Potential Changes to Core 1 Classes


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 476 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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

These are: bard, cleric, druid, fighter, ranger, rogue, witch, and wizard. But lets set aside witch as it has several threads already. We know about weapon proficiency changes to the rogue and wizard, alignment swap out for the cleric.
Is there anything else people want besides more feats and options?

Bard. Is in a good state. It really looks like someone slipped the designer a few extra dollars to make sure it got the best deal. My only real gripe is the Warrior muse could do with a little something extra.

Cleric. I like where it is at and think many people bag the War Priest too much. Obviously there will be alignment changes.

Druid. In pretty good state. Just clarify the battle form rules and do something with high level animal companions - they seem too weak.

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

Ranger. The OutWit ranger gets ignored too much by the community.

Rogue. I am fairly happy with the Rogue. Maybe more love for ranged options. Eldritch Trickster is not very popular.

Witch. Discussed elsewhere

Wizard. Is fine. Many people find the feats a bit flat. Please reword Staff Nexus for clarity - some people read the charging rules in a way that makes their staff use terrible.

What changes do people think are important, because I don't have a lot?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

For Wizard-if Paizo won't make any significant changes with feats or thesis then just:
1.Give them simple weapon proficiency
2 Bring their starting skill numbers in line with other caster classes
3 Give them free lore based on their school(universalist get weaker version but for all arcane spells ) that progresses alognside with arcana so they can more esaily learn and recognize spells that they specilaize in.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

1. Wizard: Spell Substitution should be a class feature and not take up an Arcane Thesis. Wizards already lack Spontaneous Casting with sorcerers having 36 known spells with signature spells. No need for a wizard to be forced to take Arcane Thesis that should be a class feature.

Then they can take a fun Arcane Thesis for enjoyment, while having the ability to change spells to take advantage of their large spell list for utility purposes since Spell Substitution doesn't do much to increase power.

2. Ranger: Precision Ranger's ability to benefit from precision more than one time should be accelerated. It doesn't scale to keep up with other classes and now looks especially weak with the Starlit Span Magus Archer.

3. Druid battleform clarifications and enable speaking without some ridiculous mask if in a form that can speak.

4. Warpriest Expert Weapon Proficiency should advance faster and to Master like other hybrid martials if they are to be very good in the long run. I ran one as an NPC as optimized as I could make it, their hit roll and martial damage was too far behind while being behind in casting proficiency as well. Just makes for a substandard and weak character.

They were easily crushed in battle by another martial. Just reduce their number of spells and boost their martial proficiency. Right now they are not worth playing.

Be nice if they replaced Divine Font with something that built off Strength or Dexteriy. A warpriest trying to use Str or Dex and having to build up Wisdom and Charisma is way too MAD.

5. Alchemist: Should have Master Proficiency with bombs. C'mon now.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Wizard needs massive upgrades all around:
* Skills the same as other casters.
* Reintroduction of prepared metamagic.
* Upgrades to existing school abilities.
* More feats period (seriously, they have given wizards so few feats).
* More archetypes that actually care about Int and work with Wizard's proficiency. Way too many are more focused on literally any other class. (Only Con gets less love).
* More poaching of other classes. If all other casters are going to get feats that let them take spells from any list, why are Wizards being left out when their thing is studying magic?
* Rebalance Thesis because right now some are clearly way too weak. Not to mention that Spell Substitution should had been either a feature or a feat if wizards had actual features.
* Related to more feat, more metamagics and way to modify said metamagic. As well as ways to modify spells period.
* If spontaneous casters are going to get ways to get prepared spells, Wizards should have ways to get spontaneous spells.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Wizard needs massive upgrades all around:

* Skills the same as other casters.

I feel like they could take it or leave it, they already get a bunch from being int based, after all.

I mean, shoot, spare a thought for the sorcerers, they get 3 or 4 trained if they don't add anything to int.

Quote:
* Reintroduction of prepared metamagic.

Hard disagree. Prepared metamagic wasn't particularly fun, and made everything a lot harder. Plus I'm pretty sure 2e wants to limit the advantages you get from being a system master, and I feel like that be harmful to that goal.

Quote:
* Upgrades to existing school abilities.

Agree.

Quote:
* More feats period (seriously, they have given wizards so few feats).

