| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Investigator honestly shouldn't exist PF2e and just be the Mastermind Racket for Rogue. Don't have much to say about Inventor concept is interesting but I've never looked into it deeply
I already said this about all 4 classes from APG. None of them have a real good reason to exist and could be some kind of sub-class (investigator), class archetype (witch and oracle) or a simple archetype (swashbuckler).
About inventor it doesn't need a complete overhaul but more attention. It's frozen since the release of G&G and needs more interesting and effective Innovations and Modifications.
I love Design a Stratagem for both its flavor and the potential it opens for choosing your tactics.
And the non-combat abilities of the Investigator feel awesome.
I do not think they would have given all this to a Rogue Racket.
Given that idividual investigator class paths are beefier than rogue Rackets... no. No they would not.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would rather see (in Pathfinder 3rd edition) the Investigator subsume the Rogue than the other way around. I think the classic "fighter, cleric, mage, rogue" quartet would still work if the thematics of the last one were not inherently "a scoundrel."
Like in PF3, they should make "Rogue" a subclass of the Investigator.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would rather see (in Pathfinder 3rd edition) the Investigator subsume the Rogue than the other way around. I think the classic "fighter, cleric, mage, rogue" quartet would still work if the thematics of the last one were not inherently "a scoundrel."
Like in PF3, they should make "Rogue" a subclass of the Investigator.
Or perhaps make them both be subclasses of "expert"? I almost feel like you could fit alchemists in there too.
Like, you start with three stacks. A thief rogue is three stacks of larceny. A mastermind is two of larceny and one of investigation. A standard bombs-and-mutagens alchemist is three of alchemy, but a toxicologist is two of alchemy and one of larceny, and a chirurgeon is two of alchemy and one of medicine. Alchemical Sciences is two of investigation and one of alchemy, and Forensic Medicine is two of investigation and one of Medicine... and so on. Everyone either gets two of one type and one of another to start or stacks three on one type, and it's balanced so that taking two stacks of anything will give you the basic functional competence you need to contribute to an adventuring party in some role and not embarrass yourself. Meanwhile, the different ares of expertise are distinct enough in what they address that you're not going to be able to break anything by having two stacks of two different things. Like, being good at making and throwing bombs while also being good at sneaking and striking from stealth will mean that you're particularly good at ambushing your enemies with explosive devices, but not to game-breaking degrees... and by the point that you have four stacks to play with, other folks are able to do comparable things in their own areas of specialty.
In all cases, this is a character who has a decent-but-not-great martial chassis, Lots Of Skills, a set of abilities that are generally explained by those skills, rather than by anything magical, and a reasonably strong focus on noncombat and/or party assist over direct damage dealing or tanking.
,,,and then they could do things like handing out a small number of additional stacks as you go - say, one at 8 and one at 16. They could say that perpetual infusions were something that got unlocked at your third stack rather than being at a particular level, so the people who were All In on alchemy could grab it at the beginning, forsaking all else, but if it wasn't that big a deal for you, you could dip into one stack of some other ability at first, and pick it up at level 8, once it started to get good.
...and then I read back on what I've written and I realize that what I'm actually saying is that I absolutely love the kineticist and I think it would be really awesome if some of the PF3 classes started borrowing from it heavily in various ways. That doesn't mean the idea is necessarily a bad one, though.
I admit, I also think it could be taken too far. Like, you could describe any of these classes as sets of stacks and just invite you to hybrid however you like. Thaumaturge in particular looks like a stack or two of Implement User, and the rest in a funky form of Investigator (at least if you squint funny) and Ranger has always been a stack of archetypes in a trenchcoat. At the same time... the way that Matermind/Thaumaturge/Investigator does Investigator stacks are all different, and I feel like you'd lose a lot of the flavor if you smoothed down and simplified away the crunch differences too much.
