Potential Changes to Core 1 Classes

[Jacob Jett]

Corwin Icewolf wrote:

nephandys wrote:

How are you not able to build a convincing soldier with the Fighter chassis? I feel like a lot of people playing this game have surely done that before.

Yeah, that was gonna be my question. Like, legit question, what does the fighter need in order to be a soldier that it's missing?

To build a fighter as a soldier you have to select Hobgoblin for ancestry. Or you could sacrifice combat flexibility abilities to do things that look very similar to Hobgoblins' bespoke ancestry feats. YMMV

And again it isn't a matter of need. I haven't said that these classes need subclasses. I've said that Fighter/monk subclasses would be nice-to-haves.

And if wishes were fishes...

[Gortle]

Easl wrote:

Gortle wrote:

So what changes do people want to see for the Core 1 classes?

Gortle, first thanks for the thread.

Am I correct in counting up the classes and seeing that Core 1 and Core 2 *won't* cover the Gunslinger, Inventor, Magus, Psychic, Summoner, and Thaumaturge? (Also, if Rage of Elements was sent to press before the Remastered rules were finalized and incorporates rules since changed, Kineticist...)

If so, has Paizo said anything about the PF2E.R versions of these? Where and when they'll appear? What they're looking at changing?

Not much had been said. Just that they aren't looking at updates at the moment for these other classes. I'm not sure they need a refresh. Kineticist should be OK with the updated changes.

[Ed Reppert]

Jacob Jett wrote:

To build a fighter as a soldier you have to select Hobgoblin for ancestry.

Why is that?

[CaptainRelyk]

graystone wrote:

CaptainRelyk wrote:

graystone wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

Everything else aside, a sentient-weapon-wielder is 100000% an archetype. (Or an ancestry, lookin at you Battlezoo!)

I hate it when my weapon wielders aren't sentient! ;P

On a serious note, Artifact Archetypes can do this.

Wait Really?!?

Omg omg I wanna wield Excalibur what archetype are you talking about?!?!

Treasure Vault made a new kind of Archetype, the Archetype Artifacts. There are only 2 so far.

Oh. But nothing for a “catch all” sentient weapons archetype or subclass or class? It has to be a specific item? Also I don’t think either of the two artifact archetypes are a sentient weapon

[Ezekieru]

Easl wrote:

Gortle wrote:

So what changes do people want to see for the Core 1 classes?

Gortle, first thanks for the thread.

Am I correct in counting up the classes and seeing that Core 1 and Core 2 *won't* cover the Gunslinger, Inventor, Magus, Psychic, Summoner, and Thaumaturge? (Also, if Rage of Elements was sent to press before the Remastered rules were finalized and incorporates rules since changed, Kineticist...)

If so, has Paizo said anything about the PF2E.R versions of these? Where and when they'll appear? What they're looking at changing?

Erik Mona and Michael Sayre have confirmed that SoM, G&G, and DA are still gonna continue to be printed, and will simply receive errata to adjust them with the changes made from the Remaster books. Michael even stated the changes needed for G&G in particular would be super minor.

Kineticist should be fine. Rage of Elements has been confirmed to be written with the Remaster rules in mind, and will have an online document released in conjunction with the book's release that'll help with the new terms and changes found in said book, since RoE will come out a few months before the first two Remaster books come out.

[graystone]

CaptainRelyk wrote:

graystone wrote:

CaptainRelyk wrote:

graystone wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

Everything else aside, a sentient-weapon-wielder is 100000% an archetype. (Or an ancestry, lookin at you Battlezoo!)

I hate it when my weapon wielders aren't sentient! ;P

On a serious note, Artifact Archetypes can do this.

Wait Really?!?

Omg omg I wanna wield Excalibur what archetype are you talking about?!?!

Treasure Vault made a new kind of Archetype, the Archetype Artifacts. There are only 2 so far.

Oh. But nothing for a “catch all” sentient weapons archetype or subclass or class? It has to be a specific item? Also I don’t think either of the two artifact archetypes are a sentient weapon

It's as close as we have to it. I can see a DM working with a player to use the framework to fit any artifact, including weapons and if any magic item is going to be sentient, it'll be an artifact. So, no, it's not hyper focused on only sentient weapon use.

