Pick 13 classes for the PF3 CRB

[Captain Morgan]

Fun thought experiment. The PF2 CRB had 12 classes-- the PF1 core classes plus alchemist. Those core classes though were fundamentally rooted in the OGL tradition. Given Pathfinder needs to distance itself from those traditions and that Paizo's class design keeps getting better and better, I don't think I'd want the same core classes to be the core of the new edition. Let's assume they add room for one more class again. Thinking about brand identity, covering a wide range of character concepts, mechanical niches, and complexity for new players... What would be your 13?

1. Fighter. I think we need a beat stick that just works for new players, and I see no reason for the fighter to lose that role.

2. Ranger Thaumaturge. Both fit the concept of a monster hunter. But interestingly enough, while the Thaumaturge has much more specific flavor it is actually broadly applicable to a larger number of games than the ranger. Eclectic knowledge works just as well in an intrigue campaign as the wilderness.

3.Bard Pyschic. I could go either way on this one, but the psychic wins for brand identity. Not only because it isn't D&D, but because it leans into the occult tradition a little more intuitively than bards. Plus variable casting stats are good for build diversity.

4.Barbarian Magus. This pains me. I love a good barbarian, but mechanically they fit such a similar niche to the fighter. And gishing is something people really want to do. I think it should be built in from the beginning.

5.Sorcerer Summoner. Speaking of things people want from the beginning: a pet that can have a starring role. Summoner is more complicated than I'd like for a core class, but it also just does more to open up the design space than just adding another full caster.

6.Alchemist. This class would need a helluva stream lining compared to what we got in the PF2 CRB, but I think alchemy is important to lean into for the brand.

7. Rogue. This feels uninspired to me, but people like sneaky backstabby scoundrel types in their fantasy games. Kinda stays in for similar reasons as the fighter.

8. Cleric. I'm reaaaally tempted to replace it with the Oracle, but I think it is important to establish the normal way gods give spells before getting into the exceptions. Also, wisdom casting should probably be represented somewhere.

9. Kineticist The blaster specialist hole took too long to fill, and this class just offers such a different experience for magical characters. I'm hoping it is newb friendly, too.

10. Druid. I don't entirely want the druid in here-- I find their concept a little flimsy and their signature mechanics (wild empathy, animal companions) could easily go in an archetype. But I think it is good to have a dedicated caster of each tradition, which just leaves Druid for now.

11. Wizard. Almost replaced them with Witch for a more distinct brand identity, but wizards play too big a role in Golarion. With the new more concrete schools, I expect their presence to be further cemented. (These puns should be a shoe in for the School of Civic Wizardry.) And again, I wanted a caster of each tradition.

12. Monk. Unarmed combat is cool and all, but I mostly just think we need an action movie class to do sick stunts. The only alternative is the swashbuckler and that has too much rogue overlap.

13. Champion. Tanks gotta tank.

[LandSwordBear]

And pick 13 for PF4.

[keftiu]

Magus should be core. People adore the gish fantasy too much for it to not be there from the jump, and they fit in just about any corner of the setting.

I really like the idea of Psychic replacing Bards. It's a sacred cow with an unintuitive flavor.

[PossibleCabbage]

Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard are the classic quartet so they are in.

We will have new names for the Barbarian (Berzerker) and the Monk (Martial Artist).

You need a class for each of the other two magic traditions so the Druid and the Psychic make it in. The Champion is in. The Berzerker is kinda primal (power from within), the Champion is divine (power from without). Make the Martial Artist occultish (power from accepting what you can understand), and give me the Magus as the arcane martial (power from harnessing what you do understand.)

That leaves me with three left. I imagine that Vancian casting is gone so there's no longer a need to do spontaneous/prepared version of everything, but we still need a pick a list so give me the Shaman as the "any one of four traditions" magic person. Your deal is that you can communicate with spirits, spirits come in all sorts of shapes and sizes and can teach you lots of different things.

The Alchemist stays in as the photo-negative version of the rogue (you do skills and buff, the rogue does skills and debuffs). We have 5 casters, 4 magic related martials, 2 skills/support classes, and the fighter is all alone as a pure martial. So the 13th class is the Swashbuckler as the Finesse alternative to the fighter.

[Dragonhearthx]

I agree about the summoner but I think they should rename it. It confused me at first, and forced me to a play style I was not prepared for and got really frustrated with. Using actual summon spells. If at all possible do a combination of summoner and witch.

[Dubious Scholar]

Hmm. I'm looking at a list like this:

Arcane:
Wizard - The classic book-learning spellcaster.
Magus - The above, except we all know this is really popular. And you'll notice a pattern going through here I think.

Divine:
Cleric - Also a classic. The holy man who wields miracles against evil.
Champion - And his friend, who is empowered by faith to smite it. I would entirely drop Warpriest, and broaden the ability of Champion to pick up support effects, because there's too much thematic overlap between them. Or make it an option for Champion to gain spell slots via feats.

Primal:
Druid - I speak for the trees! This is probably the pair where the classes feel the most alike, actually.
Shifter - The specialist in fighting via shapeshifting, a martial with primal powers.

Occult:
Bard - I like Psychic a lot, but the Bard really works well to convey the concept of Occult as the power of stories and connections, as the caster who's all about them.
Thaumaturge - And this is the martial who works on the same concept, using occult power sources to directly attack instead of work magic.