Still... I have thoughts, I share them, maybe they'll be helpful somehow.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Straight up I prefer the Starfinder names for classes "Operative" and "Envoy" better than "Rogue" and "Bard."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would consider Witch and Oracle both have unique class flavor that I think justify their existence and while this is probably harder to defend I also Swashbuckler deserves to be their own class as well. I'd say while the Witch has initial strong flavor a lot of lessons end up feeling rather flavorless, both Oracle and Witch also do suffer from the tool box/generalist problem of caster in general and Swashbuckler mechanically needs to be better but I feel if all three of these classes were released post-Dark Archive they'd be great which is where I feel Paizo has hit its stride on class design.Investigator honestly shouldn't exist PF2e and just be the Mastermind Racket for Rogue. Don't have much to say about Inventor concept is interesting but I've never looked into it deeplyI already said this about all 4 classes from APG. None of them have a real good reason to exist and could be some kind of sub-class (investigator), class archetype (witch and investigator) or a simple archetype (swashbuckler).
About inventor it doesn't need a complete overhaul but more attention. It's frozen since the release of G&G and needs more interesting and effective Innovations and Modifications.
The flavor by itself don't justify a class you can get the same flavor via archetypes and subclasses too.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Straight up I prefer the Starfinder names for classes "Operative" and "Envoy" better than "Rogue" and "Bard."
"Envoy" really implies nonmagical, though... and it lacks the lore and performance components that bards have. Like, they mayber serve similar roles, but they have significant differences in flavor.
"Operative" is cool, but feels... a bit too modern/sci-fi, really.
|
The more the idea of Rogue and Investigator getting flat out fused gets thrown around the more I like it I just feel "Expert" is a bit too generic and broad for my liking and Operative and Agent both feel a bit too modern for my tastes. Maybe something like Savant?
Savant is not enough hands-on for my taste. Sadly I do not know enough medieval english words to find a palatable word at the moment.
I think Agent works for the combined Rogue and Investigator, and doesn't seem too science fiction, and covers like Sherlock Homes, Locke Lamora, and Sigismund Dijkstra simultaneously.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Investigator honestly shouldn't exist PF2e and just be the Mastermind Racket for Rogue. Don't have much to say about Inventor concept is interesting but I've never looked into it deeplyI already said this about all 4 classes from APG. None of them have a real good reason to exist and could be some kind of sub-class (investigator), class archetype (witch and oracle) or a simple archetype (swashbuckler).
About inventor it doesn't need a complete overhaul but more attention. It's frozen since the release of G&G and needs more interesting and effective Innovations and Modifications.
I like the flavor of those classes. What I don't like is the implementation of some of the mechanics or the fact they are underpowered compared to the class roles they compete for in a group.
To me class roles should be a specific part of class design and competitive capabilities in a given class role should be a metric they check for with damage being a major component metric they check.
Investigators compete for a spot against a rogue. They should be doing as much damage as a rogue.
Swashbucklers compete for a lot for a fighter or a rogue. So if you build them as a damage dealer, they should do as much damage as both of those classes in as consistent a manner.
These metrics are easy to check for so you can modify accordingly to make the class a competitive choice.
I honestly hope the "thief" rogue loses dex-to-damage in the remaster. I don't think it's coming, but this is an ability (IMO) nobody should have.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly hope the "thief" rogue loses dex-to-damage in the remaster. I don't think it's coming, but this is an ability (IMO) nobody should have.
While there's a purity to this, I'd earnestly argue in the other direction:
DEX to damage should have been a Swashbuckler feature as well.
I mean hasn't defined roles been a thing since like very early DnD with the whole Fighter, Wizard, Cleric and Thief dynamic.
Yeah, but then a lot of us spent the next decade and a half building whatever we wanted because 3.x/PF1 was significantly more flexible than PF2. PF2 eschewed player agency in terms of picking their character's unique thing and building to make it happen in favor of balance, niche protection, and ensuring that teamwork is required.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thief rogue getting dex to damage and nobody else was less "we can't give it to anyone else because thief rogue gets it" and more "we don't want to give it to anyone but seeing people'll always ask for at least some way to do it, we'll include this one singular option". Whether or not that was the correct decision, that can be debated, but it was the reasoning for it.