And more interesting feats. I'd like if the class feats they get can stand on their own in regards to flavor.

Quote:
* More archetypes that actually care about Int and work with Wizard's proficiency. Way too many are more focused on literally any other class. (Only Con gets less love).

Would be nice.

Quote:
* More poaching of other classes. If all other casters are going to get feats that let them take spells from any list, why are Wizards being left out when their thing is studying magic?

Yeah. Call a feat "elective studies" or something and let them pick from a handful of spells from other spell lists.

Quote:
* Rebalance Thesis because right now some are clearly way too weak. Not to mention that Spell Substitution should had been either a feature or a feat if wizards had actual features.

I like spell substitution as a thesis. But a lot of them might need a boost, that's true.

Quote:
* Related to more feat, more metamagics and way to modify said metamagic. As well as ways to modify spells period.

Seconding more metamagics.

Quote:

* If spontaneous casters are going to get ways to get prepared spells, Wizards should have ways to get spontaneous spells.

Eh... Wizards kind of can do that by picking the flexible casting archetype. I'd rather they get feats to get a couple more prepared spells so they don't have to reach outside their class to do that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think we're getting too much for them, because any change bigger than normal errata means everybody needing to rebuild those characters.

Bard doesn't need anything; it's already the class that everyone compares other casters to.

Cleric does doesn't seem likely to change a whole lot, at least to me. They're not going to cram the wavecasting rules into PC1 just to give Warpriest master proficiency in weapons. I wouldn't be surprised to see it get expert in all martial weapons, but it wasn't listed as one of the classes getting more than basic errata. If we were getting a major overhaul of them, it'd be listed alongside Witch.

Druid's doing great. Dragon forms being able to talk makes plenty of sense, and seems right in line with a normal errata. I don't think they're going to adjust high-level animal companions, though. They need to stay worse than party martials, and do so while attached to a full caster.

Fighter is Fighter. A +2 to hit is massive in the edition, and I don't think it's missing out on any styles.

Ranger is doing fine from everything I've seen. The reliable precision damage and a low-level flurry feat makes ranged combat feel a lot better. I feel like Outwit is there so that the class is viable in combat-light campaigns, and it's fine if it's overlooked.

Rogue seems in a good place. I think Eldritch Trickster suffers from the popularity of Free Archetype, and that's fine. It's there to support people who aren't playing that, and has been bolstered by Psychic and Witch dedications providing more interesting options.

Wizard is already doing fine on features- between thesis, a consistently non-melee focus spell, and effectively getting an extra top-level slot cast spontaneously from the three or four prepared options, Wizard is doing a lot more with features than Sorcerer is. Can't see much change to the class. Maybe some of the less popular thesis options get a tweak to improve them relative to Spell Substitution, but even then, they tend to be things that get better with more options being added.

Impossible thing that would be fun: Wizard Thesis that gives them a fourth-level Spell Trickster feat (with an extra cantrip slot dedicated to that spell), and another Spell Trickster feat every six levels or so. The archetype is in Grand Bazaar, so it definitely can't happen in these books, but that's the sort of fun thesis it'd be nice to have as an option.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Temperans wrote:

Wizard needs massive upgrades all around:

* Skills the same as other casters.

I feel like they could take it or leave it, they already get a bunch from being int based, after all.

I mean, shoot, spare a thought for the sorcerers, they get 3 or 4 trained if they don't add anything to int.

That logic could work if we don't have Psychic who can have int as their main stat but still get four trained skill as base.

So both Wizard and Sorcerer should have four basic skills


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like Hunt Prey to be upgraded in some way. Making it work similarly to Exploit Vulnerability would be nice (with this I mean being able to use hunt prey on a pack of wolves instead of on just a single wolf). Having a low level class feature that let's you switch Hunt Prey as a reaction when you deliver the killing blow would be nice too.

Like, the class is fine right now, but comparing it to starlit makes me feel like you need to go through more effort for worse results.


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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I just want flexible casting by default for prepared casters. As already said in another topics it's a thing that no one really want and act as an unnecessary entry barrier to new players. (not only for D&D play but almost any game with concept of spellcasting, the vancian mechanics are completely different and have a non magical felling, because it have a more alchemical/utility felling of a tool that you prepared than a magical thing that you can use at will to solve your problems).