Mundane:
Soldier - This is just Fighter, but the name better conveys the idea of the professional man-at-arms. Maybe Mercenary would be better?
Barbarian - Rather than calm and practiced technique, the guy who throws everything he has into big devastating blows. Because sometimes you just want to cut the dragon in half in a single swing.

Trickery:
Rogue - No context needed. A bag of tricks, a knife in the dark.
Alchemist - For SCIENCE! A valuable contrast to spellcasters.

Other:
Monk - I do think a better name exists, but I can't think of it. I don't consider this really an occult class, as inner power doesn't really feel like it's Occult entirely? I feel it's a mix of that and Primal, plus maybe some Divine. It's a mix that each individual comes by on their own path, I guess. It's almost mundane, until they unlock their inner power/learn to channel their life force/etc, so I've split it off.

I'd like to include Summoner and Kineticist but they absolutely need to be in supplements for page count reasons, even if they're popular (and summoner is really iconic anyways, even if it's more often the villainous kind of summoning).

I feel like this breakdown explores the various ways characters become powerful, though past the spell traditions it gets a bit more arbitrary in grouping. I like that I can show the concepts of each spell tradition as applied to both pure casters and martial characters here too. The Mundane category juxtaposes technique and brute force, while trickery is... a bit odd? What they have in common is skill in things other than directly attacking, fighting via creating advantages for themselves.

[Pieces-Kai]

For me 8-9 might be ideal amount because it gives classes a wee bit more space comparing it to the current PF2e CRB gives classes a wee bit more space and page count just helps classes be better.
1-4. Rogue, Cleric, Fighter and Wizard I feel they are self explanatory
5-6. Berserker (Barbarian) and Champion to more classes I see as classic
7. Psychic kicks Bard to the curb as the default Occult caster.
8. Alchemist needs to be here when I first checked out PF2e this class immediately stood out to me
9. Some kind of Primal caster that isn't Druid (Even tho I like name Spiritualist as a character who calls on spirits from the Inner planes tho I think could cause some problems because of the old class name.

Here some choices for the for other 5 to make 13

10. Witch but it is an Occult caster where you get spells from other list like the Cleric
11. Magus very popular fantasy archetype I feel
12. I think Shifter would be a cool core class
13.Sorc maybe I don't know

I think Druid should kinda go way of the dodo split the primal caster and shapeshifting gimmick into two other classes.

If Monk becomes a class called Martial Artist it is better to live out the rest of its life as a class archetype but if they think of a good name for that captures the flavor properly I'm all for in in an APG.

Bard should stop being a caster and be similar to Kineticist with their own version of Impulses if spellcasting stays the same. Throw them in the APG

And to end it all Kineticist literally needs it own book imo to really flourish like I love Psychic but I'm kinda uneasy about putting it in the CRB because it benefited a lot from being in a book with only one other class

edit: I actually completely forgot about the Ranger kinda fine with this class going away personally never really got the flavor of it to be too interesting feels like some of it could go to Fighter and the Monster Hunter sthick be filled by Thaum

also investigator should be rolled into Rogue as the Mastermind Racket

[Eldritch Yodel]

Personally, whilst overall I quite like your list (ranger -> thaum doesn't fully gel with me, but I understand your logic so would be entirely fine with it--especially seeing it'd let us have a full "tradition martials" set with thaum/magus/kinet/champion, as long as you count thaum as occult at least), that said, I feel that Sorcerer -> Summoner wouldn't really work, for a simple reason: Sorcerer represents the Core Rulebook "pick-a-list fullcaster", like how Wizard / Druid / Cleric / Bard (or in your set: psychic) each represent the Core Rulebook fullcaster for their tradition, and thus I doubt they'd get rid of it for a pet class--even if it is a wave caster pick-a-list one. If you even look at the set of classes in the Player Core 1 which is limited to 8, they even still include a pick-a-list fullcaster to complete the set even if it unbalances the number of martials vs casters in it.

Thus, realistically with just the classes that are currently in PF2, I'd say you'd either have Sorcerer or Witch in the book. In this event, because of Bard getting the boot from the core set I'd personally let sorc stick around, then you'd have 2 Wisdom fullcasters, 1 Intelligence fullcaster, 1 Charisma fullcaster, and 1 Intelligence/Charisma fullcaster.

That said, I do doubt that PF3 would even have a Core Rulebook. From the sound of it, Paizo now feels that the merging of the GM book & Player book is uneconomical and will most likely in future keep the split between them like they are with the remaster

[Dubious Scholar]

I do agree actually on class count - if I wasn't specifically going for 13 I'd probably take out Alchemist (to be a separate book along with Inventor themed around SCIENCE!). Rogue/Fighter/Barbarian/Monk work nicely as a spread of paths to purely martial prowess. Via technique/treachery, mastery of your weapon, brute force, and self-perfection.

"Swordmaster" might be a good name for Fighter in a way, to emphasize what, exactly, they're all about.

Edit: Dammit, I totally forgot Sorcerer. Yeah, I'd just swap them in over Alchemist then as the wild card caster.

[Pieces-Kai]

I see Alchemist as pretty core to PF2e and what made it stand out but an Inventor/Alchemist "Science of Golarion" kind of book would be pretty cool also aren't the iconic for Inventor and Alchemist buddies so it is a like a double win

[Eldritch Yodel]

Dubious Scholar wrote:

"Swordmaster" might be a good name for Fighter in a way, to emphasize what, exactly, they're all about.

Not sure if I'm a fan of "Swordmaster" as it only makes sense for a very small subset of fighters, namely those who wield swords. Brawling fighters, flail fighters, bow fighters, and every other weapon group of fighters need to be included in the name as well.