[egindar]

CaptainRelyk wrote:

They aren’t the only “oddballs”. Rune knight… psi warrior… echo knight

It's been a hot minute since I kept up with 5e options, so I stand corrected. Looking at a list online, looks like I also missed the banneret, which is another combat style, so it seems about half and half.

CaptainRelyk wrote:

And even then, stuff like samurai lets you add wisdom to persuasion checks

Or champion that gives half proficiency in all strength/dex/con checks

Samurai and champion have out-of-combat features, yes. As does every subclass. Not sure what the point here is. The subclasses I mentioned are still focused around combat styles rather than more niche/grab-bag mystical concepts.

CaptainRelyk wrote:

Here are fighter subclass ideas

maybe a drunken brawler fighter where unarmored defense is increased aswell as bonuses to improvised weapons and unarmed natural weapons

Or a fighter subclass where you wield a sentient weapon and stick with that same weapon and never change weapons, and that weapon grows more powerful as you gain levels. Like Excalibur or something like that.

Fighter subclasses wouldn’t have to be based around certain weapons. You can come up with lots of cool subclasses with a class like fighter.

Others are pointing out these should be archetypes and I don't disagree. This has been explained by other people already, but between class feats and archetypes, a lot of the niche 5e subclasses have get eaten away. 5e puts concepts like rune knight into fighter because there's no place to put concepts like that other than in subclasses (or feats, and it's too specific and occupies too much budget for feats), so it finds the class most compatible with its flavor and makes it a subclass for that class. 2e has other avenues for expressing concepts. That's why people are asking for themes specific to fighter that subclasses can be built around.

As a side note, while we're comparing with 5e, it's worth noting that 5e fighter subclasses take until level 3 to come online, which is a level later than when you get an archetype. When you were playing 5e, were you avoiding all classes other than cleric, sorcerer, and warlock? It's hard for me to square that with the idea that waiting until level 2 for an archetype is so unsatisfying that you'd only play fighter with dual class.

[egindar]

CaptainRelyk wrote:

Oh. But nothing for a “catch all” sentient weapons archetype or subclass or class? It has to be a specific item? Also I don’t think either of the two artifact archetypes are a sentient weapon

There's also the soulforger archetype, which is focused on a magic weapon (and/or armor) specifically bonded to you. You can pick from a variety of activated effects that apply to it. Sentience isn't baked into the flavor, but it's not difficult to reflavor/rework the way soul paths into pursuing a goal the weapon has and taking on consequences for ignoring it too much.

[CaptainRelyk]

egindar wrote:

CaptainRelyk wrote:

They aren’t the only “oddballs”. Rune knight… psi warrior… echo knight

It's been a hot minute since I kept up with 5e options, so I stand corrected. Looking at a list online, looks like I also missed the banneret, which is another combat style, so it seems about half and half.

CaptainRelyk wrote:

And even then, stuff like samurai lets you add wisdom to persuasion checks

Or champion that gives half proficiency in all strength/dex/con checks

Samurai and champion have out-of-combat features, yes. As does every subclass. Not sure what the point here is. The subclasses I mentioned are still focused around combat styles rather than more niche/grab-bag mystical concepts.

CaptainRelyk wrote:

Here are fighter subclass ideas

maybe a drunken brawler fighter where unarmored defense is increased aswell as bonuses to improvised weapons and unarmed natural weapons

Or a fighter subclass where you wield a sentient weapon and stick with that same weapon and never change weapons, and that weapon grows more powerful as you gain levels. Like Excalibur or something like that.

Fighter subclasses wouldn’t have to be based around certain weapons. You can come up with lots of cool subclasses with a class like fighter.

Others are pointing out these should be archetypes and I don't disagree. This has been explained by other people already, but between class feats and archetypes, a lot of the niche 5e subclasses have get eaten away. 5e puts concepts like rune knight into fighter because there's no place to put concepts like that other than in subclasses (or feats, and it's too specific and occupies too much budget for feats), so it finds the class most compatible with its flavor and makes it a subclass for that class. 2e has other avenues for expressing concepts. That's why people are asking for themes specific to fighter that subclasses can be built around.

As a side note, while we're comparing with 5e, it's worth noting that 5e fighter subclasses take...

