Pick 13 classes for the PF3 CRB

[PossibleCabbage]

Yeah, I think classes like the summoner, kineticist, and thaumaturge are too complex for the core book.

I think the core classes should be generally simple in terms of concept or execution or alternatively use rules that apply to a bunch of different classes (e.g. playing a druid and playing a wizard aren't that different in terms of "picking and using spells.")

[Pieces-Kai]

I feel core casters actually do need a bit more separating than the different spell lists they can choose from or whether they are prepared/spontaneous

[Captain Morgan]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Yeah, I think classes like the summoner, kineticist, and thaumaturge are too complex for the core book.

I think the core classes should be generally simple in terms of concept or execution or alternatively use rules that apply to a bunch of different classes (e.g. playing a druid and playing a wizard aren't that different in terms of "picking and using spells.")

While I see the value in simpler execution of classes for the core rulebook, I think simple concepts are the wrong way to go when trying to make your brand identity legally distinct. But there's a tension between those two values I have not yet figured out how to reconcile.

PS Not sure how complicated kinecist will be in play yet. They have a wild amount of options to choose from while building, but any given build only has so many action choices.

Squiggit wrote:

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.

To be fair, my list is technically 5 casters, but is actually 3 casters and two wave caster martial fusions. Not quite as bad. ;p

... But I seriously doubt Paizo would launch a new edition with less than 10 classes, so the 8 number never really fit for me anyway.

[Pieces-Kai]

The real issue with Summoner, Kineticist and Thaumaturge imo isn't complexity it is just that they probably need more page space than other classes to really shine (especially Kineticist)

[PossibleCabbage]

I would prefer the 3e Magus to not have spell slots, but instead "do elemental damage on top of strikes" in a different way. So I wouldn't consider it a caster.

If I were pitching for 3e, I would say that the Magus, Champion, Monk, and Barbarian should all be about as magical as each other, just in different ways that reinforce the difference between the traditions.

[keftiu]

Pieces-Kai wrote:

The real issue with Summoner, Kineticist and Thaumaturge imo isn't complexity it is just that they probably need more page space than other classes to really shine (especially Kineticist)

Those extra pages come from those classes being more complex than the core set, wouldn’t you say? A Kineticist has a lot more happening than a Fighter.

[Pieces-Kai]

keftiu wrote:

Pieces-Kai wrote:

The real issue with Summoner, Kineticist and Thaumaturge imo isn't complexity it is just that they probably need more page space than other classes to really shine (especially Kineticist)

Those extra pages come from those classes being more complex than the core set, wouldn’t you say? A Kineticist has a lot more happening than a Fighter.

I'd say the Kineticist is actually simpler than every caster that will be in core because it is essentially a caster that isn't dealing with slost or vancian casting with most the pages it got being for Impulse feats essentially being its own special little spell list.

edit: actually going to say I think Summoner is complex but that has nothing to do with page count you could give it only one Eidolon option and it would be no more complex than if it had 10 options.

[Dragonhearthx]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I would prefer the 3e Magus to not have spell slots, but instead "do elemental damage on top of strikes" in a different way. So I wouldn't consider it a caster.

The only other way I could see would be focus spells. Which would either be a huge nerf or a huge buff depending on how you do damage.

[MMCJawa]

Captain Morgan wrote:

While I see the value in simpler execution of classes for the core rulebook, I think simple concepts are the wrong way to go when trying to make your brand identity legally distinct. But there's a tension between those two values I have not yet figured out how to reconcile.

PS Not sure how complicated kinecist will be in play yet. They have a wild amount of options to choose from while building, but any given build only has so many action choices.

The thing is that your core rulebooks by there very nature are entry points into the game. The more complex you make something, the more likely a new group might give up due to confusion or game issues, or just turn off some folks before they even try it.

I mean you can argue that is already an issue, and in part why 5E was so successful. How many recent PF 2E converts originally learned 5E first, then switched over to PF 2E? Certainly Pathfinder could occupy a "Sick of 5E, try us!" niche, but its better if they can stand on their own.