For something like that, "Warrior" is the obvious generic choice, and the one I'm leaning towards. "Battle Master" is also pretty good but I feel it's smart to avoid two word names whenever possible. And of course, the argument can definitely be made that even as is "Fighter" is still fine--it gets the point across at the very least.

[magnuskn]

The likelihood that they'll go back to 13 classes in PF3E and a single core rule book strikes me as pretty low. That they are separating the Player's Handbook (Player Core) and Dungeon Master Guide (GM Core) into two books again, as was the case for the 3.5 and prior D&D books, seems for me to be the model going forward. Hence, I think choosing 13 classes is excessive by 5 classes, or by 2 to 3, if for a third edition they'd also choose to go back to 10 - 11 classes, like in the 3.5 Player's Handbook.

[Temperans]

Here is my list:

Like PossibleCabage said, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric must stay because they are a staple for every fantasy genre. That leaves 9, remaining classes.

While people went based on magic tradition I believe the CRB classes should be based on the role that they serve. So for me it would be:

Monk- You need someone who whole thing is mastering their own body, and there is no better class for that then monk. The name is fine, we know what the name means, asian people know what the name means, there is no reason to change the name.

Bard- People hate bards because of the stereotypes associated with it. But those stereotypes is exactly why it should be a CRB class. There is no better class to fulfill those roles. I would return it to a 2/3 caster or nerf its ability to buff, any case it can't stay the way it is now.

Barbarian- You of course need the guy whose rages and smashes things with pure intuition. I do not agree with anybody saying it should be renamed to berserker. I would put more work into making every part of it mix and matchable, their is no reason why Barbarian rage should be so strict (also less body transformations).

Druid- Has to make a return as the "commune with nature class" that it is. My biggest change would be to reduce the "elemental damage" focus of the class and go more towards the control nature. Yes I know elemental damage is "natural" but I think druid should be more about manipulating the terrain, summoning animals/elementals, and overall less focused on direct magical offense.

Knight- This will be the replacement for Champion while also fully incorporating Cavalier and Samurai. My logic is that those three classes share the same "rally behind my cause" identity as such it makes sense to just bundle them together. The new name has a much more descriptive name for the role as a tank, compared to champion while also making it clear that the focus is on the armor. Unlike champion who is reactive, I would make this class have more proactive and passive effects.

Magus- Magus is a class that is honestly simple: Cast magic and attack with weapon at the same time. That simplicity and distinct role makes it perfect for a CRB class. I would make it a 2/3 caster since its a class whose lore is that you spent less time studying more time training. I would also make the following changes: Spellstrike takes no action it just alters how you deliver spell attack spells, spellstrike is level 2, add spell combat where you spend 3 actions to cast 1 spell and make 2 strikes all strike at -2 penalty (its equivalent to flurry of blows but any weapon).

Sorcerer- Sorcerer to handle spontaneous casting along with Bard. I would make pick-a-list a class archetype thing such that you can have a Divine Sorcerer with an Arcane bloodline and vice versa. The logic being that your magic is a representation of both your force of will and your bloodline.

Ranger- I know that people like Thaumaturge better, but I think the role of rangers is more important. People compare it to the druid and fighter and don't like it because of it, but I see it as a hybrid class no different from Magus. That role of the guide, the hunter, the animal trainer, etc. are all perfectly embodied by the Ranger; PF1 Hunter and Slayer are more like Ranger specializations.

Shifter- One of the biggest issues with shifter is that it placed as a sort of worse druid. My take is to actually make it closer to the PF1 Vampire Hunter class, what do I mean? Well, instead of shape shifting into various animals you would take on the shapes and special abilities of monsters. This would serve the very fun role of transforming into magical creatures.

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

Honorable mentions:

Kineticist and Summoner are too big to be used in CRB unless you cut a few classes. They would certainly make for great CRB classes but that would change some fundamentals of what makes pathfinder fun.

Alchemist, Gunslinger, and Inventor honestly should all be in the same book. The three are such that you would need a lot of specific things to make work, its better if they get the space for it.

Thaumaturge is a strange class, I still can't wrap my head around it. But I do know it and Occultist should be on the same book as the martial and caster sides of the same style.

Vigilante as the sole CRB class would be hilarious. With twice as many feats, and all classes being "meta-archetypes" you would effectively get a classless "gestalt" system. Kineticist and Summoner could be APG classes that expand on the basic abilities but half the feats.

[Gobhaggo]

I agree with replacing Bard with Psychic and Ranger with Thaumaturge(at least as it is now.) Having a monster hunter who knows a lot is more fitting with how Pathfinder APs work anywhow, also helps alleviate the desire for a witch hunter/inquisitor kinda deal.

A thaumaturge works just as well in urban environments as the wilderness, while a Ranger in the choked smog-filled alchemical/magic factory of Nex doesn't really feel to be in its element.

[Pieces-Kai]

I don't think Thaumaturge really alleviates the desire for a Inquisitor (or whatever they rename it to) because both have very distinct flavors and play into different fantasies

[Ashbourne]

If Paizo wants to get away from OGL classes they could make "Pathfinder" into a class.

[Tangorin]

I'd love 3e to be classless with what feats you take determining what you do.