Gortle wrote:
Cleric. I like where it is at and think many people bag the War Priest too much. Obviously there will be alignment changes.

I agree that Warpriests need some work because they are in a situation that they only works well in earliest levels (1-4) while the alternative (Battle Oracles) is far more flexible and useful at higher levels.

Gortle wrote:

Ranger. The OutWit ranger gets ignored too much by the community.

Rogue. I am fairly happy with the Rogue. Maybe more love for ranged options. Eldritch Trickster is not very popular.

Yes but it's a situation similar to many other subclasses like Fury and Superstition Barbarians, non-paladins champions (mostly because the protect and conterattack reaction is too good) the already quoted warpriests, Interrogation Investigators, non-Starlit Span Magus, Ancestor and Lore Oracles and Metamagical Wizards.

It's pretty common to have less interesting subclasses at the point to almost no interest from players because the others are mechanically better. I honestly don't know what's the best solution for most cases without break the subclass concept.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:

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

These are: bard, cleric, druid, fighter, ranger, rogue, witch, and wizard. But lets set aside witch as it has several threads already. We know about weapon proficiency changes to the rogue and wizard, alignment swap out for the cleric.
Is there anything else people want besides more feats and options?

Bard. Is in a good state. It really looks like someone slipped the designer a few extra dollars to make sure it got the best deal. My only real gripe is the Warrior muse could do with a little something extra.

Cleric. I like where it is at and think many people bag the War Priest too much. Obviously there will be alignment changes.

Druid. In pretty good state. Just clarify the battle form rules and do something with high level animal companions - they seem too weak.

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

Ranger. The OutWit ranger gets ignored too much by the community.

Rogue. I am fairly happy with the Rogue. Maybe more love for ranged options. Eldritch Trickster is not very popular.

Witch. Discussed elsewhere

Wizard. Is fine. Many people find the feats a bit flat. Please reword Staff Nexus for clarity - some people read the charging rules in a way that makes their staff use terrible.

What changes do people think are important, because I don't have a lot?

Honestly, Bard doesn't need any changes, as they are basically the baseline all classes should strive towards. If anything, they're almost too OP between all their proficiencies that little to no other classes get, scaling, and spell list/focus spell options, so either nerf them down a bit to be more like the other spellcasters, or buff the rest to be more like the Bard (in terms of proficiencies, at least). Would be cool for the Warrior Muse to allow a "Performance" strike action focus composition, where you use your Performance check as an attack roll on an enemy with a weapon you have wielded, but would be pushing their to-hit on levels not expected by the game (i.e. better than Fighters).

Cleric just needs a bit more shoring up with its proficiency scalings, especially for Warpriest, whom should get at least Master proficiency with weapons at some point, since they are paying for less spellcasting proficiency and attribute priorities. Maybe also allow Warpriest to take Strength or Dexterity as their primary class attribute instead, so they aren't always so far behind all the other martials.

Druids are pretty solid as well, since they can be built multiple ways. I just wish there was more in-class support for their orders, or more "general" Druid feats, since for the Storm Druid as an example, you need to either take junk order feats, or multiclass, there is no other general druid feats to take.

Fighters are the most powerful martial, especially at 15th level when they get Evasion. A Fighter with Evasion is probably the best tank in the game, even better than Champions in terms of damage mitigation. They don't do the most damage, but that's fine, since they are still the most accurate and have the most feats and flexibility of the martials. I don't think they really need any changes, because they're basically the baseline to expect.

Rangers are decent as well, though I wish they had some better general feats, since besides feats like Gravity Weapon or Quick Draw, they're pretty weak or niche. I'd also like for them to have better Animal Companion scaling, since it feels like if you're going Animal Companion Ranger, you are almost required to take Beastmaster dedication to compensate for the fact your Animal Companion scaling is just terrible. And honestly, Rangers being worse at Animal Companions than Druids is a silly holdover that I would like to see Paizo bust out.

Rogue just needs proficiency fixes for their weaponry (which I know is being addressed by Paizo), and I'd say they are in an awesome spot. Maybe some slight adjustments to the rackets to make non-Thief rackets more viable (like Ruffian not being limited to D8 weapons, for example), but otherwise it's solidified as being a "skill monkey" martial.

