No more Pathfinder 1 classes in PF2 maybe?

[VampByDay]

Hey guys, quick question. I seem to recall that Paizo has come out and officially said that they are no longer interested in remaking pathfinder 1 classes in PF2. The last one they did was the kineticist, but other than that . . . they want to focus on new things. That's why there is no 'shaman' class, but now an 'animist.' And why the spiritualist and the summoner were rolled into one.

But my mind may be playing tricks on me. I can't find where Paizo said/wrote that. Does anyone know? I can't remember if it was just a post here on the forums, if it was in a blog, or if it was said on a Livestream. Am I going crazy? Can someone help me out here?

[pixierose]

From my understanding it wasn't that there won't be anymore, they just don't feel beholden to recreate every single class from 1e. I believe it depends on finding the right context for said classes and if the developers have an interesting idea for them they'll make it. Meanwhile if there are new interesting ideas thise will also be made depending on if they find the right books to introduce them.

[The Raven Black]

I feel we are only missing the Shifter now.

[VampByDay]

The Raven Black wrote:

I feel we are only missing the Shifter now.

A LOT of people want the inquisitor.

No one has that quote? Am I going mad?

[exequiel759]

The only things I really missed from PF1e were bloodrager (which is now getting a class archetype), inquisitor (which I guess the new avenger rogue archeype is going to cover), shaman (which the new animist covers), and shifter, so pretty much I'm missing shifter only.

I also would love for a true synthesist summoner (Meld Into Eidolon is very lackluster), Hunter (which you kinda can replicate with the current content if you ranger with beastmaster I guess, though it isn't exactly the same thing), and ninja (which we know isn't going to happen due to recent comments in the discord in regards to the Tian Xia Character Guide, but I would love to see a Wis-based rogue racket built around focus spells, even if the ninja was Cha-based).

[Sanityfaerie]

VampByDay wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

I feel we are only missing the Shifter now.

A LOT of people want the inquisitor.

No one has that quote? Am I going mad?

I recall some sort of quote along those lines (very vaguely), but I don't recall the specifics and I certainly don't recall when it was.

I will say that they have class archetypes for "divine rogue" and "divine investigator" coming, and between the two of those and the existing Thaumaturge, I think we basically have Inquisitor covered. Here's hoping they aren't terrible.

I suspect that when they do a "shifter" it'll wind up like the Animist. The general idea of "mostly-martial who shapeshifts as a core part of their effectiveness" is cool and people want it, but the shifter itself was not so great as a class. So... either a druid class archetype that cashes in some of the core spellcasting for buffing up Untamed Form/Untamed Shift further, or a separate class that runs on entirely different mechanics and may well have a different name.

[exequiel759]

I'm pretty sure the avenger would be the equivalent of the inquisitor in PF2e, but I will still think that if they felt investigator could be its own class (when it literally was a better rogue with alchemy in PF1e) the inquisitor (which is way more unique than the investigator was) deserves to be a class too.

That said, if they make an inquisitor and ends up being like an investigator (a worse rogue) then I prefer for them to just give us the avenger and call it a day.

[Finoan]

VampByDay wrote:

No one has that quote? Am I going mad?

I don't have a quote like that.

I do vaguely remember something from someone somewhere, but what I remember was more similar to what pixierose mentioned. No guarantee that they absolutely won't make any more remakes of PF1 classes, but that the PF2 class lineup is sufficiently covering the PF1 lineup that the focus is going to be on exploring the PF2 design spaces. If they happen to overlap with PF1 classes, all the better, but they aren't setting out to do that deliberately any more.

Personally I am fine with that. IMO, most of the remaining PF1 stuff could be handled by class archetypes (or even standard archetypes) at this point anyway.

[QuidEst]

exequiel759 wrote:

I'm pretty sure the avenger would be the equivalent of the inquisitor in PF2e, but I will still think that if they felt investigator could be its own class (when it literally was a better rogue with alchemy in PF1e) the inquisitor (which is way more unique than the investigator was) deserves to be a class too.

That said, if they make an inquisitor and ends up being like an investigator (a worse rogue) then I prefer for them to just give us the avenger and call it a day.

Eh, classes don't just "deserve" spots in PF2 because they were good in PF1. It's a matter of how well it would work and fits in PF2. They've already said that they're not going to publish something called "Inquisitor" again for obvious reasons, so no matter what they did, it'd involve at least a name change. "Sneaky lie-detecting divine smiter and monster expert with a focus on teamwork" is a heck of a bundle to try and repackage, and if you're going to do it... you might ask, "Does this really need to be divine specifically?" or, "Does this really need to be just one class?"