[AestheticDialectic]

The main thing I agree with is Magus making it into core in whatever edition comes next for a few reasons. The biggest is that the system can be designed from go with a gishes in mind and partial casters in mind. Rather than designing a class later to fit into the pre-existing system. While the magus in both 1e and 2e definitely work and are great, it would be nice to have this kind of character existing as a core assumption in the main rulebook of the game. The second reason is that I think the magus is now iconic to pathfinder despite it being a riff on the 3.5 Duskblade, though significantly better designed. Something which hexblade warlocks and blade singer wizards wish they were

However I think the CRB should have 8, 9, or 10 classes. I would say we just have a class for each tradition of magic and move all pick-a-list to the APG and then divide core martials into two damage focused ones and two tanky ones and then add fighter on top. The question is what martials get booted to the APG? I think this would have to be the most complicated ones. I want to kick rogues to the curb because I simply don't like them and they seem like the most eclectic mix of things, however I don't think I would win any arguments that they should be an APG class. I also don't like bards and on that principle prefer the psychic be the premier occult class, and I definitely think psychic just is a worse introductory class. Ideally we just have a prepared caster in the core book for occult so it's unified, but I don't know what that would be

So I think the list would be:
Fighter
Ranger
Barbarian
Champion
Rogue
Wizard
Cleric
Bard
Druid
Magus

APG gets:
Alchemist
Sorcerer
Witch
Monk

And I might also suggest Inquisitor is the divine answer to the magus and could very well make it into the APG unless warpiest gets a bespoke class to which that then is the divine answer to the magus

Thaumaturge is a sweet as hell class and I do think it would be a bold move for Paizo to make them core and really set themselves apart from d&d (and Tolkien) by making it *their* ranger, I just don't realistically see this as ever being the case

Oracle is a fiddly class, along with summoner, psychic and kineticist. Which all could be in the magic dedicated book that comes later

[TheGentlemanDM]

Okay... I'll approach this from a few breakpoints to cover the prospect of considering a different number of classes in the Player Core.

Each class also gets a class archetype in Core 2 that modifies their gameplay to some degree and provides those niches that players have been clamoring for.

Core Eight

FIGHTER. The core martial. PF2e absolutely nailed Fighters, and I can't see them not being a flagship class moving forward. Unique feature is still their accuracy and offensive reactions.

Archetype: Brawler. Enables all non-archery Fighter feats to work with unarmed strikes. Trades armour for unarmed defense bonuses.

ROGUE. The archetypical skill monkey and light martial. Unique feature is still extra skills and sneak attack.

Archetype: Ninja. Dials back on skills a bit and adds alchemy or spellcraft to supplement sneaky abilities.

WIZARD. The core arcane caster, and quad-slot specialist. Prepared Intelligence. Standard + school slots, plus school abilities and unique metamagics.

Archetype: Runelord. Has seven sins for their schools.

CLERIC. The core divine caster, and healer/anti-profane specialist. Prepared Wisdom. Standard slots, plus channel font and divine domains.

Archetype: Warpriest. Converts the class into a wave-caster martial.

DRUID. The core primal caster, and 'backup frontliner' specialist. Prepared Wisdom. Standard slots, plus choice of wildshape or companion or focus spellcasting options.

Archetype: Shifter. Converts the class into a wave-caster martial, provides huge bonuses for wild shaping.

PSYCHIC. The core occult caster, and the cantrip specialist. Spontaneous Intelligence or Charisma. Ampable cantrips. We remove Unleash to bring them up to a standard number of slots for the core book, since they're an "introductory" class now.

Archetype: Unbound Psychic. Drops back to 2 slots and returns Unleash Psyche as the advanced blaster version of the class.

SHAMAN. The core pick-a-list caster. Spontaneous Wisdom. Reduced repertoire, with spirit attunements adding onto the repertoire and providing different focus spells and abilities.

Archetype: Medium. Leans even further into the flexibility of the class by making spirit attunements the bulk of the power budget.

VANGUARD. The tank/support martial. Emphasizes team support and defensive options. Subclasses include divine Paladins, oathsworn knights and cavaliers, and tactical Warlords.

Archetype: Vagrant. Forgoes the oath in exchange of more selfish abilities.

Nine and Ten

MONK. The unarmed and unarmoured martial specialist. Fast and bulky; makes great use of the action economy.

Archetype: Mystic. Lowers speed. Leans more heavily into ki powers and mystical abilities to debuff and support.

ALCHEMIST. The core alchemical character. A light martial with prepared and spontaneous alchemical items for a lot of tactical and support options.

Archetype: Vivisectionist (we'll find a better name). Reduces alchemical supply and options in exchange for limited sneak attack.

Eleven and Twelve

BARBARIAN. The ultra-heavy martial. Built like and hits like a truck.

Archetype: Bloodrager. Provides a little spellcasting while raging.

RANGER. The offensive tactical martial. While the Vanguard supports allies, the Ranger focuses down a specific target.

Archetype: Warden. Gets heavy armour and shields. Trades off damage in favour of protecting foes against a specific foe.

Lucky Thirteen

Considering the current lineup, there's a lack of Charisma classes, there's no gish, and the spellcasters are currently balanced by tradition. As such...

SUMMONER. Provides a unique playstyle for those wanting a half-martial, half-caster, and serves as a pet class, and another pick-a-list caster as well.

Archetype: Synthesist Summoner. Converts the class from the pet class into a full gish.

[Captain Morgan]

It's interesting to me that people picked classes that don't exist in PF2e yet. I also realize we may not get a an actual CRB and instead another player core, but it may not necessarily be split into two books again. Paizo sort of had to do that to get things published quickly and was able to because there was already a full game there for people to utilize the old classes. i do like the idea of givinng each core 1 pick a class archetype in core two, though.