I mostly played in games that start at level 3. Starting at level 3 is common practice in 5e since not all subclasses are online till level 3 whereas subclasses in PF2e are at level 1 always (one of the reasons PF is better then dnd)

[bugleyman]

I doubt it will ever happen, but I would have greatly preferred if the Wizard (really, all prepared casters) had just worked like a flexible spellcaster out-of-the-box. In my opinion flexible casting just models fiction so much better, and in my experience doesn't really have much of a downside.

[Corwin Icewolf]

Jacob Jett wrote:

Corwin Icewolf wrote:

nephandys wrote:

How are you not able to build a convincing soldier with the Fighter chassis? I feel like a lot of people playing this game have surely done that before.

Yeah, that was gonna be my question. Like, legit question, what does the fighter need in order to be a soldier that it's missing?

To build a fighter as a soldier you have to select Hobgoblin for ancestry.

... Because?

Quote:

Or you could sacrifice combat flexibility abilities to do things that look very similar to Hobgoblins' bespoke ancestry feats.

I... Then I guess my question is: what ancestry feats do hobgoblins have that are more soldiery than what fighters have?

Or maybe it should be: what flavor exactly are you looking for when you say "soldier?"

[Gisher]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Hm...I wouldn't mind ditching the "metal armor druids" stuff, especially since there's art of an example druid multiclass character literally drawn wearing metal armor.

Look again. They changed the armor in that image to leather in the second printing of the APG.

[Kobold Catgirl]

That's a shame; it looked cool as metal!

[Evan Tarlton]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

That's a shame; it looked cool as metal!

We can treat that as an early example of a Metal druid from Rage of Elements.

[HumbleGamer]

That druid was proof that druids can use their druidic powers even in metal armor.

They just decide not to do so because it's too mainstream.

[DomHeroEllis]

Corwin Icewolf wrote:

I... Then I guess my question is: what ancestry feats do hobgoblins have that are more soldiery than what fighters have?

Probably the ones about hating elf magic, or healing allies with a well of magical energy deep inside them.

[Lucerious]

Gortle wrote:

A request from one of my players: they want something extra in Ranger for Archers. They just can't go past the base fighter for archery and would like rangers to be better at it than they are.

Point-Blank Shot would be nice. It is strange to only be available to fighters and the archer archetype.

[YuriP]

CaptainRelyk wrote:

I mostly played in games that start at level 3. Starting at level 3 is common practice in 5e since not all subclasses are online till level 3 whereas subclasses in PF2e are at level 1 always (one of the reasons PF is better then dnd)

There's many games that starts from lvl 1. Especially for new players. Only the most experienced players that usually starts from 3 due subclass starting begginig from lvl 3. At same way that overtime many experienced DMs end around levels 10-14 when the game starts to become too broken.

PF2 also has its shenanigans too. Some tables complains about PF2 difficulty specially in earliest levels specially with players that's come from 5e and that used to start from 3 level in 5e usually need to start from level 2 + free archetype. Because this prevents the 1st level fragility (low HP+high damage) and allow these players to select archetype since from beginning like they used to do in 5e.

[CaptainRelyk]

Evan Tarlton wrote:

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

That's a shame; it looked cool as metal!

We can treat that as an early example of a Metal druid from Rage of Elements.

Wait is a metal Druid actually coming in rage of elements?

[CaptainRelyk]

YuriP wrote:

CaptainRelyk wrote:

I mostly played in games that start at level 3. Starting at level 3 is common practice in 5e since not all subclasses are online till level 3 whereas subclasses in PF2e are at level 1 always (one of the reasons PF is better then dnd)

There's many games that starts from lvl 1. Especially for new players. Only the most experienced players that usually starts from 3 due subclass starting begginig from lvl 3. At same way that overtime many experienced DMs end around levels 10-14 when the game starts to become too broken.

PF2 also has its shenanigans too. Some tables complains about PF2 difficulty specially in earliest levels specially with players that's come from 5e and that used to start from 3 level in 5e usually need to start from level 2 + free archetype. Because this prevents the 1st level fragility (low HP+high damage) and allow these players to select archetype since from beginning like they used to do in 5e.