We've got Thaumaturge as a pseudo-smiting monster expert (possibly sneaky), we've got Commander coming along to take over the teamwork angle, and Avenger is probably the sneaky divine agent. So whatever folks liked about Inquisitor, it'll be available in a class. (Except the lie detection, because that's intentionally uncommon because of how disruptive it can be. The divine list has that covered, though.)

But yeah... we have Animist covering Shaman and Medium soon, class archetypes addressing Bloodrager, Warpriest (even more than the subclass), and a bit of Inquisitor. And finally, we have Commander covering the teamwork feat classes. That leaves almost everything covered, and while Shifter would be cool to see them take another stab at, it's not as pressing when we're getting a double-sized were-creature archetype next month.

[exequiel759]

QuidEst wrote:

Eh, classes don't just "deserve" spots in PF2 because they were good in PF1.

I'm not saying that either, I'm saying that if they took a class that used to be rogue 2.0 and they give it a spin to make it into a class on its own (even if I think the implementation leaves a lot to be desired) then a class that was already unique could get a similar spin and become a whole new thing. I know it isn't going to be named inquisitor (and I won't get into why I don't get why inquisitor has negative connations when I think there's much worse names with negative connotations in the system already) but in the same vein someone that wanted to play an occultist is likely pleased with the thaumaturge I want something that scratchs the same itch the inquisidor did, but if they call it inquisitor or not I don't care.

I even said in other threads (not like I expect anyone to be acquainted with that, but if you heard this before it could have been me) that in an ideal world I see a PF2e inquisitor dropping the "solo tactics" from PF1e and become a sort of teamwork player with bounded divine casting and some skill monkey-ing. The whole "bane" and "monster hunting" of the class could likely be dropped as well since that was incorporated into thaumaturge already, and while the recently announced commander will likely be something like what I'm asking here, that class would lack the divine flavor (and probably the skill monkey-ing as well, but who knows).

I also specially want a divine class that is allowed to step away a little from their doctrine and be more unique, since I often feel trapped when theory-crafting divine characters because if I want to do something with my character I have to first search for the most appropiate deity to realize that concept, which can be a deity that I often don't end up liking for X reason (warpriest as a class really appeals to me, but I can't make a warpriest of Desna that doesn't use a starknife, which I feel is a very arbritary restriction because I could easily say I'm a warpriest of Gorum in mechanics but RP it as a warpriest of Desna and it wouldn't change anything).

The avenger isn't going to be a caster, much less a bounded caster, but if it has some interactions with sneak attack against enemies and some teamwork feats here and there I would be more than pleased with it.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think the reason we will not get an inquisitor is that "divine rogue" and "divine investigator" and "aggressive divine martial" are actually 3 if not 4 different classes.

The basic problem with the inquisitor in PF1 was that it was a really strong set of mechanics, but the flavor was pulling in like 5 different directions. Considering that the latter is what actually comes through with a PF2 update of a class, then it's better to to the inquisitor as several options.

[Grankless]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the reason we will not get an inquisitor is that "divine rogue" and "divine investigator" and "aggressive divine martial" are actually 3 if not 4 different classes.

The basic problem with the inquisitor in PF1 was that it was a really strong set of mechanics, but the flavor was pulling in like 5 different directions. Considering that the latter is what actually comes through with a PF2 update of a class, then it's better to to the inquisitor as several options.

Exactly. The core conceit of Inquisitor, that you're the guy who goes out and Defeats The Enemies Of Your Faith or whatever is just a description of a personality type. Literally any class can be that. Mechanically it was just "how many self buffs can I stack and instagib this random monster I'm fighting" with very little relation between the mechanics and the flavor. I won't miss it. Also the name is silly slash stupid.

Whatever Avenger is is very likely to also have that prescribed flavor, given the name, so... It's probably inquisitor for 2e.

[Captain Morgan]

Yeah, speaking as someone who really really really enjoyed the Inquisitor, it just did too much stuff to be a single PF2 class. An important part of its identity was its unique spell list, which PF2 did away with. While it had some divine spells, what really set it apart were occult spells.

[qwerty3werty]

The werecreature archetype might will the need for a "shifter" depending on how it works

[Red Griffyn]

Just looking at AON and I think we are missing:
- Shifter (i.e., martial proficiency wave casting druid)

- Skald/Martial Bard (i.e., martial proficiency wave casting bard, the current caster heavy bard doesn't scratch the itch at all to be a dervish dancer/arcane duelist/arrow song minstrel, etc.)