If I was going to wean the list down to eight, I'd probably go:

1. Fighter
2. Rogue
3. Witch
4. Cleric
5. Magus
6. Psychic
7. Kineticist
8. Summoner

It loses having a dedicated full caster of each tradition, but it gives a way to play all traditions with the witch. And I feel this covers all the mechanical niches people want decently well. The remaining classes could be bundled under a "Setting of Golarion" book. This could also signal specific campaigns they would be appropiate.

Academics of Golarion: Aclhemist, Inventor, Wizard Alternate title: for science.

Wilds of Golarion: Berzerker, Druid, Ranger

Cities of Golarion: Bard, Investigator, Swashbuckler

Temples of Golarion: Champion, Monk, Oracle

The Edge of Golarion: Gunslinger, Sorcerer, Thaumaturge (You coukd also probably distribute these into the other books.)

My core 8 made the cut because ultimately I think having distinct mechanical niches from the gate will be healthier for the game than adhering to traditions. I love the barbarian but angry fighter can cover the concept space until it gets a proper book. If anything else made it in, I would way it should be the Champion because tanking is important, but a shield fighter can hold that line for awhile.

[Dragonhearthx]

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Edit: Dammit, I totally forgot Sorcerer. Yeah, I'd just swap them in over Alchemist then as the wild card caster.

Although I really like that idea. Sorcerers using card as thier spell focus sounds more like what an occult caster would do.

Now that we (eventually) have the kineticist, I think the sorcerer is going to be replaced by it, as the blaster caster.

[Captain Morgan]

Dragonhearthx wrote:

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Edit: Dammit, I totally forgot Sorcerer. Yeah, I'd just swap them in over Alchemist then as the wild card caster.

Although I really like that idea. Sorcerers using card as thier spell focus sounds more like what an occult caster would do.

Now that we (eventually) have the kineticist, I think the sorcerer is going to be replaced by it, as the blaster caster.

I don't think sorcerers were meant to be the blaster caster, and I think they offer an important thematic niche. Mechanically, though, they are kind of still just there to provide an alternative to other casters for spontaneous and charisma focus. I think making them a core class again might call for them carving out a new niche. Perhaps with less focus as a slot caster and more inherent abilities. I could see them functioning a little more like a kineticist but for non-elemental magic.

I'll be interested to see if the spontaneous/prepared divide survives to PF3. Or if the prepared/prepared divide between Witches and wizards vs druids and clerics survives.

[Temperans]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Dragonhearthx wrote:

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Edit: Dammit, I totally forgot Sorcerer. Yeah, I'd just swap them in over Alchemist then as the wild card caster.

Although I really like that idea. Sorcerers using card as thier spell focus sounds more like what an occult caster would do.

Now that we (eventually) have the kineticist, I think the sorcerer is going to be replaced by it, as the blaster caster.

I don't think sorcerers were meant to be the blaster caster, and I think they offer an important thematic niche. Mechanically, though, they are kind of still just there to provide an alternative to other casters for spontaneous and charisma focus. I think making them a core class again might call for them carving out a new niche. Perhaps with less focus as a slot caster and more inherent abilities. I could see them functioning a little more like a kineticist but for non-elemental magic.

I'll be interested to see if the spontaneous/prepared divide survives to PF3. Or if the prepared/prepared divide between Witches and wizards vs druids and clerics survives.

I think sorcerers already have their niche, they don't need a new one. If anything I think the biggest change to them should be to divorce tradition from bloodline and to give more casters a way to boost damage.

As for prepared vs spontaneous, I honestly think that Sorcerer is fine as a spontaneous caster. If anything changes would be removing signature spells and just let them cast at any level (signature spells is a dumb mechanic). For prepared, I think they just need to add back the reasons why that was good: being able to prepare metamagic and not spending actions on it in combat.

Also I do hope that Druid and Cleric lose access to all spells ever. That has always been dumb and one of the reasons why Druid/Cleric have been too good.

[Captain Morgan]

I actually agree with you about sorcerers having their own niche and not needing a new one. I just don't think that niche adds something essential to a short list of core classes.

I wouldn't mind if we lost signature spells personally, but I think reducing cognitive load during someone's turn is helpful. I'd be curious to see what Paizo has learned from the last 4 years of people playing to see if Signature spells are at least accomplishing their intended purpose. I don't know if PF2 metamagic (or as it will be known in the remaster, spell shaping) would make sense to be applied on the PF1 style. What I think would be a nicer bone to throw prepared would be letting them all do the spell substitution thesis thing.

I think either druids and clerics need to be reigned in or witches and wizards need to stop paying for spells, yeah.

[PossibleCabbage]

I wouldn't be adverse to dropping the sorcerer class entirely. "I have special blood" is like the worst premise for "I use magic instinctively." IMO.

[Dragonhearthx]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I wouldn't be adverse to dropping the sorcerer class entirely. "I have special blood" is like the worst premise for "I use magic instinctively." IMO.

Then definitely drop the special blood thing. I do like the idea of "inner magic" but I cannot wrap my head around which stat to use. Charisma never made much sense for some sorcerer builds but great for others.

[Pieces-Kai]

I hope if we do get a Shaman we get a better name kind of fits into same area of we are going to rename Monk and Barbarian we should probably use a different name there as well

[PossibleCabbage]

I don't think Shaman needs to be a misnomer, which is the problem with both Barbarian and Monk. Barbarians might be civilized people in Pathfinder, and Monks might be brawlers with no actual spiritual or monastic tradition behind them.