I have actually seen a couple places do FA with a start at level 2

[CaptainRelyk]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

That's a shame; it looked cool as metal!

Honestly, I don’t think the metal restriction needs to be lifted

Unlike D&D (only leather, hide and a couple magic armor sets) Pathfinder has a lot of non-metal armor tailor made for Druids (DnD = 0, Pathfinder = 1).

That being said… please tell me where I can find this art, I want to see this metal wearing Druid for myself

[YuriP]

It's from 1st print of CRB. Where druid archetype still don't have metal armor anathema the elf in the page also uses a metal armor.

It was repainted to be a leather armor in 2nd print when they added the armor anathema to archetype too. kkkk

[Ed Reppert]

bugleyman wrote:

I doubt it will ever happen, but I would have greatly preferred if the Wizard (really, all prepared casters) had just worked like a flexible spellcaster out-of-the-box. In my opinion flexible casting just models fiction so much better, and in my experience doesn't really have much of a downside.

Have you read Jack Vance's Tales of the Dying Earth?

Two alternative approaches to the PF2 one: mana points, where a caster has so many mana points per day, and each spell costs some number of mana points to cast, and fatigue points, where casting a spell accrues a certain number of fatigue points and until you rest your accumulated fatigue reduces your chance of successfully casting a spell. There are others of course, but these two are my favorites.

[CaptainRelyk]

YuriP wrote:

It's from 1st print of CRB. Where druid archetype still don't have metal armor anathema the elf in the page also uses a metal armor.

It was repainted to be a leather armor in 2nd print when they added the armor anathema to archetype too. kkkk

You have a link to a picture?

[JiCi]

Gortle wrote:

Fighter. No problems. Plenty of people like the feats that I don't like and it has mulitple ways to play.

Oh come on, give them something unique already!

Half the feats can used by other classes and archetypes, other martial classes offer fighting styles, special moves and stances and spellcasters just overtake fighters in any other situations.

Give them Focus Spells!

How hard can it be to give them a Focus Spell as follow?
"My weapon's base die times my level equal your BBEG struggles to keep its kimbs from falling off"

Paizo should really take cues from D&D's The Book of Nine Swords and give flashy special moves, as Focus Spells, EXCLUSIVELY to the Fighter.

[Rysky]

How about no

[JiCi]

Then please provide 5 reasons to play as a core Fighter instead of another martial class or by using archetypes...

I'll wait...

[WatersLethe]

1. Highly effective class, arguably overpowered compared to others
2. Simple and easy to play
3. Your character's fantasy is being legendary at wielding their chosen weapon
4. You like fighter feats and want to get them as early as possible
5. You have an archetype you're interested in and want it on a strong base class chassis

[CaffeinatedNinja]

bugleyman wrote:

I doubt it will ever happen, but I would have greatly preferred if the Wizard (really, all prepared casters) had just worked like a flexible spellcaster out-of-the-box. In my opinion flexible casting just models fiction so much better, and in my experience doesn't really have much of a downside.

This would be my dream. And I absolutely guarantee it would help 5e people to come onboard. Of those ones I have introduced to the game, they all love the combat changes but tend to recoil from the older type of vancian casting. It is a real sticking point. And no one wants to lose slots from flex casting.

It will never happen hah, but this would be the perfect time to do it. Bard is the best class in the game, they can keep spontaneous even if it isn’t quite as good in comparison now. And just give the spont casters in the core 2 books something extra to balance em out.

[CorvusMask]

Also I think fighter is kinda meant to be class for people who WANT to play as mundane and "down to earth" character as possible. (the art of beating dragon by "hitting them really hard")

[JiCi]

WatersLethe wrote:

1. Highly effective class, arguably overpowered compared to others

Compared to a Barbarian's Rage, a Monk's Stances, a Ranger's Styles, a Champion's Smite and/or a Gunslinger's Ways?

Quote:

2. Simple and easy to play

That's one reason...

Quote:

3. Your character's fantasy is being legendary at wielding their chosen weapon

"Look! I have TWO extra points!"

That's nothing special when everyone else gets Legendary proficiency elsewhere.

Quote:

4. You like fighter feats and want to get them as early as possible

In what situations would one feat be helpful a few levels earlier again?

