| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm excited for everything we'll see at paizocon, but more than that I'm excited for the two months of weekly PC2 class previews that might follow; im particularly interested in seeing what's happened to alchemist and champion. What are you guys looking forward to learning about?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Swashbuckler and investigator. Easily the worst martials in the game (alongside inventor) so I'm hoping to see some nice changes. I don't expect a rework because it wasn't announced, but I don't think they need it either. Let's see if the remaster receives these classes like some of the PC1 classes did.
Champion first and foremost, Monk, Barbarian, any info on the Mythic rules plz!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, all classes. All of them seem to be in need of improvements in some areas, I hope we got some with the added development time of eight months.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty excited for... well basically all the classes. The majority of my fears/hopes are riding on what the Champion looks like, but I'm also exceedingly curious to see what they do with Alchemist, as well as if they do anything with Monk. Also I have a friend who made a whip-wielding support Swashbuckler and I would be delighted to tell him that she's even cooler now, should that end up being the case.
Also, some table faves like catfolk, tengu, lizardfolk, and kobolds joining the core seems like it'll be a great time. Especially can't wait to see the minor updates to the presentation of kobolds as 'boss monster minions' which has already brought me much delight.
All the classes, Oracle and Alchemist in particular.
More SF2 info.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some idea on what the mythic rules will be looking like will be a massive help. Or more accurately, I less care on the specific rules and more what kinds of stories it is made to tell, as depending how it is built (to list the extremes both of which I find very unlikely "Just normal archetypes but with it being flavoured around fancy things" to "They literally just ctrl+c ctrl+v'd PF1 mythic rules") will greatly change what sorts of stories it is made for.
Some idea on what the mythic rules will be looking like will be a massive help. Or more accurately, I less care on the specific rules and more what kinds of stories it is made to tell, as depending how it is built (to list the extremes both of which I find very unlikely "Just normal archetypes but with it being flavoured around fancy things" to "They literally just ctrl+c ctrl+v'd PF1 mythic rules") will greatly change what sorts of stories it is made for.
If I were a bettin' man I'm guessing they would tease living legend mythic destiny at paizocon....seems like the non-denominal-every-hero archetype that would give a mechanical sense of mythic destinies without really spoiling much
Alchemist and the Snarecrafter Archetype that is replacing Snare-focused Ranger. Alchemist I'm mostly curious about how Mutagenist and Toxicologist will be updated to be competitive with bomber/chirugeon. Since it's becoming an archetype for everyone, I'm curious how Snarecrafter is going to be changed and clarified, are we gonna see Int-classes with crafting like Alchemist and Witch with snare builds?
Also like every time player Core 2 gets mentioned; Kobolds. How will Kobold snarecrafting fit into this new archetype? Awkward-ish overlap like the previous version, or better designed to fit the idea of a Kobold trapmaster?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's funny because I don't play classes from PC1: I only have one Rogue in my roster and my Witch came after I knew about PC1 changes. And all the classes I'll nearly surely never play are in there: Bard, Cleric, Druid and Fighter. On the other hand, I play nearly all of PC2 classes with many multiple times: 3 Alchemists, 2 Oracles, 1 Sorcerer, 1 Barbarian, 1 Champion, 1 Swashbuckler.
So PC2 will be my thing.
I'd love to know what's up with Alchemist and the changes to mutagens. I've had a few concepts for the class, but I've only actually used it as an NPC that could hand out items to a three-person party.
I'm curious about new kobold feats, what with the draconic stuff extracted.
Previews for Exemplar changes are what I'm looking forward to longer-term, especially the natural attack support.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest beef with alchemists was with how much extra work was required to get the class to function properly: you had to manage your reagents, manage the items made with your reagents, manage the party members to whom you'd given the items made with your reagents, manage the hand/action economy... It made Vancian casting look like finger painting. I'm hoping the process was streamlined in some way. So, a teaser for that would help me evaluate whether or not PC2's headed in the right direction.
I'm also really curious about bloodrager, since that was a PF1 favorite of a friend of mine. I hope it's able to hit the balance and feel sweet spot. However, I don't expect many spoilers for it since it's such a strong selling point for its sourcebook.