[Captain Morgan]

I do understand the idea, though I'm less sure how well it works in practice. In my own experience a new players look at the full list of classes online and grab whatever is appealing and don't even know what book it comes from. The Advanced Player's Guide classes are definitely meant for advanced players, but it hasn't stopped the Swashbuckler from being a newb trap.

[Sanityfaerie]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I would prefer the 3e Magus to not have spell slots, but instead "do elemental damage on top of strikes" in a different way. So I wouldn't consider it a caster.

If I were pitching for 3e, I would say that the Magus, Champion, Monk, and Barbarian should all be about as magical as each other, just in different ways that reinforce the difference between the traditions.

I'm going to disagree with this. One of the core iconics that people want to play with is "the character who's magical and martial at the same time". They want to be able to fight like a martial and also throw spells like a caster... even if it's not *quite* as well in either case. They want to be able to do both of those things at the same time, and get some synergy out of it that normal martials and normal casters don't get. I think the PF2 magus hits this dead on, and the fact that it's handling this fantasy so well is the *reason* to include it.

[Themetricsystem]

I'm mainly basing my assumption based on the already published Hopefinder created by none other than the father of Pathfinder itself, the Bull-Man, which has already stepped waist-deep into the Classless pool for the game that otherwise shares about 90% of its core with PF2.

I don't see any reason why Classes can't be moved "one step down" into the build and allow for a Chassis selection to be made before you apply the "Class" to it, it has all the advantages of providing a Class-based system in retaining flavor and feel while also creating an exponentially larger number of ways to make each "Class" where each of them are mechanically balanced but also feel/play quite differently even when the same options/feats are chosen.

[Sanityfaerie]

Themetricsystem wrote:

I'm mainly basing my assumption based on the already published Hopefinder created by none other than the father of Pathfinder itself, the Bull-Man, which has already stepped waist-deep into the Classless pool for the game that otherwise shares about 90% of its core with PF2.

I don't see any reason why Classes can't be moved "one step down" into the build and allow for a Chassis selection to be made before you apply the "Class" to it, it has all the advantages of providing a Class-based system in retaining flavor and feel while also creating an exponentially larger number of ways to make each "Class" where each of them are mechanically balanced but also feel/play quite differently even when the same options/feats are chosen.

I think that different games are different, and that it can be useful to have some clear differentiation. Like, the whole reason it's posible for kineticist to get as wild and crazy as it did is that it's hard-siloed against everything else. It has effectively zero interaction (and certainly no synergy) with either spellcasting or martial, other than the benefits that it hands out as buffs/debuffs to other people. Splitting things into classes lets them be more independently interesting while still maintaining balance - because you just have to make sure that it all balances at the end, rather than having to make sure that it all balances every step of the way.

Now, Hopefinder was a much more stripped-down game. It was simpler, and meant to be simpler, and focused on a different sot of narrative in a different sort of environment. In something like Hopefinder, it's okay if there's not but so much structural difference between the characters. In Pathfinder...? You'd be losing a lot.

[Aristophanes]

Alphabetically:
*Alchemist
*Barbarian
*Bard
*Champion
*Cleric
*Druid
*Fighter
*Magus
*Monk
*Ranger
*Rogue
*Wizard

I'd make Swashbuckler a Fighter subclass...and maybe the Ranger as well.
The only class name I would change is "Fighter".
All the others are evocative and poetic to me.
Perhaps change it to "Warrior".

[RiverMesa]

I'd sooner expect 8-12 classes than 13 specifically, but for my part:

The Player Core 1 list (fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric, druid, ranger, witch, bard), with bard replaced by psychic (more unique to PF + fills the same role of a spontaneous occult caster but more intuitively), and with the addition of an alchemist (makes alchemy immediately a distinct part of PF + offers a playstyle outside the standard martial/caster binary) and either another martial (a finally-renamed barbarian? Magus?) or another spontaneous caster (sorcerer? Right now it's bard/psychic + FOUR prepared casters which is kind of silly) would be my best attempt at a list, though it's hard to speculate on this sort of thing in isolation, years and years away from an actual third edition being anywhere in sight.