Quote:

5. You have an archetype you're interested in and want it on a strong base class chassis

Good thing I said the equivalent of "without using archetypes", huh? If you need an archetype to make the Fighter decently interesting, then the Fighter is plain, bland and boring to begin with.

CorvusMask wrote:

Also I think fighter is kinda meant to be class for people who WANT to play as mundane and "down to earth" character as possible. (the art of beating dragon by "hitting them really hard")

Yeah... "hitting them really hard"... by NOT dealing a signficant amount of extra damage...

THIS is why I would appreciate some extra firepower to the Fighter, so it can RIVAL with Rage, Sneak Attack, Flurry, Cantrips and other Focus Spells. Geez, a Fire Cleric can fire THREE Fire Rays in THREE rounds, dealing up to 20d6 points of fire damage each. Give THIS kind of power to the Fighter as a special Melee attack and you'll have something good on your hands.

How about dealing "my weapon's base die times my proficiency bonus" for every single Strike I can make in 1 round?

ANYTHING!

[PossibleCabbage]

Gisher wrote:

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Hm...I wouldn't mind ditching the "metal armor druids" stuff, especially since there's art of an example druid multiclass character literally drawn wearing metal armor.

Look again. They changed the armor in that image to leather in the second printing of the APG.

I'm really hoping for a "metal order" druid class archetype in Rage of the Elements. It could be a somewhat heretical perspective for druids, but the plane of metal is now unarguably a thing that is, in a sense, natural.

Obviously the shtick can't be "gird yourself in as much metal as possible" but should be more about "using what nature provides respectfully and responsibly." After all, nobody recycles more than blacksmiths.

[CorvusMask]

Eeeh. They still get +10 accuracy & crit boost which evens it out.

[Rysky]

JiCi wrote:

That's nothing special when everyone else gets Legendary proficiency elsewhere.

Who? Where???

JiCi wrote:

Yeah... "hitting them really hard"... by NOT dealing a signficant amount of extra damage...

THIS is why I would appreciate some extra firepower to the Fighter, so it can RIVAL

… Fighter does some of the most damage in the game… do you even play P2?

[Old_Man_Robot]

I'm trying not to get overly hyped for the scale of the possible changes, but I would like to hope that there are some decent changes coming.

I, like others in this thread, also think that Wizards need a bit of a touch-up to resolve some of their underwhelming nature.

In addition to getting Simple Proficiency, Wizards should get an extra skill trained at 1st. Other Int based classes like the Witch, Inventor and Investigator don't get a penalty to offset Int being a primary stat, so why should the wizard? Its a legacy hold-over from the 3.x days. If they wanted to give every school a skill, and give a Wizard of that school trained in it, that would be fine as well, but probably more trouble than its worth.

I really like the idea of making Spell Substitution an intrinsic class feature.

It fits, is flavourful, and removes some of the rough edges the class can have, without much in the way of a power increase. Its a good all round change.

[Old_Man_Robot]

JiCi wrote:

THIS is why I would appreciate some extra firepower to the Fighter, so it can RIVAL with Rage, Sneak Attack, Flurry, Cantrips and other Focus Spells. Geez, a Fire Cleric can fire THREE Fire Rays in THREE rounds, dealing up to 20d6 points of fire damage each. Give THIS kind of power to the Fighter as a special Melee attack and you'll have something good on your hands.

While you dismiss the +2 to hit earlier in the post, you have to understand this is the source of the fighters damage as well.

Being able to hit more consistently and crit more often elevates the Fighters base damage above other martials.

The trade-off metrics for damage in PF2 are generally found in the intersection of Consistency, Raw Damage and Resource Spend.

By being a high consistency, zero-spend class, the fighter forgoes a core damage mechanic, to get better results with each and every strike it makes.

Honestly, the Fighter is probably the most powerful class in the game.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Flexible casting already exists for all casters--it's a subclass available to all, including wizards. It reduces the spell slots because flexible casting is powerful, y'all, and wizard is strong enough as-is.

5e wizard was not a balanced class. I totally agree that flexible casting is fun, but so are classes that feel like they're on the same footing and contribute an equal amount.