Agreed that there is too much on the Witch's table for just a simple rebuttal here.

Wizard needs better class feats and better school powers/theses in addition to having at least simple weapon proficiency. As it stands, there are too many "dead" class feats, very few viable school powers, and only one or two theses that are actually worth a damn. Plus, it's silly that a Sorcerer, Bard, and Witch can use a firearm, but a Wizard, who is just as smart or smarter than these classes, just...can't. But at least it's acknowledged that Paizo is addressing the weapon proficiency issue, so there is that.

As an added thing here that's not a class but is tied to classes in the book, let's bring up a big elephant in the room: Familiars. They're terrible in this edition, do almost nothing besides sit in an Adventurer's Pack, and die far more frequently than objects getting destroyed from effects. The Witch class' power budget had a good chunk of it taken up by the Familiar, and it also impacts one of the Wizard thesis options significantly (so much so that I have retrained out of it at some point in my Wizard's career), and it also highly deincentivizes players from multiclassing into it, since it's just that bad of an option. There's also a lot of the issues with how it can function; can it carry items for more than 2 seconds? What's their carrying capacity? Do they become encumbered by carrying anything? What can they and can't they use?

I don't know if Paizo will decide if Familiars should get a buff in some fashion, either by ease of functionality/quality of life, or by making them far more useful in general than what they currently are, but honestly, if there is a time for Paizo to do such a drastic change (if they feel like they should), this is it.

Also, address some scaling with Animal Companion options, since the Savage companions fall way behind the expected math (on the AC side of things, anyway,) that they aren't a viable choice, and other options just aren't very interesting to use given how Animal Companions function. Would be cool if there were feats to allow Animal Companions (or other minions) to have Reactions that can be taken by using their master's Reaction.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I know I sound like a broke record saying this

But I’m worried they are going to make cackle a base class feature for witch and not optional due to people saying it’s vital or important

It’s too restrictive to flavor, not all witches are the black robe and hat, brewing a green brew, cackling with warts type


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to see subclass changes for Bard, Druid, and Rogue. All three feel a little outdated in subclass design since they don't really affect the core abilities of the class in terribly fleshed-out ways.

For Bard and Druid, subclasses should probably get some more unique features that can't be poached via Multifarious Muse/Order Explorer. For example, the Wild Order Druid could get the unique ability to cast a spell once per Wild Shape.

For Rogue, all the subclasses should either interact with Sneak Attack directly or improve/add ways to apply flat-footed to enemies. Currently, Thief and Eldritch Trickster do neither by default. Eldritch Trickster does get earlier access to sneak attack with spells, their low spell attack proficiency makes it rather ineffective after 5th level or so. In addition, Thief's raw damage bonus is both ill-fitting and a little too overcentralizing. Ideally, Thief instead gets enhanced stealth abilities, and Rogue as a whole gets a small damage boost to offset this.

Overall, subclasses should feel like they change your gameplan a little more than an individual feat would.

---

As for a much broader change, I would like to see casters gain 1st-level feats as well as dedication feats becoming 1st-level. Admittedly, the latter is a rather ambitious change and I don't think it is particularly likely.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I’m going to go for broke. I want to see flex casting the default for prep casters in book one. No slot loss. Bard is fine, best class in the game, giving prep casters more flexibility won’t dethrone it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alchemist. give them the construct trait and also make them permanently immobilized.

Barbarian. no changes

Bard. no changes

Champion. a variant not tied to deities

Cleric. no changes

Druid. no changes

Fighter. no changes

Monk. no changes

Ranger. Outwit needs some love ( making the given bonuses a status one would be excellent ).

Rogue. no changes

Witch. Cackle baseline. More familiar oriented witch feats.

Wizard. no changes


9 people marked this as a favorite.

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. It feels like another shibboleth, like the wizards' old proficiencies, so it may be a good candidate if it doesn't mess up druids' balance.

Otherwise, I'm pretty happy with the listed classes, but I've mainly only played rogues and clerics so far.

Also, I second making alchemists permanently immobilized. I don't know why we apparently hate alchemist, and it's off-topic for the thread anyways, but it'd be really funny to show up to the PFS sessions in the following few weeks where GMs have to break the news to their players. Choose chaos, Paizo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, I forgot to mention a change I'd like to see to the Fighter. I'd like Combat Flexibility to be more important for the class to emphasize it as a master of arms. It's more interesting as a core feature compared to Attack of Opportunity, and I'd like to see it be a little more flexible overall rather than a daily prep feat.