All that said though, TBQH I'm much more interested in SF2. I've gone full red-yarn-on-corkboard with that game. Absolutely obsessed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest beef with alchemists was with how much extra work was required to get the class to function properly: you had to manage your reagents, manage the items made with your reagents, manage the party members to whom you'd given the items made with your reagents, manage the hand/action economy... It made Vancian casting look like finger painting. I'm hoping the process was streamlined in some way. So, a teaser for that would help me evaluate whether or not PC2's headed in the right direction.
I'm also really curious about bloodrager, since that was a PF1 favorite of a friend of mine. I hope it's able to hit the balance and feel sweet spot. However, I don't expect many spoilers for it since it's such a strong selling point for its sourcebook.
All that said though, TBQH I'm much more interested in SF2. I've gone full red-yarn-on-corkboard with that game. Absolutely obsessed.
My fervent alchemist wish is that it gets decoupled from the alchemical item system (outside of ribbon features for crafting them quickly/cheaply). That'd free up enough space to make the alchemist a martial with spell like effects. It's a pie in the sky dream, but hey, maybe errata passes on a class 3-4 times is enough incentive for the devs to bite the bullet and swing for a redesign (though probably not likely).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My fervent alchemist wish is that it gets decoupled from the alchemical item system (outside of ribbon features for crafting them quickly/cheaply). That'd free up enough space to make the alchemist a martial with spell like effects. It's a pie in the sky dream, but hey, maybe errata passes on a class 3-4 times is enough incentive for the devs to bite the bullet and swing for a redesign (though probably not likely).
So the thing you want for the alchemist is that they... not be an alchemist?
Honestly, I think that you'd be better off figuring out what it is you like about the image in your head, and then trying to figure out how that could be some new class, rather than hoping to see alchemist turned into it.
Though, I hear "martial with spell like effects" and I think... Inventor/Thaumaturge/Tactician? So part of that the process of figuring out what you like about that image in your head ought to be figuring out what parts of it you can't get just for the asking from one of the other three.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My fervent alchemist wish is that it gets decoupled from the alchemical item system (outside of ribbon features for crafting them quickly/cheaply). That'd free up enough space to make the alchemist a martial with spell like effects. It's a pie in the sky dream, but hey, maybe errata passes on a class 3-4 times is enough incentive for the devs to bite the bullet and swing for a redesign (though probably not likely).So the thing you want for the alchemist is that they... not be an alchemist?
Honestly, I think that you'd be better off figuring out what it is you like about the image in your head, and then trying to figure out how that could be some new class, rather than hoping to see alchemist turned into it.
Though, I hear "martial with spell like effects" and I think... Inventor/Thaumaturge/Tactician? So part of that the process of figuring out what you like about that image in your head ought to be figuring out what parts of it you can't get just for the asking from one of the other three.
Fair enough
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people want the PF1e alchemist, which was a rogue without sneak attack but with the equivalent of half-casting and bombs (or sneak attack too, because thrashing on the rogue was a national sport back in the 3.5 / PF1e days). Even with all its problems, at least the current alchemist is an alchemist instead of the perfect jack of all trades that does everything and perfectly.
Some people want the PF1e alchemist, which was a rogue without sneak attack but with the equivalent of half-casting and bombs (or sneak attack too, because thrashing on the rogue was a national sport back in the 3.5 / PF1e days). Even with all its problems, at least the current alchemist is an alchemist instead of the perfect jack of all trades that does everything and perfectly.
It definitely feels like an alchemist...the only thing I struggle with is the fact that the class is so versatile that the individual efficacy of the various things it can do is....appropriately balanced. The resulting class feels like it's dipped in both martial and magic side jobs. It preforms in all aspects of its career like a caster trying to martial or a martial trying to caster. If anything gets addressed I hope it's that wet noodle feeling....though I think the only way to ameliorate that is to cut down on alchemist versatility, which other people don't seem to want.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I agree. The current class feels like an alchemist but it plays out in a very flawed way that doesn't fully support any playstyle really. If the commander playtest is proof of something (assuming Paizo didn't do it on purpose to see if people would like it or not) is that they are willing to have a class with martial progression and caster progression for class DCs. I think the alchemist could easily have that progression too, or if that would be too much, the delayed martial progression of the warpriest but caster scaling with their class DC. Heck, even the kineticist progression but capping out at master with weapons at 15th or 19th level would be fine too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules for bombs in the player Core 1 and the GM core are different from each other. One suggests bombs only splash on a success. If that is “the right one,” then the alchemist is almost certainly getting full martial weapon proficiency progression, which would help the toxicologist and the mutagenist both, and possibly signal some deep changes to the class.