The Shaman class could actually be a person who interfaces with the world of spirits as their main deal.

[Pieces-Kai]

I feel Shaman is just as limiting as those two (Druid as well tbh) like not everyone who communes/attunes with spirits would necessarily be a Shaman

[Temperans]

A healthy reminder that class names are to help players, they are not the in world name for what the characters do. This is why people in game can call themselves gods when they in fact are not gods.

A fighter could be a soldier, a duelist, a scrapper, a brawler, a martial artist, a mercenary, a vagabond, a scientist, etc. But the mechanics as we player see it is "a fighter".

[Themetricsystem]

Now that Alignment has seen the axe with PF2 I am starting to doubt if the concept of the "Class" is going to survive the jump to PF3, they already figured out way better ways to set flavor/mechanics/theming with Archetypes between 1st and 2nd edition.

They could EASLY put out say 4 to 8 different base Chassis that you then bolt an Archetype that takes the full place of what the Class is now onto it and dramatically increase the variety of builds and ensure that the mechanical balance is fine as it's just the Chassis/type that you choose that defines all the baseline mathematical assumptions of how your numbers scale which are balanced against each other.

[Squiggit]

Gobhaggo wrote:

while a Ranger in the choked smog-filled alchemical/magic factory of Nex doesn't really feel to be in its element.

Ranger has like two class features that key off of being in the wilderness I feel like you could just slightly edit the language on those and be fine.

Not really opposed to replacing the ranger, but this narrative that they need to be in the woods to be relevant is kind of off base, it really doesn't matter much at all for them.

[Pieces-Kai]

I feel removing Alignment and removing Class are two whole different beasts like it seems Alignment first of all is just hit or miss for plenty of people but I feel Class is there to make it easier for new players to get into the game. If they do the a name change at least the Change it to like "Path" or something really on the nose like that

[Squiggit]

TheGentlemanDM wrote:

PSYCHIC. The core occult caster, and the cantrip specialist. Spontaneous Intelligence or Charisma. Ampable cantrips. We remove Unleash to bring them up to a standard number of slots for the core book, since they're an "introductory" class now.

Gutting literally the coolest part of the class and downgrading it to an alternate class feature in order to give players a more generic caster would be absolutely tragic.

[Pieces-Kai]

I think more base casters need to be like Psychic with interesting class features like most other casters except for Oracle feel very bare and lacking (to me at least) because of it

[Temperans]

Pieces-Kai wrote:

I think more base casters need to be like Psychic with interesting class features like most other casters except for Oracle feel very bare and lacking (to me at least) because of it

That's an issue with PF2 class design in general. Hopefully it gets fixed in PF3.

[Pieces-Kai]

Temperans wrote:

Pieces-Kai wrote:

I think more base casters need to be like Psychic with interesting class features like most other casters except for Oracle feel very bare and lacking (to me at least) because of it

That's an issue with PF2 class design in general. Hopefully it gets fixed in PF3.

They definitely seem to be getting better at that since Dark Archive

[Cleavis Morerats]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I wouldn't be adverse to dropping the sorcerer class entirely. "I have special blood" is like the worst premise for "I use magic instinctively." IMO.

As a goblin merchant, My whole character background and concept is built around My sorcerer's bloodline. As the story goes, one of my distant ancestors was granted 1 wish by a Janni, so they asked the Janni to teach them how to make gold. So the Janni shared their bloodline and taught my ancestor several cantrips and spells that were very useful to merchants and not much else. In each generation of my family, at least one of the children is borne with the same gifts.

I play this, so at first level, I can only take cantrips and spells that are useful to a merchant.

The sorcerer archetype is a little harder to explain how your character acquired a bloodline, but in my case, it would still work out, I'd just be the first generation.

Might be good to have some ways to explain how characters got a bloodline from another species, especially for archetypes. Maybe some rituals that allows a creature to share its bloodline or a darker ritual to steal a bloodline. Could also be some thing an alchemist could brew up.

[OceanshieldwolPF 2.5]

Dragonhearthx wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I wouldn't be adverse to dropping the sorcerer class entirely. "I have special blood" is like the worst premise for "I use magic instinctively." IMO.

Then definitely drop the special blood thing. I do like the idea of "inner magic" but I cannot wrap my head around which stat to use. Charisma never made much sense for some sorcerer builds but great for others.

Regardless of “which stat to use” (and quite apart from the fact that “special blood” needs in some weird warped way Charisma or “force of will/personality” to power it) the idea of “special blood” is only one way to achieve “inner magic”. In fact “special blood” is quite limiting compared to “inner magic” which could be: an old or new soul; some kind of special bloodline (q.v.); a mutation of some kind; being imbued with powers by [ack] gods/otherdimensional patrons [oops, double ack]/artefacts/exposure to space/celestial matter/beings or deep underground radiation or objects; developed quite out of nothing in a heretofore or otherwise unseen manner; being bitten by a spider/owlbear/psychopompathion; turning up a day early for the Sarenrae festival etc etc etc.

“I have special blood” is only one way to be a sourc-erer.

[Captain Morgan]

Squiggit wrote:

Gobhaggo wrote:

while a Ranger in the choked smog-filled alchemical/magic factory of Nex doesn't really feel to be in its element.

Ranger has like two class features that key off of being in the wilderness I feel like you could just slightly edit the language on those and be fine.