- Mesmerist (I don't think the thaumaturge covers it, it was a martial anti-bard that debuffed easily with no saves instead of buffing with inspire courage)

- Ninja/Samurai (vaguely themed tien based rogue/fighter)

- Bloodrager (new archetype)

- Inquisitor (maybe one of the new divine archetypes helps here?)

- Warpriest (i.e., martial proficiency wave casting cleric, but there may be a class archetype to resolve that soon)

However, beyond that there are really cool class archetypes that are missing conceptually:
- Urban Barbarian/Bloodrager (DEX based rager who doesn't take that AC penalty but gets less benefit and focuses on finesse/agile/ranged weapons weapons). To that effect, just a ranged barbarian (there was the savage technologist or similar in 1e)

- Arcane Buffer Class (e.g., the brown fur transmuter arcanist)

- Thundercaller (Sonic/lightning damage focused bard subclass that effectively weaponizes their voice instead of always buffing).

- Martial focused alchemist (grenadier, mutagenic mauler brawler, etc. since the base class pre-remaster is poorly designed to provide those class fantasies). The barbarian+ book had an amazing alchemical barbarian mutagenist subclass that is exactly what I'd want (small amount of on level scaling/limited mutagens but on a class chassis that can use them). They already do this with the alchemical sciences investigator.

- Ranged Paladin like the Divine Hunter

- A proper synthesist summoner (so many cool things you could do with the right class archetype that maybe even focuses on you fluidly melding/unmelding mid combat for bonuses/benefits).

- Any kind of functional summoning class since summons in PF2e really suck. I'd love to see some caster get action economy boosts/maybe summon one more summoned monster OR buff the summons (maybe cast one level above normal spell rank?) Just make it a focus spell like the druid wildshape so you don't have to constantly burn slots. Maybe an alternative would be the ability to summon and animal companion level effective creature that doesn't have any of the RP ties/befriending/PC emotional baggage like a eidolon or an actual animal companion.

- Bladebound Magus (i.e., auto scaling intelligent weapon companion class)

I think there is a significant breakdown in PF2e in providing an analogous 3/4 BAB, 2/3 Caster class fantasy. Yes a caster can always pick up a weapon and a martial can always pick up a caster MC, but they don't provide that 'hit like a martial with a bit of magic' mechanical output. I feel like the magus chassis was on the money +- some gimmicks depending on what kind of 3/4 BAB, 2/3 Caster theme you were replicating, but Paizo has refused to give us any more gishes on the wave caster chassis for years (hence the hunger out there for inquisitor, shifter, skalds, etc.). 1 per spell casting tradition would be nice and lines up well with magus/bard or skald/druid or shifter/warpriest or inquisitor.

[QuidEst]

Red Griffyn wrote:

Just looking at AON and I think we are missing:

- Shifter (i.e., martial proficiency wave casting druid)

Not sure where you're getting "wave caster" from a martial class? Shifter didn't get any casting at all.

[Sy Kerraduess]

Shifter has the opposite problem from Inquisitor, there's not enough in there to really justify a whole class (plus Howl of the Wild would have been the book to get that class out if they wanted to do it). It could work well as an Archetype though.

[Cole Deschain]

Shifter as some kind of Druid archetype is.... kind of what it always was, thematically.

If 1E had been less.... granular in its rules, I would have simply presented it as a reskin of the Fighter or Barbarian.

[Red Griffyn]

QuidEst wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

Just looking at AON and I think we are missing:

- Shifter (i.e., martial proficiency wave casting druid)

Not sure where you're getting "wave caster" from a martial class? Shifter didn't get any casting at all.

Fair enough. Perhaps what I mean to say is I think there are really 4 points along the martial to caster spectrum:

1.) Caster (druid)
2.) Caster Martial (wildshape druid)
3.) Martial Caster (wave caster wildshape druid)
4.) Martial (shifter)

The system does #1 and #4 (in general) fine. The system does a lot of #2, but the execution is lackluster if what you really want is #3.

In context of a wildshaper, it doesn't 'need spells like a wave caster' but what it needs is equivalent level access to the shape spells as the druid (effectively a monk who's focus point spells are wildshape related). A martial MC druid is basically stuck as a animal and can't really shift into anything else until L16 since most of the feats are L8+.