Some people want the PF1e alchemist, which was a rogue without sneak attack but with the equivalent of half-casting and bombs (or sneak attack too, because thrashing on the rogue was a national sport back in the 3.5 / PF1e days). Even with all its problems, at least the current alchemist is an alchemist instead of the perfect jack of all trades that does everything and perfectly.
Still, it really was kind of jarring how much they nerf-batted the Alchemist. And, yeah, the 1E version was one of the classes which you could do incredible stuff with. I'm playing one right now and despite us habitually getting our asses kicked in Strange Aeons, he's reliably being an MVP, handing out buffs and being the only one to do decent reliable damage (as long as the bombs last).
At least the Rogue got what's his back in 2E and is one of the best classes in the game. I still don't think that they had to beat down the Alchemist as much as they did. Hopefully the Remaster gives the class some "Ooomph" back.
At least the Rogue got what's his back in 2E and is one of the best classes in the game.
This was literally the reason why I made the jump to PF2e lol. I saw the rogue and I was like "someone finally made a rogue that doesn't suck in like, I don't know, 20 years and I don't know how many editions?" I was really surprised they made a rogue that was good and not that people thought it was good because "oh look at all those sneak attackzz".
I don't think they made the alchemist like that on purpose though. I feel a ton of design decisions in early PF2e were made with a conservative mind since they didn't really knew how people were going to be playing the system, so probably their initial metrics really didn't align on how people wanted to play an alchemist and how they designed it. I feel the bare minimum the alchemist is going to get is legendary class DCs, I honestly don't see why they wouldn't have that, and at least the same delayed martial progresion that guardians have in the playtest (expert at 7th, master at 17th) though I could see full martial progression too, after all, even if I'm using the word "martial" here I don't think they are going to give them martial weapons, so it would be mostly relegated to bombs and ancestry weapons.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I miss the 1e Alchemist I got to play with, who was basically a weird Rogue with a number of gross body modifications they'd gotten as class features. I know the ship has sailed, but 2e's Alchemist being a consumable item dispenser just has nothing to do with what I personally loved there.
The 2e Alchemist can't grow a third hand out of their torso, and that's a failure to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I also always loved being the mad bomber and buff dispenser aspects of the class in 1E. The devs ripping that in two (and then moving even the useless poison stuff into its own subclass) was like a dash or ten of ice water into the face, especially with the Alchemist being (just for being the first in the alphabet) the first class you came face to face with in the playtest. I think seeing how much they crippled the class coming from 1E was one of the main things which kept me away from changing to 2E for the last five years. The other being the perceived (and real) spell nerfs through the board, which I found too excessive back then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've stopped playing my PF1 Alchemist at level 11 after I realized no one was having fun anymore at the table as I was just overshadowing the other PCs.
Broken classes are always fun to play because they allow for much more build variety as you can choose subpar/thematic options without being punished for that. That's why the Alchemist being ported to PF2 will be dissatisfying to most of those who loved it in PF1 as chances are high its brokenness was what allowed them to like it (but not necessarily why they liked it).
From my experience all classes become overpowered in 1E after level 10. The 1E Alchemist differs from a lot of the others in that he consistently is good starting from level 1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I loved my PF1 alchemist from Iron Gods. Weird science and mutations are cool. Was bummed that PF2 Alchemist didn't really support either the bomber or Hyde alchemists in a way I found satisfying. Hasn't stopped me from enjoying the other parts of PF2 but I've been pretty consistent on here that I think the balance point for PF2 is slightly too aggressive in favor of making things relatively difficult.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the actual topic: Most interested in the shape Mythic takes and PC2 changes that impact my current characters. Only one that seems likely to receive significant changes is my Barbarian (Spirit) but I look forward to being surprised.