Not really opposed to replacing the ranger, but this narrative that they need to be in the woods to be relevant is kind of off base, it really doesn't matter much at all for them.

There's more that's wilderness based to the Ranger than Wild Stride, Trackless Step, and Nature's Edge. Like half of the class feats are nature related, including the iconic animal companion. But a lot of what the class is best at is generally meant for outdoors too. Snares require scouting that is difficult to do indoors. The class has longer range than any other martial, which is hard to use indoors. Tracking on stone floors is basically impossible until mid to high levels.

But more importantly... If you strip those things away, what are you left with? A martial class that focuses on things one at time... Like all martials usually do. A niche with crossbows usurped by the gunslinger. A bonus to track fleeing foes, in a system where the only good ways to flee are flight, teleportation, and other untraceable methods. The class identity is just super thin beyond nature stuff.

I'd rather have most of the ranger feats become either archetypes (eg sniper) or skill feats (ranger skill based class feats are really the power bar skills feats should have gone for all along, IMO) than have it take a spot that could go to a more distinct thing like the Thaumaturge or kineticist. And I say that as someone who generally likes the class now.

[Temperans]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Gobhaggo wrote:

while a Ranger in the choked smog-filled alchemical/magic factory of Nex doesn't really feel to be in its element.

Ranger has like two class features that key off of being in the wilderness I feel like you could just slightly edit the language on those and be fine.

Not really opposed to replacing the ranger, but this narrative that they need to be in the woods to be relevant is kind of off base, it really doesn't matter much at all for them.

There's more that's wilderness based to the Ranger than Wild Stride, Trackless Step, and Nature's Edge. Like half of the class feats are nature related, including the iconic animal companion. But a lot of what the class is best at is generally meant for outdoors too. Snares require scouting that is difficult to do indoors. The class has longer range than any other martial, which is hard to use indoors. Tracking on stone floors is basically impossible until mid to high levels.

But more importantly... If you strip those things away, what are you left with? A martial class that focuses on things one at time... Like all martials usually do. A niche with crossbows usurped by the gunslinger. A bonus to track fleeing foes, in a system where the only good ways to flee are flight, teleportation, and other untraceable methods. The class identity is just super thin beyond nature stuff.

I'd rather have most of the ranger feats become either archetypes (eg sniper) or skill feats (ranger skill based class feats are really the power bar skills feats should have gone for all along, IMO) than have it take a spot that could go to a more distinct thing like the Thaumaturge or kineticist. And I say that as someone who generally likes the class now.

That is an issue with PF2's version not what a ranger should be good at.

Ranger should be able to master multiple terrains and enemies, be good with a multitude of weapons, and overall be good at general survival. Rangers are the ones that go around the area solving issues.

PF2 decided to strip the terrain mastery, they stripped the combat styles, they stripped favored enemy. But hey they gave it that weird 5e mechanic of bonus damage, and the sort of added the Slayer's studied target mechanic.

[Captain Morgan]

Temperans wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Gobhaggo wrote:

while a Ranger in the choked smog-filled alchemical/magic factory of Nex doesn't really feel to be in its element.

Ranger has like two class features that key off of being in the wilderness I feel like you could just slightly edit the language on those and be fine.

Not really opposed to replacing the ranger, but this narrative that they need to be in the woods to be relevant is kind of off base, it really doesn't matter much at all for them.

There's more that's wilderness based to the Ranger than Wild Stride, Trackless Step, and Nature's Edge. Like half of the class feats are nature related, including the iconic animal companion. But a lot of what the class is best at is generally meant for outdoors too. Snares require scouting that is difficult to do indoors. The class has longer range than any other martial, which is hard to use indoors. Tracking on stone floors is basically impossible until mid to high levels.

But more importantly... If you strip those things away, what are you left with? A martial class that focuses on things one at time... Like all martials usually do. A niche with crossbows usurped by the gunslinger. A bonus to track fleeing foes, in a system where the only good ways to flee are flight, teleportation, and other untraceable methods. The class identity is just super thin beyond nature stuff.

I'd rather have most of the ranger feats become either archetypes (eg sniper) or skill feats (ranger skill based class feats are really the power bar skills feats should have gone for all along, IMO) than have it take a spot that could go to a more distinct thing like the Thaumaturge or kineticist. And I say that as someone who generally likes the class now.

That is an issue with PF2's version not what a ranger should be good at.

Ranger should be able to master multiple terrains and enemies, be good with a multitude of weapons, and overall be good at general survival. Rangers are the ones...

And thus did the shortlived era of Captain Morgan and Temperans agreeing come to an end.

PF2 are still pretty much the best at those things, or at least can be if you build for them. They are certainly the best switch hitters and have the ability to pick up most any weapon and use it effectively.

But being good in multiple terrains doesn't really matter when every "terrain" is still the wilderness. None of those things you mentioned matter in your standard dungeon crawl.

[Pieces-Kai]

Ranger is one of those things that feel like are in PF2e because it was in earlier editions like I'd prefer they try to update/change stuff to be able to fit but Ranger feels pretty indistinct from the Fighter to me personally

[Temperans]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Gobhaggo wrote:

while a Ranger in the choked smog-filled alchemical/magic factory of Nex doesn't really feel to be in its element.

Ranger has like two class features that key off of being in the wilderness I feel like you could just slightly edit the language on those and be fine.

Not really opposed to replacing the ranger, but this narrative that they need to be in the woods to be relevant is kind of off base, it really doesn't matter much at all for them.