However, the main thing I would want to avoid is a similar poor execution of the shifter as was done in PF1e. It was well known for being under-powered and worse at shifting than the druid's own wildshape. If relying on PF2e wildshape spells, it has to provide a better bonus to hit or some kind of boost to AC, or something that pushes it beyond the druid in the current system. I think a KAS of STR and martial progression while keeping the +2 or a +1 status bonus to hit would work. As it stands the druid only really benefits from that +2 at ~3 levels unless it is purposely under-casting its wildshape forms. It would also be a big QoL improvement if they could decide what size their form took from small up to the size of the spell description. I also think a class/subclass/class archtype that got to benefit from handwraps property runes could go a ways to providing reasonable DPR so you aren't so behind other martials like the druid.

So in the end I wouldn't care if it was #3 or #4 but I think there is room for both. The benefit of #3 you already have all the druid feats printed and available to take. You can add far less page count to achieve #3 (even if you print ~10 more feats for sublcass or class archetypes to add more mechanics) than making an entire new class for #4. You can also toss in some nice to haves like being able to cast focus spells or cantrips while in your wildshape form to give you some ranged versatility (albeit at a reduced efficacy), being able to talk without an item, etc.

[Perpdepog]

I'd like to see the mesmerist make the jump in some form, working a bit more like a beefier witch/bard, using debuff cantrips and so on. I'm real curious to see how the commander's resources are going to work, as well, because that sounds like a great place to put your mesmerist tricks.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think the thing to understand about Paizo's class design process is that the first step is not filling a mechanical niche (i.e. "occult wave caster, with martial proficiency") but thematic niches like "you have a connection to elemental planes" or "you are imbued with a spark of divinity" or "you entreat with spirits around you" or "you help your allies with your brilliant grasp of tactics and strategy."

So I think the Shifter or Metamorph has the possibility to be a PF2 class since "you alter your body supernaturally in order to make yourself more effective" is a thematic niche that is not currently filled by anybody but the druid, so you can't do a "I want to fight people with my hands and weapons" version of this.

I just wonder how much the Barbarian and the Mutagenist Alchemist are supposed to be the people who do this; I guess we'll see in PC2.

[exequiel759]

The new cleric class archetype (I don't remember the name, the one that is going to come out in War of Immortals) could be the perfect template for a shifter druid archetype. The cleric archeype in question supposedly "trades spellcasting in favor of martial capabilities", which could mean it turns the cleric into a bounded caster or into a full martial for all we know. In either case, I'm pretty sure most people will take that template to make homebrew shifter archetypes for druids.

[WWHsmackdown]

exequiel759 wrote:

The new cleric class archetype (I don't remember the name, the one that is going to come out in War of Immortals) could be the perfect template for a shifter druid archetype. The cleric archeype in question supposedly "trades spellcasting in favor of martial capabilities", which could mean it turns the cleric into a bounded caster or into a full martial for all we know. In either case, I'm pretty sure most people will take that template to make homebrew shifter archetypes for druids.

Divine wave casting (and maybe a thematic focus spell or two) on a martial chassis is all I need out of a holy warrior. Animist dedication could get you more fully scaled slots if you wanted more utility.

[Squiggit]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the reason we will not get an inquisitor is that "divine rogue" and "divine investigator" and "aggressive divine martial" are actually 3 if not 4 different classes.

The basic problem with the inquisitor in PF1 was that it was a really strong set of mechanics, but the flavor was pulling in like 5 different directions. Considering that the latter is what actually comes through with a PF2 update of a class, then it's better to to the inquisitor as several options.

I mean, the combination is part of what makes a class interesting and complete, and many PF2 classes can be broken down into components that don't necessarily have any intrinsic connection (other than that through their design one has been created). So I think that's kind of an unfair way to go about it, because a combination of disparate ideas being brought together to create something new is just what most classes are.

The problem with doing something in "several parts" is that you're breaking down the cohesive theme that made it interesting in the first place.

... It's sort of the dirty secret of the "we can do this with an archetype" refrain, in that classes have so many moving pieces any attempt to turn one into an archetype or subclass is, by design, going to fail.

Obviously to some extent that's inevitable, it would be silly to try to directly port everything and there's plenty of room for other ideas... but it still feels misleading to treat archetypes and subclasses as a real solution.

[Red Griffyn]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the thing to understand about Paizo's class design process is that the first step is not filling a mechanical niche (i.e. "occult wave caster, with martial proficiency") but thematic niches like "you have a connection to elemental planes" or "you are imbued with a spark of divinity" or "you entreat with spirits around you" or "you help your allies with your brilliant grasp of tactics and strategy."