My long-shot hope is more options that more directly support unarmed attacks that don't come from Monk feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the actual topic: Most interested in the shape Mythic takes and PC2 changes that impact my current characters. Only one that seems likely to receive significant changes is my Barbarian (Spirit) but I look forward to being surprised.
My long-shot hope is more options that more directly support unarmed attacks that don't come from Monk feats.
Ill be interested to see the barb as well. A less restrictive rage would be nice
My long-shot hope is more options that more directly support unarmed attacks that don't come from Monk feats.
From reading the AMA thread, Howl of the Wild actually has a decent bit of that - at least if you include ancestry-based natural attacks as "unarmed attacks". Clawdancer is an entire archetype, there's some love for wildshape druids and animal barbs, and at least one new kind of handwraps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My long-shot hope is more options that more directly support unarmed attacks that don't come from Monk feats.From reading the AMA thread, Howl of the Wild actually has a decent bit of that - at least if you include ancestry-based natural attacks as "unarmed attacks". Clawdancer is an entire archetype, there's some love for wildshape druids and animal barbs, and at least one new kind of handwraps.
Oh, yeah. I'm hassling my partner on the regular to see if we've got our PDF yet. Alas. I remain sad.
Context: My spirit barbarian is a Changeling (Slag May) and flavor my spirit rage as assuming some of my hag-mother's power/legacy. I use my claws from Slag May as my primary weapons. Optimal? No. Fun? Definitely.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm mostly looking forwards to hints on PC2. Especially Alchemist... I'll admit to being a bit worried that they'll change my favourite class a little too much.
But I'm also looking forward to what they're doing with the rest of the PC2 classes.
My group's in our first PF2 campaign (Age of Ashes), and my brother's on the struggle bus with his mutagenist. I'm hoping they make that perform a little closer to what we imagined.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF1 alchemist was fun, but too powerful to be a PF2 class. The big problem with the PF2 alchemist is in its generalist nature. It can provide an incredible variety of things, but:
-- It can't be the best at any one thing.
--You need tons of system mastery to leverage all the things.
--You have this weird daily resource pool that doesn't mirror anything else in the game. The different attrition rates of martials vs casters is already a problem for PF2, and the alchemist further muddies the issue.
--Dividing reagents between advanced alchemy and quick alchemy is annoying.
--Research fields create a false impression you should just lean into one type of item, but you need all the things to actually be good.
If I was going to get bring any PF1 elements back in, they'd probably be:
1. Make bombs a separate resource pool from reagents. Let us make less bombs for day in exchange for things that actually feel explosive.
2. Use the penalties of PF1 Mutagens where physical boosters only hurt mental stats, and vice versa. Nobody turns their nose up at a Courageous Anthem, but many do with Mutagens.
3. Bring back the body horror. Let the alchemist eventually mutate themselves enough to get wings or a third arm with level 12+ class feats.
I'd also love if they took a page from the Blades in the Dark alchemist equivalent, the Leach. They don't have to specify what items they are carrying in advance, just the number of items they carry and how encumbered they are. Granted, that's true of all PCs in Blades, but I think no one needs that flexibility more than the PF2 alchemist.
I don't think they made the alchemist like that on purpose though. I feel a ton of design decisions in early PF2e were made with a conservative mind since they didn't really knew how people were going to be playing the system, so probably their initial metrics really didn't align on how people wanted to play an alchemist and how they designed it.There was also the issue that the alchemist was the class which most heavily leaned into a scrapped subsystem, resonance. Because resonance got removed, and the alchemist was the class which played with it most, the devs basically had to make a new-ish class without the rounds of playtesting the other classes got.