[Old_Man_Robot]

Flexible Spellcasting and the Spell Substitution Thesis are two wholly different things, my dude.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I wasn't necessarily replying to you, to be clear! It's just a recurring attitude I see on the forums lately--"just give wizards flexible casting at no cost".

[MadamReshi]

What would be the point of playing Spontanious Casters if other spellcasters got Flexible Casting for free?

My argument would be that while class features and specific exclusive spells do make a difference, but there would still be quite the power imbalance when it comes to spellcasting versatility and being able to react to handle different situations.

I think it's good that you have a choice between maximum flexibility in exchange for less spellslots and only being able to prepare a number of given spells at a time; flexibility in spell rank and how many spells you can know but you have to plan out your day; and flexibility in what spells you can cast but only knowing a few and only getting a little flexibility in spell rank.

I am interested in seeing arguments for flexibile spellcasting to be a default thing, but I am somewhat skeptical.

[Old_Man_Robot]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I wasn't necessarily replying to you, to be clear! It's just a recurring attitude I see on the forums lately--"just give wizards flexible casting at no cost".

Whoops! My apologies. I did didn’t notice that up thread.

[Deriven Firelion]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I wasn't necessarily replying to you, to be clear! It's just a recurring attitude I see on the forums lately--"just give wizards flexible casting at no cost".

I gave wizards flexible casting at no cost, still no one seems to play them.

One of the most played classes in my PF1 games and no one wants to touch them. Main reason I hear is boring feats and build choices.

I don't know what else I can do to make the wizard a more desirable class to play. I can't believe my games went from a wizard in nearly every game I ran in PF1 to never seeing a wizard in play in PF2.

Part of it is the Arcane List too. It gets talked up, but there are no real standout spells on the Arcane list. Occult has Synesthesia and Soothe, so can both heal and debuff. Primal has heal and blasting. Arcane has blasting and utility and utility isn't as valued in this edition by many players with skills as easily available as they are.

It almost feels like the wizard now competes with the bard, druid, and rogue for a group slot and those three all have more fun build options.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I wasn't necessarily replying to you, to be clear! It's just a recurring attitude I see on the forums lately--"just give wizards flexible casting at no cost".

Whoops! My apologies. I did didn’t notice that up thread.

Nah, I shoulda quoted. It's a bad habit of mine.

[Jacob Jett]

Corwin Icewolf wrote:

Jacob Jett wrote:

Corwin Icewolf wrote:

nephandys wrote:

How are you not able to build a convincing soldier with the Fighter chassis? I feel like a lot of people playing this game have surely done that before.

Yeah, that was gonna be my question. Like, legit question, what does the fighter need in order to be a soldier that it's missing?

To build a fighter as a soldier you have to select Hobgoblin for ancestry.

... Because?

Quote:

Or you could sacrifice combat flexibility abilities to do things that look very similar to Hobgoblins' bespoke ancestry feats.

I... Then I guess my question is: what ancestry feats do hobgoblins have that are more soldiery than what fighters have?

Or maybe it should be: what flavor exactly are you looking for when you say "soldier?"

I mean part of the issue here is I'm making changes for my game and you're like why would you do this? And part of it is, I like a more realistic take on the setting for the game.

So sure, sure, sure. I'll attempt to explain my position but I fear that you're so entrenched in your "don't do that" position, that it'll all be nonsensical from your point of view.

Right now, fighters best simulate individual heroes, like Celtic warriors, skirmishers, scouts, rangers, etc. that don't fight in organized, regimented groups (unlike say, cavalry, phalanxes, legionnaires, pike blocks, etc.). Fighters really only have 2 feats that support building fighters like this: United Assault and Shield Wall. However, once I select the Hobgoblin ancestry, suddenly I have a smorgasbord of thematically appropriate feats, such as Expert Drill Sergeant, Formation Training, Fell Rider (for actual cavalry), Squad Tactics, Formation Master, We March On, and Rallying Cry.

So yep, I'm going to argue that an enterprising houserule writer can totally substitute abilities that are similar to some of those Hobgoblin feats I mentioned above in place of abilities the fighter already gets in order to create a build path for a kind of fighter that's going to play very differently than the standard one.