I don't disagree that this happens at a surface level. But I challenge the rationale behind this on a deeper level. I can flavour/theme most mechanics to be w/e I want them to be. Most GMs/players won't challenge you on this. For example you could play the mirror implement thaumaturge as reflections, parallel universe versions of yourself, illusions, manifestations of your psyche, etc. But I can't convince a GM/players to give me an at will 1 action 15 ft teleport that gets more powerful without Paizo saying its okay. Another example, I could reflavour the kineticist as being tied to the astral/shadow plane and manifesting 'kinetic blasts/impulses' shapped like psychic blades or shadow arrows and forget every theme releated thing tied to the '6 elements'. But you better believe the insane controversy I would have generated if I proposed swapping a caster to CON and giving them item bonuses to spell attack rolls! In both these instances I'd be accused of power gaming/power creep/home brew insanity/breaking the game. Fundamentally this is the main issue. Paizo itself acts as one of the most prominent gatekeepers to new mechanics because of the reverence the community has for their stamp of approval.

The thematics for having a wave caster of each spell list can easily write itself, but since we're talking literally about PF1e content, why not take from there and compare to what we have available to us now:

Skald (occult wave caster): Skalds are poets, historians, and keepers of lore who use their gifts for oration and song to inspire allies into a frenzied rage. They balance a violent spirit with the veneer of civilization, recording events such as heroic battles and the deeds of great leaders, enhancing these stories in the retelling to earn bloodier victories in combat. A skald’s poetry is nuanced and often has multiple overlapping meanings, and he applies similar talents to emulate magic from other spellcasters.

Mesmerist (occult wave caster): Experts at charm and deceit, mesmerists compel others to heed their words and bend to their will. Psychic powers, primarily those of enchantment and illusion, give mesmerists the tools they need to manipulate others—usually for their own personal gain. The very gaze of a mesmerist can hypnotize someone into following his whims. Mesmerists frequently form cults of personality around themselves, and they develop skills and contingency plans in case their ploys are discovered. They draw their magic from the Astral Plane, and many consider their minds to be conduits to enigmatic spaces others can’t comprehend.

Lets compare that to the PF2e description of the bard and see how it doesn't match (but with a subclass or class archetype you could probably fit it in)

Bard: You are a master of artistry, a scholar of hidden secrets, and a captivating persuader. Using powerful performances, you influence minds and elevate souls to new levels of heroics. You might use your powers to become a charismatic leader, or perhaps you might instead be a counselor, manipulator, scholar, scoundrel, or virtuoso. While your versatility leads some to consider you a beguiling ne’erdo- well and a jack-of-all-trades, it’s dangerous to dismiss you as a master of none.

If I tried to be a martial + MC bard the best I could do was sing 1 of 3 songs by L4 at the earliest (healing, strength, or inspire skill), couldn't do the base level thing you'd want (inspire courage) until L8, and couldn't do what I'd consider to be the iconic "I'm so scary you poop your pants song" (i.e., dirge of doom) until L12. That really doesn't provide a satisfying progression for me and likely many people if we're being honest. I COULD reflavour literally any martial as just singing battle songs whenever he fights, but that is equally dissatisfying that my main character's identity quirk has literally no mechanical in game effect. I could be a bard that swings a weapon, but it is deeply dissatisfying to get worse and worse at the things you want to be good at (i.e., hitting things), which is why why the caster heavy martials really don't scratch the same itch as the martial heavy casters in that 'spectrum'.

That is ultimately why that argument falls flat for me. Theme is important but mechanics are also important. For general player satisfaction I'd argue they are more important because the mechanics are what give you rules based player agency, whereas I often can (out of whole cloth) make up my theme/reskin various things.

[exequiel759]

We already have a skald, its called warrior muse bard. The bard was as much of a caster than a skald was in PF1e, so if the bard is a full caster here, and I don't know why skald should be a bounded caster. Could there be a bard class archetype similar to the new cleric one they announced that makes it into a bounded caster? Sure, but technically we already have the closest equivalent.

[Aldrius]

I only wish there were more undead options for summoners. There was such a wide variety of phantoms for spiritualists that it feels like a shameful loss of flavors between the cracks.

[Silver2195]

The basic idea of the Skald is that it's a combination of the Bard and the Barbarian. This differs from other PF1 "hybrid classes" (with the exception of the Bloodrager, of course) because it's not something you can do with PF2 multiclass archetypes; the Barbarian's Rage ability makes it very difficult to do effectively. The Warrior Muse Bard is not the Skald; it doesn't really have anything to do with the Barbarian.

[ornathopter]

(Did the Slayer get folded into anything? I thought it was one of the fusion classes that hadn't gotten transferred over, but it doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet. So did I miss it under a new name, or as a class archetype?)