The alchemist also lost other stuff from the playtest: Mutagens going up to +6 IIRC (other item bonuses capped at +5) and touch AC being removed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Touch AC definitely hurt them, yeah. I think mutagen changes were kind of a wash; they went from being a +6 versus +5 items to capping at a +4 versus +3 items.The alchemist also lost other stuff from the playtest: Mutagens going up to +6 IIRC (other item bonuses capped at +5) and touch AC being removed.I don't think they made the alchemist like that on purpose though. I feel a ton of design decisions in early PF2e were made with a conservative mind since they didn't really knew how people were going to be playing the system, so probably their initial metrics really didn't align on how people wanted to play an alchemist and how they designed it.There was also the issue that the alchemist was the class which most heavily leaned into a scrapped subsystem, resonance. Because resonance got removed, and the alchemist was the class which played with it most, the devs basically had to make a new-ish class without the rounds of playtesting the other classes got.
That's true for specialists who were already investing in item bonuses, but non-specialists who don't already have the relevant items get a better bang for your buck the bigger the bonus is.
I'm interested in all the class updates, especially oracle and champion which are really a pain to play until they update since their major class features should be heavily modified.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm interested in all the class updates, especially oracle and champion which are really a pain to play until they update since their major class features should be heavily modified.
I'm curious how much champion will actually change outside of grouping it's subclasses in holy or unholy buckets and making its application of spirit damage less fiddly
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm interested in all the class updates, especially oracle and champion which are really a pain to play until they update since their major class features should be heavily modified.I'm curious how much champion will actually change outside of grouping it's subclasses in holy or unholy buckets and making its application of spirit damage less fiddly
Still hoping for a Champion who can be neither Holy nor Unholy.
Hope is fading faster these days though.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This sort of statement makes me believe that's some of the reason they made the guardian class. For people who want a tank type class without getting tied up in the holy/unholy warI'm interested in all the class updates, especially oracle and champion which are really a pain to play until they update since their major class features should be heavily modified.I'm curious how much champion will actually change outside of grouping it's subclasses in holy or unholy buckets and making its application of spirit damage less fiddlyStill hoping for a Champion who can be neither Holy nor Unholy.
Hope is fading faster these days though.
If a cleric isn't required to be sanctified by the deity they worship, then a champion shouldn't be either.
There should be options available for unsanctified champions, if for no other reason than the fact that some deities (notably Pharasma) forbid sanctification entirely.
|
|
This sort of statement makes me believe that's some of the reason they made the guardian class. For people who want a tank type class without getting tied up in the holy/unholy warI'm interested in all the class updates, especially oracle and champion which are really a pain to play until they update since their major class features should be heavily modified.I'm curious how much champion will actually change outside of grouping it's subclasses in holy or unholy buckets and making its application of spirit damage less fiddlyStill hoping for a Champion who can be neither Holy nor Unholy.
Hope is fading faster these days though.
If a cleric isn't required to be sanctified by the deity they worship, then a champion shouldn't be either.
There should be options available for unsanctified champions, if for no other reason than the fact that some deities (notably Pharasma) forbid sanctification entirely.
Only if Champion stays the Martial servant of a deity class.
If the Remastered Champion becomes the Martial aligned to Holy/Unholy, then Pharasma will just not have Champions anymore.
|
|
I hope they allow for that sort of champion. It feels strange that a class centered around worship of a deity would tell you "no, not that deity." That kind of restriction makes perfect sense for an archetype, but less sense for a class.
At the same time, making a non-sanctified champion feels more possible now than it did previously. When alignment was a thing there were endless questions about what an LN/N/CN champion would look like, given how nebulous and diverse outlooks on those alignments could be. IIRC James even weighed in a couple times talking about how that was difficult to figure out. I recall folks talking about loads of different tenets for a true neutral champion, ranging from being anti-undead for Pharasma, to being some kind of mageguard, to being a green knight/guardian of nature type, to being a member of DOOP.
That's no longer as much of an issue. With the requirement of alignment gone it's much easier for a champion to focus on their deity as the primary expression of their code and cause.
This could perfectly be created even with alignment.
The problem was in designing Champion's abilities that would fit the Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic component while still being quite different from their Good and Evil counterparts. The easy answer was not creating Neutral Champions.
With just Holy and Unholy on the table now that alignment is gone, it is quite simple to say Champion is actually the Martial involved in the Holy/Unholy struggle and stop there.