Other things that remain unclear and unsupported by an archetype (or a viable sub-class): how does one best go about building a horse archer? what about a chariot archer? or a charioteer? let alone cavalry... (and I don't mean the bannerperson that the current cavalier archetype encompasses, I mean hard-hitting riders [and here again, Hobgoblin's Fell Rider feat is a step towards this]). These are all places where additional archetypes might have been useful or which could be supported by notional different build paths for the fighter, if the fighter had those different build paths (and by build paths we really mean the common parlance sub-classes).

But again, I'm not arguing that the devs need to rewrite the book on fighters. And I certainly don't expect any change in the revision (why make work? fighter is adequate as is, they have their hands full with the changes they are making, and really, I want them laser-focused on new content [I love fresh copy]). But if they wanted to come out with variant rules down the road that address this (and showcase worked examples for GMs who want to or enjoy fiddling with these kinds of things), those variant rules would be nice-to-haves. And since a lot of this thread is pure wishlistium, what's the harm in wishing for more fishes here?

Also, like I said, I'm already pretty far into my customization work, pimping my PF2 ride (because this is the kind of gearhead I am and these are the kinds of thoughts that cross my mind when I dig into games' mechanics). Could my changes blow up in my face? Sure. It's okay. Every now and again you have to Jay Leno things when you're a gearhead.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

To address the above point, flexible casting just feels good. It is easy to use, intuitive, and more fun to play. It is basically what people from 5e expect too which helps. But paying a slot per spell level is painful, and a feat.

That is why I think it keeps coming up that this should be the default.

Now, I hear the complaints/concerns that this makes it better than spontaneous. Two points there. First, you can tweak flexible and spontaneous to make it work.

Second, a class shouldn’t be denied cool thing a just because some other class looks worse.

Take bard. Even if wizards had free flex casting and 4 regular slow, bard is still better for raw power.

Sorcerers could be given something else, every spell signature, d8 hp, more focus, whatever.

It wouldn’t be hard to do.

I realize this will likely never happen in this edition, I think we all do. But it would be an awesome change.

[roquepo]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I wasn't necessarily replying to you, to be clear! It's just a recurring attitude I see on the forums lately--"just give wizards flexible casting at no cost".

I gave wizards flexible casting at no cost, still no one seems to play them.

One of the most played classes in my PF1 games and no one wants to touch them. Main reason I hear is boring feats and build choices.

I don't know what else I can do to make the wizard a more desirable class to play. I can't believe my games went from a wizard in nearly every game I ran in PF1 to never seeing a wizard in play in PF2.

Part of it is the Arcane List too. It gets talked up, but there are no real standout spells on the Arcane list. Occult has Synesthesia and Soothe, so can both heal and debuff. Primal has heal and blasting. Arcane has blasting and utility and utility isn't as valued in this edition by many players with skills as easily available as they are.

It almost feels like the wizard now competes with the bard, druid, and rogue for a group slot and those three all have more fun build options.

I find the arcane list to be the second strongest list, and it is one spell away of becoming the best list period (adding either Heal or Synesthesia to your list is nuts when you also have good both single target and AoE that targets all saves and access to stuff like Wall of Stone).

Wizards biggest problem is that they occupy the same niche as arcane Sorcerers and they just can't keep up with what you can pull off with them.

Arcane sorcerers get good focus spells, get spontaneous instead of prepared, which most of the time feels more convenient in this system, they get access to a limited Spellbook to prepare a single spell every day, they get Crossblooded Evolution at 8 which allows them to basically cheat spell selection wise... You get the idea.

Wizards just need good and interesting feats. That's it.

[Old_Man_Robot]

Since the game came out I’ve been saying that the Arcane sorcerer ate the Wizards lunch.

Even their limited preparation allows them to go operate like a Wizard a lot of the time, without the drawbacks and being Charisma driven.

[ReyalsKanras]

Jacob Jett wrote:

Right now, fighters best simulate individual heroes, like Celtic warriors, skirmishers, scouts, rangers, etc. that don't fight in organized, regimented groups

The most important skills a soldier learns in basic are boring. The really important stuff is hygiene, communication, discipline and how to do eight counts until someone falls out. Turns out moving a formation of hundreds or thousands efficiently without everyone starving, getting sick or wandering off is hard. Sanitation and hygiene in the wilderness are slightly problematic. Sanitation and hygiene in the wilderness but now with five thousand of your best friends travelling with you?