I'd say it's pretty difficult for *any* class-based RPG to get away from 'if you want to be an X, play this class, because it does X better than any other class you could take." It's in the nature of the beast that classes lead to class-based abilities which leads to some classes being better than others at the things their abilities are good at doing. If you want to get away from that, you got two basic options: huge class (or in PF2E, archetype) proliferation so that "does X the best" is inherent in a lot of classes (look, there's 12 new fighter-like classes which all have different feat sets but get the same attack progression!), or dispense with classes altogether and go with point build/ability purchase.
Not sure what the OP meant in terms of 'what is the role of INT classes.' Seems pretty obvious: they are good at INT-based skills and have a lot of 'em. This may be a bit redundant if the party has a Rogue, but if it doesn't, "makes Int-based skill checks the rest of the party can't succeed at" can be a pretty good secondary role.
True multi-classing did a good job of alleviating those issues* by allowing you to grab the key bits needed for a concept and then move on to building out the rest of what it needs to work. You could far more easily build what you wanted to play under that system than under a rigid 1-main class + archetypes system.
*Once you got to the right level for your build to have all the tools it wants to match its theme.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean hasn't defined roles been a thing since like very early DnD with the whole Fighter, Wizard, Cleric and Thief dynamic.
Yes. It changed some with the implementation of MMORPGs. But MMORPGs built off the way Table Top RPGs played. So they kind of fed each other into the build types and terms.
Even from the very beginning it was intuitive that you wanted some high AC/hit point tank type, a caster to handle all sorts of things, some kind of trapfinder/rogue type, and a healer.
After MMORPGs that was reduced to defender/thank, support, damage, and healer with every class having multiple aspects as the support casters also often bring damage.
Roles is very much of a part of Tabletop RPGs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's flexibility, but as mentioned there's limitations due to how classes work. A wizard is not going to shine well as a tank, and a barbarian is not the go-to for party buffs and support. They can have options to help or moonlight, but the usual response to the wizard swinging at a monster with their staff while the barbarian hangs thirty feet back is 'who taught you tactics?'.
There's also another thing that Paizo may be watching out for: our good friend power creep. Maybe fighters are The Best at attack accuracy ... so if they make a class that is Better at it than fighters, then what?
All this makes me realise that game design isn't easy, at least.
I feel for those who hope PF3 should be Back to PF1. Because it won't happen.
If anything, PF3 is probably going to go further in the other direction. During alpha (pre-public playtest) there were likely a number of ties broken in favor of "tradition" and now they have an incentive to break those ties the other way.
Like I would be surprised if PF2 has:
-Vancian casting
-Constitution
-Studded Leather
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's flexibility, but as mentioned there's limitations due to how classes work. A wizard is not going to shine well as a tank, and a barbarian is not the go-to for party buffs and support. They can have options to help or moonlight, but the usual response to the wizard swinging at a monster with their staff while the barbarian hangs thirty feet back is 'who taught you tactics?'.
There's also another thing that Paizo may be watching out for: our good friend power creep. Maybe fighters are The Best at attack accuracy ... so if they make a class that is Better at it than fighters, then what?
All this makes me realise that game design isn't easy, at least.
My problem with classes like the wizard is they don't fulfill the class fantasy when you build particular types.
If you build an evoker wizard, you are not trying to be a support caster. You want to bring the hammer.
If you're playing a conjurer, you want to summon things that make you highly effective at using summons.
In PF1 the wizard was powerful because the base types of spells were powerful and the evocation wizard at least did get a nice damage boost.
In PF2 they should likely use the focus spells to give that big boost for the type of caster you are. An evocation wizard should have something like an empower spells where they can do some big blow ups a few times a day. A conjurer should substantially boost summons well beyond what Augment Summons does that doesn't even stack with other buff spells.
People want their class fantasies to be meaningful. When Paizo misses hard on a class and makes it so you can only play it one way that you don't want to play, it really sucks.
I made an evocation wizard wanting to be a blaster and was terribly disappointed. A focus spell that was the equivalent of a 1 action magic missile I can get from a wand of manifold missile or using a 1st level spell. And an evocation boost that required me to be in melee range? What was that?
Augment Summoning as a 1 action ability to boost a 3 action summon spell that doesn't stack with bard song or heroism or bless. Who designed that and said, "This looks ok." Some of these are so easy to see as terrible, utterly terrible.