[Pieces-Kai]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I would prefer the 3e Magus to not have spell slots, but instead "do elemental damage on top of strikes" in a different way. So I wouldn't consider it a caster.

If I were pitching for 3e, I would say that the Magus, Champion, Monk, and Barbarian should all be about as magical as each other, just in different ways that reinforce the difference between the traditions.

I'm going to disagree with this. One of the core iconics that people want to play with is "the character who's magical and martial at the same time". They want to be able to fight like a martial and also throw spells like a caster... even if it's not *quite* as well in either case. They want to be able to do both of those things at the same time, and get some synergy out of it that normal martials and normal casters don't get. I think the PF2 magus hits this dead on, and the fact that it's handling this fantasy so well is the *reason* to include it.

I think slotless would be good but all classes should be slotless while still retaining spell lists and the main thing should casters get when they level up is how many spells they know/can prepare I feel Pathfinder 2e having certain classes that are very much resource focused and having classes that use no resources at all feels weird

[Lord Fyre]

It feels a little early to be talking about Pathfinder's 3rd Edition.

[Sanityfaerie]

Pieces-Kai wrote:

I think slotless would be good but all classes should be slotless while still retaining spell lists and the main thing should casters get when they level up is how many spells they know/can prepare I feel Pathfinder 2e having certain classes that are very much resource focused and having classes that use no resources at all feels weird

I think it's critical. Different people want different things. Trying to make everyone have the same resource economies was one of the big problems with 4th ed, and even they stepped away from it towards the end.

Some folks like having limited resource pools and planning and juggling. They should be allowed to have that thing. Some folks (like me) don't. We should be allowed to not have that thing. Personally, I'm delighted that PF2 is now providing for all of us.

Now... maybe straying away from the Vancian thing a bit? Maybe. Not sure. It might be kind of cool to let Wizards have their studious preparation, and have Druids and Clerics run on something else (because they're channeling power from a patron) and Sorcerers maybe have a power pool system in some way (because they just have "how much free magical energy do I currently have in my blood" and "What ways do i know to channel it") and Witches have some other way (because they also have a patron, but not in quite the same way) and....

but if anything, I'd want more of those, rather than less.

[Pieces-Kai]

I actually thought for casters just give them ways to use focus points in different ways (maybe give them a bit more than three) it makes so it isn't too hard for newer players where they aren't learning like a different resource for each caster but allows the casters to feel different. Also I think presentation is key if you present it in a way that feels closer to what the old system is and less like 4e was I think people will be more accepting of it

[AestheticDialectic]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I would prefer the 3e Magus to not have spell slots, but instead "do elemental damage on top of strikes" in a different way. So I wouldn't consider it a caster.

We already have this, it's the dragon instinct barbarian

[Ouatcheur]

HUGE disagreement here.

You are removing 2 martials and 2 casters classes, to add 4 caster classes. Do you hate martials or something?

Current PF2 Corebook:
7 MARTIALS (4 MELEE + 3 RANGED) VS 5 CASTERS.

You propose:
5 MARTIALS (3 MELEE + 2 RANGED) VS 7 CASTERS.

In reality we need MORE martials and LESS casters.

Why?

Simple!

Let's look at official Adventure Paths (APs) for guidance.

Except for fact that APs tend to sometimes use too many solo monsters, overall they are too be seen by DMs as "representing well" the design philosophy and intended balance of the game.

Examining LOOT DISTRIBUTION, it seems like this:
(I ignore loot useful for everybody)
- Between 66% and 75% of the loot seems intended more for martials.
- Between 25% and 33% of the loot seems intended more for casters.

Ergo, according to Paizo and what the APs seem to indicate, a PROPERLY COMPOSED 6-persons PC PARTY "should" be made up of:

2 MELEE MARTIALS
2 RANGED MARTIALS
2 CASTERS

And for the martials, a little bit extra emphasis on the melee ones.

