worse support compare to rogue

because they are going to be compared to rogue

the idea witch is undercooked and it is a good thing pretty much prove why class should not be rushed and apg did made mistake

and if the scattered idea and content couldn't be fit into a class framework than archetype is the obvious choice

None of the classes you list have a substantial problem on the story concept front. One could maybe make the argument for the witch and the 5e warlock comparison, but that is details, not a core issue. Swashbuckler and Investigator have no problems at all.

Same with the mechanical concept. Swashbuckler is easily one of the least controversial classes in the game (as far as I can tell), whose mechanics noticeably set it apart from the rogue. I've only played one briefly, but they certainly didn't feel like the same. The Investigator being underpowered I agree with, but that isn't because the core mechanics somehow don't work. The intended scope of Pursue a Lead could be clearer, but apart from that, the core mechanics are some of the most fun ones I've seen. For me, it's just an issue of the numbers being too low and the class lacking more impactful combat feats. The former is more difficult to fix, but certainly doesn't require a major rework. The latter is just a question of adding more feats, which is another thing a lot of people want.

So yeah, I don't agree with your point. None of this would have been any better as an archetype, quite the opposite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pronate11 wrote:
25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

that seems to be ignoring the fact multiple hundred reply thread exist argue over why the one trick of investigator and swashbuckler doesn't work and they end up with not just worse damage but worse support compare to rogue

because they are going to be compared to rogue

the idea witch is undercooked and it is a good thing pretty much prove why class should not be rushed and apg did made mistake

and if the scattered idea and content couldn't be fit into a class framework than archetype is the obvious choice

The swashbuckler was and probably still is the best reviewed playtest class ever. It and the investigator are incredibly fun and interesting to play. When I played them, at no point did I feel like a worse rouge, and I played with a rouge with my swashbuckler. But, if we are going to look solely on damage numbers, barbarians, rouges and rangers are just worse fighters. All three of those classes deserve to exist, as do investigators and swashbucklers, because they have very distinct feels and playstyles

everyone can have fun

even playing 1 hour 1 round in pathfinder 1e

and that doesn't mean paizo shouldn't try to make class with higher quality than investigator and swashbuckler

as they did after apg

but it would be hard to go back and fix investigator and swashbuckler without player complain paizo take their old toy away even if they replace it with shiny better new toy

that is why making too many new class is a bad idea


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I want as many classes as I can possibly get, but I don't know if the need for an "offense oriented divine class" is necessarily greater than for a "defense oriented non-divine class." So why not both?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Karmagator wrote:
25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

that seems to be ignoring the fact multiple hundred reply thread exist argue over why the one trick of investigator and swashbuckler doesn't work and they end up with not just worse damage but worse support compare to rogue

because they are going to be compared to rogue

the idea witch is undercooked and it is a good thing pretty much prove why class should not be rushed and apg did made mistake

and if the scattered idea and content couldn't be fit into a class framework than archetype is the obvious choice

None of the classes you list have a substantial problem on the story concept front. One could maybe make the argument for the witch and the 5e warlock comparison, but that is details, not a core issue. Swashbuckler and Investigator have no problems at all.

Same with the mechanical concept. Swashbuckler is easily one of the least controversial classes in the game (as far as I can tell), whose mechanics noticeably set it apart from the rogue. I've only played one briefly, but they certainly didn't feel like the same. The Investigator being underpowered I agree with, but that isn't because the core mechanics somehow don't work. The intended scope of Pursue a Lead could be clearer, but apart from that, the core mechanics are some of the most fun ones I've seen. For me, it's just an issue of the numbers being too low and the class lacking more impactful combat feats. The former is more difficult to fix, but certainly doesn't require a major rework. The latter is just a question of adding more feats, which is another thing a lot of people want.

So yeah, I don't agree with your point. None of this would have been any better as an archetype, quite the opposite.

investigator are a struggling class many seems to use electric arc to stay functional

investigator dedication are amazing to most martial

so quite the opposite


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm playing a level 16 Investigator in Agents of Edgewatch, and I've never felt at any point worse than the other classes. You get to predict your rolls and adjust what you're doing based on that; you have a ton of detective feats that are exclusively yours and will make the GM sweat their brain to keep up with all the ways you can get to know things, you are the ultimate Recall Knowledge generator, there's plenty beyond raw damage that goes into the class. It's one of the funniest classes to play in the game, breaking the fourth/fifth wall and messing with everything in ways a clever GM can use to make the game so much more engaging.

Above all, coming to a "what do we need more" thread to talk about what's bad and what you need less is a quintessential example that for some people, negativity is the easiest (and sometimes only) way they can express themselves.


25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:


investigator are a struggling class many seems to use electric arc to stay functional

investigator dedication are amazing to most martial

Investigators do not need to use electric arc to stay functional. the class is just as functional as any other. Please tell me how it fails to function.

301 to 350 of 629 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / What do you still need? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.