I am mostly agreeing with you. Fighters are absolutely not Soldiers. The core concept is way off. Most of these games come out a little closer to militia or irregulars, more like spec ops dramatizations or vigilante romanticizations. Not complaining about that last part, efficient soldiery is boring. How does it go? Amateurs gather in the war room to discuss strategy, veterans discuss logistics. Something like that.

[Karmagator]

JiCi wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

1. Highly effective class, arguably overpowered compared to others

Compared to a Barbarian's Rage, a Monk's Stances, a Ranger's Styles, a Champion's Smite and/or a Gunslinger's Ways?

Yes, absolutely. The fighter has very high performance with no ifs, buts or anything, unlike everyone else. I wouldn't call it even arguably OP, but there is a reason why it's a running gag that "the fighter doesn't get as much everywhere else because it is legendary in attacks".

Btw, you really shouldn't mention the gunslinger in that list of presumably strong classes. It really isn't.

JiCi wrote:

Quote:

3. Your character's fantasy is being legendary at wielding their chosen weapon

"Look! I have TWO extra points!"

That's nothing special when everyone else gets Legendary proficiency elsewhere.

Your attacks are the thing you roll the most by far. Being +2 ahead is also quite significant. You probably never had a fighter in your group, so you haven't seen that in action.

JiCi wrote:

Quote:

4. You like fighter feats and want to get them as early as possible

In what situations would one feat be helpful a few levels earlier again?

Always? The fighter has more than a few amazing feats. Also, it isn't just "a few levels earlier". Past level 1/2, it is literally double the level.

JiCi wrote:

Quote:

5. You have an archetype you're interested in and want it on a strong base class chassis

Good thing I said the equivalent of "without using archetypes", huh? If you need an archetype to make the Fighter decently interesting, then the Fighter is plain, bland and boring to begin with.

The fighter being largely a blank sheet of paper is the whole point. And it isn't that you need an archetype, that clearly wasn't the statement. It is the other way around - your character's core identity/role is represented by the archetype. The fighter is just a means to an end, not the thing you want to make interesting.

JiCi wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

Also I think fighter is kinda meant to be class for people who WANT to play as mundane and "down to earth" character as possible. (the art of beating dragon by "hitting them really hard")

Yeah... "hitting them really hard"... by NOT dealing a signficant amount of extra damage...

THIS is why I would appreciate some extra firepower to the Fighter, so it can RIVAL with Rage, Sneak Attack, Flurry, Cantrips and other Focus Spells. Geez, a Fire Cleric can fire THREE Fire Rays in THREE rounds, dealing up to 20d6 points of fire damage each. Give THIS kind of power to the Fighter as a special Melee attack and you'll have something good on your hands.

How about dealing "my weapon's base die times my proficiency bonus" for every single Strike I can make in 1 round?

ANYTHING!

From that I can only again suspect that you have never seen a decent fighter in action. The fighter is the only character who can reliably hit twice per round or more via reactions. Even if you leave all the munchkin approaches out of it, a level 20 fighter can quite easily deal 4d10+3d6+15 per hit (average 47.5 vs the 70 of a fire ray) and hit like two to four times per round, starting at +3 compared to the fire ray dude. Plus a real chance at flat-footed, meaning +5, essentially. Every round, all day. Also, crits.

That's only basic Strikes. The fighter has quite a few feats to boost that. Just look at the frightened feat grab-bag (Intimidating Strike, Shatter Defenses, Fearsome Brute,..etc.).

And if you just want one big Strike, Power Attack is there for the taking.

Really, saying the fighter is somehow underpowered is just.. funny.

[Themetricsystem]

Frankly, I think the best way to deal with the gripes about how Prepared Casters aren't flexible enough is to simply let them prepare more and/or give them ways to better customize, their existing prepared spells, not simply cave to the sentiment that they should be given more spontaneous-lite options.

Action-tax-free ways to boost/heighten/metamagic prepared spells using Focus Points would be a great option but in terms of bringing them closer to Sorc/Bard/Orc, nah, big no, that's moving in the wrong direction IMO, they need to make prepared casting more appealing and interesting, not just move them closer toward the schtick that defines other Classes.