So, IMHO, the 1st core book should definitely focus 2/3 of the classes on martials, with only 1/3 on casters. If following the "as designed" philosophy, of course. Otherwise it means most APs, as written and designed, are full of bull, at least relative to loot distribution.

In all, Paizo should not make *lots* of changes. The remaster is not a completely brand-new-from-scratch version. It needs only to be just slightly different enough from 5E to feell a bit different, and remove "copyrighted" stuff. but it shoudl not go so over the top with changes, that it ends up moving totally away from classic fantasy tropes. There is a reason why Sigil and Planescape and Gemworld and other such "exotic" serttings are much less popular: because the CLASSIC fantasy setting remains what is the most preffered playstyle. so the game should not try to deviate too far from the classic classes. Not in the 1st book!

Thus, here is my own list:

Most classes renmain the exact same, changes are in uppercase:

MELEE MARTIALS: Barbarian, Champion, Fighter, Monk, WARLORD.
RANGED MARTIALS: Alchemist (*), Ranger, Rogue.
CASTERS: Bard (Occult), Cleric (Divine), Druid (Primal), Wizard (Arcane).
(basically 1 for each spell list!)
Pushed to next book: SORCERER.
Definitely added-in: KINETICIST.
Total Classes: 13.

(*) Crafting/economy need *huge* revamp. Alchemist too!

My total:
5 MELEE MARTIALS (1 new class!)
3 RANGED MARTIALS (same number)
4 CASTERS (1 less than vanilla, but see below...)
1 Special CASTER (kineticist)

With a new melee martial that would "complete the set" of melee martials according to their respective "power source" for their quasi-supernatural abilities:

Fighter: None (100% training-based!).
Warlord: Arcane.
Champion: Divine.
Barbarian: Primal.
Monk: Occult.

Maybe give each martial feat based on its "magical power source type" lol.

Warlord class would be a "melee controller", able to make a bit easier things such as Trippping, Flanking, Shoving, Pulling, Movement, etc. And a "Command Aura": while a Champion gets mainly defensive/retribution aura powers, the Warlord would have tactics/manoeuvering auras. And finally, use "tactical" stances.

It would also be a class that, while not the best attacker by himself, becomes noticeably better when partnering attacks with another melee fighter using their "tactics" work.

For example, if both the warlord *and* an ally both try to Trip an opponent, it would work better than if two fighters tried to trip the opponent. Basically, would be the "team-based" warrior, thus have a unique flavor.

This class would fil the need for a martial that isn't dead-simple to play. Not as complicate as a wizard of course, else it would need to be pished into book #2.

All the casters you listed are quite cool, but IMHO none are "different" enough to deserve being in the 1st corebook. Playerrs can *already* currently *approximate* respective thematics of all of them. Want to play a summmoner? Wizard or Sorcerer just pick a couple summo nspells, done. Not "dedicated" summoner sure but it mores than throws the proper needed concept around. Psychic? Thaumaturge? Again, just curating the spells picked does 90% of the needed work.to "get" the right flavor.

So while NICE to have them, because httas way you have the RIGHT mechanics for them, still thematically they aren't "core" enough to absolutely need to go into the 1st corebook. Toy can just adapt another caster class.

Even the Magus: it's a gish, so almost by definition it should go into Book #2. Kind of like the Swashbuckler which is a Fighter/Thief mix, or any other "combo-mix" class also: those have to go in book #2, not book #1. Keep book #1 is for the "most pure" core concepts.

[Rysky]

You necroed a thread for a rant and didn’t even bother to read the OP.

Also the party expectations are 4, not 6.

[AestheticDialectic]

Rysky wrote:

You necroed a thread for a rant and didn’t even bother to read the OP.

Also the party expectations are 4, not 6.

I think it's a sh*tpost

[Captain Morgan]

TBH I didn't bother reading it when it seemed addressed to a specific person but didn't bother to quote anyone. Maybe it was my list, but who cares?