HumbleGamer wrote:

Alchemist. give them the construct trait and also make them permanently immobilized.

Barbarian. no changes

Bard. no changes

Champion. a variant not tied to deities

Cleric. no changes

Druid. no changes

Fighter. no changes

Monk. no changes

Ranger. Outwit needs some love ( making the given bonuses a status one would be excellent ).

Rogue. no changes

Witch. Cackle baseline. More familiar oriented witch feats.

Wizard. no changes

Cackle shouldn’t be baseline. Not all witches cackle, and the reason cackle being baseline was removed after playtest was because people felt it too heavily restricted flavor

My divine themed fervor witch isn’t going to cackle!

agree with your champion change proposal though. I wish there was a clause or oath based class that didn’t have religious ties

Would like to play a character who’s thing is about redeeming others and bringing peace, without being forced into following a god and instead have him themed around something unique to him and not themed around a god


15 people marked this as a favorite.

Captain, you don't need to start this argument on every thread. You have made your position amply clear across the boards at this point. Just let people say what they want, and I'm sure Paizo will make the call.


I don't expect my changes in anything because they'd both be nerfs, and nerfs aren't usually fun, but I'd like to see the bard's proficiencies with some random martial weapons to be removed. It feels like one of those wonky legacy things that are starting to be excised from the game, and requiring bards to take the warrior muse in order to have access to any martial weapons would make warrior muse stand out more as its own play path.

I'd also like to see the thief rogue's Dex-to-damage changed to something else. I'm not sure what that something else is, so I've got no solutions to offer, but it never felt like it fit PF2E's design paradigm to me. IIRC there was some dev chatter about how that was true, but that they couldn't find an alternate solution either. Also, using Dex as a damage stat just doesn't fit thematically with a thief. An assassin, sure, but not a thief.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Wizard needs massive upgrades all around:

* Skills the same as other casters.
* Reintroduction of prepared metamagic.
* Upgrades to existing school abilities.
* More feats period (seriously, they have given wizards so few feats).
* More archetypes that actually care about Int and work with Wizard's proficiency. Way too many are more focused on literally any other class. (Only Con gets less love).
* More poaching of other classes. If all other casters are going to get feats that let them take spells from any list, why are Wizards being left out when their thing is studying magic?
* Rebalance Thesis because right now some are clearly way too weak. Not to mention that Spell Substitution should had been either a feature or a feat if wizards had actual features.
* Related to more feat, more metamagics and way to modify said metamagic. As well as ways to modify spells period.
* If spontaneous casters are going to get ways to get prepared spells, Wizards should have ways to get spontaneous spells.

No prepared Metamagic. It was way too strong in PF1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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. It feels like another shibboleth, like the wizards' old proficiencies, so it may be a good candidate if it doesn't mess up druids' balance.

So does druids having their own language. It doesn't really matter from a gameplay balance perspective, but I've always found the druidic language completely out of nowhere and bizarre from an RP perspective (where do they learn this language from? Why is teaching it as bad as defacing nature? Where is this language actually used?)

Anyway! For wizards I'd like to see a 3rd set of advanced school focus spells. Stopping at only 2 seems a bit strange to me.


Deriven Firelion wrote:

1. Wizard: Spell Substitution should be a class feature and not take up an Arcane Thesis. Wizards already lack Spontaneous Casting with sorcerers having 36 known spells with signature spells. No need for a wizard to be forced to take Arcane Thesis that should be a class feature.

Then they can take a fun Arcane Thesis for enjoyment, while having the ability to change spells to take advantage of their large spell list for utility purposes since Spell Substitution doesn't do much to increase power.

Only if you are straight-up removing Spell Blending Thesis and maybe Staff Nexus. Those two aren't just 'fun'.

If the only choices for Thesis were Familiar, Metamagic, and Spell Substitution, then yeah - make Spell Substitution a core class feature and let them pick between the 'just for fun' remaining Thesis choices.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Hoping against hope for Witches without Familiars.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CaptainRelyk wrote:


Cackle shouldn’t be baseline. Not all witches cackle, and the reason cackle being baseline was removed after playtest was because people felt it too heavily restricted flavor

My divine themed fervor witch isn’t going to cackle!