[pixierose]

Slayer didn't have a super strong class identity, and its mechanics are similar to both rogues(now that they have martial weapon proficiency) and rangers with their hunt prey mechanic.

[exequiel759]

I see the PF2e ranger as the equivalent of the slayer honestly. The only difference between slayers and rangers was pretty much studied target and sneak attack, which was pretty much split into each of the hunter's edge options (studied target made you more accurate, kinda like flurry, and also granted some bonuses to various Cha-based skills, like outwit, and sneak attack was some nice extra damage, like precision. Not to mention that studied target and hunt prey work the same in regards on how you activate them.)

[Arachnofiend]

Cole Deschain wrote:

Shifter as some kind of Druid archetype is.... kind of what it always was, thematically.

If 1E had been less.... granular in its rules, I would have simply presented it as a reskin of the Fighter or Barbarian.

All you really need for Shifter is a way to slap Untamed Form onto a martial class. "I want turning into a wolf to be my entire thing" is the fantasy that class was supposed to (and spectacularly failed at) achieving.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

exequiel759 wrote:

We already have a skald, its called warrior muse bard. The bard was as much of a caster than a skald was in PF1e, so if the bard is a full caster here, and I don't know why skald should be a bounded caster. Could there be a bard class archetype similar to the new cleric one they announced that makes it into a bounded caster? Sure, but technically we already have the closest equivalent.

This is absolutely true, but I'm not sure it is necessarily correct. 1e Bards and Skalds were both 6-rank spellcasters, yes, and when 2e came around and the options were either full-on spellcasting or martial with a few focus spells (bounded spellcasting not being invented for another year or two), most certainly they got upgraded to full casters. The thing is, in this process, they lost some of the martial effectiveness they used to enjoy.

In this light, think it's fair to take a 1e warrior-poet class that was functionally 'like a Bard, but with better weapons and armour proficiencies' and suggest that maybe it would be fitting for the ratio of spells to swords to fall a little more on the side of 'swords' than it did for the Bard, which by the current class calculus unavoidably means shedding some power in spells.

Incidentally, I am thrilled by the hints of upcoming class archetypes which propose to take spellcasters who can already fight a little and allowing them to push for a bit more martial effectiveness. My only regret is that they didn't save the name "Warpriest" back for this eventuality, and have named the 'spellcaster that can wear armour' something else. A Shelynite who has trained in the use of the glaive and armour much less fits the feel of "Warpriest" than a character who has traded their divine powers for combat readiness.

(Lowkey hope that the Battle Harbinger doesn't stop at just adding +1 proficiency tier in weapons and substituting in bounded casting and calling it a day without throwing in any thematic utility for combat clerkin' that the robes-and-staves priest doesn't already have)

[exequiel759]

I think Battle Harbinger will likely force you into the warpriest doctrine, switch their proficiencies progression with "martial progression", and compensate that with bounded spellcasting. Probably they will also lose divine font as per Luis Loza's recent comment.

[Red Griffyn]

exequiel759 wrote:

We already have a skald, its called warrior muse bard. The bard was as much of a caster than a skald was in PF1e, so if the bard is a full caster here, and I don't know why skald should be a bounded caster. Could there be a bard class archetype similar to the new cleric one they announced that makes it into a bounded caster? Sure, but technically we already have the closest equivalent.

This thought is why there is a big gap for people. If you consider 4 points along the spectrum of martial to caster you have:

1.) Caster (bard)
2.) Caster Martial (warrior muse bard)
3.) Martial Caster (wave caster bard)
4.) Martial (Thaumaturge)

None of those play like the other ones and the difference between 2 and 3 is more than just pedantic nuance. They fill completely different roles. One is actually good with using a weapon and that is their main combat contribution. The other is a spell caster that maybe takes a pot shot as a 3rd action throw away when they don't have to move. One trades a huge amount of casting for that ability to actually be in the thick of combat, tank as a secondary frontliner, glass cannon warrior, etc.

A warrior muse bard is not a skald just as a wizard swinging a weapon is not a magus.

[WWHsmackdown]

exequiel759 wrote:

I think Battle Harbinger will likely force you into the warpriest doctrine, switch their proficiencies progression with "martial progression", and compensate that with bounded spellcasting. Probably they will also lose divine font as per Luis Loza's recent comment.

As suggested up thread, hopefully it includes one of the lvl 1 or 2 martial oriented cleric feats, otherwise the class archetype would feel like a "new" class that gets 9 feats instead of 10

[PossibleCabbage]

I'm curious what Battle Harbinger does get, since if it's just "divine wave casting plus martial proficiencies" then it's just an alternative version of the magus feats with a different spell list and cleric feats instead of magus feats, but the magus also gets spellstrike, arcane cascade, and their hybrid study as a big part of their power budget.