There's more that's wilderness based to the Ranger than Wild Stride, Trackless Step, and Nature's Edge. Like half of the class feats are nature related, including the iconic animal companion. But a lot of what the class is best at is generally meant for outdoors too. Snares require scouting that is difficult to do indoors. The class has longer range than any other martial, which is hard to use indoors. Tracking on stone floors is basically impossible until mid to high levels.

But more importantly... If you strip those things away, what are you left with? A martial class that focuses on things one at time... Like all martials usually do. A niche with crossbows usurped by the gunslinger. A bonus to track fleeing foes, in a system where the only good ways to flee are flight, teleportation, and other untraceable methods. The class identity is just super thin beyond nature stuff.

I'd rather have most of the ranger feats become either archetypes (eg sniper) or skill feats (ranger skill based class feats are really the power bar skills feats should have gone for all along, IMO) than have it take a spot that could go to a more distinct thing like the Thaumaturge or kineticist. And I say that as someone who generally likes the class now.

That is an issue with PF2's version not what a ranger should be good at.

Ranger should be able to master multiple terrains and enemies, be good with a multitude of weapons, and overall be good at general

...

It was good while it lasted, also I believe the issue was that instead of having make a choice about what terrain they would focus on, they hard coded it as nature. The combat styles matter because it allowed them to focus on a particular style and be faster at getting feats for said style than a fighter, even if the fighter had overall better numbers. Originally, ranged attacks were not an assumed part of the class, but that was hard coded with Hunted Shot.

Anyways, I'll stop talking about this as its a distraction for what the thread is about.

[MMCJawa]

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Hmm. I'm looking at a list like this:

"List too long to quote in full"

This would be closest to what I would want. I like the idea of pairing a full caster with a gish from that tradition. Not sure I would make Bard a full caster, and Psychic I don't think quite scratches the itch either. Maybe create a new full caster that is more directly lovecraftian themed or something?

I think the Bard fills a iconic niche that isn't easily replicated by existing core classes, so I would want it to stay. Maybe it could be retooled into filling some sort of occult gish role. I'd consider theming the Berserker as the primal gish class. I like the idea of a shifter but kind of want it to be more general.

I'd probably swap the monk for the witch, which I think along with alchemist is one of the most iconic PF classes, at least of those existing in 2E

Otherwise I would keep the the existing line up.

I'm against throwing classes like thaumaturge, summoner, or kineticist into a core rule book. All three I feel have lots of moving parts and complexity, and need more space to do them properly.

[MMCJawa]

Themetricsystem wrote:

Now that Alignment has seen the axe with PF2 I am starting to doubt if the concept of the "Class" is going to survive the jump to PF3, they already figured out way better ways to set flavor/mechanics/theming with Archetypes between 1st and 2nd edition.

They could EASLY put out say 4 to 8 different base Chassis that you then bolt an Archetype that takes the full place of what the Class is now onto it and dramatically increase the variety of builds and ensure that the mechanical balance is fine as it's just the Chassis/type that you choose that defines all the baseline mathematical assumptions of how your numbers scale which are balanced against each other.

I don't see them getting rid of classes. They provide structure which can help guide players and reduce complexity, and also provide baselines to keep everything balanced.

I also think you can't underestimate the marketing and hype generation new classes bring. I don't think you could easily gen up excitement with just some extra class bits and bobs the way you can with a whole new class.

[AestheticDialectic]

MMCJawa wrote:

I don't see them getting rid of classes. They provide structure which can help guide players and reduce complexity, and also provide baselines to keep everything balanced.

I also think you can't underestimate the marketing and hype generation new classes bring. I don't think you could easily gen up excitement with just some extra class bits and bobs the way you can with a whole new class.

More over classless systems already exist. The d20 tradition is class based and I think Pathfinder should stay in this lane. I can play Rune Quest or something if I want a classless system

[Gobhaggo]

Classless system also suffers the most with lacking new specific sybsystem/mechanics in how they do things.

[Squiggit]

Feel like a lot of these lists are leaving too much product identity or core character concepts out.

Like Paizo considers alchemists their baby, and while the PF2 version is a bit rough it's clearly an important pivot piece in the CRB.

Some of these lists are kind of skewed too. Captain Morgan's list of 8 seems okay on its face, but it's five casters, another magical character, and two martials. Kind of a rough balance, especially when one of those martials is also the skillmonkey. That means funneling everyone who played a barbarian, monk, ranger, and champion directly into the Fighter class.

There's some logic in heavily broadening class design so that you could fold all those characters into a single class, but if you're building the fighter that wide then I feel like you should expect some similar consolidation on the other side and some more unique options rounding out the class list.

[pixierose]

I'm having a really tough time making my list. I do wanna point something out, the psychic and its design in 2e was built on the idea of fewer slots because the developers did not think all of the occult list made sense for psychics/all psychics. Now if that would be the case in a pf3e, who knows. But I'm not sure Psychic will get the push to be the premiere Occult caster like is being suggested. Now should bard be the premiere occult caster? idk it also has some tonal issues for it, That being said the power of music has been a popular concept in both pop culture and many traditions and I think the Bard has earned its spot on the list.

People mentioning the thaumaturge or kinetecist are really long and complex classes so I wouldn't see them in a phb.

I think Keeping the current class list + Magus would make a lot of sense personally. Although a lot of classes that I like more than magus, having a strong gish presence in the core class fills appropriate with the times.