Again?

Cackle is a focus spell that just gives sustain as a free action ( verbal component ).

If you intend to stick with cackle being only used to laugh, is a choice of yours, but the spell works perfectly with the witch class in terms of mechanics.

The best you can do is to stop associating cackle as a laughter, and start playing the game using, when required, the focus spell for its purpose, making it a chant, laughter, or anything else you want.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
Hoping against hope for Witches without Familiars.

The option of Witches without Familiars. Sheesh.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think if we're going to give witches for free something that would otherwise cost a feat, the obvious choice is not Cackle but "Basic Lesson." After all, if you have a deal with your Patron where it teaches you magic, what exactly are you getting out of the deal if you are not given the BASIC lesson?

Like has anybody seen a witch in the wild that doesn't take that feat.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Farien wrote:
The option of Witches without Familiars. Sheesh.

Calm down. I am quite certain that keftiu is not arguing against your continued existence.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think if we're going to give witches for free something that would otherwise cost a feat, the obvious choice is not Cackle but "Basic Lesson." After all, if you have a deal with your Patron where it teaches you magic, what exactly are you getting out of the deal if you are not given the BASIC lesson?

Like has anybody seen a witch in the wild that doesn't take that feat.

I disagree.

Witches current focus is the hex cantrip given by lvl 1, which can be sustained regardless the witch patron, making a focus spell that gives free sustain excellent for any witch.

Basic lesson is ok as a lvl 2 feat, and a witch can get it asap if they want.


Just give them both if they're stuck at 3 spells per level per day.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Cleric: As a dream scenario, I would love for Warpriest to be a bounded spellcasting class like Magus.

Druid: Full scaling to 9/10th level of all Wild Shape spells like Animal Form. And allowing them to not require the size increase.

Wizard: Fix Eschew Materials. It at the very least needs to give the full material->somatic replacement that other classes get for free. And if it is going to continue being a feat, it should give some other benefit as well since those other classes mentioned get the replacement ability as a class feature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:

Cleric: As a dream scenario, I would love for Warpriest to be a bounded spellcasting class like Magus.

Druid: Full scaling to 9/10th level of all Wild Shape spells like Animal Form. And allowing them to not require the size increase.

Wizard: Fix Eschew Materials. It at the very least needs to give the full material->somatic replacement that other classes get for free. And if it is going to continue being a feat, it should give some other benefit as well since those other classes mentioned get the replacement ability as a class feature.

I think that would be a good solution for warpriest, just make it it’s own class!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fun fact: In home games, with a competent GM, there's basically nothing stopping you from just giving the magus divine spells and calling it the Warpriest. It needs some tweaks, but it can work. It's more-or-less mechanically the exact same power level. If you really want a truly martial cleric, you might be better off asking for a divine magus subclass.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Eoran wrote:
Farien wrote:
The option of Witches without Familiars. Sheesh.
Calm down. I am quite certain that keftiu is not arguing against your continued existence.

The option of Familiars without Witches. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
The option of Familiars without Witches. :P

Do not make me Hex you.


*snickers*

Not that it would hurt them any if you did.


Kobold Catgirl wrote:
Fun fact: In home games, with a competent GM, there's basically nothing stopping you from just giving the magus divine spells and calling it the Warpriest. It's more-or-less mechanically the exact same power level. If you really want a truly martial cleric, you might be better off asking for a divine magus subclass.

My currently solution for lvl 5 or more games is Divine/Primal Summoner with Divine/Primal Sorcerer Dedication. (usually primal and fairy eidolon due the possibility to extend my spellslots to pratically around 3 per level in late game)


A hot take from me. I wish fighters and monks had sub-class level choices consistent with other classes. I'm betting this won't happen and am already on my fifth draft of my own solution. But if wishes were fishes...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Wizards - They are bland. I love the idea but they don't really bring anything new to the table. I don't think they need a total revamp or anything, but these are some things that could help.

1 - Focus Powers - Ditch them or make them useful. Most of them are just super niche and or bad.

2 - Flexibility - Prepared got kind of hit hard in 2e. Wizards really need some incentive to take niche spells and the like without risking a dead slot. Feats like Standby Spell for magus, or even something incorporated into the class (One standby spell per level for instance) would help that a lot.