[HeHateMe]

Arachnofiend wrote:

Cole Deschain wrote:

Shifter as some kind of Druid archetype is.... kind of what it always was, thematically.

If 1E had been less.... granular in its rules, I would have simply presented it as a reskin of the Fighter or Barbarian.

All you really need for Shifter is a way to slap Untamed Form onto a martial class. "I want turning into a wolf to be my entire thing" is the fantasy that class was supposed to (and spectacularly failed at) achieving.

Ugh no way, Untamed Form is terrible; extremely restrictive and underpowered. It just doesn't work as a character's "main thing". It's too bad, cuz Shifter and Feral Hunter were my favorite things to play in 1E. Also Alchemist, but there are many other threads about the myriad issues with that class.

Unfortunately, because such a poor job was done making Battle Forms competitive, I don't see 2E ever getting a legit shapeshifter class.

[Squiggit]

HeHateMe wrote:

Ugh no way, Untamed Form is terrible; extremely restrictive and underpowered. It just doesn't work as a character's "main thing".

Will have to let the like dozen plus wild druids I've played with know this. They had no idea and spent most of their campaigns being extremely competent and effective characters

[HeHateMe]

Squiggit wrote:

HeHateMe wrote:

Ugh no way, Untamed Form is terrible; extremely restrictive and underpowered. It just doesn't work as a character's "main thing".

Will have to let the like dozen plus wild druids I've played with know this. They had no idea and spent most of their campaigns being extremely competent and effective characters

Sure, but Untamed Form is not the only thing Druids have going for them. I was talking about a martial shapeshifter, they won't have any spells. Try playing a Druid without casting any spells other than Untamed Form, ever, then tell me how great UF is.

[WWHsmackdown]

Battle forms are spells.......balanced for spell casters. One made for a martial would be balanced accordingly (given more budget for damage/accuracy). The current battle forms allow a caster to wade into the front line and fight alongside a martial character without eclipsing them. Granted they could all scale better so a druid could spend their entire career fighting as a bear if they chose, but that's my only complaint and HotW might have something for it, who knows.

[Parry]

I can't remember exactly where, but the devs shared their approach to class design and they said they have moved away from the mechanic focused design space that especially dominated the hybrid classes of PF1. It seems lots of people are still stuck on this by leading with the idea any new class would look first to its mechanic designs, i.e. wave caster. As I read it, wave casting was not a catch all hybrid approach, but a specific mechanic that addressed the very contextual needs of the magus and summoner. While I could be wrong, I feel everyone is going to be very disappointed looking for that be replicated in any future classes.

[SuperBidi]

Red Griffyn wrote:

1.) Caster (bard)

2.) Caster Martial (warrior muse bard)
3.) Martial Caster (wave caster bard)
4.) Martial (Thaumaturge)

It's not the first time you put wave caster as more martial than caster but wave casters are in the middle of the spectrum. Magus is more of a martial because its abilities, like Spellstrike, are pretty much martial oriented when Summoner is balanced and can be played as martial-oriented or caster-oriented and anything in between.

[Arcaian]

SuperBidi wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

1.) Caster (bard)

2.) Caster Martial (warrior muse bard)
3.) Martial Caster (wave caster bard)
4.) Martial (Thaumaturge)

It's not the first time you put wave caster as more martial than caster but wave casters are in the middle of the spectrum. Magus is more of a martial because its abilities, like Spellstrike, are pretty much martial oriented when Summoner is balanced and can be played as martial-oriented or caster-oriented and anything in between.

Given both bounded casters we have as examples get martial-class proficencies in weapons but do not get casting-class proficencies in spell casting, I do think it's fair to say they err more on the side of martial than caster. One can build them to focus on casting, especially summoner, but I think there is overall a skew towards martials.

[SuperBidi]

Arcaian wrote:

Given both bounded casters we have as examples get martial-class proficencies in weapons but do not get casting-class proficencies in spell casting, I do think it's fair to say they err more on the side of martial than caster. One can build them to focus on casting, especially summoner, but I think there is overall a skew towards martials.

Casters only get the proficiency, martials always get something else, unless they get only the proficiency and then get it to Legendary.

So Magus and Summoner get as much "martial proficiency" than they get "caster proficiency".
Magus is definitely more martial, but Summoner is completely balanced, the Eidolon is as much a martial than the Summoner is a caster.
Wave caster are meant to be the middle ground between casters and martials to me, that's why I was reacting.