So everyone was pushed into the Universalist because they had the best boosts and feat path. Huge miss by Paizo designers. It boggles your mind sometimes how this stuff gets past the design team and the testers.
|
|
From the Wizard class on AoN : "During Combat Encounters...
You likely try to stay out of the fray, carefully judging when to use your spells. You save your most powerful magic to incapacitate threatening foes and use your cantrips when only weaker foes remain. When enemies pull out tricks like invisibility or flight, you answer with spells like glitterdust or earth bind, leveling the field for your allies."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is wrong with Constitution?
Basically that constitution is a vestigial stat that doesn't do anything except HP and fort saves- it notably has no skills associated with it. I assume that the "Variant ability scores" in the GMG are going to be the baseline for PF3.
Specifically:
-Constitution is combined with Strength.
-Dexterity is split into Dexterity and Agility: one is offensive (to hit with ranged, to hit with finesse, to damage with finesse melee, thievery checks.) the other is defensive (reflex saves, AC, stealth, acrobatics, etc.)
- Will Defense now keys off Charisma.
There are issues with bolting this system onto the PF2 math, but if you design around it from the beginning it should work better.
I think Agent works for the combined Rogue and Investigator, and doesn't seem too science fiction, and covers like Sherlock Homes, Locke Lamora, and Sigismund Dijkstra simultaneously.
The concern I have about Agent is that it strongly implies that you're doing this on behalf of some superior. In the right campaigns? No problem. In the wrong campaigns? Completely out of place.
The first error that was made is to decide a class should have a "role". The second error that was made is to decided "nobody can do A better than X because A is the role of X". The 3rd error that was made is making it so that you have to waste exponentially more page space to give everyone "unique abilities" when the unique abilities should be part of the base kit and the archetypes.
Huh. I disagree strongly on all points.
True multi-classing did a good job of alleviating those issues* by allowing you to grab the key bits needed for a concept and then move on to building out the rest of what it needs to work. You could far more easily build what you wanted to play under that system than under a rigid 1-main class + archetypes system.
*Once you got to the right level for your build to have all the tools it wants to match its theme.
But, see... I like balance.
This may not have been the intended effect of your statement but it has swayed me that maybe Con should actually go
I think there's value in being able to be "the tough guy", and have that not be bound (completely) to your class.
I think that the current implementation of constitution does not achieve this thing.
Possibly it should instead be available as a collection of feats (or equivalent)?
Its okay to disagree, we are different people afterall.
But I will stand firm that the abilities you pick should determine your role, not the other way around.
I love situations like the kineticist that are all about heading into the kineticist store and buying the things you want to buy... but I think there are real advantages to not letting everyone have access to every shop, or even *most* shops.
Now, there are plenty of good games out there that don't embrace this. I've had fun with point-based chargen and with wacky stuff like Shadowrun's priority system, among others. I just think that the "pick your shops" style works pretty well for giving flexibility to play with while also constraining things enough to limit serious cheese combos... and sometimes the constraints can fuel creativity, too.
On the topic of attributes... there is a bit of a minigame on picking your secondary attributes, and that can be fun. Similarly, having actual numbers to tell you how intelligent/charismatic/perceptive you're supposed to be can be useful in a roleplaying sense. I feel like... I might regret seeing those things vanish altogether. I'd want the game to still have some way to say "I am particularly charismatic" or "I am particularly not", but I wouldn't be opposed to having a radically different implementation of them.
However... I think it's pretty clear that when PF3 comes around, ancestries won't have statmods anymore, whatever it might mean for things to have statmods. These days, implying that an accident of birth (like being a pixie rather than a minotaur) might have any sort of real effect on your inherent talents and aptitudes as a person is... well....
It is what it is. That's all.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The one class who does actually care about Con is finally here, and they remove the reason why it made sense (burn) because some people didn't like using HP as a resource.
You can have a con class and not have a crappy burn mechanic [you burned to fill your Elemental Overflow and NOT for actual abilities] to justify it. Elemental channeling can be a strain on the body and also NOT lower your hp for the day and it can make sense.