3 - Feats - In general, their feats are very weak.

4 - I like the idea of making spell sub just a class option everyone gets too.

Right now they honestly feel a little overshadowed by sorcerers, who are true 4 slot casters (not 3 slot with a slot that only takes one kind of spell...)


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I think people here are expecting more changes than what will actually happen. I believe most class changes will be minor except for what is needed for no alignment and bestiary changes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
nicholas storm wrote:
I think people here are expecting more changes than what will actually happen. I believe most class changes will be minor except for what is needed for no alignment and bestiary changes.

Probably.

But it doesn't hurt anything to dream big anyway.


Farien wrote:
keftiu wrote:
Hoping against hope for Witches without Familiars.
The option of Witches without Familiars. Sheesh.

Myself, I'm perfectly fine with familiarless witches: let them Familiar Master if they want one! ;-)


HumbleGamer wrote:


Witches current focus is the hex cantrip given by lvl 1, which can be sustained regardless the witch patron, making a focus spell that gives free sustain excellent for any witch.

Basic lesson is ok as a lvl 2 feat, and a witch can get it asap if they want.

I would 100% rather select a Basic Lesson at level 1 than get Cackle...The lessons aren't overpowered at level 1, they allow you to finetune your spell list AND get a decent/interesting focus spell instead of Phase Familiar. Cackle is fine, I guess, but it's pretty boring compared to the focus spells from Basic Lesson, and at least as things stand it's just not as useful at level 1 for certain witches as for others (A rune witch is rarely if ever going to want to sustain their cantrip, and the arcane spell list is broad enough that you can go a long time without needing to use a sustained spell).

Edit:To be fair, I'd really love to have a rune witch with lesson of life at level 1 to add just a smidge of healing to the arcane list, so I'm biased.


Jacob Jett wrote:
A hot take from me. I wish fighters and monks had sub-class level choices consistent with other classes. I'm betting this won't happen and am already on my fifth draft of my own solution. But if wishes were fishes...

Originally, the playtest tradeoff was that they got 1st-level feats while everyone else got subclasses, but this of course changed in the release version.

This is why I'd like Combat Flexibility as a 1st-level feature for Fighters (maybe make AoO a 1st-level feat for them so they can grab it if they want instead) and Monks would get a free Stance feat at 1st-level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Jett wrote:
A hot take from me. I wish fighters and monks had sub-class level choices consistent with other classes. I'm betting this won't happen and am already on my fifth draft of my own solution. But if wishes were fishes...

I agree. Dnd has stuff like Psi Warrior or Rune Knight for fighter, or a plague doctor themed monk that heals people with punches or a dragon themed monk or even riffing off DBZ with sun soul monk

Especially fighter, I feel it’s a bit boring without any subclass things


Of course, dnd and PF aren’t the same game but the fact dnd has fighter subclasses and unique ones at that should show PF fighter should aswell


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like most fighter subclasses are just classes, like the magus, monk, barbarian and champion. Could be cool if Paizo comes up with ideas they like, of course.


CaptainRelyk wrote:
the fact dnd has fighter subclasses and unique ones at that should show PF fighter should aswell

So, in your mind, even though Paizo is legally required to be less like D&D, it would be better for them to, instead, try to be more like D&D?

That more Pathfinder copies D&D, the happier you would be?


Dancing Wind wrote:
CaptainRelyk wrote:
the fact dnd has fighter subclasses and unique ones at that should show PF fighter should aswell

So, in your mind, even though Paizo is legally required to be less like D&D, it would be better for them to, instead, try to be more like D&D?

That more Pathfinder copies D&D, the happier you would be?

No, obviously not what I meant

They can come up with fighter subclasses that aren’t like anything from D&D, like 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

There are tons of subclass things you could create for fighter that dnd hasn’t done

WoTC doesn’t own the concept of “fighter subclasses”

Maybe I shouldn’t have used dnd as an example. There are tons of games and ttrpgs that have fighters or a fighter-like class with subclasses.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

In my mind the archetypes currently fulfill the conceptual space that a lot of the subclass stuff in 5e would represent, for better or worse.

1 to 50 of 476 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Potential Changes to Core 1 Classes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.