[Ravingdork]

Isn't Shifter just another name for an animal instinct barbarian?

[Captain Morgan]

Ravingdork wrote:

Isn't Shifter just another name for an animal instinct barbarian?

I didn't play much Shifter, and barbarian certainly covers the concept pretty well, but I'll note a few differences.

-Barbs can't fully transform without a high level feat that offers no real mechanic benefit.
-They can't transform outside of combat, lowering utility and the fantasy of "I just want to be a bear all day."
-They are limited to one form/animal. (PF1 shifter wasn't, right?)

Animal instinct barbarian is a great way to representing the werewolf as a PC fantasy, but that's not quite the same as a true shape shifter.

[Captain Morgan]

Another factor Paizo considers when making these classes is simply whether they think it is interesting. With the kineticist they've patched their biggest design hole, and they can kind of just have fun now. Make the classes that excite them, not just the classes people would be happy to have back.

[PossibleCabbage]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Isn't Shifter just another name for an animal instinct barbarian?

I didn't play much Shifter, and barbarian certainly covers the concept pretty well, but I'll note a few differences.

-Barbs can't fully transform without a high level feat that offers no real mechanic benefit.
-They can't transform outside of combat, lowering utility and the fantasy of "I just want to be a bear all day."
-They are limited to one form/animal. (PF1 shifter wasn't, right?)

Animal instinct barbarian is a great way to representing the werewolf as a PC fantasy, but that's not quite the same as a true shape shifter.

I mean, the Shifter didn't get the ability to actually transform into one of their aspects until 4th level, and only ever had the ability to transform into one of at most five aspects (one at 1st, additional at 5, 10, 15, 20). You were also limited in how much you could transform, with "shifter aspect" being capped by 3+Level and "wild form" being capped by WisMod+Level. So "being a bear all day" wasn't costless and really wasn't possible at all until very high level.

I think the Animal Barbarian is a good representative of what worked with the Shifter's mechanics in PF1. But the reason the Shifter wasn't particularly popular was that it was kind of a missed opportunity in terms of the flavor being cooler than the mechanics.

[Red Griffyn]

SuperBidi wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

1.) Caster (bard)

2.) Caster Martial (warrior muse bard)
3.) Martial Caster (wave caster bard)
4.) Martial (Thaumaturge)

It's not the first time you put wave caster as more martial than caster but wave casters are in the middle of the spectrum. Magus is more of a martial because its abilities, like Spellstrike, are pretty much martial oriented when Summoner is balanced and can be played as martial-oriented or caster-oriented and anything in between.

I think this is fundamentally splitting hairs. Casters are to the left, martials are to the right. Clearly a full caster with a subclass will be left of a martial wave caster. I'm not saying that the spectrum neatly divides into 0, 33, 66, and 100% martial or that I'm looking to do a spectrum tier list for every class. They are convenient bins to describe general class design. That way I can clearly communicate how bin 2 and bin 3 are mechanically and conceptually different because the community at large keeps telling people to just use a warrior muse bard or a warpriest cleric if they want to gish (yet are not satisfied with people not being satisfied with these solutions).

Ravingdork wrote:

Isn't Shifter just another name for an animal instinct barbarian?

We should separate out the concept of a shape shifting combatant from the actual poorly executed PF1e Shifter. I think that people wanted was the shapeshifting power of a druid on a 3/4 or full BAB class without all the overhead of being a full caster (maybe a 2/3 caster). They definitely missed that mark though. But the concept of a shapeshifting martial is still valid outside of the limitations of the PF1e shifter. Its just a very convenient label to put on it without intending to necessarily limit the PFS2e implementation.

The animal instinct barbarian has a number of issues. First and foremost that rage really sort of sucks. The 1 min timer/reset timer really sucks when you get caught in prolonged or chained encounters, the loss in AC makes you a crit magnet, the fact that you aren't actually 'shape shifting' you're just growing certain aspects of one animal totem (the L8 animal rage is awful because you're stuck with a L3 spell that comes 1.5 spell ranks late and never bumps your AC), you don't gain any form movement speeds, etc. Consider that shape shifting as a concept means turning into animals, dinosaurs, elemental, plants, massive monster kaijus, and more. In many depictions they can shapeshift at will (or maybe a few times before needing to rest), can remain shifted for long periods of time, and can shift into utility forms outside of combat that provide scouting/heavy lifting/teamwork mounts/urban subterfuge/obstacle negation benefits. So for me a shifter is more than just a rage martial with an animal theme.